Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[zoobyshoe]

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.

That's my main suspicion about these dream premonitions: they are false memories of a prior dream created shortly after the event actually occurs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

Wow, I'm sorry I missed this one. Clearly part of the problem is that you see this as some kind of game. This is not a game.

You seem to be missing the point. With quarks, you can predict exactly the conditions that will produce them after so many collisions, right; or at least the odds that one will be produced after so many collisions? How does that compare to something like ball lightning, where we don't even know when or where to look? We don't know where to look or when to look because have no model to use for predictions. And for perspective, the anecdotal evidence for ball lightning is no better than the anecdotal evidence for ghosts [the claimed phenomena, not the interpretations of that phenomena], in fact it is probably far weaker, yet we accept the former to be real. How do we justify that one?

What would be your chance of finding a top quark if you had no model to use for finding them? The difference is that in particle physics, you are testing a model, not a claim.

If there are genuine psychic events that are not producible on demand, then it may be that we have no way to test the claims. If there is something wrong with that logic, please tell me specifically what it is. It isn't that we can say we have scientific evidence that the phenomenona exist, but we can't falsify claims of direct experience by faith either. It could be that we simply can't anticipate or artificially produce the conditions that allow for repeatable results.

Your position seems to be that anecdotal evidence counts as no evidence at all. While that is true for science, there are some questions that science has no way to address; at least not yet. What's more, logic is not limited to scientific constraints. If science cannot test a claim, then the next best thing is to determine what non-scientific evidence does exist and try to make sense of it. From there, perhaps insights to proper analysis will eventually be realized. But to simply deny all claims with no way to test them, is a leap of faith. I expect more than that.

I should add that many claims may soon be subject to reliable lie detector tests. So any suggestion that this is a game of catch your tail is absolutely false and only shows a lack of imagination. Just think ahead a bit. Sometimes it isn't that hard to see a solution. It may just take a little more time. Then we can know who is lying, and who is telling the truth to the best of their ability.

 

[Count Iblis]

It is actually surprising to see how difficult to verify claims by only a handful of people on Earth usually does get verified eventually. Take e.g. the claim that the galaxy M81 can be seen with the naked eye under exceptionaly good observing conditions, http://messier.obspm.fr/xtra/supp/m81naked.txt"

To be able to see M81, you would need to be at a place where the sky is http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/darksky/3304011.html" and you need to have good eye-sight. But even if you succeed, there is no way for someone else to verify that you did indeed see it. Nevertheless this does not turn out to be a problem, the fact that M81 can be seen with the naked eye is not considered to be controversial at all.

 

[Chronos]

Isnt avoiding disaster in the future the whole point of these exercises? Global warming is a potential disaster, not an imminent one. I believe we have power to choose what we wish to avoid once we foresee the consequences of 'business as usual'.

 

[far2close]

So has not anybody tryed algorithms to see what kind of %there is on the evidence.Thats what its there for.

 

[Jason Calvert]

Hello this is my first time on this forum. I have enjoyed your posts. I was wondering what you think of the work done by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin on this subject. What do you think of their studies and evidence? Looking forward to your thoughts.

Thank you,

 

[Evo]

Hello this is my first time on this forum. I have enjoyed your posts. I was wondering what you think of the work done by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin on this subject. What do you think of their studies and evidence? Looking forward to your thoughts.

Thank you,

They are not respected.

The new material includes interviews with a crackpot parapsychologist (Dean Radin, from the “Institute of Noetic Sciences”)

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=342

Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/sheldrake.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It was announced last month that a paper would be published before the end of the year that allegedly vindicates some of Radin's work. So far we haven't seen anything.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=447224

The author of the paper claims to have eight years of data to support his claims.

Please be sure to limit any discussion of the paper to the thread linked.

 

[far2close]

I have not but will look into it thank you.What do you think of david morehouse?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have not but will look into it thank you.What do you think of david morehouse?

Perhaps the better question is, "Does David Morehouse have any published papers?".

I have no idea who he is.

 

[far2close]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

 

[Evo]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html

Dean Radin in The Conscious Universe says that the remote viewing program “finally wound down in 1994.” He doesn’t mention that the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community

 

[far2close]

After thay spent like what 20 million or more.Its a possibility that thay went deep black from what i heard.

 

[FlexGunship]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

I was not impressed by Stargate or any of it's spin-offs. If CIA "remote viewing" were reliable (or existent), then we certainly wouldn't need pesky bills like the Patriot Act. As far as "not being smart," you would have a hard time finding individuals better suited to dismantling your arguments than Ivan and Evo.

Heres a fun experiment.Tell a friend what you have on your mind weather it be negative or positive energy,must be focused.Then proceed to walk into a room completely hiding that energy inside yourself.Between you and your friend analyze peoples reaction.Very good for a chuckle!

It's hardly an experiment at all. The preconditions are poorly defined. What could it mean to tell a friend if you have positive or negative energy on your mind regardless of its focal status?

So I am supposed to tell my friend that I am thinking about dolphins, then measure the response of other individuals in the room to my thoughts about dolphins? Your idea is barely coherent. There is no control case, and the entire idea is fraught with cognitive biases. How do we define a positive or negative result to the test? How do we separate these results from chance and noise?

After thay spent like what 20 million or more.Its a possibility that thay went deep black from what i heard.

Ah, yes, of course.

Is still the friend/weather thing? Someone spent 20 million (unitless) hiding their thoughts from a room full of people? That certainly leaves something to be desired from the investment aspect. I wouldn't even know how to calculate a rate of return.

 

[FlexGunship]

(Sad but true.Ever play poker that's the goal.As for the return gust got to guess what the other guy is thinking. lol.)

Pardon?

The cryptic manner of your speech is leaving my brain feeling a bit like it's suffering from aphasia. What does it mean to "gust got to guess"?

Also, it seems you've added lots of little afterthoughts to my quote. I would appreciate it if you would unquote the things that I didn't say so as to avoid the illusion that I've said them.

Also, regarding your single-king theory: which king could you be referring to? It is whichever king has most recently achieved monarchical status, or is it... oh, nevermind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community

There is one credible problem with that statement. What would they say if it worked?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

I am familiar with the claims surrounding the Stargate program but didn't know of that particular person. I did once invite Ed Dames [former CIA] to parcipate here and demonstrate his alleged skill, but he declined.

I must admit that I also saw Michael Shermer test four remote viewing students, including one who was supposed to be a star pupil. Frankly, I thought the star pupil produced a drawing and description that could qualify as a hit. The target was a photo of a spiral galaxy. The remote viewer drew spirals and kept describing it as a "vortex" or "whirlpool of energy". Was it a hit? There is no way to really know. And that is the problem. The alleged hits are usually subject to interpretation. I have only seen one demonstration that resulted in an undeniable hit, but this was some TV show, so there was no way to know if the demo was legit.

What I found bothersome was that Shermer didn't want to admit that it could be argued a hit. Even the advocates don't claim that the viewers can produce reliable descriptions that are absolute. But again, this is why it gets too flakey. One can usually argue that any correlation between the target and the remote viewing result is in the mind of the observer. This subjectivity may be why the CIA presumably wasted so much time on this. It may be an endless game of chasing your own tail.

Late Edit: I may not have described the test accurately. It has been a good number of years since I saw it... I am now thinking the photo was the Hubble Deepfield image and the viewer drew one spiral, but the point is the same. Based on the nature of the claims related to this alleged skill, I thought one had to allow that it could be a hit. Given that Shermer was the one controlling the test, I found it a bit surprising.

 

[DBTS]

There is one credible problem with that statement. What would they say if it worked?

Cannot let that sucker get out!

I like what zoobyshoe said concerning the subtle mental notes:

"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"​

We never know who we might come into contact with and sometimes when we do, even the most subtle hints are clues linking a murderer to its victim, or something to something. That is a rather far out idea of mine based on zoob's post, but I think it is possible.

 

[Drakkith]

Seems to me that if you are a believer, you simply accept the so called "evidence" as being for psychic phenomena, and if you arent, then you dont.

The difference here is that the evidence has yet to ever hold up to close scrutiny under good and valid circumstances. And every time it doesnt, someone makes an excuse like "Well, they can't always do it on demand" or something like that.

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different. A very large number of frauds have been discovered before which also reduces the validity of "evidence" for psychic phenomena. I know of several times I have read about a so-called "Psychic" that predicts some event true, and it turns out that they were either very skilled in deducing events using evidence, knew about the event beforehand, or their prediction was so vague that you could interpret it 100 different ways.

Out of all the realms of Magic, Psychics, and other areas, NONE of them have EVER been able to affect the world like Science and Technology has. Why? Because NONE of them are reproducible to any extent whatsoever.

I believe that many people simply believe things because they have to or because they want too. And not simply in this area. I have a friend who has told me that she NEEDS to believe in a god because otherwise she sees no purpose in life. Without ANY evidence to believe this, she feels that she MUST. I see similar circumstances here.

Evidence for psychic phenomena? It can most likely be attributed to something else. It's what's probable, not what's possible to me. Why? Because I can't honestly say that i KNOW something is impossible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Seems to me that if you are a believer, you simply accept the so called "evidence" as being for psychic phenomena, and if you arent, then you dont.

The difference here is that the evidence has yet to ever hold up to close scrutiny under good and valid circumstances. And every time it doesnt, someone makes an excuse like "Well, they can't always do it on demand" or something like that.

Thay may not be correct. As referenced earlier, we are waiting to see if a paper will be published, as was announced, showing, allegedly, eight years of experimental evidence for precognition. At this point we can only wait and see what happens.

See this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=447224

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different.

That is a strawman argument. If psychic phenomena exist, it is the result of neither magic or demons. It would simply be a manifestation of physical laws that either we didn't expect, or perhaps one that we don't understand. It is a fond tradition of the human species to assign anything we don't understand to the world of magic.

A very large number of frauds have been discovered before which also reduces the validity of "evidence" for psychic phenomena. I know of several times I have read about a so-called "Psychic" that predicts some event true, and it turns out that they were either very skilled in deducing events using evidence, knew about the event beforehand, or their prediction was so vague that you could interpret it 100 different ways.

I think we all agree that so-called "psychics" have never been able to produce repeatable results. However, this does not rule out the possibility that psychic events occur. These can be two very different ideas. Psychics claim to control this ability and produce results more or less on demand. Just as an example of the loopholes still open, it could be that all so-called psychics are frauds or deluding themselves, but psychic events do occur randomly or for reasons we don't understand, but only rarely - say once in a lifetime for one out of every 1 million people. In this case it might be very difficult to identify any genuine events. So some scientists [crackpots or not] have devoted decades to developing tests that might detect an underlying signal for psychic phenomena, in a manner acceptable to science.

What makes the remote viewing claims difficult to evaluate are the subjective elements. We seemingly can't apply a simple pass or fail test. The inability to precisely define the parameters for success may be what tricks people into believing they are remote viewing, when they're really not [assuming such things are not possible].

 

[Drakkith]

Perhaps i didn't explain myself well enough Ivan.

I don't believe in psychic phomena for the reasons i stated above. However, I maintain the attitude that if it happens and we can see it and prove its psychic then so be it. Until then, it won't belong in science. (As I've read here before, If there's no way to prove it or run any experiments, then it pretty much doesn't matter) Or something like that at least.

If there's a paper out on it, then we'll wait and see. =)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps i didn't explain myself well enough Ivan.

I don't believe in psychic phomena for the reasons i stated above. However, I maintain the attitude that if it happens and we can see it and prove its psychic then so be it. Until then, it won't belong in science. (As I've read here before, If there's no way to prove it or run any experiments, then it pretty much doesn't matter) Or something like that at least.

If there's a paper out on it, then we'll wait and see. =)

Fair enough. Ultimately the point was that while some types of claims about psychic phenomena seem to be reasonably debunked, this isn't true of all types of claims. Some can probably never be falsified - no proving a universal negative.

 

[Calrik]

There is none that has been subject to scientific scrutiny. That said that doesn't mean it doesn't exist just that we can't find it.

Would be nice to, but it would probably decimate the laws of physics. Is that a bad thing no, science thrives on it but their are too many laws it would violate to explain it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is none that has been subject to scientific scrutiny. That said that doesn't mean it doesn't exist just that we can't find it.

Would be nice to, but it would probably decimate the laws of physics. Is that a bad thing no, science thrives on it but their are too many laws it would violate to explain it.

What laws would it violate?

 

[Calrik]

What laws would it violate?

Materialism and evolution bear with me not exactly laws. Why would man need to evolve an ability it did not need?

 

[FlexGunship]

What laws would it violate?

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

 

[Calrik]

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

True but at the least you'd have to prove it no?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

There is also the remote possibility of something hiding in plain sight - all the pieces are there but no one has ever put it all together. However, there seems to be little doubt that such a discovery would be a paradigm changer.

As you indicated, it is impossible to speculate about violations of physical laws without a suggested mechanism for a particular form of ESP. I am not aware of any physical laws that ESP would necessarily violate, in principle.

 

[FlexGunship]

As you indicated, it is impossible to speculate about violations of physical laws without a suggested mechanism for a particular form of ESP. I am not aware of any physical laws that ESP would necessarily violate, in principle.

Well, right. Observing ESP would not be, for example, grounds for overthrowing general relativity. However, if Z bosons were found to carry ideas and intuition, then we would have to strongly revise our understanding of the weak nuclear force.

The same would certainly be true of any force carrier.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, right. Observing ESP would not be, for example, grounds for overthrowing general relativity. However, if Z bosons were found to carry ideas and intuition, then we would have to strongly revise our understanding of the weak nuclear force.

The same would certainly be true of any force carrier.

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

 

[FlexGunship]

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

That's like begging the question without asking a question. Not a tautology... there must be a name for this particular linguistic riposte.

Yes, also by definition, if it happens then no laws are violated.

 

[TERR0RBYTE]

"such a discovery would be a paradigm changer."

this is the big issue, to be totally frank I wouldn't believe it, it flies in the face of what we know about the world. To actually do a U-turn on not believing it works and its probably a scam to believing it works is very difficult, I however did this and it was not easy. Just to demonstrate this: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1454382 it was either this paper or the one Targ et al published before it was published and well received in most scientific circle's as it was assumed some electromagnetic mechanism in the brain, like radio which conformed to physical laws, so for the next experiments they took the viewer in a sub deep in the ocean to see if anything could block it as they hypothesised it should. When it didn't and it appeared to work anywhere in the world equally as well no matter the distance the was widespread denial and refusal from many mainstream journals.
I saw a TV show on discovery channel about operation stargate, the remote viewing program the government ran, I was so bored one night and feeling in the mood I thought what the hell i will give it a try, got some double blind targets of the web some paper and did about 10 of them. Nailed all of them on basic gestalt and most details, one them actually named it. Totally freaked me out and excited me at the same time, i did more after that for the next few years, have many solid double blind targets which i have named outright, some really unsual stuff like millimeter wave weapons targeting radar etc, stuff which the is no ambiguity. But the point is only personal proof is good enough for most people, I WOULD NOT, believe it unless i had either myself or someone else work many targets for me which were double blind, because i think we all can agree here real or not its pretty far out there. One guy who does do SOLID parapsycholgy research is Ed May, he's probably the best place to look if your looking for evidence, as well as joe mcmoneagle, probably the best living real psychic in the world. (he was in the DIA program, and the only way skeptics can actually explain away how he does its is fraud, and other people in on it as well not just him).

And as for the skeptics, some are real honest guys trying to get to the bottom of it as the are a lot of frauds around, hell even i think 99.9% TV psychics are frauds. I know derran brown can do what they do so why shouldn't they be.
However most media skeptics are just pushing there own agenda and don't seem to be interested in the truth much just getting rid of something that does not fit in with there worldview. Wiseman has been voted of some societies for alledgedly because his behaviour was not consistent with commonly accepted standards of scientific integrity. Randi also has his problems in that he has no credibility, his challenge is a joke, I could have the same rules and challenge people to prove to me that the sea is blue and they would still never win. Thats not to say that people who can remote view don't make crazy claims either, that the is no way they can live up to or complete i think it attracts a certain type of person, because i think to actually believe it works right of the bat you have to be a bit, well batty, as its not rational to believe this stuff works without some decent personal evidence, because of this the are a lot of nuts in the remote viewing field, as well as the more grounded people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different.

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

That's like begging the question without asking a question. Not a tautology... there must be a name for this particular linguistic riposte.

Not at all. I was reflecting back on the strawman argument that ESP claims amount to magical claims. While we have no expectation that ESP is possible, that does not exlude the possiblity that some claims have a basis in unrecognized processes; or in the most extreme case, new physics. To argue that a phenomenon exists is not the same as claiming magic - that the laws of physics are necessarily violated. The allusion to magic is a classic dodge used to discredit the suggestion that there might be something we don't understand.

Yes, also by definition, if it happens then no laws are violated.

Yes. Like Einstein's spooky action at a distance, if some form of ESP is found to be genuine, it will be considered natural, not magic. In fact, if you ask me, Quantum Entanglement is no less mystifying than the discovery of ESP would be. Of course the former was predicted, not discovered, but how it happens is still magic to me.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes. Like Einstein's spooky action at a distance, if some form of ESP is found to be genuine, it will be considered natural, not magic. In fact, if you ask me, Quantum Entanglement is no less mystifying than the discovery of ESP would be. Of course the former was predicted, not discovered, but how it happens is still magic to me.

Isn't that kind of a huge difference, though? Quantum entanglement came from theory: tested and verified. Isn't it compelling that there just seems to be no room for ESP? I'm not actually arguing that there couldn't be some form of ESP, I'm merely trying to suggest that there just doesn't seem to be room for it anymore.

In my view of ESP as a natural phenomenon it would have to be something that predates the existence of the human brain: a force-carrier particle/wave that our brains have evolved to use as a type of additional sense. The type of information that a single espion (yes, I just made that up) would be considered one quanta of the ESP force/field. Our brains would have to be laced with espion receptors and probably espion transmitters.

Again, I'm not arguing that our brains are not populated by espion transmitters and receivers, but isn't it a little compelling that no theory has suggested the existence of these? Furthermore, what could it mean for an espion to carry one quanta of "intuition"?

These are just questions to help generate some critical thought on the topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

ESP is a catch-all term that is misleading in my view. After all, does one mean that this is a psychic sense, as is normally implied, or that a subliminal gestalt actually works sometimes and we guess right?

Either way, for ESP to exist in any meaningful form would require either new physics, or new brains and bodies; ours aren't built for long-range transmission or reception, never mind that we'd need part of our brain to interpret the input. I think ESP, like the expectation of seeing a legendary winged dragon... is moving from, "Hath any man seen so much of the world that he, challenging god almighty, would say what does not exist?"... to... "It's ****ing magic, or it doesn't exist."

If by magic, we accede either to the traditional definition, or the Arthur C. Clarke definition that is.

 

[pftest]

Its important to realize that ESP doesn't merely concern brains, but also experiences. So there is not just the physical component, on which we can apply the different ideas in physics (i don't believe there is "no room", even without QM there are ideas in physics that get rid of our common sense ideas of time and space), but there is a mental component to ESP also.

The mental component (consciousness) makes it more an issue of philosophy/metaphysics. Thinking about consciousness in physical terms often makes no sense at all. For example, how far is the color red removed from the smell of onions? Just eat some onions while looking at something red and see if you can answer the question. I am not talking about neurons here, I am talking about the actual experiences. They exist in such a way that it is meaningless to describe them in physical terms. Is it really any easier to answer the question when it is 2 people on opposite sides of the world that are doing the onion-smelling and red-seeing?

So long as we don't know what consciousness is (whats the neural correlate, does it even have one?), where it came from, how long its been around, etc. the sky is the limit wrt the existence of ESP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are all confusing positing a phenomenon, with a claimed phenomenon. We all know there is no scientific expectation for ESP. However, people claim it happens. In many cases, there is no way to falsify these claims.

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Nismar, your argument is only valid within its domain. Again, by definition we don't know how it could happen. So we can say that there is no known scientific model that could account for ESP claims. But that is not proof that it doesn't happen.

It is pointless to speculate about how likely ESP might seem. Unless someone suddenly produces a physical model predicting the existence of some form of ESP, in the end, the only thing that matters is whether an acceptable test can be designed and applied, to test the claim directly. If not, then the claim or class of claims cannot be falsified. We can never state for a fact that the claim is false. If it [a class of claims] can be tested but hasn't been, then we still can't say the claim is falsified; whether we expect to find anything or not. Some claims have been tested ad infintum with no accepted significant results, such as in the PEAR project. So it would seem that at least many of those types of claim are reasonably debunked. That is not proof that these things never happen, but we have a fair amount of experimental evidence suggeting there is nothing to it. [It is claimed that there are very slight indications for phenomena in some some cases, that are only seen using meta-analysis, but as yet, no paper describing these results has been accepted for publication in a mainstream journal.

There are logical limits to what we can and cannot state as fact, no matter how confident we might be. At the same time, no matter what we might discover, no matter how strange the universe may be, we still expect all real phenomena to act according to physical laws.

 

[FlexGunship]

Its important to realize [...] etc. the sky is the limit wrt the existence of ESP.

(The post is just above, please see for further detail.)

You posit experiences that aren't products of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. That's a very extreme luxury you take with your interpretation. What could it mean for a person to experience something but not to do so with their brain?

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Granted... without reservation. I simply take the position that history has shown that it is wiser to act on skepticism than to act on belief. I will resist the urge to elaborate for fear of getting overly specific.

EDIT: Ivan, I find that we often disagree on the minutia of a topic, but rarely on the larger concepts. Discovery and experimentation are the cornerstones are human advancement and I would never suggest that "discovery" is impossible. The discovery of ESP would be amazing! But our excitement about that possibility is what ruins our objectivity. I maintain the position that the chances of it existing are essentially negligible, but I welcome proof (I, however, will spend my time on more concrete matters)!

 

[nismaratwork]

You are all confusing positing a phenomenon, with a claimed phenomenon. We all know there is no scientific expectation for ESP. However, people claim it happens. In many cases, there is no way to falsify these claims.

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Nismar, your argument is only valid within its domain. Again, by definition we don't know how it could happen. So we can say that there is no known scientific model that could account for ESP claims. But that is not proof that it doesn't happen.

It is pointless to speculate about how likely ESP might seem. Unless someone suddenly produces a physical model predicting the existence of some form of ESP, in the end, the only thing that matters is whether an acceptable test can be designed and applied, to test the claim directly. If not, then the claim or class of claims cannot be falsified. We can never state for a fact that the claim is false. If it [a class of claims] can be tested but hasn't been, then we still can't say the claim is falsified; whether we expect to find anything or not. Some claims have been tested ad infintum with no accepted significant results, such as in the PEAR project. So it would seem that at least many of those types of claim are reasonably debunked. That is not proof that these things never happen, but we have a fair amount of experimental evidence suggeting there is nothing to it. [It is claimed that there are very slight indications for phenomena in some some cases, that are only seen using meta-analysis, but as yet, no paper describing these results has been accepted for publication in a mainstream journal.

There are logical limits to what we can and cannot state as fact, no matter how confident we might be. At the same time, no matter what we might discover, no matter how strange the universe may be, we still expect all real phenomena to act according to physical laws.

What I responded to was the notion of ESP being magic, above all, and really... nothing you've said makes it any less so. If ESP is real, it just means that's a kind of magic that's real... still magic though. As Flex pointed out to pftest, in accepting the possibility of ESP divorced from the body and brain is to essentially posit dualism (at least), or entertain it. It doesn't have to be a religious or spiritual dualism in this case, but if there's ESP, then something beyond our biology is at work, and it mysteriously evades confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques. At some point the lack of confirmation, given the potency of such an ability, is its own kind of dissuading factor, if not falsification.

 

[FlexGunship]

...but if there's ESP, then something beyond our biology is at work...

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?

...and it mysteriously evades confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques...

Which is a serious criticism.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?



Which is a serious criticism.

ESP, even if it operated through magical means, would still require processing in the brain to be of any use to us. I think that the world of human biology has been tacked down well enough that if we acted as encoders, transmitters, receivers, decoders, PLUS we filter other "esp" not intended for us or useful as sensory input... well, if we had that kind of machinery it would show. If there are means by which the body as a whole can provide a meaningful extra sense of the 'ESP' variety, there should be a shred of evidence.

Now, you'd be justified in challenging this assertion, as you have, and it IS an assertion that comes perilously close to assuming a negative. Let's work through this however: ESP would require either interaction with known forces in SOME way, and using that to carry information (so no FTL) even if it's passive. It's true that receiving a signal wouldn't take energy, but filtering it, interpreting... would. If you're transmitting, then ESP becomes even more absurd if you search for a biological basis... hell, you'd have people burning through calories like mad for... what?

That's the final critique: ESP would have had to evolve, and to stick around it would have to confer an advantage. What advantage does another sense that apparently virtually everyone is unaware of confer that makes up for its carrying cost, and cost to use? Remember, we have the animals kingdom to study, and they seem to be doing well enough with 5 senses, often with several greatly amplified and attenuated for focus. Someday... someday people will accept that barring actual evidence to START the concept, ESP doesn't have any biological footprint on the body or brain.

If I told you I thought with my toenails... you'd laugh, so what part of the brain or body deals with another sense? Hence, I call magic on this.

 

[FlexGunship]

ESP, even if it operated through magical means [...] I call magic on this.

Nismar, I fully agree with you. In fact, I noticed you borrowing some of my earlier post about there being no ESP force carrier ("espion" as I called it). I'm with you. Totally.

However, if something we recognized as qualifying as "ESP" were actually discovered, we would have to admit it's not magic. It's just some physical property of the universe.

However, again, and I reiterate, additionally, for one last time... I don't for a moment believe that this property exists. Enough is known about reality to state "it just doesn't fit."

 

[pftest]

(The post is just above, please see for further detail.)

You posit experiences that aren't products of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. That's a very extreme luxury you take with your interpretation. What could it mean for a person to experience something but not to do so with their brain?

Im just pointing out that materialism is one of the different metaphysical positions. Thats not my interpretation, its a reality for everyone. I just brought it up to address the "there is no room for ESP" bit. Just take a look at idealism and you see how much room there is.

What I responded to was the notion of ESP being magic, above all, and really... nothing you've said makes it any less so. If ESP is real, it just means that's a kind of magic that's real... still magic though. As Flex pointed out to pftest, in accepting the possibility of ESP divorced from the body and brain is to essentially posit dualism (at least), or entertain it.

He didnt point this out to me, i pointed it out to him that there are other metaphysical options. Dualism is one of them, but it is not so that non-materialism implies dualism. Materialism is a type of monism, but there are other types of monism (for example neutral monism, panpsychism, idealism).

Btw you mention ESP evading fMRI and other scans, but no experience has ever been seen on fMRI or any other measuring device.

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?

If we can't measure it, then why would you call it biological (or physical), which are terms that refer to the observed properties of bodies? They arent container-terms that one can fit everything into.

 

[FlexGunship]

If we can't measure it, then why would you call it biological (or physical), which are terms that refer to the observed properties of bodies? They arent container-terms that one can fit everything into.

Uhh... ESP is by definition a measurable phenomenon (if it exists in any sense). Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate between non-ESP and ESP.

If ESP didn't ultimately culminate in a biological response then there would be absolutely no reason to suggest its existence.

I'm not actually sure how to be more clear than that.

 

[pftest]

Uhh... ESP is by definition a measurable phenomenon (if it exists in any sense). Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate between non-ESP and ESP.

If ESP didn't ultimately culminate in a biological response then there would be absolutely no reason to suggest its existence.

I'm not actually sure how to be more clear than that.

But we can't even measure sensory perception. The difference between ESP and SP would be inferred. For example, when all senses are blocked and the subject still receives information, it could not be SP.

 

[FlexGunship]

But we can't even measure sensory perception. The difference between ESP and SP would be inferred. For example, when all senses are blocked and the subject still receives information, it could not be SP.

I'm not sure I agree with the test parameters specifically, but I do agree with you that ESP would be easy to test for.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar, I fully agree with you. In fact, I noticed you borrowing some of my earlier post about there being no ESP force carrier ("espion" as I called it). I'm with you. Totally.

However, if something we recognized as qualifying as "ESP" were actually discovered, we would have to admit it's not magic. It's just some physical property of the universe.

However, again, and I reiterate, additionally, for one last time... I don't for a moment believe that this property exists. Enough is known about reality to state "it just doesn't fit."

See, this is the thing, if there WERE an ESPion... that wouldn't be so odd. OK, it would be really odd, but maybe an ESPion is just what we're calling another super-pair in the E8 group? Even then, if you interact with the ESPion field, just as we evolved means to navigate EM fields, and the geometry of Gravity (seeing, walking and talking, etc) we could interact with that. Of course, just as with a person who can inexplicably see further into the IR or UV realm than the average, I should be able to look at your retina and note rods and cones of sizes not expected.

When I say anything not rooted in biology here is magical, you're getting what I mean, I think. The existence of a field or boson doesn't mean that we can interact with it, even indirectly in a comprehensible fashion. Maybe our body as a whole acts as an ESPion antenna, but even then if we interpret that ESP through the lens of our normal feelings and senses, we should see that activity. Realistically as you pointed out, the entire ESPion concept is as generous as ESP gets in physics, and biology really kills the notion of us using something other than our voices and body language to communicate over distances.

Anyway, we do agree in terms of our opinions as to the existence of ESP (doesn't fit), but this is of course nowhere near good enough. Don't think that I mistake your arguments as PRO, I see them as good arguments, period.

pftest: To your point about MRIs... yeah, that's my POINT. If you could demonstrate a psychic talent, the means to see WHATEVER is happening in terms of blood-flow to given regions. That... doesn't... happen. In fact, if you put someone who TRULY believes they're psychic, much as someone suffering from 'Hysterical Blindness' is convinced of their inability to see... you see a BIG difference:

-The person who can see, but doesn't KNOW it:
1.) We see reactions in the brain up to the point of CONSCIOUS visual processing, but we can see that the person is unconsciously processing visual data.
2.) They don't lie about what they're seeing or not.

-The person who claims to be psychic:
1.) Just looks like someone telling a story if they really believe it.
2.) Partial Complex Seizures or other abnormalities: their 'psychic' power is just aura.
3.) NOTHING.

That doesn't prove a negative of course, but like advocates for the Aether... it's not encouraging. You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK. You claim that we can't measure sensory perception... I call BS. What do you think it means to watch as blood moves from one area of the brain to another when presented with stimuli? Hell, you can measure it, just as we know the nm range of EM radiation = visual light for humans.

 

[FlexGunship]

You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK.

How many times to you ask a person the same proverbial question before you conclude they don't know the answer?

What's the capital of Wyoming? Bismark
What's the capital of Wyoming? Concord
What's the capital of Wyoming? East Indiana
What's the capital of Wyoming? Bismark
What's the capital of Wyoming? Maine
What's the capital of Wyoming? Yes
What's the capital of Wyoming? Mauve
What's the capital of Wyoming? THE KRAKEN!

I'm with you Nismar.

 

[pftest]

You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK.

Can you mention some of these sensory deprivation tests?