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.
originally posted by: TheBandit795
originally posted by: MamaJ
It continues to be studied in depth despite the ones crying "woo".
IMO anyone crying "Woo" should not be taken seriously anymore. They're not open to a real discussion on the subject.
originally posted by: Bedlam
Real discussion would involve the papers being put up as great reference material having some rigor and not being one of those essentially math free no proof papers.
All of them so far are "we think maybe there's a zero point quantum coherence bla bla" long on speculation and short on proposed proof and data. Especially that last one from Neuroquantology, which reads like the turboencabulator skit arranged as a paper.
originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: TheBandit795
Frankly, your post looked like a Gish gallop, which I generally ignore.
originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: Bedlam
Thank you for confirming what I said earlier about people like you not being open to discussing the subject.
originally posted by: DeadCat
Im changing the idea from telepathy, to telekinesis. PLEASE READ. PLEASE READ...
It was found that objects which are not alive, do not change parameter of their aura by more than 2%
BUT LIVING objects howerver, can change their aura field dramatically, and quickly.
A Russian professor found that the response in Kirlian (A type of way to measure the aura, aka electromagnetic field.) seems to precede (Appear as soon as, or earlier than.)
This is the part I need guys:
Say I want to move the pencil with my mind.. What would be the requirements?
My first thought is to increase the electromagnetic fields around myself, inorder to push it.
What evidence is there to support the existence of NLP? If we use the results obtained with the frequentist statistical approach, i.e., P(Data/H0), apart from the results obtained using participants in normal states of consciousness and the free-response protocol, all of the statistics in the remaining meta-analyses lead to the rejection of the null hypothesis, even if the measures of effect size are clearly greater using the free-response protocol.In contrast, if we refer to the results obtained with the Bayesian statistical approach, i.e., P(H0/Data), only for the three meta-anal-yses which relate to the ganzfeld condition, the RV procedure and anticipatory responses, there is an high probability that H1, the hypothesis supporting the existence of NLP, may be true.
Are these converging results with these three protocols “extraor-dinary” evidence? Perhaps. Surely these results are well beyond the standards for a “strong recommendation” suggested by the GRADE system. However, the results presented in this study con-cern the “recommendation” to accept the existence of NLP and not to apply medical or psychological interventions to ameliorate human health. Do we need more stringent standards to enable us to accept phenomena that apparently seem to violate our common beliefs regarding physical laws? However, if results analyzed with both frequentist and Bayesian statistical approaches from more than 200 studies conducted by different researchers with more than 6000 participants in total and three different experimental protocols are not considered “extraordinary,” or at least “sufficient” to suggest that the human mind may have quantum-like properties, what standards can possibly apply? Or we should accept that, in order to accept new hypotheses about the functioning of the human mind, it is necessary for us to abandon quantitative standards and in this case quantitative methods are useless?
Starting from the famous phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” we will present the evidence supporting the concept that human visual perception may have non-local properties, in other words, that it may operate beyond the space and time constraints of sensory organs, in order to discuss which criteria can be used to define evidence as extraordinary. This evidence has been obtained from seven databases which are related to six different protocols used to test the reality and the functioning of non-local perception, analyzed using both a frequentist and a new Bayesian meta-analysis statistical procedure. According to a frequentist meta-analysis, the null hypothesis can be rejected for all six protocols even if the effect sizes range from 0.007 to 0.28. According to Bayesian meta-analysis, the Bayes factors provides strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis (H1) over the null hypothesis (H0), but only for three out of the six protocols. We will discuss whether quantitative psychology can contribute to defining the criteria for the acceptance of new scientific ideas in order to avoid the inconclusive controversies between supporters and opponents.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: DeadCat
Im changing the idea from telepathy, to telekinesis. PLEASE READ. PLEASE READ...
That's a copypasta from biofieldglobal, it looks like. I encourage you to use the quote function, it saves the site grief and lets other people know where it came from.
It's also incorrect.
"are actually made up of vibratory energy particles called electrons, protons, neutrons, and further more, tiny particles"
Made up of particles, and further more, particles? More, we call these things 'matter', because 'vibratory energy particles' isn't true.
It's also not true that their mere existence causes 'electrical impulses in the body'. Static electrical fields and static magnetic fields do not create each other, and even time-varying ones may or may not produce propagating EM.
I suppose one could say, "I define 'aura' to mean a magnetic field", but that's the only way you could get away with that. You can't see magnetic fields, and there are persons who claim to be able to see aurae. So if it's visible, it's not a magnetic field.
It was found that objects which are not alive, do not change parameter of their aura by more than 2%
BUT LIVING objects howerver, can change their aura field dramatically, and quickly.
And this was measured, how?
A Russian professor found that the response in Kirlian (A type of way to measure the aura, aka electromagnetic field.) seems to precede (Appear as soon as, or earlier than.)
Kirlian photography doesn't measure magnetic fields. If you can say it's actually doing anything useful, it's indicating where coronal discharges are likely to form. And so it measures ionic contaminants and water vapor. But not a lot else.
This is the part I need guys:
Say I want to move the pencil with my mind.. What would be the requirements?
My first thought is to increase the electromagnetic fields around myself, inorder to push it.
EM fields can only impart very small amounts of momentum. That's how light sails work. However, the brain doesn't emit propagating EM, because it's made of meat. And it's in a nice conducting bag of juice. And there's not a lot of ionic motion in any one neuron membrane, and they're all oriented chaotically, and there's not much way that you can get an organized EM field out of it.
You're awash in electromagnetic fields right now. But things don't move about macroscopically because of it. There is random microscopic motion due to thermal energy. But it doesn't cause large scale objects to roll around.
Consider - big transmitters put out lots of EM, and all in one spot, and in a fairly concentrated way. Yet they don't tend to cause motion even in small, light objects. That's because EM doesn't really cause mechanical force. Until you get up to something really serious, like an antimatter powered laser or something, then you could make a photon drive.
If three other labs can't reproduce your results, it's time to explain that or watch everyone move on.
I might add that anyone who states that replicability is not necessary because their particular topic is special as was quoted a few posts back is a red flag that the guy is a crank.
originally posted by: DeadCat
Don't take my copypastas as my attempt to seems smart or anything, this is just how I gather my information, its easier for me.. In terms of thermodynamics. Would you agree that humans are each individual thermodynamic systems?
originally posted by: MamaJ
As you should already know if you have looked into psi at all it is very difficult in the field to replicate. Reasons are plentiful and common sense ( literally).
Also, "crank" to me can be described as scientists who are so stuck on holding onto old theories without room for growth they become dogmatic in their beliefs. Their skepticism truly becomes dogmatic whereas they use words like "woo". These people cannot fathom nor do they want to fathom due to fear of what our minds and energy fields are actually capable of.
Our law enforcement and enforcement searching for missing people use psychics so why wouldn't our government? If they in fact use said psychics then obviously they unlike mainstream scientists know the phenomena is real.
Mind is the builder and creator of all things. Keep yours in a box but allow mine to be free. Just because you do notbelieve"spooky at a distance" can explain psi doesn't mean it doesn't.
Your beliefs and barriers to taking such work seriously reminds me of the old pastor that screams his beliefs in a church keeping his congregation boxed into certain dogma. The scientific world view is obviously biased and when their peers go outside of their world view they are "woo'ed" from their own community and guess what happens? They either conform with their head held low or they venture out creating their own "denomination".
QE and QM will not remain boxed in.... it's only a "matter of time" (literally).
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: DeadCat
Don't take my copypastas as my attempt to seems smart or anything, this is just how I gather my information, its easier for me.. In terms of thermodynamics. Would you agree that humans are each individual thermodynamic systems?
No, no, don't get me wrong, it's just that other sites have been gripey over non-attributed links, and it's sort of hard to tell sometimes who said what you posted and what the context was. Attribution solves all of this.
To your other question, sort of, yes. Except if you start trying to conflate new age arrogation of physics terms to thermodynamics. So if you launch off into thoughts = energy, energy cannot be destroyed etc as an argument it's going to end badly, crushed against the rocks of what the laws of thermodynamics actually mean vs new age misusage of terms.
"A system is enclosed by walls that bound it and connect it to its surroundings. Often a wall restricts passage across it by some form of matter or energy, making the connection indirect."
The system is delimited by walls or boundaries, either actual or notional, across which conserved (such as matter and energy) or unconserved (such as entropy) quantities can pass into and out of the system.
"A thermodynamic system is the material and radiative content of a macroscopic volume in space, that can be adequately described by variables such as temperature, entropy, internal energy and pressure. Usually, by default, a thermodynamic system is taken to be in its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium.The thermodynamic system is always enclosed by walls that separate it from its surroundings; these constrain the system."