Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 11 votes

The Paranormal is it Fake?


  • Please log in to reply
852 replies to this topic

#736    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,527 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 16 August 2013 - 05:38 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 August 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:


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.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#737    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 16 August 2013 - 05:09 PM

View Postmarkprice, on 16 August 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

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 by Einsteinium, 16 August 2013 - 05:16 PM.


#738    scowl

scowl

    Photographic Phraud

  • Member
  • 4,052 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:10 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 16 August 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

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.


#739    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 16 August 2013 - 08:57 PM

View Postscowl, on 16 August 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

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.


#740    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:10 PM

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.


#741    markprice

markprice

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,306 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:9000'

  • To deny meaning is an act of ignorance.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:13 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 16 August 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

"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.

"How can someone prove that a rainbow exists to a blind man?"

#742    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 August 2013 - 02:12 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 17 August 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

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.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#743    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Coarse singer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of the forest people

Posted 18 August 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 18 August 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

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.

Words... I'm a life artist. That's enough.
It all starts from awareness and presense.

#744    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,286 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 09:58 PM

http://www.independe...sp-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.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#745    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Coarse singer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of the forest people

Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:10 AM

The article.

Quote

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?

Words... I'm a life artist. That's enough.
It all starts from awareness and presense.

#746    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,286 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 19 August 2013 - 03:11 AM

View PostMikko-kun, on 19 August 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

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.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#747    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,650 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:13 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 14 August 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

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.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#748    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:31 PM

I thought that paranormal abilities are well documented. I dont know how someone cant believe in special abilities.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#749    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:41 PM

I know of no such documentation; you've been listening to non-objective sources.


#750    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:42 PM

View PostMelo, on 21 August 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I thought that paranormal abilities are well documented. I dont know how someone cant believe in special abilities.

If indeed the truth of these special abilities is so obvious and well documented, I'm at a loss for a rational explanation as to why what we typically call 'paranormal abilities' was then curiously omitted from the curriculum of the schools I went to.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users