Yale Psychiatrist show that Psychic Abilities exist

a reply to: Bedlam

I like how history shows us dozens of psychics that claim to have abilities but are unable to control them.

Yet we've never had the proverbial psychic that we've been anticipating for centuries. The one that has abilities and understands them enough to reproduce the same results quantifiably over time...

Still waiting.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

The one that has abilities and understands them enough to reproduce the same results quantifiably over time...

That would be...The Mule.
And we would be screwed.

a reply to: neoholographic

First of all, a psychiatrist cannot validate claims of psychic capability. Why? Because psychiatry is a science in the same way that pop music is a concerto. It is soft edged, imprecise, and experimental doctrine in that field is about as rigorous as the much famed "man look" when a fellow has misplaced his keys.

Furthermore, I am surprised to see this distinction made between individuals who have negative or positive experiences with the voices in their heads, because as far as I was aware, the polarity of ones experiences do not have any effect on the diagnosis. If you hear voices, absent a speaker to speak them, then you have schizophrenia, not superpowers, regardless of whether they are telling you to eat the flesh of the innocent, or make sure that you tell the next person you meet that everything will be ok, and not to forget to pick up the laundry.

Now, scientifically speaking, showing a difference between these two is actually impossible, leading the critical thinker to believe that they are indeed, identical conditions which present differently depending on the particular mind in which they occur. However, you posted a list of supposed psychic abilities.

On that list, there are some capabilities which can be tested very easily, with a great deal of scientific methodology.


Levitation

Precognition

Pyrokinesis

Telekinesis

These, and probably ONLY these can be studied in a truly scientific fashion, with any hope of successful or useful result. Levitation, Pyrokinesis, and Telekinesis all have visible effects on solid matter, which can be recorded using a plethora of apparatus, in multiple spectra, without reliance on taking anyone at their word. Precognition could also be tested in a scientifically valid manner, by simply blindfolding an adept of the talent, and putting them in a room with fifty or so dodgeball launchers.

But testing one of the many supposed expressions of psychic powers, which are entirely internal in their outworking, seems a bloody stupid thing to do, if what you are after doing, is using ACTUAL science to study the claim that people walking the world, have psychic abilities.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly and in some of these cases, maybe the person is just frightened by the voices and they can learn to accept them. There could also be voices that are destructive and downright evil. I can see how these voice could drive you crazy.

When discussing the realm of human consciousness, we truly can not fathom the various influences that affect our conscious mind.

Our subconscious is a mystery, one way of describing those inner voices has justifiably been considered "demonic" and there naturally would be the opposite of "angelic".

I appreciate Carl Jungs work on the "archetype"!

Jung's work on archetypes is very fascinating. His work with synchronicity was equally fascinating. French Physicist Guillemant Philippe came up with the Theory of Double Causality which says synchronicities are events from possible futures that give themselves away in the present and you spot these synchrinicities when they occur and shape your future.

There's also the Doubling Theory by French Physicist Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet which is very interesting. It basically says time can double itself or our perception of time doubles. This also means there's a quantum double or self that communicates with you.

This is interesting because some Psychics say they're talking to an astral voice or astral self. I was just watching an interview with Susskind where he was saying there's 2 versions of us. One in the bulk and one on the horizon:



They start talking about the other version of ourselves around 6:40.

You have some that say dark matter is mass from another universe. Dirac whose equations gave us anti-matter talked about a mirror universe. So there might be this other you out there that some Psychics can communicate with.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Precognition could also be tested in a scientifically valid manner, by simply blindfolding an adept of the talent, and putting them in a room with fifty or so dodgeball launchers.

I'm slowly becoming convinced that omniscience is merely anecdotal.

But I want to believe!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Precognition could also be tested in a scientifically valid manner, by simply blindfolding an adept of the talent, and putting them in a room with fifty or so dodgeball launchers.

Pfft. Anyone with a lot of mitochlorials can handle that. Nothing to do with precog.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Where have you been for the last 50 years??

Many of these things have been tested and replicated successfully.

Bem - Feeling the Future

Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events

Abstract:
In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 1.4 × 10^9 , greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10^-5 , and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by “p-hacking” — the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of our database to be 0.20, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi.

Radin breaks down these things in a video called Science and the Taboo of Psi.



Here's a recent Radin study that was published in Physics Essays that showed the mind actually had an effect of over 5 sigma on the wave function.



There's overwhelming evidence to support these things.

a reply to: Phage

*raises eyebrow, looks at you sternly*

I have reason to believe you are pulling my leg, good sir.

Scratch that (what was here previous).
It was bad.

I need to go to bed now.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, show me a study where the participants used pyrokinetic, telekinetic, or levitation capabilities, in a controlled and heavily monitored setting, and I will show you something that has never happened repeatably worth a damn. You have not shown an example of psychic capabilities with physical outworkings, and no one ever has reliably.

a reply to: Phage

Left eyebrow.

And no, I am deadly serious. If the people researching psychic abilities want to show their work, first they are going to have to test people whose abilities manifest in the physical world, and there is precious little of that going on at the moment.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm actually going to give you credit for citing Feeling The Future because that's one of those experiments that deserved more attention but was intentionally obscured.

However... To this date Feeling The Future has never been reproducible in any other lab by a peer review team.

By definition that doesn't make it incorrect, but it does make it highly suspect in my opinion.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I have. It's not my fault you don't read you just respond. Here's more:

Here's a TON of research in these areas and this is just some of it. Of course people never look at or read these things because their mind is made up before they even click the link.

noetic.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

A more interesting use of this thread would be do discuss the implications of a lack of empirical evidence for psychic abilities.

edit: you're citing a ton of research that on the surface looks interesting but at the end of the day contributes nothing to your argument

a reply to: ColdWisdom

LOL, you blindly judge the evidence presented and you think this makes sense???

You said the evidence looks interesting on the surface but it doesn't contribute to the argument. How do you know when you haven't even read the evidence LOL! I just posted it. Talk about a closed mind!

Just and actually read and maybe you will learn something.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Think about that. These Yale Psychiatrist just validated these Psychics.

Did we read the same article? The psychiatrists just categorised them as having hallucinations, though to a level that isn't as severe as other people. Controllable, non-command hallucinations.

I'm not sure that saying psychics suffer from a low level mental health disorder really counts as "validating" them.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm actually going to give you credit for citing Feeling The Future because that's one of those experiments that deserved more attention but was intentionally obscured.

However... To this date Feeling The Future has never been reproducible in any other lab by a peer review team.

By definition that doesn't make it incorrect, but it does make it highly suspect in my opinion.

Wrong:

There are, in fact - and this seems not to be widely known - quite a few positive replications of Bem's research. I was hoping you could bring these replications to light, so that public audiences interested in this matter will get all the facts regarding the issue of replicating Bem (2011), and recognize the bias in the view propagated by many pseudoskeptical journalists. If this information was more widely available, the "climate" surrounding the Bem controversy would, perhaps, be a bit different.

Here is a list of several positive Bem replications - these are not all extant conceptually similar "implicit precognition" experiments (which Dean Radin says are under meta-analytic review, presently), but only those studies that specifically replicate the experimental paradigms in Bem (2011):

Batthyany, A. (2010). Retrocausal Habituation and Induction of Boredom: A Successful Replication of Bem (2010; Studies 5 and 7). Social Science Research Network, Working Paper Series.

 (Link)

Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict online roulette spins. A talk presented at the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Washington D.C., U.S.A., October, 2011.

 (Link)

Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict random binary events in an applied setting. A talk presented at Towards a Science of Consciousness, Stockholm, Sweden, May, 2011. [more recently: Franklin, M., and Schooler, J. (2012). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict random binary events in an applied setting. Toward a Science of Consciousness, Tucson X].

Tressoldi, P. E., Masserdotti, F., & Marana C. (2012). Feeling the future: an exact replication of the Retroactive Facilitation of Recall II and Retroactive Priming experiments with Italian participants, Universita di Padova, Italy

Subbotsky, E. (2012). Sensing the future: The Non-standard observer effect on an ESP task. Lancaster University, UK
Bijl, A. & Bierman, D. (2013). Retroactive training of rational v.s. intuitive thinkers. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. (Link)

Parker, A., & Sjödén, B. (2010). Do some of us habituate to future emotional events? Journal of Parapsychology, 74, 99–115.

 (Link)

Savva, L., Child, R. & Smith, M. D. (2004). The Precognitive Habituation Effect: An Adaptation Using Spider Stimuli. The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004, pp. 223 – 229. (Link)

www.dailygrail.com...

Add this to the Meta Analysis and it looks pretty good to me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The one that has abilities and understands them enough to reproduce the same results quantifiably over time...

That would be...The Mule.
And we would be screwed.

It would certainly throw off all my calculations for the future. Thought it might explain why my guaranteed formula for winning the Lottery keeps failing miserably. It's that damn Mule!

a reply to: neoholographic

No pyrokinesis, no telekinesis, no levitation, and just barely a hint of precognition, and of the capabilities I listed, the least testable.

Hmmmm. Bull. You have not posted a damn thing of any actual scientific use.

Again, where are the levitators, the people who can set things on fire with their minds, and those who can juggle a scrabble set without touching it, and where are the scientific, PHYSICS based experiments involving them? Oh wait, there are none.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: neoholographic

Think about that. These Yale Psychiatrist just validated these Psychics.

Did we read the same article? The psychiatrists just categorised them as having hallucinations, though to a level that isn't as severe as other people. Controllable, non-command hallucinations.

I'm not sure that saying psychics suffer from a low level mental health disorder really counts as "validating" them.

Where did they say NON- COMMAND HALLUCINATIONS?

Where were the Psychics ever characterized as having hallucinations?

You don't think that these conversations are real but who cares? This isn't what was said in the article. From the Psychics perspective these conversations are real and meaningful and you have nothing but a biased and blind opinion to refute it.