Re: Electromagnetic Signals Influencing Human Thought?

In message 
<ed9edae5-794b-4822-ac30-de00d05b6269@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>On 8 Aug, 10:07, Richard Herring <junk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >(It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
>> >demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
>> >possible to achieve such a thing.)
>>
>> You can't. Like all conspiracy theories, your hypothesis is
>> unfalsifiable.
>>
>
>I don't have a conspiracy theory.

I didn't say that you do. I said that your hypothesis (the one implicit 
in "demonstrate .. NOT possible") is unfalsifiable. In that respect it 
resembles a conspiracy theory.
>
>What I have is a question.
>
>And the question is this - "Has anyone ever carried out experimental
>investigations to demonstrate whether or not it is possible to
>directly influence the human thought process using electromagnetic
>signals?"
>
>(And this of course excludes those signals normally referred to as tv
>and radio signals. People are not normally able to pick up broadcast
>signals such as these without the aid of familiar items of receiver
>equipment - although having said that, people with metal dental
>fillings in their teeth have re****ted doing so, and metal dental
>fillings are not normally recognised as items of radio/tv receiver
>equipment - however I suppose that such people might easily be
>dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" simply for having made such
>re****ts.)
>
>I think it is quite easy to imagine how you would test whether or not
>an electromagnetic signal with a wavelength outside the range of
>visible light could influence the behavior of an individual subjected
>to the signal. In fact, what am I talking about?, I don't have to
>imagine it, I saw the very same thing happen on a bbc tv program last
>night. The world-famous violinist Vanessa Mae was subjected to an
>experiment whereby a contraption which produced a strong local
>electromagnetic field was activated in close proximity to her head,
>and all of a sudden she couldn't even sign her own name! But of course
>she knew what was going on - would it be possible to do this sort of
>thing remotely WITHOUT the subject being aware of the cause of the
>effect?
>
>Anyway, back to your statement above. Only by carrying out experiments
>is it possible to find out what works and what doesn't. The more
>frequencies you try without gaining a positive result then the wider
>the range of possibilities eliminated.

True.
>
>What I'm asking is, has anyone ever tried any?

Almost certainly.
>
>And if so, Who?

Well, it's unlikely that some of the three-letter agencies haven't had a 
go.
>
>And when?
>
>And what happened?

They're not telling. National security.
>
>And if not, why not?
>
>I think that for emotional reasons many people find it intolerable to
>be placed in a position of ignorance

Indeed. No wonder psychics are so popular.

>- especially regarding a matter
>which is potentially very im****tant.

That "potentially" is begging the question.
>
>And in order to maintain some degree of emotional security such people
>may have a tendency to presume that any question which they can't
>answer must be unim****tant.

Or they "may" do any number of other things about it. You don't know.
>
>And in so doing they are failing to be scientific.

Such a presumption would be irrational, but no more so than its 
converse.
>
>I wonder if that could that be you.

Wonder all you like. There are plenty of other possibilities.

-- 
Richard Herring