Jump to content

An idea for a potential experiment


RainmanTime
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seeing as how I am a fan of the scientific method, I had an experience this morning that got me thinking about something. So I thought I would share it here in the form of a testable hypothesis, and then outline potential tests that could either falsify or partially confirm said hypothesis. First, the story of what happened:

 

As often happens while I am sleeping, I woke up around 1:30AM, well before my 4:30 time when I have to get up for work. I broswed facebook for awhile, and was updated about the goings-on in the life of one of my nieces I have not seen in a long time. I eventually drifted back to sleep, but the thing to note is that, quite possibly, the last thoughts on my mind were about my niece, Terra. Upon awaking just before the alarm went off at 4:30, I realized I had been dreaming. As most people will testify, your dreams are freshest in your mind just as you awake. The dream had several bizzare themes, but of most interest were the other people involved in the dream: My niece, Terra, and her brother and two sisters whom I helped raise when I lived in Ohio in my pre-college years. Upon awakening, and recalling the dream content, I checked Facebook again and I saw that not even 30 minutes prior to my waking up, my niece Terra had added a new post where she answered a "friends quiz question" and it was specifically about me. She being in Michigan, it was likely that she had already gotten out of bed and was FB'ing while I slept. That got me thinking about what triggers dreams. And that leads to my formal proposition of a hypothesis:

 

PROPOSED: Dreams are initiated by a combination of internal (to the brain) and external means. Investigations could, and perhaps should, be performed to attempt to identify what external means may impact the formation of and content of a person's dreams.

 

Detailed Hypothesis: (i.e. I am not sure if this is correct, but I state it such that it can be tested) I would submit that it is possible that a physical DNA connection between "sender" and "receiver" could possibly explain a signal that may induce not only a dream in the "receiver" but may induce a dream that includes the "sender" in the dream's content.

 

Experimental Protocol: Identify a test group and a control group (detailed below) of single-blind test subjects who will be identified as "dream inducers" and "target dreamers". The single-blind nature is such that the "target dreamer" will not know who may be attempting to induce them to dream, nor when it may occur. Obviously, in order to attempt to induce a dream, the "dream inducer" needs to know which "target dreamer" they are aiming for. Hence why the best we could do is single-blind. The experimenter would identify a time when it is known the "target dreamers" would be asleep, and instruct the "dream inducers" to actively think about the "target dreamer" and record their thoughts as they did this for some defined period of time. The "target dreamers" would be instructed to simply record any/all dreams, and what people they knew that were part of the dreams, upon waking.

 

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.

 

Data Analysis: The purpose would be to try to identify a statistically significant number of people from the test group who dreamed about the person who was instructed to try and induce the dream. Similarly, we would expect the data to show no statistically-significant connection between inducer and target in the control group.

 

Whaddya think? Any thoughts or comments?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sounds interesting. On the subject of dreams, I have always wondered by what method the brain causes a person to dream about certain subjects. Common research seems to suggest dreams merely stem form events we have encountered recently or from stress related issues and are simply our brain's way of venting so to speak. You spoke of your dream experience and a possible DNA connection, so I will share an ongoing experience of my own and see if you can make heads or tales of it...because I sure can't...lol.

 

When I was 20 years old I was stationed here in South Carolina where I currently reside. I was in the Marine Corps at the time and lived in the barracks. One night while sleeping I had a dream that, at the time really had no meaning to it, or so I thought. I remember waking up the next morning and recalling the dream I had, and thinking "dang that was a weird dream". I normally do not remember dreams for more than a few hours after having them, however this particular dream seemed to stick with me for a few weeks. It was one of those dreams I like to call "cable dreams" because they are so clear like watching a movie. I won't go into the details of the dream, but I will say that I did not personally know any of the people in it and it had to do with some really weird distorted reality, almost like an unseen world with in our own with a really evil feeling to it.

 

Ok, now so far nothing strange right? just some crazy dream somebody had. Well this is where it gets strange....well to me anyhow.

 

I was 24 years old, had gotten married had kids, had served my time in the military and began life as a civilian. By this time the dream I had when I was 20 was a distant memory, I had not thought about it for more than a few weeks after I actually had the dream, because like I said it was so clear in my mind. So here I am in my house some 4 years later and I went to sleep just like any other normal night. No unusual stress, no watching crazy movies or tv before hand or no reading strange si-fi books. I woke up very startled in the middle of the night and realized I just had a continuation of the same dream from 4 years prior, as if there had been no break in between the two. I remember getting up and walking to my kitchen, racking my brain about the details of the two dreams, and trying to remember where the first dream had left off. I knew the answer, but I just didn't want to believe it because it just made me feel really strange inside. I'm not going to lie, this bothered me for a couple months, but as most things, it passed.

 

Ok, so to keep from being to long I'll just say this. I had another dream at 26, 30, 32, and 35..which was just a few months ago. These dreams no longer give me the creeps as they did at the beginning. I just call it my mini-series dream. I never really think about them until I have another one. I can recall these dreams like they were last night, and in vivid detail.

 

So, any thoughts.......? :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see the outcome of an experiment like that, I've often thought that there is some kind of primordial conscious link between humans, And all other living things, Seems like it's primary role and function may have been alleviated through time and evolution, But it still seems to manifest itself through dreams and subconscious thought in some people, kinda like a recessive gene.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Detailed Hypothesis: (i.e. I am not sure if this is correct, but I state it such that it can be tested) I would submit that it is possible that a physical DNA connection between "sender" and "receiver" could possibly explain a signal that may induce not only a dream in the "receiver" but may induce a dream that includes the "sender" in the dream's content.

 

I don't recall the exact details....but there's speculation by some scientists at University of Arizona ( one of the main sites where consciousness is studied ) that consciousness may arise from interactions within tiny 'microtubules' within neuron receptors in the brain. Those tubules are small enough to be activated at the quantum level...rather than the chemical and electrical level that most scientists propose for consciousness. This might also make them excellent tiny 'receivers'.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I always thought was interesting about sleep is the complete lack of time. You can have a whole days adventure in ten minutes of sleep!

 

There is something even more fascinating that has always baffled me. The sense of prior history..a 'past'...that exists in some dreams. In other words one can have a dream that contains memories of events that occured before the dream. Sometimes very detailed memories.

 

I find that fascinating. If dreams are just random garbage thrown up by our brains....how could they conjure up, within seconds, an entire setting complete with a past history ? If one considers a dream to be like a Shakespearian play.......clearly such a play requires detailed forethought....a setting....and a prior 'history' that explains the context.

 

Otherwise it would be impossible to act in many dreams.....as most of our actions are based upon memory, which tells us what context we are in and how to respond.

 

This suggest to me that we have a vast library of 'memories'. But..from where ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fascinating thing about our brains is its perception of reality when we not sleeping, but not fully awake.

 

I remember A few weeks ago i was laying on my couch with my eyes closed, sort of half asleep, lost in thought, when all of a sudden my daughter dropped one of her toys on the floor, it created a "bang" which my mind turned into an entire scenario, In that scenario, I was putting air into a tire when all of a sudden the tire exploded as a result of the "bang", But the amazing part is that not only did my mind create the scenario, but it created an entire past tense sequence of events leading up to the "bang" which was not there until the "Bang" occurred.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be an interestng experiment Rainman. Relative to me there isn't anyone that fits the parameters of your proposal.

 

One thing that came to mind is shared dreams. I had one dream that I was describing with minimal detail to someone I hardly know, and they responded with excitement, claiming to have had the exact same dream.

 

In comparing the details in a manner careful not to influence each others account of the dream, we pieced different fragments together, and it seems we did indeed have the same dream.

 

Has anybody else ever had similar experiences ? If so, maybe we can start a new thread to explore possible shared dreams ?

 

And how could something like this possibly be included into the experiment ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I was related to whoever john titor was but the whole reason I asked him so many detailed questions is because of a 1998 dream I had of a time traveler visiting me with the same physical description that john gave of himself and the exact same description of what it looked like to time travel. I also felt like I knew him. This dream was never posted anywhere online but it still exists today in an old diary.

 

If john was a fraud lucky for him for such an amazing coincidence even down to the april 1998 date. It was one of the major things in the beginning that caused me to question the heck out of him.

 

I don't think Iam psychic or anything. I also don't think I am related to him but not knowing who he really is I really don't know. I could be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that David Mandell is almost unheard of in forums like this, while the likes of Titor receive undue attention. Mandell has an impressive list of uncannily accurate predictive paintings.

 

Scientifically, there's still room for scepticism. For example.....his photo of the 911 painting taken in the bank, shows Wed Sep 11.....ostensibly 1996. But there was also a Wed Sep 11 in 2002...a year AFTER 911. It is unfortunate that the bank clock does not record the year.

 

Where he gains credibility is that he has willingly taken ( and passed ) lie detector tests, is a Professor of art with really nothing to gain by making up wild claims......and the fact that he comes across as quite genuinely sincere and open.

 

His is one of the few cases that impresses me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Z...your post was moved to the time travel claims section, and into a newly created thread entitled " Physical Time Travel Vehicle ".

 

Back to the experiment as proposed by RainmanTime.

 

Was thinking about what you proposed, Rainman, and one aspect that occurs to me is frequency. That people who do share similar DNA ... um ... roots, may be able to synchronize with :

 

1. Resonance

 

2. Rhythm

 

3. Melody

 

4. Harmony

 

5. Pitch

 

6. Timbre

 

7. Toning

 

...during different states of mind.

 

Also, I recall that similar experiments have been done with Twins, concerning the mental telepathic bond that Twins seem to share.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry about my earlier post, I was not trying to hijack the thread. I've just never really seen posts about dreams on here before and thought I'd share my experience. With that being said, I do find your experiment to be interesting. I personally like time trave and UFO's and such, but honestly I've always been more of a new age type person in belief, and Kerr actually stated why here.

 

One thing that came to mind is shared dreams. I had one dream that I was describing with minimal detail to someone I hardly know, and they responded with excitement, claiming to have had the exact same dream.

 

In comparing the details in a manner careful not to influence each others account of the dream, we pieced different fragments together, and it seems we did indeed have the same dream.

and Pam as well

 

because of a 1998 dream I had of a time traveler visiting me with the same physical description that john gave of himself and the exact same description of what it looked like to time travel. I also felt like I knew him. This dream was never posted anywhere online but it still exists today in an old diary.

In both these cases, and I'm sure many others such as Twighlight mentioned, and Kerr said with twins, there seems to be a root connection between humans, and even animals in some cases.

 

I personally feel we share these connections such as dreams and premonitions because the universe is one big infinite source of energy, and we each share a bit of that energy inside our body while we are living in our biological form.

 

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.

 

Now of course batteries may be a bad example because they obviously can not think for themselves, but you and I can. 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, and what better time for this to occur than when we are the most relaxed, and have slipped to a semi-conscious or unconscious level such as dreaming?

 

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.

 

Not meaning to sound like a crack pot...lol, just throwing in my two cents :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you still going to do this experiment?

Not sure yet. But if I do it, I do not plan to do it in a "garage shop" manner. I would probably turn it into a research proposal and, perhaps, reach out to the psych department at the university I teach at (or others). Right now, I am just looking for feedback that would enhance the rigorous scientific approach...and allowing the concept to breed and evolve.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was thinking about what you proposed, Rainman, and one aspect that occurs to me is frequency. That people who do share similar DNA ... um ... roots, may be able to synchronize with :

 

1. Resonance

 

2. Rhythm

 

3. Melody

 

4. Harmony

 

5. Pitch

 

6. Timbre

 

7. Toning

 

...during different states of mind.

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?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ftMa2Rzo54

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...