Telepathy ??!

[jmccr8]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Of course I knew you were being facetitious but I find the subject worthy of some serious discussion too. When the faitiousness is at least a little witty. I appreciate it more.

Very few are getting rich on these subjects. And we can also study the genetics of those who so ferociously defend the sides of the box of current understandings and insecurely try to put down others.

So there, right back at you with no net gain for anybody.

Hi Papa

There are many examples of people who have made money from magical thinking, Kreskin, Copperfield,Raveen and thousands of others that have written books or been a performer

People want to believe, why, why not money is like fluid it needs to move to grow so in order for them to make money. They are supported by people who spend money for the experience of suspended believe so much so that they will incorporate a belief with no real evidence

jmccr8

[papageorge1]

25 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Papa

There are many examples of people who have made money from magical thinking, Kreskin, Copperfield,Raveen and thousands of others that have written books or been a performer

People want to believe, why, why not money is like fluid it needs to move to grow so in order for them to make money. They are supported by people who spend money for the experience of suspended believe so much so that they will incorporate a belief with no real evidence

jmccr8

Those guys can be entertaining but my serious interest is in the real study of paranormal activity phenomena and what it tells us about the universe and my place in it. My final concern is my spirituality.

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

I agree.  And I've experienced what the op is talking about way to many times for it to be some chance occurrence.  I don't understand why some people have to be so cynical about things like this.  It's the magical and mysterious things that make life so interesting!

The magical doesn't exist. Just people adept at lying to themselves. 

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

I agree.  And I've experienced what the op is talking about way to many times for it to be some chance occurrence.  I don't understand why some people have to be so cynical about things like this.  It's the magical and mysterious things that make life so interesting!

The overly cynical are no longer open-minded but often in a never-say-die defense of a materialist-atheist worldview. Oh well, I’ll move on with what I honestly and sincerely think is most reasonable.

And yes, I also think our believers  position is subjectively better too but that is not what drives my belief.

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

I'm sorry for you, Xeno.

You've no idea the pity I have for the believers chasing ghost. It sickens me that people will try to validate what could be a potential mental illness as being "psychic". Those are the ones I feel sorry for them and their enablers. 

[XenoFish]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The overly cynical are no longer open-minded but often in a never-say-die defense of a materialist-atheist worldview. Oh well, I’ll move on with what I honestly and sincerely think is most reasonable.

And yes, I also think our believers  position is subjectively better too but that is not what drives my belief.

Very little you say has any merit. 

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Very little you say has any merit. 

Of course your comment can easily be reversed back at you. But it's getting childish.

 

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Of course your comment can easily be reversed back at you. But it's getting childish.

 

I'm not the one who told a woman to get a psychic in order to help her ill mother am I. That was you. 

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

I'm not the one who told a woman to get a psychic in order to help her ill mother am I. That was you. 

I think you need to give yourself a break from here, if I can say anything serious to you..

[ChrLzs]

Just a late addition, and an invitation to anyone to do what I ask below, given papageorge won't go near it...

On 7/7/2018 at 1:30 AM, papageorge1 said:

You can define the word 'proof' so strictly that nothing about the physical  universe can be called proven. For meta analysis with a combined outcome of 10 to many, many powers to one against chance I might use the word 'proved' with its more colloquial meaning.

Absolute HOGWASH.  Meta analysis means virtually nothing UNLESS you look carefully at each study to ensure no trace of bias has crept in.  With this garbage, and with the oh-so-surprising *needless* complexity and convoluted experiment design, added to the lack of decent documentation, all you are doing is cherry picking studies that you like.  At it's very best, meta studies must only be used as a guide to future research - or in this case, as a guide to when you have collected bad studies and that further research is a complete waste of time.

STOP avoiding the critical issue, papa - POINT directly to the best study you've seen, with a high positive result and then we'll start a thread to show just how much of a JOKE paranormal studies really are.

 

Has it honestly not occurred to you that the given the incredibly high value of these alleged powers (if they existed), that NO-ONE has ever managed to replicate the old 'successful' studies of the past when proper controls are applied?  Do you not understand why that it is?  Hint, it's not because the MIB are suppressing the research.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Goddess of the Mist said:

I'm sorry for you, Xeno.

Feel free to feel that way, as I (and he and others, judging by this thread) feel sorry for those who instead of finding and investigating the endless complexity, beauty, mystery and wonder in the real world, and understanding the immense power of our brains,  ... prefer to attribute it all to fairies.

Edited July 8, 2018 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

You have the hide to reply like that after suggesting it was to do with quantum entanglement???  My (rather obvious) analogy to fairyland is no worse.....

And frankly, to imply pity/being sorry for others is to suggest that you are the superior mortal, and/or know secrets that others are not worthy of or smart enough.  And that's not something to be proud of.

No, science doesn't yet know all the answers.  Why should/would it?  And why should that then mean that any old stupid, magical or irrelevant explanation (aka wild-assed guess) is therefore worthy, especially when that beauty and complexity of the real world DOES/CAN explain the observations if you think it through or look properly at how the study/experiment was designed.  Feel free to point out an example of telepathy that couldn't simply be coincidence/empathy (and a thousand other *real* possibilities), rather than require the silly suggestion of quantum effects or fairies or paranormal whatever.  

My earlier post was gentle, but given your reply maybe this one might get you to check the mirror?  I doubt it, but worth a try.

 

[Emma_Acid]

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes

Go on then...?

[XenoFish]

What most call "psychic abilities" are just their underutilized survival instincts. Intuition and empathy are normal cognitive functions. Intuition is largely based on environmental conditioning. A person who might have been bullied a lot as a kid, may develop a keen eye when it comes to reading body language. A woman who's had more than one child might have a better mothers intuition, yet both these can be taken back to instinct. Empathy is the result of mirror neurons. 

If you want to talk about the "fancy" abilities such as telepathy and psychokinesis, then know that we do not product a strong enough emf to do anything. The earth magnetic field is several times strong than our pitiful magnetic field. 

Then you have various mental illnesses such as schizophrenia that fit right into the 'telepathy' category.

[papageorge1]

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

Absolute HOGWASH.  Meta analysis means virtually nothing UNLESS you look carefully at each study to ensure no trace of bias has crept in.  With this garbage, and with the oh-so-surprising *needless* complexity and convoluted experiment design, added to the lack of decent documentation, all you are doing is cherry picking studies that you like.  At it's very best, meta studies must only be used as a guide to future research - or in this case, as a guide to when you have collected bad studies and that further research is a complete waste of time.

STOP avoiding the critical issue, papa - POINT directly to the best study you've seen, with a high positive result and then we'll start a thread to show just how much of a JOKE paranormal studies really are.

As I have pointed out to you before, I consider it an impossible and fruitless task to try to convince with details someone that in the above calls it all hogwash, garbage and a joke. Certainly he has committed himself to the point of no turning back. My better judgment tells me a detailed discussion on any subject can be obfuscated to the extreme and made endless.

I have been studying these subjects for decades now and like in all fields (normal or paranormal) the competency and quality of the individuals involved on all sides of the issue is very important. I strongly judge that the honesty and competency of the leading serious parapsychology contributors is superior to the honesty and competency of the so-called (and probably misnamed) 'skeptic' community. I have found these 'skeptics' to not really be interested in fair truth at all, but rather motivated by a never-say-die attachment to a materialist worldview.  

Now, the only personal view I can ultimately be concerned about is my own. It is a fruitless hope to convince everyone to agree on any even slightly controversial matter as we all know. So a lengthy and hopeless effort such as you request will not be undertaken by me.

 

[papageorge1]

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

Has it honestly not occurred to you that the given the incredibly high value of these alleged powers (if they existed), that NO-ONE has ever managed to replicate the old 'successful' studies of the past when proper controls are applied?  Do you not understand why that it is?  Hint, it's not because the MIB are suppressing the research.

It is the reproducibility of the results actually that has convinced me that the statistical basis for belief in psi functioning is on strong footing.

[ChrLzs]

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

What most call "psychic abilities" are just their underutilized survival instincts. Intuition and empathy are normal cognitive functions. Intuition is largely based on environmental conditioning. A person who might have been bullied a lot as a kid, may develop a keen eye when it comes to reading body language. A woman who's had more than one child might have a better mothers intuition, yet both these can be taken back to instinct. Empathy is the result of mirror neurons. 

If you want to talk about the "fancy" abilities such as telepathy and psychokinesis, then know that we do not product a strong enough emf to do anything. The earth magnetic field is several times strong than our pitiful magnetic field. 

Then you have various mental illnesses such as schizophrenia that fit right into the 'telepathy' category.

And then add on 'researchers' like Sheldrake, Radin, Utts and others who, either accidentally (incompetently) or deliberately use complex testing regimes with built in faults and 'cheat points', along with ridiculously subjective judgements, all to ensure positive results.  Interestingly, even with all the flaws and bias in their studies, the statistical significance is still quite low.

I'm thinking of starting a thread looking at some of the more unbelievable studies {cough}Ganzfeld{splutter}, and the incredibly daft flaws they contain...  but ... I'm feeling guilty as I haven't yet returned to my Sheldrake book review - I should do that first.

Edited July 9, 2018 by ChrLzs

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

And then add on 'researchers' like Sheldrake, Radin, Utts and others who, either accidentally (incompetently) or deliberately use complex testing regimes with built in faults and 'cheat points', along with ridiculously subjective judgements, all to ensure positive results.  Interestingly, even with all the flaws and bias in their studies, the statistical significance is still quite low.

I'm thinking of starting a thread looking at some of the more unbelievable studies, and the incredibly daft flaws they contain...  but ... I'm feeling guilty as I haven't yet returned to my Sheldrake book review - I should do that first.

Most of the psi test are basically a guessing game. The zener cards. Random number generators. The law of large numbers comes into play. Like a monkey smack a keyboard for a thousand years. Eventual you'll get complete sentences.

[XenoFish]

One thing the believers seem to forget is that some of us skeptics devoted a lot of personal time and energy into actually test stuff out.

[ChrLzs]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Most of the psi test are basically a guessing game. The zener cards. Random number generators. The law of large numbers comes into play. Like a monkey smack a keyboard for a thousand years. Eventual you'll get complete sentences.

Indeed.  And it would be very tempting to just throw all the fails into the shredder, thus ensuring that your final report suggests there could be something to this, and it requires further funding, er 'research'.  But of course they would never do that...

Added - btw, I'm reminded of one of the more ludicrous examples of the way these goofballs go about their research.  Reviewers of one study found that the Zener cards used were slightly translucent under the right lighting conditions, and you could actually see what the shape was...  Those results would certainly be ones you include in your meta-study, if you want that funding to continue.....  

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by ChrLzs
added...

[ChrLzs]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

It is the reproducibility of the results actually that has convinced me that the statistical basis for belief in psi functioning is on strong footing.

And you don't even want to cite this?  You do know what the rules of the forum are?  And if you keep doing this handwaving............

 

Oh, and may I suggest, to avoid further embarrassment, that you dig up the full study that you think supports you, look up the credibility of the journal in which it appears, and read the conclusion thoroughly.

[Emma_Acid]

On 09/07/2018 at 2:58 AM, Goddess of the Mist said:

Not everything has a scientific explanation to just explain it away!  

Not yet, but if it exists, we can study it. "Science doesn't know everything" is not an open invite to woo and nonsense.

[XenoFish]

If the only thing that a person wants is an echo chamber, the best thing to do is keep it to themselves.

Edited July 10, 2018 by XenoFish

[XenoFish]

As for my pessimism.

https://www.theconversation.com/amp/the-surprising-benefits-of-being-a-pessimist-91851

And my cynicism.

https://m.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2013/10/go-ahead-be-cynical-positive-power-negative-thinking/72839/

[openozy]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

If the only thing that a person wants is an echo chamber, the best thing to do is keep it to themselves.

I call it telling a story,like you do with your kids and grandkids,whether true or not,who cares,its what every family or tribe have been doing since the beginning of humans.