Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[Count Iblis]

I found this article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0382

Published in some obscure, pseudoscientific journal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your opinion that Randi's challenge means nothing, is you own, and is not in particular protected by the forum rules. You should not attempt to create confusion between your opinions, such as this, and forbidden discussion topics.

What you are really objecting to is that I won't make a special exception to the rules for Randi. The rules apply to all forums. If you don't accept them, you can leave.

 

[Count Iblis]

If Randi isn't good enough, will Prof. Dr. G. 't Hooft do?

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/parabet.html

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

You might be interested in this interview. There's "naturals" who don't have a fear response (like The Iceman) who are actually physically/chemically born without the adrenal fear response. The psychological profiler mentioned that people like this can be useful to society to, in jobs like firefighting and police work. Here's the interview with him:

A quote from the show "Richard Kilenski is not a serial killer."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5740692213665972395

But then I think the kids who are raised into it and get desensitized and repress their feelings about it as a survival mechanism are a bit different and more susceptible to emotional decisions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If Randi isn't good enough, will Prof. Dr. G. 't Hooft do?

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/parabet.html

Only papers published in a mainstream academic journal may be used as a scientific reference. That is a minimum requirement in all forums.

Consider this: We don't allow the JSE to be used as a scientific reference either, but it is peer-reviewed [by scientists]!
http://www.scientificexploration.org/

One can hardly cry foul over Randi.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One does find the occasional oddity in an appropriate journal, such as this

Abstract Theoretical explication of a growing body of empirical data on consciousness-related anomalous phenomena is unlikely to be achieved in terms of known physical processes. Rather, it will first be necessary to formulate the basic role of consciousness in the definition of reality before such anomalous experience can adequately be represented. This paper takes the position that reality is constituted only in the interaction of consciousness with its environment, and therefore that any scheme of conceptual organization developed to represent that reality must reflect the processes of consciousness as well as those of its environment. In this spirit, the concepts and formalisms of elementary quantum mechanics, as originally proposed to explain anomalous atomic-scale physical phenomena, are appropriated via metaphor to represent the general characteristics of consciousness interacting with any environment. More specifically, if consciousness is represented by a quantum mechanical wave function, and its environment by an appropriate potential profile, Schrödinger wave mechanics defines eigenfunctions and eigenvalues that can be associated with the cognitive and emotional experiences of that consciousness in that environment. To articulate this metaphor it is necessary to associate certain aspects of the formalism, such as the coordinate system, the quantum numbers, and even the metric itself, with various impressionistic descriptors of consciousness, such as its intensity, perspective, approach/avoidance attitude, balance between cognitive and emotional activity, and receptive/assertive disposition. With these established, a number of the generic features of quantum mechanics, such as the wave/particle duality, and the uncertainty, indistinguishability, and exclusion principles, display metaphoric relevance to familiar individual and collective experiences. Similarly, such traditional quantum theoretic exercises as the central force field and atomic structure, covalent molecular bonds, barrier penetration, and quantum statistical collective behavior become useful analogies for representation of a variety of consciousness experiences, both normal and anomalous, and for the design of experiments to study these systematically.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vtrr87tg356154r7/

But I can only find papers supporting the assertion above - a growing body of empirical data on consciousness-related anomalous phenomena - in the JSE.

Math Is Hard made the following observation: Consciousness-related anomalous phenomena - C.R.A.P.

[from the same author]

Experiments in Remote Human/Machine Interaction
BRENDA J. DUNNE AND ROBERT G. JAHN
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, C-131 Engineering Quadrangle,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
Abstract—Several extensive experimental studies of human/machine interactions
wherein the human operators and the target machines are separated by distances
of up to several thousand miles yield anomalous results comparable in
scale and character to those produced under conditions of physical proximity.
The output distributions of random binary events produced by a variety of microelectronic
random and pseudorandom generators, as well as by a macroscopic
random mechanical cascade, display small but replicable and statistically significant
mean shifts correlated with the remote operators' pre-stated intentions, and
feature cumulative achievement patterns similar to those of the corresponding
local experiments. Individual operator effect sizes distribute normally, with the
majority of participants contributing to the overall effect. Patterns of specific
count populations are also similar to those found in the corresponding local experiments.
The insensitivity of the size and details of these results to intervening
distance and time adds credence to a large database of precognitive remote perception
experiments, and suggests that these two forms of anomaly may draw
from similar mechanisms of information exchange between human consciousness
and random physical processes.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/6REM%20i0892-3310-006-04-0311.pdf
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brenda+J.+Dunne&hl=en&lr=

 

[zoobyshoe]

You might be interested in this interview...

The difference between serial killers and hit men is actually way off topic to my original point about John Douglas' amazing ability to see incomprehensibly specific things in a crime scene. My proposition was that if one person can do it at all, for any reason, (i.e. if it's within human capability) than others may also do it anomalously, by accident, and erroneously ascribe it to "psychic" mechanisms. The paper linked to by Count Iblis argues that we all have savant abilities which are over-ridden by other brain processes:

It may be the case that people who seem to have psychic abilities in reality have abilities similar to savants, see e.g. here:

http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/SavantNumerosity.pdf

Savants are extremely rare individuals who, although often severly brain impaired,
frequently by autism, can display islands of astonishing excellence in the same peculiarly
restricted areas, across all cultures. Their skills are literal, non-symbolic, and appar-
ently not derived from practice. They often emerge `spontaneously' and do not improve
qualitatively with time, even though the skill might be better articulated. Savants typically
have no idea how they do it (Rimland 1963; Treffert 2000, 2005).
In the words of one pioneering researcher, their ``gift springs so to speak from the
ground, unbidden, apparently untrained and at the age of somewhere between five and
eight years of age. There is often no family history of the talent'' and it ``is apparently
not improved with practice'' (O'Connor 1989, page 4).
It has been hypothesised (Snyder and Mitchell 1999) that savants have privileged
access to raw sensory details, before these details are assembled into concepts, mean-
ingful labels, and holistic pictures. All brains possesses this same raw information but,
without some sort of brain dysfunction, or altered states of mind (Humphrey 2002;
Sacks 2003), it is normally beyond conscious access. We tend to see the whole and
not the parts (Howe 1989, page 83). Savants tend to see the parts and not the whole.
They are literal with an inclination to focus on local, rather than global aspects
of the scene, and to recall detail without meaning (Rimland 1963; Frith and Hill 2003;
Snyder 2004).
4.2 Why does being literal enhance numerosity?
How does being literal enhance numerosity? We argue that it removes our unconscious
tendency to group discrete elements into meaningful patterns, like grouping stars into
constellations, which would normally interfere with accurate estimation. By being literal,
a savant sees elements as discrete and disconnected, thus removing this interference.
This explanation is consistent with the fact that the accuracy of estimating numbers
of elements depends on their arrangement (Ginsburg 1976, 1991; Boles 1986; Ginsburg
and Goldstein 1987; Dehaene 1997) and even on the sensory properties of the stimulus
(Barth et al 2003). As Krueger (1984) concluded, ``...perceived numerosity depends more
on higher level cognitive factors...than on lower level perceptual or sensory factors''.
Indeed, the healthy normal brain makes hypotheses in order to extract meaning
from the sensory input, hypotheses derived from prior experience (Gregory 1970, 2004;
Snyder and Barlow 1988; Snyder et al 2004). If perceived numerosity depends on
higher-level cognitive factors, then the estimation of number is likely to be performed
on this hypothesised content, not on the actual raw sensory input, thus exaggerating
errors in estimation that would otherwise be absent.
In sum, we argue that the estimation of number by normal people is performed
on information after it has been processed into meaningful patterns. The unconscious
meaning we assign to these patterns interferes with our accuracy of estimation, whereas
savants, by virtue of being literal, have less interference. This, together with the fact
842 A Snyder, H Bahramali, T Hawker, D J Mitchell
that it takes only a handful of precise measurements to calibrate our number estimation
system (Dehaene 1997, page 71), could explain the reported numerosity feats of savants.

So, my proposal is something like this: provided a news report contains the right " raw data" about a murder victim, a housewife only half listening to the TV in a sort of trance state might suddenly "know" where the body is for the same reasons Rainman knew there were exactly 248 spilled toothpicks. Rainman, himself, can't explain how he knows this, so neither could the housewife, and, popular culture being what it is, her first suspicion would be that she had a "psychic" insight.

 

[Pythagorean]

The difference between serial killers and hit men is actually way off topic to my original point about John Douglas' amazing ability to see incomprehensibly specific things in a crime scene. My proposition was that if one person can do it at all, for any reason, (i.e. if it's within human capability) than others may also do it anomalously, by accident, and erroneously ascribe it to "psychic" mechanisms. The paper linked to by Count Iblis argues that we all have savant abilities which are over-ridden by other brain processes

Yeah, I feel the same way about things like "karma": it could very well be a real phenomena that is a result of people's intuition.

If you've heard of or seen the new series "Lie To Me" they go into the (science?) of facial muscles and other muscle movements as a doorway to people's minds, but then they also talk of "naturals" (the dialogue is cheesy, yes) who intuitively read people's emotions by subtle facial motions. Any successful investigator could be a "mind reader" in this aspect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, I feel the same way about things like "karma": it could very well be a real phenomena that is a result of people's intuition.

If you've heard of or seen the new series "Lie To Me" they go into the (science?) of facial muscles and other muscle movements as a doorway to people's minds, but then they also talk of "naturals" (the dialogue is cheesy, yes) who intuitively read people's emotions by subtle facial motions. Any successful investigator could be a "mind reader" in this aspect.

There is a blind man who was shown to have the ablity to detect emotional expressions on people's faces.

Destruction of the brain's primary visual areas leads to blindness of cortical origin. Here we report on a subject who, after bilateral destruction of his visual cortices and ensuing cortical blindness, could nevertheless correctly guess the type of emotional facial expression being displayed, but could not guess other types of emotional or non-emotional stimuli. Functional magnetic resonance imaging showed activation of the right amygdala during the unconscious processing of emotionally expressive faces.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n1/abs/nn1364.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4090155.stm

In my opinon, this doctor deserves Randi's million. The blind man is processing optical information in a manner that is independent of the classical definition of sight. It is a second form of "sight" - a previously unknown sense.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In my opinon, this doctor deserves Randi's million. The blind man is processing optical information in a manner that is independent of the classical definition of sight. It is a second form of "sight" - a previously unknown sense.

It is not a previously unknown sense, but proof for a previously suspected "association" between the right amygdala and unconscious processing of visual stimuli. What this demonstrates is that information from the eyes is sent to the amydala for emotional processing independently of its processing in the primary visual cortices of the occiputal lobes, not just in this man, but in all people. From your second link:

Scientists were able to establish that emotion displayed on a human face is registered in an area other than the visual cortex.

The area involved was identified as the right amygdala, an almond-shape structure situated deep within the brain's temporal lobe.

"This discovery is... interesting for behavioural scientists as the right amygdala has been associated with subliminal processing of emotional stimuli in clinically healthy individuals," said Dr Pegna.

"What 'patient X' has assisted us with establishing is that this area undoubtedly processes visual facial signals connected with all types of emotional facial expressions."

It's already known that all parts of every sense are not all processed at the same location, though there is usually a more central focus. In addition the penomenon of "blindsight" is already known about and studied: people whose blindness results from some brain damage as opposed to eye damage can often see and process some of what they see unconsciously, while experiencing a subjective sense of being totally blind.

 

[Pythagorean]

people whose blindness results from some brain damage as opposed to eye damage can often see and process some of what they see unconsciously, while experiencing a subjective sense of being totally blind.

yeah, I seriously doubt this experiment would pan out the same way if his eyes were actually broken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is not a previously unknown sense, but proof for a previously suspected "association" between the right amygdala and unconscious processing of visual stimuli. What this demonstrates is that information from the eyes is sent to the amydala for emotional processing independently of its processing in the primary visual cortices of the occiputal lobes, not just in this man, but in all people. From your second link:

We all know what we mean by "sight". This is not ordinary sight. It is a process of perceiving information that we never knew existed. Also, to recognize expressions is a highly complex process; far beyond even the demonstration that simple stimuli can act on a region of the brain. It suggests that we perceive and process complex information in a way that was never imagined before - a truly subliminal mechanism of complex communication. If ESP or any such claims are true, ultimately this would be true of them as well. Also, nothing in Randi's challenge says that it has to be unique to one or a few people.

Here is one definition of paranormal:
adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels
http://www.onelook.com/?w=paranormal&ls=a

If this were simply a claim made by someone besides a scientist who can explain the process, he would certainly qualify for Randi's challenge. That is to say that if a blind man walked in claiming that he can detect emotions, he would have qualified. The only difference is that here we have some idea what is happening. That is, we had the experimental evidence before we ever knew the claim.

Consider this: What would be the state of the claim if we didn't have the brain scans? Most people would likely conclude that he isn't really blind, which would be false.

If humans are found to communicate through pheromones, would that qualify as "ESP". I say yes. If you disagree, then show me a mainstream journal or text where this is cited as a known human sense.

The point is that any real phenomenon must have a corresponding physical mechanism whether we understand it or not. To say something doesn't qualify as "paranormal" because we can identify a previously unknown mechanism, is a matter of tense - it was paranormal [hence a crackpot claim] yesterday, but not today. If we take that approach, the word "paranormal" has no meaning; nor does any challenge to these claims.

 

[Mammo]

That's like saying we throw away Newtonian mechanics just because it has been shown to be not valid everywhere...

Secondly, this isn't the issue of physics not being able to explain everything. It is the issue of bastarding physics principle as justification to validate such paranormal claims. It means that if the physics is wrong, then those who make claims based on it are even in deeper crap in terms of valid justification. Your "line of sight with particles" will collapse if your based your justification on the physics involved. So now you have no more valid justfication. Zz.

I'm a supporter of the scientific method and of science in general. But there are more holes in the current knowledge than swiss cheese. This is what I am talking about. There is a big difference between a hotch-potch of mathematical models and a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, which can explain the creation and subsequent 'big bang' by simulation. A psychic claim which requires 'beyond line of sight' information exchange (such as remote viewing) does not lend itself to the current scientific theory in the way that a simpler 'in line of sight' psychic claim does (such as ESP in people who are blind or the ability to detect when being stared at).

BTW I remembered seeing a TV documentary where bushmen of Africa still practiced an ancient art of pursuing their quarry until the animal died of exhaution. The bushman would follow and track, keeping the animal in sight as much as possible to unnerve it. This way the body temperature of the quarry could not cool down even when resting in shade. The upright walking of man has allowed evolution of bigger brains because there is less exposure to the Sun and therefore the heat producing big brain is compensated for. The profuse sweating and ability to carry water allows the bushman to maintain a manageable body temperature whilst pusuing a prey species. This could be the behaviour that has led to the 'psychic gene' (if psychic ability is ever scientifically tested positive) being within the present human population. Pure speculation of course, but still relevant I feel.

There is a blind man who was shown to have the ablity to detect emotional expressions on people's faces.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n1/abs/nn1364.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4090155.stm

In my opinon, this doctor deserves Randi's million. The blind man is processing optical information in a manner that is independent of the classical definition of sight. It is a second form of "sight" - a previously unknown sense.

I agree Ivan Seeking. It's a shame I can't read the full report, but it has the sound of something that could be genuine.

We all know what we mean by "sight". This is not ordinary sight. It is a process of perceiving information that we never knew existed. Also, to recognize expressions is a highly complex process; far beyond even the demonstration that simple stimuli can act on a region of the brain. It suggests that we perceive and process complex information in a way that was never imagined before - a truly subliminal mechanism of complex communication. If ESP or any such claims are true, ultimately this would be true of them as well. Also, nothing in Randi's challenge says that it has to be unique to one or a few people.

If this were simply a claim made by someone besides a scientist who can explain the process, he would certainly qualify for Randi's challenge. That is to say that if a blind man walked in claiming that he can detect emotions, he would have qualified. The only difference is that here we have some idea what is happening. That is, we had the experimental evidence before we ever knew the claim.

Consider this: What would be the state of the claim if we didn't have the brain scans? Most people would likely conclude that he isn't really blind, which would be false.

The point is that any real phenomenon must have a corresponding physical mechanism whether we understand it or not. To say something doesn't qualify as "paranormal" because we can identify a previously unknown mechanism, is a matter of tense - it was paranormal [hence a crackpot claim] yesterday, but not today. If we take that approach, the word "paranormal" has no meaning; nor does any challenge to these claims.

I've been a part of a similar 'blindsight' experience myself, whilst staying at a buddhist weekend retreat, years ago. The bald heads and contemplative atmosphere was very surreal. A blind lady (who was very engaging) did a demonstration by picking where we were sitting, even after moving seats to try and fool her. I remember being initially very skeptical, but then very impressed. I hope one day that mainstream science will take this line of investigation seriously. I don't think it really has any everyday use, but it could explain why some people are more prone to ufo abduction experiences for example. Could there really be living creatures, 'things with wings', that are occasionally terrifying people into thinking that they are having an interaction with a visitor from outerspace? I believe it is just possible, and think that it should be recognised as such.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We all know what we mean by "sight". This is not ordinary sight.

The point is that this has been a part of ordinary sight all along. All it means is that, in all of us, the visual information is sent to the amygdala for emotional processing, without having first to go to the visual cortex. (I'm assuming for the sake of argument this man was properly tested and all other experimenters would get more or less the same better than chance results from him.)

It is a process of perceiving information that we never knew existed.

There's nothing new about the process of perception of information here at all: the rods and cones are stimulated by light as usual and the signals are sent in the usual way. The discovery here is that the processing by the amygdala takes place independently of the processing by the visual cortex. They both get the same information. The amygdala makes us emotionally conscious of it, the visual cortex makes us visually conscious of it. That is: the amygdala orchestrates our emotional experience, and the visual cortex our visual experience. It seems counterintuitive but this man's case demonstrates we can have the emotional processing of the stimulus without also having the visual processing. All the physics and chemistry and biology is within normally understood bounds here. Neuroscientists, as I mentioned before, have known about blindsight for quite some time. This is simply more progress in understanding that whole interesting phenomenon. It is not the breakthrough it seems to you.

It suggests that we perceive and process complex information in a way that was never imagined before - a truly subliminal mechanism of complex communication. If ESP or any such claims are true, ultimately this would be true of them as well. Also, nothing in Randi's challenge says that it has to be unique to one or a few people.

Here is one definition of paranormal:
adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels
http://www.onelook.com/?w=paranormal&ls=a

If this were simply a claim made by someone besides a scientist who can explain the process, he would certainly qualify for Randi's challenge. That is to say that if a blind man walked in claiming that he can detect emotions, he would have qualified. The only difference is that here we have some idea what is happening. That is, we had the experimental evidence before we ever knew the claim.

I don't really want to get into a discussion of who might qualify for Randi's challenge here. The forum mentor is quite adamant about Randi not being a scientific resource, and I think you are risking his ire by continued reference to that persona-non-grata. ;)

Consider this: What would be the state of the claim if we didn't have the brain scans? Most people would likely conclude that he isn't really blind, which would be false.

If humans are found to communicate through pheromones, would that qualify as "ESP". I say yes. If you disagree, then show me a mainstream journal or text where this is cited as a known human sense.

The point is that any real phenomenon must have a corresponding physical mechanism whether we understand it or not. To say something doesn't qualify as "paranormal" because we can identify a previously unknown mechanism, is a matter of tense - it was paranormal [hence a crackpot claim] yesterday, but not today. If we take that approach, the word "paranormal" has no meaning; nor does any challenge to these claims.

We had this discussion three or four years back. It's part and parcel of many claimant's stand (though apparently not yours) that ESP and paranormal phenomena are the results of forces and energies unknown to, and undetectable by, science. To the extent, however, these phenomena might be proven real, and also actually to have tangible physical mechanisms (like instant savant counting of huge numbers of objects, the mechanism of which would show up in some way, I'm sure, on a brain scan) then I think they should be reclassified as sensory and normal. If someone can pass Ran...er a certain test, before the ability is even accepted as real by science then, sure, you could get away with saying the "paranormal" has been proved.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm a supporter of the scientific method and of science in general. But there are more holes in the current knowledge than swiss cheese. This is what I am talking about. There is a big difference between a hotch-potch of mathematical models and a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, which can explain the creation and subsequent 'big bang' by simulation. A psychic claim which requires 'beyond line of sight' information exchange (such as remote viewing) does not lend itself to the current scientific theory in the way that a simpler 'in line of sight' psychic claim does (such as ESP in people who are blind or the ability to detect when being stared at).

If the current state of knowledge is full of holes, the current state of knowledge of paranormal phenomena is non-existent! Why? While things that we know exist in science are becoming more well-known as time progresses, paranormal claims are still stuck at First Base in trying to show their existence, even after hundreds of years of such claims, with no progress in sight.

And as a condensed matter physicist, I claim that there's no such thing as "theory of everything". Read Robert Laughlin's article that I've mentioned all over PF.

BTW I remembered seeing a TV documentary where bushmen of Africa still practiced an ancient art of pursuing their quarry until the animal died of exhaution. The bushman would follow and track, keeping the animal in sight as much as possible to unnerve it. This way the body temperature of the quarry could not cool down even when resting in shade. The upright walking of man has allowed evolution of bigger brains because there is less exposure to the Sun and therefore the heat producing big brain is compensated for. The profuse sweating and ability to carry water allows the bushman to maintain a manageable body temperature whilst pusuing a prey species. This could be the behaviour that has led to the 'psychic gene' (if psychic ability is ever scientifically tested positive) being within the present human population. Pure speculation of course, but still relevant I feel.

It is pure speculation and violates PF Guidelines. I too can speculate with the best of them and you can't prove me wrong. So how does this adds to your argument? In fact, I would say that it degrades your point because you have to resort to such speculation as justification.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think it really has any everyday use, but it could explain why some people are more prone to ufo abduction experiences for example. Could there really be living creatures, 'things with wings', that are occasionally terrifying people into thinking that they are having an interaction with a visitor from outerspace? I believe it is just possible, and think that it should be recognised as such.

Um...do you have a ufo abduction experience you want to share? It's a theme that seems to be cropping up in your posts as a non-sequitor. I have the feeling you want to get something off your chest.

 

[Mammo]

If the current state of knowledge is full of holes, the current state of knowledge of paranormal phenomena is non-existent! Why? While things that we know exist in science are becoming more well-known as time progresses, paranormal claims are still stuck at First Base in trying to show their existence, even after hundreds of years of such claims, with no progress in sight.

And as a condensed matter physicist, I claim that there's no such thing as "theory of everything". Read Robert Laughlin's article that I've mentioned all over PF.

It is pure speculation and violates PF Guidelines. I too can speculate with the best of them and you can't prove me wrong. So how does this adds to your argument? In fact, I would say that it degrades your point because you have to resort to such speculation as justification. Zz.

I haven't seen the Robert Laughlin link, but it seems common sense to me to think that one day a complete physical picture of reality will prevail. The practice of investigating anomalies of existing 'scientific laws' is relatively new. The exploration of the 'two-way mirror experiment' anomaly is in the same area as the Pioneer gravitational anomaly in my opinion.

 

[Mammo]

To warrant as a genuine psychic ability, I think a blind person would have to be blindfolded in any such experiments.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please note that we are not interested in personal or fringe theories. The only qualified discussion addresses any existing evidence for claims of psychic phenomena, and the nature and strength of that evidence.

 

[jostpuur]

Your opinion that Randi's challenge means nothing, is you own, and is not in particular protected by the forum rules. You should not attempt to create confusion between your opinions, such as this, and forbidden discussion topics.

What you are really objecting to is that I won't make a special exception to the rules for Randi. The rules apply to all forums. If you don't accept them, you can leave.

Actually I was not objecting the lack of exception to the rules for Randi, but instead saying that your opinion that Randi's challenge means nothing, is your own, and is not particularly protected by the forum rules.

In my opinion the Randi's challenge means very much, for the reason what I explained in the post #100.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually I was not objecting the lack of exception to the rules for Randi, but instead saying that your opinion that Randi's challenge means nothing, is your own, and is not particularly protected by the forum rules.

You can reference him anecdotally but not as a scientific reference. That is a forum rule and not just my opinion.

He is certainly not a scientist and he is not doing science - it is pseudoscience at best. If he were ever to get published in an appropriate journal, then that paper could be used as a scientific reference. When I said that his challenge means nothing, I meant that from a scientific point of view. In this sense, his challenge counts for zip. How we might weight anecdotal evidence for a claim is in part what we discuss here. Obviously you put a lot of weight behind his claims. That is one opinion but nothing more.

I do find it amazing that so many people who consider themselves to be objective put so much weight behind a magician with a million bucks to lose.

 

[zoobyshoe]

He is certainly not a scientist and he is not doing science - it is pseudoscience at best. If he were ever to get published in an appropriate journal, then that paper could be used as a scientific reference. When I said that his challenge means nothing, I meant that from a scientific point of view. In this sense, his challenge counts for zip. How we might weight anecdotal evidence for a claim is in part what we discuss here. Obviously you put a lot of weight behind his claims. That is one opinion but nothing more.

I do find it amazing that so many people who consider themselves to be objective put so much weight behind a magician with a million bucks to lose.

There is no academically organized science to call upon here so he is the next best thing: an expert in the means by which frauds operate and by which people are fooled. In this regard he is carrying on the debunking tradition of Houdini who revealed the tricks of the seance hoaxters to the general public. As a magician himself Randi is much better qualified than anyone coming from some scientific discipline to design as test that will prevent the subject from using any standard mentalist/magician modus operandi. How to con people is just not a part of any academic curriculum I've ever heard of, so you can hardly require Randi to present some academic credentials or peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Houdini needed no academic credentials to be able to show people that underneath the table a seance holder was pulling strings and tripping levers with her feet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no academically organized science to call upon here so he is the next best thing: an expert in the means by which frauds operate and by which people are fooled. In this regard he is carrying on the debunking tradition of Houdini who revealed the tricks of the seance hoaxters to the general public. As a magician himself Randi is much better qualified than anyone coming from some scientific discipline to design as test that will prevent the subject from using any standard mentalist/magician modus operandi. How to con people is just not a part of any academic curriculum I've ever heard of, so you can hardly require Randi to present some academic credentials or peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Houdini needed no academic credentials to be able to show people that underneath the table a seance holder was pulling strings and tripping levers with her feet.

Doesn't change a thing. I personally loved his debunking of Uri Geller on the Tonight Show, but it doesn't change a thing. He is not a scientific resource and his motives and methods are certainly not beyond question.

If he really wants to make a point, then he should fund a proper scientific evaluation of claims. He should also have no say in who qualifies for testing. Also, no moving the goal post by changing the definitions in hindsight, as many wish to do with our blind man. [And on that point I say this: Was it predicted? Did a scientist determine that this should be possible, or did we just discover it?]

What's more, the same argument can be made for at least a few UFO and paranormal research groups - esp the JSE. And if we allowed the JSE [which is actually run by scientists], we would have plenty of published evidence for all sorts of claims. In fact I found it rather intersting that The Foundations of Physics - a respectable journal - would publish a paper, the experimental evidence for which, as far as I can tell, was only published in the JSE.

There is no academically organized science to call upon here

Actually, that is false. We have the JSE [Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration] among others.

 

[Mammo]

Um...do you have a ufo abduction experience you want to share? It's a theme that seems to be cropping up in your posts as a non-sequitor. I have the feeling you want to get something off your chest.

No, I have nothing I want to get of my chest.

There is no academically organized science to call upon here so he is the next best thing: an expert in the means by which frauds operate and by which people are fooled. In this regard he is carrying on the debunking tradition of Houdini who revealed the tricks of the seance hoaxters to the general public. As a magician himself Randi is much better qualified than anyone coming from some scientific discipline to design as test that will prevent the subject from using any standard mentalist/magician modus operandi. How to con people is just not a part of any academic curriculum I've ever heard of, so you can hardly require Randi to present some academic credentials or peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Houdini needed no academic credentials to be able to show people that underneath the table a seance holder was pulling strings and tripping levers with her feet.

I agree with what you say, and it's a good point that you make. This still leaves the possibility of a psychic effect being undetected by modern science though. It is the significance of this small possibility which is so far reaching when one considers all the unknowns of modern research. Many serious scientists are considering that the basic fundamentals of physics knowledge may be flawed. If this were ever to be proved correct, then maybe the psychic phenonmenon could then be thoroughly re-tested. It's simply too early for a possible announcement that some kind of psychic effect does exist. I don't think that this will ever happen soon, whether there is any genuine effect or not. It's a very subtle situation.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, I have nothing I want to get of my chest.

I agree with what you say, and it's a good point that you make. This still leaves the possibility of a psychic effect being undetected by modern science though. It is the significance of this small possibility which is so far reaching when one considers all the unknowns of modern research. Many serious scientists are considering that the basic fundamentals of physics knowledge may be flawed. If this were ever to be proved correct, then maybe the psychic phenonmenon could then be thoroughly re-tested. It's simply too early for a possible announcement that some kind of psychic effect does exist. I don't think that this will ever happen soon, whether there is any genuine effect or not. It's a very subtle situation.

And again, you somehow didn't get my point when I differentiated between valid phenomena versus what has transpired with these paranormal claim.

It is easy but misleading to keep on stressing the limitation of science and that it continues to evolve. The ONE thing that you seem to keep missing is the FACT that valid phenomena, after the initial claim of discovery, gets more and more verified with more tests and over time. We no longer question the existence of superconductivity. We now know a lot more about it over time. In fact, we now have seen even more exotic forms of it that so far have defied a consistent and acceptable explanation.

Now, compare that with all of these paranormal claims. How many hundreds of years has it been since such a thing has appeared in our human history? Even intense study over the last century on these things have produced zilch. They are still trying to establish the existence of these things.

The claim that basic fundamental science may be "flawed" doesn't come from as flimsy a justification as paranormal claim. It comes from the fundamental description of the theory, or from tantalizing hints from valid and reproducible experiments. But this does nothing to justify the existence of paranormal phenomena. Using this point continually is a red herring, pretty much similar to Intelligent Design advocates trying to justify the validity of their idea by pointing out the "flaws" in evolution, while ignoring that Intelligent Design has no empirical and logical foundation. ID cannot stand on its own, so let's bash evolution. Science has not shown the validity of paranomal phenomena, so let's point out science's "weaknesses". This is not a valid tactic.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is another organization that claims to maintain high scientific standards. Again, this only qualifies here as an anecdotal reference, but there are plenty of real scientists who allegedly do real science in regards to claims of the paranormal. Are they truly credible? I have no idea.

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research has been published continuously since 1884, promoting the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis." The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology. There are also regular book reviews and correspondence sections...

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Board of Trustees and Officers
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=61

 

[ZapperZ]

This is another organization that claims to maintain high scientific standards. Again, this only qualifies here as an anecdotal reference, but there are plenty of real scientists who allegedly do real science in regards to claims of the paranormal. Are they truly credible? I have no idea.


http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Board of Trustees and Officers
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=61

The stuff that were presented during the talks that I attended were all published. And the person also was a faculty member at Northwestern University, not some obscure institutions, doing research on paranormal phenomena.

Those still do not change the fact that, unlike other areas of study, the existence of the things being studied is still highly under question. Again, we're not talking about something that was just discovered (such as dark energy) and still undergoing intense period of discovery and "hunting". These things have been claimed to exist for hundreds of years! How many times does one gets to cry wolf before we wise up?

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Doesn't change a thing. I personally loved his debunking of Uri Geller on the Tonight Show, but it doesn't change a thing. He is not a scientific resource and his motives and methods are certainly not beyond question.

You miss my point: saying he's not a scientific resource is not untrue, rather: it's irrelevant, because he's eminently qualified to debunk frauds. We don't require a "scientific resource" to explain everything that needs explaining. In most cases simple expertise in the matter at hand is more than sufficient. The fact you liked his debunking of Uri Geller shows you understand that all he needed to accomplish it was expertise, not scientific credentials. The fact he's not a "scientific resource" is irrelevant.

Actually, that is false. We have the JSE [Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration] among others.

A group of people with scientific credentials may get together and attempt to examine one thing or another using scientific methods, but this is not the same thing as there being an academically organized "science". No college or university has "Psychic Fraud 101" listed in their basic science courses along with physics, chemistry, and biology. If a professor of sociology or, perhaps, psychology wanted to teach such a course the bulk of their source material would have to come from Randi, David Copperfield, Houdini, Derren Brown, etc.

 

[Mammo]

And again, you somehow didn't get my point..

The claim that basic fundamental science may be "flawed" doesn't come from as flimsy a justification as paranormal claim. It comes from the fundamental description of the theory, or from tantalizing hints from valid and reproducible experiments. But this does nothing to justify the existence of paranormal phenomena. Using this point continually is a red herring, pretty much similar to Intelligent Design advocates trying to justify the validity of their idea by pointing out the "flaws" in evolution, while ignoring that Intelligent Design has no empirical and logical foundation. ID cannot stand on its own, so let's bash evolution. Science has not shown the validity of paranomal phenomena, so let's point out science's "weaknesses". This is not a valid tactic. Zz.

And again, you somehow didn't get my point. You seem unable to differentiate between 'the phenomenon of being watched' and all the other psychic claims. You insist on lumping them all together. This should not be the case. You miss the subtleties of my argument because you come from a different point of view. The incompleteness and incoherency of the current physics knowledge base is not a red herring, but shows that there is room for a major shift in our understanding of how everything works. The way that you should bring the notion of intelligent design into the fray is a poor reflection of how you conduct this kind of discussion. I support the standard scientific theory to a very high degree, but I am also acutely aware of it's shortfalls. It isn't just me. Mainstream high profile scientists, who are at the cutting edge of science discovery, also think the same.

You miss my point: saying he's not a scientific resource is not untrue, rather: it's irrelevant, because he's eminently qualified to debunk frauds. We don't require a "scientific resource" to explain everything that needs explaining. In most cases simple expertise in the matter at hand is more than sufficient. The fact you liked his debunking of Uri Geller shows you understand that all he needed to accomplish it was expertise, not scientific credentials. The fact he's not a "scientific resource" is irrelevant.

A group of people with scientific credentials may get together and attempt to examine one thing or another using scientific methods, but this is not the same thing as there being an academically organized "science". No college or university has "Psychic Fraud 101" listed in their basic science courses along with physics, chemistry, and biology. If a professor of sociology or, perhaps, psychology wanted to teach such a course the bulk of their source material would have to come from Randi, David Copperfield, Houdini, Derren Brown, etc.

There is a big difference between these guys and a professional scientific parapsychologist. Someone such as Professor Wiseman, the UK expert I saw years ago on TV, is supposed to be impartial to the scientific result. This means that a balanced test and analysis which equally allows either a positive or negative result should be firstly deduced and then conducted. It's a lot easier said than done. Like I said earlier, there is always some bias and pressure with regard to this subject. Professor Wiseman was no exception to this rule, and I saw it as clear as crystal in his conclusion of the 'two-way mirror experiment'. It's burned into my memory.

The whole issue of psychic phenomena is similar to the finding of evidence of early human occupation under Clovis sites (and other sites) on the American continent. Because it is found well below the accepted time of entry into the Americas, around 11,000 years ago, the new evidence which suggests human arrival started around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago is instantly rejected. How long before this state of affairs is turned on it's head?

 

[ZapperZ]

And again, you somehow didn't get my point. You seem unable to differentiate between 'the phenomenon of being watched' and all the other psychic claims. You insist on lumping them all together. This should not be the case. You miss the subtleties of my argument because you come from a different point of view. The incompleteness and incoherency of the current physics knowledge base is not a red herring, but shows that there is room for a major shift in our understanding of how everything works. The way that you should bring the notion of intelligent design into the fray is a poor reflection of how you conduct this kind of discussion. I support the standard scientific theory to a very high degree, but I am also acutely aware of it's shortfalls. It isn't just me. Mainstream high profile scientists, who are at the cutting edge of science discovery, also think the same.

I challenge you ASK those "mainstream high profile scientists" with regards to what you are doing here and see if they agree with your statements. I've talked to many personally, and none of them would consider the validity of anything out of paranormal effects as of you yet.

And I still consider your bringing up the "shortfalls" of science as a red herring. In fact, I can USE it against you as well. If, by some miniscule chance that science was used to somehow verify some paranormal phenomena, I can easily use the SAME argument that it is incomplete and still changing to argue that there's STILL a chance that, as our knowledge progresses, that verification can be falsified. One just never know! After all, 19th century physics accepted the classical ether until it is falsified in the 20th century as our knowledge expanded.

So what are we left with? We are left with what we know NOW, not what we SPECULATE of being able to know in the future! As of NOW, there is ZERO valid scientific evidence for psychic phenomena. Period. That, after all, is the TOPIC of this thread, Not the tiny small chance of having such evidence in the future.

Zz.

 

[Count Iblis]

Even assuming that physics does make it possible to have some psychic abilities, the claim that some people can tell that they are being watched is a priori unlikely. Because every ability we have ultimately evolved by Darwinian selection.

Now, the selection pressure to develop this ability would be largest in some prey animals. So, how come animals such as cheetas haven't died out yet?

 

[Mammo]

Even assuming that physics does make it possible to have some psychic abilities, the claim that some people can tell that they are being watched is a priori unlikely. Because every ability we have ultimately evolved by Darwinian selection.

Now, the selection pressure to develop this ability would be largest in some prey animals. So, how come animals such as cheetas haven't died out yet?

Or in animals that hunt in a group and use non-verbal communication. I said earlier about the african bushmen hunting in groups to track and follow prey to exhaution. The ability of a cat to hunt is generally of ambush and stealth tactics. So the cheeta doesn't have an evolutionary history of using this sight ability within it's stalking and hunting behaviour. It could be most pronounced in humans due to the size of our brains. The seagulls around here are huge and will defintely give you the evil-eye if you try to mess with them. So maybe Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds has something behind it in reality.

 

[tabloid]

the physics behind psychics

i have watched a couple of people claiming to be psychics,silvia brown,rosemary altea etc.they claim to be "intouch" with dead pple or spirits.Is there anyone who has tried to investigate this,and what could be the science behind it?

 

[EikeJMaas]

Check out Derren Brown's interview with Richard Dawkins. It's not physics, it's psychological deception/manipulation.

 

[alxm]

First step in any Scientific investigation would be to repeat the thing under controlled circumstances, like a double-blind test for instance.

All investigations of 'psychic' phenomena fall into one of the following categories:
1) The psychic refuses to do a proper test
2) A proper test is done, with negative results
3) A test is done without proper controls and, occasionally, gives positive results.

Of course, when it comes to 'psychics' in particular, the situation is even worse (for the psychics) since the techniques they use (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading" ) are well known, and their 'results' have been duplicated many times by people who claim no 'psychic' abilities whatsoever.

http://www.randi.org/site/" some 8 years ago, which she publicly accepted, but they haven't heard from her since.

I don't think she believes she has powers herself. If she did, she'd have little reason to not to try to vindicate herself and gain a million bucks doing it.

 

[Mammo]

There is a big difference between these guys and a professional scientific parapsychologist. Someone such as Professor Wiseman, the UK expert I saw years ago on TV, is supposed to be impartial to the scientific result. This means that a balanced test and analysis which equally allows either a positive or negative result should be firstly deduced and then conducted. It's a lot easier said than done. Like I said earlier, there is always some bias and pressure with regard to this subject. Professor Wiseman was no exception to this rule, and I saw it as clear as crystal in his conclusion of the 'two-way mirror experiment'. It's burned into my memory.

I've just found out that Professor Wiseman was originally a magician! Wikipedia Richard Wiseman. Now it all makes sense.

 

[Mammo]

Or in animals that hunt in a group and use non-verbal communication. I said earlier about the african bushmen hunting in groups to track and follow prey to exhaution. The ability of a cat to hunt is generally of ambush and stealth tactics. So the cheeta doesn't have an evolutionary history of using this sight ability within it's stalking and hunting behaviour. It could be most pronounced in humans due to the size of our brains. The seagulls around here are huge and will defintely give you the evil-eye if you try to mess with them. So maybe Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds has something behind it in reality.

I've just remembered the opening scene of No Country For Old Men. It would seem that the Cohen brothers have come to the same conclusion as I have.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First step in any Scientific investigation would be to repeat the thing under controlled circumstances, like a double-blind test for instance.

All investigations of 'psychic' phenomena fall into one of the following categories:
1) The psychic refuses to do a proper test
2) A proper test is done, with negative results
3) A test is done without proper controls and, occasionally, gives positive results.

You have ignored what may be the only claim having any credibility: The claim of spontaneous or random insights that can't easily be tested.

I think we all know that people like Silvia Brown are frauds.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So what are we left with? We are left with what we know NOW, not what we SPECULATE of being able to know in the future! As of NOW, there is ZERO valid scientific evidence for psychic phenomena. Period. That, after all, is the TOPIC of this thread, Not the tiny small chance of having such evidence in the future.

Zz.

Not all claims can be studied; in particular, the most interesting ones.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've just found out that Professor Wiseman was originally a magician! Wikipedia Richard Wiseman. Now it all makes sense.

It is important to realize that unless published in a mainstream journal, claims of "scientific evidence" count as nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

 

[Mammo]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

Well said.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

I disagree. We can't produce top quarks "on demand" either! And if there's anything that is "below noise level" after a gazillion particle collision, it is the discovery of the top quark in such collision. It is worse than finding a needle in a haystack!

But still, we found them! The people who make such proposal (note the source and origin) also make a series of verifiable, testable, and quantitative prediction on where to look for them IF they exist! This is how you try to convince people that such an entity exist, i.e. by producing a series of measurable outcomes that can be falsified. It isn't via telling everyone else that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't mean it isn't there!

So I am utterly done and thoroughly jaded with this continuing excuses as if it is science's fault that we haven't detected such paranormal phenomena. Somehow, when it comes to paranormal studies, the rules are turned the other way, where it is the rest of us who have to falsify the claims, and not those who are proposing it who have to show that it is valid. Why are they so special?

The search for something small and improbable are very weak excuses for the failure to verify these things in light of all the utterly difficult search we go through in high energy physics. And to elevate the existence of these paranormal phenomena to being legitimate just because we have no way of measuring it yet is ridiculous. I could easily speculate (isn't that what we're doing here?) that, once we KNOW how to measure them, then we can show they are not there (ref: the classical ether, EPR's hidden variables).

So yes, I know how to play this game as well.

Zz.

 

[Mammo]

I disagree. We can't produce top quarks "on demand" either! And if there's anything that is "below noise level" after a gazillion particle collision, it is the discovery of the top quark in such collision. It is worse than finding a needle in a haystack!

But still, we found them! The people who make such proposal (note the source and origin) also make a series of verifiable, testable, and quantitative prediction on where to look for them IF they exist! This is how you try to convince people that such an entity exist, i.e. by producing a series of measurable outcomes that can be falsified. It isn't via telling everyone else that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't mean it isn't there!

So I am utterly done and thoroughly jaded with this continuing excuses as if it is science's fault that we haven't detected such paranormal phenomena. Somehow, when it comes to paranormal studies, the rules are turned the other way, where it is the rest of us who have to falsify the claims, and not those who are proposing it who have to show that it is valid. Why are they so special?

The search for something small and improbable are very weak excuses for the failure to verify these things in light of all the utterly difficult search we go through in high energy physics. And to elevate the existence of these paranormal phenomena to being legitimate just because we have no way of measuring it yet is ridiculous. I could easily speculate (isn't that what we're doing here?) that, once we KNOW how to measure them, then we can show they are not there (ref: the classical ether, EPR's hidden variables).

So yes, I know how to play this game as well.

Zz.

Okay, so these are the two opposing views on the subject. Anything else is just going around in circles.

 

[Count Iblis]

I agree with ZapperZ. What has to be stressed is that any claim of a paranormal ability is, by definition, a claim that the known laws of physics can be violated. It is more than just a claim that someone can do something extraordinary.

Just postulating that there may be very weak effects that we don't know of yet then doesn't make the case that it is a priori plausible that such effects will not be compatible with the known laws of physics. To the contrary, when we investigate new phenomena, the prior assumption is always that the laws of physics as we know them apply (unless we do experiments at a regime where one would expect deviations).

So, if one wants to, a priori, question the validity of the laws of physics in processes involving the human brain and assume that everything beyond which has been directly measured in experiments can be questioned, then why not do the same for everything else?

Why not assume that the laws of thermodynamics are not valid inside the Sun? In case of the solar interior you have much more room for "paranormal events" than in case of the brain.

And why can't there exist a small planet in our Milky Way where the laws of physics are completely different? There could be a few of such "paranormal planets" and we would very likely never know about that.

 

[Mammo]

The counter argument to the above is given in post #129.

 

[Pithagoras]

I keep an open mind regarding psychic phenomena, especially as I have had experiences which made me question whether we are anywhere near understanding the full potential of our minds. I used to record my dreams, and occasionally one would occur that might be classed under the heading "psychic." I have read skeptics saying that we all dream all of the time and the odds are that sooner or later we will get lucky and predict something. However I would like to relate one precognitive dream that I experienced that really stood out for me, that I couldn't explain away by chance. At the time I lived and worked in the city and in my dream I found myself on a distinctive country road, very winding, with fields either side. I live in the UK and back then there was a well known radio/tv presenter called John Peel who got a lot of air time (he is now sadly deceased). In the dream I heard him commentating on the scene as I go along this road. I see police crime scene tape along the hedges, and I hear Peel saying that "the police are helping the elderly cross the road" or something to that effect. It was very vivid and when I woke up I wrote it down, as was my practice at the time, in a notebook I kept. Some time later I had to move to a new place of work and one day I drove with a colleague to see this place. It was outside town, in the country. As I turned off the carriageway I found myself on a windy country road, just like in my dream, which I immediately recalled. It was quite a surreal feeling. I had never been to this place before physically. What capped the day off however was later on that night I visited my parents and I was upstairs in the bathroom. My dad was watching tv in one of the bedrooms and next thing I hear John Peel's voice, obviously commentating on a program. Now this wasn't that unusual back then, he was on tv quite a lot. But what spooked me was when I went into the room to see what the program was about, it was to do with elderly people who were victims of crime, and how the police liased with them. So in my dream, several months prior there were 3 main things that stood out, the strange road, John Peel commentating my dream, and the link between the police and elderly people. Then months later all these things come together in the same day.

Possibly an even stranger dream involved someone coming to the door of my house. I looked out and saw a fellow I recognized from work there. I went down to answer but he had gone, but he had posted a "death certificate" through the letterbox. There was no name on it or anything. I awoke and recorded the dream as usual. The next day I was sitting in my office at my computer, by this stage I had forgot about the dream. Then I got an email from our main office in town (I was working at the out of town location by this stage) stating that a colleague had died the night before, and offering sympathy to his family and that. Just as I was reading it someone walked through the door of the office. It was the fellow in work who had left me the death notice in my dream. As "chance" would have it, he chose that day to come to our site, he was normally based in town. I hadn't seen or spoken to him before in months, he was a field engineer. The first words he said were about the guy who had died, asking had I heard.

I always had an open mind as to this kind of stuff from when I was a child, so I don't know if that made me more susceptible to these kind of experiences. I do find it hard to explain them away to be honest.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I keep an open mind regarding psychic phenomena...

... I do find it hard to explain them away to be honest.

Your two anecdotes are much like any I might offer from my own similar experiences in that the events you seem to have glimpsed ahead of time were not particularly important to you. You'd have forgotten both by now except for them having apparently been premonitored.

There's a certain notion this only clicks in when there's something important coming, but it seems that's not exclusively true.

I don't know what that might mean for any argument pro or con. Just something I noticed.

 

[Pithagoras]

Your two anecdotes are much like any I might offer from my own similar experiences in that the events you seem to have glimpsed ahead of time were not particularly important to you. You'd have forgotten both by now except for them having apparently been premonitored.

There's a certain notion this only clicks in when there's something important coming, but it seems that's not exclusively true.

I don't know what that might mean for any argument pro or con. Just something I noticed.

Of course the problem with dreams is they are subjective experiences... I can only offer to share a few of my experiences, but I don't really expect anyone to believe me. I wouldn't care to argue with anyone whether or not they were "real". My own perspective on what is real has definitely been influenced by them though. I don't believe in a Cartesian split between mind and matter, and saying that everything (including what we term mind) is actually an epiphenomenon of matter is just the reverse of saying that everything (including matter) is really the produce of mind. The mistake I feel is to elevate one aspect over the other... why can't they be simultaneous and complementary? For example when I look at a nice car I am looking at a combination of physical and chemical elements, yes, but I am also looking at a compendium of thought stored alongside those elements; the ideas that govern the design and function of the physical elements. Although I used the word govern this is really an illusion, the physical materials we use to give our ideas expression will gradually return to their natural state; nothing stands truly immortalized. Even what appears as empty space is in a constant state of flux.

Sorry just rambling away to myself there!

 

[Chronos]

Lucid dreams are not rare. They are, however, perplexing. They may appear to predict the future, but, only after the fact. Predicting the future would be a bad thing, IMO.