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

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Telepathy has been significantly proven in the past. They've done thousands of experiments in all the leading universities around the world for decades. The overview on the data was like this: 8% increase over the expected norm. That would be for random students participating, often left hemisphered science students. When they fine tuned the experiments in many universities over time, to artists, twins, and those with psi experiences, any episodes of knowing who was on the phone, for example, then they had over 40% increase above the expected rate. In other words, 25% was the expected. 32% was the average rate of telepathy found. But 65% accuracy and higher was found in the right hemisphered group. This has been brough up before government panels and the results studied in depth. They don't want the truth out.

When a doctor in the emergency tells you to take an aspirin a day to prevent heart attack, he is doing so on stats, that show that aspirins do increase your survival rate, after having a heart attack, from having more, but the stats are dealing with less than 1%.

So a less than 1% stat is significant enough to make aspirin recommended by doctors.

Well 8-40% stat above normal or expected would be earth shaking in the science world, and it has been over and over and over again shown to be the same.


"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin

This talks about the overview committees alot.


Ingo Swann - Human Super Sensitivities and the Future


I Know What You're Thinking! Animal Telepathy Studies with Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (1/3)




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

By comparison, human operators who tried to "will" the robot to stay on one side of the room achieved much smaller and more erratic results.
Keep them comming mate, you are on fire.

I read three at random that all found nothing and now you are telling even chickens do better than humans.
Yes, with evidence like this, one must wonder if BlueMule is even reading the sources posted.

I've heard the classical insult of calling someone a "bird-brain"...but now we have a study showing humans don't even have this level of telepathic ability, plus, the referenced birds were babies (chicks), so they had especially tiny brains, small even by bird standards.

I already felt insignificant after watching the "size of the universe" video on youtube...So BlueMule's source about human telepathic brainpower being greatly outclassed by tiny birdbrains isn't helping.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I've heard the classical insult of calling someone a "bird-brain"...but now we have a study showing humans don't even have this level of telepathic ability, plus, the referenced birds were babies (chicks), so they had especially tiny brains, small even by bird standards.


That's not what the study shows at all.

From the paper:

"The use of baby chicks was motivated not only by the fact that they are easily obtained and maintained, but also by the fact that birds are readily imprinted (Lorentz, 1978)."

Only the baby chicks were imprinted on the robot. That's why there was such strong correlation between the movement of the robot hen and the chicks.

So let me get this straight. Some people are butthurt because baby chicks have strong psi when imprinted (so do people).

And these same people are the ones who call themselves skeptics?



In order to be butthurt by that, one must presuppose psi... right?

Pride and presuppositions...?


edit on 8-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I've heard the classical insult of calling someone a "bird-brain"...but now we have a study showing humans don't even have this level of telepathic ability, plus, the referenced birds were babies (chicks), so they had especially tiny brains, small even by bird standards.


That's not what the study shows at all.

From the paper:

"The use of baby chicks was motivated not only by the fact that they are easily obtained and maintained, but also by the fact that birds are readily imprinted (Lorentz, 1978)."

Only the baby chicks were imprinted on the robot. That's why there was such strong correlation between the movement of the robot hen and the chicks.
You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand the sources you post, and you've demonstrated it again. That is a reference to a different study, which just happened to be mentioned at the beginning of the paper for reference. That's not what they did in the study you referenced.

www.scientificexploration.org...

"In contrast to the earlier study, the chicks were not exposed to the Tychoscope before the actual experiment"
edit on 8-1-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


While I am open for ideas like that, I have to wonder why there has not been a single recorded experiment which is clear in it´s result.

The studies they mention in the article are not very satisfying. Participants had a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right choice. Now if you pick blindly you should get a hit rate of 25 %, pretty clear right.

So how many percent do you guys think those experiments scored on average?

31%

That is just too close for me to be groundbreaking.

Again, IF this is possible to actively control for us, why is nobody doing it? And before you answer with your impressive experiences, let me ask you this. Can you actually use this ability in a reproducable and predictable way? Or are we talking about dreams or visions that come without control.

Where are the simple telekinesis experiments, where these things are demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I just don´t get why nobody is doing it IF is is supposedly possible.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit

Again, IF this is possible to actively control for us, why is nobody doing it? And before you answer with your impressive experiences, let me ask you this. Can you actually use this ability in a reproducable and predictable way? Or are we talking about dreams or visions that come without control.


Most people seem to have the idea that psi is like a super-power to be actively controlled or like a light switch to be flipped by the conscious mind. But that's the wrong idea. Psi is unconscious...

Why Isn't Everyone Having Psychic Experiences All the Time?

edit on 8-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


*sigh*

I'm not even going to bother with you or John or that other psuedo-skeptic anymore...



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
You're right that there are a lot of questions worth asking.

But here I'll give you a question for your question: If humans can slam dunk a basketball, or run a four minute mile, then why are THOSE things "so difficult" for the average person?

Perhaps both questions have a similar answer.


It's easy for most humans to slam dunk a basketball from a ladder and to run a 10 minute mile.

For the rest of us, the lifetime experience of this psi in themselves and everyone else they know is zero. It's like they haven't ever seen a basketball, much less seen one slammed, and nobody knows how to run.

Think about it evolutionarily---evolution doesn't care what we believe, evolution cares about what works. In a social environment with dangers, any useful precognitive or telecognitive ability would be strongly selected for. Animals would have had this selected for millions of years and humans would have a strong sense which they could rationalize. Just as visual processing is strongly selected for, and humans have the strongest visual cortex (not best eyes, but best visual processing) of any animal.

Why isn't it apparent as a natural ability for all humans like every other sense?
edit on 8-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by BlueMule
 


While I am open for ideas like that, I have to wonder why there has not been a single recorded experiment which is clear in it´s result.

The studies they mention in the article are not very satisfying. Participants had a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right choice. Now if you pick blindly you should get a hit rate of 25 %, pretty clear right.

So how many percent do you guys think those experiments scored on average?

31%

That is just too close for me to be groundbreaking.


With large numbers it can be statistically significant. What I would care about is some demonstration of influencing the mechanism---e.g. doing something in the lab to "Turn it off" and then back "on again", and seeing this trigger reflected in the data.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule


Most people seem to have the idea that psi is like a super-power to be actively controlled or like a light switch to be flipped by the conscious mind. But that's the wrong idea. Psi is unconscious...

Why Isn't Everyone Having Psychic Experiences All the Time?


So now you have gone from it being "scientifically proven" to a blog thats states that PSI is undetectable and only acknowledges after that fact.

Unbelievable.

This is the example your link gives for PSI.


Yesterday morning I went to a thrift shop in (Town Y) where I ran into a client I haven't seen in more than 10 years. She was one of my most dissociative and also psychically "gifted" patients.

At some point in the conversation I told her I was there to find a suit I could wear to the service. She said, "come over here, I see just the thing." She pulled a suit off the rack that was perfect in every way, color, size, fit, and price.

I asked her how she happened to know to go to that suit. She said she had awakened that morning and thought "I need to take this suit to the thrift shop today to donate because someone needs it." She had bought it some time ago, "for no good reason and never wore it" and had moments before brought it in and they had just put it on the rack. It cost six dollars. She said it made her very happy to do something for someone who had done so much for her.
www.realitysandwich.com...

Wow, that is PSI. A person who wanted to get rid of a suit and someone who wanted a suit, and they went to a THRIFT store and bumped into each other. Just astounding. I guess the word co-incidence really means PSI.

The funny thing is, the article states that PSI is wholly unconscious

The psi-connection is innately unconscious. For First Sight, psychic engagement is not just rarely conscious, it is actually never conscious.

Yet these two people made conscious decisions based on valid real world events, one to look for a suit and the other to donate one????

Yet your link would have us believe this is the result of PSI operationg at an unconscious level.

The link makes absolutely no sense and actually renders PSI as undetectable except when or if coincidence occurs.
Think about it.
In a manner of speaking it actually argues for a deterministic mechanism or system of a human that pre-ordains events to unfold and all unconsciously.

In reality your article is stating that PSI causes a cascade of events to happen. These happen unconsciously so they must be pre-ordained and unavoidable.

I doubt you even understand or comprehend the implications this has on the notion of PSI.
It means it is a material mechanism of a system and not a part of consciousness at all, in fact it renders consciousness as being irrelevant to an individual as PSI is the overiding machanism determining the outcome of the conscious individual actions.

Which also begs the question: How do you differentiate one action or event as PSI inspired and another a conscious decision or choice?

Hmmmmmmm. I doubt you have the chops to swim this deep.
If you believe in PSI, you are now nothing but an automaton. With coincidience your only hope of knowing what is you and what is a predetermined mechanism causing your life in your unconsciousness.

Muhahahahahahahaha.

This rabbit hole is deep.



You are not the chicken, or even a human with PSI.
You are a robot.
edit on 9/1/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Hey pseudo-skeptics, I can keep this up all day. So keep it coming! Bump my thread with your BS posts (which I no longer bother reading), and I'll just keep responding by posting evidence. Deal?

Exploratory Evidence for Correlations between Entrained Mental Coherence and Random Physical Systems


Abstract

An experiment tested whether mental coherence entrained in groups would affect sequences of data generated by truly random number generators (RNGs) in the vicinity of those groups. Coherence was entrained by having groups listen to a prescribed series of binaural beat rhythms during a 6-day workshop. Two RNGs based on electronic noise and one on radioactive decay latencies were located in the building where the workshops took place. Random data were continually collected from these RNGs during 14 workshops. As controls, the same RNGs generated data in the same locations and times but during 8 weeks when no workshops took place. Other RNGs in two distant locations were run as additional controls.

An exploratory hypothesis predicted that fluctuations in entrained mental coherence associated with the workshop activities would modulate the random data recorded during the workshops. This was predicted to result in positive correlations between random data streams collected from one workshop to the next. Results showed that during the workshops the overall correlation was positive, as predicted (p = .008); during control periods the same RNGs produced chance results (p = .74). Random data generated in distant locations also produced results consistent with chance.


edit on 9-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
When pseudo-skeptics start in with their worn-out scientism rhetoric it just reeks of irrationality and fear to me. Pseudo-skeptics are cowards and hypocrites. They know who they are.

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal


Abstract

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’

The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion. This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.


Introduction

Sheer ignorance aside, some people resist the idea of the paranormal. There are many interesting reasons why they might. Telepathy, for example, could be seen as implying the loss of one’s inner privacy; if we accept telepathy, we would have to admit that other people might be able to ‘‘read’’ our minds, snoop on our inmost secrets. I once recoiled from a chance to speak face to face with Padre Pio for that very reason. People might resist psychokinesis because it suggests that black magic or sorcery might be effective, a frightening thought. Others might flee the afterlife hypothesis because it would force them to revise their assumptions and attitudes toward life. People might just resent having to admit they were wrong about a worldview they were deeply invested in.

[...]


edit on 9-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Did you guys know that psychic processes can influence water crystal formation?

Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication


Abstract

An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as ‘‘proximal’’ controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls.

Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions. Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p ¼ 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.




 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Of course it isn't just water that our thoughts influence. It's everything.

So after seeing what we can do with water, they tried it on chocolate...yum.

EFFECTS OF INTENTIONALLY ENHANCED CHOCOLATE ON MOOD


Objective: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled experiment investigated whether chocolate exposed to “good intentions” would enhance mood more than unexposed chocolate.

Design: Individuals were assigned to one of four groups and asked to record their mood each day for a week by using the Profile of Mood States. For days three, four and five, each person consumed a half ounce of dark chocolate twice a day at prescribed times. Three groups blindly received chocolate that had been intentionally treated by three different techniques. The intention in each case was that people who ate the chocolate would experience an enhanced sense of energy, vigor, and wellbeing. The fourth group blindly received untreated chocolate as a placebo control. The hypothesis was that mood reported during the three days of eating chocolate would improve more in the intentional groups than in the control group.

Subjects: Stratified random sampling was used to distribute 62 participants among the four groups, matched for age, gender, and amount of chocolate consumed on average per week. Most participants lived in the same geographic region to reduce mood variations due to changes in weather, and the experiment was conducted during one week to reduce effects of current events on mood fluctuations.

Results: On the third day of eating chocolate, mood had improved significantly more in the intention conditions than in the control condition (P  .04). Analysis of a planned subset of individuals who habitually consumed less than the grand mean of 3.2 ounces of chocolate per week showed a stronger improvement in mood (P  .0001). Primary contributors to the mood changes were the factors of declining fatigue (P  .01) and increasing vigor (P  .002). All three intentional techniques contributed to the observed results.

Conclusion: The mood-elevating properties of chocolate can be enhanced with intention.


But hey lets just keep pretending that we humans don't have the power to fix our various problems with our intentions and our psychic nature. I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies won't mind.

edit on 9-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


They actually had to change the way they assessed the study after a referee found that they had problems with the way data was collected.

The
referees felt that the strong deviation observed in an RNG not previously vetted in
fi eld-consciousness studies, combined with unexpectedly strong negative results
in the remote RNGs, cast the experimental outcome in doubt. In response to such
comments, we developed an alternative (and thus post hoc) analytical way to test
the MMI hypothesis without relying on deviations from chance expectation in
individual RNG outputs.


So they simply made up some stuff that would give them a result.

Top stuff. Post Hoc.

What they have done is pile statistical analysis ontop of the statistical analysis that was criticized in the first place.

Keep it up champ.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This is all you have and you know it.

In place of evidence all you have is Dean Radin and Statistics. Thats it, statistics. This is all you have linked in a nutshell.


Parapsychologists, astrologers, theologians, and others who seek anomalies to guide them to transpersonal wisdom and insight into the true nature of the universe, are now able to use computers to do extremely complex statistical analyses of monumental masses of data. When they find a statistically significant correlation between or among variables, they are extremely impressed and consider the discovery to be proof of the occult or the supernatural. To the occult statistician there is no such thing as a spurious correlation.

www.skepdic.com...


This is pretty much all you have linked.


The evidence Radin presents, however, is little more than a hodgepodge of occult statistics. Unable to find a single person who can correctly guess a three-letter word or move a pencil an inch without trickery, the psi researchers have resorted to doing complex statistical analyses of data. In well-designed studies they assume that whenever they have data that, by some statistical formula, is not likely due to chance, they attribute the outcome to psi. A well-designed study is one that carefully controls for such things as cheating, sensory leakage (unintentional transfer of information by non-psychic means), inadequate randomization, and other factors that might lead to an artifact (something that looks like it's due to psi when it's actually due to something else).

www.skepdic.com...
edit on 9/1/13 by atlasastro because: DENYING IGNORANCE



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Let's have a closer look at the first few pieces of spam in this new wave of gish galloping published in the grandiose and sciencey-sounding "Journal of Scientific Exploration":


REFEREEING: Manuscripts will be sent to one or more referees at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers are given the option of providing an anonymous report or a signed report.
In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in
evaluating material for scholarly publication. On many of the matters of interest to the Society for
Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific
Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more
speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless,
those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and
logical argument.


So they clain that "observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument" yet:

a) A consensus is amongst referees is NOT needed for publication (unscientific)
b) They publish material that is "more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals" (unscientific)
c) The peer-review process is at the editor's discretion (unscientific)

Let's place bets as to whether OP will respond directly to this or skirt past it and continue spamming.
edit on 9-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Surprise, surprise. Stubborn pseudo-skeptics have bumped this thread with posts that I won't bother reading. I told you, I don't bother with pseudo-skeptics like you John & co. I would have better luck getting through to young-earth creationists.

Find someone else to harass and goad.

The Effect of the “Laying On of Hands” on Transplanted Breast Cancer in Mice


Abstract

After witnessing numerous cases of cancer remission associated with a healer who used “laying on of hands” in New York, one of us (W.B. ) “apprenticed” in techniques alleged to reproduce the healing effect. We obtained five experimental mice with mammary adenocarcinoma (code: H2712; host strain: C3H/HeJ; strain of origin: C3H/HeHu), which had a predicted 100% fatality between 14 and 27 days subsequent to injection. Bengston treated these mice for 1 hour per day for 1 month. The tumors developed a “blackened area,” then they ulcerated, imploded, and closed, and the mice lived their normal life spans. Control mice sent to another city died within the predicted time frame.

Three replications using skeptical volunteers (including D.K.) and laboratories at Queens College and St. Joseph’s College produced an overall cure rate of 87.9% in 33 experimental mice. An additional informal test by Krinsley at Arizona State resulted in the same patterns. Histological studies indicated viable cancer cells through all stages of remission. Reinjections of cancer into the mice in remission in Arizona and New York did not take, suggesting a stimulated immunological response to the treatment. Our tentative conclusions: Belief in laying on of hands is not necessary in order to produce the effect; there is a stimulated immune response to treatment, which is reproducible and predictable; and the mice retain an immunity to the same cancer after remission. Future work should involve testing on various diseases and conventional immunological studies of treatment effects on experimental animals.


edit on 9-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/1/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


So far all you have done is thrown "The Journal Of Scientific Explorations" into disrepute.
Second line.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule
 


So far all you have done is thrown "The Journal Of Scientific Explorations" into disrepute.
Second line.


So far all you have done is share your opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Many people in this thread have shared their opinion. Some of us have tried to do more... share evidence. Maybe you noticed some of it. As part of the whole 'deny ignorance' thingy.

I had no frikkin' idea people could possibly be skeptical of parapsychological evidence. I was born yesterday!

So it's a good thing that there are local "skeptics" so willing to politely share their opinions. So grateful to them and to you.


edit on 10-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
33
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join