Question for Christians

by Ticker 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

Faith

Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy

Rupert Sheldrake, 20 Willow Road, London NW3 1TJ, UK
Aimee Morgana, P.O. Box 625, New York, NY 10031
Aimee Morgana noticed that her language-using African Grey parrot, N'kisi, often seemed to respond to her thoughts and intentions in a seemingly telepathic manner. We set up a series of trials to test whether this apparent telepathic ability would be expressed in formal tests in which Aimee and the parrot were in different rooms, on different floors, under conditions in which the parrot could receive no sensory information from Aimee or from anyone else. During these trials, Aimee and the parrot were both videotaped continuously. At the beginning of each trial, Aimee opened a numbered sealed envelope containing a photograph, and then looked at it for two minutes. These photographs corresponded to a prespecified list of words in N'kisi's vocabulary, and were selected and randomized in advance by a third party. We conducted a total of 147 two-minute trials. The recordings of N'kisi during these trials were transcribed blind by three independent transcribers. Their transcripts were generally in good agreement. Using a majority scoring method, in which at least two of the three transcribers were in agreement, N'kisi said one or more of the key words in 71 trials. He scored 23 hits: the key words he said corresponded to the target pictures. In a Randomized Permutation Analysis (RPA), there were as many or more hits than N'kisi actually scored in only 5 out of 20,000 random permutations, giving a p value of 5/20,000 or 0.00025. In a Bootstrap Resampling Analysis (BRA), only 4 out of 20,000 permutations equaled or exceeded N'kisi's actual score (p = 0.0002). Both by the RPA and BRA, the mean number of hits expected by chance was 12, with a standard deviation of 3. N'kisi repeated key words more when they were hits than when they were misses. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that N'kisi was reacting telepathically to Aimee's mental activity.
Keywords: telepathy, interspecies communication, parrot, language-using animals
FULL TEXT:
Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy
DannyBloem

It is pointed out that N'Kisi missed 91 times, which doesn't sound all that
impressive, not to mention the protocol for determining what
constitutes a hit was rather fuzzy. For example, Morgana was looking at
a photograph of a couple embracing, and N'Kisi allegedly says "Can I
give you a hug?" THAT was counted as a hit. Of course, we are not told
how often N'Kisi blurts out that particular phrase, or other phrases for
that matter, nor how many different photos were used by which Sheldrake
arrived at his billion to one odds calculation..

In other words, the sum of the coincidences equals certainty. Plus, this
all sounds like a case of "remember the hits, forget the misses." In
science we have to consider the misses as well as the hits. As Frank
Sulloways likes to say, "anecdotes do not make a science."
skyman

This is what I have to say to both side of the matter. You can flip a coin heads and tails. I have done this many time bever have I ever had it come out 50/50 every time the times it comes up different a few times I have the coin come up with 75% heads and 25% tail and visa versa so most study's don't impress me much one way or the other. But the USA goverment and all most all the govenrment use people remote viewers to see what othe county's are doing AND THEY WORK so I believe results and the results are proof to me that we do have the ablity to unknown senses.
Rex

>The Pope may claim infallibility, but he doesn't claim to comunicate with God. The Pope is claimed (by the church) to be the 'Vicar of Christ'. By the very nature of his office it requires constant communication with God for he speaks 'for' God in matters of faith and through the church councils. The church claims to be the direct line to the apostles and the only true source of teaching for our Lord. The rulings of council are claimed to be equal with Biblical sources and inspiration. Does any of this sound uncomfortable familiar? Rex
peacefulpete

Ticker, I've been just where you are. Boards like these obviously have quite a broad spectrum of opinions about such matters. It was good for me to contemplate the broader human religious experience when assesssing my own. People the world over have claimed to have had some undefinable relationship with an otherwise unperceptible entity. Do we assume they all are correct? Do we assume some are? How would we recognize the real from the mistaken? We really could not use the depth of conviction of the believers as a measure of feasibility because even the deities of what moderns call mythology had worshipers willing to die or kill for them. How is that possible? How could a reasonable person have been so convinced about a relationship with a deity that time has helpfully erased? How is it possible that billions today are convinced that they have relationships with deities most Westerners deny exist? Why is it that this concept of god/gods is nearly universal but always different and changing? I would not expect any real god/gods to be chameleons.
Social science and neurobiology have helped answer these questions. The brain is hardwired to draw inferrences from incomplete sensory input. This skill protects us everyday from delaying judgement when doing so would harm us. However this same skill often leads us to mistaken calls. Add this skill to a need for security our family paternal experience and cultural images we are immersed in and voila, a god is born to explain the otherwise unknown. Researchers have recognized that religious beliefs follow certain patterns. They are generally no less ludicrous than the recognized myths of the past or comedy of the present, yet they appeal to the mind for some reason. If you want I'll continue this but tonight I'm going to bed.
LittleToe
The following are my subjective beliefs:
God hears all prayers.
God has the choice to speak to and act for whom He will, in the manner of His choosing. I've appear to have that right, so why should I denigrate his?
Humans are not the centre of the universe, neither is out planet, neither is our solar system, neither is our galaxy... If we want to throw a hissy fit about God not jumping to our tune, maybe we need to reassess our position in the universe.
Just because a religion claims to be from God, doesn't make it so. The same goes for individuals (by their fruits you shall know them), including religous leaders like the Pope. As for the "name" that people give God, or the aspects and facets of personality that are seen and recorded throughout history, well that's subjective, too, and allows for quite a reasonable amount of tolerance as it would on a smaller scale for humans.
The evolution/creation debate has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a God. It is quite possible for there to be a transcendant Deity, who allows evolution to occur. Again, since humans are not the centre of the universe, why should such a Deity care if a species evolves into something radically different? Surely such a Deity can choose to care, or not. That's not our choice.
We can attempt to judge, but we can't help but acknowledge that we aren't in command of all the facts. Railing against the unknown isn't exactly the height of maturity.
Whilst the experience of everyone claiming communication is varied and subjective, there is a great degree of commonality of experience. Some claim that God speaks to them in an audible manner, a visible manner, in symbols, words, pictures, through statistically improbably coincidences, etc., etc. The end result appears to be that the manner in which an individual is communicated with is the manner which will have the appropriate effect.
On that last point, some say that they'd need God to show Himself to them with thunder and lightning, before they would believe, and then they'd give him a ticking off. That self-same person might be comletely broken up and come to "faith" through something as simple as their child being born. My point? You haven't a clue until it's happened to you...
peacefulpete
God hears all prayers.

( I must say that because I don't have any way of knowing which if any are being heard)

God has the choice to speak to and act for whom He will, in the manner of His choosing. I've appear to have that right, so why should I denigrate his?

(I'm transferring the rudeness and contrariness of some irritating people who ignore me when I speak to god/gods.)

Humans are not the centre of the universe, neither is out planet, neither is our solar system, neither is our galaxy... If we want to throw a hissy fit about God not jumping to our tune, maybe we need to reassess our position in the universe.

(I'm now postulating a universe full of intelligent aliens that need more attention than humans do so as to excuse god's/gods' unresponsiveness)

Just because a religion claims to be from God, doesn't make it so. The same goes for individuals (by their fruits you shall know them), including religous leaders like the Pope. As for the "name" that people give God, or the aspects and facets of personality that are seen and recorded throughout history, well that's subjective, too, and allows for quite a reasonable amount of tolerance as it would on a smaller scale for humans.

(Because noone has any idea what god/gods are like , it's ok to imagine him/her/it/they in our image.)

The evolution/creation debate has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there is a God. It is quite possible for there to be a transcendant Deity, who allows evolution to occur. Again, since humans are not the centre of the universe, why should such a Deity care if a species evolves into something radically different? Surely such a Deity can choose to care, or not. That's not our choice.

(I'm attempting to cling to primitive tradition while appearing modern and enlightened. Also if there was a god/gods he/she/it/they may not have intended to make humans at at we may be an accident. It is manifest that this hypothetical god has not clearly shown himself to be caring.)

We can attempt to judge, but we can't help but acknowledge that we aren't in command of all the facts. Railing against the unknown isn't exactly the height of maturity.

(I can never reach a conclusion on this matter because I don't know everything, I prefer to revel in baseless speculation that excuses the lack of evidence for god/gods.)

Whilst the experience of everyone claiming communication is varied and subjective, there is a great degree of commonality of experience. Some claim that God speaks to them in an audible manner, a visible manner, in symbols, words, pictures, through statistically improbably coincidences, etc., etc. The end result appears to be that the manner in which an individual is communicated with is the manner which will have the appropriate effect.

(Gods/gods appear to psychotic people as well as to sane. Gods appear in ways common to the culture and traditions of the people, yet I choose to ignore that this suggests that the culture and tadition are shaping the experience.)
On that last point, some say that they'd need God to show Himself to them with thunder and lightning, before they would believe, and then they'd give him a ticking off. That self-same person might be comletely broken up and come to "faith" through something as simple as their child being born. My point? You haven't a clue until it's happened to you...
(When you are desperate for comfort or emotionally ecstatic god appears. God experiences require special pleading to be proven to be more than mental constructs, but I'm ok with that.)
hmike

Sometimes, appropriate answers come in unexpected ways from external sources.
This is my take on it: How does spiritual communication enter the conscious mind? Some people have a better ability regarding this than others. God sends answers--it's our ability to receive and recognize those answers that is in question. The means He uses depends a lot on us. Then, of course, the question is: what do we do with the answer--do we act on it?
Faith

What is sad but quite obvious is people who do have a relationship with God, especially as He manifested in His Son are much more kind and peceful on this board. Looks like the people who do not believe and do not have that personal relationship have strong tendencies to be rude and bully others. They also feel the urging to negate all other personal experiences with facts from a second grade science book, hoping to impress readers with their intelligience.
Thank you clearing this all up.
Peace Out,
Faith
doofdaddy

You haven't been here long. How can you brush with such broad strokes faith?

Question for Christians

Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy

Share this