Telepathy Has Been 'Scientifically Proven' to be Real... Again

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Telepathy is not to be put on a pedestal as it is a very simple thing. It is the universal language, not of the spoken word, but of the direct transmission of raw meaning and intent. There is no dishonesty with telepathy, as that intent will be transmitted. There is no confusion or limitation with telepathy because the recipient will always get the full meaning, the full feeling, the full intent of the transmitter.

You are all individual antennae of a vast communications network, constantly transmitting and receiving signals from various sources. Every one of you has experienced telepathy as it is an extremely common phenomenon. You must simply allow the possibility of telepathy, be open to receiving information, raise your antenna, if you will. Simply pay attention to your thoughts and feelings and recognize when something is not of your self.

Those of you who seek answers to telepathy and other information externally will be limited because anything physical will be limited by physical law. Instead, turn back to the internal for answers, as your mind is an inbox of unread messages. You must simply sort through all the junk mail to get to the important mail that contains the answers to your questions.

This information came to this individual telepathically.

There's no need to believe me, I'm just contributing. You are all entitled to your own perspective.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I've had the luck to experience this twice, once with my girlfriend and once with a close friend. Someone here commented that they hear a voice in their mind before it occurs? In my case I impulsively said the exact sentence I heard in my mind and it happened to be what the other person said as well. I thought both occasions were weird because the other instances where I say the same words as someone else talking I will not hear the sentence in my mind. Always thought it was a coincidence until this thread, just sharing my experiences.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Why is thread even in the Science & Technology forum?

a) No credible science has been put forth
b) OP clearly isn't interested in any discussion or opposing views on the topic



Well, in my opinion, this post of yours sounds like a post from a reasonable person with an opposing viewpoint. Your first post however, made you sound like some sort of hate-filled lunatic with an emotional disorder. Frankly, if I were the OP, I would not have been interested in the "opposing viewpoint" of someone who spoke to and of OP and others who may believe in telepathy in such an insulting way either.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gidwa

Originally posted by john_bmth
Why is thread even in the Science & Technology forum?

a) No credible science has been put forth
b) OP clearly isn't interested in any discussion or opposing views on the topic



Well, in my opinion, this post of yours sounds like a post from a reasonable person with an opposing viewpoint. Your first post however, made you sound like some sort of hate-filled lunatic with an emotional disorder. Frankly, if I were the OP, I would not have been interested in the "opposing viewpoint" of someone who spoke to and of OP and others who may believe in telepathy in such an insulting way either.

Read my post history before drawing such conclusions. My first encounter with OP was in another thread where he was rude and dismissive to anyone who dared disagree with him. The blame lies not with me, OP has clearly stated in multiple threads that he doesn't WANT a discussion involving opposing views. The responsibility for this farce of a thread lies soley at OP's feet, no one else's.
edit on 6-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by gidwa

Originally posted by john_bmth
Why is thread even in the Science & Technology forum?

a) No credible science has been put forth
b) OP clearly isn't interested in any discussion or opposing views on the topic



Well, in my opinion, this post of yours sounds like a post from a reasonable person with an opposing viewpoint. Your first post however, made you sound like some sort of hate-filled lunatic with an emotional disorder. Frankly, if I were the OP, I would not have been interested in the "opposing viewpoint" of someone who spoke to and of OP and others who may believe in telepathy in such an insulting way either.

Read my post history before drawing such conclusions. My first encounter with OP was in another thread where he was rude and dismissive to anyone who dared disagree with him. Don't try and shift the blame onto me, OP has clearly stated in multiple threads that he doesn't WANT a discussion involving opposing views. The responsibility for this farce of a thread lies soley at OP's feet, no one else's.
edit on 6-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


I do not have to read your history in other threads. As I said, I was talking about your first post on this thread. Based on that impression of you, which is the impression anyone would get who had only read that post, you were extremely rude and abusive in the language and attitude of your post. You can make legitimate points without sounding like you are some lowlife that just closed up a bar. And the excuse of "well, he did it first" is something a child would use. I have made no decision on psychic abilitiy one way or the other, but after reading your posts, I have no intention of reading any more of them. Surely you have learned in life that the way to make people listen to you and take you seriously is to treat them with respect; rudeness will just turn someone off and they will no longer listen to or value your opinion.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gidwa
 


Op IS a narrow minded hypocrite, as I have demonstrated. That's not rude, that's calling a spade a spade. He is also abusing the site's TACs by spamming, posting off-topic material in the SciTech forum and stifling debate. If pointing this out makes me "rude and dismissive" (ironic considering you completely neglected to pick up on OP's blatantly rude and dissmissive opening post) then I am happy to be labelled as such.

The only people throwing insults around in this thread are you and OP. Go figure...
edit on 6-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


I don't think that telepathy means materialism is false. It is simply not well understood.

I have experienced it. I know it is true. I can't control my experience of it very precisely. I have freaked the system on occasion and received proof. It works best when you can get the other person emotionally charged. If you can push somebody's buttons and get them to think about you and really focus on you with interest then you can sometimes get a response. Doing it in the waking state is difficult. I will give you a hint.... if somebody is awake while you are asleep, and that somebody has strong thoughts about you, positive or negative, you can pick up on it as it comes to you in a dream. The dream is a connection from your subconscious to you conscious. I am talking about real accurate distinct information being transmitted like a burst originating from the other person. You can become aware of it in your dream state because you are so open and not distracted by waking sensations.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by gidwa
 


How about you critique the OP as harshly. You talk of dismissiveness and rudeness! Well, thats all I get from your own post. I have read the entire thread and the only one presenting a reasonable response to the information in the OP is the very poster you are debasing!


reply to post by BlueMule
 



OP, this thread is extremely dissapointing. On one hand you dismiss any scientific opinon from the mainstream as being irrelevant yet present weak studies only afforded publication through avenues without the proper peer review one would hope any serious scientist would aspire to present work too.

This is why the topic is not taken seriously within the mainstream scientific community and why serious journals approach material regard parapsychology with extreme skepticim, and dare I say a cynical mind set.

For example, the opening paragraph of your OP link states it all.

Today, using modern experimental methods and meta‐analytical techniques, a persuasive 
case can be made that, neuroscience assumptions notwithstanding
, ESP does
exist. 


Why would I need to be persuaded?
It is either obvious via the research and method or it is not! That is how science works. Especuially given the disclamer that "neuroscience assumptions notwithstanding".

Further more, I wonder how many ATS members understand what Meta-analysis really is?
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

In reference to this particular field of study we need to understand that this research is open to a BIAS. And a big one at that.

The introduction states:

We  justify  this  conclusion  through  discussion  of  one  class  of
homogeneous experiments
 reported in 108 publications and conducted from
1974 through 2008 by laboratories around the world. Subsets of these data 
have been subjected to six meta‐analyses, and each shows significantly positive
effects.  The  overall  results  now  provide  unambiguous  evidence  for  an
independently repeatable ESP effect.


Why only ONE class of experiments? It would seem obvious that one type of experiment would indeed present a similar set of results or characteristics that would appear in a meta-analysis.

It is by no means proof that ESP or other extra-sensory abilities exists it is only proof that tests of one type will present similar results when contrasted with one another. This can present certain results as being significant when they are not due to the BIAS presented by the selection of the test method. I mean realistically, we have no idea what each indivivdual study presents. They could have used 20 studies, yet only 6 of those could have provided the "data" that they then use to claim "each shows significantly positive
effects.  The  overall  results  now  provide  unambiguous  evidence  for  an
independently repeatable ESP effect".

Its trickery via statistical jargon. It should be obvious to anyone that if meta-analysis is needed to present an argument it is simply because the individual studies themselves have not been able to present a compelling argument on their own.

I think you really need to consider that seriously.




edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Just finished reading the entire Link from the OP.

Fundamentally, the paper makes what is called the PSI Assumption.

That is all this paper has, is an assumption.



Considering all reported trials, after the
elimination of 6 outliers (see Storm et al. 2010 p.
477), the hit rate was 1323 hits in 4196 trial = 31.5
%, as compared to chance expectation of 25%.

This corresponds to an ES of 0.135 (95%
confidence interval from 0.10 to 0.17). In terms of
the π statistic, π = 0.58, (95% CI from .56 to .60,
Z = 9.9, p = 1.0 × 10-11. The possibility that these
effects are due to inflation from selective
reporting has been considered in detail (e.g.,
Storm et al. 2010), and it is generally agreed,
including by skeptical reviewers, that the
“filedrawer effect” (referring to unpublished
papers will null results that languish in
investigators’ file drawers) cannot account for the
observed results.


Really, all they have done is taken the 6% anomally above the expected 25% chance rate that recievers would get a "hit" and then called that PSI. That is all.

And that is only after meta-analysis.

An assumption that the anomally is PSI. Nothing more.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I have been waiting for a reply from the OP explaining the paper he cites in plain English. It is not clear that he understands what the paper actually says, yet he claims it is proof of something.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Its actually a rehash of old studies. Its nothing more than a paper written about old studies that make assumptions using statistics that create an anomally.

It isn't science.

What is worse is that they also throw in Quantum Physics to make it "trendy".

What they fail to point out is that while there are some interesting aspects of Quantum Physics related to the nature of matter when observed in reality we live in a world not governed by quantum physics but general relativity. In that I mean, I do not need to be observed in order to determine my position.

The same aplies to quantum entanglement. It may seem cool, but when we are talking about consciousness we are not talking about single particles, but an aspect or characteristics that arises from the combination of billions of nerves and cells let alone singular particles seperated by distance.

You cannot simply scale up aspects of the quantum world to suit your argument, I mean there is a reason why we need a unified field theory! What happens on the quantum scale does not apply to the scale of matter we exist as, but they don't say that! I wonder why?

How they make the correlation between the Ganzfeld experiments and quantum entanglement is pure speculation and merely mystifies quantum mechanics the same way quasi-religious groups spiritualize aspects of science.
edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



Its actually a rehash of old studies. Its nothing more than a paper written about old studies that make assumptions using statistics that create an anomally.


Selected studies. What do you suppose their criteria for selection were? And what made some data points "outliers?" It is not a genuine study at all.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


We both know what made the selected studies and others "outliers". The outliers didn't provide enough statistical support, they probably weeded them out of the meta-analysis.
edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


From the PA FAQ:

Criticism: Apparently successful experimental results are actually due to sloppy procedures, poorly trained researchers, methodological flaws, selective reporting, and statistics problems. There is therefore not a shred of scientific evidence for psi phenomena.

Response: These issues have been addressed in detail by meta-analytic reviews of the experimental literature. The results unambiguously demonstrate that successful experiments cannot be explained away by these criticisms. In fact, research by Harvard University specialists in scientific methods showed that the best experimental psi research today is not only conducted according to proper scientific standards, but usually adheres to more rigorous protocols than are found in contemporary research in both the social and physical sciences. In addition, over the years there have been a number of very effective rebuttals of criticisms of individual studies, and within the past decade, experimental procedures have been developed that address virtually all methodological criticisms, even the possibility of fraud and collusion, by including skeptics in the experimental procedures.

edit on 6-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


From the PA FAQ:

Q: What is the state-of-the-theory for psi?

A: Opinions about mechanisms of psi are wide-ranging. Because the field is multidisciplinary, there are physical theories, psychological theories, psychophysical theories, sociological theories, and combinations of these.

On one end of the spectrum, the "physicalists" tend to believe that the "psi sensing capacity" is like any other human sensory system, and as such it will most likely be explained by known principles from biophysics, chemistry, and cognitive science. For these theorists, psi is expected to be accommodated into the existing scientific structure, with perhaps some modifications or extensions.

On the other end of the spectrum, the "mentalists" assert that reality would not exist if it were not for human consciousness. For these theorists, the nature of the universe is much more effervescent, thus accommodating psi into existing scientific models will require significant modification of science as we know it. Strong theoretical debates are common in parapsychology in part because spirit, religion, the meaning of life, and other philosophical conundrums commingle with quantum mechanics, probability theory, and neurons.

Some theorists have attempted to link psi phenomena with similar- sounding concepts from quantum mechanics, including non-locality, instantaneous correlations at a distance, and other anomalies. Such suggestions always spark vigorous debates, and at some point it seems the critics are inevitably accused of not properly understanding quantum mechanics. (This is why we do not discuss quantum mechanical theories of psi here. See, however, the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University.)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by BlueMule
 


I don't think that telepathy means materialism is false. It is simply not well understood.


I think it does. When the mind performs a psychic function, the mind is not reaching outside the skull with some form of energy or wave or anything...its not as if the mind is actually traveling through space. If that was the case, a faraday cage would stop psi. Psi would get weaker the farther it goes. But it doesn't. Matter, time, and/or large distances of space can't stop psi.

So mind actually transcends time and space, matter and energy. That makes mind more ontologically fundamental than matter. In order for materialism to be true, that has to be the other way around.

edit on 6-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Good explanation. You phrased it better than I could have.

Incidentally, anyone interested in thorough research done on the psionic connections between living organisms should check out "Supernature" by Lyall Watson. It is well-written and fully supported by dozens of experiments and the conclusions found therein.

Supernature
edit on 6-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by QMask
 


A muscle never used; is a muscle wasted.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Your reply is a red herring.

You simply don't understand the studies do you?

Fair enough, I guess when your interest boarders on religious fanaticism there is never really any debate.

Both of your replies to me fail to address any of the issues I raise.

I predict you will continue this behaviour, hows that for PSI!



edit on 6/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by QMask
 


A muscle never used; is a muscle wasted.
As evident by the lack of brain power exercised in this thread by some members.





top topics
 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join