What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi

[ai_guardian]

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy... Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply. to get there It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

I know what you are referring to and we have had discussions about that in the past. What do you think you can prove with it to anyone? That there exists an altered state other than the standard 'awake' or dream? Yes, but that is all. There also exists the meditative state, sleep paralysis, nde etc... Read any more into it and you are introducing a bias, you're leading yourself up the garden path so-to-speak and anything you experience with that bias in place will only lead you to confirm your bias and not look at situations/experiences without it. An OBE (much less AP) and its something outside the physical body aspect has never been proven, outside of personal anecdotal accounts, anything else but an altered state to the experience is yet to be determined - and it seems to me that it never will be. It has been decades now with more and more people professing and being able to do these at will (myself included for more than 15 years) and nothing by way of experimental evidence. It took me some 15 years to stop kidding myself, I was on your bandwagon for those 15 years, but I have realised that confirmation bias is the real culprit in these experiences and twisting the truth (or more often embelishing just a tiny bit) often unwittingly to tie the experience in with reality (ie. that the body is really outside the body as opposed to the experience being all internal) makes for a very convincing "story"/'evidence' - to oneself and others.

But, you see, even after Aquatus1 has pointed out to you (in a sense) that the evidence of something existing and with regards to what you're proposing he'd experience, what that something really is, you're under the impression that helping someone have a subjective experience will somehow change the global status quo of evidence (in scientific understanding) for that experience being anything but an altered state. At most you'd stop him from trying to bring you back down to earth & reality, but I'd doubt that. The evidence status will only change once we obtain more than just anecdotal accounts - and as mentioned earlier above - such is not forthcoming even after decades of trying and more and more people being able to reproduce the experiences. Note that I am referring specifically to OBE/AP experiences here.

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see? Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination? Yes I said it. You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

The very same, in the least but most likely more so, can be said about you and your bias. And it seems that you have indoctrinated yourself into a specific way of thinking.

[White Crane Feather]

I know what you are referring to and we have had discussions about that in the past. What do you think you can prove with it to anyone? That there exists an altered state other than the standard 'awake' or dream? Yes, but that is all. There also exists the meditative state, sleep paralysis, nde etc... Read any more into it and you are introducing a bias, you're leading yourself up the garden path so-to-speak and anything you experience with that bias in place will only lead you to confirm your bias and not look at situations/experiences without it. An OBE (much less AP) and its something outside the physical body aspect has never been proven, outside of personal anecdotal accounts, anything else but an altered state to the experience is yet to be determined - and it seems to me that it never will be. It has been decades now with more and more people professing and being able to do these at will (myself included for more than 15 years) and nothing by way of experimental evidence. It took me some 15 years to stop kidding myself, I was on your bandwagon for those 15 years, but I have realised that confirmation bias is the real culprit in these experiences and twisting the truth (or more often embelishing just a tiny bit) often unwittingly to tie the experience in with reality (ie. that the body is really outside the body as opposed to the experience being all internal) makes for a very convincing "story"/'evidence' - to oneself and others.

But, you see, even after Aquatus1 has pointed out to you (in a sense) that the evidence of something existing and with regards to what you're proposing he'd experience, what that something really is, you're under the impression that helping someone have a subjective experience will somehow change the global status quo of evidence (in scientific understanding) for that experience being anything but an altered state. At most you'd stop him from trying to bring you back down to earth & reality, but I'd doubt that. The evidence status will only change once we obtain more than just anecdotal accounts - and as mentioned earlier above - such is not forthcoming even after decades of trying and more and more people being able to reproduce the experiences. Note that I am referring specifically to OBE/AP experiences here.

The very same, in the least but most likely more so, can be said about you and your bias. And it seems that you have indoctrinated yourself into a specific way of thinking.

Well... It actually wasn't you that I was talking about... It was Sakari... But I have nothing to say to you because I know that you know my world and I will respect your analysis. I can never say that I a agree at this time. But the others don't really even know what im talking about... How can they make any kind of truelly informed decision with knowing what we know? They are stuck in regurgitation while we make our decisions based on experiences and realities albeit you consider mine delusional ones and I might yours, but at least we have both sides of the coin to choose from. How long did you last before you gave up on the mystery?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Furthermore. Without getting into the discussions we have had previously... Why do you assume my experiences are purely altered states---- annecdode comeing--- I have been brought into a trance in the middle of the desert while takeing a p*** alongside a road where I stumbled out like a transfixed zombie 100 yards from the car... (Driven by my hard core red neck friend who could care less about spirituality) --- I was going with him to drive him home from a wedding in Vegas--- wind kicking up desert dust devils sweeping all around me... Only to drop to my knees in front of a fully formed Paiute spear point. Picking it up and in tears clutching it to my chest---- he followed me out into the desert yelling at me to come back ( I don't remember that part). When he saw me collapse and ran out.. He saw what I was holding..... His exact words " I don't beleive that just happened". He pulled me up at walked me back to the car. There was nothing to say for hundreds of miles. All he could say was " I don't beleive that just happened." when the subject comes up now and then he still says it.

What am to do with that AI? Oooooo just confirmation bias and I might be embellishing like you did,...Bla Bla Bla. O wait, my friend was with me and witnessed the whole event subjective???? Not by my standards. But I realize others cannot take things like that at face value.,, I certainly don't.

Point being it's not always altered states, and at least in one instance I had a wittneess to the bizarre crap that happens to ne..

[aquatus1]

"Have you, have you, have you, Seeker...who are you trying to convince that you aren't talking about science"

I have, I have , I have . The underlying theme in all of it is sophisticated creativity.

Wait...how does that answer relate to the question?

About me not mentioning religions, I have. Look back carefully. if you were religious attempting to proove how your thinking was superior I would be just the same. I'm not religious in the traditional sense.

I didn't say you didn't mention religion. I asked why you didn't use any examples other than scientific ones, such as religion or business ones. I think you made a passing mention somewhere about religious people doing the same thing, but even then, all we see as far as actual emphasis is science.

Why react so much to "religion"? It was nothing more than one of two non-scientific fields I thought of off the top of my head where this behaviour was also present. Why do you feel the need to re-state to everyone that you are not religious? I wonder if it is related to the implied use of negatives I have pointed out to you; when you are saying something negative, you relate it to religion.

Again, you may say you are talking about behaviour, you may even believe you are talking about behaviour, but from the outside looking in, in my personal opinion, I am seeing an influence on the conclusion.

See now you have moved from Arguing the subject material to arguing about arguing.

So, when you make generalities such as:

"...people will continue to only accept explanations within their world view based on their own axioms. "

"No matter how well the science is done Somone is always going to come up with a creative rebuttal... "

"I can give a wonderful creative explanation of why the sun actually rotates around the earth and if somone already believed it then it's truth."

"People, politics, dogma, rederik.

"But I keep telling you the problem lies not in science the problem lies in people..."

--you are talking about "behaviour". But when I point out specific, known, fallacies, and show where they occurred, and their effect is, I am "arguing about arguing"?

You're objecting because I am supplying a higher level of detail and using field-appropriate terminology? Incidentally, the OP, is actually about science being used to research the paranormal.

I don't have a problem with science, I have said it over and over again. My wife just purchased a hawking book from amazon for my birthday..., ( i didfnt tell her I already have it) hmmm now why would she do that. Possibly because she sees me reading it all the time.

Well, other than repeating what I previous said about being very bad at showing it, there isn't much else to bother add. I can't help but wonder why you chose to keep talking about this when I made it very clear that I am willing, for the purposes of discussion, to completely waive the concept of scientific methodology in order to hear your method of validation.

It is a straw man on your part to keep representing me that way.

Hmm...So you are saying that I created a strawman to make people think you are focusing only on science...and then made it completely redundant by actively proposing we ignore science altogether to hear your method...

Either you or I are terribly misinformed as to the purpose of a strawman argument.

I have made it clear that it's people that cause dogma, politics, rederick, guru ship.

My mistake. I must have thought you were just arguing about arguing. Or perhaps I dismissed your arguments as rhetoric.

I am well aware that the method ATTEMPTS to correct for this. In fact... That's partially what I think is going on. The people trying to bring this material to light are slowly starting to gain ground and are starting to jump through the hoops, get around the bias and red tape and cull the necessary minds. Alchemy today chemistry tomorrow. in tge end the "skeptics" may be remembered as "world is flat" people. Time will tell.

Hmm...not exactly what I was getting at...

See, I am not talking about the methodology of science either (other than to correct some mistaken assumptions that you imply, either because you were not aware of them, or were aware and were simply ignorant as to their overall purpose). Rather I, just as you, am talking about behaviour. I am talking about the behaviour of the scientific community. Yes, in the actual scientific method, there are procedures to correct for bias, but that isn't really relevant to this discussion. We aren't talking about science so much as the actual scientists. Scientists, as a community, know full well that scientists have their biases (perhaps even more than most, following the "Physician, heal thyself" maxim). Because of this, the scientific community accepts that there will be detractors, and it even accepts that the detractors are not always going to be logical. Which is why, even though rhetoric and politics exist and exert an obvious influence, dogma and guruship (really, what is it with you and using religious references as negatives?) really do not. Rhetoric and politics have their own persuasive ability, albeit temporary; dogma and guruship have only very limited influence, although very powerful where it does reign. However, as mentioned before, the power of a theory is that it outlives its detractors. That is why, even though controversial theories are shouted down, no one worries too much about it in the scientific community. A theory which is strong enough to stand on its merits and is only held back by people will get its time to shine when those people are dead and gone. The time that people worry is when people attempt to bury the theories. It is one thing to criticize and demean a theory; that is expected human behaviour. Attempting to deny the existence of a theory culturally draws a lot of attention to itself. This sort of thing, to the scientific community, is the equivalent to slapping your wife in public. While it may be our normal behaviour to ignore certain suspicious bumps and bruises, no one is going to ignore a blatant act directly in front of them.

It doesn't even have anything to do with the theory being correct or incorrect. It doesn't even have anything to do with any sort of "lost knowledge" (scientists are acutely aware that many "discoveries" are really "re-discoveries"). Simply put, it is a matter of social behaviour: In the scientific community, arguing is normal, hard-headedness and/or close-mindedness is not necessarily expected, but not surprising when it occurs, but trying to deny, hide, or bury a theory...that is the ultimate in uncouth behaviour, and it is not tolerated.

I do have a method aquatus... I can proove it to YOU.... I can also proove it to anyone willing to put in the time and energy...

I'm not interested in your method of proving it to ME. Me believing it isn't going to change anything other than my personal opinion. What I want to know is how you determined that this is a valid method.

Just as karmajazi was discussing with Emma. The problem lies with the individual. I have to take the quantum esraser on faith because at this moment I am incapable of performing and experiencing the experiments myself. The same things apply. to get there It can take a long time.. Or it can happen right away. But I am certain with the right effort anyone can understand. Buy few do. One skeptic.. Was brave enough to at least try. But like I warned him it takes a little more effort than a passing intrest. Just as it would to get a degree in physics.

Yeah...again, I am no more interested in your methodology than you are interested in scientific methodology. I want to know about how you determine validity or credibility. Basically, how can you tell if people may be lying to you?

What do you say aquatus are you willing to put your time and energy where your mouth is. I will be your personal tutor. I have explored and understand ( for the most part) science aswell the otherside of the coin. I understand your perspective, I was you once. But cannot begin to understand unless you have both perspectives. I'm not talking about telekinesis and teenage super powers I'm talking about things much more interested.

"I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart."

What do you say? Do you want to experience it for yourself? Are you willing to give honest effort? Do you really want to see?

Been there. Done that. Got a few keepsakes.

As Ai-guardian mentioned, you aren't the only person who has believed these things.

Or are you content with your bias and jargon that is simply regurgitation of your indoctrination?

My...indoctrination?

Yes I said it.

Oh, wait...actually, you've been implying that pretty much all along...shoot, it sounded so dramatic for a second there...you know, like good rhetoric should.

You are indoctrinated into specific way of thinking that has it's own built in self defense mechanisms to hold you here. Not unlike christanity or Islam.

Yes, I am. And I willingly set them all aside in order to hear your specific way of thinking. Which...you have not actually presented, after I clearly and specifically requested it.

And, strangely, for a person who claims they are not talking about science itself, or about the methods, but rather about the people...you seem kind of dead set on accusing me of talking about science and methods, and of accusing me of using my "indoctrination" to...do what, exactly? See, being that this thread is only two pages long, it really isn't that difficult to look over my posts and realize that, well, you seem to be implying that I have denied something, but I haven't denied anything at all. You are implying that I don't believe in psi, but I haven't remarked on it one way or another. Amusingly, you even use the schoolyard stand-by "Ya scared? Dare ya!" tactic that, honestly, doesn't really work as well on intellectuals as it does toward the more physically oriented crowd.

No, rather, the entire time, as can be seen by the posts here, I have been talking about behaviour. The behaviour of scientists, the behaviour of people in general, and your behaviour, specifically. I pointed out several fallacies as well, including factual ones, such as the references to science as materialistic, and the logical ones, such as how proof given to any one individual doesn't actually affect the actual existing evidence. In other words, it doesn't matter how scientists prove something, and it doesn't matter how you prove something; neither is going to affect the actual thing we are talking about. It either exists or doesn't exist on its own.

Which means that, really, the best we can do is reduce our need for trust. In my personal opinion, science has a pretty damn good system in place for reducing the amount of trust needed, and replaces it with a strong probability either for or against. But, even though the OP of this thread is specifically about a recognized scientific organization dedicated to researching the paranormal (you can just taste the irony), I was perfectly willing to start with a clean board and simply assume the non-existence of science in order to understand the alternative method of validation and credibility. Just to be exact, I posted the following:

Please, tell me: How would you go about validating the existence of psi? Earlier, you mentioned: "The alternative is the very thing the rigors of the method is supposed to prevent: its bias." Feel free to expand on that. How would you distinguish it from the explanations that you currently consider unverified, unsupported, unpredictable, and even outright implausible? How would your alternative decrease the influence of the human behaviour we have been talking about?

I freely admit I don't understand how "It's bias" helps validate it. Your last post also mentioned that you do, indeed, have a method, which...well, I can't really know, but its hardly a long shot, so great, you have a method, but what is it and how does it distinguish between what is happening and what is not? And then you gave an example about you and a buddy driving out in the desert, you getting out of the car, wandering away from the road, finding a spear tip, and your friend seeming utterly bewildered by that for some reason. Not really seeing how that is an example of how your method works, or how it can be used to distinguish between something paranormal and something medical (not even sure why your friend not being spiritual is relevant, even though it flies in the face of my experience with my red-neck friends, who consider themselves pretty damn spiritual, thank you very much, and please have a seat, I'll tell you why and in detail why you should go with me to church next Sunday...).

So, can you please tell, why we should trust your method? How does your method show that any given claim is true or false? How does it account for human behaviour? We are, for the sake of the argument (and in utter derailment of the OP) assuming the non-existence of scientific methodology for the purposes of this argument.

So please, tell us about this method of yours.

Edited March 4, 2012 by aquatus1

[ai_guardian]

Well... It actually wasn't you that I was talking about... It was Sakari

Yes, I was well aware of that, that's why I wrote "I know what you are referring to", meaning exactly your attempt at getting Sakari to experience an OBE/AP, the second part of the sentence "having discussions about it" I was meaning the OBE/AP we had discussions about. Not always as clear as I'd like to be, sorry about that.

Furthermore. Without getting into the discussions we have had previously... Why do you assume my experiences are purely altered states---- annecdode comeing---

...<anecdote snipped>...

What am to do with that AI? Oooooo just confirmation bias and I might be embellishing like you did,...Bla Bla Bla. O wait, my friend was with me and witnessed the whole event subjective???? Not by my standards. But I realize others cannot take things like that at face value.,, I certainly don't.

Point being it's not always altered states, and at least in one instance I had a wittneess to the bizarre crap that happens to ne..

How do you deduce that I assume all your experiences are altered states? I know there is finding 'treasure', certain beach, rum, etc. hawaii etc etc but when it comes to what I was replying to then I hope you will certainly appreciate why I'm talking about altered states, no?

But since you brought your anecdote up, so what??? People have had strange yet found-to-be-normal things happen to them. Some have had more 'weird' things than others. When you consider > 6 bill people someone's bound to be on the fringe. You and I seem to be on the fringe - I've had my share of bizarre stuff - the only difference is that I account for the human condition, whereas, to me it seems, you've glossed over it. When you ask "what am I to do with that AI?", my answer is, only as much as the experience on its own warrants. Now ask yourself why you brought it up in response to my post. It seems a little strange of an experience but nothing that could not happen, right?, that is if it is told with infallible memory - I don't know if you're aware but every memory that is stored after an experience that has some relation to a prior experience CHANGES the PREVIOUS experience memory. Now, since you are relating these experiences by being 'bizarre', 'weird', 'coincidence' etc etc ALL of them, ALL of your previous memories are being REWRITTEN based on your new state of mind as a result of an accumulating bias. Certain details that do not match your "new state" are lost, this is the human condition! And in the end you tell an anecdote that only includes parts of an experience (also severely skewed) that confirm a certain "indoctrinated" belief that you have incubated. As much as you'd like to think, the brain & its senses are not infallible, yours included! Oh great though, you have a witness that can remember saying "I don't believe that just happened.", great. Something that POSSIBLY may have been something like..."I tripped, fell whilst walking back after taking a leak, bumped my head, opened my eyes, saw and felt a stone pushing in my sternum that resembled a "Paiute spear point"" turns into your anecdote immensely helped by memory twisted most likely due to your bias. There are 1001 explanations for your anecdote that are not other worldly, none of which would really mean anything to "evidence for psi" yet you choose to parade it as if it is. Think man, think. This is exactly why anecdotes DO NOT count as evidence if one wants to be taken seriously. Anyone can have a story, where do we draw a line? How much someone PLEADS? How MANY stories one has? pffft, a story is a dime a dozen! As aquatus1 has already requested, WHAT IS YOUR METHOD, that is better???

I urge you, think deeply about the next part...

Another question remains that is somewhat related, why do you tell people in the "Ghosts, Hauntings & The Paranormal" section of this forum that demonic possession, hauntings etc. are caused by fears that the person has? Why doesn't their interpretation of their experience culminating in the belief that a demon posses or haunts them count as good anecdotal evidence that they have? Why do you try to convince them that their anecdotal evidence is wrong and it is only fear and in this instance YOUR anecdotal evidence should be taken as gospel so-to-speak to what YOU SAY? WHY??? Why employ two different behaviors to very similar situations? Now go back and read what Aquatus1 said about different behaviors to similar situations, and maybe, just maybe you may learn something new about yourself

Edited March 4, 2012 by ai_guardian

[White Crane Feather]

I urge people to look inside of themselves for the fear instead of demons because I have been through their experiences and worked through it and made those discoveries. I only would like to see the suffering caused by it relieved. Most of those people do not know there way around altered states like you or I. I'm only offering help with what I know can be accomplished. I also know that there is some young mind reading what I post, and often they will come to me in pm and I can walk them through how to deal with their "demons" instead of alternatives of dogma and fear which are crippling.

Why do I make demons out to be psychological constructs but not angles or spirit guides? Mostly because I can take control of those dark things and make em dance the chicken dance if I want to. Sleep paralysis claws for massaging my feet..... whatever. It's because of experience. Can I be wrong? Certainly! But why should I think that? The evidence that is right in front of me is much more powerful. Sure I have seen the arguments of false memories, statistical fringes of humanity, and others. It's totally unconvincing yes yes experimental evidence showing that humans are capable of false memories, I did not need an experiment to tell me that, I see it all the time working with people. Let me think if my desert anecdote was a false memory or if details have been embellished. Hmmm mm.. Oh wait you are right. My friend at first said "WTF just happened... I left that part out." You don't have to take any anecdotes seriously if you don't want to, I understand totally, but I certainly have to take events in my own life. I'm not going to go around thinking these things are false memories especially right after they happen. Nor am I just going to consider myself on the statistical fringe of the 6 billion. Really AI that would surely be maddness. I hear plenty of other people with experiences close enough to mine to be able to accept The anecdotes as probably true because I have had similar if not identical experiences. It's far from being on some statistical fringe. Mabey something else surely, but those explanations don't hold any weight.

Anyway I'm sort of tired of arguing about it. You are much more fun than the others because you actually know what I'm talking about, and I dont have to convince you of this perspective because you have been hear. I think you talked yourself out of it, and you think I talked myself into it.

It dosnt really matter does it. I am not going to start thinking my life is based on false memories and being in the fringe of humanity, and you are not going to go back to speaking with your spirit guides ( if you did that). That's just the way it is.

I can do things AI. Wether I am a gifted profiler, psychic, part mad, or some sort of genius deducer it dosnt really matter.

I have noticed the slight tiny redness in a new students eye, the slight ruffle of her hair, the tention in her jaw, the strength in her face to hold things back, the hovering and intrest of her father, the poised quietness of her mother and the twinge of releif in her face that her daughter is around a man she can respect. My inner voice begins to chatter, I know spirit guides want me act. Then I become a creepy ninja. Sitting across the ally in back of her house behind Somones old junk car. I sit for hours. Waiting. Waiting for confirmation. Then yelling starts up. Then crying. Then the mothers voice "leave her alone!!!" then a crash. Resisting urges that will get me in trouble I walk away haveing found my confirmation. The next step. Anonymous phone calls to school counselors and child protective services. But all that was just profiling and trusting my instincts.

A spirit guide in a vision shows me a baby. I'm confused for a while. It crosses my mind that it could be mine in the future, but my wife isn't pregnant, and it's a big heavy baby. All my kids are small ( my wife is Filipino--- and very beautiful by the way she is in bed next to me right now just had to say that). A month latter she is pregnant... When he is born it's the same baby, and yes he is my first large fat child ... But it's a selective memory I guess.

My house sits on a hill above my town. ( I know very batmanish right) a car accident happens mikes away, I can hear it. I'm under the covers, and I'm living through all the emotions of the people involved. I'm trying very hard not to. I know exactly which intersection it is. In the morning I leave my body to see it. Glass, red pieces of tailight, then on my run I go there for confirmation. I have it. I know I know all internal deduction manifested in lucid dreams. I know the materialistic answer. Right or wrong I cannot Deni the experience.

I have annecdotes to fill volumes. My core group of adult students can't stop talking about all the things that happen. ( i dont speak a word to any of them about any if this) Finding a lost child on our beech work out that people had been searching for hours , dragging two of them on a mount shasta hike for tai chi at the top of the mountain only to become obsessively and agressivly fast about a certain part of the climb to certain place out of our way only to find a woman dying from falling on her climbing pick, and one of my group is an EMT and saves her life.

I can go on and on and on and on. But I'm done. As I said in my blog I'm just tired of arguing. I have fun sometimes but it's getting less and less so. For some people the world will always be flat and logic can be taken to great creative heights although I'm sure Somone will claim tge same about me..... But remember I'm in the fringe of the six billion and I'm happy to be hear, and I'm not to proud to be proud.

Seeker out. Really I am this time.... I think... Mabey..., well probably not.

Happy Sunday everyone.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Seeker79

[ai_guardian]

Fair enough. I don't want to argue either. I know what you mean when you describe some other, let's say insightful, experiences. I've had them too, very similar to what you describe (except for the stalking, lol) BUT I don't think they are anything but normal albeit IMO stemming from our (us two at least) ability to enter these altered states. Whether it be deep meditation, obe, ap, we are able to silence and/or calm certain aspects of the brain that in turn allow us to hone an "attention to detail"/"acute observation" type processing. This is what I think we have in common and what should be promoted, a natural ability of greater awareness that allows the human brain to more accurately predict outcomes of situations/behaviors. This perfectly explains why you would have those suspicions about the family you mentioned (you were able to read body language more precisely - as you already explained anyway), you can place sounds with more accuracy ie. predict with greater detail where an accident may have occured just from the sound of the crash, and the feeling of what the people who were involved in the accident felt is just another predicting mechanism (in general, to put oneself in another's shoes is to better predict their behavior/future actions), it's all natural. But that is as far as its classification should go, imo. To read any more into it is the "talking myself into it" part you mentioned and that's where problems begin and one starts 'coloring' their future experiences based on what you talked yourself into.

The classification of all this into some evidence (although really only anecdotal anyway) of psi/paranormal/supernatural etc. should be the very last resort, if it should be resorted to at all - I really see no reason. For me now, it's like this, I have a clean slate and on it I place all that I can be certain of and all that I place on it must not be supported merely by anecdotal evidence, it must be supported by peer reviewed attempted-to-be-falsified evidence (in other words things that have withstood scrutiny and the scientific method). That does not stop me from perhaps believing that the "hello" my wife and I heard whilst putting our son to bed all those years ago was her deceased father trying to peek in on his new grandson. It is a valid explanation that however has no basis in known reality (what is on my slate), and certainly should not take precedence over pareidolia which is well known, studied and certainly is on my slate firmly grounded in reality.

What I see happening with all this anecdotal evidence thrown around, not yours specifically Seeker79 and not just about psi, but about psi, supernatural, paranormal, religious etc, whatever has been anecdotally reported, fervently argued but for which no other type of evidence exists is that there is a house (or houses) of cards being built, not on top of this nice slate that has basis in reality but in mid air above it. In other words, it's a house of cards floating in mid air (sort of like a thought bubble you see in cartoons when a character is thinking). Some people keep adding rooms to it, show others how wonderful their house of cards is and some try to convince others that since it's there it's as good as the ones that are built on top of the slate. Some people mistaken it for the real thing, try to move in and either live in the clouds or come crashing back down. What is certain though is that until a strong structure tethers it to the slate (of reality), it is still a precariously balanced house of cards floating in mid air and sooner or later unless it is tethered it WILL come crashing down.

There is only one sure method at this time to tether the house of cards to the slate of reality, and as much as it disappoints some of the believers, that is the scientific method.

[aquatus1]

Well...I can't really see any other conclusions, Seeker.

Your system of validation really seems to boil down to "Trust me."

Your "method" seems to consist of "I can do things".

Your stance on "why" is a rather declarative "It doesn't really matter".

You know what...I am going to go ahead and stick with the OP. It is my firm believe that if any headway is going to be done in either the supernatural or paranormal field, it is going to be done by organizations such as the Parapsychological Organization, who make clear, objective, research and publish their findings in accordance to scientific custom and principles, and who are not only willing, but expect, to be questioned and shown to be wrong.

[einfopedia]

ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.i think maybe its helpful for everyone.

[bmk1245]

[...] However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still.[...]

Its quite simple - vagueness and wishful thinking make more complex "targets" as hits. Give chimp a pen and her doodle would fit almost everything.

[karmakazi]

Its quite simple - vagueness and wishful thinking make more complex "targets" as hits. Give chimp a pen and her doodle would fit almost everything.

The target isn't more vague, it's just a different kind of imagery. How would a photo of a mountain be more vauge than a picture of a circle, and what does a chimp have to do with it?

[bmk1245]

The target isn't more vague, it's just a different kind of imagery. How would a photo of a mountain be more vauge than a picture of a circle, and what does a chimp have to do with it?

So why there are so much failures "reading" simplest figures, and, as claimed, "Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger"?!

Edit to add: all readings are the same as random picture drawn by chimp: throw any random word salad and it will fit any kind of event in life.

Edited April 5, 2012 by bmk1245

[karmakazi]

So why there are so much failures "reading" simplest figures, and, as claimed, "Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger"?!

The assumption would be that any kind of psychic ability would be tied in some way to emotional content so an actual thing/place would have more connection to the person than a simple random shape.

However, for any study to meet the needs of both sides, proper scientific controls would need to be put in place and vague interpretation of findings cannot be allowed; but it would also be important to consider the possibility that the phenomena may not be controllable (subconsiously driven) and may not appear in all people. A very wide net would need to be cast to test vast numbers of people for lengthy periods of time. With something as fleeting as psychic abilites are claimed to be, (by those who aren't trying to make money off of them) the bigger the sample size the greater the likelihood will be that if it existed it would be recorded.

Edit to add: all readings are the same as random picture drawn by chimp: throw any random word salad and it will fit any kind of event in life.

Ok, I see what you mean. For a second there I was trying to imagine if some study was done where a person tried to mentally transmit an image to a chimp and see if they could draw it, lol!

[bmk1245]

The assumption would be that any kind of psychic ability would be tied in some way to emotional content so an actual thing/place would have more connection to the person than a simple random shape. [...]

I see it as lame excuse for failures. Whats next? Carpet too colorful? Moon phase wrong? Air too moist?

[...]

However, for any study to meet the needs of both sides, proper scientific controls would need to be put in place and vague interpretation of findings cannot be allowed; but it would also be important to consider the possibility that the phenomena may not be controllable (subconsiously driven) and may not appear in all people. A very wide net would need to be cast to test vast numbers of people for lengthy periods of time. With something as fleeting as psychic abilites are claimed to be, (by those who aren't trying to make money off of them) the bigger the sample size the greater the likelihood will be that if it existed it would be recorded.

[...]

Fair enough.

BTW, I've read a while ago, that "readings" are somewhat similar to trying to hear a word in noisy environment. Well, if you can hardly hear "a word", how you can hear a whole poem then?

[...]

Ok, I see what you mean. For a second there I was trying to imagine if some study was done where a person tried to mentally transmit an image to a chimp and see if they could draw it, lol!

... and imagine this guy

in charge of result analysis

Edit to add.

Edited April 6, 2012 by bmk1245

[karmakazi]

BTW, I've read a while ago, that "readings" are somewhat similar to trying to hear a word in noisy environment. Well, if you can hardly hear "a word", how you can hear a whole poem then?

Are you referring to Nostradomus? I totally agree... everything he wrote is so ridiculously vague and far to easy to make it fit whatever you want it to. Same with the prophecies of the bible like revelations... could be made to mean anything.

... and imagine this guy

in charge of result analysis

You know, he looks like a stand up guy. I could get behind that! lol!

[bmk1245]

Are you referring to Nostradomus? I totally agree... everything he wrote is so ridiculously vague and far to easy to make it fit whatever you want it to. Same with the prophecies of the bible like revelations... could be made to mean anything.

[...]

Actually, I was referring to simple figure (triangle, for example) as "word", and complex scenery as "poem".