Thread: But It Defies The Laws Of Physics!

(Edit: Abridged, yet still slightly long-winded first post, but I felt like venting. Sue me. )

It has come to my attention that there’s a culture of dissent and ridicule actively disguising itself as legitimate skepticism that is constantly bashing the mental capacities of those that disagree with them, on any issue. The case in point, here, is the possibility of the “paranormal,” which seems to be as heated a debate as any.

This culture (many of whom are, admittedly, exceptionally intelligent in many areas) overstep the boundaries of legitimate skepticism by (among other ways) holding onto the perception that the secrets and limits of the universe have been defined, by way of physics. In doing so, they use this misconception as a means to cast a heavy shadow of dissent over those who so much as mention the possibility of ‘paranormal’ phenomena.

Granted, there are many reasons to believe that the ‘paranormal’ is not Likely. I myself question metaphysics and classical physics, equally. I believe that, at the time, neither has been sufficiently mapped out, especially to a degree that one can exert a sort of pompous chastening over the other party. While there is ample evidence against the paranormal, to imply that these deductions/theories/laws are infallible, and that opposition to them is ignorant, is to display an ignorance that exposes the perpetrator to be no more conscious, intelligent or competent about the issue at hand than the person they are bashing. This, however, rarely stops the dissenter from wailing away on the “foolish believer,” regurgitating quotes that they think concur with the whole of the scientific universe, simply because it is what they have grasped through exposure, however minimal, to mainstream science - Taking the “path of least resistance,” if you ask me.)

Quantum physics have been producing results that are continuously evident to be in violation of some of the “laws” of classical physics that so many dissenters cling to like scripture. My stance is simply that one cannot ignore the recent discoveries in the realm of quantum physics while competently arguing that the metaphysical is not possible. It is no different than someone with no understanding of classical physics preaching, irrefutably, that classical physics don’t stand, and the metaphysical exists beyond all doubt. If more close-minded skeptics, or pseudoskeptics, would realize this fact, they would stand less chance of proving to be guilty of the same level of ignorance they are callously ridiculing. I hope that those who wish to be known as credible, rational skeptics never lose perspective on this, and continue to debate their points of view fairly, justly, open-mindedly and without the scare tactic of public ridicule against those who offer another perspective.

This thread is a place for posting evidence of what is now considered “paranormal.” It should not be a place to go quoting baseless anecdotes like “Well, this one time, I was dreaming that I saw my friend at school, and she was wearing this shirt that I thought was really cool, and when I went to school the next day, she was wearing that shirt!” Such a thing would be counter-productive. I mean things that are as verifiable as possible. Articles, links to videos, book title recommendations, etc. etc. If your source is questionable, please make this clear. There is no dignity to be lost by posting information while acknowledging it may not be 100% credible, but we do want to at least Try to shoot for quality over quantity. This is a great task, and I don’t expect this thread to flood with verifiable information right off the bat, but I do believe that there is enough out there to at Least structure support for the claims that the metaphysical is Possible. Do I propose to prove beyond all doubt that metaphysics exist? No. Such a claim would be naïve on my part. However I’m in hopes that this thread may prove as a legitimate argument in favor of metaphysical possibility, hopefully dispelling the myth that "No evidence exists". Nothing more.


To begin, here is an overview of the concept of quantum entanglement from a “New Scientist” issue. This is the first time I, personally, have heard of “New Scientist” but it is an easily comprehensible report that outlines the basic concepts of quantum entanglement, and, I feel, a good place to start. I think it is the most suitable stage for tugging on the rug beneath the pedestals that paranormal dissenters place themselves on. I will be adding more, later, and hope that others post their findings on any and all things paranormally legit, as well.

http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

A few more that I've skimmed over briefly, but might help get a better understanding of QE for those, like myself, that are new to the concept.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...ntTeleport.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/18
http://media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MO...DE=VIEW&ID=8075
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6558

Our main argument was never that it goes against the laws of physics but that it has never been proven to work, has never been recorded, has never been successful in an experiment and is all based on subjective experiences that seemingly are impossible to recreate as soon as someone asks to do so. I'd have no problem with paranormal stuff if there was only 1 seriously unquestionable case of it happening, a case that is agreed upon to be valid by serious researchers from both sides.

Well this looks familiar:

CNN wrote:

Carter: CIA used psychic to help find missing plane
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said the CIA, without his knowledge, once consulted a psychic to help locate a missing government plane in Africa. Carter told students at Emory University that the "special U.S. plane" crashed somewhere in Zaire while he was president.
According to Carter, U.S. spy satellites could find no trace of the aircraft, so the CIA consulted a psychic from California. Carter said the woman "went into a trance and gave some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point and the plane was there."
Carter made the disclosure after two students asked if he was aware of any government evidence pointing to the existence of extraterrestrials. "I never knew of any instance where it was proven that any sort of vehicle had come from outer space to our country and either lived here or left," the former president said.
[/b]

Well….that’s 1.

On top of that, we have the alleged RV evidence on the same Remote Viewing thread where I posted the above quote for you, the first time. They still stand unless you call stating that it’s “all bullshit” your way of disproving them. But here are a couple more, for you. Keep in mind, I offer these as Evidence. Not irrefutable proof. I can no more say that these actually happened than I can say Chris Columbus discovered America because I wasn't there. But, any self-respecting skeptic will be able to fully disprove the claims stated before the next time they dare form their lips (or text) to say no evidence exists.

From: A Lawyer Presents a Case for the Afterlife:

7. Other psychic laboratory experiments
'I am attacked by two very opposite sects — the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me 'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature.'
~Galvani, the discoverer of electricity

Laboratory experiments into psychic phenomena have been conducted for over a hundred years and continue to increase the voluminous objective evidence for the existence of the afterlife. Most impressive and persuasive results have been achieved in controlled experiments where maximum co-operation was achieved between intelligences from this dimension and the afterlife. It is proposed here to give details of only a few experiments. *
One of the first of a long line of eminent scientists to undertake such investigations was Sir William Crookes who among other things investigated the mediumship of Daniel D. Home. *
Sir William Crookes was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He was showered with honors from many countries — from England, from the United States, Scotland, Germany, France, Italy, South Africa, Holland, Mexico, Sweden. His contribution to science is unparalleled by any one single individual in his and in our modern times. *
Sir William was a skeptic before he was specifically chosen by the English skeptics to investigate psychic phenomena with the intention of discrediting it (Crookes 1871). He was also a man of enormously high integrity, extremely high intelligence and unshakeable intellectual independence. He had stated that he would never let lobbying prevent him from telling the truth, the whole truth. *
Accordingly, he thoroughly investigated psychic phenomena and although he obtained overwhelming evidence of the existence of unknown forces for most of his lifetime he remained cautiously skeptical about the afterlife. It was only when his wife materialized through a medium that he was convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever about survival. *
Because of his independence of mind, strength of character and because he would not be subservient to the skeptical closed-minded scientists, Sir William was viciously attacked by those who had appointed him to investigate psychic phenomena.
One of the most disgusting attacks was the claim by Walter Mann that Sir William Crookes' investigation into materializations were fraudulently concocted because he was having an affair with one of the mediums he investigated— then a 15 year old girl. Of course, the person who made the claim did not have the courage, the fortitude and the conviction to make this claim when Crookes was alive. This cowardly English skeptic waited until Sir William Crookes' death before he used gutter level cowardly accusations to attack Sir William. *
To this day, this unfortunate incident caused by an enormously jealous and envious nonentity has remained one of the most abhorrent examples of disgusting conduct in the history of English psychic investigation. Those who for material motivation have become the dupes of their materialist masters and are repeating Walter Mann's deliberate falsification against Sir William will one day retract their scurrilous, gutter level smear campaign.
Sir William Crookes did a great deal of psychic investigation with Daniel Dunglas Home. In one of their experiments Home, with the assistance of his invisible companions, demonstrated the ability to affect the weight of objects in Crookes' immediate presence. Dozens of highly credible witnesses independently gave testimony of Home's ability to levitate heavy pieces of furniture. Crookes showed in a laboratory situation that Home could affect the weight of a board resting on a balance scale merely by placing his fingers in a glass of water resting on the end of the board.
Crookes concluded that he had discovered a 'new force' to which he gave the name of 'Psychic'. He noted that this force or power was very variable and at times was entirely absent; it required painstaking and patient investigation. He was at pains to avoid speculating on the nature of this new force and appealed to his fellow scientists to come forward to assist him to investigate it (Crookes 1874:17).
In another carefully constructed experiment a musical instrument, an accordion purchased by Crookes, played by itself in Home's immediate presence. In these experiments Home's hands and feet were restrained and the accordion placed inside a wire cage through which an electrical current was passed. Crookes and two of the other witnesses present stated that they distinctly saw the accordion 'floating about on the inside of the cage with no visible support' (Crookes 1874:14).
Sir William's wife, Lady Crookes, was more willing to speak plainly about her observations. Here was a classic example where an intelligence from the afterlife was able to make himself half-seen. According to her she saw the accordion taken from Homes' hand by:
a cloudy appearance which soon seemed to condense into a distinct human form, clothed in a filmy drapery...It was semitransparent, and I could see the sitters through it all the time. Mr Home remained near the sliding doors. As the figure approached I felt an intense cold, getting stronger as it got nearer, and as it gave me the accordion I could not help screaming. The figure seemed to sink into the floor to the waist, leaving only the head and shoulder visible, still playing the accordion, which was then about a foot off the floor *
(quoted by Stemman 1975: 129).
No doubt, Sir William Crookes will remain as one of the greatest investigators of psychic phenomena who irretrievably established absolute objective proof for the existence of the afterlife.
More laboratory experiments
Dr Hereward Carrington is a most distinguished, highly credible and respected scientist and author who was Director of the American Psychical Institute. In many instances he personally investigated psychic phenomena. In his most impressive work, The World of Psychic Research (1973) he outlines a number of psychic laboratory experiments which clearly and in absolute terms prove how intelligences from the afterlife are in a position to make their presence and participation known.
The Dr Osti-Rudi Schneider physical psychic experiments. *
Dr Eugene Osty, head of the Metaphysic Institute in Paris, proved under laboratory conditions that a young medium, Rudi Schneider, was able to produce genuine physical phenomena without fraud. This is how Carrington described the experiment:
Dr Osty placed the objects to be moved upon a small table. Across the top of the table he passed a beam of infra-red rays. These were, of course, invisible to the eyes of those present, but the apparatus was so designed that if any solid object was interposed in the path of the rays, cutting off as much as thirty per cent of them, a battery of cameras would be exposed, flashlights ignited and the pictures taken of the tabletop at that moment. This would happen if any material thing tried to move the objects — say a human hand. A series of photos would at once reveal the fraud.
In the sittings that ensued objects were moved on numerous occasions, flashes were set off, and the plates developed. What did they show? Nothing — that is, nothing abnormal. They just showed the table top. But something had nevertheless been moving about over the table because the beam of infra-red rays had been interfered with and the objects had been displaced (Carrington 1973:54).
The first stage of the experiment was most successful with the medium obtaining the co-operation of an intelligence from the afterlife to move things around so that his presence was made known as evidenced by the battery of cameras flashing when the intelligence moved the items on the table. *
The second stage was to locate and identify the presence of the intelligence. To do this the experimenter devised an apparatus, a galvanometer, by means of which it would be possible to register the oscillation or the vibration rate of the intelligence once the experiment commenced. As soon as the experiment commenced, the intelligence began to move things around indicating that he was present; then something quite spectacular happened — the galvanometer began to register the 'pulsation' of the invisible intelligence. As Carrington states:
It was somewhat like taking the pulse of an invisible being standing before them in space! ( Carrington 1973:54).
Corroborative evidence
For centuries clairvoyants have claimed that every living thing possesses an invisible body — an astral body or an etheric body — which duplicates our physical body and which contains our real 'mind' as distinct from our physical brain. Most interesting corroborative evidence for this claim was reported by Sheila Ostrander & Lyn Schroeder in their revolutionary book, PSI Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain (1973). *
These authors state that experiments in Russia using sensitive electronic equipment are detecting that all living things — plants, animals and humans — not only have a physical body made of atoms and molecules but also a counterpart body of energy which the Russians are photographing and calling 'the biological plasma body'. Interestingly the Russians have corroborated the claim of clairvoyants that if a human being loses a finger or an arm or a leg the counterpart body remains whole — a kind of 'ghost' of the missing limb (Ostrander and Schroeder 1973: 223). *
Measuring psychic temperature *
Another most impressive experiment included in Carrington's book (1973) was the endeavor to produce objective, scientific evidence for the many claims made by mediums that a 'cold breeze' settles whenever they detect intelligences in the vicinity and when they are entering a trance. For a long time, the claim by mediums had to be subjectively accepted until science was used to show that the change in temperature could be objectively measured:
A thermometer ... was enclosed in a cage of wire netting, and fastened to a beam on the wall by means of screws. The clockwork was set going just before the seance commenced, and of course it began registering the heat of the room. In the seance that followed, a number of extraordinary physical phenomena were noted, among them complete liftings or levitations of the table. Coinciding with these manifestations, the thermometer showed instantaneous drops in temperature of ten, fifteen and up to twenty degrees Fahrenheit. And these drops only took a second or two to bring about, and they coincided exactly with the psychic phenomenon taking place elsewhere in the same room. Thus, science was able to measure another remarkable effect. (Carrington 1973: 57).
Carrington reports:
The object of the experiment was to prove conclusively that a new force unknown to science was being employed under conditions that permitted no conceivable form of fraud or trickery (1973: 57).
Psychological testing *
In another series of laboratory experiments the experimenters moved away from physical to psychological testing. This involved the participation of one of the most successful American mediums ever, Mrs Garrett, who according to Carrington submitted herself to all kinds of scientific investigations. She was tested by leading universities and scientific groups in Europe and America.
Mrs Garrett as a medium stated that she had a regular control, a spirit or intelligence by the name of Urvani who would speak through her while she was in trance. The experimenters decided to use a word association test devised by Dr Carl Jung from Zurich to test whether Urvani was really a separate entity from Mrs Garrett. It was decided to give Mrs Garrett the test when she was NOT in trance and to give her control, Urvani, a word association test when Mrs Garrett WAS in trance.
Professional psychologists and psychiatrists attest that the subject cannot maintain fraud for any length of time using a word association test of 100 words where the response time to a word is measured in tenths of a second. Any inconsistency and hesitation is noticed immediately. This being so, it was arranged that Urvani would himself take the test and bring in another seven intelligences from the afterlife to also participate.
The results showed conclusively that the word associations of Mrs Garrett when not in trance and of Urvani and the seven other entities were all radically different and that it was NOT possible for the information transmitted to have come from one person, from one mind (Carrington 1973:59). These results correspond with the evidence that we survive physical death and that our personality, our mind, our character survive with us.
Voice machine analysis
The independence of the entities speaking through a medium was also given corroboration by a totally independent scientific investigation of a most gifted Australian medium, Shirley Bray. The voices of three intelligences which regularly manifest through her were tape recorded. These taped voices were then put through a very high tech voice machine, the same one which was used by the British police in the investigation of the serial killer, the Yorkshire Ripper. The voice machine can measure variables such as pace, rhythm, accents etc. The machine showed that all taped voices from the medium Shirley Bray were those of totally different individuals. Scientists stated in unequivocal terms that because the machine registers the person's breathing pattern while speaking it would not have been possible for one person to produce the three voices on the tape. This is because the voice pattern-vibration for each individual is just like a fingerprint — different from person to person (Bray 1990:15).
EEG analysis
American Professor Charles H. Hapgood, reports in his excellent book, Voices of Spirit (1975) that he tested a medium to see if the electroencephalograph (EEG) of the medium Elwood Babbitt when out of trance would be different from when the medium's mind was allegedly taken over and controlled by intelligences from the afterlife. Hapgood took EEGs of Babbitt while three different intelligences were allegedly in control of the medium. The EEGs of each of the three were found to be completely different from each other and from the EEG of Babbitt not in trance. An EEG expert, Dr Bridge, noticed that the EEG's were characteristic of people of different physical age and could not belong to the one person. Hapgood reproduces the EEG diagrams in his book (1975: 224-227).
These are only a few of a huge number of experiments which together comprise a substantial body of evidence.
[/b]

Anybody else lose count, here?

Further, your using the term “Our” implies that you embody the whole of every pseudo-skeptic argument heard around the world, and is not valid. On this forum alone, I’ve noticed many people refer to their adherence to classical physics as the reason metaphysics are “silly.” So please speak only of yourself, as yours is not the only frame of mind I’m addressing.

Though in your case, perhaps you’ll say that everything above is bullshit, also, just like you did on the other thread. Well, in quantum entanglement there are enigmas that even physicists are now facing that seem, themselves, metaphysical. Wave/particle duality, quantum leaps of electrons, possible superluminal travel of information between particles that are entangled, in which changing the properties of one particle seems to Instantaneously effect the entangled mate, no matter how far apart they are. There is evidence of these things all around, the bias of a pseudo-skeptic simply forbids them to qualify anything they witness as evidence, especially when they can make up, right there on the spot, a “more Acceptable” (disguised as the "more logical") reason why such and such is happening, and present this baseless conception as "disproof of the paranormal," without the least bit of personal research, simply because it is their habitual illogic to do so, in favor of securing their own beliefs.

Also, here's a link to the RSA Telepathy Debate, that I would love to get more comments on. I started a thread about it a while ago, but seems that most of the people who are usually so quick to stand up and shoot down 'evidence' of the paranormal had chosen to stay quiet on this one.

Take note of the crowd poll results at the beginning and end of the debate, as well as the stereotypical pseudo-skeptical approach to reasoning by the anti-metaphysical advocate.
Trust me, this is a very interesting read:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html

I believe this needed to be said. Good post!
It seem as if the more intelligent people cling to the laws of physics. Maybe it is something that they can temporarily put their finger on. I feel it is similar to why they are often the same people that bash religion. It takes faith rather than an equation that can be figured out.
But if you notice the laws of what physicist and many skeptics consider to hold true are also ever changing. But because they can find this change and follow it, the hole world of physics can be turned upside down in an instant and that is considered new and exciting. But in fact their prior belief was not correct.
So you would think to make an assumption that remote viewing or AP exists would not be such a great leap of faith for those like minded people. But with no existing evidence they have much more ground to stand on.
I hope many people can extract something from your post Oneironaut. I am rather fond of it. And I am not a skeptic.

Originally posted by Korittke
Our main argument was never that it goes against the laws of physics but that it has never been proven to work, has never been recorded, has never been successful in an experiment and is all based on subjective experiences that seemingly are impossible to recreate as soon as someone asks to do so. I'd have no problem with paranormal stuff if there was only 1 seriously unquestionable case of it happening, a case that is agreed upon to be valid by serious researchers from both sides.

This also is a very valid point. And you can say it would be stupid to argue otherwise.
But if indeed any of these paranormal activities are possible then and we as sentient beings have yet to trigger its existence in our realm or lives or our minds then it could certainly be viewed as one of the greatest equations to figure out.
What loop whole are we missing?
What area of consciousness have we not grasped.?
What can we evolve into?
What dimensions may exist that hold the key to some of these questions.
Why can't we grasp something that we can fully imagine?

I guess we should watch our double posting Onironaut.

[quote]I believe this needed to be said. Good post!
...I hope many people can extract something from your post Oneironaut. I am rather fond of it. And I am not a skeptic.

Thanks man, I appreciate that.
I hope so, too.


And yeah...my double posts can be contagious! All that's left now is for the Bush Administration to propose martial law on the forum and quarrantine us so it doesn't spread!

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Also, here's a link to the RSA Telepathy Debate, that I would love to get more comments on. I started a thread about it a while ago, but seems that most of the people who are usually so quick to stand up and shoot down 'evidence' of the paranormal had chosen to stay quiet on this one.

Take note of the crowd poll results at the beginning and end of the debate, as well as the stereotypical pseudo-skeptical approach to reasoning by the anti-metaphysical advocate.
Trust me, this is a very interesting read:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html

That was indeed a good read...kudos for that Big O!

I believe that Professor Wolpert was the most persuasive, despite both presentations being very well structured.

The most convincing points of Professor Wolpert's discussion, were the following quotes:

There is not in the whole of the scientific literature, properly refereed in proper journals like the British Journal of Psychology, a single paper that is persuasive with regard to the ability of thoughts to be transferred, and that’s not terribly surprising.[/b]

I think you must understand that, if telepathy were really there, the Neuroscience would be begoggled, bedazzled. They’d work on it like a shot. It would be exciting beyond words. Scientists aren’t as dim as you may think they are. If you take my own field, for example, we are so bogged down in detail, you could die of boredom on occasion … I really mean it. It’s technique … to find a new phenomenon where you could open up a whole new world … you’d jump on it like a shot. Why haven’t they done so? Simply, there isn’t a good experimental system, which gives you reliable results.[/b]

The only way would be to try and repeat those experiments by other people, and I think, when for example, Rupert wants to go for personal anecdote … I’m terribly sorry, I don’t take personal anecdote seriously … sorry, that’s not the way science works. Sorry, you actually think … let me give you one of your personal anecdotes. When you’re at 400mph in an aeroplane, do you think there’s a force pushing you forward? Yes, or no? Cowards, come on … yes, or no? There isn’t, you know that. Force causes acceleration, not motion. So, your anecdote … all of you would say, “Yes, of course it’s a force. It’s the aeroplane pushing me forward. It’s false.” So, anecdote, I’m afraid, will not do and I can give you millions of examples.[/b]

Also, when Rupert says, “186 papers were published in the scientific literature.” Which scientific literature? The parapsychology literature. Now, I’m not snobbish - (yes, I am, of course I’m snobbish!) - if it were in the British Journal of Psychology or Science or Nature or the Transactions of the Royal Society, I would take it much more seriously, and if it were a real phenomena, these journals would publish it. There’s no question of it. What’s in it for us? Why should we scientists, be worried that telepathy exists, even though we can’t explain it?[/b]

Originally posted by Oneironaut


Thanks man, I appreciate that. * *
I hope so, too.


And yeah...my double posts can be contagious! All that's left now is for the Bush Administration to propose martial law on the forum and quarrantine us so it doesn't spread! *

C'mon now is that any way to talk about our Patriot Act?


Aww...crap <double posted>!! Guess I'll be rooming with you and Howie in the quarrantine chamber.

Ok, big post, but I think it is going to help out this thread a little bit, because there is so much good stuff in that debate that many people will probably pass up, anyway.

ITM wrote:

C&#39;mon now is that any way to talk about our Patriot Act?[/b]

Hehe..is there any Other way?

I&#39;m j/k.. Heh.

ITM wrote:

That was indeed a good read...kudos for that Big O&#33; [/b]

Any time, man. Thanks for the input. I’d hate to turn this thread into a debate on that one article alone, but I figure I have to at least respond to yours, then if you wanna we can take it back to the original thread I started on it. http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....asc&start=0
(And wow, before digging up that thread, I&#39;d forgotten that there was actually some pretty good activity for it, and I left Peri hanging for a reply. My bad&#33

Now, even though I understand your stance on God and metaphysics, I have to wonder how it was you found Wolpert’s argument to be more persuasive? I mean, even for someone that takes no stock in the paranormal, I would figure Wolpert’s argument would seem obviously a little weak.

Wolpert said: There is not in the whole of the scientific literature, properly refereed in proper journals like the British Journal of Psychology, a single paper that is persuasive with regard to the ability of thoughts to be transferred, and that’s not terribly surprising.

Wolpert said: Also, when Rupert says, “186 papers were published in the scientific literature.” Which scientific literature? The parapsychology literature. Now, I’m not snobbish - (yes, I am, of course I’m snobbish&#33 - if it were in the British Journal of Psychology or Science or Nature or the Transactions of the Royal Society, I would take it much more seriously, and if it were a real phenomena, these journals would publish it. There’s no question of it. What’s in it for us? Why should we scientists, be worried that telepathy exists, even though we can’t explain it? [/b]

Properly refereed? Proper journals? A single paper that is “persuasive?” Persuasive to whom? Opinion like that kinda falls flat without giving us the strict requirements for being considered “Proper” and/or “Persuasive” and who it is that sets this standard. But let’s draw what we can from the debate:

Sheldrake said: Now, when we come to the case of the psychic dog, Jaytee, - the dog that belongs to Pam Smart who is here this evening - what we found in our experiments was that the dog - here are some averages from these experiments the dog … these are 10-minute periods after Pam went out … these are the number of seconds at the window, evaluated from the videotape by a third party who knew nothing else about the experiment in an objective measure at the time it went to the window. That is the first 10 minutes of her homeward journey, from at least five miles away. These are medium-length experiments and these are short ones. The dog did sometimes go to the window, when she wasn’t coming home, to bark at passing cats or look at commotions or disturbances outside or people arriving in cars, but it went to the window far more when she was on the way home and it started waiting, in the 10 minutes before she started off home, when she decided to come home or when she got a random signal on a pager to go home. It was highly significant it was at the window most when she was on her way home and it wasn’t just that it waited a certain time and then went there, because in these short experiments, you see it was at the window at long time, whereas at the same time after she went out here, it wasn’t.

Sheldrake said: The case of Richard Wiseman and his colleagues is a very interesting one. Wiseman is one of Britain’s leading media sceptics. He is an informed sceptic, in the sense he reads the literature and knows what’s going on and he actually does experiments. However, he is a very committed sceptic who believes these things are basically impossible, and Wiseman went along to do these experiments with Pam Smart. He invented a criterion for the success or failure of the dog, which was, that it should go to the window, for no reason apparent to Wiseman … the first experiment it was 60 seconds. Then he changed the criterion to being two minutes for no apparent reason. If the dog went to the window for no apparent reason when she wasn’t coming home, it failed the test. He published a paper in the British Journal of Psychology, saying it had failed the test. There’s the paper. He put a Press Release. It was in all the science correspondence that most of our broadsheet newspapers are committed sceptics (most of them). They’re very credulous when it comes to claims of sceptics. The papers were full of it. ‘Psychic dog fails test … Psychic dog fails to give scientists a lead,’ and so on&#33; It was on the radio, it was on the television … the whole phenomenon was totally refuted and everybody bought it (who wants to believe that) and we’ve heard from Lewis, a categorical statement. However, if you plant Richard Wiseman’s data on a graph, which he didn’t do in his papers, even though I sent him graphs before he submitted it, showing it’s a self-reinforcing system, reinforced by a system of taboos and prejudices, which I think, are a shame to science. [/b]

Now, if this is indeed true, then I think some investigation into the prerequisite for being admitted into the British Journal of Psychology needs to be done. As Wolpert has a “select” taste for what sources he counts on for his scientific news (of which he only referred to three or four on the planet) I would think that more should be done to investigate how many of these “serious paranormal tests” have been done, re-done, what conditions, and what was the exact requirement for each test passed. Wolpert did have some persuasive points, as you stated, but, if you ask me, those very few points (relative to Sheldrake’s presentation) were more rhetorical than anything else. He offered One statistic (if I’m not mistaken) out of his entire presentation, and that was something that didn’t even have to do with the subject at hand. (How many people in a room till you get two matching birthdays.)
To quote one of the students in the audience:

Roger Harridan: [sp ?] I came and voted myself into the open-minded category. So … probably empty-minded, but I’m not a complete sceptic. I’ve seen Rupert’s work on the dogs before and I have to say I was extremely sceptical of that because it seemed to be so deeply implausible, but what we’ve seen tonight is a blizzard of statistics from Dr Sheldrake, and really, what I had hoped for, from you, Professor Wolpert, was a rather more forensic examination of one or two of the cases. Instead, you’ve replied with great wit and elegance and charm, but you haven’t really, in my mind, demolished anything that he said, and I would like to invite you to look at one specific case, which is the Wiseman experiment about the dog. Was it right for Wiseman to end the experiment where he ended it, or should he have continued to look at the data as it unfolded?

Professor Lewis Wolpert: Well, I’m terribly sorry … I’ve got the paper in front of me. It’s not my area of expertise. It’s been refereed and this paper is very persuasive, showing that there is no such thing as the dog realising when the owner’s coming home. [/b]

Now, if I’m understanding correctly, after the conductors of the Wiseman experiment DOUBLED the requirement for the dog test to pass, while simultaneously ELIMINATING the chance for the dog to travel to the door even a Few (Understandable) times, failed the dog, and then published after the experiment with One Dog that there is “No Such Thing” as the dog realizing when the owner’s coming home. If this is true, then the ethics empowering one of Wolpert’s “seriously taken” sources of information is questionable, to say the least.

Sheldrake said:
It’s an extraordinary thing that scientists who claim to be rational or rationalists, get extraordinarily irrational when it comes to the subject of telepathy. The belief in evidence just goes out of the window. It often arouses deep emotions, and I often wonder, why is it that people get so upset at the possible existence of telepathy? Why is it something so deeply disturbing? I think the reasons are historical. They go back at least as far as the ‘enlightenment,’ when the idea of the agenda was to push forward the science and reason and reject religion and superstition, credulity, folklaw and so forth. Somehow, telepathy - at that time, not called telepathy - but somehow, these psychic phenomena got put into the compartment of ‘superstition,’ and ever since then, rational people have been supposed not to believe in them. I think that’s why (as a sociological fact) you won’t find serious articles about this in broadsheet newspapers or on Horizon programmes on BBC, because these are beyond the pale of rational discourse, and educated people - not just scientists, but most university graduates - know that they’re meant to be part of this ‘enlightenment’ project, and at least in public, are supposed to deny telepathy, or at least, not talk about it. The penalty for doing so is to be thought credulous, superstitious or stupid and no one wants to lose intellectual cast. So, I think that this taboo got established quite early on and it’s somehow been in place ever since then. If you look at the controversies in the late 19th century, they were the same as today, the same kinds of arguments. The people in favour, said, “Here’s all the evidence.” The people against, said, “It’s impossible, the evidence is all not credible, etc.” It’s very strange in science that some new ideas are perfectly acceptable. For example, David Deutsch who is a Physicist in Oxford has written a book on Time Travel. He’s also written a book on Multiple Universes, the idea that every time a physical observation is made, the universe splits, and there’s billions, trillions, quadrillions of parallel universes, completely unobserved. He holds down a respectful position in Physics in Oxford. There’s no evidence at all for this postulate, and yet, this is quite tolerable within Physics.

It’s very strange in science that some new ideas are perfectly acceptable. For example, David Deutsch who is a Physicist in Oxford has written a book on Time Travel. He’s also written a book on Multiple Universes, the idea that every time a physical observation is made, the universe splits, and there’s billions, trillions, quadrillions of parallel universes, completely unobserved. He holds down a respectful position in Physics in Oxford. There’s no evidence at all for this postulate, and yet, this is quite tolerable within Physics. However, when it comes to the subject of telepathy, David Deutsch says very much the same as Lewis Wolpert. “It’s total rubbish, not a shred of evidence.” I know he hasn’t studied the evidence, but somehow the same person can have totally wild theories about paranormal universes and yet, this complete taboo against telepathy, co-existing in the same person.[/b]

If I take the time to quote every one of Sheldrake’s most convincing quotes, I’ll be here all day. The ratio is simply staggering. Wolpert asks for evidence, Sheldrake has scores and scores of statistics, each taking into account the element of chance, and even distance on the telephone experiment (of course Wolpert was wrong about accusing them of not testing for distance because he Never Read the Reports in which he’s “falsifying.”) Without Once refuting the statistical evidence, he reprimanded Sheldrake for gaining admittedly significant results but not “falsifying” the findings and trying to “understand” them, and a student in the audience called Wolpert out for advocating quantum physics when he just admitted that physicists say we “don’t understand quantum mechanics, but they work.”

I dunno, ITM…..I gotta wonder if you and I were reading the same debate&#33;

Awesome thread. I think Science is purposely stacked so that psychic phenomena cannot be Scientifically tested and approved. I think Metaphysics and Science are an apple and an orange, partially comparable. They have different goals in mind, Metaphysics meets my criteria whereas Science does not. Any word that is a derivative of Science does not hold meaning to me anymore.

By the way, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Physics must be wrong. I have enough of an education to be able to think for myself. There are some things about Science I really do not like.

Originally posted by DistantClone
Awesome thread. I think Science is purposely stacked so that psychic phenomena cannot be Scientifically tested and approved. I think Metaphysics and Science are an apple and an orange, partially comparable. They have different goals in mind, Metaphysics meets my criteria whereas Science does not. Any word that is a derivative of Science does not hold meaning to me anymore.

By the way, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Physics must be wrong. I have enough of an education to be able to think for myself. There are some things about Science I really do not like.

It was indeed an enlightening post, but your views seem to be a bit excessive. Science is not "purposely" created to make it so that type of stuff cannot be proved. Anyways, indeed, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the laws must be wrong. But at least when I say it violates the laws of physics, I hope people will go and look for an alternate conclusion than "the laws of physics are wrong." For most of the cases, I doubt that people's stories are right and the laws of physics are wrong.

There is a very good chance I might be picking up this book some time in the future.

CHINA&#39;S SUPER PSYCHICS

Paul Dong & Thomas E. Raffill
Marlowe & Company, New York, 1997
Paperback, 250 pp., &#036;12.95
Available via Publisher&#39;s Group West
1-800-788-3123

(Reviewed April 1998)


In certain essays already placed elsewhere in this database, it has been theoretically suggested that research and development of the superpowers indwelling in our species are not supported (socially, scientifically or philosophically) because if they were supported then the way social power is distributed would have to undergo certain modifications.

If this would theoretically be the case, then it is easy enough to see that ways and means would be found to relegate to the non-relevant any and all clues to the superpowers, not only with regard to their existence within the species, but also regarding how to develop them into functioning. This would permit the consigning of the superpowers to limbo -- where layers upon layers of confusions could be heaped upon them.

Conversely, IF any major form of broad social interest were to be taken with regard to identifying and enhancing any of the superpowers, then there would have to be equally broad and compelling social reasons to do so.

One such compelling reason might come about if one of the world&#39;s big governmental powers took it upon itself to begin researching, developing and enhancing this or that format of the biomind superpowers -- a development that surely might give concern to other governments, causing as well a hasty reassessment of relevance&#39;s.

Indeed, a compelling reason such as this took place in the very early 1970s.

As mentioned in certain materials earlier placed in this database, the principal reason, back in 1972, that specifically mandated the American intelligence community to fund research into human superpower potentials was to assess the "threat potential" of similar work in the former Soviet Union and its colonized East Bloc nations.

The Soviet effort in this regard had been building and on-going during the four decades prior to 1972 -- and the rather tardy discovery of whole of it came as an astonishing "surprise" to American analysts when they finally realized how large and serious the involvement of Soviet scientific and military agencies actually was.

Up until about 1981, the major American media tended superficially to romanticize this situation as the "Psi warfare gap." However, it can be pointed up that the American mainstream social systems of sciences, leading intellectuals and media labor within pronounced misconceptions and phobias regarding the superpowers. And so rather than informing the public as to the exact nature of the Soviet work and its extent, the Psi-phobic editorial policies of the major media seized upon the "gap" to poke fun not at the Soviet work but at the American intelligence agencies.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the "threat potentials" of the Soviet work were considered at an end -- and the American intelligence agencies formerly involved took active steps to discredit any advances made within the American work they, themselves, had funded (for about seventeen years). Thus, the American scientific habit of pretending that the superpowers don&#39;t exist once more was reinstated as the status quo of American mainstream illusionism.

In fact, though, nothing of the kind is at an end -- because by 1979 the accumulating Soviet and the American efforts (supported at such high levels as they were) triggered a not unreasonable result among thinkers of other nations -- principally China and Japan.

After all, and for one thing, the Soviet and American work DID, in their times, create a lot of noise, smoke and wonderment at the international level. And so if the United States could become concerned enough to attempt assessing the Soviet threat potential, why should not responsible analysts of the OTHER powerful nations attempt to assess the threat potentials of BOTH the American and Soviet work?

For another thing, one of the basic factors regarding the human superpower functions is that IF truly organized and impartial attempts are undertaken to determine their real existence, it is not at all difficult to conclude that an entire spectrum of them does exist in verifiable fact.

Further, IF this kind of conclusion IS achieved, then it would not be necessary to try to build upon the Soviet or American work. After all, very competent thinkers and researchers exist in other countries -- and presumably they could engineer various novel ways and means of researching and developing whatever they can get hold of.

One of the principal difficulties of learning anything about the nature and progress of human superpower research in China and Japan is that evidence of it is hardly ever rendered into English, and never made much of if it is. And indeed, in their book CHINA&#39;s SUPER PSYCHICS, authors Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill complain about the reluctance and avoidance of American sources to report on Chinese and Japanese research, even though some of it makes headline news in Asia.

Paul Dong is an internationally known writer. Now a citizen of the United States, he was born in Canton, China, and has maintained close ties with the Chinese scientific community. He is one of the few writers in the West with in-depth access to scientific developments in the People&#39;s Republic of China. He is also a chi gong instructor. Thomas E. Raffill, a translator and consultant, has been a student of Paul Dong&#39;s chi gong meditation since 1987.

In their book, the authors state that "China&#39;s Psychic Research" has gone through three stages, the first beginning in 1979 with "Discovery and Rise to Prominence." The second stage involved "Controversy and Conflict." The presently on-going third stage involves "Experimentation and Study" -- and which can also be read as "development and training."

Throughout the book, the authors make two significant factors quite clear -- both of which should carefully be understood and carried in mind, since both factors contribute to a Chinese state-of-the-art that has no comparison in the United States or Europe.

The first significant factor is that the Chinese research and development enjoys official and very impressive government support and in-depth cultural leadership. "Over one hundred scientific and academic institutions in China" took part in the initial stages of the research, and since then the number of research agencies "has grown rapidly."

Many of these agencies are identified. For example: Beijing High Energy Physics Institute; the Institute of Aerospace Medico-Engineering (Beijing); the National Defense Laboratory 507; Quinghua University; Beijing Teachers&#39; College; many academies of Chinese medicine -- and "newly formed human body science laboratories all over the country."

From an intelligence-gathering perspective alone, it&#39;s worth pointing up that the "Over one hundred" research institutions in China is a far greater number than the nineteen or twenty known to have been involved in the former Soviet Union.

The second significant factor is that the entirety of the Chinese research is mounted upon fundamentals totally and radically different from any approach in the West and especially in the United States.

Very briefly outlined here, the Chinese research and development is fundamentally based in the concept that "human body science is to view the person as a massive system, and an open system in close connection with the whole universe around it." This concept unifies the macroscopic and microscopic levels, and leads to the idea of "the man-universe paradigm." This theory then is expanded to deal with the larger systems of the human and the environment -- and leads to the workable concept that "exceptional human functions" (EHF&#39;s) exist and can be demonstrated and researched as such.

"From this we can see three parts of the man-universe paradigm." The first investigates the human person as an entity in the universe; the second considers the relationship between the inner workings of the body with the environment; and the third studies the quantum mechanical basis of the "man-universe paradigm." This includes quantum measurement, with "the effect of the uncertainty principle on perception at the quantum level. At the macro level, the paradigm takes in the principles of traditional Chinese medicine."

In this "macro" view, the human body is seen as "an extremely complex macrosystem, a macrosystem open to the outside world and having countless numbers of links to the environment." These links "include the exchange of matter and energy" not only at the more familiar conscious perceptual levels, but at very subtle "exchanges of matter and energy" levels reaching down into the quantum levels.

This fundamental overview, "a new field in modern science and technology -- human body science," is seen by the Chinese as a "system science" which "teaches us that reductionism alone is inadequate to the task of understanding the workings of physical systems of [the macro] level of complexity."

Reductionism, of course, is the hallmark of all Western sciences and approaches to phenomena. As the authors state, "Reductionism analyzes each level in terms of lower levels, from the human to the subsystems of the body, to the organization of these parts, down to the cells, cell nuclei, and chromosomes, all the way down to the level of the molecular biology."

The reductionistic approach is inadequate with regard to understanding, or even realizing the existence of, "a high-level perspective, the multidimensional structure naturally formed by the macrosystem of the human body, the different functions of each level, the relationship between levels, and so on."

Research in human body systems science encompasses chi gong, Chinese medicine, and Exceptional Human Functions (EHF). A matter of vital importance "is that the facts demonstrate that practicing chi gong gives rise to exceptional human functions" -- with the result that empirical theory is derived from the actual EHF phenomena, and permitting confirmations that generalizations and systematic ideas can be formed regarding them.

The authors establish that exceptional human functions are specifically derived from biophysical energies -- while the use of the term "mind" is relegated almost exclusively and only to the topic of "mind reading." In this, the Chinese EHF research is similar to the former Soviet research which likewise studied biophysical energies and potentials. In this sense, then, the substance of the Chinese (and Soviet) research differs from the substance of Western and American parapsychology, within which the phenomena are considered solely of mental rather than of physical origins.

Through the three stages of the development of the Chinese interests, it appears that a consensus was earlier reached as to the most likely and fundamental nature of the "biophysical energies" involved, and that these compared positively with the energies associated to CHI GONG.

As a further refinement of verified experiments, it would appear that chi gong, Chinese medicine, and exceptional human functions are "three parts of the same system."

This understanding led to the concept of training an individual&#39;s awareness and control of chi gong energies -- and which training in turn is "using chi gong, and Chinese medicine, to raise people with EHF to their highest level of functioning (or &#39;eigenstate&#39; in the jargon of systems science), and improve the stability of the [exceptional human function] abilities."

A major concept is given substance in this book, one that is radically different from all American and Western approaches. Although various states of exceptional human functions in a kind of natural condition can be found active in numerous children and some adults (who have been studied in China), enhancement (or "training") of the EHF&#39;s is otherwise a noted by-product of chi gong training.

As the authors note, "when a person has reached a high stage of chi gong practice, the internal body [systems] produce a strong chi energy flow. This energy can be released through the eyes, palms, or fingers. In the terminology of chi gong, this is called energy healing. While the power can be used for healing, it can also be used to harm the body. This is the &#39;empty force&#39; used in chi gong for martial arts. The helpful or harmful direction of the power is determined by the mind and the strength of the &#39;chi&#39; energy developed through practice. We know that the &#39;chi&#39; of chi gong is closely related to the chi or energy of exceptional human functions."

To help clarify here, in the expanding Chinese framework of exceptional human functions, the functions are NOT themselves seen as separate or even special "talents" of mind in the reductionistic micro-way they are seen via American or Western parapsychology concepts. Rather, they are seen as concomitants of the chi energy macro systems of the body -- or as indwelling functions (or faculties) of the macro-energy human system.

Enhancement (or training) of the functions therefore is not achieved by addressing them as reductionistic micro-issues, so to speak, but by addressing the entirety of the energy macro systems -- of which the exceptional functions are "the more striking manifestations."

There is much to be learned, and seriously considered, in this unusual book. The descriptions of the many exceptional human functions under research and development in China range from merely shocking to dumbfounding -- and demonstrate a wide spectrum of functions from mind-bending psychokenisis to refined forms of mind-reading.

But the descriptions tend to give substance to the following and quite astonishing statement that appears on page 39 of the book:

"It is because chi gong is popular in China today that thousands upon thousands of people with EHF have appeared there. There may be as many in China as the rest of the world put together. IF A SO-CALLED &#39;PSYCHIC WAR&#39; EVER TAKES PLACE, CHINA&#39;S OPPONENTS FACE CERTAIN DEFEAT [emphasis added.] However, the Chinese government has many purposes for pursuing EHF research. Besides the military and security applications, it also has industrial uses (such as for mineral prospecting), medical applications, navigational and policing application, etc."

This book is well-worth reading, if only to be boggled by the descriptions of EHF&#39;s given, and the several ways the exceptional human functions have been researched in laboratories.

[NOTE: Some few readers may wish to refresh themselves regarding their knowledge about chi gong. There are several books available, but recommended here is: THE WAY OF QIGONG: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF CHINESE ENERGY HEALING. Kenneth S. Cohen. Ballantine Books, New York: 1997, and containing a nice Foreword by the well-known Larry Dossey, M.D.]
[/b]

Interesting list of names of people that believe in phenomena that "there is no evidence for."

http://www.spiritwritings.com/HartmannWhosWho1927.html

I only had time to read the section on Psi research, but this looks like an interesting site.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/

But, for those that don&#39;t wanna read the whole thing....check out the Psi excerpt:

0.7: Is there any scientific psi research?
------------------------------------------

[Contributed by Roger Nelson of PEAR]

In short, yes. According to a recent National Research Council report,
there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with no clear
conclusion that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance,
psychokinesis, precognition, have been demonstrated. Most knowledgeable
scholars would date the advent of controlled research later, to the early
1930&#39;s when J. B. Rhine began his work with McDougall in Duke University&#39;s
psychology department. Rhine&#39;s work has been much criticized, and is
widely discounted, but inappropriately for the most part.

In any case, later workers built on these foundations of experimental
design and statistical analysis, and there has been a cumulative
increase in scientific rigor and sophistication. Most of current psi
research is conducted by a small number of investigators in
universities and established institutes, and reports are presented at
conventions of professional organizations such as the
Parapsychological Association, and the Society for Scientific
Exploration, and published in professional journals of these groups
or, occasionally, in mainstream journals in physics, psychology, and
statistics. Professionals familiar with the literature, including
recent meta-analyses, find persuasive evidence for small, replicable
anomalous effects correlated with human consciousness and intention.

There are currently perhaps a dozen active research laboratories,
worldwide, and on the order of 50 to 100 researchers actually doing
experiments. It is a fact that their work is not well known to the
general public including most of the sci.skeptic readership. Thus,
the frequently negative, and sometimes disdainful commentary on psi
research from "skeptics" tends to be ill-informed, or refers to
something other than scientific research. Language usage is part of
the problem, as the terms psychic research, parapsychology, esp,
telepathy, etc., have been usurped by non-scientists and media people.
With suitable modifiers, the term anomalous is often used to describe
the subject of investigation in modern research, partly to avoid the
implied mechanisms and relationships attached to the older terms.

Much of current experimental psi research is not only scientific, but
adheres to more rigorous standards than are found in much contemporary
work in the social and physical sciences, largely because the
investigators understand the technical difficulties as well as the
implications of positive findings for our general scientific models.
It should be noted that constructive criticism from skeptics has made
important contributions to research quality.
[/b]

This site caught my eye. Just posting it here so I don't forget to check it out when I get outta work.

http://stargate.collection.free.fr/Elements/news.php3

Hey man, i didnt read the entire post, i dont have the time nor the energy (but mainly the time) to read the whole thing

im just gona say one thing
subjective experience, if you dont believe in this stuff now, it may be another life before you realize that subjective experience goes beyond anything anyone in the world will ever tell you

seeing time, and astral projection into other thought realms or even other animal's bodies

that was enough to convince me, if you haven't had that happen its not a problem

ne way just thought i'd put out my opinion

"Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merily merily merily merily, life is but a dream"

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
.
Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson

A slightly shortened version of this article was published in the Times Higher Education Supplement&#39;s special section on Consciousness linked to the Tucson II conference "Toward a Science of Consciousness", Apr. 5th. 1996, page (v).

Those who recognise that significant discoveries in science are very often prompted by observations that do not fit expectations will find a stimulating challenge in accumulating evidence that it is possible to elicit psychic functioning in experiments with ordinary volunteers acting as subjects. Even more convincing results occur with specially selected subjects.
In one type of experiment, a "target" photograph or video segment is randomly chosen out of a set of four possibilities. A "sender" attempts to transmit it mentally and a "receiver" is then asked to provide an account either verbally or in writing of what she imagines it might be. She is then shown the four possibilities, and selects the one she thinks best matches her perception. By chance alone, a correct match is expected on average one time in four, whereas the experiments typically show the considerably higher success rate of around one in three.
The recent declassification of the US government&#39;s psychical research programme (experiments on "remote viewing", similar to the type just described except that it used independent judges to assess the matches rather than having the subjects judge themselves) has permitted a comparison to be made of the results of this programme with those described in the open literature. Despite the different judging procedure, similar success rates were found. In addition, many of the governmental experiments used gifted subjects. The success rate was then even higher, typically over forty percent. The few experiments in the open literature that used gifted subjects found similar success rates.
In the past, critics have attempted to discredit positive results in psychical research on grounds of lack of repeatability. But, as anyone with a training in statistics knows, even where an influence exists, an isolated experiment with an insufficient number of trials may not demonstrate a statistically significant effect. Accordingly, without a more sophisticated analysis, "failure to reproduce an effect" does not demonstrate its absence. Suppose, for example, psychic abilities, in line with the results already described, increase the chances of a successful match from 1/4 to 1/3. Then (according to the accepted statistical theories), an experiment with 30 trials, which has been typical of these experiments, would have less than a 17% chance of achieving a result of statistical significance. The more recent larger experiments still utilise only about 100 trials, and have only about a 57% chance of achieving statistical significance.
Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual.
Reexamination of other types of psychical investigations reveals that they too achieved replicable effects, which went largely unappreciated because of a poor understanding of statistics. For instance, an analysis of experiments in precognitive card guessing and related "forced-choice" experiments, published by Honorton and Ferrari in the Journal of Parapsychology, found that gifted subjects were able to achieve consistently about a 27% success rate when 25% was expected by chance. Similar U.S. government experiments have been revealed to have achieved the same 27% success rate over thousands of trials. If chance alone were the explanation for these results, it would be truly remarkable to achieve a 27% success rate over thousands of trials, and it would be even more remarkable to see identical results in the government work. For further details about the recent evidence, including both a favourable and a skeptical assessment of the U.S. government experiments, consult the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 10(1), or http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/ on the Internet.
Strong statistical results are of course meaningless if experiments are not properly conducted. Debunkers of parapsychology are fond of showcasing the very few experiments that have been found to have serious problems. But that ignores the fact that the vast majority of experiments were done using excellent protocols, paying close attention to potential subtle cues, using well-tested randomisation devices and so on. For the past decade the U.S. government experiments were overseen by a very high-level scientific committee, consisting of respected academics from a variety of disciplines, all of whom were required to critique and approve the protocols in advance. There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results.
What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account? Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other. Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.
This idea perhaps makes sense in the light of theories that presuppose that quantum theory is not the ultimate theory of nature, but involves (in ways that in some versions of the idea can be made mathematically precise) the manifestations of a deeper "subquantum domain". In just the same way that a surf rider can make use of random waves to travel effortlessly along, a psychic may be able to direct random energy at the subquantum level for her own purposes. Some accounts of the subquantum level involve action at a distance, which fits in well with some purported psychic abilities.
These proposals are extremely speculative. What needs to be done, in any event, is to integrate mental phenomena more thoroughly into the framework of science (including the quantum level) than is presently the case. The research of Lawrence LeShan (as described in his book The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist), where interviews with psychics disclosed that they were aware of a "hierarchy of meaningful interconnections", perhaps provides a hint of what might be involved. Science has a poor handle on ideas such as meaningful interconnections since they are alien to its usual ways of thinking. Perhaps it will need to overcome its current abhorrence of such concepts in order to arrive at the truth.
* * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis, and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the two-decade U.S. government psychic research programme in the Summer of 1995. She has recently published a book, Seeing Through Statistics, Duxbury Press, 1996, designed to improve understanding of statistical studies. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, is professor of physics, University of Cambridge, and heads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.
[/b]

Link to page:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

Prof. Prof. med superman Mr. Dumbass E. Fake: On the existence of phenomenon XYZ

blah blah blah government blah blah blah CIA blah blah blah we actually made experiment xyz under serious conditions but i kinda missed out to give any evidence this ever happened blah blah the government tested this too but i have no evidence either blah a bunch of meaningless numbers i just pulled out of my ass. bleh so obviuosly phenomenon xyz exists.

Prof. Prof.med superman Mr. Dumbass E. Fake is professor at 5 international universities, well respected among the 7 richest men of the world and sweats when shitting.

The feeling of knowing you&#39;re getting under someone&#39;s skin: Priceless.

You know, it&#39;s funny how many times some people have to be reminded of the most valid points. In your case, that point would be: Unless you have evidence that whatever claim you&#39;re "falsifying" is, indeed, false, then talking out of your ass, as you&#39;re doing now, does nothing but prove to the world how full of shit you are.

Keep it comin, Korittke. It&#39;s infantile, melodramatic shit like that that exposes your true psychological structuring (or lack thereof) and makes what I&#39;m trying to do here a Whole Lot Easier.

Thanks for the help, man&#33;

Since when do I have to prove your shit wrong? This forum is really like a time machine to the middle ages, maybe you guys should patent it before I get all the money.

Wankers.

Originally posted by Korittke
Since when do I have to prove your shit wrong?

Lol. You don&#39;t.
The opportunity is there, if you wanna take it, but leaving it as is helps my cause more than hurts it, so I&#39;d actually prefer for you to keep doin what you&#39;re doin by not being able to present a mature argument and using neurotic banter to make yourself feel significant.

And by all means, lay claim to the patent. If you patent the time machine then you&#39;ll Have to concede to evidence of the paranormal, because time travel "doesn&#39;t exist," right? lol

In either case, I win.

Get &#39;r Done&#33;

Originally posted by Oneironaut
If you patent the time machine then you'll Have to concede to evidence of the paranormal, because time travel "doesn't exist," right? lol

Wow, good job, Sherlock.

Originally posted by Korittke
Wow, good job, Sherlock.

Lol. Jesus.

The fact that you just answered a rhetorical question that completely contradicts your point of view, by agreeing with it, albeit sarcastically, as if my point was Obviously Correct, is fuckin&#39; Hilarious.

You should probably read it again, once or twice, before attempting to be witty about it.

Just a thought&#33;