Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[nismaratwork]

Can you mention some of these sensory deprivation tests?

Yes... but I'll be honest, they're old studies back when this was being seriously explored. I'll have to check some archives, but I'll link to a few.

FlexGunship: LOL... The Kraken... although my favorite answer is still mauve.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes... but I'll be honest, they're old studies back when this was being seriously explored. I'll have to check some archives, but I'll link to a few.

Here's a Wiki about some tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment). You'll notice they suffer very strongly from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can just go ahead and paint that target anywhere you like.

 

[pftest]

Here's a Wiki about some tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment). You'll notice they suffer very strongly from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can just go ahead and paint that target anywhere you like.

Heres a quote from the wiki:

Parapsychologists such as Dean Radin and Daryl Bem say that ganzfeld experiments have yielded results that deviate from randomness to a significant degree, and that these results present some of the strongest quantifiable evidence for telepathy to date.[4] Critics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive.In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi.

The PRL trials continued until September 1989. Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This 34% hit rate was statistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These experiments were statistically significant with a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in 45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% by chance (mean chance expectation is 25%).[16][18]

The ganzfeld procedure has continued to be refined over the years. In its current incarnation, an automated computer system is used to select and display the targets ("digital autoganzfeld"). This overcomes many of the shortcomings of earlier experimental setups, such as randomization and experimenter blindness with respect to the targets [23]

In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[24]

So these tests don't really fit in the category of a ones that "have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics".

 

[FlexGunship]

So these tests doesn't really fit in the category of a ones "have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics".

You want to try again? Selective quoting works both ways. As far as it not being "done to death" we are bordering on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "That test isn't a good enough test for ESP." How many negative results do we need to accumulate before we conclude that the positive results are noise?

To see if other, post-Joint Communiqué experiments had been as successful as the PRL trials, Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments carried out in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, with a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[19]

Same source. Unfortunately, it seems that when you allow an unbiased analysis of the data, the effect disappears.

 

[pftest]

You want to try again? Selective quoting works both ways. As far as it not being "done to death" we are bordering on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "That test isn't a good enough test for ESP." How many negative results do we need to accumulate before we conclude that the positive results are noise?

This doesn't make any sense. If the test isn't good enough and many think it had positive results, then why try to pass it off as a negative result?

Thats like quoting someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then say that this indicates ghosts don't exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

This doesn't make any sense. If the test isn't good enough and many think it had positive results, then why try to pass it off as a negative result?

Thats like quoting someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then say that this indicates ghosts don't exist.

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

 

[pftest]

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

And a second meta-analysis showed positive results, but that's not the point here. The point is that the ganzeld experiments do not clearly offer negative results (as indicated by my quotes). There is a gigantic amount of ESP studies with positive results. No matter how sloppy these studies have been done, you cannot claim that they are an accumulation of evidence for the non-existence of ESP.

 

[nismaratwork]

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

HA!

To take a line from DevilsAvocado:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CWIIoSf4nw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CWIIoSf4nw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

"Well, I called me wife and I said to her, 'Will you kindly tell to me, Who owns the coat upon the door, Where my ol' coat should be?'"



pftest: The tests that Flex linked to are some of the best that HAVE been done to death. Without taking that phrase to its literal extreme, those tests are a dry socket, and if they were not do you think someone wouldn't snap up Randi's 1mil USD?

You end your last post in a way that seems as though you're trying to demand that Flex or I need to DISprove the EXISTENCE of this phenomenon? Burden. Of. Proof.

 

[pftest]

pftest: The tests that Flex linked to are some of the best that HAVE been done to death. Without taking that phrase to its literal extreme, those tests are a dry socket, and if they were not do you think someone wouldn't snap up Randi's 1mil USD?

Many ganzfeld tests have been done, with many positive results. See my earlier quotes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Many ganzfeld tests have been done, with many positive results. See my earlier quotes.

...And FlexGunship just finished explaining why and how that statement is false. This isn't a site where you can make unsubstantiated claims, especially in the face of contradictory evidence.

 

[pftest]

...And FlexGunship just finished explaining why and how that statement is false.

Im afraid not. As i explained earlier:

There is a gigantic amount of ESP studies with positive results. No matter how sloppy these studies have been done, you cannot claim that they are an accumulation of evidence for the non-existence of ESP.

 

[alt]

HA!

.. do you think someone wouldn't snap up Randi's 1mil USD? ..

Do you suppose though, that is someone indeed had psychic ability, that they would rush to prove it to Randi, with all the associated publicity and all ?

I would think that's the last thing they'd do if they had a brain.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do you suppose though, that is someone indeed had psychic ability, that they would rush to prove it to Randi, with all the associated publicity and all ?

I would think that's the last thing they'd do if they had a brain.

Already had this discussion, in this thread...

 

[nismaratwork]

Im afraid not. As i explained earlier:

Well, yes... you SAID that, but unless you can prove it you've got nothing. Flex explained why those results are NOT indicative of ESP.

 

[pftest]

Well, yes... you SAID that, but unless you can prove it you've got nothing. Flex explained why those results are NOT indicative of ESP.

I did prove it immediately, see my ganzfeld quotes. This is all in response to your view that sensory deprivation tests have been "done to death" and do not produce positive results. Quite the opposite is true.

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.

I don't know what the experiment is that you are describing here, but i do know that there also many brainscan ESP experiments with positive results.

 

[nismaratwork]

I did prove it immediately, see my ganzfeld quotes. This is all in response to your view that sensory deprivation tests have been "done to death" and do not produce positive results. Quite the opposite is true.

I don't know what the experiment is that you are describing here, but i do know that there also many brainscan ESP experiments with positive results.

That isn't proof, nor is it a valid citation in this context. You might as well tell me that the bible is true by quoting a bible. I'm going to wait for flex... other threads have me annoyed, and I find I'm no good to myself or others in threads such as this at times such as this.

 

[thorium1010]

I did prove it immediately, see my ganzfeld quotes. This is all in response to your view that sensory deprivation tests have been "done to death" and do not produce positive results. Quite the opposite is true.

I don't know what the experiment is that you are describing here, but i do know that there also many brainscan ESP experiments with positive results.

MRI scans and imaging do not prove ESP. They just indicate the brain is processing information either from stimuli or that there is a thought process in processing information.
In other words different parts of the brain are involved for different type of thought process or sensory or stimuli processing.

 

[nismaratwork]

MRI scans and imaging do not prove ESP. They just indicate the brain is processing information either from stimuli or that there is a thought process in processing information.
In other words different parts of the brain are involved for different type of thought process or sensory or stimuli processing.

He knows all of this by his own admission, but apparently chooses to ignore the fact. I think this little bird came here for a reason, perhaps explaining his name.

 

[pftest]

MRI scans and imaging do not prove ESP. They just indicate the brain is processing information either from stimuli or that there is a thought process in processing information.
In other words different parts of the brain are involved for different type of thought process or sensory or stimuli processing.

The "proof" here is in the context of me proving that ganzfeld tests have been done with positive results. I wasnt being ask to prove ESP or produce reliable peer reviewed evidence, just like i wasnt being asked to prove that extra terrestrial UFOs visit earth.

As for the brainscan ESP tests i mentioned, they were about pairs of people that were sensory isolated from each other, yet when one of them was visually stimulated, the other was found to have correlated neural activity.

 

[pftest]

He knows all of this by his own admission, but apparently chooses to ignore the fact.

ESP cannot be visible on fMRI, because even normal experiences arent visible on fMRI. I pointed this out to you earlier when you were talking about ESP "mysteriously evading confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques". You might as well have said that watching television and smelling onions "mysteriously evades...".

 

[nismaratwork]

ESP cannot be visible on fMRI, because even normal experiences arent visible on fMRI. I pointed this out to you earlier when you were talking about ESP "mysteriously evading confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques". You might as well have said that watching television and smelling onions "mysteriously evades...".

This isn't the place to argue for your personal beliefs in the supernatural, unless you can provide scientific evidence for that belief. You seem not to understand what the standard of evidence, or burden of proof is. I strongly recommend that you re-read the agreement you made when signing up for this site; maybe another one is for you.

That is, unless you have some shred of evidence that, "ESP cannot be visible on fMRI", and then... "normal experiences aren't visible on fMRI"... are you on drugs? What is it that you think a FUNCTIONAL MRI is and does?! You're measuring blood flow to specific regions of the brain during a number of NORMAL (whatever that is) events. You also seem to have some notion of what ESP is, and THAT it is... again... proof?

 

[thorium1010]

As for the brainscan ESP tests i mentioned, they were about pairs of people that were sensory isolated from each other, yet when one of them was visually stimulated, the other was found to have correlated neural activity

correlation of what kind of neural activity. No mainstream research would accept this as positive result for sensory perception. Also there is a matter of coincidence ? sample size ? mainstream article?

ESP cannot be visible on fMRI, because even normal experiences arent visible on fMRI. I pointed this out to you earlier when you were talking about ESP "mysteriously evading confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques". You might as well have said that watching television and smelling onions "mysteriously evades...".

The fact that it is that it cannot be visible on fmri is that it does not exist. Now if we cannot measure or cannot repeAT THE SAME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS makes it unlikely to exist. Positive results can have a number of explanations.

 

[pftest]

This isn't the place to argue for your personal beliefs in the supernatural, unless you can provide scientific evidence for that belief. You seem not to understand what the standard of evidence, or burden of proof is. I strongly recommend that you re-read the agreement you made when signing up for this site; maybe another one is for you.

That is, unless you have some shred of evidence that, "ESP cannot be visible on fMRI", and then... "normal experiences aren't visible on fMRI"... are you on drugs? What is it that you think a FUNCTIONAL MRI is and does?! You're measuring blood flow to specific regions of the brain during a number of NORMAL (whatever that is) events. You also seem to have some notion of what ESP is, and THAT it is... again... proof?

fMRI measures the brain, not experiences. Experiences are only known subjectively. Even if we were to accept the idea that brainactivity equals consciousness (which is a metaphysical assumption), fMRI still does not visualise experiences or let you experience what the scanned person experiences.

 

[pftest]

The fact that it is that it cannot be visible on fmri is that it does not exist. Now if we cannot measure or cannot repeAT THE SAME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS makes it unlikely to exist. Positive results can have a number of explanations.

If "not visible on fMRI = non-existent", then that would mean consciousness does not exist, which is the end of empiricism and thereby all knowledge gained through science. It also means elementary particles do not exist (they also do not show up in fMRI scans).

 

[thorium1010]

If "not visible on fMRI = non-existent", then that would mean consciousness does not exist, which is the end of empiricism and thereby all knowledge gained through science. It also means elementary particles do not exist (they also do not show up in fMRI scans).

You are twisting the argument . Don't mix up consciousness with ESP. ESP is a perception and it should produce like other stimuli like visual perception produces a signal on Fmri. Again you fail show any credible evidence for ESP ( which in my opinion is hyped up). Dont argue about consciousness - show evidence for ESP.

 

[pftest]

You are twisting the argument . Don't mix up consciousness with ESP. ESP is a perception and it should produce like other stimuli like visual perception produces a signal on Fmri.

fMRI only shows brainactivity. If ESP happens, then fMRI still will only show brainactivity. As Andrew Newberg once put it: "it levels the playing field". Whether you are seeing a dog, a purple unicorn or god himself, the fMRI will only show the brainactivity.

Again you fail show any credible evidence for ESP ( which in my opinion is hyped up). Dont argue about consciousness - show evidence for ESP.

You have also once again failed to show credible evidence for ESP.

 

[nismaratwork]

<snip> [says ridiculous things] <snip>

I edited your post in my reply because... why not? On a weekday, you'd be gone already. You keep talking about what people "see", and needing to see what they see... BULL... ****.

Somehow I don't think psychic powers would be centered in the visual centers of the brain; already well mapped. You would see, during these psychic events, blood feeding the regions of the brain involved in the activity of "ESP" and processing that sensory input. It's... thinking... like yours which allowed our government to waste SOOOO much money on "remote viewing". Preach your faith elsewhere please.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I will be back later to clean this up.