Is there any evidence for esp/psychic activity/shared dreaming?

I'm usually pretty skeptical of this sort of stuff, but I try to keep an open mind at the same time. I'm wondering if anyone has heard of any scientific studies that sounded like they had solid evidence for the existence of such things.

Lately I've been having some personal experiences that make me believe in this, but I realize that I might just be deluding myself, it could just be a coincedance.

Yes there have been scientific studies. Their results are rarely positive and if they are, serious methodological flaws are often found, sometimes even fraud.

In other words: as it stands right now the results are non-existant, or nonconclusive at best.


FWIW,

Tim


For more in-depth info plus sources:
Parapsychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Podcast Archive - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

I know Dean Radin published a bunch, like this, for example.

Dean Radin - Time-reversed human experience Experimental evidence and implications

I would just research him a little, there is quite a bit of data available.
If you are looking for a scientific framework I'd suggest reading Entangled Minds.

Then also Rupert Sheldrake did some experiments in these fields.

And if I remember correctly, remote viewing is supposed to have some positive outcomes.
So if you google RV + evidence, you should also get some stuff to look through.

Oh, and The Monroe Institute of course.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. Here are a couple articles I came across in my research. Nothing extremely solid, but interesting nonetheless.


(1) "FUTURE TELLING": A META-ANALYSIS OF FORCED-CHOICE PRECOGNITION EXPERIMENTS, 1935-1987

Spoiler for Abstract:

ABSTRACT: We report a meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments
published in the English-language parapsychological literature between 1935 and
1987. These studies involve attempts by subjects to predict the identity of target
stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred milliseconds
to one year following the subjects' responses. We retrieved 309 studies
reported by 62 investigators. Nearly two million individual trials were contributed
by more than 50,000 subjects. Study outcomes are assessed by overall level of statistical
significance and effect size. There is a small, but reliable overall effect (z = 11.41, P = 6.3 x 10-25
). Thirty percent of the studies (by 40 investigators) are
significant at the 5% significance level. Assessment of vulnerability to selective reporting
indicates that a ratio of 46 unreported studies averaging null results would
be required for each reported study in order to reduce the overall result to nonsignificance.
No systematic relationship was found between study outcomes and eight
indices of research quality. Effect size has remained essentially constant over the
survey period, whereas research quality has improved substantially. Four moderating
variables appear to covary significantly with study outcome: Studies using
subjects selected on the basis of prior testing performance show significantly larger
effects than studies using un selected subjects. Subjects tested individually by an
experimenter show significantly larger effects than those tested in groups. Studies
in which subjects are given trial-by-trial or run-score feedback have significantly
larger effects than those with delayed or no subject feedback. Studies with brief
intervals between subjects' responses and target generation show significantly
stronger effects than studies involving longer intervals. The combined impact of
these moderating variables appears to be very strong. Independently significant
outcomes are observed in seven of the eight studies using selected subjects, who
were tested individually and received trial-by-trial feedback.

(2) Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology

Spoiler for Abstract:

Abstract. Parapsychology, the laboratory study of psychic phenomena,
has had its history interwoven with that of statistics. Many of the
controversies in parapsychology have focused on statistical issues, and
statistical models have played an integral role in the experimental
work. Recently, parapsychologists have been using meta-analysis as a
tool for synthesizing large bodies of work. This paper presents an
overview of the use of statistics in parapsychology and offers a summary
of the meta-analyses that have been conducted. It begins with some
anecdotal information about the involvement of statistics and statisticians
with the early history of parapsychology. Next, it is argued that
most nonstatisticians do not appreciate the connection between power
and "successful" replication of experimental effects. Returning to parapsychology,
a particular experimental regime is examined by summarizing
an extended debate over the interpretation of the results. A new set
of experiments designed to resolve the debate is then reviewed. Finally,
meta-analyses from several areas of parapsychology are summarized. It
is concluded that the overall evidence indicates that there is an anomalous
effect in need of an explanation.

This is a search I did on Google Scholar that I have yet to sift through. It is a search for the articles that cite (2).

Google Scholar search


Infinite Mind is a book written by Valerie Hunt, Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at UCLA. I read it years ago and found it fascinating at the time, though I haven't looked into the scientific reliability of her experiments.

If you're looking for scientifically supported empirical evidence, your search will be in vain.

Here's another article that addresses telepathy and OBEs.

Stephen LaBerge, (1985). LUCID DREAMING

Spoiler for Excerpt regarding telepathy evidence:

there are
perhaps half a dozen scientific demonstrations of dream
telepathy.

The most famous among these were the experiments in dream
telepathy carried out in the Dream Laboratory of the
Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn by Dr. Montague Ullman and
Dr. Stanley Krippner in the late 1960s. These dream
researchers monitored sleeping subjects. During the periods
that the subjects were in REM sleep, a person in another room
focused on an art reproduction and attempted to
telepathically transmit an image of the painting to the
sleeping subjects, who were awakened for dream reports at the
end of each of their REM periods. Afterwards, judges were
able to match which picture went with which dream report with
an accuracy significantly above chance.

Edit: The implications of his interpretation were interesting to me in that telepathy could explain the apparent experiences of OBEs, shared dreaming, etc.

A word of caution:

anyone can write a book.. Only some can write scientific articles.. And then only some can write scientific articles that are published in respected peer-reviewed journals.

Kudos on your decision to work with google scholar.. Beats the regular google everytime when it comes to these things ;p
Another search engine you might like to visit:
CiteSeerX


FWIW,

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimB

And then only some can write scientific articles that are published in respected peer-reviewed journals.

---

Indeed. A professor I used to assist with research said that peer-reviewed journals are ranked (basically in terms of respectability). Do you know where that kind of ranking can be found?

Thanks for the link. Now I have something other than Google Scholar to be addicted to. (Well, in this area at least) :cheeky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenAwake

Indeed. A professor I used to assist with research said that peer-reviewed journals are ranked (basically in terms of respectability). Do you know where that kind of ranking can be found?

Thanks for the link. Now I have something other than Google Scholar to be addicted to. (Well, in this area at least) :cheeky:

---

I'm not sure... I've frequently heard having your articles published in nature and/or science are the best thing that you could hope for.. Though I'm not sure.. Why not ask your (or any professor who's knowledgable about this) for some more info?

Maybe this can help?
Impact factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimB

Why not ask your (or any professor who's knowledgable about this) for some more info?

Maybe this can help?
Impact factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Good point. The number of articles that cite the article is one factor in determining respectability.

Unfortunately I'm no longer in regular communication with her or other professors so I feel a bit odd about contacting them out of the blue. Perhaps I'll do more research on how to research research that is respected by researchers. :panic: