Mood Lamp that can read minds?

This is just bizarre examiner.com/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Science--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Worlds-first-lamp-changes-color-with-the-power-of-your-mind

Oh, I don’t know. They’re already mucking around with robot - human mind interfaces for disabled people, amputees, remote handling of equipment etc. The cochlear implant for deaf people interfaces between biological and electronic systems. Apparently there is now a mini-camera which can be implanted in some people’s eyes to improve their vision.

Even if there is no physical connection between the lamp and it’s human subject, how do we ourselves sometimes know, or suspect, that someone else is “troubled in spirit”, even when they are giving no overt signs of being so? Identical twins have long been known to have strong psychic connections which can’t be explained by purely scientific means (so far anyway).

There’s probably some factual basis for the lamp’s behaviour. US authorities seem to put a lot of stock on lie detectors (although practiced or habitual liars can fool the machines quite easily it seems).

[quote="prodigalson12, post:1, topic:181763"]
This is just bizarre examiner.com/x-11705-NY-Holistic-Science--Spirit-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Worlds-first-lamp-changes-color-with-the-power-of-your-mind

[/quote]

Does anybody else remember "mood rings"?

I love the video, that lab looks like a preserve for hippies trying to usher in the Age of Aquarius.

The difference though. What makes this remarkable, there is zero physical contact with the lamp, but, I suppose you could rig something with some kind of infra red scanner to catch body heat signatures or something? It’s just strange if this thing can literally read brain waves, or thoughts, or emotional responses. Stuff like this, really helps to solidify our stance along proving the existence of the human soul in a way that even the most die hard skeptics cannot deny.

Hardly. The conclusions of PEAR have long been rejected by mainstream science. As one of the comentators pointed out; Here’s the application from the James Randi Educational Foundation for $1 million. No takers? Didn’t think so.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:5, topic:181763"]
Hardly. The conclusions of PEAR have long been rejected by mainstream science. As one of the comentators pointed out; Here's the application from the James Randi Educational Foundation for $1 million. No takers? Didn't think so.

[/quote]

The smoking gun is a working device that kind if is hard to ignore, if the thing does work as explained. The reference you made had nothing to do with their work, here is an exert: James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

Moving onto the bottom of all 16 of his terms, which are quite extensive, I mean, you have to get media coverage and a ton of red tape, just to go through, hassle and quite a bundle in expenses, just to apply. No wonder there isn't a ton of incentive for anybody, most simply do not have the basic means to apply, even if they could literally part the red sea.

I really enjoy the last part of that one:
IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism,** religious claims, **cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc. JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices.

We are talking quantum physics, new technology, and it's ability to inter-react with a human being without any physical contact. If all we are, are bags of flesh, this cannot possibly work, it's not possible to project your thoughts, emotions, etc. anywhere outside of ones own body. Yet, clearly this thing seems to be able to be receptive to just that, proving that we are more then what the agnostic/atheist claims we are. It's not a far stretch to imagine, we are something more then what you think we are with evidence like this, staring us in the face.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:6, topic:181763"]
The reference you made had nothing to do with their work...

[/quote]

Of course it does. PEAR spent 28 years trying to prove, through the use of a random number generator, that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon and, in all that time, they didn't produce a single example that wasn't statistically negligible. It's founder believed that they had proven it but never applied. Why?

[quote="prodigalson12, post:6, topic:181763"]
Yet, clearly this thing seems to be able to be receptive to just that, proving that we are more then what the agnostic/atheist claims we are.

[/quote]

The device has a finite number of colors and therefore a finite number of combinations so, eventually, your emotion will match a color. Does that mean that you controlled the device with your mind? No.

Man, you need to add onto your signature or something, agnostic that will never listen to reason, I can tell this conversation is going to be short lived with you. Did you read the stipulations required for someone to submit a test to this guy, did you honestly read it in full? It’s not an easy task to do, red tape wise, to satisfy his initial requirements, regardless of what can be demonstrated, it’s simply not within the average persons means to do so.

The device, until you have it in your hands, you can make no educated opinion on it, this is why I referenced it as being, “if it can do what’s claimed”. The scientific method requires full analysis with all of the data on hand within a testable, controlled environment, yet you don’t have that at present, either way, yet you still insist upon making your hypothesis because it potentially is going to force you to have to re-evaluate your beliefs, and God forbid that you are wrong.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:8, topic:181763"]
Did you read the stipulations required for someone to submit a test to this guy, did you honestly read it in full?

[/quote]

Yes and they aren't unreasonable.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:8, topic:181763"]
It's not an easy task to do, red tape wise, to satisfy his initial requirements, regardless of what can be demonstrated, it's simply not within the average persons means to do so.

[/quote]

PEAR was not "the average person." It was funded by Princeton University and conducted studies and experiments for 28 years. This task would not be unaffordable.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:8, topic:181763"]
The device, until you have it in your hands, you can make no educated opinion on it

[/quote]

Any reasonable person can make an educated opinion on the device. The fact that it has a finite combination of colors means that eventually a person's emotions will correspond with a color. That does not mean that a person can control the device with their mind. Here's a good article on PEAR.

[quote="prodigalson12, post:8, topic:181763"]
...yet you still insist upon making your hypothesis because it potentially is going to force you to have to re-evaluate your beliefs, and God forbid that you are wrong.

[/quote]

I base my opinions on the facts; not on pseudoscience.

Yes. But does it stay a colour for a while then change to a different colour? For example does it go blue for say a half n hour then change to pink? And keep just changing until it gets to the colour the subjects feels comfortable with? Or does it go straight to the colour the subject is feeling? I’m skeptic about this device as well. Just for different reasons.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:9, topic:181763"]
Yes and they aren't unreasonable.

PEAR was not "the average person." It was funded by Princeton University and conducted studies and experiments for 28 years. This task would not be unaffordable.

Any reasonable person can make an educated opinion on the device. The fact that it has a finite combination of colors means that eventually a person's emotions will correspond with a color. That does not mean that a person can control the device with their mind. Here's a good article on PEAR.

I base my opinions on the facts; not on pseudoscience.

[/quote]

Pear doesn't qualify for those tests, see my point here, the guy doesn't want to see technology, he want's some psychic to demonstrate to him from an individual. We also cannot have any religious base to the tests as well, that rules out anything in that regard, so again, the offer doesn't extend to us. I don't believe in channelers, mediums, etc. and these are the only people that will be allowed to be tested. You are choosing a very weak argument of debate using those "tests" for the example, they don't apply to anything I'm even discussing here.

[quote="didymus, post:3, topic:181763"]
Does anybody else remember "mood rings"?

I love the video, that lab looks like a preserve for hippies trying to usher in the Age of Aquarius.

[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. My cousin had one of those mood rings back in the late 80s (we were pre-teens), and some sticker or something that acted in the same way. During a sleepover once, we tested the moods of all of the dogs in her house (they were calm). :) It was fun for a day then we forgot all about it.

PEAR asserts that it’s research and studies on psychokinesis prove that it is a real phenomenon. The technology provides a scientific method of testing.

PEAR does not allege a religious component. You are the only one alleging such a thing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.