It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He basically said, why do people have to use quantum mechanics to explain magic or the supernatural.
WHO CLAIMED THESE THINGS WERE MAGIC OR SUPERNATURAL?
Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:
Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA
Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden
Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK
C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA
Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA
Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)
Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA
Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK
Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA
Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA
Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA
Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA
Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK
Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA
Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France
Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA
Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK
Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA
And…
P. Baseilhac, Researcher in Theoretical Physics, University of Tours, France
Eberhard Bauer, Dept. Head, Institute of Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene, Freiburg,
This was one of the points you made that I disagreed with. Why can't quantum mechanics explain some of these things?
Years of research at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab at Princeton University have shown that consciousness (the mind) can influence the behavior of physical devices known as random event generators (REGs), through an unknown mechanism.
An REG converts a quantum physical phenomena (“electron tunneling”) into a probabilistic data output. Under normal conditions, this REG output is consistent with known statistical behaviors.
However, PEAR research shows that conscious intention can affect the statistical characteristics of the REG's output. The effect often exceeds chance expectations in the direction of intention.
When conscious intention changes, the statistical characteristics of the REG output can also change to follow the new direction of intention. This also can significantly exceed chance expectations.
The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles. Click on the title of an article to download it.
The international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena is the Parapsychological Association, an elected affiliate (since 1969) of the AAAS, the largest general scientific organization in the world.
Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.
So, if we're going to debate, let's debate the things I have actually said
Here's publications and research.
That said, I don't see anything on the "Mind Lamp" site to dissuade me that it is evidence of anything, because it's all anecdotal evidence and speculation as to what, if anything, is going on with the product.
"We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over." Jahn and Dunne said.
“For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,” said the laboratory’s founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton’s engineering school and an emeritus professor. “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”
Skeptics don't want to say, let's look at the science and the technology and come up and test other explanations.
You say it's evidence of nothing but you provide NOTHING to rebut the actual evidence and research that has occurred throughout the years.
Healing at a Distance
Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot
Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.
Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study
Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda
Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.
Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.
Physiological correlations at a distance
Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential
Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.
Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.
Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects
Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses
Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.
Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects
Richards et al (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects.
Achterberg et al (2005). Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis
Radin (2005). The sense of being stared at: A preliminary meta-analysis.
Radin & Schlitz (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study.
Schlitz et al (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology.
Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate.
Ambach (2008). Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.
Hinterberger (2010). Searching for neuronal markers of psi: A summary of three studies measuring electrophysiology in distant participants.
Schmidt (2012). Can we help just by good intentions? A meta-analysis of experiments on distant intention effects
Jensen & Parker (2012). Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds.
Parker & Jensen (2013). Further possible physiological connectedness between identical twins: The London study.
Telepathy & ESP
Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.
Puthoff & Targ (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research
Eisenberg & Donderi (1979). Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.
Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?
Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton
Bem (1994). Response to Hyman
Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer
Sheldrake & Smart (2000). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane.
Sheldrake & Smart (2000). A dog that seems to know when his owner to coming home: Videotaped experiments and observations.
Storm & Ertel (2001). Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research
Milton & Wiseman (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001)
Sheldrake & Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy.
Sheldrake & Smart (2003). Videotaped experiments on telephone telepathy.
Sherwood & Roe (2003). A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESP Programme
Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures
Hastings (2007). Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard
Radin (2007). Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?
Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology
There's much more and I have went over some of the evidence in this thread. All of the research has links and this is just some of it.
originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
a reply to: neoholographic
Ill revisit this later and see if I can't chime in on the full article and some of the comments - but having personally experienced INCREDIBLY deep telepathic connections that were recognized by myself and another individual in the moment without any prior verbal insinuation toward such; I feel that this is entirely feasible and I aim to explore it in my personal life in great depth.
The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.
A meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000.[32] The authors analyzed 23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies.[32]
After many scientists and scholars criticized this retroactive study,[24] Leibovici later stated that it was "intended lightheartedly to illustrate the importance of asking research questions that fit with scientific models."[25]
Olshansky and Dossey cite an earlier study by this same group as supporting their thesis. However, this also found no significant differences between the two groups on any of the 18 outcomes.5 These results seem to conflict with the hypothesis, not support it.
Quackwatch includes the journal among its list of "nonrecommended periodicals", characterizing it as "fundamentally flawed".[1]
In 2005 the BBC used a report published by the journal as the basis of a story claiming that the pseudoscientific practice of homeopathy was effective for some patients.[2] The article contradicted the findings of a study that had recently appeared in The Lancet, reporting that homeopathy was ineffective.[2] Pharmacologist David Colquhoun has criticized the methodology of the article in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, saying its questionnaire-based approach was "not really research at all" and that the published conclusion drawn from it was "quite ludicrous". In his view, "papers like this do not add to human knowledge, they detract from it".[3]
In MANTRA II, we studied two noetic strategies in
patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: an
unmasked bedside combination of music, imagery, and
touch, and a double-masked, off-site array of combined
congregational prayers. Neither therapy alone or
combined showed any measurable treatment effect on
the primary composite endpoint of major adverse
cardiovascular events at the index hospital, readmission,
and 6-month death or readmission
I've listed the evidence and research over and over again. There's more evidence for Psi research than there is for things like String Theory, Inflation or Hawking Radiation.
A meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000.[32] The authors analyzed 23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies.[32]
Quackwatch includes the journal among its list of "nonrecommended periodicals", characterizing it as "fundamentally flawed".[1]
Various, broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect.. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that "There is no scientifically discernable effect for intercessory prayer as assessed in controlled studies".[1] However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies, but "prayer was unassociated with positive improvement in the condition of client" in the other 10, concluding that based upon the American Psychology Association's Division 12 (clinical psychology) criteria for evidence-based practice, intercessory prayer "must be classified as an experimental intervention." The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies had failed to produce significant findings.[2]
I don't dismiss paranormal or supernatural phenomenon -- I am, in fact, a real believer in it, as a theist
what I dismiss is the attempt to explain it through science. Science, by definition, cannot describe or prove the supernatural, so pseudo-scientists should stop trying to do so.