Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
forestSS

Which theory may explain psychic phenomena?

20 posts in this topic

To those who are open to PSI existing. Which theory do you believe may explain PSI (paranormal/psychic phenomena) such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences or apparitions etc?

John Beloff a well known parapsychologist concluded that PSI occurs becuase of dualism ie the mind and brain are separate. Amit Goswami however in his book “The Self-Aware Universe”, lists some studies on quantum physics that may lead to an explanation of psi that agrees with the theory of a nonphysical and conceptual world. He explains that in quantum physics, objects are not seen as definite things. Instead, objects are possibilities, viewed as something called “possibility waves”. Of course his interpretation due to his research in quantum physics has lead him to formulate idealistic monism, that only consciousness exists in the universe and everything is part of it, he argues against dualism and materialism.

Others however have disagreed and put forward physical and materialistic theories to try and explain PSI.

Michael Persinger claims that much of paranormal phenomena can be explained by low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves.

Brian Josephson has claimed that the explanation of PSI may be found in quantum physics. Gerald Feinberg's concept of a tachyon, a theoretical particle that travels faster than the speed of light has been advocated by some parapsychologists who claim that it could explain some PSI phenomena.

Charles Tart however believes PSI is completey non-physical and does not operate to material laws.

There are many theories which try and explain PSI. Which one do you advocate and why? If any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who are open to PSI existing. Which theory do you believe may explain PSI (paranormal/psychic phenomena) such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences or apparitions etc?

John Beloff a well known parapsychologist concluded that PSI occurs becuase of dualism ie the mind and brain are separate. Amit Goswami however in his book “The Self-Aware Universe”, lists some studies on quantum physics that may lead to an explanation of psi that agrees with the theory of a nonphysical and conceptual world. He explains that in quantum physics, objects are not seen as definite things. Instead, objects are possibilities, viewed as something called “possibility waves”. Of course his interpretation due to his research in quantum physics has lead him to formulate idealistic monism, that only consciousness exists in the universe and everything is part of it, he argues against dualism and materialism.

Others however have disagreed and put forward physical and materialistic theories to try and explain PSI.

Michael Persinger claims that much of paranormal phenomena can be explained by low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves.

Brian Josephson has claimed that the explanation of PSI may be found in quantum physics. Gerald Feinberg's concept of a tachyon, a theoretical particle that travels faster than the speed of light has been advocated by some parapsychologists who claim that it could explain some PSI phenomena.

Charles Tart however believes PSI is completey non-physical and does not operate to material laws.

There are many theories which try and explain PSI. Which one do you advocate and why? If any?

The theory of how PSI works, from my point of view, is simply that it is a natural result of the interconnectedness of all that is. And incidentally, I would have to agree with Amit Goswami that everything is ultimately composed of consciousness. Why do I subscribe to this theory? First and foremost, something in my gut tells me this is so -- something visceral and intuitive.

Also, as an avid lucid dreamer, I must say that when you have a conscious dream that is virtually indistinguishable from what we would typically describe as the "real world", it tends to make you question the solidity of our day to day reality. The nature of reality is a fascinating topic, and a passion of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realities are simply information constructs, wether it be in a universe, a computer, or a mind. There is a grand if not infinite amount of ways information can relate and pattern. I suspect that "psi" is simply a another way of exchanging information. That does not directly related to matterqnd energy as we know it. If information can combine in other ways and dimentions that are unelrated to matter and energy as we know it. It would be very hard if not impossible to interact with that information on a material as we know it level. I suspect the real universe is far more diverse than we jhave ever dreamed of. That seems to be the case. So much for elegance ehh?

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're coming in with the assumption that physic phenomena exists, and then asking how? Thats not how science works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one who is open to the possibility, I vote for Beloff, although I confess I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. It's my experience that it "psychic" phenomena does exist, although I dislike using the term "psychic" as that implies an other-worldliness, but then isn't that pretty much what Beloff if saying? That the world is other than how we generally perceive it to be? As for how science works: "a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it." It all starts with a hypothesis.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're coming in with the assumption that physic phenomena exists, and then asking how? Thats not how science works.

Science simply tries to explaine observations. Then maby predict a few to solidify theories. I predict many people will continue to experience "psi" or paranormal experiences. It's up to science to explaine it.... Not Deni it out of dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science simply tries to explaine observations. Then maby predict a few to solidify theories. I predict many people will continue to experience "psi" or paranormal experiences. It's up to science to explaine it.... Not Deni it out of dogma.

I know that's what science does. The main problem here is that there has never been any "psi" phenomena shown to exist (and badly organised, biased tests by believers or anecdotes or youtube videos don't count)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's what science does. The main problem here is that there has never been any "psi" phenomena shown to exist (and badly organised, biased tests by believers or anecdotes or youtube videos don't count)

Well good I'm glad Somone around here does. You see the problem then? The phenomenon most certainly exists. It's the nature of the phenomenon that is up for grabs. Lets look at the phenomenon that everyone experiences that you sometimes know when you are being watched. I know for a fact ( personal anecdote here) that animals have this ability to. I have been bowhunting most of my life, and when stalking a dear it is important not to look straight at the animal. the animal will know Its being watched. I have seen this effect first hand. And it should be rpeatable. In fact it's old native American technique.

How do schools of fish or birds turn exactly at the same time?

One possibility. It's a little early in scientific understanding to rule out other means of communication when we can observe so much that we don't understands. And irresponsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7J1CX-GzQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good I'm glad Somone around here does. You see the problem then? The phenomenon most certainly exists.

No they don't, that is the problem. All studies that have shown anything near a positive result are horribly skewered and biased. Scientific double blind studies don't bring up positive results. This is why believers in "psi" come out with the "it can't be measured by science" line.

Lets look at the phenomenon that everyone experiences that you sometimes know when you are being watched.

Let's. Sight is one of the most important senses in the animal kingdom, and also the most complicated areas of information processing our brains deals with, both consciously and subconsciously.

There are no studies that show that people know when people look at them. There is however a good understanding of subliminal processes, such as information gained through peripheral vision that isn't directly acknowledged by the conscious brain, not to mention other inputs. Is there a reason someone would be looking at you? Are you the only person in a room? Are other people in front of you glancing over your shoulder, giving your subconscious brain the impression that there could be someone there?

And that's not to mention confirmation bias - noticing the hits and ignoring the misses. How many times do you turn round and someone is looking at you? How many times do you turn round and no one is looking? You are guaranteed to notice the first one more, and probably completely ignore the second one.

I know for a fact ( personal anecdote here) that animals have this ability to. I have been bowhunting most of my life, and when stalking a dear it is important not to look straight at the animal. the animal will know Its being watched.

Of course they know when someone is looking at them. They're animals with a heightened evolutionary sense for predators, not to mention much better vision (both normally and peripherally).

How do schools of fish or birds turn exactly at the same time?

Here you're committing one of the most common pseudo-science. You're coming at the argument with the pre-decided conclusion and then looking for things that fit it - ignoring what we actually know about the subject. We know why fish and birds do this, it is a complex arrangement of biological and evolutionary systems. None of which involve psychic powers.

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't, that is the problem. All studies that have shown anything near a positive result are horribly skewered and biased. Scientific double blind studies don't bring up positive results. This is why believers in "psi" come out with the "it can't be measured by science" line.

Let's. Sight is one of the most important senses in the animal kingdom, and also the most complicated areas of information processing our brains deals with, both consciously and subconsciously.

There are no studies that show that people know when people look at them. There is however a good understanding of subliminal processes, such as information gained through peripheral vision that isn't directly acknowledged by the conscious brain, not to mention other inputs. Is there a reason someone would be looking at you? Are you the only person in a room? Are other people in front of you glancing over your shoulder, giving your subconscious brain the impression that there could be someone there?

And that's not to mention confirmation bias - noticing the hits and ignoring the misses. How many times do you turn round and someone is looking at you? How many times do you turn round and no one is looking? You are guaranteed to notice the first one more, and probably completely ignore the second one.

Of course they know when someone is looking at them. They're animals with a heightened evolutionary sense for predators, not to mention much better vision (both normally and peripherally).

Here you're committing one of the most common pseudo-science. You're coming at the argument with the pre-decided conclusion and then looking for things that fit it - ignoring what we actually know about the subject. We know why fish and birds do this, it is a complex arrangement of biological and evolutionary systems. None of which involve psychic powers.

"heightened evolutionary senses..." "complex biologic systems"

--- you see you may have your answers, but you have biasly ruled out other possibilities because of your particular world view... This is not science. scientist ( should) abhor assumptions. Predictability of theories. That's science.

See what i mean....You are also makeing assumptions again. Deer do not have better vision than humans during the day, and they are practically color blind. The certainly can smell better than we can. But that would have nothin to do with looking at them. Nor do wild pigs.

I would be interested in the proof of how birds and fish stay together. I know the economic theory behind it... But I don't think there has been much testing as to how... Just theory. Sources would be cool.

Let's use elephants for example. Elephants have the ability to maintain a cohesive herd over miles and miles. It was discovered that ekephants have the ability to communicate over many miles via ultra low frequency sound waves. Pretty cool, but explainable. If me and my son had this ability together it might be labeled "psi". But that's only until Somone figures out why and has the repeatable proof. There are enough human experiences to warrant serious inquiry, the problem is that human experiences can not be quantified other than how many. And it's a whole lot. Nor can many of the experiences can be reproduced. A scientist is not going to kill somebodies twin to see if the other remotely knows if it has happened. Highly emotional events are very difficult to reproduce ethically. I guess we could always bring back the nazis.

Watch that documentary I linked to. The scientists of um will tear me apart for recommending a documentary... But it's a start,

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rupert Sheldrake refers to numerous scientific studies done around "psi" phenomena that appear to be credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do schools of fish or birds turn exactly at the same time?

Tide goes in, tide goes out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"heightened evolutionary senses..." "complex biologic systems"

--- you see you may have your answers, but you have biasly ruled out other possibilities because of your particular world view... This is not science. scientist ( should) abhor assumptions. Predictability of theories. That's science.

The only assumption that I'm making is that the explanation that has the most evidence and relies on the least amount of special pleading is the correction one.

Scientists do not abhor assumptions. I don't think you understand the scientific method.

Science is built on assumptions. To explain a phenomena, you have to out a set or (sometimes arbitrary) assumptions in place, otherwise you have no framework within which to start making predictions.

If the experiments and predictions don't match reality, then your assumptions are wrong.

Simply trusting in the science that has already been done, and has been shown to work, is neither making assumptions or "already having the answers", and you can't reject it simply because it doesn't agree with what you want to be true.

See what i mean....You are also makeing assumptions again. Deer do not have better vision than humans during the day, and they are practically color blind. The certainly can smell better than we can. But that would have nothin to do with looking at them. Nor do wild pigs.

Yes, deer lack certain parts of the eye that make up daytime light and colour reception, but also feature things we do not, such as a sensitivity to shortwave light such as UV.

At the end of the day, deer have evolved as prey, they have evolved to stay out of the way of hunters. You know why you shouldn't look at a deer when you stalk it? It is not because it is psychic and knows it is being watched. It is because animals take being stared at as a threat. A deer running away when it is being stalked by hunters is not a reason to start believing the deer is psychic.

Rig up some cameras. Film the deer. If the deer acts differently when it is being watched on screen, then we have a psychic deer. Not when you're in the physical vicinity, and it can see you peripherally, probably hear you and almost certainly smell you.

And what the hell do pigs have to do with anything?

I would be interested in the proof of how birds and fish stay together. I know the economic theory behind it... But I don't think there has been much testing as to how... Just theory. Sources would be cool.

Saying "just theory" proves how little you understand science.

If you want to start on the basics, look up Swarm Behaviour. This sort of thing is pretty well understood, and does not involve psychic powers.

Let's use elephants for example. Elephants have the ability to maintain a cohesive herd over miles and miles. It was discovered that ekephants have the ability to communicate over many miles via ultra low frequency sound waves. Pretty cool, but explainable. If me and my son had this ability together it might be labeled "psi". But that's only until Somone figures out why and has the repeatable proof.

Right, but you don't have that ability. No one does. And you're turning it into a God Of The Gaps argument - replacing whatever we don't know with "psi", until we find out actually what it is. That isn't how science works.

There are enough human experiences to warrant serious inquiry, the problem is that human experiences can not be quantified other than how many. And it's a whole lot. Nor can many of the experiences can be reproduced. A scientist is not going to kill somebodies twin to see if the other remotely knows if it has happened. Highly emotional events are very difficult to reproduce ethically.

There are human experiences, such as out of body experiences, that are being investigated and have some explanations - they are to do with the way the brain perceives the "self", and show that the brain can do some very strange things - but these do not include psychic powers. No experiment, ever, if properly done, has come to the conclusion that "psi" has to be involved.

And saying that the experiments have to be "highly emotional" and therefore difficult to reproduce ethically is another example of special pleading. You're moving the experimental goalposts.

Watch that documentary I linked to. The scientists of um will tear me apart for recommending a documentary... But it's a start,

So you know not to trust documentaries - maybe your understanding of science isn't that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only assumption that I'm making is that the explanation that has the most evidence and relies on the least amount of special pleading is the correction one.

Scientists do not abhor assumptions. I don't think you understand the scientific method.

Science is built on assumptions. To explain a phenomena, you have to out a set or (sometimes arbitrary) assumptions in place, otherwise you have no framework within which to start making predictions.

If the experiments and predictions don't match reality, then your assumptions are wrong.

Simply trusting in the science that has already been done, and has been shown to work, is neither making assumptions or "already having the answers", and you can't reject it simply because it doesn't agree with what you want to be true.

Yes, deer lack certain parts of the eye that make up daytime light and colour reception, but also feature things we do not, such as a sensitivity to shortwave light such as UV.

At the end of the day, deer have evolved as prey, they have evolved to stay out of the way of hunters. You know why you shouldn't look at a deer when you stalk it? It is not because it is psychic and knows it is being watched. It is because animals take being stared at as a threat. A deer running away when it is being stalked by hunters is not a reason to start believing the deer is psychic.

Rig up some cameras. Film the deer. If the deer acts differently when it is being watched on screen, then we have a psychic deer. Not when you're in the physical vicinity, and it can see you peripherally, probably hear you and almost certainly smell you.

And what the hell do pigs have to do with anything?

Saying "just theory" proves how little you understand science.

If you want to start on the basics, look up Swarm Behaviour. This sort of thing is pretty well understood, and does not involve psychic powers.

Right, but you don't have that ability. No one does. And you're turning it into a God Of The Gaps argument - replacing whatever we don't know with "psi", until we find out actually what it is. That isn't how science works.

There are human experiences, such as out of body experiences, that are being investigated and have some explanations - they are to do with the way the brain perceives the "self", and show that the brain can do some very strange things - but these do not include psychic powers. No experiment, ever, if properly done, has come to the conclusion that "psi" has to be involved.

And saying that the experiments have to be "highly emotional" and therefore difficult to reproduce ethically is another example of special pleading. You're moving the experimental goalposts.

So you know not to trust documentaries - maybe your understanding of science isn't that bad.

Typical dodging.

If "psi" is part of some part morphic field of other life forms, animals are not going respond to camara are they. Camaras are not preditors.

You don't understand the effect at all. You are laying motionless in a bush, douwn wind, in full camafloug and the deer or wild pig has absolutely no idea you are there. Their color blind, with not so great eye sight remember, and the wind is in your favor. The animal is eating with it's head down. You are staring at it intently hopeing it comes down the game trail. It looks up. And in your direction. Remembering the wisdom of native Americans, you avert your eyes. You wait. The animal puts it's head down. Out of pure experience of myself and thousands of years of now hunters, if you keep staring at the animal you will probably spook it. It will look up every time you focus on it. But if you don't it will not know you are there unless you make noise or the wind moves against you. I can't tell you how many times I have been within a matter of feet of an animal and keeping your eye averted and your thoughts non aggressive is s must. It's also how I feed squirrels by hand. ( just anecdotes though) did you whatch that documentary link? There are repeatable experiments regarding this.

Emma... Come on now... Science is about overcomeing eronius assumptions. Scientist only use assumptions to usually proove them wrong. Just like your assumption that deer have better eyesight, that you tried to pass off as fact, to support your view. Nighttime dosnt count ( we dont hunt at night---quite illegal) I understand most science just fine.

I don't trust documentaries, books, or even peer reviewed papers. All have flaws, and only the strongest of theories withstand the test of time. Most things that we hold as truth evenchually get prooven wrong, so I rather wait to jump on board for the latest theory just because this generations science gurus say it's so.

Tell me more about these OBEs. What has science prooven about them now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way emma. My father and I did share a long distance communication of sorts. That I am now finding that I also share with my sons. That's why I mentioned the elephants. It's either a very interesting psychological effect involving us hearing each other through water or a psycic phenomenon. For years after my father died I did not go stream fishing out of fear of hearing him in the water like I used to. But I never did. ( an interesting story, but I won't derail the thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphic fields".

I don't even know where to start with this. Sheldrake might have a scientific degree, but is that is how he conducts his experiments, he is no scientist. That is literally the least scientific thing I've seen in a long time. Look up Double Blinding, and you'll see what I mean.

The scientific community almost wholly rejects his MF hypothesis, and there are no experimental data to support it. A word about scientific progress: it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community.

All major breakthroughs - Maxwell's field equations, Einstein's Relativity and Special Relativity for example - all answered, and agreed with known observations. MF doesn't. It is pseudo science, and when Sheldon et al start talking about the evils of "rigid, dogmatic materialism", it is because they don't understand the scientific method and why it is so rigid, and are annoyed that it won't bend and bow to their view of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphic fields".

I don't even know where to start with this. Sheldrake might have a scientific degree, but is that is how he conducts his experiments, he is no scientist. That is literally the least scientific thing I've seen in a long time. Look up Double Blinding, and you'll see what I mean.

The scientific community almost wholly rejects his MF hypothesis, and there are no experimental data to support it. A word about scientific progress: it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community.

All major breakthroughs - Maxwell's field equations, Einstein's Relativity and Special Relativity for example - all answered, and agreed with known observations. MF doesn't. It is pseudo science, and when Sheldon et al start talking about the evils of "rigid, dogmatic materialism", it is because they don't understand the scientific method and why it is so rigid, and are annoyed that it won't bend and bow to their view of the world.

All that's sounds a lot like opinion

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed to entertain this kind of dogma.

Many increadibly discoveries do come out of left field.... Everything from black holes to eleven dimentions in string theory. New ideas that become successful usually have to fight against the grain for many years until experimentation can catch up with them. You should read the history of how some of our modern theories came to pass. Books by green, suskind, hawking of course often have detailed personal accounts of their struggles..., Rest assured the Next greatest of discoveries made will not be things that we already know ;)

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand the effect at all. You are laying motionless in a bush, douwn wind, in full camafloug and the deer or wild pig has absolutely no idea you are there. Their color blind, with not so great eye sight remember, and the wind is in your favor. The animal is eating with it's head down. You are staring at it intently hopeing it comes down the game trail. It looks up. And in your direction. Remembering the wisdom of native Americans, you avert your eyes. You wait. The animal puts it's head down. Out of pure experience of myself and thousands of years of now hunters, if you keep staring at the animal you will probably spook it. It will look up every time you focus on it. But if you don't it will not know you are there unless you make noise or the wind moves against you. I can't tell you how many times I have been within a matter of feet of an animal and keeping your eye averted and your thoughts non aggressive is s must. It's also how I feed squirrels by hand. ( just anecdotes though) did you whatch that documentary link? There are repeatable experiments regarding this.

We're not going to get anywhere with this argument; you think that a prey running away from a predator proves they are somehow psychicly linked. I think its because prey have evolved to avoid predators through a conscious and subconscious mixture of sight, sound and smell. I will leave this up to anyone reading to make their own minds up.

Science is about overcomeing eronius assumptions. Scientist only use assumptions to usually proove them wrong. Just like your assumption that deer have better eyesight, that you tried to pass off as fact, to support your view. Nighttime dosnt count ( we dont hunt at night---quite illegal) I understand most science just fine.

Yep, I said they had better eyesight, and got that wrong. Owning animals myself, I should know better. But I content that it is obvious that you don't understand the scientific method. Anyone who did and applied it correctly, would not give this MF nonsense more than a minute of their time.

I don't trust documentaries, books, or even peer reviewed papers. All have flaws, and only the strongest of theories withstand the test of time. Most things that we hold as truth evenchually get prooven wrong, so I rather wait to jump on board for the latest theory just because this generations science gurus say it's so.

See? You don't understand science. It is not about "jumping on board the latest theories", and you can't just "wait". What for? For science to know everything?? Science is flawed by definition, but that does not, and can not allow unevidenced waffle life MF to gain any sort of credence. It is a pseudo science. You can't just change the rules of science, which have worked so well and for so long, because they don't agree with what you want to be true.

By the way emma. My father and I did share a long distance communication of sorts. That I am now finding that I also share with my sons.

Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed to entertain this kind of dogma.

This is just plain wrong. The scientific community (the quotation marks go some way to betraying your general mistrust of it) has to have the seemingly impenetrable high standards you call dogma.. Why? So crackpot ideas don't flood in and become accepted. If that were to happen, our scientific and technological industries would crumble overnight.

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed to entertain this kind of dogma.

Many increadibly discoveries do come out of left field.... Everything from black holes to eleven dimentions in string theory. New ideas that become successful usually have to fight against the grain for many years until experimentation can catch up with them. You should read the history of how some of our modern theories came to pass. Books by green, suskind, hawking of course often have detailed personal accounts of their struggles..., Rest assured the Next greatest of discoveries made will not be things that we already know ;)

No, many incredible discoveries do not come out of the left field. Black holes and string theory both originated in solid, scientific circles, based on solid, understood, scientific models, and were proposed by the sort of people who write and review the papers you refuse to read. Einstein was not an outcast, no one scoffed at his proposals, despite what the fringe want you to believe. Even the most wacky sounding theory we work by today will have originated in a scientific lab or study, by a scientist, using the scientific method. Nothing of has ever come out of the wooly-headed world of the pseudo scientist who posts videos on youtube.

Oh, and as for OOBE experiments, read up on Henrik Ehrsson, Michael Persinger and Olaf Blanke.

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not going to get anywhere with this argument; you think that a prey running away from a predator proves they are somehow psychicly linked. I think its because prey have evolved to avoid predators through a conscious and subconscious mixture of sight, sound and smell. I will leave this up to anyone reading to make their own minds up.

Yep, I said they had better eyesight, and got that wrong. Owning animals myself, I should know better. But I content that it is obvious that you don't understand the scientific method. Anyone who did and applied it correctly, would not give this MF nonsense more than a minute of their time.

See? You don't understand science. It is not about "jumping on board the latest theories", and you can't just "wait". What for? For science to know everything?? Science is flawed by definition, but that does not, and can not allow unevidenced waffle life MF to gain any sort of credence. It is a pseudo science. You can't just change the rules of science, which have worked so well and for so long, because they don't agree with what you want to be true.

Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.

This is just plain wrong. The scientific community (the quotation marks go some way to betraying your general mistrust of it) has to have the seemingly impenetrable high standards you call dogma.. Why? So crackpot ideas don't flood in and become accepted. If that were to happen, our scientific and technological industries would crumble overnight.

No, many incredible discoveries do not come out of the left field. Black holes and string theory both originated in solid, scientific circles, based on solid, understood, scientific models, and were proposed by the sort of people who write and review the papers you refuse to read. Einstein was not an outcast, no one scoffed at his proposals, despite what the fringe want you to believe. Even the most wacky sounding theory we work by today will have originated in a scientific lab or study, by a scientist, using the scientific method. Nothing of has ever come out of the wooly-headed world of the pseudo scientist who posts videos on youtube.

Oh, and as for OOBE experiments, read up on Henrik Ehrsson, Michael Persinger and Olaf Blanke.

Most new scientific ideas come from thought experiments Emma. What ifs that gradually turn into wholly crap it might work.

You have been fun Emma and much more pleasant to talk to than others of your world view. I apreciate that. it's much more entertaining to actually discuss the material than to degrade to arguing about arguing. Thanks. But your right I have seen all this material before we are headed down the path I have been with many others. No point in it. Until next time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Eccles, famous neurophysicist once said: "I want you to know that there are no colours in the real world, there are no fragrances in the real world, that there’s no beauty and there’s no ugliness. Out there beyond the limits of our perceptual apparatus is the erratically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup. And we’re almost like magicians in that in the very act of perception, we take that quantum soup and we convert it into the experience of material reality in our ordinary everyday waking state of consciousness."

Keep in mind he received a Nobel Prize. Is his "theory" proven? Nope. Does it make him a bad scientist or a fool? Nope. Not in my opinion should I say.

Einstein only swore by classical physics. He said: "God dosen't play dice with the universe". Because of that frame of thinking, he didn't like quantum physics and didn't beleive in black holes. Why? Because it was inconsistend with his "beleif" about physics (which was obviously wrong on some point). He thought that God created the universe which is totoally an unscientific statement. Should we discredit him as a scientist for that? Nope. We can discredit his "beleif" as much as the scientific method is concerned but not him and his entire work.

There's this guy I met a couple years ago. We didn't know eachother at all. At some point in a conversation (about spirituality), he told me he could sort of "scan" my body and mind. I was of course very skeptic but I said ok, go. He told me I had a weak right knee, 2 tension points on my back (he pointed them), told me my heart, kidneys and liver were going through a lot of stress because my blood was full of a "substance that seems to be a drug or medication" and also some specific events about my past (personnal so I won't disclose here) that are giving me a hard time today. Well guess what? He was totoally right. I got extremely destabilized. I had no problem at that point with my knee but had a lot in the past. I wasen't under the influence of a drug at that point but was going through a drug addiction. My tension points weren't "hurting" at that point but did when I got in a fit of anxiety. He did that to another person that was there (girl) and she left crying because he knew things she haden't told us or him about her health condition. So what the hell was that? I'm either lying or there's something there. There is no way he could know all that even if hypothetically he could have known one or more of my relatives.

That is still to this day a total mystery. The guy is a certified geologist and lived for 25 years with natives. That's all I know. I haven't been able to retrace him yet.

I know some of you will probably think I'm just lying but no. Not at all. I wish I knew what's up with this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.