46 replies to this topic

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

well the story with my ex.. i seriuosly loved her..   and maybe without we knowing it we shared out minds and soul .. maybe thats why i could see tru her eyes.. happened alot of times.. cannnot explain.. this .. o yeah almost forgot.. after that i saw her again.. well 5 years later ..  coincident. something happened. to both of us.  
later i asked her. what she felt that moment she saw me ..  qeuss what we both felt the same thing. cant explain what happened.  but there was a connection between us . it was like we were in eachothers head.. ..  weird.. never happened to me again with other woman. ..

[ColoradoParanormal]

coldethyl, on 24 April 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I love you.  LOL

Awe!

[ColoradoParanormal]

coldethyl, on 24 April 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Called 'flight or fight' response.  It's in our genes.


edited to correct what i was saying.  why isn't my multiquote working?

Thank you! Absolutely correct!

edit: now my multiquote isn't working.

Edited by ColoradoParanormal, 24 April 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[Emma_Acid]

_Only, on 24 April 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

I was asking how to test it. Because the viewpoint that someone is "moving the goal posts" because they don't know exactly how it works, why, and can't explain it doesn't sit well with me. It's fine to say that it hasn't been proven, so you don't believe in it. But to go further and claim it is all too "convenient" to people that this is the case is a needless, silly, negative opinion.

Its nothing to do with belief. And what I say is convenient is the regular claim that it is random and uncontrollable, and "not understandable by science" (which is  in itself meaningless). That is all too convenient.

_Only, on 24 April 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Bah, I guess you gave your answer in the last sentence. There's no point in talking about it if it can't be scientifically tested. Because it clearly doesn't exist, as everything that exists can be scientifically tested ... because anything that can't be tested doesn't exist.

If it is so nebulous and ill-defined that people who experience it can't control it, predict it, or use it - to the point where it can be described as "not understandable by science" - then it is literally useless.

We can describe the property of lightyear-long gas clouds and ultra-microscopic particles, yet they are outside of our experience. But claiming something to be within personal experience but outside of evidence-based science means it can be dismissed as simply made-up.

_Only, on 24 April 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Again, what would be a fitting, accurate test if someone shares that they sometimes have dreams of events and places that happen later int heir life?

If there is no test for it, and it is simply a personal experience that can't be described in any scientific way, then this can be put down to personal bias. Which can be a very strong effect.

_Only, on 24 April 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

But I'm still trying to figure out a fitting way of scientifically testing a clairvoyant dream. I guess I could answer for you, and there could be a long-running recording of people who have experienced this multiple times, recounting their dreams daily, and simply waiting for something to mesh. But that is hardly scientific, as there would be so many other factors in events that the person can come into contact with that may or may not be believed, or could be confused, or mixed up, that the tests would just be thrown out most likely. There would have to be a better way to test.

You've kind of nailed it there. Simply "waiting for something to mesh" would leave it down to the individual - which is useless in a scientific arena. It needs to be double blinded, so there is no way for anyone to skewer the results. And there would be no way to test this. Only you can match up a dream with an experience, and this removes all objectivity.

Clairvoyance, "psi" - and indeed all religious experiences - are personal, and not external. There is no way to measure them because they can't be measured. The Occam's Razor explanation is personal bias and mistaken memory, and there has never been a test to show it otherwise.

[tay123]

_Only, on 23 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

People rarely believe any stories from others anymore. Blame the world of liars. You and me, too. We all lie.

The only answer for many to that is to find proof of everything. Which isn't easy. To understand a possible aspect of the brain, you would first have to understand the brain. A work in progress. So for many, it is the safe way to just deny any claims if they haven't experienced it themselves, and there is no outside proof.

Yes, I totally agree with you. For me, I just have a hard time believing that so many people would be lying. For that matter, where did the initial idea of ESP come from if someone did not experience it?

[tay123]

danydandan, on 23 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

science is about data , not what one believes.

yes it would be as simple as reading their  data , and lab procedure to see if its flawed

How would you test for esp ?

Well its simple Use Sener card , put them in a envolpe and see if the person can tell me which card is in the envolpe . and for this to be a correct test 10 cards should be used
100 tests should be carried out
. If it hits like a 95 to a hundred percent hit rate then id believe it . any thing lower than would suggest guess work

I didn't say science was about beliefs. I said science has not proven anything about ESP. I am pretty sure that clairvoyance is more complicated than picking out a card.

[tay123]

danydandan, on 23 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

science is about data , not what one believes.

yes it would be as simple as reading their  data , and lab procedure to see if its flawed

How would you test for esp ?

Well its simple Use Sener card , put them in a envolpe and see if the person can tell me which card is in the envolpe . and for this to be a correct test 10 cards should be used
100 tests should be carried out
. If it hits like a 95 to a hundred percent hit rate then id believe it . any thing lower than would suggest guess work

I didn't say science was about beliefs. I said science has not proven anything about ESP. I am pretty sure that clairvoyance is more complicated than picking out a card.

[tay123]

_Only, on 23 April 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

The problem with that test is that many of the more normal, common events of people having some sort of a clairvoyant dream or thought, came unknowingly to the "viewer". They don't seem to be able to control it, or even know the how and why of it. Far from something that is done at will; an often rare, or at least sporadic experience. They just know that at one time they thought of seeing something happening, and later it occurred. Silly tests like the one you mentioned ignore this aspect, and cater only to those who claim they have some sort of controlled, supernatural power that they can use at will. Which is much harder to swallow.

The simple answer is often not the best. My money would still be on completely figuring out the hows and whys of the brain, which couldn't be farther from simplicity.

You took the words right out of my mouth. The initial topic was simply clairvoyance...not psychics/mediums. There are still things that we have not been able to figure out about the human brain and I believe that the brain is where the answers to clairvoyance lie. Also, picking out cards is not a sufficient test because is this not what magicians do? People could claim that the test is nothing but a magic trick.

[tay123]

ColoradoParanormal, on 24 April 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Welcome to UM. I wanted to ask,  are you taught in college proper grammar and punctuation? I've taken the liberty of adding paragraphs thus making it easier for your audience (us) to be able to comprehend your post.

Now, on to your question/theory. You say that because science cannot validate psychic abilities due to it being outside the realm of scientific method lends credibility to clairvoyance? This is doesn't make rational sense. You state that you've read personal accounts and statements leading to your conclusion that clairvoyance is a real phenomenon yet you wont accept actual hard science? This takes away from your credibility my friend.

Personal experience and statements are just that. Non-verifiable, open for interpretation, events that may or may not have occurred. Unless it can be scientifically verified it isn't "evidence" nor summarily scientifically viable. I'm actually rather surprised that a person of higher education would make the statements you've noted.

And, in fact, when I was in school receiving my Bachtoral in Psychology, I did research in to psychic phenomenon (for my own knowledge as I was gaining an understanding of the world of Psychology as well as my major in applied sciences gave me an understanding in Scientific method) and the steps science has taken to research it. The Scientific methods revealed, to me and a matter of fact, noted scientists were very in-depth and credible. The fact that psychic abilities has not been proven doesn't reveal a fault with science but rather in psychic abilities itself my friend...

Oh my! I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I was going to get a punctuation/grammar lesson. No need to be so rude. I just simply have to participate in a discussion on this topic that I am not an expert on. It is simply a topic that I chose for a philosophy project. I don't need a lecture. I need views on this issue. FYI I got to a very prestiges school and I have been taught punctuation and grammar. My impression of this forum is that it is a comfortable place to discuss issues. I wasn't aware that I needed to be perfect in my writing. Do not question my intelligence. Now, on to my question/theory. I did not say that it lends credibility to clairvoyance. I said it takes away from the credibility of science/scientific experiments. I know that personal accounts are open for interpretation but please point out "hard science" that surrounds this issue. Like I said, I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I apologize if I do not know everything about clairvoyance. I am doing it for a project and I just started researching it 2 weeks ago. I never said/meant that scientists were not credible. I  meant that these experiments that have been done specifically for clairvoyance are not credible because they have been flawed. By the way, your need to insult others is not flattering at all. My expertise is not in philosophy or science so excuse me if you disagree with me on this matter. I am surprised that someone of such high education would assume all of these things. Did Plato not argue that to be wise you must admit that you know nothing. I have formed opinions based on what I have found about clairvoyance so far and I am always willing to admit when I am wrong. I am also open to different views and opinions. You strike me as a person who is a "know it all". Maybe you should read Plato. I am open to discussion. I am NOT open to rude people or being insulted.

[tay123]

Emma_Acid, on 24 April 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

If something exists, science can measure it. What you're doing is known as 'special pleading' and logically invalidates your argument.

Did you notice that I said "My hypothesis..." It was simply my hypothesis before I started my research.


So it can't be tested properly. How convenient.




A long way of saying "I don't understand science". Science is about being proven wrong. You test something, build evidence and make predictions. Nothing is ever proven right in science - it is merely not proven wrong. There is no evidence for ESP, psi, clairvoyance etc etc. There simply isn't.

[coldethyl]

ColoradoParanormal, on 24 April 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

Thank you! Absolutely correct!

edit: now my multiquote isn't working.

I can't get mine to work at all.

*grumbles*

[Beany]

Hello, folks. There is at least one test for clairevoyance that has consistent results. Watch the movie I Am by Tom Shadyac. You'll see how it's set up and how it works, how it's measured.

[coldethyl]

Beany, on 27 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

Hello, folks. There is at least one test for clairevoyance that has consistent results. Watch the movie I Am by Tom Shadyac. You'll see how it's set up and how it works, how it's measured.

Can you describe it?

[Beany]

Here's the link to the experiment: http://www.noetic.or.../seeing-future/
Re: science being able to measure it. Well, once the microscope was invented a lot of things could be seen & measured. Until then, not so much. Ever wonder what else exists that we don't yet have the capacity to detect or measure? Or are you certain that scientific equipment has reached its peak, and will never move forward from here?

[Emma_Acid]

Beany, on 27 April 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

Here's the link to the experiment: http://www.noetic.or.../seeing-future/
Re: science being able to measure it. Well, once the microscope was invented a lot of things could be seen & measured. Until then, not so much. Ever wonder what else exists that we don't yet have the capacity to detect or measure? Or are you certain that scientific equipment has reached its peak, and will never move forward from here?

...and you obviously don't understand the meaning of "scientific experiment". An experiment where the chief investigator as well as the faculty running the test both have a vested interest in the results (ie - they already believe, and want this to be true) is not valid. The experiment needs to be double blinded, and set to all sorts of rigorous standards so that bias can be counted out - so that the people in the test, measuring the test and compiling the results can't influence the outcome. There will be a reason why this experiment has been ignored by the scientific society - because it is seeped in experimental bias.