Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[Ivan Seeking]

If you think there may be something to it all, what you think is the best evidence for psychic phenomena?

When I have reviewed various claims of psychic phenomena, one thing that I have noticed is that some skeptics will correctly state that there is no known proof of claims of psychic events, while others will state that there is no evidence to support such claims. I take issue with the latter. I think there clearly is evidence, and some of the best evidence that I've seen comes from police reports.

Here is one example: The case of Etta Smith.

Jurors said there was no evidence that Smith suffered grave emotional distress because of the jailing. Jury foreman Janet Fowler of Burbank said that most jurors believed Smith's story that she had a psychic vision and that they felt that an award equivalent to a year, salary for Smith was fair.

Smith, who makes about $25,000 a year as a shipping clerk for Lockheed Corp. in Burbank, testified during the eight-day trial that she heard a news report about the missing nurse and immediately visualized the woman's body in a rural area above Lake View Terrace.

After reporting her experience to police, Smith, accompanied by two of her children and a niece, found the body of Melanie L. Uribe, 31, in Lopez Canyon, then led detectives to it.

Investigators doubted Smith's story of a "vision" and suspected that she might have been connected to the killing, testimony revealed. Smith, who then lived in Pacoima, was arrested after 10 hours of questioning. [continued]

http://www.jamesblatt.com/NewsArticles/EttaSmithMurder.pdf

I have seen the investigator in the case interviewed and state that he believes her story. Obviously this can't be used as proof of anything, but to me this seems to be evidence. What more can we expect? She doesn't otherwise claim to be psychic. Even if the phenomenon is genuine, we can't assume that people like Smith have any control over this ability.

When confronted with cases like this, the skeptics resort to unproven theories or claims of dumb luck, which may be true, but we have no proof of this either. That being the case, as far as I can see, some of the more striking cases stand as evidence.

Oh yes, my favorite part is where the skeptics state after the fact that they could have made the same predictions and led the police to the body, as did the "psychic". Can you imagine the reaction from skeptics if "psychics" stated that they could have predicted something and that should be good enough! Perhaps the skeptics should take up police work.

Here is another link that came up.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/29/lkl.00.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

Stories like this don't strike me as evidence of psychic phenomena but of the mind's ability to put disparate facts together at a level below conscious awareness such that we know things with full confidence without being able to explain how.

SelfAdjoint recently linked to an article on apperception that I found to be very enlightening:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

and another recent thread talked about the phenomenon of solving problems unexpectedly when we let go of trying to solve them:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=126129.

I believe that these cases of people having visions of body locations are not paranormal but the result of them having unrecognized expertize in the mundane matter of people's personal habits, plus a large collection of information about murders and the kinds of places killers leave bodies that they don't even realize they have. Each time such a person hears a news report of a body being found in a certain kind of place they make a mental note of it and the kind of victim and, perhaps, what may have made them vulnerable. Collecting data for their own safety,probably, they prick up their ears a little whenever they hear of someone being attacked or killed or going missing.

Eventually, a news report of someone missing with a brief description of them: age, employment, family situation, when and where last seen, is all they need to know that person hasn't run off, they're dead, and given where they disappeared there are certain specific kinds of locations you'd want to search first for the dumped body. While the story may be of some conscious concern to them they aren't trying deliberately to solve it, and the solution comes to them in a dream, an unexpected "vision" or a moment of inspiration they weren't even pushing themselves toward.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evidence does not mean proof. What you are saying is that you have an alternative theory to explain the results. As I first pointed out, some unproven theory does not negate the evidence. If you could prove what you say about this case specifically, then the case could not be considered evidence for the paranormal.

In the case of Smith, do you have any idea how many places there are in LA to dump a body? Frankly, to me it is absurd to think that the location of the body could have been deduced [as did the police]. A body might be found in nearly any alley or dumpster.

More specifically, do you have one shred of evidence to support the claim that she could have deduced the location?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Evidence does not mean proof. What you are saying is that you have an alternative theory to explain the results. As I first pointed out, some unproven theory does not negate the evidence. If you could prove what you say about this case specifically, then the case could not be considered evidence for the paranormal.

The case is not considered evidence of the paranormal by me. I consider it evidence, yes, but see no straight line to the paranormal.

In the case of Smith, do you have any idea how many places there are in LA to dump a body? Frankly, to me it is absurd to think that the location of the body could have been deduced [as did the police]. A body might be found in nearly any alley or dumpster.

More specifically, do you have one shred of evidence to support the claim that she could have deduced the location?

The book you need to read is Mindhunter by John Douglas who helped start the FBI's serial killer profiling program. They didn't just study and interview serial killers but also worked heavily on victimology: studying the victims and why they were selected as good targets.

Something you'd find out from that book, among many other things, is that killers don't dump bodies at the first convenient place. Where and how they get rid of a body is a highly personal thing to each killer and demonstrates a remarkable amount about how they felt toward the victim.

Each aspect of a crime is the same: it seems random to a layperson, but Douglas uncovered all kinds of patterns that allowed him to deduce things about the killers with greater and greater specificity, until one day he apparently blew his credibility by announcing a particular killer would have a speech impediment, probably a stutter. His colleagues thought he'd lost it. However, the guy who was eventually caught and confessed, did, indeed, have an egregious stutter. Douglas explains how he deduced the stutter from the crime scene with solid, straighforward logic, but for fellow law enforcement officers who wouldn't pay attention to how he analyzed the crime it was impossible to understand how he knew anything specific about the killer.

If you know what you're looking at you can deduce remarkable things.

All that applies to the general category of people having visions of where missing people's bodies are.

In the case of Smith, specifically, though, we have the testimony of the female officer who said Smith was talking about books and movie rights in her cell. This leads to the suspicion she'd already discovered the body by complete accident, returned home to call the police, heard the news report about the missing nurse, and realized she was in a position to pass herself off as psychic for personal gain. She calls the police, reports her "vision" then returns to the canyon with her children, whose function is to act as witnesses to her "finding" the body (which she'd actually already found) then she calls the police again to confirm her previously reported "vision" was authentic.

To her disapointment, they first arrest her as a suspect, but in her cell she fantasizes aloud to the undercover officer about the book and movie deal that will arise from her "psychic vision".

 

[Illbe]

Placebo

I think the “placebo effect” might be a good place to start. It’s the one area I can think of where science embraces the fact that an unknown force within the human body actually exists. Must drive them crazy. But thousands and thousands of controlled studies have all concluded the same thing: That if a subject BELIEVES that they are taking xyz medicine for some ailment, the body heals itself on that belief alone - despite whether they are taking a sugar pill or the real deal. To me, this seems proof positive that the human mind is able to do things that are not yet fully understood. Who is to say that the same force within that causes faith (in a placebo pill) to work, can’t be used in other areas? And while faith healing is not nearly as well researched as the placebo effect, it surely must work on that same principle. The reason I’m not collecting my million bucks for proving that something paranormal is at play, if because the placebo phenomenon has conveniently been moved into the science category. Hmmm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The case is not considered evidence of the paranormal by me. I consider it evidence, yes, but see no straight line to the paranormal.

Then you are simply ignoring the facts. She said that she had a vision and then led police to the body. That is evidence for her vision unless and until proven otherwise.

More specifically, do you have one shred of evidence to support the claim that she could have deduced the location?

The book you need to read is Mindhunter by John Douglas who helped start the FBI's serial killer profiling program. They didn't just study and interview serial killers but also worked heavily on victimology: studying the victims and why they were selected as good targets...

So the answer is no.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the “placebo effect” might be a good place to start. It’s the one area I can think of where science embraces the fact that an unknown force within the human body actually exists. Must drive them crazy. But thousands and thousands of controlled studies have all concluded the same thing: That if a subject BELIEVES that they are taking xyz medicine for some ailment, the body heals itself on that belief alone - despite whether they are taking a sugar pill or the real deal. To me, this seems proof positive that the human mind is able to do things that are not yet fully understood. Who is to say that the same force within that causes faith (in a placebo pill) to work, can’t be used in other areas? And while faith healing is not nearly as well researched as the placebo effect, it surely must work on that same principle. The reason I’m not collecting my million bucks for proving that something paranormal is at play, if because the placebo phenomenon has conveniently been moved into the science category. Hmmm.

We have quite a bit on the placebo effect in the Credible Anomalies Napster
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374

I have never thought of this as something paranormal, but until we can prove what does happen, I guess that no one can say for sure that we have the science to explain it. And really this gets into what we mean by paranormal. If something can be studied and then explained, what was once deemed paranormal may one day be seem very normal.

 

[Zelos]

evidence for phsychic phenomena is nothing but the wishes of the person intepritating it to fit the wishes

 

[Ivan Seeking]

evidence for phsychic phenomena is nothing but the wishes of the person intepritating it to fit the wishes

Then you are also ignoring the evidence due to personal bias. You would have to justify your opinion in light of the example.

 

[Illbe]

Intuition

Great, I’ll check out the link! Thank you. Well, the connection or point I was attempting to make was that we do have proof that the mind is able to heal the body on nothing more than a strong belief (placebo effect). So how far of a stretch is it to believe that psychics can do what they claim? If you take something that even most debunkers likely believe in - say, intuition - that’s getting pretty close to a mild form of the definition of psychic ability. If someone has an exceptionally strong intuition, does that make them a psychic? It depends on how a person interprets what constitutes a psychic. But everyone has intuition. We can’t prove that we have it, but we all know we have it, because we use it every day. And man, it’s right on most of the time.
Yeah, I don't think of the placebo effect as paranormal either, because it has been proven. If physics ability were to be proven, I suspect that it would not be considered paranormal either.

 

[Zelos]

Then you are also ignoring the evidence due to personal bias. You would have to justify your opinion in light of the example

there is a prize to the one who can prove phsycic phenomena under controlled enviorments, none have even tried even when they have advertised it. This means that no one tries becuase they know they will fail (if someone has tried without my knowledge they did fail cause none have been reported sucesfull)

 

[Illbe]

Maybe they would have given the prize money to Edgar Cayce if he were alive today. He predicted both world wars, the deaths of two presidents, and even his own burial date of January the 5th (1945 I think). He performed something like 14,000 readings, all of which are documented. As far as I know, he never asked for a dime for any of it. I wonder how they will determine what success is? I'd be interested to learn of any controlled studies that compare and test claimed psychics to non-psychics where results are posted.

 

[Illbe]

Well, getting back to evidence. My take would be that there are only a handful of explanations that can logically pay claim to why some psychics have accurately foresaw or predicted events:
- Lucky guess
- Coincidence
- Cheating
- The real deal
Odds are petty cool things. They can help us to weed out lucky guesses, coincidence and cheating. And they are predictable enough to allow casinos and the like to make a lot of money. There are obviously a lot of brilliant minds that visit this forum (I bow to you!), so how about we take a look at someone like Edgar Cayce, check out how often his predictions were right, and apply odds to the probability of those predictions coming true, versus the ones that he was wrong about? Check out this site regarding some of his predictions at:
www.near-death.com/experiences[/URL]
I concede that he was often wrong, but what are the odds that he was right so often? Let’s say that he was right 10% of the time. If a person can predict the future accurately that often, is it evidence that psychics are the real deal? How could it not be?
P.s. I was wrong about Cayce not taking a dime for his work in the field, so let that be stricken from the record :)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's my understanding of the word evidence:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

-Merriam-Websters

Just because testimony is offered as evidence doesn't mean it has to be accepted as offered until proven incorrect. It's quite reasonable to say that what someone is purporting doesn't constitute the evidence (as in outward sign: indication) they claim it does at all, because it could also be offered as an outward sign, indication of other, different things.

For instance: If I offer video of a machine with no apparent power source but a spinning rotor as evidence of perpetual motion, anyone with a little physics is free to say "All I see for sure is evidence of a flywheel", and they're not really under any obligation to disprove perpetual motion.

Smith proved she knew where the body was. That is all. We are under no obligation to accept her apparent confidence she found out by psychic means.

People have accurate intuitive leaps that aren't psychic, but which seem inexplicable to those around them because they weren't following the same train of thought. I offered the case of John Douglas as an example, and you (Ivan) dismissed it without explanation. His book, plus the two links I gave earlier, demonstrate that people are capable of remarkable fast, very specific, deductions under the right circumstances, deductions that can seem "magic" to others, even to themselves.

On the other hand Smith may simple have discovered the body by purely conventional means and decided to leverage it into some money and fame. She might easily have driven by during the dumping, realized there was something really wrong about these three guys hefting something bulky from their car at night by a canyon, and went back later to check after hearing about the missing nurse. having acertained the body was there, she calls the police with her "psychic" vision, then returns with her children to "officially" discover it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the “placebo effect” might be a good place to start. It’s the one area I can think of where science embraces the fact that an unknown force within the human body actually exists. Must drive them crazy. But thousands and thousands of controlled studies have all concluded the same thing: That if a subject BELIEVES that they are taking xyz medicine for some ailment, the body heals itself on that belief alone - despite whether they are taking a sugar pill or the real deal.

The link posted by Ivan has a quote about the original 1955 paper on the placebo effect which says that paper is now in disrepute. many things the author presented as examples of his newly defined effect are now attributed to other causes. That's worth a read.

In other papers he quoted it says he placebo effect only works on psychiatric/psychological problems, and on those physical problems that can be exacerbated by emotional stress. You can't cure tuberculosis or heal a broken leg overnight with it.

It can do a lot for physical problems whose outbreaks are stress dependent like herpes or asthma or seizures. It can't cure herpes, can't get rid of that virus from your nerves, but it can cut way down on the outbreaks which are often triggered by the physiology of stress.

There is, really, no "unknown force" here. The brain regulates the body based on it's best peception of things. If you think you're in danger the brain will signal the adrenal glands to release adrenalin whether you're authentically in danger or not. Adrenalin suppresses the imune system. Long term low grade anxiety can lead, by direct, non-mysterious physical means, to poor health, greater suceptability to whatever bacteria you encounter.

The Placebo Effect can alleviate much distress in any case where the problem is being made worse by the patient's state of mind. The current problem seems to be that physicians don't know how to bring it into play at will when they want and pharmeceutical companies don't know how to subtract it from the efficacy of their pills.

 

[Zelos]

Maybe they would have given the prize money to Edgar Cayce if he were alive today. He predicted both world wars, the deaths of two presidents, and even his own burial date of January the 5th (1945 I think). He performed something like 14,000 readings, all of which are documented. As far as I know, he never asked for a dime for any of it. I wonder how they will determine what success is? I'd be interested to learn of any controlled studies that compare and test claimed psychics to non-psychics where results are posted.

the classical way of archiveng this is simple to give vague predictions and then people like you do the rest of the work

 

[Illbe]

Let me say that I cannot deny from my observations that you are obviously well read and incredibly bright. So I do hesitate to disagree. But to speculate that there is no “unknown force here” troubles me. As mild as you may diminish it to be, there is still a very unknown component to the placebo effect from everything I’ve read. And the reason I brought it up in this forum is that it is a missing link, if you will, to the existence of psychic phenomenon: It is indeed one of the rare areas that science endorses, even though it cannot be explained. If the mind can heal the body in the way the placebo effect does, it opens up an enormous door to what else the mind can do… case in point, psychic abilities.

 

[Illbe]

Zelos...
Nice job of thinking 'inside' the box. How about a real idea?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Let me say that I cannot deny from my observations that you are obviously well read and incredibly bright. So I do hesitate to disagree. But to speculate that there is no “unknown force here” troubles me.

I'm not presenting that as speculation but as an observation. If you look into standard biology just a little you'd discover all sorts of things that are known about the brain /body connection that aren't mysterious at all.

As mild as you may diminish it to be, there is still a very unknown component to the placebo effect from everything I’ve read.

Different sources will play up different aspects of it, for sure, and we'll always find an extreme faction that wants to place the emphasis on the most mysterious possible interpretation of anything they examine.

And the reason I brought it up in this forum is that it is a missing link, if you will, to the existence of psychic phenomenon: It is indeed one of the rare areas that science endorses, even though it cannot be explained.

I'm not sure that you properly understand the aspects that science can't explain. All that means is that they haven't figured out the mechanism that accounts for some of the more interesting tests they've done, like the one quoted about opiates. The same is true of a huge number of neurological and physical functions: they know what happens, but haven't figured out the details of the mechanism. There's no implication of an "unknown force", just that the situation is complex beyond our current level of understanding. Such things are constantly being cleared up, though. Last year, (or the year before?) two guys won the nobel prize for clearing up the nagging mystery over how sodium pumps in neurons worked. Apparently that problem had people baffled for a long time.

If the mind can heal the body in the way the placebo effect does, it opens up an enormous door to what else the mind can do… case in point, psychic abilities.

It doesn't seem to boil down to the mind healing the body. Rather, the mind can block or interfere with healing by constant worry. To the extent the placebo effect stops a cycle of constant anxiety it stops the supression of the immune system and leads to the healing of colds and even wounds that were previously merely prevented from healing. Likewise it cuts down on the outbreaks of anything that is triggered by stress: gastro-intestinal ulcers, asthma attacks, etc. And, it should be obvious why it works, when it does, on purely mental problems like depression.

So we can't get to the paranormal from the placebo effect unless we have lots of evidence of it working to cure things that aren't stress related and shouldn't be responsive to mere state of mind.

 

[Pythagorean]

Something you'd find out from that book, among many other things, is that killers don't dump bodies at the first convenient place. Where and how they get rid of a body is a highly personal thing to each killer and demonstrates a remarkable amount about how they felt toward the victim.

just want to clarify that this is about serial killers, who are killing as an emotional reaction. Professional killers generally try to be more incognito and less sentimental about hiding dead bodies.

 

[zoobyshoe]

just want to clarify that this is about serial killers, who are killing as an emotional reaction. Professional killers generally try to be more incognito and less sentimental about hiding dead bodies.

Yes, Douglas talks primarily about serial killers, but also treats the issue of one time/first time killers who may go on to become serial killers if they're not caught.

I've never really read in depth about the psychology of professional "hit" men but I think it's safe to assume that because their motives are completely different you'd find a completely different way of handling the body. It seems from mafia history that they either do nothing, letting the body lay where it falls, or they make it completely disappear never to be found again. As you say, what they do seems governed by pragmatic considerations rather than being emotion-driven.

 

[PIT2]

there is still a very unknown component to the placebo effect from everything I’ve read. And the reason I brought it up in this forum is that it is a missing link, if you will, to the existence of psychic phenomenon: It is indeed one of the rare areas that science endorses, even though it cannot be explained.

And its not just the placebo effect that isn't explained, it is all mind-matter interaction. The only thing that makes minds controling bodies not a psi event, is that we consider it normal. There is no known reason why our minds should inhabit and control just our bodies.

This is the reason why i wouldn't be surprised if psi turned out to be real.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And its not just the placebo effect that isn't explained, it is all mind-matter interaction.

There is no mind-matter interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "mind" that exists in and of itself separate from matter. What we call "mind" arises from matter.

The only thing that makes minds controling bodies not a psi event, is that we consider it normal.

No, the concept of a separable soul, the "ghost in the machine" was considered a religious fact up until scientific examination of the situation began to overturn this notion. Your brain controls your body through complex, but very well understood, chemical means.

There is no known reason why our minds should inhabit and control just our bodies.

There is no mind without the body. Would you let me remove your frontal lobes? If you believe what you're saying you ought to agree in a second, confident your mind will remain intact without them. I think you should do some reading on what happens to people who have had frontal lobotomies before you agree, though.

 

[PIT2]

There is no mind-matter interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "mind" that exists in and of itself separate from matter. What we call "mind" arises from matter.

Consciousness exists. Consciousness arising from matter is a speculative idea, I am sure u are well aware of this. Nothing in the laws of physics says anything at all about consciousness and no law predicts it should exist.

No, the concept of a separable soul, the "ghost in the machine" was considered a religious fact up until scientific examination of the situation began to overturn this notion. Your brain controls your body through complex, but very well understood, chemical means.

What do souls have to do with this? The idea that mind-matter interaction is well understood, is simply false.

There is no mind without the body.

Are u in a bad day, because this sounds like a joke, no one knows what happens to mind after the body dies. There are plenty of reports that directly challenge ur assumption.

 

[Zelos]

Zelos...
Nice job of thinking 'inside' the box. How about a real idea?

what do you mean with that? if youre one of those psychic crackpots who believe it acctualy works and that i should start thinking and realize it acctualy works so no. its impossible

 

[selfAdjoint]

Consciousness exists. Consciousness arising from matter is a speculative idea, I am sure u are well aware of this.

Only if you define consciousness to be a thing. I don't and I don't think Zooby does. What you call consciousness is just the running of those chemical processed Zoobie spoke of. Your brain responds to what your body is going to do before you do.

 

[SGT]

Consciousness exists. Consciousness arising from matter is a speculative idea, I am sure u are well aware of this. Nothing in the laws of physics says anything at all about consciousness and no law predicts it should exist.

What is speculative is the existence of consciousness. Nobody said that consciousness arises from matter, since there is no evidence of the reality of consciousness. But as Zoobyshoe mentioned, the functioning of the nervous system is quite well understood in terms of electrochemical interactions.

Are u in a bad day, because this sounds like a joke, no one knows what happens to mind after the body dies. There are plenty of reports that directly challenge ur assumption.

If for mind you mean soul, or consciousness, there is no evidence those things exist and, to my knowledge, all reports about communication with the dead are indistinguishable from what can be achieved by warm or cold reading.
This does not prove that soul or consciousness do not exist, but diminishes the value of the alleged evidences.

 

[PIT2]

Only if you define consciousness to be a thing. I don't and I don't think Zooby does. What you call consciousness is just the running of those chemical processed Zoobie spoke of. Your brain responds to what your body is going to do before you do.

I also don't define consciousness as a thing (also i think it has no substance, and that matter hasnt either). Even if it is a proces, that still leaves the entire universe open for its existence, and not just the brain

 

[K.J.Healey]

I have a question regarding information about the OP.
I read the information provided and I was wondering if you knew anything else about it such as :

Does she pass by the location of the body on her way to or from work, or during a routine day?

Was the body visible from the road? 400 feet isn't that far, you can easily make out a body at that distance.

The reason I ask is, perhaps she saw it on the previous day and subconsciously put two and two together and decided to check it out?

And on a side note, why would anyone bring children to a place where you might think there is a dead body?

 

[PIT2]

What is speculative is the existence of consciousness. Nobody said that consciousness arises from matter, since there is no evidence of the reality of consciousness. But as Zoobyshoe mentioned, the functioning of the nervous system is quite well understood in terms of electrochemical interactions.

Consciousness as I am talking about it is all the experiences people have. We do know that our experiences exist and we don't even have to speculate about it to know that. I am not talking about consciousness being a soul or a ghost, there is no need to invoke any of those terms to demonstrate how utterly enigmatic consciousness is. The universe would be much easier to explain for science if consciousness didnt exist(besides the fact that science wouldn't exist either, and neither would any explanation...). In fact, most of science enthusiastically tries to describe the universe in just that way: a slab of substance working according to mechanical laws. The real problem starts when we want to know how, in such a mechanical universe, entities can exist which are aware and capable of manipulating it.

How deep down the rabbithole do u want to go?

If for mind you mean soul, or consciousness, there is no evidence those things exist and, to my knowledge, all reports about communication with the dead are indistinguishable from what can be achieved by warm or cold reading.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. There is plenty evidence that mind survives bodily death, but this is all open to interpretation.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Actually I just was looking around in google Earth for the locations, and if you use what is said in the articles:
She lives in Pacoima, CA
She works at Lockheed near Burbank (I assume they mean Lockheed Martin Info & Tech at 505. W. Woodbury Rd, Altadena, CA) Due to no other lockheed properties near (other than banks). (its basically burbank)

That means that everyday for work she drives both ways down I-210 to get from home to work. I-210 is also the main road that goes through Lakeview Terrace, the area that she found the body. If it was found 400 feet from I-210 I could see her glimpsing the body on her way to work that day, not knowing what it was, and thinking about it later.
Try putting those locations in google earth. Do a Lakeview Terrace, Burbank, CA to get some idea of where the "lakeview" area is in the foothills. Its not very large, and 210 goes right over the bottom of the "canyon", which is really just an old riverbed from the looks of it, at the bottom of the valley.

I'm not saying she isn't psychic, just that sometimes people remember things and, if they're intelligent enough, put it together in their head and check it out.

 

[SGT]

Consciousness as I am talking about it is all the experiences people have. We do know that our experiences exist and we don't even have to speculate about it to know that. I am not talking about consciousness being a soul or a ghost, there is no need to invoke any of those terms to demonstrate how utterly enigmatic consciousness is. The universe would be much easier to explain for science if consciousness didnt exist(besides the fact that science wouldn't exist either, and neither would any explanation...). In fact, most of science enthusiastically tries to describe the universe in just that way: a slab of substance working according to mechanical laws. The real problem starts when we want to know how, in such a mechanical universe, entities can exist which are aware and capable of manipulating it.

How deep down the rabbithole do u want to go?

This is metaphysics, not physics.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. There is plenty evidence that mind survives bodily death, but this is all open to interpretation.

I agree with you that evidence and proof are different. I don't agree that there is evidence of survival of mind after the death of the body. Can you cite some of them? As I said, alleged contacts with dead people by mediums are indistinguishable from warm or cold readings, so don't count as evidences.

 

[Math Is Hard]

There is no mind-matter interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "mind" that exists in and of itself separate from matter. What we call "mind" arises from matter.

hmm.. so could I say this, as well?

There is no software-hardware interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "software" that exists in and of itself separate from hardware. What we call "software" arises from hardware.

 

[Illbe]

I'm not sure that you properly understand the aspects that science can't explain. All that means is that they haven't figured out the mechanism that accounts for some of the more interesting tests they've done...

Are you suggesting that there is a “mechanism” out there waiting to be discovered for every unexplained phenomenon? To draw a conclusion like that (and I may be misunderstanding you), takes on an enormous risk. If you take two sets of phenomenon, one set containing the scientifically explained, and the other set containing the unexplained - you will find yourself with a far greater heap of the unexplained.

There are billions and billions of unknowns out there. Can every last one of them, given time and study, be explained? The mind can do all sorts of things that may be explained chemically and perhaps even logically. Some examples would be hypnosis, false pregnancy syndrome, the placebo effect (from what you are saying) etc. But that is all entirely beside the point. What we have here is the mind causing a physical reaction to a belief, a thought, adrenaline, a chemical reaction, a time of stress etc. I won’t argue that. I agree with you. It is not how it happens that is interesting, it is THAT it happens. It means that the mind is able to work behind the scenes and do things that we are not always in control of. Explaining it chemically or through an emotional stress of some kind, sets surprisingly well with me. But if the human mind works that way, and responds subconsciously to things like strong beliefs, or stress in triggering the immune system, what does it DO with things like spiritual beliefs that folks have in varying degrees (just as an example)?

If a person believes from the time they are very young, right up to the time they die, that they have a soul… is it possible that the mind creates a soul, just as it does when it triggers the immune system in healing itself with the placebo effect? 85 years of believing you have one, and the body makes it so? Or, conversely, 85 years of not believing and your body makes it not so? Of course I don’t have that answer, and you don’t either.

What I’m getting at is the mind body connection. When the mind can cause the body to react, whether it is an immune response or a psychic ’feeling’, it doesn’t matter if it can be explained scientifically or not. THAT it is happening is quite interesting - either way.

 

[PIT2]

This is metaphysics, not physics.

Yubz, materialism is a metaphysical position.

I agree with you that evidence and proof are different. I don't agree that there is evidence of survival of mind after the death of the body. Can you cite some of them? As I said, alleged contacts with dead people by mediums are indistinguishable from warm or cold readings, so don't count as evidences.

Some examples of evidence are: near death experiences, mystical experiences and alleged contacts with dead people. All suggest consciousness is not dependent on brains.

 

[Zelos]

This is metaphysics, not physics.

thats why it has nothing to do with reallity

near death experiences, mystical experiences and alleged contacts with dead people. All suggest consciousness is not dependent on brains.

no, near death experience is the brains work, acctualy all that is the work of the braining playing some tricks on itself

 

[SGT]

Yubz, materialism is a metaphysical position.

Some examples of evidence are: near death experiences, mystical experiences and alleged contacts with dead people. All suggest consciousness is not dependent on brains.

If you think those are valid evidences, look at this video as evidence that not only consciousness but the head of a person can survive separated from the body.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Consciousness exists. Consciousness arising from matter is a speculative idea, I am sure u are well aware of this. Nothing in the laws of physics says anything at all about consciousness and no law predicts it should exist.

This is specious. Consciousness is not formally studied in physics. It comes under the heading of neurology. Nothing in the laws of physics predicts that plants or amoebas should exist. This doesn't mean they're mystical.

What do souls have to do with this?

It's the same ghost-in-the-machine concept you are espousing: the notion that there is some thing separate from the body that inhabits the body.

The idea that mind-matter interaction is well understood, is simply false.

I haven't discovered any questions about it that I haven't found the answers to in the basic literature.

Are u in a bad day, because this sounds like a joke, no one knows what happens to mind after the body dies. There are plenty of reports that directly challenge ur assumption.

So, you're saying I may remove your frontal lobes?

 

[zoobyshoe]

hmm.. so could I say this, as well?

There is no software-hardware interaction as you imply here. There is no entity called "software" that exists in and of itself separate from hardware. What we call "software" arises from hardware.

Sort of. Maybe. What I'd rather say is that Pit2's concept of mind is rather like suggesting that even if you were to smash a computer, it is still computing; all the programs are still running.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you suggesting that there is a “mechanism” out there waiting to be discovered for every unexplained phenomenon?

Absolutely

To draw a conclusion like that (and I may be misunderstanding you), takes on an enormous risk. If you take two sets of phenomenon, one set containing the scientifically explained, and the other set containing the unexplained - you will find yourself with a far greater heap of the unexplained.

A thing is "explained" when someone's question about it has been answered to their satisfaction. In other words, each person asks about something aiming for a particular level of understanding about it. The "unexplained" shrinks or grows in volume according to how many questions are asked by humans. So, it doesn't mean much to say there are more unexplained than explained things.

If a person believes from the time they are very young, right up to the time they die, that they have a soul… is it possible that the mind creates a soul, just as it does when it triggers the immune system in healing itself with the placebo effect? 85 years of believing you have one, and the body makes it so? Or, conversely, 85 years of not believing and your body makes it not so? Of course I don’t have that answer, and you don’t either.

This is where you should have abided by Occam's Razor:

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, meaning there's no point in asking if belief in a soul creates a soul unless we have some strong indication that such is the case. You can sit and think up such needless questions all day long the rest of your life. I can wonder if you don't have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head controlling your thoughts. I can't prove you don't, and neither can you.

What I’m getting at is the mind body connection. When the mind can cause the body to react, whether it is an immune response or a psychic ’feeling’, it doesn’t matter if it can be explained scientifically or not. THAT it is happening is quite interesting - either way.

Yeah...the human brain is astonishing, but I still get the feeling you don't grasp how physical and material it is. Change the chemistry, and the mind changes. I learned this solidly and undeniably back when I used to drink alot.

 

[SGT]

I don't agree with zoobieshoe that science can eventually explain every phenomenon.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If a theory predicts that some phenomenon will occur under controlable conditions and it does not, the theory is falsified. A refinement of the theory or a new one is necessary.
The existence of consciousness independent of the body or the existence of the invisible purple jellyfish controlling the brain of Illbe cannot be falsified, so no scientific theory can be envisioned for such phenomena.

 

[Illbe]

Gosh, I almost feel like you're perfoming mini-autopsies on everything I suggest. Are you a Coroner? Just kidding. Here's something else, and then I'll go away:

Definition of ‘evidence’ revisited.
Since this tread is about evidence, I thought I’d add an additional note to the earlier dictionary definition of the word:

“Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing.”
[Wikpedia]

Indirect evidence - or circumstantial evidence - implies that something occurred, but doesn’t directly prove it. Plenty of incarcerated men and women are sitting behind bars because circumstantial evidence PROVED guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
[paraphrasing from Lectric Law Library]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

Absolutely

A thing is "explained" when someone's question about it has been answered to their satisfaction. In other words, each person asks about something aiming for a particular level of understanding about it. The "unexplained" shrinks or grows in volume according to how many questions are asked by humans. So, it doesn't mean much to say there are more unexplained than explained things.

This is where you should have abided by Occam's Razor:


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Occam's+razor

entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, meaning there's no point in asking if belief in a soul creates a soul unless we have some strong indication that such is the case. You can sit and think up such needless questions all day long the rest of your life. I can wonder if you don't have an invisible weird, purple jellyfish sitting on your head controlling your thoughts. I can't prove you don't, and neither can you.

Yeah...the human brain is astonishing, but I still get the feeling you don't grasp how physical and material it is. Change the chemistry, and the mind changes. I learned this solidly and undeniably back when I used to drink alot.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't agree with zoobieshoe that science can eventually explain every phenomenon.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable. If a theory predicts that some phenomenon will occur under controlable conditions and it does not, the theory is falsified. A refinement of the theory or a new one is necessary.
The existence of consciousness independent of the body or the existence of the invisible purple jellyfish controlling the brain of Illbe cannot be falsified, so no scientific theory can be envisioned for such phenomena.

I didn't actually say we would eventually explain every phenomenon. Asking the question as asked, I simply asserted that there is a mechanism out there waiting to be discovered. Things aren't senseless and random. Unfortunately we are such curious creatures that we torment ourselves with questions about phenomena about which we'll probably never be able to collect enough of the right kind of data to answer satisfactorily.

 

[SGT]

Gosh, I almost feel like you've perfoming mini-autopsies on everything I suggest. Are you a Coroner? Just kidding. Here's something else, and then I'll go away:

Definition of ‘evidence’ revisited.
Since this tread is about evidence, I thought I’d add an additional note to the earlier dictionary definition of the word:

“Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing.”
[Wikpedia]

Indirect evidence - or circumstantial evidence - implies that something occurred, but doesn’t directly prove it. Plenty of incarcerated men and women are sitting behind bars because circumstantial evidence PROVED guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
[paraphrasing from Lectric Law Library]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

There is a difference between juridical and scientific evidence. Testimonies are not acceptable scientific evidence.
A scientific evidence must be repeatable. If a scientist claims that he/she found some evidence for a theory realizing an experiment in the lab, any other scientist must be able to repeat the experiment and find the same result.

 

[zoobyshoe]

My “devil’s advocate” point here is that when dealing with something that is not fully understood - like psychic phenomenon - and since science cannot prove it exists in a petri dish, it is reasonable that testimony is being used to find the evidence. Ivan’s initial article uses testimony to tell of evidence. If the point is being made by others that every shred of testimony ever presented on the existence of psychic phenomenon is not credible - then the discussion is over. Is it not?

I'm not assuming Ivan was meaning to compile evidence to be presented in court, but which might be presented to people, more or less casually.

I, personally, believe in something like mental telepathy, and also "seeing": the ability to see, very literally, into the past, the future, and "remote viewing" in the present. This belief is built up of bits and pieces of personal experiences I can't explain by other means. In other words, it's all anecdotal evidence that I can't back up with a shred of evidence or even corroborative testimony. I, personally, can believe in these things in the privacy of my own mind without getting white-knucked and desparate over the fact that I have nothing to show anyone else to convince them of it. Other people will either have their own experiences or they won't.

Anyway, the best story I know of is the one where all the member of the choir of a particular church all made it faithfully to choir practise without fail for years. Then one night each and every one of them was separately delayed by various unusual circumstances. When they all finally arrived they found the church boiler had blown up. Had they all made it to choir practise on time they would all have been killed or seriously injured.

I'm not going to submit that as evidence, but, to me, it's a pretty convincing story to the effect they were all being watched over by something or somebody I'd have to classify as non-ordinary, at least.

 

[Illbe]

Zoobyshoe,
Interesting indeed. Yes, I was intentionally drawing a distinction between scientific evidence vs. court room evidence. There are several ways to skin the evidence cat, or even the purple jellyfish.
Well, time for me to move on. It has been a pleasure to engage in this dialog with you (and others). Best wishes, and until next time. You are quite amazing… and doing a great service on the forum from what I've observed.

 

[PIT2]

This is specious. Consciousness is not formally studied in physics. It comes under the heading of neurology. Nothing in the laws of physics predicts that plants or amoebas should exist. This doesn't mean they're mystical.

Life is actually quite a bit of a mystery. And yes, physics doesn't study consciousness, most areas of science try to keep consciousness out of the picture because it is hard to study. Of course in the end physics will need to be involved in the explanation of consciousness (and life too). A real theory of everything should also describe the agents that created it. Perhaps the failure of science to explain consciousness and life is partly caused by looking at it in the wrong areas (biology and neurobiology) and viewing them as local events that have little to do with universal events.

It's the same ghost-in-the-machine concept you are espousing: the notion that there is some thing separate from the body that inhabits the body.

No ghost in the machine, i think mind and matter are essentially the same thing. There are other options besides materialism and dualism.

I haven't discovered any questions about it that I haven't found the answers to in the basic literature.

All kinds of literature can give all kinds of answers. The question remains which of these answers is right.

 

[PIT2]

Sort of. Maybe. What I'd rather say is that Pit2's concept of mind is rather like suggesting that even if you were to smash a computer, it is still computing; all the programs are still running.

What i was saying is that there is evidence that suggests this is the case, even though in those cases mind is transformed and enhanced upon death (so it doesn't continue as usual). This is not even a unique phenomenon in nature: when light passes through a prism it is also transformed, and smashing the prism doesn wipe out the light.

Also, going back to the computer analogy: smashing it doesn't really wipe out anything either. The computations being separate 'things' is merely an illusion of the observer, but fundamentally computing in a computer is electromagnetism at work. So if u want to compare mind with a computer: why would mind dissappear completely when the brain is smashed, while the electromagnetism(computing) doesnt?

 

[SGT]

What i was saying is that there is evidence that suggests this is the case, even though in those cases mind is transformed and enhanced upon death (so it doesn't continue as usual). This is not even a unique phenomenon in nature: when light passes through a prism it is also transformed, and smashing the prism doesn wipe out the light.

Also, going back to the computer analogy: smashing it doesn't really wipe out anything either. The computations being separate 'things' is merely an illusion of the observer, but fundamentally computing in a computer is electromagnetism at work. So if u want to compare mind with a computer: why would mind dissappear completely when the brain is smashed, while the electromagnetism(computing) doesnt?

You have a bad example. Computing is not electromagnetism. Computing is the property the machine has of following a set of instructions coded in it's memory in order to achieve a result. EM is only the physical means to perform the task.
In the same way, thinking is following a set of instructions coded in our brain (in a much more complicated way than in a machine) in order to achieve a result. Electrochemical reactions are the physical means to perform the task.
If a person dies, the brain cells are no more able to follow the instructions, but electrochemical reactions continue to exist elsewhere.

 

[PIT2]

You have a bad example. Computing is not electromagnetism. Computing is the property the machine has of following a set of instructions coded in it's memory in order to achieve a result. EM is only the physical means to perform the task.

That the property and result are different from electromagnetism is an idea that exists only in the mind of the observer. U say that "EM is only the physical means", are u implying that there is something non-physical about a computer?