GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor

[bassett]

Does this mean the end to your protocol negotiations with JREF, bassett?

No, this does not mean that I have ended discussions. My recent posts were made to let the forum know where the negotiations stand. Because, there has not been a response from the JREF in over eight months, I thought that it was a good time for an update. Here it is, I brought an egg-boiling experiment to the JREF, the JREF does not want me to use boiling water.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Does this mean the end to your protocol negotiations with JREF, bassett?

No, this does not mean that I have ended discussions. My recent posts were made to let the forum know where the negotiations stand. Because, there has not been a response from the JREF in over eight months, I thought that it was a good time for an update. Here it is, I brought an egg-boiling experiment to the JREF, the JREF does not want me to use boiling water.

And you intend to proceed how exactly, bassett? I refer to your contact with JREF, which you can easily establish at your convince by contacting Jeff Wagg: challenge@randi.org

I edited this in "

" to make my quote visible.

 

[bassett]

And you intend to proceed how exactly, bassett?

[snip]

Right, here is what I suggest. Focusing on the egg to be monitored first. Place one chicken about 20 or 30 feet away from the hotplate or stove top, where another egg will be boiled. Monitor the distant egg with a physiological amplifier that is capable of showing the signal that drives the human heart, as demonstrated in my November presentation. There are details in this that are not easily explained in brief phrases. One of those details has to do with the establishment of good electrical contact with the chicken egg and skills associated with using the instrumentation.

As the chicken egg is monitored remotely, one would return to the stove, heat water to the boiling point. Next, an egg would be selected from the same dozen that the monitored egg was taken from and this egg would be dropped into water. The effect would be recorded.

The physiological amplifier is not unlike an amplifier that is used to monitor the heart of a patient in a hospital, in that it is connected with "wet" or gel electrodes to the subject. Just as an electrocardiograph does not vary inordinately with changes in humidity, so the physiological amplifier in the proper configuration will not be subject to variation due to humidity. This should remove any concerns about humidity affecting the study.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy, basset --

I have a question, which I'm not sure has been answered yet. I've seen it asked, although sometimes parenthetically, but I'd like to see a more direct answer (and a thousand pardons if you already answered and I missed it!):

You talk about eggs sensing intent. However, as Marcus points out: "Unfertilized eggs are not alive." Or, at least, there's no chicken in there to do the sensing. What is it in the egg that is doing the sensing? (I ask this because, at some point, I may recommend using something other than an egg.)

Also, another point: your equipment seems to work with situations involving water and/or heat. Understand that the folks here are trying to remove humidity from the equation -- it's a control, one that allows you to demonstrate that it isn't the water or heat that your equipment is detecting. Distance, such as you have proposed, is one possible way to do it, but it would be far more effective to crush or cut the egg. I realize that this is messy, but it is rather conclusive insofar as the boiling water is removed entirely from the equation. Cracking the egg open into a bowl might do too, and should not be messy at all (unless, of course, I were to do it. I'm a terrible cook. ; ) ).

Lastly, please help me with some confusion: in your latest message, you mention that a "a physiological amplifier that is capable of showing the signal that drives the human heart" be used. You then say that this device is "not unlike an amplifier that is used to monitor the heart of a patient", and then refer to the latter as an electrocardiograph. Are you actually talking about hooking an electrocardiograph to the egg? If not, is this "psysiological amplifier" another name for your Shimmering Leaf detector?

Please understand that if the latter is the case, comparing your device to an electrocardiograph will not convince anyone here (nor at JREF, I'll wager) that your device, "not unlike" electrocardiographs, "does not vary inordinately with changes in humidity". Your device does not display an oscilloscope-type display (or any kind of graphic display) to show the actual pattern of a signal (although that may have changed, please do correct me if I'm wrong). Your device simply beeps if a circuit is closed. That is not like an electrocardiograph at all, so it is still important to completely remove humidity from the list of possibilities.

Oh, sorry, one more thing -- just a tip here: when you quote someone, and you "snip" their response, make sure you add in a [/quote] end tag to the end of their stuff. That way, it shows up as an actual quote.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

 

[Expression_man]

Well, I do hope you get a response Mr Epling as it does seem to be very curious. If this has already been asked then I apologize but how did you stumble upon this supposed phenomenon?

Was it by accident?
Were you searching for something specific?

I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I do believe that on some level all life is connected. If what you say turns out to be true it would also mean having to reconsider what "consciousness" entails.

Well, simply put...if it's true, then it's very big. You'd get a lot of people thinking differently were this the case.

So, if you do feel unappreciated know that there are people who wish you "luck" on this. There are many who would like a new perspective on the study of life in general.

 

[Marcus]

Aside from the small detail of unfertilized eggs having no physiological responses to amplify, since they are not alive,and thus have no physiology, there are some holes in the protocol. You can't have anyone exhibiting their skills at using the instrumentation, or messing with the contacts, while the signal is being collected. No one would be allowed anywhere near the instruments while the signal is being collected. There would have to be control runs, in which water is allowed to boil without an egg being dropped in, or an object other than an egg. What constitutes a meaningful signal would of course have to be agreed upon beforehand. All of which is obvious to a newbie like myself, so should be very obvious to someone who has studied the rules and challenges carefully.

 

[Expression_man]

Aside from the small detail of unfertilized eggs having no physiological responses to amplify, since they are not alive,and thus have no physiology

If what he's saying is true then that means your notion of what life entails could be wrong...

That's one reason why this claim is paranormal.

 

[Marcus]

As to the question of whether eggs are alive, I attempted to post a link, but was not allowed because I have fewer than 15 posts, but you can find the information with a bit of googleing.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
So, if you do feel unappreciated know that there are people who wish you "luck" on this. There are many who would like a new perspective on the study of life in general.

Are those the same people who base their perspective on solid evidence?

 

[Expression_man]

As to the question of whether eggs are alive, I attempted to post a link, but was not allowed because I have fewer than 15 posts, but you can find the information with a bit of googleing.

Will do, but if there's something specific you want me to look at you can always try fragmenting the link. I'm aware of what the general consensus will be regarding "various states of egg" being alive.

Are those the same people who base their perspective on solid evidence?

I imagine so...if you're referring to me and my out of body experiences then you're entitled to believe whatever you want...even without "solid evidence". Is this going to get derailed now?

 

[Marcus]

madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-1-/971370107.Cb.r.html

 

[Marcus]

Okay, that worked, I just typed out the URL instead of inserting a link. I dropped a number, though, here is the correct URL. madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/971370107.Cb.r.html

 

[Marcus]

Just general stuff you are probably already aware of, Expression, it just seemed germane to the discussion.

 

[Expression_man]

Thanks, although next time you can edit your original reply if you want to add more comments. : p

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
So, if you do feel unappreciated know that there are people who wish you "luck" on this. There are many who would like a new perspective on the study of life in general.

Are those the same people who base their perspective on solid evidence?

...
I imagine so...if you're referring to me and my out of body experiences then you're entitled to believe whatever you want...even without "solid evidence". Is this going to get derailed now?

Will you base your perspective on solid evidence, or will you base your perspective on belief, Expression_man?

 

[Dan O.]

Taking out all the details, this boils down to a simple test of communicating without using any of the known means to communicate. In this case, the communication in each trial is a single bit of information: the egg is or isn't being boiled. Since JREF appears to require a demonstration that is at least 1000 times better than chance, a minimum of 10 trials would be required if the applicant claims each trial would be 100% accurate.

As I recall, one of the sticking points in the negotiations was the time it would take to reset between trials. It was looking like the test might require 10 days to complete and this is completely unacceptable for volunteer examiners. Even 10 hours would seam too long unless there was already convincing evidence that the applicant might be successful. Before the test can be planned, specific information on the rate that successive trials can be performed and the claimed accuracy of each trial must be established.

 

[Expression_man]

Will you base your perspective on solid evidence, or will you base your perspective on belief, Expression_man?

I think a healthy mix is the way to go, what with all the times we've been proven wrong in the past and the current taboos no one will address for fear of committing professional suicide etc...

Are you asking me if depending on whether or not an egg can "talk" that I will change my world view?

If the egg "talks", yes!
If it doesn't, no. Eggs will remain a part of my daily breakfast.

Edit: Until this is over I will exhibit some hesitation in my pursuit of a full english breakfast. ;p

 

[Cuddles]

Unfertilized eggs are not alive. This challenge is an order of magnitude more unlikely that telepathy between living organisms. Much more likely is that you have constructed a device that detects boiling water. But perhaps if you came up with a protocol that precludes that possibility, they would reconsider. Confine the boiling water to a sealed chamber, monitor the humidity around the device,ect.

This is what I was trying to get at. While plants communicating in this way seems extremely unlikely, I am willing to accept it as possible, and a good candidate for the challenge. Eggs, on the other hand, are not alive. There is no debate about this, as Expression_Man seems to think. This is not an issue of when to consider an embryo alive, it is a simple fact that the eggs sold in shops are not fertilised and therefore cannot be considered alive whatever standards you hold. It seems a worryingly common misconception that since baby chickens come out of eggs, all eggs must contain baby chickens, despite this obviously not being the case if you've ever eaten one (an egg, not a baby chicken). It seems that Gerald has made this same mistake and has gone from a very unlikely but plausible experiment to one that has no basis in reality. Since the results appear to be the same in both cases, it seems fairly obvious that his results are simpyl the result of experimental error and do not show what he claims.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I think a healthy mix is the way to go, what with all the times we've been proven wrong in the past and the current taboos no one will address for fear of committing professional suicide etc...

A healthy mix of belief and evidence? Those terms could not possibly contradict each other more.

Are you asking me if depending on whether or not an egg can "talk" that I will change my world view?

I am asking you whether you change your world view based on solid evidence or a comforting, unfounded, out-of-thin-air belief.

If the egg "talks", yes!
If it doesn't, no. Eggs will remain a part of my daily breakfast.

Edit: Until this is over I will exhibit some hesitation in my pursuit of a full english breakfast. ;p

At this point in time, Expression_man, will you cease to eat eggs because of Mr. Epling's claims: Yes or no?

 

[Expression_man]

I'm not saying that a chicken will come from an unfertilized egg...

People can't seem to get beyond that idea for some reason. The raw subject here is how certain states of life can be defined or at least, to an extent, observed. If it's real then it's certainly an energetic phenomenon.

What does that mean? Who knows?

A healthy mix of belief and evidence? Those terms could not possibly contradict each other more.

Hardly, are you going to say that Randi believes in what he does on the basis of having evidence or just a lack of it?

Randi is a believer just like anyone else although the difference is that he's advocating the negative view. By that I simply mean he has enough emotion involved in his pursuit of running the JREF that the integrity of his critical thinking may too have been compromised. If you can't suspend disbelief for even a few moments of your time then you have to ask yourself what your real reason for coming here was.

I am asking you whether you change your world view based on solid evidence or a comforting, unfounded, out-of-thin-air belief.

You mean would I go by my own experience rather than wait for someone to tell me what to think?

Yes, I would, although I'd take anything into account when presented with the information.

At this point in time, Expression_man, will you cease to eat eggs because of Mr. Epling's claims: Yes or no?

No...what are you getting at?

What's the point of all this?