An idea for a potential experiment

[RainmanTime]

trojan,

So to RainmanTime....having read your hypothesis I would like to know if you have ever considered that it is not the DNA blood connection, but that it could simply be energy we share? Just say for instance you and I were two batteries, and there was a remote control which could be powered by one of us. So somebody puts you into this remote and your doing fine, but there also happens to be space in this remote for a second battery, and they put me in there. Now our energy is shared and it flows together.

I think I get the gist of what you are saying. However (and this is not meant as being nasty, only a critical observation), by merely stating "energy" without quantifying it further, it sounds all too much like new-agey pseudoscience. I am sure you are aware how often bogus new agey concepts invoke "energy" but can never quantify it in a scientific manner (which makes it convenient for them to sell their snake oil). So again, we would need to better quantify what you are getting at in scientific terms if we were to hope to test its impact.

Energy is a physical measure that can be expressed in many different physical units. Mechanical energy is different from chemical energy which is different yet again from electrical energy which is even different from fluidic energy. And, I can convert any one of these energies into any of the other forms. This is a fundamental aspect of all forms of engineering.

I have often, on these fora, conceptualized and discussed the relationship between energy and information. The scientific reality, when you consider something as simple as information flowing over the internet, is that information is actually CARRIED WITHIN an energetic medium. Electrical current flowing at a given voltage, and changing over time represents the quantification of electrical energy. Information is modulated upon this time-varying waveform. Clearly, if we are accepting the hypothesis that dreams are initiated by an external input to our mind/brain systems that kicks off the dreaming process, then we need to be able to describe the energetic medium by which that input arrives at the mind/brain. We cannot simply say "it's an ether process." :D

So it would make sense to me that with all of this shared energy on earth, that on occasion we pick up on other people's energy signatures

Understood. Now, as I mention above, help me quantify the words "energy signatures" in physical terms that are testable. That is what we need to pursue to take it out of the realm where it can be criticized as "too much new-agey pseudoscience."

If it were only blood relatives who shared these types of things, I may be more inclined towards your thinking, but because it happens in many more instances with unrelated people I find it hard to think it is a simple DNA thing.

Understood, and I agree. The purpose of the scientific experiment as I have laid it out was merely to test whether DNA could be tested to be one factor in explaining how such "energy" propagates from one person to another. It was not to suggest this is the only means of transfer, but rather to select a limited hypothesis that is clearly testable under scientific conditions. If this limited experiment shows any statistical significance, then by all means we would want to open up the hypothesis to go beyond merely DNA. However, my thought was based on the fact that DNA is an information encoder, and thus acts very similarly to a radio tuning element. If DNA acts in a manner similar to information encoders/decoders, then it may be plausible to show shared DNA codons could act as micro transmitter/receiver pairs between relatives. It provides a testable basis for "tuning in" to external signals.

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Interesting. I would need to understand, specifically, how they would be folded into the experiment... with the most difficult question being "how would we explicitly measure something that relates to these?" Or perhaps it is a different experiment altogether.

The primary aspect of a properly-organized scientific experiment is that you cannot be trying to test too many hypothesi or interactions at once. Because if you do, you are necessarily going to dilute the statistical significance (or ability to ascertaion said significance) of any conclusions.

So any thoughts on these issues?

Yes.

Basically, you would be developing a process. From simple to more complex, with control over specific variables.

IF you do have people that share DNA patterns, if subjected to the same frequencies of specially prepared sound track(s), and perhaps similar visual stimulation, what quantitative results could be obtained ?

The prepared presentation(s) would have assigned values realtive to:

1. Resonance
2. Rhythm
3. Melody
4. Harmony
5. Pitch
6. Timbre
7. Toning


Then with each track, record the relative effects on the sets of participants of the experiment.

In essence, you would be inducing different states of mind, influenced by the same waveforms of energy.

As an example...if the particular sharing DNA participants listened to and watched something similar to this :

Solfeggio Harmonics - 417 HZ

Each individual hearing and seeing the same presentation, perhaps multiple times, would they have similar dream responses to the stimulus ?

IF there is a similar dream response to the different track(s), then the next step would be to explore the possibilty of transmitting information. Perhaps, with a particular symbol, embedded within the prepared material.

From there, as the partipants become more experienced, begin to make the information more complex.

 

[trojan]

Oh believe me, I totally agree with you. I know the whole "energy" thing is played off as pseudo-science relative to certain topics. In a way that's exactly what it is, you can't really prove or disprove this mass "cosmic energy" (if I had to label it, I suppose that's what I'd call it). I guess those things come down to personal belief.


I'd be more than happy to take part in your experiment though. I would need to be in the control group though, cause my only relative around here is my wife, and she'd think I was a nut if I ask her about this...lol. Just let me know what to do /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Darby]

Test Group: In this group it would be a requirement that the pairing of "dream inducer" and "target dreamer" must share heritage mitochondrial DNA. In other words, the pair must both be descended from a common mother. Brothers and sisters from the same mother would be ideal, but, as in my case, other relatives down the mitochondrial line would not be excluded. The primary test aspect is that they must share mitochondrial DNA.

Control Group: This group would contain "dream inducer" and "target dreamer" pairings that were not related by DNA, but it might be preferable that the inducer and dreamer knew each other for no other reason than to ensure the inducer has memories and thoughts of the target that they could focus on during the test.

I can see a problem with the experimental design that would be very hard to overcome. The target in this experiment has to be a blind subject. For the non-experimentalists I don't mean literally blind. I mean that they are unaware that they are the subject of an experiment. It's a single-blind experiment. The dreamer knows that s/he's involved in the experiment but the target doesn't know. If the target knows that there's an experiment going on that concerns his dreams he'll "dream hard" because he knows the experiment concerns dreams. That could block transmitted information, if it exists. Or he could end up dreaming about his sibling because someone said, "Don't think about the elephant sitting in the corner" - assuming that he also knows that the experiment concerns dreams about siblings. You couldn't differentiate between voluntary dreams and dreams induced in the target by the dreamer.

The problem is that you have to inquire of the target about his or her dreams without tipping off that there's an experiment going on. Just how to get the information without a tip off will be a problem. It will be a problem finding out beforehand if the target is already predisposed to dream about their sibling(s) absent the dreamer purposely targeting him.

Another problem, though not quite as big, is verification of the pairings in the two groups. You'll only have the word of the dreamer about the relationship with the target and will have to accept that the target half of the pair fits the group profile without independent verification. Some subjects will lie and other subjects will be mistaken due to lack of information (parents didn't reveal to the siblings that one or both were adopted, which is not uncommon). If your groups were composed of hundreds of pairs you could build in an error factor to account for the bad pairings. But if you only have a few pairs one flawed pairing would represent a large percentage of the group. An error factor above 5% gets you into the area where, for example, a Chi Square Test would relate what appears to be positive results as not significantly differing from randomness. You know from doing experimental designs in your field that if you graph your results with 5% error bars you're in trouble.

A third issue is the implied assumption that information sharing is a fact and that the experimental design is to research the mechanism of the information sharing. A premilinary inquiry should probably be designed to determine if information is shared at all and thereafter attempt to find a common mechanism. I'm sure that the "implied assumption" really isn't what you intended. It's just a matter of how the design is worded.

Pulling off a single or double blind experiment is difficult but they do give the most reliable results if correctly executed. It's an interesting experiment.

I got a bit of a minor "LOL" as I was writing that last paragraph. It occured to me that if transmission of information through some unknown mechanism that is being explored in the experiment correctly describes reality then there's another source of noise in the experiment: the experimenter himself. The experimenter could end up fouling up the experiment by unintentionally being the source of transmitted information to all pairs in both groups. It's detected as confounding noise that can't be accounted for when in reality it is a false negative. The only alternative is a triple blind experiment. No one, not even the researcher, knows that an experiment is taking place.

 

[RainmanTime]

Thank you, Darby.

When posting this, it was your response and comments on the experimental design that I was specifically aiming for, so you came thru as expected!

The only alternative is a triple blind experiment. No one, not even the researcher, knows that an experiment is taking place.

Yes, I thought about the experimenter possibly polluting the pool as well. I will have to do some thinking... there may be a way to do it at least double-blind. Triple-blind could actually be a possibility too if the real "researcher" only develops material, but has no idea when/where (or even IF) the experiement is going to be performed...the "when" is the most important variable there.

Let me cogitate some more... and thanks!
RMT

 

[Darby]

Ray,

You're welcome. Once in a while I get to actually put to use at least a tiny bit of my otherwise useless education.

 

[Twighlight]

Understood, and I agree. The purpose of the scientific experiment as I have laid it out was merely to test whether DNA could be tested to be one factor in explaining how such "energy" propagates from one person to another.

You'll fall into the same conundrum as statistical analysis of 'remote viewing' experiments. What actually constitutes a 'hit' ? Something as complex as a dream or piece of scenery has too many variables......every one of which can be ( and often is in some remote viewing tests I have seen ) seen as a 'hit' of some sort...but which actually ends up creating a false picture of the true cognition as there are so many ways to 'get it right'.

So one really needs to stick with something simple and unambiguous.....like Zenner cards for example. There is only one answer to any Zenner card guess.....correct or incorrect.....rather than ' well...maybe that little bit of the image there looks a bit correct '...which is purely subjective.

You need to remove all subjectivity.

Also....crucially, and people often forget this in statistical analysis.....you need to decide the exact number of test runs beforehand and stick with that. This is because there is so often a tendency for keep going until they get some fluke results and can argue it is meaningful, or they stop a test run when the going looks good. The number of runs must be defined beforehand......and then the end results seen as a data set that can only be compared with ALL other such runs ( if there are any ) and not just a chosen subset.