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.


* - - - - 1 votes

Cumulative proof for psychic phenomena


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#1    Rolci

Rolci

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:23 AM

I was VERY surprised not to find the video I'm presenting in this topic here on UM. But to be honest I consider myself lucky to have stumbled upon it. Why? I read a book called Explaining the Unexplained about 6 years ago and it presented possible explanations for all types of psychic phenomena, and I remember that the very end of the book was about the highly promising ongoing tests called Ganzfeld test. I'm sure many of you are familiar with it and have your own opinions, but I've been wondering for the past 6 years "whatever happened with those experiments?" until a couple days ago when I found an amazing video from the Electric Universe Conference 2013. It's an hour-long speech by Dean Radin, PhD, and he talks about not only the cumulative results over the past few decades but also other areas of research, all of which strongly implies a role of consciousness in events of the external world. So here are the 2 videos of the presentation. It's a speech among many others at the conference, of which I would highly recommend Rupert Sheldrake: Science Set Free.

And this video is titled Dean Radin:: Men Who Stare at Photons





I would just like to add my opinion that skepticism is becoming an occupation where the job is denying obvious implications no matter what, at the cost of having to come up with more and more ludicrous, outrageous alternative explanations and desperately trying to find faults with increasingly impeccably carried out experiments. Is there a time for a skeptic where they admit: yes, consciousness does influence matter? Is having been brought up with a defective materialistic world-view and a lack of open-minded humility reason enough for ignorance? How long is it sensible/healthy to cling onto an outdated, obsolete paradigm?

Edited by Rolci, 27 January 2014 - 12:27 AM.

Best piece of truth I have found so far: http://llresearch.or...of_one_pdf.aspx
A truly free society: https://sites.google...t-economy-today
The true history of our planet: http://www.floating-...rth_history.htm
Dialogues with The Absolute: unveiledsecretsandmessagesoflight.blogspot (dot) co (dot) uk/2011/08/eon-11aug2010.html
A wealth of metaphysical readings with a surprisingly high ratio of truth content: soulwise (dot) net/index-00.htm

#2    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,333 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:27 AM



Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#3    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:40 AM

Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, and the 'Insitutue of Noetic Sciences', huh?  I suggest a little more googling might be in order, and may I say the only thing worse than 'meta-statistics' is 'meta-anecdotes' and unbelievably poorly set-up 'tests' being promoted as anything, let alone pseudo-science, let alone science..

But Rolci, I offer you this challenge - bring HERE the very best work that Radin, Sheldrake or any others have done to date - the work that shows indisputable evidence.  And let's go through it in detail and I'll back up my counter claim that this is horribly flawed tinfoilhattery.

Are you game?

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#4    Rolci

Rolci

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:57 AM

It's all in the videos, no need to bring anything here, it's already there in the videos. They're clearly listed for you to research, and they're not done by them, they are presenting results of research done by reputable universities like Harward, Stanford, Duke, Cambridge, Edinburgh, etc. The question is, have you gone through it all in detail and evaluated it? Although there's not much need for  evaluation, it's all pretty obvious by now. The decades' worth of Ganzfeld tests alone (122 experiments in 20 labs in almost 5000 sessions) show results which, if were down to chance, would have a chance of 300 trillion quadrillion to 1 to occur. Have you actually watched the videos?

Best piece of truth I have found so far: http://llresearch.or...of_one_pdf.aspx
A truly free society: https://sites.google...t-economy-today
The true history of our planet: http://www.floating-...rth_history.htm
Dialogues with The Absolute: unveiledsecretsandmessagesoflight.blogspot (dot) co (dot) uk/2011/08/eon-11aug2010.html
A wealth of metaphysical readings with a surprisingly high ratio of truth content: soulwise (dot) net/index-00.htm

#5    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,333 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:04 AM

View PostRolci, on 27 January 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

It's all in the videos, no need to bring anything here, it's already there in the videos. They're clearly listed for you to research, and they're not done by them, they are presenting results of research done by reputable universities like Harward, Stanford, Duke, Cambridge, Edinburgh, etc. The question is, have you gone through it all in detail and evaluated it? Although there's not much need for  evaluation, it's all pretty obvious by now. The decades' worth of Ganzfeld tests alone (122 experiments in 20 labs in almost 5000 sessions) show results which, if were down to chance, would have a chance of 300 trillion quadrillion to 1 to occur. Have you actually watched the videos?

Show me some links to the journals of this work from Harvard, Stanford, Duke ( yes, Duke had a research department like this, but stopped funding after no results ), or any reputable Universities.

A youtube video will not work as " reputable ".

You can even contact the Universities and ask them where this information is, and pass it on to us please.

Until then, I am out....Nothing here but lies, mis-information, and ignorance.



Edit :

Speaking of Harvard and Edinburgh ( you said they back your post / statement up ) : Both are in this article, contradicting what you claim.

Study: Psychic ability doesn't hold up


A new study supports skeptics of psychic abilities. Researchers failed to find evidence to support claims that extrasensory perception is real.


Skeptics may scoff at the finding as obvious, but the research is important because it refutes a study published in a psychological journal last year that claimed to find evidence of extrasensory perception. That research, conducted by Daryl Bem of Cornell University, triggered outrage in the psychological community when the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology announced in 2010 that the paper had been accepted for publication. Psychologists immediately leapt on Bem's statistics and methods, finding reasons how he may have come up with the unbelievable results.
But the real key to a strong scientific finding is reproducibility. If no other researchers can replicate a particular result, it's not likely that the result is real. So University of Edinburgh psychologist Stuart Ritchie and colleagues decided to mimic one of Bem's experiments almost exactly to see if they would also find evidence of psychic powers.

Backward causality

The researchers chose the strongest of the eight positive findings that Bem originally published. In the experiment, Bem's participants seemed to reverse the usual cause-effect sequence of time. They saw a list of 48 words flashed onto a computer screen and were then treated to a surprise memory test in which they were asked to type in as many of the words as they remembered.
Next, a random sample of 24 of the previous 48 words was presented again. The participants did some practice exercises with these words, and then the experiment ended. Analyzing the memory-test results, Bem and his colleagues found that the students were more likely to recall the words that they'd soon see again than the words that were not on the later exercise list, as if they could see the future.
"It's almost as if you study for an exam, you do the exam and then you study for it afterwards and then you get a better mark," Ritchie told LiveScience. "So you can see why we were kind of surprised by that." [Top 10 Unexplained Phenomena]
Bem encouraged replication of his results, and he put the computer program he used in his experiment online so other researchers could use it. Ritchie, University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman and University of London psychologist Christopher French all conducted the experiment separately at their respective universities with 50 participants each.

Reply hazy, try again

The results were clear.
"We found nothing," Ritchie said.

In other words, seeing words after taking a test on them didn't improve the participants' test scores. Ritchie said he and the other researchers couldn't be sure why their version of Bem's experiment worked differently.
"It might just be because the statistics were a fluke," he said. "You're going to get some false positives sometimes."
In a response to be published alongside Ritchie and his colleagues' research in the open-access journal PLoS ONE, Bem wrote that it was still "premature to conclude anything about the replicability" of his experiment. It takes multiple replication failures to definitively refute a study, he said.
Bem also suggested that because Ritchie, Wiseman and French are skeptical of psychic abilities, they might have unwittingly influenced their participants not to display any clairvoyance. (The computer-based design of the study, however, is supposed to help prevent researchers from biasing their participants.)
"This does not mean that psi[psychic phenomena] results are unverifiable by independent investigators, but that we must begin regarding the experimenter as a variable in the experiments that should be included in the research designs," Bem wrote.
publish studies with negative findings, especially those that are replications.
When Ritchie and his colleagues submitted their paper to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the journal that had originally published Bem's work, they were told that the journal does not publish replications.
"There's a real problem with finding shocking findings and then not being interested in publishing replications," Ritchie said.
In that way, Bem's surprising psychic study has been a boon to psychology, Ritchie said.
"It's kicked up a huge debate about how scientists do work and how journals publish that work, and I think that's very valuable in itself — even if I'm not that confident that these findings are real," Ritchie said.

Edited by Sakari, 27 January 2014 - 01:14 AM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#6    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:05 AM

View PostRolci, on 27 January 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

I was VERY surprised not to find the video I'm presenting in this topic here on UM.

Awesome.. Thanks for posting these..

Personally I think the reason why you are surprised not to find this video posted here is because of such a strong corrupted skeptical  here at UM.. True healthy skeptics aren't in the business of denying research without even Friggen looking at the clips first..


#7    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:07 AM

Rolci, I was simply offering YOU the chance to pick what you thought was best.

Now, I guess I'll have to pick one.  Don't blame anyone but yourself if it doesn't turn out well.

BTW, I dispute and completely and utterly reject your/their 'conclusion' about the '300 trillion quadrillion' odds claim.

BBL8R

Edited by ChrLzs, 27 January 2014 - 01:07 AM.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#8    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:13 AM

View PostRolci, on 27 January 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

I would just like to add my opinion that skepticism is becoming an occupation where the job is denying obvious implications no matter what, at the cost of having to come up with more and more ludicrous, outrageous alternative explanations and desperately trying to find faults with increasingly impeccably carried out experiments

I would like to add that the moment you posted this, you made it clear that you were here for an argument not a discussion, and your post's credibility dropped like a lead balloon.

Haven't you heard that you should always let the other guy get the first punch in?  It makes you look better in comparison.


#9    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:17 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 27 January 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

True healthy skeptics aren't in the business of denying research without even Friggen looking at the clips first..

Putting aside what True Scotsmen would do or not, what research are you talking about?

Or are you just talking about a YouTube clip?  Think carefully about what it is that you are actually complaining about.  Do you know that the actual research is?  Do you know what the results are?  Do you actually understand what the results mean?

It's one thing to complain that no one believes what you believe.  It is quite another to call people corrupt when you aren't even sure how the system works in the first place.


#10    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:23 AM

Professor T, I trust you will be engaging in the discussion that follows?  Would YOU like to pick what you think is the best evidence?

Why are people so afraid to do that very simple and obvious task?  (OK, I confess - I know the answer..)


BTW, the first notable quote from that first video is this:

Quote

Most of my research starts from paying attention to what people report..

The problem is revealing itself almost immediately, but let's go on anyway..

Quote

I get hundreds of emails a week..
He then retells an anonymous story, and happily states that the odds of what the emailer said about picking safe roads were 1/229.  Now even though he does grudgingly admit that this was just an anecdote and could be dismissed, that 'calculation' of odds is absolutely ludicrous.  He presents himself as a scientist, yet he actually believes that such choices are truly binary and both options are equally likely?  And his favorite initial anecdote is one where he made no effort whatsoever to even check whether he was having his leg pulled?

Good Grief.  This really is muck for the gullible masses.

It gets MUCH worse, but I think we need to look at some of his research claims...

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#11    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,333 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:24 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 27 January 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

Awesome.. Thanks for posting these..

Personally I think the reason why you are surprised not to find this video posted here is because of such a strong corrupted skeptical  here at UM.. True healthy skeptics aren't in the business of denying research without even Friggen looking at the clips first..

Before I watched a 24 minute " youtube " video ( yes, great reliable evidence there, youtube ) I spent 3 minutes looking up what I posted. And that can be verified. In 3 minutes, I was able to find enough to show this is all hogwash, and using Harvard and other Universities names was mis-leading.

( like we did not know that all ready )

So, you are wrong, sorry.

Chrlzs will be tearing this up now, and I am going to enjoy reading.

Edited by Sakari, 27 January 2014 - 01:25 AM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#12    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:08 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 27 January 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

Putting aside what True Scotsmen would do or not, what research are you talking about?

Or are you just talking about a YouTube clip?  Think carefully about what it is that you are actually complaining about.  Do you know that the actual research is?  Do you know what the results are?  Do you actually understand what the results mean?

It's one thing to complain that no one believes what you believe.  It is quite another to call people corrupt when you aren't even sure how the system works in the first place.

View PostChrLzs, on 27 January 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Professor T, I trust you will be engaging in the discussion that follows?  Would YOU like to pick what you think is the best evidence?

Why are people so afraid to do that very simple and obvious task?  (OK, I confess - I know the answer..)
*snip size*

View PostSakari, on 27 January 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

Before I watched a 24 minute " youtube " video ( yes, great reliable evidence there, youtube ) I spent 3 minutes looking up what I posted. And that can be verified. In 3 minutes, I was able to find enough to show this is all hogwash, and using Harvard and other Universities names was mis-leading.

( like we did not know that all ready )

So, you are wrong, sorry.

Chrlzs will be tearing this up now, and I am going to enjoy reading.

It's quite clear that my statement about skeptic's has gotten under ya'll skin.

Good... :tu:

I'm not interested having such an ego battle with anyone.. Nor will I waste any of my Energy on a debate..

People do not like their beliefs challenged, though challenging other peoples beliefs is critical to our growth as a society.. My beliefs and the beliefs of others including yourselves is their business alone so long as it does no harm.. and whether they are corrupt or clearly wrong isnt the issue.. Instead of attacking any research or belief system outside counter to yours, why not ask why these peoples beliefs get under your skin. lol..


#13    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,669 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:16 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 27 January 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:


Instead of attacking any research or belief system outside counter to yours, why not ask why these peoples beliefs get under your skin. lol..

Rolci: "Is having been brought up with a defective materialistic world-view and a lack of open-minded humility reason enough for ignorance? How long is it sensible/healthy to cling onto an outdated, obsolete paradigm?"

For many, that pretty much does it.


#14    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:18 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 27 January 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

It's quite clear that my statement about skeptic's has gotten under ya'll skin.

Good... :tu:

Gee, who would have thought that insulting people could result in that?

Quote

I'm not interested having such an ego battle with anyone..

Then you shouldn't have made such an egotistical comment.

Quote

Nor will I waste any of my Energy on a debate..

Yes, we know that you didn't come here to discuss anything.  You made that very clear in your initial post.  You came to pick and fight, and you succeeded.

Unfortunately for you, skeptics still include relevant information in their fights, not just snarky comments.

Quote

People do not like their beliefs challenged, though challenging other peoples beliefs is critical to our growth as a society..

Thank you, armchair psychologist.  Now, instead of talking about society in general, how about sticking to the subject of scientific research, which is what your OP is titled after?

Quote

My beliefs and the beliefs of others including yourselves is their business alone so long as it does no harm.. and whether they are corrupt or clearly wrong isnt the issue..

so...what, you are admitting that you just insulted skeptics for not reason other than a whim, and not because it had anything to do with your argument?  That actually sounds better to you?

Quote

Instead of attacking any research or belief system outside counter to yours,

Like referring to it as corrupt?

Quote

why not ask why these peoples beliefs get under your skin. lol..

Well, check those last three letters in your sentence there, and realize that you sound like a 10 year old who is cackling at his own cleverness at fooling the adults who were indulging his latest little game.


#15    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:47 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 27 January 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

It's quite clear that my statement about skeptic's has gotten under ya'll skin.
When all else fails, call your opponents afraid of the truth, or assert you've 'gotten under their skin', thereby claiming you know what they are thinking, and would rather NOT believe that they might just be showing you the way to the truth, and how to avoid being scammed.  Whatever you do, at all costs, do NOT ever try to debate with someone who knows what they are talking about..

Quote

Good... :tu:
No, I think such ad hominems and obvious avoidance tactics are shameful.. Each to his own though.

Quote

I'm not interested having such an ego battle with anyone.. Nor will I waste any of my Energy on a debate..
Oh, what a surprise!!!  Professor T thinks it is about egos, and would rather not actually debate anything, it being such a waste of energy and all.
Anyway, who on earth would want to have a debate on a discussion forum?  It's unheard of - these forums are obviously to locate equally ill-informed people who also don't want to debate and instead pat each other on the back, right?  :td:  

Quote

People do not like their beliefs challenged
The astonishing irony...

Quote

, though challenging other peoples beliefs is critical to our growth as a society..
Only if you have a decent 'challenge'.  If your challenge is tested and shown to be hogwash, as shown already above by Sakari's examples, then you need to accept that maybe the debate you are so eager to run away from is a good thing..

Quote

My beliefs and the beliefs of others including yourselves is their business alone so long as it does no harm..
Thing is false beliefs can do harm, ranging from fools being parted from their money to horrible things like the Jonestown massacre, or perhaps even Nancy Lieder's dog, or passing on such cult-like behavior to innocent people or children to keep the circle of scamming alive ...

Quote

whether they are corrupt or clearly wrong isnt the issue..
I beg to differ, I like to fight corruption and wrongness.

Quote

Instead of attacking any research or belief system outside counter to yours, why not ask why these peoples beliefs get under your skin. lol..
LOL?  How old are you?

And instead of attacking people who disagree with you, why are you so terrified of debating it and seeing where the corruptness actually IS?

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users