Proof of the paranormal... done! What next?

Great... I think it's (links to scientific research) been posted enough times on ATS that there is clear evidence for the paranormal.

My belief is that we are placed here or elsewhere for soul development at our decision. We identify areas that need development and take on that in a physical world. When we leave the physical world, we evaluate and repeat the process until we have developed our spiritual self to the point of satisfaction.

The physical world's interaction with the non-physical world is a mechanical inevitability--but pursuing, obsessing, and interacting does not help the purpose of why we are here, so it really shouldn't be a focus.

Some thoughts anyway.

delius

reply to post by ThreeDeuce


Yep we are in an age when selective sifting proves whatever we want.

I read a study a while ago that said RV was bunkem. Just because it is on the internet does not make it real, that is why conspiracy theories are theory and not fact.

So far in my 49 years I have known many claim wonderful paranormal "gifts" but seen no evidence for it. Yes I have had validations from clairvoyant types but as far as I can see the only real study of note was Ed Mitchells telepathy on his way to the moon, where the hit rate was statistically higher...but nowhere near 100%. But it did get NASA and von Braun interested.

For me it is all subjective. If you believe you have the power to change the weather or move a glass then maybe you do, from your perspective of reality. But if it is not witnessed by others it is a gift that may be only in your mind :-)

For me knowing any of this stuff just for myself will never be good enough, I know the mind can be deceived. If I genuinely believed I could do something in the physical word just by using my mind I would want others to witness it so that I would definitely know it were true. People say James Randi and his challenge is a fraud? Well if psychic powers really existed and I had them I would be public in my challenge to Mr Randi and at every turn be demonstrating to the world how unfair and impractical any restrictions he has until the world says "Randi put up or shut up".

But it will never happen because other than a bit of fortune telling and mind reading, there is no psychic ability in my opinion.

Even if there were what is the point of spending weeks of a lifetime honing skills to move a psi wheel when all that time could be spent actually doing something useful like ending war or world hunger? I laugh at claims of being able to change the weather, yet Africa still has drought...of a world wide consciousness and mediation for peace, yet war and conflict is stronger now than ever.

For me there is as much "evidence" of psychic ability as there is Santa Claus and the toothfairy and I am a believer that the mind is more powerful than we can imagine....

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
We Can't deem proof of the Paranormal from a Study about the posibility of Psychic Pehnomena like Remote Viewing from a Study that was put out in 1995.

I'm sorry, but the whole basic argument for this thread is founded on currently inaccurate information.

Proof the Paranormal... Not Done!!

You know, I actually bothered to post a link to a report that takes some reading. You've just looked at the date and subject matter and deemed it irrelevant as based on "currently inaccurate" information. If you think that constitutes an argument, please try again. Why is the informtaion currently inaccurate? You don't say.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by rich23

 

I've seen videos of dinosaurs but it doesn't make them real!Saying you've seen videos of such and such doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Its not proof of anything.

Do you only read every third word in a post? Here's what I said, again, for the hard of thinking... (your words, remember)

As for PK, I've seen videos of chi gung adepts moving small hanging objects with their minds. They could be faked, they could be real, but from my personal experience of what I know to be possible I can't rule them out.

Is the word "proof" there? No. I'm saying that from personal experience with some very good people in the field I can't rule it out.

You also clearly don't understand what "proof" is, as do few people on these boards. The first thing you need to do is look at some philosphy of science and some methodological critiques. A landmark book was Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery in which he observes that, actually, you can't prove a hypothesis, ever, all you can do is keep compiling evidence that supports it... but the moment you find evidence that contradicts it, then, boom, your theory is out the window unless you can reconcile the data somehow.

So, please don't bandy about the "p" word until you're conversant with what it means mathematically, in a court of law, and in a laboratory.

The tests you describe don't sound terribly controlled. How did you evaluate hit rates? Did the idea that stress might impair functioning on that level not occur to you?

Then the same person would take the same tests in front parapsychologists such as Matthew Smith and keiron O'Keefe of Most Haunted fame, and their abilities simply melted away. What does this prove?

Actually, nothing. See above. It suggests several interpretations.

It proves that research results can be swayed one way or the other depending on whether those in control and who are conducting the experiment are believers or sceptics.

Sorry, that's just sloppy. What you're saying there actually doesn't tell us the most important thing. Is there a real effect that is being disrupted, or are people being taken in. If the latter, you should be able to design a protocol to provide better evidence that that's the case. As it is, what you describe doesn't tell us much other than it's a poorly designed experiment.

This is why the SPR and SCICOP can both accurately relate test results and yet come to opposite conflicting conclusions..

I notice you ignore Rupert Sheldrake and his large scale experiments.

What is bizarre about this argument is that you think these phenomena are real but uncontrollable. Perhaps it's because you haven't met anyone who can control it yet. In my experience, those who can genuinely do this stuff don't give a toss about proving it to anyone, they just do their stuff quietly and keep waiting for the inevitable paradigm shift.

reply to post by rich23


You certainly do seem to have this love affair with Sheldrake! Like I've said test results can be translated in various ways depending on the bias of those concerned. Sheldrake is a big believer in this kind of stuff so his bias, his personal leanings are always going to show this. It's not his fault it's just the way it is! the opposite is true as well. Have you read some of the bizarre explainations the likes of James Randi gives to disprove paranormal cases?
Let me give you and example of what I mean. I once was investigating a haunted home with two mediums who were literally terrifying the poor owner with their inane ramblings of evil spirits and so on. Suddenly, both started to say they could see a human form appearing in the corner of the room. Lets say they weren't just lieing. They could see it because they were prone to see such things. I, and the witness, couldn't because we weren't tied into any belief system. So who was right and who was wrong?

Look at Harry Prices investigation of Borley rectory thought by most serious investigators to be the most precise work of its day. he let his own passion and beliefs get in the way of serious investigation. Then someone came along with an unbiased view restudied the evidence and virtually destroyed all of his work and his good name.

With that in mind it would be extremely hard to create an experiment that would prove the paranormal which would satisfy both sides of the argument. However, the only people who should carry such an experiment out would have to be unpartial, uninvolved professionals. Otherwise the results, as I keep trying to tell you, would be tainted by personal bias, unfairly or not.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it's going to be very hard to provide proof that will satisfy both sides of the argument.

Great find!!! S & F !!! I have wondered about the testing. I knew there had to be studies done that could prove this was a real phenomena. I have seen people with definite abilities to affect others using a thermal camera. You could see the heat increase and move upward towards their head and then literally move across the gap between them toward the psychic. Amazing. I myself have experienced the paranormal on many occasions as well. There are so many incredible things out there that we may never understand. All I know is that I can feel my soul trapped in this biological suit. I am not just a bunch of chemical reactions that give rise to consciousness.

I believe the amazing randi has withdrawn his 1,000,000 challenge, seems he lost his backing. I weas going to challenge him for the money but the contract he wanted people to sign was ridiculous. I knew when I read it that he was not on the up and up. You are wrong about the paranormal, it can be captured and reproduced ad infintum. Check out "my pictures" and "my media" videos here on ATS paranormal. debris765nju

Excellent find, even if it is an earlier draft of her final presentation. The author's site has changed, and the old site is no longer updated. The link to the updated articles (including peer reviews and responses), is here:

www.ics.uci.edu...

Great reading. Especially the part of the CIA.

Originally posted by homers_donut
reply to post by ThreeDeuce

 

Yep we are in an age when selective sifting proves whatever we want.

Or you can weigh one argument and source of evidence against another and try to think your way through to a conclusion.

I read a study a while ago that said RV was bunkem. Just because it is on the internet does not make it real, that is why conspiracy theories are theory and not fact.

I've read lots of stuff on both sides and continue to make up my mind.

God, all people do on this thread is talk about people who claim psychic and clairvoyant powers.

One of the things I really, really like about Taoism is that it's explicitly stated that before starting to mess around on the psychic level, a student should have thoroughly sorted themselves out physically (through t'ai chi), energetically at the biological level through chi gung, and both intellectually and emotionally through various Taoist meditations.

The reason for this is because what we might term the "psychic realm" is full of BS as well as truth and if you don't have all your ducks in a row before working on that level you will not be able to tell the two apart.

Consequently I don't put much faith in psychics and it seems to me that it's more sensible to try and look at what happens with ordinary people, which is what Sheldrake does. In telephone telepathy tests, where people have to guess which friend is about to phone them, the hit rate is well above chance and a hugely significant effect.

There's actually plenty of evidence around: people just don't want to look at it because of their own prejudices.

For me it is all subjective. If you believe you have the power to change the weather or move a glass then maybe you do, from your perspective of reality. But if it is not witnessed by others it is a gift that may be only in your mind :-)

For me, when I go to a class if the instructor is transmitting, these days I'll feel it. It barely merits discussion in the class. The problem is I know people are not supposed to be able to do this according to our current model and so it causes cognitive dissonance when people assert with such bland confidence that "it's all nonsense".

Well if psychic powers really existed and I had them I would be public in my challenge to Mr Randi and at every turn be demonstrating to the world how unfair and impractical any restrictions he has until the world says "Randi put up or shut up".

The reason that people are not terribly interested in claiming his prize is because he's dishonest. I guarantee you he'll never award it, but only because he'll move heaven and earth to discredit any data that doesn't go his way. This is the man, remember, who accused Nobel winner Brian Josephson of being a scoundrel for putting forward theories about consciousness that implied psychic possibilities.

But it will never happen because other than a bit of fortune telling and mind reading, there is no psychic ability in my opinion.

Perhaps you should read that sentence more carefully. Do you not see how contradictory and, in fact, meaningless it actually is? It seems to have content, but doesn't.

Even if there were what is the point of spending weeks of a lifetime honing skills to move a psi wheel when all that time could be spent actually doing something useful like ending war or world hunger?

Such abilities, for Taoists at any rate, are by-products of other processes with other purposes. Also, logically, the motivation for doing something like that is a separate issue to whether or not that kind of thing is possible.

I laugh at claims of being able to change the weather, yet Africa still has drought...

Weather control has been around for years, to some extent, even if it's just seeding dry ice. There are stories of people controlling the weather but I have no direct evidence myself so I have no opinion, although there are models that suggest it should be possible.

And of course Wilhelm Reich built his cloudbuster. For those with open minds, there's a fascinating lecture about some of Reich's cloudbuster work on this google video.

of a world wide consciousness and mediation for peace, yet war and conflict is stronger now than ever.

There is statistical evidence to suggest that violent crime is reduced in areas where people are meditating. The fact that the TM people have done studies which no-one else has attempted to replicate doesn't dent the fact that using published statistics they have shown a drop in violent crime after TM membership in a given area reaches a critical mass.

I don't see why it's funny that in times of crisis, people want to do something about the increased levels of war and conflict. Sounds logical to me. Meditating to do something about it actually seems like a sensible action rather than taking up arms oneself. It took a long time before I started to see the wisdom of the saying, "you don't fight for peace, you peace for peace." This is not to imply that I'm as passive as the ideal Christian, meekly turning my cheek for each new slap. Cornered I'll always defend myself but a combative attitude simply attracts combat.

For me there is as much "evidence" of psychic ability as there is Santa Claus and the toothfairy and I am a believer that the mind is more powerful than we can imagine....

Again this bizarre contradiction, or this wilful adherence to a belief that this stuff "is all very well but you can't ever prove it". You haven't quoted anything from the report I cited to logically challenge. Actually, few people in the thread seem do have even clicked the link, it's just the usual bunch of ill-informed people airing prejudices.

Disappointing.

reply to post by TLomon


Thanks for posting that. Hooray, someone's read this stuff and has something to bring to the party.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by rich23

 

You certainly do seem to have this love affair with Sheldrake! Like I've said test results can be translated in various ways depending on the bias of those concerned. Sheldrake is a big believer in this kind of stuff so his bias, his personal leanings are always going to show this.

Please provide a concrete example of Sheldrake's interpretation of data from a specific experiment to back this up.

It's not his fault it's just the way it is! the opposite is true as well. Have you read some of the bizarre explainations the likes of James Randi gives to disprove paranormal cases?

I have. I even wrote about an experience of my own to a skeptic's website and the result was pathetic.

However, I would say that Randi is well-known for being, quite literally, dishonest when it comes to this kind of thing. There are perfectly respectable skeptics out there, and Sheldrake, for example, is on perfectly good terms with them.

I would say that Sheldrake has done experiments on a large scale and drawn sensible conclusions. Everyone has the feeling of being stared at from time to time and Sheldrake has done a lot of work on this. Look, there are studies where people are hooked up to a lie detector and their skin resisitivity changes when they're being stared at, whether they know it or not. There was even a Channel 5 programme about triplets that isolated one triplet. The other two were chatting in a room but hooked up to various gizmos that monitored keart rate, sking resistivity etc. They administered, I think, electric shocks to the one on his own, and although the other two had no visible reaction, the telemetry showed that they had physical reactions at the time their sibling was being shocked.

There's no conventional explanation for that, it's repeatable, and it certainly suggests that telepathy is possible, it's simply a question of raising one's level of awareness. (I don't think it's quite that simple, of course, but it's certainly no theoretical leap.

... They could see it because they were prone to see such things. I, and the witness, couldn't because we weren't tied into any belief system. So who was right and who was wrong?

There's a huge assumption that you couldn't see the figure because you didn't share their belief system. It's not entirely unreasonable, but not watertight by any means. I can think of a few reasons why you didn't see whatever they saw, if they saw something, but it would be just speculation. In terms of "who was right and who was wrong?" I'd say it's an irrelevant question. Especially as it's to do with mediuship, which for reasons given earlier, is something I avoid. It doesn't interest me especially, and I see it as a separate question. I'm more interested in what happens while we're alive, thanks.

That, for me, rules out the Borley rectory stuff. It's not, for me, central. And it doesn't make any inroads into the link I originally posted. However, I see that you say that when someone with an "unbiased view" came along, it destroyed whatever work had been done. How do you know this guy had an unbiased view? It's just another presumption.

On repeatability... Sheldrake has been doing simple experiments that have demonstrated the reality of the phenomena on a very large scale for several years now. Please show explicitly where his bias has spoiled his interpretation of the data on a large-scale experiment. There are experiments when the hit rate is down to a judgment call to some extent: there are other experiments which don't. I don't want to get into a long discusson about whether x or y counts as a hit: but there are plenty of experiments which don't - the subject is either right or wrong. His telephone telepathy experiments consistently return results above chance,

... the only people who should carry such an experiment out would have to be unpartial, uninvolved professionals. Otherwise the results, as I keep trying to tell you, would be tainted by personal bias, unfairly or not.

Sheldrake has automated email experiments to which any small group of people can sign up. Every day one member of the group is automatically selected as subject and another as email sender. At an agreed time, the subject is prompted for a guess as to who will be mailing, then the sender is alerted and must send their email, ruling out collusion. Timestamps on the mails provides sufficient security to ensure that collusion is at least very difficult indeed. Doing large-scale experiments like this yields valuable data despite your assertions.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it's going to be very hard to provide proof that will satisfy both sides of the argument.

Again with the p-word. The evidence is there, the culture will change around it but it's going to take time.

reply to post by rich23


Well, I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. I admire your passion for the subject but twenty years ago I was exactly the same as you. I thought this was pretty well proven. Every week I was spending time in haunted houses, investigating psychics and mediums and appearing on local radio, then I took a step back and realised that I was letting my own beliefs shroud my judgement.
As for Sheldrake. I think I went to see him in the Cambden library in London at an SPR lecture where he talked about animals who could detect that their owners were on there way home. It was all the very interesting but he used words like, might, could be, probable, the possibility, etc. Nothing conclusive nothing positive. I doubt very much if he was here on ATS that he would be quite as forward and positive about the existence of the powers he searches for. Thats because he knows that his experiments rely on statistics and those can be manipulated in anyway you want to.

Like I said, I pick up on your hostility towards me because I don't share your views but I do understand where you're coming from. Your passion is admirable. Why don't you join a local group or the SPR and take part in these tests. It may be you who comes up with the ultimate proof of psi powers!

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by rich23

 

Well, I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. I admire your passion for the subject but twenty years ago I was exactly the same as you. I thought this was pretty well proven. Every week I was spending time in haunted houses, investigating psychics and mediums and appearing on local radio, then I took a step back and realised that I was letting my own beliefs shroud my judgement.

I would prefer to think that I was dispassionate about this. I also have various models that seem to handle the data I come across so that it makes sense to me. Naturally I accept thatthere may be some, some selectivity in that my time is limited and I am attracted to things that fit in with my model. This is not to say that I haven't spent time with the sceptics, and my own world view is backed by experiences that forced me out of the current, rather lazy paradigm.

I'm trusting my judgement, for the moment.

As for Sheldrake...

Yes, as for Sheldrake. I asked you to give me a specific instance of Sheldrake's judgement clouding his statistical analysis, and you come back with a vague memory of being unconvinced.

Sheldrake's theory of the extended mind directly attacks the most pernicious and long-lasting doctrine to muddy the thinking of the scientific community, that of Cartesian dualism, which paved the way for such grotesqueries as Behaviouism. According to Descartes, the yelping of a dog in pain had no more meaning than the squeak of a cartwheel, and scientists have had to laboriously prove each step of a painfully obvious path, back to where the dog does feel pain and it does have meaning.

The theory does explain a great deal, however, and is solidly backed by experimental evidence, which he makes no bones about explaining in his lecture on the subject, freely available on Google Video.

Here we come to a crux...

Like I said, I pick up on your hostility towards me because I don't share your views...

See, actually, no. It's not because I don't share your views. You're just rude and lazy. You come in with vague assertions that you can't back up, you never bother to read anything anyone else posts in the thread or the OP, you continue to restate tired and oft-refuted nostrums as fact...

There are plenty of threads where I've had good and lively converse with people who had diametrically opposed views, but were interesting, provided good links to back their arguments, argued logically... you know, all the good stuff.

The first word you posted was, IIRC, "Nonsense!" Rude. And there's been a continuing rain of mostly good natured bombast ever since.

So, thing is, with anyone else, I'd post a link to Sheldrake's Google lecture. But you wouldn't watch it. You wouldn't click on it and if you did, you wouldn't get past the first five minutes. So the other people on this thread* who are interested are going to have to go and look it up.

Why don't you join a local group or the SPR and take part in these tests. It may be you who comes up with the ultimate proof of psi powers!

I have other things to do and I certainly haven't done anything reproducible yet myself, although I do have some control over my biological chi.

But there you go again with the "p"-word... and sufficient evidence is already out there. The world is slowwwly catching up.
* hmm "people" plural? A tad optimistic, perhaps.

reply to post by rich23

See, actually, no. It's not because I don't share your views. You're just rude and lazy.

You see, I try to get my message across to you politely but this is your reply. Everyone who now reads this thread will truly understand that you aren't here to debate this, you just want to spread your own version of the truth. Everyone else you'll verbally attack. . .

The world is full of gullible wingnuts, and don't look now, but I think you may be one of them!
And please don't bother replying. If I want to talk to a dick I'll learn ventriliquism and talk to my own!

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by rich23

 

See, actually, no. It's not because I don't share your views. You're just rude and lazy.

You see, I try to get my message across to you politely

Mmmm... by saying "Nonsense!!!!" as your first word in your first post on this thread, and by using phrases like "for the hard of understanding"...

You say you "want to get your message across" and that's part of the problem. I deal with your posts point by point, and ask for you to back up your arguments but you never bother to do so. You just pump out the same thing as if it answers the points I raise. It doesn't. You haven't provided a concrete instance of Sheldrake's results being biased. If you're going to make that accusation you should be able to back it up with examples that we can look at and discuss, but no.

That's lazy. It also means that having a sensible discussion is frustrating and difficult because you never answer any points with anything concrete.

Reviewing the thread, I came across this statement, btw...

I know several students who have done psychology degrees and have taken parapsychology as side line, and they all, to a person, say that not one, not one! single solitary person has impressed their teachers.

This is why Sheldrake's been working with large-scale experiments that successfully demonstrate a statistical effect. If enough people score consistently and significantly above chance, it means there's something there. It doesn't depend on finding a "star".

but this is your reply. Everyone who now reads this thread will truly understand that you aren't here to debate this, you just want to spread your own version of the truth. Everyone else you'll verbally attack. . .

Well... people will be able to review the thread and see I take your posts line by line, reply in detail, and argue logically. They will also note that despite several requests for posts that would move the discussion on to a more rational level, where we can debate specifics (in other words, "here's where Sheldrake went wrong" rather than "Sheldrake is biased" which is too vague to be answered properly) you have never answered any of the points I've raised.

The world is full of gullible wingnuts, and don't look now, but I think you may be one of them!
And please don't bother replying. If I want to talk to a dick I'll learn ventriliquism and talk to my own!

Yeah... that wanting the last word thing... we'd all like it, but it's a public message board so don't hold your breath.

I also see, w.r.t. an earlier post, that I actually did post the relevant Sheldrake lecture. But of course you didn't even click the link. (I know this from subsequent replies.) How can one debate someone who won't even look at the evidence offered? If you want a rational, polite debate, try being polite and rational, and actually answer points that people raise. To do otherswise invites charges of laziness, or even stupidity.

You might also note that I made two criticisms of you, that you were rude and lazy. I also provided evidence from this thread to back that up. You've just helped by providing some more. I didn't call you a dick or a wingnut, I didn't use (incorrectly) phrases like "for the hard of understanding": Now you've been called on it, you resort to petulance - "please don't bother to reply" and upping the level or fudeness.

"Please don't bother to reply". Grow up.