The Reality of Psi: Leading Journal Publishes Paper Revealing the Evidence

a reply to: ArMaP

thats the thing though , regardless of water being there or not , not everyone is able to water divine , it only works for some people !

animals are there in that valley or another or not , or rain comes or not for the crops to grow well or not! ! the same way a shaman can give you that information , as can a water diviner find you water !
the shamanic stuff can be proven to work and has been proven to work !

but science just says its all rubbish right
but its the longest running spiritual practice known to humanity!

the I ching, how can that divination appear to work ?

originally posted by: sapien82
thats the thing though , regardless of water being there or not , not everyone is able to water divine , it only works for some people !

I know it only works for some people, I was talking about objective results, things that can be measured, that's the type of thing scientists like to have.

If a person says that there's water in one place and when they dig they find water 100% of the time then that person can, without a doubt, find water.

animals are there in that valley or another or not , or rain comes or not for the crops to grow well or not! ! the same way a shaman can give you that information , as can a water diviner find you water !

The difference I see is that animals can be in one place now and move somewhere else, the same happens with the weather. Besides, there are signs that can be used to know how the weather is going to be, with no need of any parapsychological powers.

the shamanic stuff can be proven to work and has been proven to work !

but science just says its all rubbish right

I don't know, I haven't seen any scientific report about specific shamanic stuff.

but its the longest running spiritual practice known to humanity!

That means nothing.

the I ching, how can that divination appear to work ?

Appear to work is not the same thing as working, and I have never seen any signs that show that it "apparently works".

a reply to: ArMaP

There are physicists who are saying that determinism, independence and objectivity are incompatible.

journals.aps.org...

Hidden-variable models aim to reproduce the results of quantum theory and to satisfy our classical intuition. Their refutation is usually based on deriving predictions that are different from those of quantum mechanics. Here instead we study the mutual compatibility of apparently reasonable classical assumptions. We analyze a version of the delayed-choice experiment which ostensibly combines determinism, independence of hidden variables on the conducted experiments, and wave-particle objectivity (the assertion that quantum systems are, at any moment, either particles or waves, but not both). These three ideas are incompatible with any theory, not only with quantum mechanics.

I got that link from the following video:




EDIT: Here's a post I made that is related to this subject a few months ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TheBandit795

along the lines that consciousness manifests reality and that matter comes from mind !

a reply to: surfer_soul

So what’s fringe today might yet be proved correct such as with the psi phenomenon.

Why do you think Phage asked where the PSI math is?


Einstein had fringe theories at the time, with those theories he had equations that were looked over by others and the math worked.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: anotherside
Ive experienced telepathy daily. Its annoying.

Mine is more like precognition. Useless non-lottery winning number precognition. And yes, it can be pretty annoying.

So you have a thousand thoughts flow through your brain every hour of every day. And sometimes those thoughts come to fruition and match something that happens irl. But you are ignoring the million things that didn’t happen and focusing on the very few that did. Like you are thinking about your mom and she calls, but you don’t get that feeling every time before she calls. But you take special note of that one time. Then you’re thinking about that new song, and it comes on the radio. So there is another instance. But you’re not taking into account that they play that somg every hour.

It would be nice if it was that simple. But rather than the latest song popping up on the radio, it will be more like the title of an obscure song from the 1930s I'm thinking of will pop up on a piece of trash in the street. Completely unrelated contexts. The unusual nature will catch my attention. But even if it was as you say, out of the thousands of thoughts I have in a day why would that particular thought catch my attention? Why was that particular thought strong enough for me to remember when I encountered it again, since as you say I'm ignoring millions of other things. Sure, there are ideas and concepts that repeat in our lives and brains, but I'm talking about the stuff that comes from way out of left field enough to catch my attention.

The fact that it catches my attention above the noise makes it significant, just like any solid data point in any scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, all of this is happening cognitively which makes it extremely difficult to record and quantify, which is why psi studies have to borrow so heavily from psychological and sociological study protocols (heavy reliance on self-reporting). All can say is that I know what level of consciousness is "normal" for me, and what is not. And when these incidents of precognition happen a lot - for no useful reason, as I said - they become distracting and annoying.

Sure, there's a huge subjective component to it, but even the hardest of hard science studies begin and end with subjectivity. A scientist has to decide what to study, and after all the data is in, they have to interpret it. Very subjective.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

if you can explain something with maths then its reaL!

maths used to explain phenomenon normally turn out to be real!

and again supporting the idea that consciousness manifests reality!

so to test

we will see world peace within the next 50 years
we will colonise the galaxy in peace
we will unite as one species
we will live in complete harmony with all life

I thought it , put it forth into the digital realm , now just to sit back and ride the wave hahah

thats how it starts, I want to invent something so i think about it, I then draw it or tell someone about my idea,
its in the 3rd dimension as a drawing , then slowly it becomes reality!

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: TheBandit795

along the lines that consciousness manifests reality and that matter comes from mind !

The trick with that is that our individual reality bubbles intertwine, so rather than you simply generating your own universe, there are other people (all living things, actually) generating their own universes, too.

Unless I'm just imagining all of you out there, which I would consider much more plausible if I thought I had that good an imagination.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: anotherside
Ive experienced telepathy daily. Its annoying.

Mine is more like precognition. Useless non-lottery winning number precognition. And yes, it can be pretty annoying.

So you have a thousand thoughts flow through your brain every hour of every day. And sometimes those thoughts come to fruition and match something that happens irl. But you are ignoring the million things that didn’t happen and focusing on the very few that did. Like you are thinking about your mom and she calls, but you don’t get that feeling every time before she calls. But you take special note of that one time. Then you’re thinking about that new song, and it comes on the radio. So there is another instance. But you’re not taking into account that they play that somg every hour.

It would be nice if it was that simple. But rather than the latest song popping up on the radio, it will be more like the title of an obscure song from the 1930s I'm thinking of will pop up on a piece of trash in the street. Completely unrelated contexts. The unusual nature will catch my attention. But even if it was as you say, out of the thousands of thoughts I have in a day why would that particular thought catch my attention? Why was that particular thought strong enough for me to remember when I encountered it again, since as you say I'm ignoring millions of other things. Sure, there are ideas and concepts that repeat in our lives and brains, but I'm talking about the stuff that comes from way out of left field enough to catch my attention.

The fact that it catches my attention above the noise makes it significant, just like any solid data point in any scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, all of this is happening cognitively which makes it extremely difficult to record and quantify, which is why psi studies have to borrow so heavily from psychological and sociological study protocols (heavy reliance on self-reporting). All can say is that I know what level of consciousness is "normal" for me, and what is not. And when these incidents of precognition happen a lot - for no useful reason, as I said - they become distracting and annoying.

Sure, there's a huge subjective component to it, but even the hardest of hard science studies begin and end with subjectivity. A scientist has to decide what to study, and after all the data is in, they have to interpret it. Very subjective.

It is exactly the same as what i described. How many coincidences are going on around you that you never take notice of?

a reply to: TheBandit795

Is that supposed to be applied at particle level or at our level?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Aye but how do we know its our own ?

I think we have our own to a level then higher up its a group level , then above that its the level thats feeding us all , so from the source ! so and so forth like a fractal

originally posted by: ArMaP

the I ching, how can that divination appear to work ?

Appear to work is not the same thing as working, and I have never seen any signs that show that it "apparently works".

Carry out a scientific survey of hundreds of thousands of Koreans and Chinese who believe from their own experience that the I Ching works and report back after you finish the survey in a few years time. Perhaps, then, I will take seriously your vacuous, anecdotal argument.

a reply to: micpsi

You don't need to take it seriously, in the same way I don't need to take your posts seriously, they are just opinions.

a reply to: Phage

PSI math!
Red-haired cutie!!

a reply to: micpsi

this is the thing , we have a whole planets worth of witness testimony that the I-ching (king wen sequence) and also shamanic practices work
without any real in depth scientific investigation into it , also the same with pyschedelic states and the ability to feel others thoughts and carry out their actions.
is it because in reality they know that if we started to give this more support for studies etc, you'd find that humans can make themselves god like and then we'd have no need for governments or societies or anything as we;d all be one species in action together in peace! Or is it simply if that humans are told they can find peace without anything else the world markets would crash as we'd ditch materialism and let go of form as we are eternal and immortal as one source of information

There has to be something to it otherwise why would the US department of defense spend all that money on researching it

a reply to: sapien82

There are giant leaps of faith being made in this post. Your stipulations are somewhat odd and logically inconsistent as there are currently zero people out there with this 'god-like' state due to anything Psi related.

You appear to be attaching the principle of an international scale cover up despite the evidence for Psi being very shaky or marginal. Iv avoided this thread because, the discussion of bias' etc make me smile a little... since most of you appear to have 100% the flip side bias of believing something or wanting to believe something as a done deal when the evidence for it isn't as strong as you think it is.

Also experimentation wise, iv never seen a single good controlled study of Psi affects that actually had good controlled conditions. Most descriptions of experiments that iv read are highly problematic in that they don't have enough controls and the authors are clearly taking an approach that is wanting to pull a rabbit out of a hat, rather than simply putting an un-biased hand into a had to see if there is indeed a rabbit there or not. A publication of a study that wants to research or start a dialogue is not evidence and meta-analysis is fraught with issues if not done correctly. The moment I see 'Meta-analysis' and "PROOF" i always have to sit and think about it since the whole point of a meta-analysis is the pooling together of many different data-sets taken with different conditions and often to try and prove different things. A few small errors or initial bias into these studies and you can have a result that is meaningless or says more about the bias of the researcher than the truth...

Its like how you guys bring up string theory all the time, despite there being zero evidence for its validity, yet none of you appear to actually understand it... but because its got language that is pleasing ('everything is energy and vibrations') you all latch onto it as though it is a scientific crossing point between mainstream accepted science and out of the box thinking... when it really isn't

a reply to: ArMaP

Both levels. There are experiments showing quantum effects on the macro scale.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've just read this book from Dean Radin. It's a really good book on this subject. He addresses practically every issue skeptics and materialists would have against the research done on psi experiments.

Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe

a reply to: neoholographic

I find the most important thing we should acknowledge and look at further is what Cardena suggests (see quote below) and what I have been trying to get across here to the skeptics and those that offer to conduct studies with the people here that believe themselves to have had experiences of psi. That being, that the research methodology needs to be expanded to include or exclude the different levels and types of psi people experience. For instance, the psychics that police use to help solve crimes seem to be high-level functioning psychics for that particular task, but perhaps when these psychics are studied and tested in other areas of psi, they may be low-functioning, or hit and miss. So, I would suggest different tasks/studies and/or waking/meditative states should be differentiated within the metholodogies and not be rolled up into 'average' results.

Cardeña finishes with some suggestions for researchers to integrate into future studies of psi – in particular, the need for using more ‘selected participants’ (that is, those people that seem to be ‘better’ at psi than others). He notes that while psi laboratory results are scientifically significant, they are also small in size – and this could be because they are the result of the ‘averaging’ of larger effects of talented individuals mixed with the smaller (or even null) effects of others. According to Cardeña, “characteristics shown to increase the likelihood of performing well in a psi experiment include a belief that one will do well in the study, some psychological traits (e.g., extraversion and openness to experience), a mental practice such as meditation, and previous experience in a psi experiment”. Artists in particular “tend to score better than chance and other groups”, he says, and “there is evidence that testing while a participant is in a different state of consciousness than the ordinary, waking one is conducive to psi performance”. But the paper also mentions one more suggestion to help psi research become more accepted by mainstream science: the need for “a change in the editorial policy of some journals so that the default position is not to automatically reject papers on psi but to have them evaluated on their own merits by knowledgeable and open reviewers”. Given the appearance of this paper in American Psychologist, that may now be happening.

edit on 17CDT10America/Chicago048101031 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Woodcarver
It is exactly the same as what i described. How many coincidences are going on around you that you never take notice of?

And as I said, the fact that they were different enough for me to notice them makes them significant.