In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, the White Queen tells Alice that in her land, “memory works both ways.” Not only can the Queen remember things from the past, but she also remembers “things that happened the week after next.” Alice attempts to argue with the Queen, stating “I’m sure mine only works one way…I can’t remember things before they happen.” The Queen replies, “It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.”

This is the opening paragraph from a really interesting article published over at the Psychology Today blog The Social Thinker, written by Melissa Burkley, Ph.D.  The idea invokes an interesting discussion of what memory is, what precognition might be and how the two are related.  Imagine, just for a moment, being able to ‘remember’ the future.  Consider the idea of being able to improve your mid-term final grade, business dinner or even that conversation with your mother-in-law simply by thinking about them and perfecting them in your own mind after they happen.

The implications of this possible evidence within the paranormal community could be far reaching; it introduces almost as many questions as it provides answers for.  Here is a bit more information on the research:

Dr. Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, conducted a series of studies that will soon be published in one of the most prestigious psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). Across nine experiments, Bem examined the idea that our brain has the ability to not only reflect on past experiences, but also anticipate future experiences. This ability for the brain to “see into the future” is often referred to as psi phenomena.

I would love to hear everyone else’s opinion on this study.  How do you think it will affect the paranormal field? Do you believe the findings (based on the original article) are valid proof that we are (or can be) psychic?

The Scientific Method

According to what I learned in school, the scientific method contains steps. It’s a process, one that begins with observation and research. Back in the day, we were taught that the method was as follows:

• Observation/Research
• Hypothesis
• Prediction
• Experimentation
• Conclusion

Now, I don’t know if they’ve updated this process since I left school, but I still stand by the steps included here. I should also probably point out that I understand that not all scientific research can adhere to these steps, but I’d like to think that cases such as that are the exception, not the rule. So how does this process apply to paranormal research? Well, from my own experience, we’ve never left the observation and research phase. Skeptics clamor for proof of the beyond, irrefutable evidence that ghosts exist; this isn’t possible to provide, because there are no conclusions here- only theory. As we collect our observations and conduct our research, the theory we work with might change, but it is impossible to design an experiment without knowing what you are trying to accomplish or prove with that experimentation. All of this leads to the existence of skeptics and believers, those who are adamant that the paranormal exists in the context of ghosts, hauntings and other spiritually-linked events and those who are just as adamant that there is no proof, therefore it can’t possibly be real. For the purpose of this blog post, we’re going to define these two terms as follows:

skeptic: n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

believer: n.
1. a supporter who accepts something as true

If you’re ready for more, this article continues after the jump.

The Case for Observation

A large portion of the start of any scientific research is observation. Like an apple falling on your head, the spark of curiosity has to come from somewhere- and where better than our own personal experiences? Once we’ve had that experience, once the curiosity is sparked, we go about trying to find an explanation. This might come in the form of psychology, physics, environmental science; the list of possible sources for our experiences is nearly endless. At this point, the discussion must involve our skeptics and believers in this process. To skeptics, no amount of observation would deserve further investigation because, based on their very nature, it is all hoax and sham. To believers, there is no need to delve further into the situation, no scientific experimentation necessary because, based on their very nature, it has been proven to be just through their own experience. Let’s dig a little deeper.

Aristotle, Skeptics and A Flat, Flat World

When it comes to believers, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence will alter their beliefs. A perfect example of this can be found in the belief that the world is flat. Let’s examine this belief closely.

Back in the time when Ancient Greece was a happening place (500 BC and 400 BC respectively, to be specific) Pythagoras proposed the idea that the earth was actually a sphere. He based this purely on aesthetic grounds, so if nobody believed him, I can understand why. He wasn’t alone, though. Plato agreed that a spherical earth was where it was at; he wrote about it in his 4th and final dialogue Phaedo. The problem was, they were facing a pretty tough audience; an entire world of believers who thought the world was flat, so it isn’t much of a leap of faith to recognize that the theory of a round world took awhile to catch on.  That’s when Aristotle (384-322 BC) arrived on the scene.

So, Aristotle offered up his proof that the world was round; the question is, did anyone believe him?  If you think I’m about to introduce the story of Columbus and his quest to prove the earth round, you’re wrong! Actually, in 1945 the Historical Association (an organisation founded in 1906 in London, England that operates with the goals of supporting “the study and enjoyment of history at all levels by creating an environment that promotes lifelong learning and provides for the evolving needs of people who share an interest in history.”) listed “Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception” second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history. No, I’m not going to play the Columbus card; instead, I’m simply going to ask a single question, one that might surprise you.

If we had ignored the observations of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and the others, would we still believe the world is flat?

How does science advance, without the personal accounts of individuals who are taking a unique look at the world around them? To the believers in this instance, the accepted conclusion is that the world is flat, and that doesn’t require any confirmation or research- despite personal observations. I equate this position with that of modern ‘skeptics’ who seem thrown off by the idea that paranormal researchers are recording their observations. But let’s look at another angle of Aristotle before we finish.

Aristotle, Believers and Our World at the Center of the Universe

I think we can all agree that Aristotle was a pretty amazing guy, a stand-up citizen, someone whom most people would believe if he professed to have had an ‘experience’ with the paranormal. The skeptics, of course, would say it was just because he was overly tired and it was his mind playing tricks on him, but the believers would take his story at face value. Would either be right in doing so? I don’t think so, and I can tell you why.

Back when Aristotle was busy proving that the world was round, he also shared another observation: that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the stars (sun included) revolved around our little blue planet. Now, most people today would chuckle at such a quaint idea, but based on Aristotle’s observations, it was a pretty strong theory. Skeptics around the world can rejoice in this story, as it highlights just how fallible a personal experience can be- and how unrealistic society’s response to ‘real’ scientific data is. As a case in point, here’s a wonderful website for you to visit: StaticEarth.net.

Surprised to find that, in today’s modern age of science, there are still those who think the world is the center of the universe?

I wasn’t- they’re believers, and no matter how much science ‘proves’ a ‘fact’, they’ll continue to believe it to be wrong.

The Paranormal Investigator

So what’s the difference between a skeptic and a believer? In my opinion, there isn’t one. Skeptics and Believers are interchangable depending on which side of the ‘fence’ you’re on. You might be wondering where a paranormal investigator might fall in this array; some are skeptics, some are believers, but the majority that I’ve encountered are actually somewhere smack in the middle. I generally refer to them as ‘realists,’ but that’s just because I am partial to the term.

It is my opinion that a good paranormal investigator will do the following:

• Collect data and observations through accepted means
• Formulate theories based on this data and observation
• Conduct experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove those theories

Now, it’s very important to me that I point out that ‘personal experiences’ are data and observations, even if the ‘skeptic’ wants to refute the point. They are no different than Aristotle looking up into the night sky and noting the shadow on the moon during an eclipse. These accounts can not be dismissed out of hand. Imagine if Lady Justice became our chief scientist, working while blindfolded. What sort of results would that prove? I really don’t want to find out! So when we go out and collect data, we should indeed record the personal experiences, but with the understanding that they do not prove or disprove anything; they’re just data and observations. Which, in turn, brings us back to the idea that investigators are simply collecting data. That’s great, but the real question is what are you collecting it for? Without a clear goal, a reason to collect that data, there seems to be little point in gathering it in the first place.

It is also important that I point out that the idea of paranormal activity falling outside the ‘repeatable results’ range is difficult for me to agree with. As a case in point, I have to refer to the ‘ghost particle’. For a quick overview of this scientific mystery, visit PBS.org. If you follow the timeline, you’ll find that the first theory emerged in 1920, but it wasn’t until 1998 that they found the answer (which, btw, resulted in a Nobel Prize). The lengths which they had to go through in order to find their proof were amazing- a look at the Super-K will show just what they were willing to do to find an answer. So, as an investigator, the question isn’t on the amount or type of data you collect, but how far you’re willing to go to categorically prove your theory. If you can’t repeat the results, then you have nothing more than a good working theory- which is fine, but is still not ‘proof’.

Where Does It All Lead?

For our team, it leads to actual experiments. We are currently collecting data in order to design an experiment around the experience of ‘battery drain’. While we develop this theory, we are also collecting data from supposedly haunted locations. For each investigation, we take the observations we can not explain and try to find experts in the field who might be better able to provide a source. When that fails, it moves into an ‘undetermined source’ file; when we’ve collected enough of these, we’ll take a look at the observations and see if there are any commonalities that might develop into a working theory. It could take years- or just one really active location, but in the meantime, we’ll keep collecting our data with open minds, our thoughts and actions somewhere in the center of the skeptic and believer array.

If you’re interested in taking a look, email me at thegrimsociety at gmail.com and I’ll forward you the pictures.

This excerpt is taken from Newsweek (Monday, November 3, 2008).  Are you surprised to find that 90 percent of Americans claimed to have had a paranormal experience or to hold to the belief that the paranormal exists? I wasn’t, but researchers sure are.  They continue to study the phenomenon, flabbergasted by the idea that in today’s modern, science-based world people continue to cling to these archaic beliefs.

In 2006, researchers Neil Dagnall, Andrew Parkera and Gary Munley published an article titled, “Paranormal belief and reasoning” in the scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences.  The article addresses the psychology of the paranormal, and the abstract’s first sentence shows exactly where the document is headed:

“This paper examined whether belief in the paranormal is linked to a general weakness in probabilistic reasoning, or whether belief in the paranormal is directly linked to the perception of randomness (misrepresentation of chance).”

Probabilistic reasoning, also known as probabilistic logic, refers to problem-solving techniques that center on “the use of probability theory for weighing evidence and inferring conclusions.”¹

Interestingly, the results of the study weren’t what one might expect.  Instead of proving that those who believe in the paranormal have a weakness of probabilistic reasoning, they found that weakness was a deficit in perception of randomness. From the article:

“These results suggest that paranormal belief is not associated with a general weakness in probabilistic reasoning but arises from a specific deficit associated with perception of randomness (misrepresentation of chance).”

In the article,”Putting Randomness in its Place,” author Gennady Stolyarov II addresses this topic further.

” A widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of the term “randomness” often results in false generalizations made regarding reality. In particular, the view of randomness as metaphysical, rather than epistemological, is responsible for numerous commonplace fallacies.

To see randomness as metaphysical is to see it as an inherent aspect of reality as such?as embedded inextricably in “the way things are.” Typically, people holding this view will take it in one of two directions. Some of them will see randomness pejoratively?thinking that there is no way reality could be like that: chaotic, undefined, unpredictable. Such individuals will typically posit that, because reality cannot be random, it must therefore be centrally planned by a super-intelligent entity, such as a deity.

Others, however, will use the metaphysical perception of randomness to deny evident and ubiquitously observable truths about our world: the facts that all entities obey certain natural laws, that these laws are accessible to human beings, and that they can inform our decision-making and actions.”

This view isn’t unique; in fact, if you search Google Scholar for ‘paranormal weak mind,’ you’ll turn up roughly 5,000 results. So the question becomes simple- in the face of all this scientific proof to the contrary, how and why is it possible that these paranormal beliefs continue to thrive

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy, Mental Imagery is quasi-perceptual experience. This means that it resembles a perceptual experience, but occurs without the appropriate triggers- scent without a source, piano music without a piano, etc.

The argument from a scientific standpoint, as it appears to me at least, rests on the heels of perception. Not everyone’s brain will interpret stimuli in the same manner; therefore, many ‘paranormal’ experiences are merely normal experiences interpreted differently.

This altered perception is often described as mistaken or illusive perceptions (such as seeing a small bush some distance away and, because it is dark and indistinguishable, perceiving it to be a bear) or as plain imagining- like seeing a shape in a cloud. As an example, check out the picture below:

Did you see a duck? Or was it a rabbit? Both?  It’s all in the perception, and that is why no individuals ‘mental imagery’ experiences can be credited as being scientific proof for an encounter with the paranormal.

The thing I find most interesting about this out-of-hand dismissal of so-called mental imagery can be found in the fact that scientists themselves can’t really figure out what mental imagery is; they’re not sure what causes it, they don’t know if it has a singular purpose or if it is simply a part of the ‘way we work’. There are several active theories that attempt to explain mental imagery, but each one is highly contested by other theories.

Which leads me to wonder if perhaps our inability to understand and quantify paranormal experiences is due to a lack of ‘belief’ in the experiences, or a deeper inability to understand the workings of our own minds.

The typical American home has a background magnetic field level that falls in the 0.5 mG to 4 mG range. Keep in mind that the strength of an electromagnetic field in a room will depend on the sources in the room- the more sources, the higher the reading might be.  It also depends on how far away those sources are and how many are running at the same time.  As we covered in the post, “The EMF Meter- Pseudoscience or Valid Tool,” walls generally do not block magnetic fields, so an electrical appliance located near a wall (or in a closet) can extend its magnetic field into the room on the other side of the wall.

What we have not delved into as of yet are the reputed side effects of exposure to these electromagnetic fields, something very important to those who have an interest in the paranormal.  While there is still a lot of debate surrounding EMFs, some people report a variety of health symptoms which they claim are related to exposure to them from sources such as power lines and household appliances. The strength of the symptoms can be minimal or life altering.

Because of the increase in cases involving this sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, the medical community has given the illness the general name “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS. The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently investigating EHS.

Symptoms of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Neurological: headaches, dizziness, nausea, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint paint, leg/foot pain, “Flu-like” symptoms, fever. More severe reactions can include seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.

Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure in the chest, low or high blood pressure, slow or fast heart rate, shortness of breath.

Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma.

Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, facial flushing.

Ophthalmologic: pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes, deteriorating vision, floaters, cataracts.

Others: digestive problems, abdominal pain, enlarged thyroid, testicular/ovarian pain, dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes, great thirst, dehydration, nosebleeds, internal bleeding, altered sugar metabolism, immune abnormalities, redistribution of metals within the body, hair loss, pain in the teeth, deteriorating fillings, impaired sense of smell, ringing in the ears.

As paranormal investigators, one of the first things we check when visiting a home with reported paranormal events is the strength of the EMFs in the home.  With side effects such as those listed above, its easy to see that many of those events can be attributed to electromagnetic fields.

A perfect example of this can be seen in the case below.

Property Information : Residential Home in Port Saint Lucie, FL Number of Residents/Occupants: 2 Adults, 1 child

Occupation of Residents: Electrical Worker and Homemaker

Religious Beliefs: None

Number and Type of Pets: 1 Dog

Year Built: 2000

Total Square Footage: 1752

The homeowner reported the following activity in the home:  Feeling of Being Watched, Cold/Hot Spots Felt, Footsteps Heard, Human Figure Seen, Non-Human Figure Seen, Orbs Seen, Unexplained Noises, Unfamiliar Smells, Voices Heard.  In addition, the homeowner was being treated medically for headaches and dizzyness.

Conclusion:

After visiting the home, it was found that there were extreamly high readings for EMFs originating from the wall shared by the kitchen and the laundry room.  Gauss readings in the laundry closet reached as high as 167, while on the kitchen side near two seperate outlets they reached 60.   According to “EMF In Your Environment,” published by the EPA 1992, the average readings for the laundry room are as follows:

LAUNDRY/UTILITY ROOM SOURCES

Distance From Source    6″    1’    2’    4’

Electric Clothes Dryers
Lowest                             2    -    -    -
Median                             3    2    -    -
Highest                             10    3    -    -

Washing Machines
Lowest                             4    1    -    -
Median                             20    7    1    -
Highest                             100    30    6    -

It is important to note that these measurements are in units of milligauss (mG), and dashes in columns mean that the magnetic field measurement at this distance from the operating appliance could not be distinguished from background measurements. A mG is 1/1000 of a gauss; the readings taken in the home’s laundry room were in gauss- thus giving a result that was 163,900 mG higher than the EPA’s highest measurement.  Armed with this information, the homeowner can now approach the problems in the home from a new viewpoint and work towards remedying the situation.

As you can see, the meter will give off an easily read result that allows the source of a field to be traced.

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant. (Extract from “Electromagnetic Fields”, published by the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe in 1999)

Electromagnetic fields are all around us. Fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms, and the earth’s magnetic field is what causes a compass needle to find North. It is even used by birds and fish for navigation. These fields can also be discharged from power lines, home wiring, airport and military radar, substations, transformers, computers and appliances.

One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.

A simple analogy should help to illustrate the concept: Tie a long rope to a door handle and keep hold of the free end. Moving it up and then down slowly will generate a single big wave; more rapid motion will generate a whole series of small waves. The length of the rope remains constant, therefore, the more waves you generate (higher frequency) the smaller will be the distance between them (shorter wavelength).

Wavelength and frequency determine another important characteristic of electromagnetic fields: Electromagnetic waves are carried by particles called quanta. Quanta of higher frequency (shorter wavelength) waves carry more energy than lower frequency (longer wavelength) fields. Some electromagnetic waves carry so much energy per quantum that they have the ability to break bonds between molecules. In the electromagnetic spectrum, gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays and X-rays carry this property and are called ‘ionizing radiation’. Fields whose quanta are insufficient to break molecular bonds are called ‘non-ionizing radiation’. Man-made sources of electromagnetic fields that form a major part of industrialized life – electricity, microwaves and radiofrequency fields – are found at the relatively long wavelength and low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and their quanta are unable to break chemical bonds.

Electric fields exist whenever a positive or negative electrical charge is present. They exert forces on other charges within the field. The strength of the electric field is measured in volts per metre (V/m). Any electrical wire that is charged will produce an associated electric field. This field exists even when there is no current flowing. The higher the voltage, the stronger the electric field at a given distance from the wire.

Electric fields are strongest close to a charge or charged conductor, and their strength rapidly diminishes with distance from it. Conductors such as metal shield them very effectively. Other materials, such as building materials and trees, provide some shielding capability. Therefore, the electric fields from power lines outside the house are reduced by walls, buildings, and trees. When power lines are buried in the ground, the electric fields at the surface are hardly detectable.

Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges. The strength of the magnetic field is measured in amperes per meter (A/m); more commonly in electromagnetic field research, scientists specify a related quantity, the flux density (in microtesla, µT) instead. In contrast to electric fields, a magnetic field is only produced once a device is switched on and current flows. The higher the current, the greater the strength of the magnetic field.

Like electric fields, magnetic fields are strongest close to their origin and rapidly decrease at greater distances from the source. Magnetic fields are not blocked by common materials such as the walls of buildings.

In November 1989, the Department of Energy reported that, “It has now become generally accepted that there are, indeed, biological effects due to field exposure.” Because of this (and many other) findings, it became necessary for individuals to have access to a simple tool that would measure the electromagnetic fields they came in contact with. Thus the birth of the reasonably priced, high quality EMF meter.

The gauss, abbreviated as G, is the cgs unit of magnetic field (B), named after the German mathematician and physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss.

An EMF meter is a type of Gauss Meter. Inside an EMF meter is a coil of thin wire that usually has hundreds of turns in it. When the meter is on, the magnetic field radiates through the coil and inducing a current. The current is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter, which measures its strength. EMF meters vary in the strength of the magnetic field they can measure and vary widely in price and accuracy. Meters have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil. Single axis meters are much simpler than triple axis meters to manufacture and thus, are less expensive.

To use a single axis meter you must point the meter’s one sensor in three directions — -the x, y and z axis. Then, you combine the three readings in a mathematical equation to calculate the combined field strength. Obviously, its far easier and more accurate to use a 3-axis meter. Triple axis Gauss meters are quite accurate, but they are also more expensive.

Here at the GRIM society we use a single axis ELF meter (ELF stands for extremely low field) with a range of 0.1mG to 199.9 milligauss and an accuracy of ±(4% + 3digits) at 50-60 Hz. Single axis meters have the advantage when attempting to trace a linear source!

Now you might find yourself wondering what all this has to do with hunting down paranormal activity, and we have the answer. It can be found in numerous scientific studies, but there is one in particular that we like to cite, a piece published in the British Journal of Psychology in May of 2003.

In his article, “An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’,” Prof Richard Wiseman discovered an interesting phenomenon, as explained in the excerpt below:

“Thirdly, both experiments also examined whether the alleged haunting may be due, at least in part, to participants responding to environmental cues. In Expt 1, the variance of the local magnetic ?field in the ‘haunted’ areas was significantly greater than of the ‘control’ areas. In addition, the number of unusual experiences reported by participants was higher, as correlated with magnetic variance. This was not replicated in Expt 2, which found a significant positive correlation between magnetic variance and the haunted order. These results provide some support for the controversial theory that the presence of certain types of local magnetic ?fields may impact upon a range of psychological, psychophysiological and health-related variables.”

Now, unlike many groups out there, we don’t believe that fluctuating EMF readings is proof of, well, anything other than fluctuating EMF readings. However, because there is in fact a scientific basis that shows a correlation between fluctuating EMF readings and an increase in the experience of paranormal activity, we feel that examining and recording these fluctuations are an integral part of any true exploration into the paranormal. In fact, the readings themselves can be, at times, classified as paranormal- especially in situations when there is no obvious or logical explanation for fluctuations in the field.

It is important to remember, though, that like many other things in our field of research, the correlation between EMF readings and ‘ghostly haunts’ remains speculative at this point in time.

Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry 09:15 27 July 2002

“Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry. People with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none.

Peter Brugger, a neurologist from the University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, has suggested before that people who believe in the paranormal often seem to be more willing to see patterns or relationships between events where sceptics perceive nothing.”

That article in turn led me to another, which was published in The New York Times. Here is a clip:

“They are eerie sensations, more common than one might think: A man describes feeling a shadowy figure standing behind him, then turning around to find no one there. A woman feels herself leaving her body and floating in space, looking down on her corporeal self.

Such experiences are often attributed by those who have them to paranormal forces.

But according to recent work by neuroscientists, they can be induced by delivering mild electric current to specific spots in the brain. In one woman, for example, a zap to a brain region called the angular gyrus resulted in a sensation that she was hanging from the ceiling, looking down at her body. In another woman, electrical current delivered to the angular gyrus produced an uncanny feeling that someone was behind her, intent on interfering with her actions.

Dr. Olaf Blanke, a neurologist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland who carried out the procedures, said that the women had normal psychiatric histories and that they were stunned by the bizarre nature of their experiences.

The Sept. 21 issue of Nature magazine includes an account by Dr. Blanke and his colleagues of the woman who sensed a shadow person behind her. They described the out-of-body experiences in the February 2004 issue of the journal Brain.

There is nothing mystical about these ghostly experiences, said Peter Brugger, a neuroscientist at University Hospital in Zurich, who was not involved in the experiments but is an expert on phantom limbs, the sensation of still feeling a limb that has been amputated, and other mind-bending phenomena.

“The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence,” Dr. Brugger said.”

This leads to some rather interesting questions; do these scientific discoveries make you less of a believer in the paranormal or more? Do you think that what is paranormal to some or most of the population is normal to another percentage, those whose brains act differently? Is this all ‘imaginary,’ just a byproduct of consciousness? If the consciousness can indeed separate itself, is it possible that others can see or interact with it despite its non-physical state?

In addition to the original article, I came across the book, “Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields” which was published by the National Research Council and has the following description:

“Assesses the effects of electric and magnetic fields on human health. This book examines what is known about three kinds of health effects associated with EMF: cancer, primarily childhood leukemia; reproduction and development; and neurobiological effects. It provides a discussion on hazard identification, and dose-response assessment.”

Their conclusion was that “the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.”

**** This is where I’m going to get a little more technical…this is a bail out point for anyone not interested in the ‘science stuff’! ****

In a June 2006 publication, Jan Bures of the Institute of Physiology Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague, Czech Republic reported the following:

Unlike environmental diseases due to presence of toxic or absence of vitally important substances in food, water or air, electrical and magnetic forces are indispensable for life at levels considerably exceeding the limits considered as harmful by the EHS concept.

One of the underlying misunderstandings is the assumption that EMFs are novel forces introduced by technical  development of industrial countries and that living creatures are not prepared to live with them. However, already the first unicellular organisms starting the evolution of life on our planet were marvelous examples of electrical engineering. Their lipid cell membrane is only 5nm thick but separates an electrical potential of 0.1 V, which corresponds to the electrical field of 10-1V/5×10-9m = 2×107 V/m. Electrical phenomena have played an essential role in development of animals and particularly of their brains, the function of which is impossible without electrical signals mediating transmission of information between individual neurons and neural  networks, and implementing the highest cognitive functions.

Up to 1011 neurons of the human brain generate a large amount of electrical activity, which in its diversity, intensity and ubiquity exceeds what most alleged sources can produce.”

She further explains:

“The requirement that electrical phenomena generated in the brain tissue by external sources, should not exceed the inherent level of EMF noise of biological origin seems reasonable and is generally strictly followed by hygienic regulations for the use of electrical appliances. But this is not always respected in some medical treatments, when higher stimulation intensity is deliberately used to restore a failing vital function. Thus cardiac flutter blocking blood circulation can be stopped by high intensity electrical pulse applied to the chest, which elicits cardiac arrest usually followed by recovery of normal heart beat.

A less dramatic example is the cardiac pacemaker, implanted stimulator which cures patients with atrio-ventricular blockade by replacing the irregular discharge of the cardiac sinus node by electrical stimuli activating the heart contractions at regular intervals. The same applies to stimulation of various brain centers, which may elicit in animals pleasant feelings, motivating them to press a switch administering a short (0.1 s) electric stimulus (about 40 ?A) to the hypothalamic pleasure centers (Olds and Milner, 1954).

High preference of this artificial activity against other motivated behaviors e.g. (feeding, drinking) shows that the nature of the stimulus does not interfere with its further processing and does not prevent the animal to use the cognitive functions required for access to the rewarding stimulation. Similar desirable effects of brain stimulation were recently demonstrated in Parkinson patients, whose tremor, rigidity, muscle weakness and difficult walking are clearly alleviated by self-administered series of pulses applied through implanted electrodes to their thalamic nuclei (Hashimoto et al., 2003)

Electrical stimulation requires application of higher voltages and currents produced by technical devices, but biological forms of effective stimulators were introduced by the evolutionary process millions years ago. Several classes of electric fish have developed so called electric organs, in which hundreds to thousands cells are connected in series to a column in which the 0.1 V emf of individual cells may lead to the discharge amplitude of 100 V to 700 V, and by parallel connection of such columns to currents of up to 10 A (Grundfest, 1960). While the strongly electric fish (the electric eel, Electrophorus electricus), use their discharge for stunning the prey or for predator defense, the weakly electric fish use it for electrolocation.

In Gnathonemus Petersii the electric organ discharges low rate of 10 V pulses from the tail. Current flows through the electroreceptors on the anterior surface of the body, innervated by the lateral line nerves, which monitor the density of current flow through the surrounding water in the rostrocaudal direction. Any asymmetry of this density shows that the conductivity of the water was influenced by presence of some objects with high or low resistance in the vicinity of the fish. Electro-sensitivity is also used by some non-electric fish like sharks, for
detection of electric current in the environment, e.g. for finding live prey buried under a layer of sand. Sharks can detect electrocardiogram of such fish, remove the covering sand and eat the prey. The development of electrolocation demonstrates, that evolution has tried a variety of available methods to improve the animal’s capacity to locate prey, or avoid obstacles in the environment in which the animal lives, but which cannot be detected with effective use of vision or touch. Limited contact with aquatic environment did not lead to development of an analog of the lateral line system in humans. But the most important lesson we get from electric fishes, is that they were not deterred by the mysterious force and used it ingeniously to their advantage. It is obvious that they do not obey the simplistic recommendations of environmentalists, prohibiting the use of high voltage and current which would make evolution a very safe but rather ineffective process.

In an interesting side study conducted by Eugene Lyskov, Kjell Hansson Mild and Monica Sandström (from the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, Umeå, Sweden; the National Institute for Working Life, Umeå, Sweden and the Department of Natural Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden, respectivly) we see that certain people have a varying baseline that affects results:

“We have during several years studied people with perceived electrical hypersensitivity (EHS), both in epidemiological studies and in neurophysiological examinations.
[...]

The problem to find a causal connection between the originate of symptoms and electromagnetic fields in provocation tests, have lead us in to new line of thought. How do people with EHS respond to other physical factors in our environment? What are their physiological and neurophysiologic baseline status?

Since amplitude modulated light emitted from the video display units (VDU) was considered as a possible cause of EHS symptoms, the aim of our first study (Sandström et al. 1997) was to make an objective physiological assessment of individual sensitivity to this factor. It is known that brain and retina reactions to flickers, can be recorded far above critical fusion frequency. Therefore, amplitude of electroretinogram (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) during photo stimulation at frequencies below and above CFF was chosen as markers of the sensitivity. Additionally, heart rate was recorded to control possible activation due to photo stimulation session. We tested 10 people with perceived EHS and an equal number of age and sex matched healthy controls.

The results showed significantly increased amplitude of the VEP at all tested frequencies in the patient group in comparison with a healthy control group, whereas no difference in ERG were revealed. Increased mean heart rate in rest (baseline) period was also found when comparing the patient group with the control group. These preliminary findings indicated an increased sensitivity to flickering light, and possible engagement of the autonomous nervous system in the patients. That motivated further investigations of the baseline  neurophysiological characteristics of the central and autonomous regulation, and their reactivity to different functional tests in EHS. Therefore in our second study (Lyskov et al. 2001a), the arsenal of physiological methods, and tests as well as the number of patients was extended.

Twenty patients with prevalence of skin (tingling, redness) and neurasthenic (fatigue, tiredness, headache) symptoms were recruited from the University hospital, age and sex matched with twenty control subjects without health complaints. They were examined in a one day laboratory session, that included recording of electroencephalogram, steadystate visual potentials in response to stroboscope stimulation at frequencies 30-70 Hz, ECG, blood pressure, and electrodermal activity. Subjective measure of sensitivity to flickering light – critical fusion frequency was recorded in response to manually controlled matrix of the red light emitting diodes. Vision acuity and contrast sensitivity were also assessed. After acclimatization in the experimental chamber physiological processes were recorded in baseline conditions and in response to several functional tests: deep breathing test, orthostatic test, audiostimulation. The total duration of the test battery was 25 minutes, with at least 5 minutes pauses between functional tests. Differences between EHS subjects and control were found in several experimental outcomes. The patients had a higher mean value of critical fusion frequency, modest but significantly increased amplitude of the fundamental harmonics of the steady-state VEP in occipital derivations in patients in comparison with control subjects. The overall difference, was detected with all autonomous variables used in the experiments. In rest conditions mean values of heart rate was higher and heart rate variability lower in EHS persons in comparison with control. Decreased 30:15 ratio in response to orthostatic test was detected on the level of statistical trend. Sympathetic skin response to audio clicks showed increased amplitude, decreased latency and relative asymmetry of responses in patients in comparison with control.

The results of this neurophysiological study showed that patients with a perceived electrical hypersensitivity, had a tendency towards increased sympathetic activity during baseline relaxation period, hyper responsiveness to sensor stimulation such as flickering light and audio stimulation, and their physiological profile showed imbalance of autonomic regulation with a trend towards hypersympathotone and increased arousal.”

This does indeed lead one to wonder how these predisposed individuals would react to random waves under less than desirable conditions (such as when alone or in the dark). It could indeed account for the paranormal experiences.  However, it is my opinion that it does not seem to address the validity of the experience, only the origin.

So now its your turn to interpret the evidence. How good are YOUR eyes?

Can you tell us which one is a confirmed raindrop? What do you think the other two are?