The Paranormal is it Fake?

[TheRedMan]

its fake for some ppl yes.... thats the fun of it.... =)

[scowl]

Where did you get that number? Just flipping through the book I found this:

By 1982, Hornorton was ready to present the results of a series of ganzfeld experiments. At the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association of that year, Charles Hornorton summarized the results of all the forty-two ganzfeld studies that had been published between 1974 and 1981: an amazing 55 percentof the studies reported statistically significant results, whereas only 5 percent would have been expected to do so if chance alone had been operating. It appeared that parapsychology had finally found their long-sought repeatable experiment.

And thirty years later these results have been repeated how many times?

One study is worthless if the results can't be independently reproduced. False positive results can be the result of poor controls and parapsychologists have been repeatedly caught doing shockingly uncontrolled experiments.

So actual psychics are not necessarily frauds; psychics work on paranormal cases all the time...

How many have they solved? Zero? Fewer than that?

[Mikko-kun]

I thiink rebirths and ghosts are likely, probably because of my culture, but I would never try to persuade others of their reality on that basis. Nor on the basis of personal experience. These are too subject to fraud and exaggeration.

Yeah, people can make up their minds as if they knew more about things than they actually know. For example the sceptics saying this and that must be physical, things the sciences they favor can't explain for them thoroughly. Some even not being aware of such basic things like placebo, or dont want to be. It's easier to look with only the one mind's eye you use and shut the other and pretend it has no value.

[White Crane Feather]

I'm not sure what the size and age (oops, I think you left the word 'billions' out, unless the universe started in late 1999, ha) of the universe has to do with the likelihood of these phenomena. What exactly does not probably exist then? I agree that other life probably exists in our universe and some of these may be 'higher beings', but that is all physical. If interdimensional beings 'likely' exist, then what likely doesn't and more importantly why?

I'm assuming you are still just referring to your paranormal type phenomenon; obviously we have very good physicalist explanations for many things with plenty of real evidence. But I'd argue there is nothing that is not 'perfectly compatible' with a non-physical interpretation, as long as our non-physical explanations continue to be exempted from the requirement that we have good evidence of the existence of anything 'non-physical'. The idea tha demons cause disease is a 'better explanation' using this framework it seems than something like the germ-theory of disease (as an example, for those diseases caused by germs). Medical science has always encountered occasional phenomena that it can't fully explain - spontaneous healing, people afflicted and dying from unknown maladies, etc - that are all easily 'explained' by one answer: demons. Oh sure, we may find that people who suffer from infections tend to have an overload of bacteria in their systems, but that obviously shouldn't make us think necessarily that that is the true cause of the suffering; after all, as a parallel, scientists have been able to reproduce some of the effects and experiences of the NDE phenomenon using drugs and other physical means but that for some reason doesn't make it likely that NDEs are all internal mental experiences.

To your first set of questions, I would say a flying spaghetti god probably does not exist most readily because there does not seem to be any natural vectors for it's evolution, and I have not met people claiming to have met one.

As to inter dimensional beings, if information can organize in other kinds of places or even places that are merely extensions of this one but are the other side of the coin so to speak, why would you think that life , consciousness, and higher beings could not evolve there as well? I imagine it would be very diverse place potentially more diverse than this kind of universe. What likely doesn't exist is simply things that have no vectors of evolution. A pink purple dotted planet made of cotton candy has no vectors to exist in this universe, I would imagine there are other things that are equally unlikely.

Can a "demon" not be less sophisticated description of a disease.

Shaman: this patient has been invaded with evil spirits.

Doctor: witch doctor nonsense, he is suffering from a bacterial infection.

Shaman: what's a bacterial infection.

Doctor: tiny unseen life forms that feed off of the patients body.

Shaman: that's what I said.

As to NDEs. This really is the silliest illigical argument of all time amoung skeptics of NDEs. It's called petitio principii ( assuming the initial point). --------- The brain produces consciousness there for consciousness is purely a function of the brain------

Quite obviously if the brain is a receiver of consciousness physical changes to the brain will result in changes in the reception of consciousness as well. Just ask your old television.

If you want to maintain an unbias and logical approach, mind altering drugs and others things are evidence for both inturpretations, therefore are evidence for neither assuming the brain is the producer of consciousness then confirming that assumption at every turn without applying it to the otherside of the argument is a clear and severe case of confirmation bias.

To continue with this, the other silly thing that certain kinds of skeptics gravitate towards is the notion that If an experience can somehow be reproduced that is now not based in reality. This is like saying if a scientist figures how to hook electrodes up to your head and makes you experience the taste of carrots that carrots now are not real. By definition an Artificial experience ... Is ARTIFICIAL. It's absurd to think that my carrot taste machine invalidates the existence of carrots.

Let me ask you something. Does the idea that anything that can exist does exist violate some sensibility you have? I find that some people cling to a sense of .... Well.... Elegance for what universe should be or mabey distaste that universe might just be far more bizarre than ever imagined.

LG. I think you would greatly benefit from the book "The Undescivered Self" C.G Jung

Edited August 15, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[Einsteinium]

Where did you get that number? Just flipping through the book I found this:

By 1982, Hornorton was ready to present the results of a series of ganzfeld experiments. At the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association of that year, Charles Hornorton summarized the results of all the forty-two ganzfeld studies that had been published between 1974 and 1981: an amazing 55 percentof the studies reported statistically significant results, whereas only 5 percent would have been expected to do so if chance alone had been operating. It appeared that parapsychology had finally found their long-sought repeatable experiment.

Acceptance, however, would not come easily. One of parapsychology's most sophisticated critics was spoiling for a fight...

The next chapter is the Great Ganzfeld Debate. (and there I see where you got your 33%) You have to increase the sample size to 100 sessions to get 50% "Some skeptics seem to have difficulty grasping the importance of the sample size, or simply choose to ignore it...never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to ensuring success."

Okay, so we agree that much of psi is proven? Anyway, I see in my notes that if the subjects had been chosen for artistic ability the results would have significantly increased the successful "hits". That tells me that psychic ability exists at a significant level in the general population while giving actual psychics more credibility. I knew a lady who tested at 100% but she was extremely gifted.

So actual psychics are not necessarily frauds; psychics work on paranormal cases all the time...

Who are these skeptics that do not understand the significance of sample size? ANY person educated in statistics and science would understand the importance of sample size. This author just shoots himself in the foot every time I read any more of what he is writing. This has been studied over the past 130, arguably over the past 150 years and yes skeptics have used large sample sizes many times over that period. Some studies were flawed yes, but far far more of the believers studies were later revealed to be flawed. This author really seems to have some kind of chip on his shoulder towards scientists in general, and that is a good sign that his book is biased. The 32% number comes from the abstract scientific paper published in 2010 titled Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition which seems to be one of the primary studies that this book is referring to. The study was focused on ganzfeld experiments where a 'receiver' would sit in one room with ping pong balls covering their eyes, white noise in the background. A 'sender' would be in another room and would get one of 5 pictures and attempt to send the picture to the receiver. Chance alone would dictate that 20% of the time, the receiver would be able to 'guess' correctly. But the results obtained were that 32% of the time the receiver 'got it right'. Now I have yet to really dig through this paper and the technique uses, because obviously with such an experiment there is a huge potential for false results due to all sorts of factors that can come into play. The 55% number comes from the fact that 55% of these studies showed the 32% positive result, the other 45% showing within the margin of random chance results.

So if 55% of studies showing a 32% positive 'hit rate' when the random chance hit rate would be around 20% is enough to prove to you that psi is real then so be it. It is not enough to prove to me that psi is real, it is an interesting result I give it that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

So if 55% of studies showing a 32% positive 'hit rate' when the random chance hit rate would be around 20% is enough to prove to you that psi is real then so be it. It is not enough to prove to me that psi is real, it is an interesting result I give it that.

I just read yesterday a pretty good summary of the ganzfeld experiments and some criticisms of the studies, including by some paranormal researchers themselves:

http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

[scowl]

So if 55% of studies showing a 32% positive 'hit rate' when the random chance hit rate would be around 20% is enough to prove to you that psi is real then so be it. It is not enough to prove to me that psi is real, it is an interesting result I give it that.

It sure looks like these studies were demonstrating pure chance.

It's interesting that the subjects were allowed to "transmit" one of only five images. Why not one of twenty? Perhaps they found this caused the hit rate to drop dramatically since random chance became less of a factor.

[Einsteinium]

It sure looks like these studies were demonstrating pure chance.

It's interesting that the subjects were allowed to "transmit" one of only five images. Why not one of twenty? Perhaps they found this caused the hit rate to drop dramatically since random chance became less of a factor.

Yes, why not 20, or why use a set number of pictures at all? Why not give them a random picture that could be of thousands of different things and have the receiver try to figure that one out? Ganzfeld experiments are in my opinion inherently flawed.

[+Liquid Gardens]

To your first set of questions, I would say a flying spaghetti god probably does not exist most readily because there does not seem to be any natural vectors for it's evolution, and I have not met people claiming to have met one.

As to inter dimensional beings, if information can organize in other kinds of places or even places that are merely extensions of this one but are the other side of the coin so to speak, why would you think that life , consciousness, and higher beings could not evolve there as well?

And how exactly have you ascertained that inter dimensional beings do have a 'natural vector for it's evolution' that a flying spaghetti monster does not? I wouldn't think that life, consciousness and higher begins could not evolve 'there'; how could I, I have no clue what 'there' you are talking about, I have no evidence or information to work from, including the evidence that 'there' even exists. What evidence do you have that there is an inter-dimensional anything, what evidence is there for this 'other side of the coin' and these 'places' existing at all? It seems like those are hard enough questions to work on without then taking another huge leap into talking about beings there, in my opinion of course. We don't even know how life arose in our universe, I don't see how we have any information whatsoever about any beings in another realm.

I imagine it would be very diverse place potentially more diverse than this kind of universe. What likely doesn't exist is simply things that have no vectors of evolution.

"I imagine" being the key words here. So then how have you determined what things have no vectors of evolution in other dimensions, like spaghetti gods and cotton candy planets? I understand your general point, a cotton candy planet is not very likely in this universe given our current physical laws and chemical makeup, but you can't really use that as a basis for any other dimension and the rules that operate there unless you have some information that I don't know about concerning them. I don't know why you are only using your imagination to a certain point here.

Can a "demon" not be less sophisticated description of a disease.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes...

• Matthew 8:28-34: "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, 'If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, 'Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water."
  
• Matthew 17:15-18: “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.” “O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment (Matt 17:15-18).
  

....no.

As to NDEs. This really is the silliest illigical argument of all time amoung skeptics of NDEs. It's called petitio principii ( assuming the initial point). --------- The brain produces consciousness there for consciousness is purely a function of the brain------

I think the term that is more apt here is 'strawman'. The correct claim is that there is no good evidence currently that consciousness is anything but a function of the physical brain.

If you want to maintain an unbias and logical approach, mind altering drugs and others things are evidence for both inturpretations, therefore are evidence for neither

Well then the increase and infiltration of organisms that we see in infectious diseases are also evidence for both interpretations, there's nothing saying that demons are incompatible with that nor that the increase and invasion of these organisms is not a result of the demons' possession, instead of being a cause. Because we have no evidence or information about demons, nor inter-dimensional beings, nor the spirits or souls that I think are required for NDEs, on which to assess any compatibility or lack thereof.

assuming the brain is the producer of consciousness then confirming that assumption at every turn without applying it to the otherside of the argument is a clear and severe case of confirmation bias.

It's not confirming an assumption, it's adding evidence to support a hypothesis. The brain is a producer of consciousness, that has been confirmed at every turn pretty much, we just don't know if it's the only producer. But we don't currently have any good direct evidence that it's not.

Let me ask you something. Does the idea that anything that can exist does exist violate some sensibility you have? I find that some people cling to a sense of .... Well.... Elegance for what universe should be or mabey distaste that universe might just be far more bizarre than ever imagined.

The only thing I'm trying to cling to is rationality, empiricism, logic, and skepticism; something I don't always successfully do, but it is the goal. No, the idea that anything that can exist does exist violates no sensibility of mine, until that mere idea starts transforming into something resembling a conclusion or justification for something specific. Just because anything might be possible isn't really any sort of meaningful argument or evidence for some very specific something actually existing; just because I think it's likely there is other life in the universe isn't really great evidence that 10-foot purple lizard people exist.

LG. I think you would greatly benefit from the book "The Undescivered Self" C.G Jung

Why? Does he include some evidence of other dimensions in that particular book?

As an aside, I saw a reference to an interesting experiment concerning NDEs. At some hospital that must do surgeries or other high-risk procedures they mounted a laptop fairly close to the ceiling of the hospital room, opened flat but with the screen facing up so that people on the floor can't see what's on the screen. The screen is constantly playing an animation of some sort, the idea being that since NDEs so frequently involve the viewing of the body from above that if it's really a soul or something they should be able to see the animation and say what it is. I don't know much more about it, but it would be something if someone could actually describe the animation.

[markprice]

And thirty years later these results have been repeated how many times?

They upgraded to autoganzfeld...

One study is worthless if the results can't be independently reproduced. False positive results can be the result of poor controls and parapsychologists have been repeatedly caught doing shockingly uncontrolled experiments.

You must have missed the part where I said they finally found their long sought after repeatable experiment.

How many have they solved? Zero? Fewer than that?

The point is they are not all frauds (do your own research) but the lady I mentioned would have quit if it did not work every time (not a crime solver btw).

It sure looks like these studies were demonstrating pure chance.

Incorrect conclusion.

It's interesting that the subjects were allowed to "transmit" one of only five images. Why not one of twenty? Perhaps they found this caused the hit rate to drop dramatically since random chance became less of a factor.

Each of the targets receives a ranking of 1-4 for a reason; I'll get to that in a minute.

Who are these skeptics that do not understand the significance of sample size? ANY person educated in statistics and science would understand the importance of sample size. This author just shoots himself in the foot every time I read any more of what he is writing.

The author points that out because it is a relevant problem: they understand it, of course, and thought they could get away with it, hence this chapter of the book.

This has been studied over the past 130, arguably over the past 150 years and yes skeptics have used large sample sizes many times over that period. Some studies were flawed yes, but far far more of the believers studies were later revealed to be flawed. This author really seems to have some kind of chip on his shoulder towards scientists in general, and that is a good sign that his book is biased. The 32% number comes from the abstract scientific paper published in 2010 titled Extrasensory Perception and QuantumModels of Cognition which seems to be one of the primary studies that this book is referring to.

"The committee finds no scientific justification from the research conducted over a period of one hundred thirty years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena"

This is why he wrote the book: to correct that assumption. Sensory Leakage and Inadequate Randomization had to be corrected before the ganzfeld debate could continue. The two debators ended up writing a Joint Communique: "We agree that there is an overall significant effect in this database that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis..."

The study was focused on ganzfeld experiments where a 'receiver' would sit in one room with ping pong balls covering their eyes, white noise in the background. A 'sender' would be in another room and would get one of 5 pictures and attempt to send the picture to the receiver. Chance alone would dictate that 20% of the time, the receiver would be able to 'guess' correctly. But the results obtained were that 32% of the time the receiver 'got it right'. Now I have yet to really dig through this paper and the technique uses, because obviously with such an experiment there is a huge potential for false results due to all sorts of factors that can come into play. The 55% number comes from the fact that 55% of these studies showed the 32% positive result, the other 45% showing within the margin of random chance results.

It was tennis balls, a red lamp, relaxation, white noise (headphones) to create the "total field" or undifferentiated perceptual field. The sender in another acoustically sealed room opens a sealed envelope with the target picture chosen from a large pool of potential targets. The senders task is to focus on the target and attempt to send the image--one way audio link from the receiver--so the sender can adjust his thoughts...

After 30 minutes the session ends. The receiver is shown a set of four pics--the reason for this is 1 being considered a direct hit and everything else a complete miss. So if chance alone was operating, we would expect the receiver to correctly guess the target 25% of the time.

So if 55% of studies showing a 32% positive 'hit rate' when the random chance hit rate would be around 20% is enough to prove to you that psi is real then so be it. It is not enough to prove to me that psi is real, it is an interesting result I give it that.

No, again, it's "an amazing 55% of the studies reported statistically significant results, whereas only 5% would have been expected to do so if chance alone was operating".

Yes, why not 20, or why use a set number of pictures at all? Why not give them a random picture that could be of thousands of different things and have the receiver try to figure that one out? Ganzfeld experiments are in my opinion inherently flawed.

Did I explain that well enough?. They are random pictures; just 4 of them used at a time so they could get the 1 in 4 percentage of 25% to beat ruling out chance. They are flawless experiments for the reasons stated in the book and partially restated above.

Edited August 16, 2013 by markprice

[markprice]

BTW the next chapter debunks the research of the skeptics, which one of you wondered about. Unless you want to see James Randi crushed etc., don't ask.

Oh and the autoganzfeld results were almost identical to the previous studies: "The new 95% confidence interval ranged from 30-39%, and the odds against these results occurring are about 45,000 to 1.

Edited August 16, 2013 by markprice

[Frank Merton]

I think police departments who waste time with psychics need to be reorganized and given new leadership. That's my opinion and it will stay that way until there are good university studies that indicate their results are anything more than guesses.

[markprice]

I think police departments who waste time with psychics need to be reorganized and given new leadership. That's my opinion and it will stay that way until there are good university studies that indicate their results are anything more than guesses.

When I brought up "cases" I was not thinking of criminal cases because I never seriously considered them; I was referring to paranormal cases. [how that connects to the book I've been talking about is non-locality of mind...but that's another issue.]

[White Crane Feather]

It's not confirming an assumption, it's adding evidence to support a hypothesis. The brain is a producer of consciousness, that has been confirmed at every turn pretty much, .

Why? Does he include some evidence of other dimensions in that particular book?

As an aside, I saw a reference to an interesting experiment concerning NDEs. At some hospital that must do surgeries or other high-risk procedures they mounted a laptop fairly close to the ceiling of the hospital room, opened flat but with the screen facing up so that people on the floor can't see what's on the screen. The screen is constantly playing an animation of some sort, the idea being that since NDEs so frequently involve the viewing of the body from above that if it's really a soul or something they should be able to see the animation and say what it is. I don't know much more about it, but it would be something if someone could actually describe the animation.

In not going to argue to much about it LG. Its hard to keep up on this little phone once we start getting long winded.

You still are failing to see that the evidence you are pointing at also and adequately supports the other hypothesis as well. It truly is confirmation bias that you can't seem to shake. I see no construction of strawmen. Anything that supports both the brain as a producer of consciousness and also a receiver of it, you are going to choose the former because that is your bias. I would challenge you to articulate a single peice of evidence that does not support both conclusions. No dodging the question now by playing burden of proof games and assuming the physicalist position is the status quo.

You are also philibustering me on figures of speach. There is plenty work being done to show that there are other dimensions... Yes they are inconclusive at the moment, but its pretty consistent with human experience through out time, and only a few models at the moment do not have extra dinentions. The most noteable ones do including string theory. I have also explained to you before that it is quite clear that there is DEFINANTLY a non-physical ( by how we define physical with particles and space time) reality underlining this one.

You are completely wrong... There is volumes of evidence supporting the spiritual interpretation of NDEs, and as I have shown you the the standard arguments for the dying brain hypothesis does not hold up to scrutiny because of severe logical flaws. I have heard of that experiment, and I'm interested, but I heard it was being done with letters or numbers I think it's apart of the aware study. But I ask you, why would you accept that kind of evidence and not evidences where the experiencer hears specific conversations and identify very specific details of tools confirmed by trained surgeons?

If i said Jung had proof would you read it?

No. But he lays out an excellent discussion of how modern empiricism and 'averaging' has devalued the individual which is truely the carrier of reality. You will see how it relates if you read it.

[Einsteinium]

They upgraded to autoganzfeld...

You must have missed the part where I said they finally found their long sought after repeatable experiment.

The point is they are not all frauds (do your own research) but the lady I mentioned would have quit if it did not work every time (not a crime solver btw).

Incorrect conclusion.

Each of the targets receives a ranking of 1-4 for a reason; I'll get to that in a minute.

The author points that out because it is a relevant problem: they understand it, of course, and thought they could get away with it, hence this chapter of the book.

"The committee finds no scientific justification from the research conducted over a period of one hundred thirty years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena"

This is why he wrote the book: to correct that assumption. Sensory Leakage and Inadequate Randomization had to be corrected before the ganzfeld debate could continue. The two debators ended up writing a Joint Communique: "We agree that there is an overall significant effect in this database that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis..."

It was tennis balls, a red lamp, relaxation, white noise (headphones) to create the "total field" or undifferentiated perceptual field. The sender in another acoustically sealed room opens a sealed envelope with the target picture chosen from a large pool of potential targets. The senders task is to focus on the target and attempt to send the image--one way audio link from the receiver--so the sender can adjust his thoughts...

After 30 minutes the session ends. The receiver is shown a set of four pics--the reason for this is 1 being considered a direct hit and everything else a complete miss. So if chance alone was operating, we would expect the receiver to correctly guess the target 25% of the time.

No, again, it's "an amazing 55% of the studies reported statistically significant results, whereas only 5% would have been expected to do so if chance alone was operating".

Did I explain that well enough?. They are random pictures; just 4 of them used at a time so they could get the 1 in 4 percentage of 25% to beat ruling out chance. They are flawless experiments for the reasons stated in the book and partially restated above.

I completely understand the experiment but I disagree with the conclusions drawn. I propose re-doing the experiment, but instead of using 4 pictures, use 10 at a time. That way statistically a person would only be right 10% of the time by random chance, and if you still can get 32% then I will admit that ESP is proven. Now lets talk about the 55% number. Why were only 55% of the studies showing the statistical significance? If ESP is absolutely real then close to 100% of the studies should conclusively demonstrate the effect. This is not a repeatable experiment. Also, what were the conditions of those 55% of experiments? They could have been flawed on some way relative to the other experiments. Why are some labs, some scientists consistently getting more positive results than others? If the conditions of the experiment were the exact same then everyone conducting the experiments should get statistically the same results, but that is not the case. This is huge evidence for some type of environmental variable, experimental bias, or other fluke that is not being taken into account. Even if the effect is real, it obviously is extremely small so as to be almost unnoticeable. It would still be revolutionary if true, but still almost laughable how negligible it is.

All this proves is that we need to look into this further, design other experiments that work on different principles, and compare the results. There is something funny going on, but to claim that it is proof of ESP is totally jumping the gun at this point.

"flawless experiments" - you obviously are not a scientist lol

Edited August 16, 2013 by Einsteinium

[scowl]

Now lets talk about the 55% number. Why were only 55% of the studies showing the statistical significance? If ESP is absolutely real then close to 100% of the studies should conclusively demonstrate the effect. This is not a repeatable experiment.

Even the "Cold Fusion" experiments that swept academia back in 1989 were having about 55% positive results, and we know they were the result of a poorly designed experiment.

[Einsteinium]

Even the "Cold Fusion" experiments that swept academia back in 1989 were having about 55% positive results, and we know they were the result of a poorly designed experiment.

Some people on here still think that Cold Fusion is real lol.

[Frank Merton]

I think an experiment to persuade me of something like ESP, when no one has demonstrated any measurable mechanism, would have to be carried out by genuine sceptics and have to be repeated several times, all appearing in peer-reviewed journals. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," and in this case the claim is really extraordinary.

I think the reality is that we are all individual ships passing each other in the night limited to signalling with flashing lights. We have nothing more than symbolic language and gestures and other body language allowing any bridging of that chasm, and these are imperfect, subject to error, and often completely missed.

[markprice]

"flawless experiments" - you obviously are not a scientist lol

And you are no Sherlock. Look, as I said, they upgraded to autoganzfield--computerized version--and got the same results! That implies nothing negative about the previous flawlessly conducted ganzfield tests, it only confirms their authenticity. Now this is why the term pseudo-skeptic has been applied to so many people who have obvious bias or lack of understanding of statistical results. Every single objection to these experiments has been dealt with, overcome, and results validated by leading skeptics and statisticians, and still people are waffle around because they cannot accept the facts. IMO either read the book, to get up to speed, or cling to your ignorance. I expected a better debate here but as usual I leave disappointed with the stereotypical arguments encountered on websites like this one, adios.

[+Liquid Gardens]

And you are no Sherlock. Look, as I said, they upgraded to autoganzfield--computerized version--and got the same results! That implies nothing negative about the previous flawlessly conducted ganzfield tests, it only confirms their authenticity. Now this is why the term pseudo-skeptic has been applied to so many people who have obvious bias or lack of understanding of statistical results. Every single objection to these experiments has been dealt with, overcome, and results validated by leading skeptics and statisticians, and still people are waffle around because they cannot accept the facts. IMO either read the book, to get up to speed, or cling to your ignorance. I expected a better debate here but as usual I leave disappointed with the stereotypical arguments encountered on websites like this one, adios.

So, Mr. Holmes, why is it exactly that we are finding out the amazing truth of ESP on a comment board on the internet? If what you are stating here is correct and the case for it so clear, what is your explanation for the relevant segment of the scientific community, for the most part, ignoring it? There's little motivation for them to be biased, compared to the enormous rewards that would come from the legitimate demonstration of these powers.

[Mikko-kun]

So, Mr. Holmes, why is it exactly that we are finding out the amazing truth of ESP on a comment board on the internet? If what you are stating here is correct and the case for it so clear, what is your explanation for the relevant segment of the scientific community, for the most part, ignoring it? There's little motivation for them to be biased, compared to the enormous rewards that would come from the legitimate demonstration of these powers.

I'm interested in this too, though I dont understand why you need to put it so inquisitively. Why wouldn't the scientific community had already find and proven that ESP exists if even we can observe it's existence? The question is twofold.

First, why wouldn't they have the motivation for it?

Ever watched the documentary "The Mystery of Cocaine Mummies"? Found on youtube. I dont know if all scientific community is like this, of course I wouldn't know, but there's one potential explanation: ignorant, thoughtless inside-the-box rejection. The scientists, just like anyone else, can keep claiming the experiments are flawed. I bet there's bound to be scientists claiming this even if the ESP experiments were succesful, because you can always come up with something that might've not been perfect about it. Of course some are much less perfect experiments than others, but there's always some straw you can keep grasping. You can't assume the scientific community would be free of bias because they're humans, not robots. No one is free from bias.

And while there might be those willing to prove the existence of ESP in scientific community, I bet they're turned off by those who have the bias against it and would grasp straws and use their "scientist" label they have to give it impact.

Second, why haven't they been succeeded in proving it? Out of the box -theories, being stuck inside certain boxes and not surpassing them, not overcoming them. It's a common phenomena. Revolutionary theories are needed, but if you just try to break a box and not put your main focus on getting to the core of the matter itself instead, it may be you fail. Also, if you have preconceptions about how things should work, like that ESP should always work everywhere in all conditions, then you might not get ESP manifestations because you ignore what conditions it naturally works and doesn't work in because you stick to your preconceptions. Preconceptions like we humans are robots and our functions should always be available no matter who's observing us and what's our state of mind.

Those are just things I've seen happen in the scientific community now and again. Sticking to old conceptions of how things should work, because no one has proof for revolutionary theories. And thus those revolutionary theories aren't as popular. And scientific research isn't free, it costs time and resources = money. Where do you think you're going to get it? A lot of us can't afford a blindshot research monetarily, at least not one where you have more resources (data, gathering) and assistant(s) (those who give different angles to your work and alleviate your enormous burden of labor) at your disposal. A lot of sceptics might not consider astrology a science, but the research done there can be very scientific (laborous and a lot of data gathering and putting things together), I've done some research there and I can tell you it's much more a pain when you do it alone or with an unmotivated crew.

[ambelamba]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sony-senses-a-market-in-esp-1577154.html

Actually Sony did a research on ESP years ago. The reason why it was a secret was that...they feared that their stock will crash if shareholders knew about this.

What they figured out was that it cannot be harnessed. And that's good enough for me. We can ignore the paranormal all we can and won't feel any discomfort.

[Mikko-kun]

The article.

After persuading the world to retreat into the private universe of the Walkman, Sony is going one step further: it has disclosed that it is branching out into the paranormal. The Japanese corporation, the leading innovator in consumer electronics, admits it is researching into alternative medicine, spoon-bending, X-ray vision, telepathy and other forms of extra- sensory perception (ESP).

The Sony ''Institute of Wisdom'' was founded in 1989 at the instigation of the company's founder, Masaharu Ibuka, and Akio Morita, its charismatic former chairman. The company believes it has proved the existence of ESP, and is considering the possibility of machines that would enable us to communicate telepathically - the Sony Spookman, as it is likely to be known.

"Mr Ibuka and Mr Morita have long felt that there's more to science and technology than what is repeatable, universal and objective," a spokeswoman said. "Some people have the ability to perceive beyond the five senses. This research is intended to investigate how this happens and why."

A sub-division of the Institute, Extra-Sensory Perception Excitation Research (Esper), has worked with more than 100 possessors of ESP. Subjects were presented with two black plastic containers, one of them containing platinum, the other empty. Psychic individuals were able to ''see'' the platinum seven times out of 10. Much of the research focuses on the mysterious spiritual energy known as ki, which forms the basis of a great deal of traditional oriental medicine.

The company has already devised one product, the Pulse Graph, based on a prototype developed by a South Korean holistic doctor. It is claimed to have a 20 to 30 per cent success-rate in diagnosing diseases such as liver cancer.

So you read your link, or am I missing something here?

[ambelamba]

The article.

So you read your link, or am I missing something here?

I actually read a different source.

Yes, they came to believe that ESP exist, but they also concluded that it cannot be harnessed.

[Mr Walker]

I respect your opinion and I in no way am attempting to attack your beliefs. I simply just wish for the paranormal to be true so much so, that it has been a very disappointing and difficult thing for me to research it for so long and seek personal experiences to the extent that the lack of objective evidence (again, subjective experience is NOT objective evidence, neither is belief, neither is faith) that I have found; the way so many people exploit the belief in the paranormal for financial gain or to gain control over others; and the way belief itself sets people against each other even to the point of war has left me with very little left to grasp onto to justify a belief in the paranormal.

Trust me, if an angel were to come to me I would be utterly THRILLED and have so many questions, but I also would be cautious, knowing the power of the mind, and the power of the mind to create things/memories/beliefs that are not objectively real. Because I know the mind has this ability, I would be cautious if an angel were to appear to me, I would not accept it immediately as a real objective occurrence. But I would want more than anything else to believe that the experience was objectively real.

Subjective experience is real in a sense. Is emotion real? Yes it is. Emotion is a subjective experience. But if you were to tell me that anger is itself a demon that goes around inflicting people with rage I would think you were smoking something. Are angels any different? If an angel appears to you, it could very well be a part of your inner subconscious mind manifesting itself to your conscious mind in a unique and profound way. Does that make the angel any less real? Only in the sense that nobody else in the world could perceive or understand that particular angel. Only you would see it and it would only be real to you. But what does that mean? Does it even matter?

All very true and logical. So of course in establishing the reality and physical indpendent existence of an ange,l i use the same logic and evidences as i do to establish that a wall i can see in front of me is real. Real things provide solid physical evidences for their exstence which can be tested. The angels I see are quite clearlyy seen/heard felt etc by others, giving one evidence that they are not manifesting inside my head. They also physically alter the natural and built environment leaving trace evidences of these alterations. if they did not do these things i would not accpet their reality.