Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Are near-death experiences merely illusions ?


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I agree that NDEs are difficult to provide evidence for, seeing as everyone involved should instead be focused on making sure that the situation stays only 'near' death.  I'm glad you brought up remote viewing though, as I was going to raise the criticism that in just about every human endeavor I can think of, at least for things that are real, some humans consistently can perform better than others either through talent or expertise.  Who are these gifted subjects who have shown fantastic odds against chance, who is the Mozart of remote viewers and specifically what can they do?  

If you are really interested the most serious researcher in the field of Remote Vieind is physicist Russel Targ. Here's an article regarding government involvement with Targ.

Excerpt: In this special Part 1 Episode they delve deeply into the clandestine world of Psychic Spies and discuss the new documentary, 'Third Eye Spies' on Targ's classified work with extraordinarily gifted Remote Viewers like Artist Ingo Swann, Military Officer Joe McMoneagle and Burbank Police Commissioner Pat Price 

Another leading figure in just the odds against chance portion of Remote viewing is Jessica Utts University of California Professor of Statistics.  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jessica+utts+on+remote+viewing&view=detail&mid=0A9312D715FC3AF1A0D40A9312D715FC3AF1A0D4&FORM=VIRE

38 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  Remote viewing in principle should be effortless to prove, yet science seems to be oblivious to these gifted subjects.  Why is that?

Huh....look at the materialist lacquer over that which you call 'science'. What I call 'science' includes a broader field of things. There are those scientists and statisticians that are not oblivious to these things!

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

But you believe in God?

:tu:  :innocent:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

If you are really interested the most serious researcher in the field of Remote Vieind is physicist Russel Targ. Here's an article regarding government involvement with Targ.

Excerpt: In this special Part 1 Episode they delve deeply into the clandestine world of Psychic Spies and discuss the new documentary, 'Third Eye Spies' on Targ's classified work with extraordinarily gifted Remote Viewers like Artist Ingo Swann, Military Officer Joe McMoneagle and Burbank Police Commissioner Pat Price 

Another leading figure in just the odds against chance portion of Remote viewing is Jessica Utts University of California Professor of Statistics.

Thanks, I was already familiar with some of these, can't really say that there's any verified occurrence here that is very impressive.  Viewers can apparently travel to Russia to see secret bases, find hostages in foreign countries, and even go to Jupiter and see crystals in the atmosphere... so why can't they go a mere 10 feet into another room and read a simple word written on a piece of paper out of view?  Why is there so much subjective judgment involved as to whether someone accurately remotely viewed; there seem to be a lot of experiments where they are trying to draw what something looks like something else, which they or someone gets to interpret as to whether it is a hit.  There is considerable criticism of Utts statements about statistics and remote viewing, you find those points invalid?

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Huh....look at the materialist lacquer over that which you call 'science'. What I call 'science' includes a broader field of things.

That lacquer isn't 'materialist', it's 'rigorous', something that is absent in all remote viewing studies I'm aware of.  Materialist science has discovered and verified countless things, it's taught in classrooms around the world and takes years of study to obtain an understanding of the basics.  Name one thing, anything, that non-materialist science has discovered and verified.  If you cannot, then I didn't put the materialist lacquer on science, reality did.

My point about science is that if remote viewing is as well supported as the people you've referenced claim, then what is the explanation for why there are not tons of scientists researching it?  If true, it's a Nobel Prize level discovery.  Why haven't other statisticians and scientists rushed to support Utts' and Targ's conclusions if they are so well established?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, I was already familiar with some of these, can't really say that there's any verified occurrence here that is very impressive.  Viewers can apparently travel to Russia to see secret bases, find hostages in foreign countries, and even go to Jupiter and see crystals in the atmosphere... so why can't they go a mere 10 feet into another room and read a simple word written on a piece of paper out of view?  Why is there so much subjective judgment involved as to whether someone accurately remotely viewed; there seem to be a lot of experiments where they are trying to draw what something looks like something else, which they or someone gets to interpret as to whether it is a hit.  There is considerable criticism of Utts statements about statistics and remote viewing, you find those points invalid?

That lacquer isn't 'materialist', it's 'rigorous', something that is absent in all remote viewing studies I'm aware of.  Materialist science has discovered and verified countless things, it's taught in classrooms around the world and takes years of study to obtain an understanding of the basics.  Name one thing, anything, that non-materialist science has discovered and verified.  If you cannot, then I didn't put the materialist lacquer on science, reality did.

My point about science is that if remote viewing is as well supported as the people you've referenced claim, then what is the explanation for why there are not tons of scientists researching it?  If true, it's a Nobel Prize level discovery.  Why haven't other statisticians and scientists rushed to support Utts' and Targ's conclusions if they are so well established?

Well, so you say all these smart scientists can't conduct simple controlled experiments that do not need to be very complicated.

I feel I understand the attitude you possess from decades of interest in these subjects so I am sure our further discussion will go nowhere. 

You are a non-believer that psychic functioning has been established.

I believe it has been established beyond doubt by competent people.

And never the twain shall meet except for maybe a zero, once or twice paradigm flip in one's life.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters little to me, if NDE anomalies are real, or not. It certainly matters to people like Liquid Gardens, that they not be, seemingly, because if they are, a world-view is under threat, in fact, is shot to pieces. I suppose the persistence of such knee-jerk rejection could be explained wholly by being a stickler for hard-nosed scientific rigour, which as an approach would be quite commendable, but the tetchiness that accompanies this insistence, says otherwise.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day or one day may not the humans on this will realize that this Earth is just one possibility of the infinite possibilities we can all experience. Once the body dies the energy that controls the body goes on and even comes back to this Earth many times. Although the possibilities are endless.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, so you say all these smart scientists can't conduct simple controlled experiments that do not need to be very complicated.

Where did I say that?  I asked, if remote viewers can travel around the globe and to other planets and describe accurate details there, why they can't go a much shorter distance and tell us something that would be far more indicative that they had powers?  Why is that an unreasonable question, or what is wrong or unfair about the other questions I asked?  You don't think that competent people can make mistakes and come to incorrect conclusions?  From your perspective, isn't something like that implicitly your response to the other competent people who point out the problems with Utts' and Targ's methodologies, that those opposing competent people are making mistakes?

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel I understand the attitude you possess from decades of interest in these subjects so I am sure our further discussion will go nowhere. 

I've had decades of interest in these subjects also, but my interest in them includes the arguments against them.  I'm mainly asking you because I've seen you many times leave comments about subjects like this but they seem to always be about the overall state of the cases for them (you believe the quantity of evidence is enough to show it to be true without a doubt, it's not fair to say there is 'no evidence' for psychic stuff in your view, etc) and rarely about the actual details that support that case.  There may be other discussions you are having here pointing out this compelling evidence that I haven't seen, but most of what I read from you is talking around the subject, like you just did here where we skipped from initial questions about the details to giving up because you feel the discussion will go nowhere.  If I don't end up believing you then it doesn't mean the discussion went nowhere, if you provided the best details and evidence you may convince others here even if it doesn't convince me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Habitat said:

It certainly matters to people like Liquid Gardens, that they not be, seemingly, because if they are, a world-view is under threat, in fact, is shot to pieces.

Hush now while the adults are talking.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I asked, if remote viewers can travel around the globe and to other planets and describe accurate details there, why they can't go a much shorter distance and tell us something that would be far more indicative that they had powers?  Why is that an unreasonable question, or what is wrong or unfair about the other questions I asked? 

I did not say it was an unreasonable question but implied the discussion will go nowhere until a dramatic paradigm shift is ready in the individual. The testing of gifted subjects were the ones involving other planets and places of military interest. The testing of just regular subjects did involve pictures and images not far away. 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 From your perspective, isn't something like that implicitly your response to the other competent people who point out the problems with Utts' and Targ's methodologies, that those opposing competent people are making mistakes?

I really think those challenges have faded away. Ray Hyman the 'skeptics champion' in these debates conceded that there were statistical variance from chance that have no current explanation and he assigns it to an unknown cause as opposed to remote viewing or telepathy. A level deeper and both sides are not saying much different. 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I've had decades of interest in these subjects also, but my interest in them includes the arguments against them.  I'm mainly asking you because I've seen you many times leave comments about subjects like this but they seem to always be about the overall state of the cases for them (you believe the quantity of evidence is enough to show it to be true without a doubt, it's not fair to say there is 'no evidence' for psychic stuff in your view, etc) and rarely about the actual details that support that case.  There may be other discussions you are having here pointing out this compelling evidence that I haven't seen, but most of what I read from you is talking around the subject, like you just did here where we skipped from initial questions about the details to giving up because you feel the discussion will go nowhere.  If I don't end up believing you then it doesn't mean the discussion went nowhere, if you provided the best details and evidence you may convince others here even if it doesn't convince me.

I got very interested in this debate too. Don't underestimate how much exposure I have to the so-called 'skeptics' positions on these things as I've spent hours. I objectively feel that it has been established that psychic functioning is a real but relatively weak human ability. And the controlled experiments results are complemented by the body of anecdotal stories like in this OP.

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Hush now while the adults are talking.

Oh, got me ! I must have touched a raw nerve again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 9:19 AM, XenoFish said:

Opinion duly noted and discarded. 

Okay, it was a little over-the-top and I'll add that it is only my opinion.  It really wasn't intended as hate.  I've mentioned before that it confuses me when an otherwise intelligent person seems to relish their own suffering with no willingness whatever to try a different path.  When a person is not burdened with mental acuity issues yet they refuse to try anything to change their attitude, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are simply unwilling to admit they might be wrong.  I consider it to be a blessing in my life to be able to admit my errors and try again.  It saved my life a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, and then said:

Okay, it was a little over-the-top and I'll add that it is only my opinion.  It really wasn't intended as hate.  I've mentioned before that it confuses me when an otherwise intelligent person seems to relish their own suffering with no willingness whatever to try a different path.  When a person is not burdened with mental acuity issues yet they refuse to try anything to change their attitude, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are simply unwilling to admit they might be wrong.  I consider it to be a blessing in my life to be able to admit my errors and try again.  It saved my life a few years ago.

Nothing matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I did not say it was an unreasonable question but implied the discussion will go nowhere until a dramatic paradigm shift is ready in the individual.

I'd just note that 'dramatic paradigm shifts' sounds like something that is more required to have faith or religious belief, and is a requirement for absolutely no science I'm aware of.  Every other science though can rely on the evidence speaking for itself.  I know you would like to expand science, but to incorporate the kind of personal paradigm shift I think you're referring into the methodology of science essentially breaks it instead.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd just note that 'dramatic paradigm shifts' sounds like something that is more required to have faith or religious belief, and is a requirement for absolutely no science I'm aware of.  

No faith is required to accept the results of controlled double-blind experiments. I’ll go a step further and say that to not accept the results is  actually a form of ‘science denial’.

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Every other science though can rely on the evidence speaking for itself.  

Isn’t that was is being done by parapsychologists doing controlled testing and statistical analysis.  

32 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  I know you would like to expand science, but to incorporate the kind of personal paradigm shift I think you're referring into the methodology of science essentially breaks it instead.

 

In science you follow the data with no personal paradigm.

My point was that there is this obvious mindset in many materialist/atheist/scientism types that not so secretly wants to feel superior to all the ‘silliness ‘that smacks of psychics, the superstitious, ghosts, etc.. They don’t accept well the evidence that seems to lower their desired rule of the roost of serious thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2019 at 11:06 AM, RabidMongoose said:

It is notoriously difficult to investigate consciousness because we simply dont have the technology to collect quantitative evidence.

When it comes to the more unusual experiences we go through in life they exist, a large number of people have them, and it includes myself too. Trying to construct new models of consciousness and reality is difficult when the only information to hand is qualitative. Its confounded further by the lack of means to test such frameworks and a fervent scepticism trying to discredit all alternative views that run contrary to the predominant group think.

Physics has already proven how most people see reality is wrong. With 95% of the population they are wondering around in a delusional state believing they are living in a mechanistic, deterministic, reductionist, Newtonian universe. They dont even understand the implications of General Relativity let alone what quantum mechanics means when it comes to the nature of consciousness and reality.

One thing I like to point out is that physics has already proven experimentality that other types of causation exist beyond the traditional linear cause and effect. There is probabilistic causation, non-linear causation (also called bi-directional causation), and retro causality where the present outcome determines its past causes.

Focusing on non-linear causation, that is when two events separated in space (but not in time) cause each other. Such non-locality is proven in quantum mechanics, but it doesnt take a genius to spot it occurring in reality at our level too. Just ask a stock broker or weather scientist or engineer.

Religion should be viewed as an implicit (rather than an explicit) guide to the nature of reality. They have a deeper understanding of the bi-directional causation structuring reality so try to teach a pattern of living. Knowing that what you do here affects elsewhere in the rest of reality.

Enjoy the pleasures of reality, help others do the same, and move on from any hate or negativity. The universe sends all of that right back at you. You find yourself attract pleasure seekers who want you to help you enjoy life too, and who dont get bogged down with any hate or negativity.

Agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2019 at 3:29 PM, Truthseeker007 said:

One day or one day may not the humans on this will realize that this Earth is just one possibility of the infinite possibilities we can all experience. Once the body dies the energy that controls the body goes on and even comes back to this Earth many times. Although the possibilities are endless.

The energy your body generates dissapates as heat when you die. Basic thermodynamics. 

It goes into the immediate atmosphere. We know this much. There's not a that many possibilities with heat dissapation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2019 at 9:42 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, I was already familiar with some of these, can't really say that there's any verified occurrence here that is very impressive.  Viewers can apparently travel to Russia to see secret bases, find hostages in foreign countries, and even go to Jupiter and see crystals in the atmosphere... so why can't they go a mere 10 feet into another room and read a simple word written on a piece of paper out of view?  Why is there so much subjective judgment involved as to whether someone accurately remotely viewed; there seem to be a lot of experiments where they are trying to draw what something looks like something else, which they or someone gets to interpret as to whether it is a hit.  There is considerable criticism of Utts statements about statistics and remote viewing, you find those points invalid?

That lacquer isn't 'materialist', it's 'rigorous', something that is absent in all remote viewing studies I'm aware of.  Materialist science has discovered and verified countless things, it's taught in classrooms around the world and takes years of study to obtain an understanding of the basics.  Name one thing, anything, that non-materialist science has discovered and verified.  If you cannot, then I didn't put the materialist lacquer on science, reality did.

My point about science is that if remote viewing is as well supported as the people you've referenced claim, then what is the explanation for why there are not tons of scientists researching it?  If true, it's a Nobel Prize level discovery.  Why haven't other statisticians and scientists rushed to support Utts' and Targ's conclusions if they are so well established?

Targ and Utts are parapsychologists. That explains a great deal. 

Targ also Targ received a B.S. in physics from Queens College in 1954. From 1954 to 1956, he completed two years of graduate work in physics at Columbia University without taking a degree. One of Targs subjects was Uri Gellar, who used this as a springboard to dupe many more untill Randi showed what a fraud he is. 

And Utts is a statistician. 

They aren't really scientists by definition. Utts report was rubbished by her boss, 

A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated.[8]According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts

And Targ hasn't been an active physicist for decades. 

Of course PG knows this quite well and it has been pointed out that his claims are false. But he likes to pretend proof exists for this nonsense. When someone shows what a steaming pile of nonsense that garbage is, he usually runs of to another thread to tell someone else the same tripe. Either way his claim of being supported by science is simply not true. 

The Stargate project wasn't completely a failure we got a good funny movie out of it. Men Who Stare at Goats. Still, not sure it was worth the 20 billion they wasted on remote viewing. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

Oh, got me ! I must have touched a raw nerve again.

Sounds like projection to me. It is actually  y o u r  worldview that is in question here.  It is  y o u r  raw nerve that keeps getting touched.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, joc said:

Sounds like projection to me. It is actually  y o u r  worldview that is in question here.  It is  y o u r  raw nerve that keeps getting touched.

For better or worse, joc, the "powers that be" have answered this afterlife theory for me, in the positive, or at least it seems to accept some "souls", perhaps you and I have a job to get past the door, but I really don't know about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2019 at 10:09 PM, skliss said:

And the whole science thing does make me laugh. My sister and her husband are both scientists and are the most religious people i know.  They work for a major university and personally know and have been in contact with scientists from around the world for almost 30 years and the majority of them either are religious themselves or feel that nothing in science disputes the notion of a creator, in fact many feel that the complexity of scientific discoveries indicate that intelligence not coincidence or happenstance are involved. Science does not negate intelligent design, in fact for them the opposite is true.

The god of gaps.  They might feel that there is a creator but what does the evidence say?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a connection between near death experiences and the holographic universe theory that can not be easily explained away.  People who have NDEs routinely say things about where they were that sound very similar to what Michael Talbot wrote about in his book The Holographic Universe.   Dr. Ken Ring has a chapter in his book "Life At Death" about the connection between NDEs and holographic universe and also Dr. Melvin Morse talked about it in his book Where God Lives."   These parallels and corroboration between the two are very evidential.   

Consilience:  "In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

No faith is required to accept the results of controlled double-blind experiments. I’ll go a step further and say that to not accept the results is  actually a form of ‘science denial’.

That depends.  What controlled double-blind experiments are you referring to?  Do these controlled double-blind experiments involve someone ultimately subjectively determining if it's a 'hit', such as determining whether a viewer's drawn image 'matches' sufficiently what they were supposedly remote viewing?  But maybe we should back up as I might be jumping to conclusions:  what specifically and exactly can remote viewers supposedly do?  If they are really astral travelling or whatever and are accurately seeing things, then why can't they see very simple things that would be far more potent evidence than having to infer the ability through a statistical analysis?  These kinds of experiments would be so simple to set up, we should have boatloads of data by now if this really was considered a phenomenon that has a strong case for it.

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Isn’t that was is being done by parapsychologists doing controlled testing and statistical analysis.  

I don't know, that would depend on the quality of the experiments and analysis. Some of the experiments I've read about were not controlled, they were not blinded and again involve a judgment about whether something is a hit.  You've said you are very familiar with the skeptical arguments against these topics, and from what I've read when the experiments are done again with proper controls, the effect can't be reproduced; why is that?  But again, I may just not know about the better controlled double-blind experiments you refer to.

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My point was that there is this obvious mindset in many materialist/atheist/scientism types that not so secretly wants to feel superior to all the ‘silliness ‘that smacks of psychics, the superstitious, ghosts, etc.. They don’t accept well the evidence that seems to lower their desired rule of the roost of serious thought. 

This is exactly what I was referring to about talking 'around' the subject.  Are you a psychologist, you've inferred the 'obvious' fact 'they want to feel superior' from what exactly?  As I mentioned, again this is Nobel prize level stuff, what an even better way to feel superior than to demonstrate the supernatural or psi and make the greatest discovery in the history of mankind.  Your psychological imaginings  here do not seem to have exhausted all the other non-worst case alternatives.  Sorry, but I find these kind of statements essentially accusing non-believers of bias to be kinda lame, I can just as easily say that the obvious mindset of supernaturalists is that they want to feel special and think they have some unique insight into esoteric knowledge because they find the real world too mundane and unfulfilling.  I mean jeez, Russel Targ is an author, who usually like to sell books; are you similarly applying that fact to him also as far as possibilities of biased motivation? 

This is of course all beside the point.  The first step is to provide the strong, compelling evidence for psi/supernatural; after that has been settled we can then start speculating about what psychological deficiencies cause someone to ignore such a strong case.  Even you admit that it seems to be a weak power, so what are you expecting science to do?  Parapsychologists need to provide a very good case for loosening experimental controls, even with those controls 'science' occasionally comes to the wrong conclusion so it seems to be the wrong way to move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That depends.  What controlled double-blind experiments are you referring to?  Do these controlled double-blind experiments involve someone ultimately subjectively determining if it's a 'hit', such as determining whether a viewer's drawn image 'matches' sufficiently what they were supposedly remote viewing?  But maybe we should back up as I might be jumping to conclusions:  what specifically and exactly can remote viewers supposedly do?  If they are really astral travelling or whatever and are accurately seeing things, then why can't they see very simple things that would be far more potent evidence than having to infer the ability through a statistical analysis?  These kinds of experiments would be so simple to set up, we should have boatloads of data by now if this really was considered a phenomenon that has a strong case for it.

I don't know, that would depend on the quality of the experiments and analysis. Some of the experiments I've read about were not controlled, they were not blinded and again involve a judgment about whether something is a hit.  You've said you are very familiar with the skeptical arguments against these topics, and from what I've read when the experiments are done again with proper controls, the effect can't be reproduced; why is that?  But again, I may just not know about the better controlled double-blind experiments you refer to.

This is exactly what I was referring to about talking 'around' the subject.  Are you a psychologist, you've inferred the 'obvious' fact 'they want to feel superior' from what exactly?  As I mentioned, again this is Nobel prize level stuff, what an even better way to feel superior than to demonstrate the supernatural or psi and make the greatest discovery in the history of mankind.  Your psychological imaginings  here do not seem to have exhausted all the other non-worst case alternatives.  Sorry, but I find these kind of statements essentially accusing non-believers of bias to be kinda lame, I can just as easily say that the obvious mindset of supernaturalists is that they want to feel special and think they have some unique insight into esoteric knowledge because they find the real world too mundane and unfulfilling.  I mean jeez, Russel Targ is an author, who usually like to sell books; are you similarly applying that fact to him also as far as possibilities of biased motivation? 

This is of course all beside the point.  The first step is to provide the strong, compelling evidence for psi/supernatural; after that has been settled we can then start speculating about what psychological deficiencies cause someone to ignore such a strong case.  Even you admit that it seems to be a weak power, so what are you expecting science to do?  Parapsychologists need to provide a very good case for loosening experimental controls, even with those controls 'science' occasionally comes to the wrong conclusion so it seems to be the wrong way to move.

Before things get lost in the sauce let me address the most important question.

There can be no subjectivity involved in odds against chance experiments. If there was then the results would of course be meaningless and these physicists and statisticians would be the first to understand an experimental mistake that simple. 

No, a subjective judgment of a hit or miss is not going to be involved in the overall results. In a typical experiment the judge has to select between one of four possibilities meaning he should be correct extremely close to 25% of the time if the null-psychic ability theory is correct. The actual results show a consistent result across many experiments of about 33% correct. The odds of this occurring by chance is about one in ten-billion given the number of experiments done. Even the arch-skeptic Ray Hyman has admitted that the experiments have produced anomalous statistical results for which he can not explain.

Experimental protocol and analysis are what experts like Dean Radin and Jessica Utts are specialists in. 

Are you at least clear on what I am saying.  The results are not due to methodological or mathematical incompetence at this point! Something not understood by current science is occurring. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Before things get lost in the sauce let me address the most important question.

There can be no subjectivity involved in odds against chance experiments.

Well there technically 'can' be but we agree there should not be.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

In a typical experiment the judge has to select between one of four possibilities meaning he should be correct extremely close to 25% of the time if the null-psychic ability theory is correct. The actual results show a consistent result across many experiments of about 33% correct. The odds of this occurring by chance is about one in ten-billion given the number of experiments done. Even the arch-skeptic Ray Hyman has admitted that the experiments have produced anomalous statistical results for which he can not explain.

I would need more information on the typical experiment, what exactly was the remote viewer doing?  You mention 'the judge' has to select between one of four possibilities; do you mean the remote viewer and not the judge?  Sorry, I'm confused what this experiment entails, like I said the ones I looked at involve the remote viewer drawing something and a subjective match being made to determine if resembles something else.  Is there a link maybe that describes the experiment you are referring to? 

Concerning Hyman, the wiki entry on remote viewing says, "Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles", due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny".  That seems to provide an explanation for anomalous statistical results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Concerning Hyman, the wiki entry on remote viewing says, "Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles", due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny".  That seems to provide an explanation for anomalous statistical results.

So mountains out of mole hills.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.