Psychic parrot

reply to post by vasaga


As I saw the title I was thinking....this has to be about Sheldrake....I read his book the sense of being stared at or soemthing like that...along with russel targs books.. Sheldrake is a great read...the guy does cool experiements and I like that he is a life science guy.

Originally posted by VegHead
During the video showed to the audience it has a disclaimer that the clocks were synchronized at the beginning but then there was an 11 second difference. Why would that happen?

It generally shouldn't unless the batteries of the device are dead.

A lot of cameras have internal lithium batteries on their main boards which gives charge to remember things like settings and the date and time. If the cameras were particularly old, or perhaps the battery water damaged or something peculiar ... then the camera would have no way to know how long it was turned off for. Though normally, this would put the settings (including date and time) back to defaults.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by VegHead

 

Sadly, due to scientific taboos, most of these experiments have an 'amateurish' feel to them, despite the results appearing pretty conclusive. According to mainstream science, they already 'know' that all these experiments are fraudulent. It's an easy cop-out for mainstream scientists when they use the lack of professional experiments to not conduct any professional experiments.

There was a time in the middle of last century give or take two decades where science spent probably too much time and resources chasing these types of things. Much of the positive results were from bad science, unless it's just a blatant attempt to hide the truth.

I'm skeptical, but intrigued. If this is real, it is of such profound scientific importance that they really need to conduct and publish a much more thorough and robust study proving it definitively. There are at least two potential problems with this right now as presented.

1) They say it is a controlled experiment, but I don't see what the control is. Controlled doesn't just mean sequestered. It means to create controls that can rule out other potential explanations. In this case, they would need to do something like film the bird for an extended period of time without her looking at anything, and see if he happens to say these same phrases routinely as a normal matter of course. They might also need to do this with other birds and other owners with similar relationships. The more the better.

2) I hate to say it, but we have to be honest with ourselves. It is at least possible that this is being faked. I'm not asserting that it is being faked. Merely pointing out that it may be. They could have adjusted the time code and filmed these separately. And there are a number of more elaborate ways in which they could have been faked (ensuring that the bird could hear someone prompting the required phrases, etc.)

I'm intrigued and excited by the possibility of this being bona fide, but it needs more serious experimentation to confirm. And it needs to be confirmed independently by others before I will be willing to accept it merely on face value. More data, more controls, more independent reproduction of the experiment. But, as I said, I'm intrigued and excited by the prospect.

Peace.

That is very interesting. I have shared it with others that also find it quite incredible.

oddpenguin

reply to post by AceWombat04


You should check the paper out to get more details on how it was (supposedly) conducted. It's below the video in the first post.

Awesome, star for you!

This kind of reminds me of the Alex experiments of the 80s, where they taught that parrot how to speak full sentences.

It's understandable that people are skeptical, but, I really find that skepticism interesting anyway. In general, there is never a video of how scientific experiments are conducted. The excerpt of a video shown in a public is a really rare thing. Usually we just get a paper with numbers and explanations. In this case, we basically have both, and I get the feeling that people only judge from the video, and don't look at the paper at all.

And I know there will be people that will say that Journal of Scientific exploration is 'not a scientific paper'. But that's based on the taboo towards what they're investigating, rather than the scientific method itself. If you find a flaw in the paper, that's fine, but, it has to be more than just on the name of the journal. Just saying this in advance, before someone starts ranting about how it's pseudoscience, without looking into it.