It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Signs of "Connected Consciousness" Detected on Global Scale

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Wow typical nonsense from a blind materialist.

First off, I'm glad these Scientist are critical of their own work. What you just did is point out that these Scientist aren't just blindly wishing for a result, they're actually doing science.

To show how dishonest some materialist are, they want to point out where these researchers are critical but they never highlight any of the successes. They just blindly ignore them.

You can roam the internet and find critical papers on any theory. People are still debating the nature of gravity. People are still debating and are critical of the Standard Model and Inflation.

So why wouldn't you expect Scientist to be critical of there work?

So you roam the internet and you find a paper from 2000 where Scientist were honest and critical and personally that makes me accept the theory even more because this is what you expect in science. I was just watching a debate on Inflation and one of the Scientist were very critical of Inflation. Do you think Alan Guth is going to stop supporting Inflation because it's criticized? He even talks about some of the challenges and shortcomings of his work.

The problem here is you copy and paste half the story and you do this because you feel being dishonest will somehow bolster your argument. This is what you left out from the first link you posted:


However, various portions of the data displayed a substantial number of interior structural anomalies in such features as a reduction in trial-level standard deviations; irregular series-position patterns; and differential dependencies on various secondary parameters, such as feedback type or experimental run length, to a composite extent well beyond chance expectation.The change from the systematic, intention-correlated mean shifts found in the prior studies, to this polyglot pattern of structural distortions, testifies to inadequate understanding of the basic phenomena involved and suggests a need for more sophisticated experiments and theoretical models for their further elucidation.


So your goal here wasn't honesty, it was dishonesty or you would have presented this part of the Abstract from a paper from 2000. There have been more papers and research done in these areas since 2000 and like I said, I personally love this because this type of honest evaluation is what you should see from Scientist.

When you're debating the issue and being honest, you point out all the information. For instance, when I posted this article I kept bringing up this.


Although far from final and definitive, the research suggests that our minds may not be bounded by our heads but somehow extend out into the world and commingle, at least at times. "What we can interpret from our experiments is that we really are interconnected," says Roger Nelson, GCP's Director. "Human beings are simply not isolated islands of consciousness."


Now, if I was being dishonest like the above post, I would have done this.


........... the research suggests that our minds may not be bounded by our heads but somehow extend out into the world and commingle, at least at times. "What we can interpret from our experiments is that we really are interconnected," says Roger Nelson, GCP's Director. "Human beings are simply not isolated islands of consciousness."


The first post is an honest post the second one is dishonest and it shows how some people are just blindly copying and pasting.

Lastly, the 9/11 data has been well established that these correlations occur. You can take one account in isolation and try to spin the numbers . For instance, here's part of the paper you didn't quote:


This is not meant to be a complete analysis, and in particular I do not cleanly separate the two papers, which are closely related and interdependent in some ways. I do attempt to separate my opinions on issues that are controversial from those generally agreed on by the scientific data analysis community.


This isn't a complete analysis. He says this right after the abstract.

Did you omit this in your copy and pasting or was this just dishonesty?

In the next quote, they contradict themselves. They say:


For example, RDN finds a result in Figure 1 that is not very significant, so he looks at more data to yield the apparently more significant result in his Figure 2. I do not object to this examination of the data in ‘‘the larger context,’’ but do believe that it should be accompanied by the comment that at this step one is going outside the scope of a pre-defined hypothesis and performing exploratory analysis.


In the very next paragraph, they tell you that this was CORRECTLY EXPLAINED BY THE RESEARCHERS.


Correctly, researchers in this area address the problems of data fiddling by dividing their research into two phases: an exploratory one, where one examines data in a rather free way in order to frame hypotheses to be tested in the later phase, where completely defined hypotheses are tested against new, independent data.


This is simply saying you look at the data and you weigh it against a pre-defined hypothesis or you can look at the data more freely, build a hypothesis based on this information and test it at a later date. In his quote he says I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS EXAMINATION OF THE DATA. Why, because this happens all the time in science.

Like I said, this is one paper from 2002 that looked at one event in isolation and says from the start, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE ANALYSIS. Here's what a complete analysis looks like:


After 16 years of monitoring more than 480 world events, researchers report strong evidence of some kind of transpersonal mentality that seems to emerge when many people share a common concern or experience. At such times, a global network of devices employing quantum tunneling has found weak but definite signs of coherence arising out of background "noise" or randomness.


16 years and more than 480 world events.


Why? For one thing, the statistical certainty has mounted to the point that it's hard to ignore. Toward the end of 1998, the odds against chance started exceeding one in 20, an acceptable level in many disciplines. Then, with added studies, the level of certainty began to zoom. By the year 2000, the odds against chance exceeded one in 1,000; and in 2006, they broke through the one in a million level; they're now more than one in a trillion with no upper limit in sight.

This far exceeds the bar for statistical significance used in many fields, such as medicine and weather forecasting. Odds against chance ranging from 20-to-one to 100-to-one are commonly considered sufficient. The certainty level is set unusually high for the Higgs Boson; data for validating its existence are considered acceptable if they exceed one in 3.5 million. The GCP level of statistical certainty is now more than 285,000 times greater than that.


All I ask is that there be a little honesty while we're debating.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You never supplied this information. I am only helping you gather the evidence. You present your evidence as evidence for some mind theory, but perhaps you and the mind lamp folks have mistakenly forgotten some of the evidence. So I agree a little honesty might be helpful.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


Of course I didn't because as I've just shown it doesn't invalidate anything. It's a paper from 2002 and Scientist were being honest in their evaluation.

The problem here is, you will copy and paste from a paper from 2002 and say, here look!! What you will not do is highlight the areas of success. This is just a dishonest assessment.

I was also talking about a recent paper that was updating a lot of the information since 2002 and before 2002.

When was update posted?

Posted on September 28, 2014

There's been a lot of research since 2002.

After 16 years of monitoring more than 480 world events, researchers report strong evidence of some kind of transpersonal mentality that seems to emerge when many people share a common concern or experience. At such times, a global network of devices employing quantum tunneling has found weak but definite signs of coherence arising out of background "noise" or randomness.

Why Is It News Now?

Results of the GCP studies have been published on many occasions over the past 16 years, but never widely noted by the general media. Now may be the time to start paying attention.

Why? For one thing, the statistical certainty has mounted to the point that it's hard to ignore. Toward the end of 1998, the odds against chance started exceeding one in 20, an acceptable level in many disciplines. Then, with added studies, the level of certainty began to zoom. By the year 2000, the odds against chance exceeded one in 1,000; and in 2006, they broke through the one in a million level; they're now more than one in a trillion with no upper limit in sight.

This far exceeds the bar for statistical significance used in many fields, such as medicine and weather forecasting. Odds against chance ranging from 20-to-one to 100-to-one are commonly considered sufficient. The certainty level is set unusually high for the Higgs Boson; data for validating its existence are considered acceptable if they exceed one in 3.5 million. The GCP level of statistical certainty is now more than 285,000 times greater than that.


Why would I supply information from a 2002 paper where Scientist were being honest about their assessment. It doesn't invalidate a body of work that has been going on for years no more than when they said they recently found gravity waves in support of inflation and saying they were not gravity waves doesn't invalidate inflation and that was a recent discovery. You're going back to 2002 and you're leaving out the part of the abstract that doesn't support the dishonest slant you're trying to put on it.
edit on 20-10-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird


but really even if you could get it to change colors using your bodies biometrical feed output its not really that big of a deal, or at least I dont think it is.


I would define that as a human-machine interface by undefined means.

If it can be demonstrated through some statistically significant measurements that the effect is real, then the means is currently unknown.

The job at this point is to try to work out ways of controlling it. Using a variety of sensors for known effects, determine what behaviors or conditions yield a measurable result. Perhaps the effect itself can be used as a carrier and information from another source and different means is layered on that.

If the current technology were sufficiently consumer-ized (cheap) and manufactured non-domestically (even cheaper) it can be integrated into a number of novelties. For example, a picture of your spouse on your desk at work. Whenever you look at it with that deep feeling of love, it briefly animates and throws you a kiss. Infomercial: $19.95 + shipping and handling...

So maybe nothing Earth-shattering at first. But if there's money to be made, there's money to be spent on research and development.




Dex



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Afterlife does exist, it is collective consciousness, bundled in a magnetic cluster, a 'white light ', plasma sphere or UFO if you like. A cluster that is and was a mystery, even for our creators.
I think -like many others- consciousness only can exist thanks to interaction.
Maybe interaction with the quantum particles that exist in another universe or in other people ... or are quantum particles in multiple places at once?
I have in all cases the presumption that every person has access only to a small piece of consciousness. In short: I do not believe consciousness can exist without interaction, without compassion. The greater the interaction, the greater the consciousness.

Admittedly, it remains complex ... and hypothetical ... but since the earliest antiquity there are unmistakable clues. From UFO's until the Egyptian priests, Plato, Jesus, many religions, near death experiences, modern insights in the human mind etc. (with etc. we think about Sitchin but the word 'pseudoscience' is a magic word that puts truths and even geniuses in the rubbish bag): Afterlife and a White Light seem to be bounded together.

The Essenes, who lived at the time of Jesus as a separate population group of the Jews, believed that the human soul was part of a universal soul. That universal soul once could be described as a great white light. For one reason or another that great light became fragmented. As a result, a little piece of that light became locked up in every human. In some humans the light becomes stronger because of the spiritual power of that human, in others it becomes weaker. Death frees the light and (I believe the strongest lights) unite and become a great white light that will travel to another universe.

By the way: remember that the moon seems to play an important role in some of the oldest religions. She was -according to the ancient Babylonians- the ‘light boat’. And according to the Vedas -which are among the oldest religious texts that contain knowledge so secret that it was not written down for a very long time- the moon was more important than the sun. According to those Vedas after death the soul enters a traveling light that makes a stopover on the moon. And you know what I think about the moon.

You still can see it from another perspective: Alricht: After death all (pure and thus strong) souls reunite. They all become One Light. One signal in God’s Brain that travels to another part of God’s Brain, another universe. Weak souls face hell. In other words they don't reach the light and perish. Fortunately we can work to get a strong soul during our life. The only way to do that is all bundled in the word 'love'.
Remember -again- what Plato said: 'God is love'.

The Egyptians with their book of death and, yes, the Bible among other ancient texts were not so far from the truth I believe, but you have to google a bit with the metaphors. A good soul is forgiving, can sincerely love people, can sense other souls, is understanding, and so on ... under one condition if you ask me: the other soul has to be sincerely regretting the bad things she did. And then again, we have always to be careful ... but this is not a book of 'How to live your life'. It's very complicated and 1000 pages will not be enough to explain all possible nuances that can appear. And by the way I don't claim to be an expert.
From: www.evawaseerst.be...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   
A few years back I adopted this idea and have since then meditate and vision a better world(according to me).
For every year that has past since then, everything on regional scale seems to go towards that direction which
enlightens me even further. Perhaps a coincidence? I think not.




posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vamana
interesting stuff really but it would be better this lamp was cheaper, I mean 250$ freaking ridiculous.


Just stick a candle in a jar, if thoughts can change the colour of something then nudging a little flame should be a walk in the park



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I think you're confusing the papers. The paper in question is the PEAR paper with the results of their replication experiments. Scientists were indeed being honest in their evaluation. Of course, now that they are not scientists, but salesmen of mind lamps, this ethic seems to change.

The experiment was meant to replicate the results of many REG experiments performed by PEAR previously. It failed to replicate in three different countries. The Mind Lamp folks, of which are former PEAR researchers, nor you, fail to mention this. How come?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Either you don't understand how science works or you have selective amnesia when it comes to research in areas that you blindly reject.

The paper you quoted from was a study in 2002 and there have been tons of studies over the years and this is why you do whats called a meta analysis over many trials.

When we're talking about this area of research, this is where Science is thrown out of the window by blind skeptics and materialist in favor of selective amnesia.

You see this all the time. For instance, they will test for the Higgs and how it decays over and over again. In drug trials, they do a meta analysis over many trials. For instance, they found a small effect size that shows aspirin can help prevent a second heart attack or stroke in some people but not all.


Can an aspirin a day help you ward off a heart attack or stroke?

That depends.

Scientific evidence shows that taking an aspirin daily can help prevent a heart attack or stroke in some people, but not in everyone. It also can cause unwanted side effects.

According to Robert Temple, M.D., deputy director for clinical science at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), one thing is certain: You should use daily aspirin therapy only after first talking to your health care professional, who can weigh the benefits and risks.


The reason you can see these Bayer commercials that mention this is because the effect size that occurred over many trials. The effect size in Psi is larger than the effect size seen in these trials for aspirin.

So because aspirin doesn't prevent secondary heart attacks and strokes in everyone during the trials, should you say aspirin doesn't help anyone????

Of course not. That would be idiotic and illogical.

This is sadly the mentality you see from blind skeptics and materialist. Dean Radin put together a very extensive list of just some of the published papers and research.


The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena is the Parapsychological Association, an elected affiliate (since 1969) of the AAAS, the largest general scientific organization in the world.

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.


Here's even more publications and research.

www.princeton.edu...

So again, you either don't understand how science works or you have selective amnesia.

Why should they mention one study in 2002 and ignore the thousands of other studies and experiments?

When they start up the LHC again and they test for the Higgs Boson and they don't detect it, do you think that Scientist will declare the Higgs doesn't exist? Absolutely not, they will try to detect it again and again and watch how it decays.

They're not 100% certain, a certainty level that has nothing to do with science but when it comes to Psi, skeptics can't take yes for an answer.

I have seen papers that say there's a 1 in 550 million chance this isn't the Higgs Boson. With these studies it's 1 in 1 trillion.

Why? For one thing, the statistical certainty has mounted to the point that it's hard to ignore. Toward the end of 1998, the odds against chance started exceeding one in 20, an acceptable level in many disciplines. Then, with added studies, the level of certainty began to zoom. By the year 2000, the odds against chance exceeded one in 1,000; and in 2006, they broke through the one in a million level; they're now more than one in a trillion with no upper limit in sight.

This far exceeds the bar for statistical significance used in many fields, such as medicine and weather forecasting. Odds against chance ranging from 20-to-one to 100-to-one are commonly considered sufficient. The certainty level is set unusually high for the Higgs Boson; data for validating its existence are considered acceptable if they exceed one in 3.5 million. The GCP level of statistical certainty is now more than 285,000 times greater than that.


I'm talking about how science works over many trials. You should go back and read my original post which talks about things like 16 years over 480 events. This is Science.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Bit defensive, no?

You might need access to an academic database to read the journal articles. Here are the publications if you don't have access to one (I doubt you do.)

Hyman, Ray (1989). The Elusive Quarry: a Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research. Prometheus Books.
Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford U. Press, 2000).
Park, Robert L. (2008). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press.
Radin, Dean (1997). The Conscious Universe - The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. HarperCollins.

If you can't obtain those papers then here's some websites that aren't specifically relevant, but are a primer to the faulty statistical methods employed by PEAR:

This one is an academic journal, free to access online.
Critique of Pear Remote-Viewing Experiments

Another Paper
Evaluation of Program on Ananomolous Mental Phenomona

I look forward to an angry, dismissive response. I would feel cheated otherwise.
edit on ppm1031263204 by Pants3204 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Pants3204

It took me one minute to see that you're just posting things without reading them.

For instance, the 2nd paper you linked to is from Hyman and Utts and they had a disagreement about the study from 1995.

The conclusion actually supports Psi. Hyman is a skeptic and when facts clashed with his philosophy, he had to support his philosophy.

Here's what Utts said:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

THIS IS A KEY!

This is because with Psi, the skeptics and blind materialist don't want to use standards that apply to other sciences. They want to apply things that have nothing to do with Science because they can't accept the conclusion. Here's more from the link you posted.


1. The SAIC experiments on anomalous mental phenomena are statistically and methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to previous parapsychological studies. In particular, the experiments avoided the major flaw of non-independent trials for a given viewer. The investigators also made sure to avoid the problems of multiple statistical testing that was characteristic of much previous parapsychological research.



3. Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated. Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light. Just as new computer programs require a shakedown period before hidden bugs come to light, each new scientific program requires scrutiny over time in the public arena before its defects emerge. Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge--one who is familiar to the viewers, for all the remote viewing.


Here he's saying, I couldn't find any flaws but I'm sure we will find flaws because the results can't be true because they go against my skeptic beliefs.

HERE'S THE WHOPPER!!

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

He then goes on to say they may not be due to Psi but he offers no other explanations or no other counter studies to show what may be the cause. This is him basically confirming these experiments but because he's a skeptic he can't accept the outcome.

Also, this is from 1995. There has been even more evidence since then.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Pants3204

He then goes on to say they may not be due to Psi but he offers no other explanations or no other counter studies to show what may be the cause. This is him basically confirming these experiments but because he's a skeptic he can't accept the outcome.


This is the key concept you don't seem to grasp: it's not the job of skeptics to "prove" the results weren't "psy", it's the job of the experimenters to adequately devise an experiment to rule out any other possibility than "psy" and for the wider scientific community to replicate the work. Here's the full conclusion and future works:


The Scientific Status of the SAIC Research Program

1. The SAIC experiments on anomalous mental phenomena are statistically and methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to previous parapsychological studies. In particular, the experiments avoided the major flaw of non-independent trials for a given viewer. The investigators also made sure to avoid the problems of multiple statistical testing that was characteristic of much previous parapsychological research.

2. From a scientific viewpoint, the SAIC program was hampered by its secrecy and the multiple demands placed upon it. The secrecy kept the program from benefiting from the checks and balances that comes from doing research in a public forum. Scrutiny by peers and replication in other laboratories would accelerated the scientific contributions from the program. The multiple demands placed on the program meant that too many things were being investigated with too few resources. As a result, no particular finding was followed up in sufficient detail to pin it down scientifically. Ten experiments, no matter how well conducted, are insufficient to fully resolve one important question, let alone the several that were posed to the SAIC investigators.

3. Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated. Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light. Just as new computer programs require a shakedown period before hidden bugs come to light, each new scientific program requires scrutiny over time in the public arena before its defects emerge. Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge--one who is familiar to the viewers, for all the remote viewing.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

5. However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.

6. Professor Utts and the investigators point to what they see as consistencies between the outcome of contemporary ganzfeld experiments and the SAIC results. The major consistency is similarity of average effect sizes across experiments. Such consistency is problematical because these average effect sizes, in each case, are the result of arbitrary combinations from different investigators and conditions. None of these averages can be justified as estimating a meaningful parameter. Effect size, by itself, says nothing about its origin. Where parapsychologists see consistency, I see inconsistency. The ganzfeld studies are premised on the idea that viewers must be in altered state for successful results. The remote viewing studies use viewers in a normal state. The ganzfeld experimenters believe that the viewers should judge the match between their ideation and the target for best results; the remote viewers believe that independent judges provide better evidence for psi than viewers judging their own responses. The recent autoganzfeld studies found successful hitting only with dynamic targets and only chance results with static targets. The SAIC investigators, in one study, found hitting with static targets and not with dynamic ones. In a subsequent study they found hitting for both types of targets. They suggest that they may have solution to this apparent inconsistency in terms of their concept of bandwidth. At this time, this is only suggestive.

7. The challenge to parapsychology, if it hopes to convincingly claim the discovery of anomalous cognition, is to go beyond the demonstration of significant effects. The parapsychologists need to achieve the ability to specify conditions under which one can reliably witness their alleged phenomenon. They have to show that they can generate lawful relationships between attributes of this alleged phenomenon and independent variables. They have to be able to specify boundary conditions that will enable us to detect when anomalous cognition is and is not present.

Suggestions for Future Research

1. Both Professor Utts and I agree that the first step should be to have the SAIC protocols rejudged by independent judges who are blind to the actual target.

2. Assuming that such independent judging confirms the extra-chance matchings, the findings should be replicated in independent laboratories. Replication could take several forms. Some of the original viewers from the SAIC experiments could be used. However, it seems desirable to use a new target set and several independent judges.

Operational Implications

1. The current default assessment of the operational effectiveness of remote viewing is fraught with hazards. Subjective validation is well known to generate compelling, but false, convictions that a description matches a target in striking ways. Better, double blind, ways of assessing operational effectiveness can be used. I suggest at least one way in the report.

2. The ultimate assessment of the potential utility of remote viewing for intelligence gathering cannot be separated from the findings of laboratory research.


Not exactly a glowing endorsement.
edit on 20-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Everything you posted supports Psi research.

You said:


This is the key concept you don't seem to grasp: it's not the job of skeptics to "prove" the results weren't "psy", it's the job of the experimenters to adequately devise an experiment to rule out any other possibility than "psy" and for the wider scientific community to replicate the work. Here's the full conclusion and future works:


Nope, it's not the job of Psi researchers to rule out these phantom non existent causes. Again, he offers no other explanations as to what the causes might be. And if you look at the research and subsequent research other things have been ruled out.

At the end of the day, you will not have 100 percent certainty. It's also similar with the Higgs Boson. You can rule out other explanations and say there's a 1 in 500 million chance we're not detecting the Higgs Boson. Or there's a 1 in a trillion chance this isn't the result of Psi.

This is science and this is what led Jessica Utts, the co-author with Hyman to say this:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

Hyman said he couldn't find a flaw in the methodology and he said this:

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

This is exactly what Utts was talking about.

It's not the job of researchers of Psi to rule out every other possibility when skeptics and blind materialist offer nothing in the way of other possibilities.

Most of them say, there's no evidence or it's just woo or pseudoscience.

Hyman the skeptic refutes this notion.

For instance, I can't say this isn't the Higgs Boson in a vacuum. I have to say what the other answers could be outside of the Higgs Boson if I'm going to be a skeptic of the Higgs Boson. I have to refute the 1 in 500 million chance that it's not the Higgs Boson.

So, it's the job of skeptics to show that the answer is something other than Psi. Just like a skeptic of the Higgs Boson would have to provide evidence that it's something other than the Higgs Boson being detected.
edit on 20-10-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: GetHyped

Everything you posted supports Psi research.



Yeah, and this is why it's completely pointless trying to have a discussion with you. You read into things what you want to read. I mean, as part of your premise you submitted a lamp. A flipping lamp!

Motivated Reasoning



Nope, it's not the job of Psi researchers to rule out these phantom non existent causes.


It is very much the psi researcher's job to rule out all possible causes before leaping to extraordinary conclusions. That's what science is all about. The fact you have such a backwards grasp of science is further reaason why it's completely pointless trying to have a discussion with you.

I leave you two figures that sum up your position and attitude:

www.skepticblog.org...
penguinpetes.com...
edit on 20-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Here's more from Jessica Utts on her paper from 1995 with Hyman:


Ray Hyman's report of September 11, 1995, written partially in response to my report of September 1, 1995 elucidates the issues on which he and I agree and disagree. I basically concur with his assessment of where we agree and disagree, but there are three issues he raises with regard to the scientific status of parapsychology to which I would like to respond.

1. "Only parapsychology, among the fields of inquiry claiming scientific status, lacks a cumulative database (p. 6)."

It is simply not true that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database. In fact, the accumulated database is truly impressive for a science that has had so few resources. While critics are fond of relating, as Professor Hyman does in his report, that there has been "more than a century of parapsychological research (p. 7)" psychologist Sybo Schouten (1993, p. 316) has noted that the total human and financial resources devoted to parapsychology since 1882 is at best equivalent to the expenditures devoted to fewer than two months of research in conventional psychology in the United States.


Remember, this is from 1995. There's been even more evidence since then.


2. "Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of phenomena (or a phenomenon) whose presence can be detected only by rejecting a null hypothesis (p. 8)."

While it is true that parapsychology has not figured out all the answers, it does not differ from normal science in this regard. It is the norm of scientific progress to make observations first, and then to attempt to explain them. Before quantum mechanics was developed there were a number of anomalies observed in physics that could not be explained. There are many observations in physics and in the social and medical sciences that can be observed, either statistically or deterministically, but which cannot be explained.


There's more but it ends with this:

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

www.ics.uci.edu...

Again, this is from 1995 but it illustrates my point. Blind skeptics act like they bear no responsibility and they can just say anything in a vacuum and that somehow refutes years of research.

It's not the job of science to rule out every possibility that has zero evidence to support it. Scientist would spend all day trying to rule out things that have ZERO EVIDENCE. That's just silly and illogical.

So it's not the job of Scientist at the LHC to rule out any and every possibility from Higgs Boson skeptics because the skeptics would first have to present evidence that all of these other possibilities can produce the Higgs Boson. This is why they say it's a 1 in 500 million chance that it's NOT the Higgs Boson. This means there's a chance that one of these possibilities coming from Higgs Boson skeptics could be correct but the likelihood of that has to be backed by evidence not hyperbole from skeptics.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


So it's not the job of Scientist at the LHC to rule out any and every possibility from Higgs Boson skeptics because the skeptics would first have to present evidence that all of these other possibilities can produce the Higgs Boson. This is why they say it's a 1 in 500 million chance that it's NOT the Higgs Boson. This means there's a chance that one of these possibilities coming from Higgs Boson skeptics could be correct but the likelihood of that has to be backed by evidence not hyperbole from skeptics.


The 1 in 500 million chance and 5 sigma discovery threshold refers to a very specific computation (which is why you can get quantification). The computation is done by examining hypothetical Higgs boson event properties and the distribution of particles and their energies emerging from the particle interactions. There is a very wide variety of them and you need to repeat the experiment trillions of times. You get a stochastic distribution of particles coming out.

Then the theorists compute, in complex quantitative way, the expected results from known Standard Model interactions WITHOUT contribution from Higgs boson collisions. (as it turns out in particle physics the predicted interactions are a stupendously large sum over various types of collisions). Then they look at the expected fluctuation in that background rates (again computable) at the specific values where the Higgs is most likely to be seen, and then compare the actually observed values to the distribution of background.

So this is comparing two specific models: particle physics collisions minus Higgs boson, and particle physics models with Higgs boson.

If you want to say the collisional results are not from Higgs boson, then certainly you need to provide some sort of testable quantitative hypothesis which explains them AND all the rest of the very well established Standard Model results in all the experiments over 40 years.


The difference between the HB and the 'psi' research is that there is a highly predictive mechanistic theory known as Standard Model & symmetry breaking which came from 1964 onward. The Higgs boson observation is the final capstone in what would better be called the "Higgs effect"---and THAT has successfully described & predicted other particle interactions & properties relating to the weak nuclear force for decades. So there has already been strong experimental & theoretical evidence for the Higgs effect already.

The apparent 'psi' effects are intriguing but most notably only have a very small power above background---and one which can't be enhanced and appears to go away with better experimental controls, and there is no even remotely sensible mechanistic theory or even general phenomenological characterization of "what can happen and what can't". What repeatable regularities are there?

Those are not strong signs of validity. On the other hand the importance of a strong positive result and any mechanistic understanding to come is very high and multiplying the probabilities means that some research funding should go in the direction.


edit on 20-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You mean like when the LHC researchers had to rule out all other possible explanations for the faster than light neutrino anomaly?



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

THIS IS A KEY!

This is because with Psi, the skeptics and blind materialist don't want to use standards that apply to other sciences. They want to apply things that have nothing to do with Science because they can't accept the conclusion. Here's more from the link you posted.


and what do you suggest would be an appropriate method for approaching this subject of investigation without influencing it psychically? how can you guarantee us a clean and thorough investigation when the investigation includes the very tools you are investigating with?

also, did you answer this post? seems to be a lot of criticism regarding this website you like to quote things from.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 20-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I seem to be debating the same 3 or 4 different skeptics making the same illogical points. Do these skeptics have multiple accounts??


The apparent 'psi' effects are intriguing but most notably only have a very small power above background---and one which can't be enhanced and appears to go away with better experimental controls


The skeptic Hyman who studied these things disagrees with you:

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

LARGE AND CONSISTENT.

Skeptics make these comments in a vacuum and I guess they think people are gullible enough to accept this nonsense at face value.

Large and Consistent doesn't equate to appears to go away.

You have even more research and experiments:


The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena is the Parapsychological Association, an elected affiliate (since 1969) of the AAAS, the largest general scientific organization in the world.

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.


www.deanradin.com...

Hears a 16 minute video about PEAR research dating back to 1979.

vimeo.com...

So Utts is exactly right when she says:

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

Skeptics offer zero evidence to explain these observed phenomena in the way of repeated trials and experiments. They just give us hyperbole and expect everyone just to accept their illogical nonsense at face value.


edit on 20-10-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

You mean like when the LHC researchers had to rule out all other possible explanations for the faster than light neutrino anomaly?


No, they didn't have to rule out all other possibilities, just possibilities that could have produced the underlying anomaly.

Like Utts said, if skeptics want to refute Psi research then they need to offer other experiments and trials that can produce the underlying effect that's being observed.

You can't just say it could be X or it could be Y without any evidence that X or Y could produce the observed results.

That's not science, that's silliness.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join