The SoulPhone™

Where?

Elsewhere in places I've been a regular far longer than here. 
 
Other websites and forums ARE available.  

I like the SoulPhone trademark symbol anticipating it's eventual commercial launch.     Ya gotta larf....

I don't see his name on their website.

When you said "these people" I took you seriously.

When you said "these people" I took you seriously.

I was talking about the people involved in this SoulPhone thing. As far as I can see, Craig Hogan isn't one of them.

That to get the greatest detail on their existences, listen to ET.

How profound.

Here's the abstract:

Procedure for Detecting Subaudible Vocalizations from Hypothesized Collaborating Discarnates: Three Proof-of-Concept Experiments
Gary E. Schwartz 

Research with claimant evidential mediums (CEMs) as well as persons experiencing after death communications (ADCs) indicate that vocalizations are occasionally heard audibly: (1) localized in space and (2) emanating from discarnates. Moreover, CEM and ADC research indicate that the recognized physical forms of discarnates (including facial features, hair, and clothing) are sometimes seen: (1) visually and (2) in three-dimensional space. It is hypothesized that low amplitude, subaudible vocalizations of discarnates may be emitted by discarnates and potentially detected using sensitive technology with associated methodology. The procedure developed for detecting possible subaudible vocalizations of hypothesized collaborating discarnates (HCD) involved the following components: 

1. The HCD was instructed to repeat a sentence composed of nine, single syllable words over and over in synch with a slave monitor that displayed in real time the raw wave forms of the nine word sequence as generated by the computer (but not played out loud by speakers). According to three independent CEMs, the specific sentence selected for these proof-of-concept experiments was highly meaningful to the HCD. 

2. The HCD was instructed to speak the words into a low noise, high sensitivity microphone mounted in a clear plastic sound collecting dish. The slave monitor was visible through the clear dish. The microphone was housed in a sound deadened environment (Experiment I) and in a professional sound isolation chamber (Experiments II and III). 

3. The pre-amplified hypothesized subaudible vocalizations were digitized with a low noise, high sensitivity digital oscilloscope and processed using a specially designed program written in LabView called REAPP (Real-Time Event Averaging Parallel Process). REAPP coordinated (1) the computer presentation of the raw audible signals interspersed with baseline control periods, (2) the rectified the audio signals, and (3) the time-locked averaged the nine word sequence of waveforms and control periods over trials. Experiment I had 200 trials, Experiment II had 100 trials, Experiment III had 80 trials. 

When a physical person (a CEM) whispered the nine word sequence over and over in sync with the slave monitor, spectral analyses of the averaged waveforms revealed a dominant peak at approximately 1.4 cycles per second (Hz) – the actual rhythm of the whispered words. We predicted that the identical 1.4 Hz peak would be observed in the averaged waveforms when the HDC performed the task. This prediction was confirmed and replicated in the three experiments. 

Importantly, this dominant peak was not observed during the interspersed silent control periods for either the CEM or the HDC. Furthermore, this peak was not observed for additional no-speech control conditions employed in the experiments - e.g. when the CEM was imagining that she or the HDC were speaking into the microphone. 

The findings support the hypothesis that it is possible to measure intentionally time-locked subaudible vocalizations in hypothesized collaborating discarnates.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/doc...annual.pdf

Looking at this from the quasi-skeptical parapsychologist standpoint, from this summary description the experimental design doesn't look like it eliminates the possibility that the phenomenon is, rather than being due to discarnate spirit communication, it is due to "super-psi" on the part of either the mediums or the investigators or both. The same problem might also apply to the earlier experiments demonstrating photic and magnetic "signals". Many parapsychologists consider super-psi to be the more parsimonious hypothesis. Unfortunately, I don't see how in principle super-psi can ever be eliminated as at least a logical possibility, because we don't really know the limits of super-esp to overcome any possible experimental controls. There are a lot of good arguments to dismiss super-psi as a plausible explanation in a lot of cases of mediumistic communication, but it doesn't seem as easy to dismiss in this case.

Looking at this from the quasi-skeptical parapsychologist standpoint, from this summary description the experimental design doesn't look like it eliminates the possibility that the phenomenon is, rather than being due to discarnate spirit communication, it is due to "super-psi" on the part of either the mediums or the investigators or both. The same problem might also apply to the earlier experiments demonstrating photic and magnetic "signals". Many parapsychologists consider super-psi to be the more parsimonious hypothesis. Unfortunately, I don't see how in principle super-psi can ever be eliminated as at least a logical possibility, because we don't really know the limits of super-esp to overcome any possible experimental controls. There are a lot of good arguments to dismiss super-psi as a plausible explanation in a lot of cases of mediumistic communication, but it doesn't seem as easy to dismiss in this case.

I agree with that.

On a more mundane level, the abstract says that they saw a peak where they expected to, which was absent during the control periods, but it doesn't say that the difference was statistically significant.

An update from last month:

As of May 2018, Dr. Schwartz has a 99% degree of certainly [sic] that a reliably functioning prototype of the SoulSwitch will be ready in 2018.
https://www.soulproof.com/soulphone-want-call/

The SoulSwitch is supposed to be a device that will enable the dead to give a yes or no answer to a question.

An update from last month:

As of May 2018, Dr. Schwartz has a 99% degree of certainly [sic] that a reliably functioning prototype of the SoulSwitch will be ready in 2018.
https://www.soulproof.com/soulphone-want-call/

The SoulSwitch is supposed to be a device that will enable the dead to give a yes or no answer to a question.

Somewhat less sophisticated than a 'soul-phone' as once confidently promised.     still, baby-steps and all that.....

Somewhat less sophisticated than a 'soul-phone' as once confidently promised.     still, baby-steps and all that.....

They're still promising the deceased will be able to type, speak and do video-conferencing. But the yes/no answering mechanism is the only one they've attached a timescale to.

Still, a reliable yes/no mechanism should be pretty easy to test for accuracy in terms of veridical information. But I'm guessing we'll be seeing an excuse for the postponement of the SoulSwitch within the next 6 months or so.

An update from last month:

As of May 2018, Dr. Schwartz has a 99% degree of certainly [sic] that a reliably functioning prototype of the SoulSwitch will be ready in 2018.
https://www.soulproof.com/soulphone-want-call/

The SoulSwitch is supposed to be a device that will enable the dead to give a yes or no answer to a question.

I have to say, I'm very doubtful about where it is leading. My instincts suggest that what is envisaged is some sort of modern-day ouija board. As such, results may be highly variable. The ability to receive yes/no answers does not in itself verify the identity or source of any purported communications. Perhaps the outcome will be more dependent on by whom it it used, and under what circumstances.