Why is ESP lumped with less credible phenomena?

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to me that in one post, you're struck down a tactic, and then gone and used it in defense of your own argument.

I have no idea what you mean. I was saying that a million negative studies mean nothing, but positive evidence would lead to investment in this sort of research.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no idea what you mean. I was saying that a million negative studies mean nothing, but positive evidence would lead to investment in this sort of research.

In one breath, you seem to be refuting that the large size of a body of effort does not lend credence to the body's conclusions. Yet in the next breath you seem to suggest that the lack of "people being all over it" was a valid barometer of it's not being accurate.

Anyway, it's merely a point of order, shouldn't derail the convo.

 

[Evo]

The replicated findings are the only ones that really matter. If under peer review these findings are holding up, then that is significant, but I don't know how the analysis calculates out on those. Were the findings statistically significant?

Not according the the FMRI

"Sessions were repeated twice to assess possible replication of the phenomenon" "One of the subjects replicated the results."

 

[PIT2]

I will just quote the results:

RESULTS: Statistically significant changes in fMRI brain activation and EEG signals were observed when comparing the stimulus-on condition to the stimulus-off condition in nonstimulated subjects (p < 0.001, corrected for multiple comparisons). For fMRI, these changes were observed in visual brain areas 18 and 19 (Brodmann areas). One of the subjects replicated the results. CONCLUSIONS: These data replicate previous findings suggesting that correlated neural signals may be detected by fMRI and EEG in the brains of subjects who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16398586&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

There is a hyperlink on that site called 'related articles' which will show related articles.

Here is another one:

Data analyses showed overall significant results for EEG data recorded during the flickering condition (z =-3.28, p = 0.0005) as well as nonsignificant results for data recorded during the static condition (z = 0.35, p = 0.64). Four pairs participated in a replication experiment during which one pair replicated the effect.

CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that in some pairs of human subjects a signal may be detected in the brain of a distant member of the pair when the brain of the other member is visually stimulated. These data support the findings of similar studies performed in seven laboratories reported in the peer-reviewed literature since 1963. Research in this area should now proceed with investigation of its physical and biologic mechanism, its generalizability to varying populations and relationships, and its clinical application.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15165411&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Part of the problem is referencing sources such as Radin's book. Again, this counts for nothing in the world of science. What matters are published [in a respectable journal], repeatable results, that pass peer review.

I don't know which experiments in his bibliography were published where or which are replications from each other. I haven't read the book and only know there are zillions of them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yet in the next breath you seem to suggest that the lack of "people being all over it" was a valid barometer of it's not being accurate.

The repeatable experiments are my barometer. The fact that we don't have or haven't had definitive evidence results in a lack of scientific interest.

Here is another way of making my point. Probably every teenager destined for a degree in physics or engineering has played with perpetual motion ideas, but this doesn't make perpetual motion schemes more credible. Unless I misuderstood the original comment, the suggestion was that popularity alone is a measure of crediblity, which is clearly false. I thought he meant that with so many studies, there must be something to it. But, maybe I misuderstood what PIT2 meant.

 

[DaveC426913]

... popularity alone is a measure of crediblity, which is clearly false ...

Right.

And the corollary is also false: that lack of popularity is a measure of lack of credibility, thus:

... if significant results were reproducible, people would be all over this. Considering the potential financial and strategic value of alleged skills like remote viewing or mind reading, I would think that given any real incentive, every politician in Washington, and every corporation would be throwing money at research scientists.

That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point was that the lack of interest results from the fact that there is no known convincing evidence, not that the lack of interest is the gauge. Again, the barometer is the repeatable experiment.

The original suggestion was that skeptics and naysayers would swamp the field with rhetoric and confuse the truth with nonsense even if the required evidence existed. I believe that is false [well, actually, true but irrelevant]. I think some naysayers would try to confuse the public and other scientists, but I also think that given a little time for the required paradigm shifts, evidence always speaks louder than philosophies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One potential point of confusion here: Back in the seventies there was a great deal of interest in these subjects. So I think it is fair so say that there once was a fair amount of scientific interest in so called psi phenomena, but, eventually, as the proof failed to materialize and for about the last twenty years, that interest has been significantly reduced.

 

[DaveC426913]

The point was that the lack of interest results from the fact that there no known convincing evidence, not that the lack of interest is the gauge. Again, the barometer is the repeatable experiment.

MmmOK. Withdrawn.

 

[PIT2]

Here is another way of making my point. Probably every teenager destined for a degree in physics or engineering has played with perpetual motion ideas, but this doesn't make perpetual motion schemes more credible. Unless I misuderstood the original comment, the suggestion was that popularity alone is a measure of crediblity, which is clearly false. I thought he meant that with so many studies, there must be something to it. But, maybe I misuderstood what PIT2 meant.

That bold sentence is what i meant, but i don't understand what u mean with 'popularity alone'. The links i showed were experiments with results, so i think the results are what matters.

Btw arent many of those studies done by legitimate scientists (not teenagers)? Take Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake for example.

but I also think that given a little time for the required paradigm shifts, evidence always speaks louder than philosophies

How much time do u think it takes?

 

[DaveC426913]

How much time do u think it takes?

History shows that it can take many decades. Usually tied to how big a shift.

 

[setAI]

History shows that it can take many decades. Usually tied to how big a shift.

it may never happen in this case- or only happen much later as a hindsight discovery- consider: in only a few decades nanotechnology will allow many forms of intimate direct brain connections to computers and information networks andobviously other brians- much of what is called ESP will be a technological reality- in the far future even the most exotic forms of telekinesis will be commonplace through direct brain control of local ubiquitous utility fogs and the like- it may never even matter if Psi/ESP was ever real in any way- since it will be obsolete before it is ever quantified

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw arent many of those studies done by legitimate scientists (not teenagers)? Take Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake for example.

Again, as is the case with most people I suspect, I haven't seen the repeatable, signficant results. I haven't had the time to review all of your links, and I will, but AFAIK, the key point of dispute usually boils down to very small results AND only by using meta-analysis.

How much time do u think it takes?

As Dave said, I think it depends on the size of the shift and the difficulty in proving the claim. Consider that even Relativity still has one or two otherwise credible detractors [now renting space from the flat-earth society], even though we see the evidence in accelerators every day.

If someone could walk into a lab and start levitating test tubes by using telekinesis, I don't think it would take long [less than a year] for this to be established as an accepted fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

... it may never even matter if Psi/ESP was ever real in any way- since it will be obsolete before it is ever quantified

But that logic would apply to any human ability that we've been able to enhance with technology. It's flawed logic.

You might as well say the 100m dash became obsolete once we invented cars.

 

[PIT2]

In http://www.focusmag.co.uk/currentIssue.asp there is an article about the fMRI and EEG tests of telepathy. The general view of the article was that while previous studies on telepathy could be dismissed because they were flawed or inconclusive, new technologies now are showing that something is happening (see the links in my previous post).

It mentioned Marios Kittenis and his research, as well as others, so i looked him up on google, but there isn't much online about his work:

These results suggest the presence of an anomalous psychophysiological interaction effect. This effect was localised in the posterior temporal/occipital cortex, which is consistent with the effects of visual stimulation. The lack of such an effect in the group of "receivers" who were not paired with a "sender" further suggests that this effect is dependent on sensory stimulation of another participant, and cannot be attributed to a general methodological flaw, or to direct anomalous perception of the remote stimuli. The similar magnitude of the effect seen in related and unrelated pairs further suggests that an empathic relationship and prior interaction between participants is not necessary for the induction of the effect, as some previous studies have suggested (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, Delaflor et al. 1994), and is in agreement with the conclusions of other studies who also found a similar pattern of results (Wackermann, Seiter et al. 2003). As however the unrelated and no-sender groups in the first study were too small to allow statistical comparisons between groups to be made, a second study was conducted with equal numbers of participants in each group (thirteen pairs in each of the related and unrelated groups, and thirteen single participants in the no-sender group; total N=65). An additional feature of the second study is the adoption of an 'oddball' stimulation paradigm, where two types of stimuli are presented (green and red flashes) at a ratio of 3-to-1. The less common stimuli typically evoke a different pattern of cortical responses in the stimulated participants than the common stimuli, and we will examine if the same pattern can be observed in non-stimulated participants. The presence or absence of this similarity will help in clarifying the physiological characteristics of the anomalous effect. A further improvement in the second study involves recording EEG simultaneously from both the stimulated and non-stimulated participants.

http://www.spr.ac.uk/confprogramme.php3?year=2005#Kittenis

On the bottom it mentions a few other similar studies:

Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., M. Delaflor, et al. (1994). "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred potential." Physics Essays 7, 442-448.
Kittenis, M., P. G. Caryl, et al. (2004). Distant psychophysiological interaction effects between related and unrelated participants. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 47th Annual Convention.
Wackermann, J., C. Seiter, et al. (2003). "Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects." Neuroscience Letters 336, 60-64.

The focus article also had EEG images of the scanned brains of receivers/senders on different times during the experiment. It was clear that the brainactivity corresponded.

 

[delta001]

it makes sense as to why things like ghosts/UFOs/fairies are not taken seriously

Actually, it doesn't make sense that UFO's aren't taken seriously. Remember that time all those lights appeared over that city somewhere? (Sorry for being vague, I don't remember the name of the city, where it was, or when it happened). But if it wasn't aliens, it was still a confirmed UFO... either that or a mass hallucination that showed up on video cameras . Like it or not, UFO's do exist, although their exact nature hasn't been determined.

But as for the telepathy thing, there is a lot of "junk" DNA in our genetic code that could account for such psychic abilities. After all, we only use about 10% of our brains.

 

[K.J.Healey]

But as for the telepathy thing, there is a lot of "junk" DNA in our genetic code that could account for such psychic abilities. After all, we only use about 10% of our brains.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

 

[delta001]

Yes, well, I was only repeating what I heard from what I thought were reputable sources. It appears I was wrong. But what is the 10% we don't use for then?

 

[SGT]

Yes, well, I was only repeating what I heard from what I thought were reputable sources. It appears I was wrong. But what is the 10% we don't use for then?

I assure you that I use 100% of mine and I have no psychic powers. The brain is a very complex organ, that takes a lot of oxygen to function.
We have an enormous brain, that gives us a great advantage over all other life forms in the planet. Why would evolution develop such a large organ if not for total use?

 

[russ_watters]

But what is the 10% we don't use for then?

It is for reading that Snopes article...

For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

 

[delta001]

I assure you that I use 100% of mine and I have no psychic powers. The brain is a very complex organ, that takes a lot of oxygen to function.
We have an enormous brain, that gives us a great advantage over all other life forms in the planet. Why would evolution develop such a large organ if not for total use?

I don't think anyone uses 100% of their brain: do you even know scientifically that you do? If you got like an MRI or something that proves we use 100% then I'd believe you.

 

[SGT]

I don't think anyone uses 100% of their brain: do you even know scientifically that you do? If you got like an MRI or something that proves we use 100% then I'd believe you.

I don't have any MRI of my brain and if I did, you would not see it all lighted. We use all parts of our brains, but not simultaneously. In this moment, I am at my chair typing this answer. Of course, the part of my brain that controls my leg muscles is not working. When I walk those neurons fire, but the ones needed for my math skills will be off.
One indication that we use all of our brain is that all brain injuries cause some impairment. If we used only 10% of our brains, 90% of brain injuries would be harmless.

 

[BillJx]

The simple answer is that other phenomena seem less credible to you, only because you think that ESP is credible.

 

[Smurf]

from an evolutionary perspective, ESP simply has no reason to 'already exist'.

Things we don't simply don't become species-wide phenomena. We have a pancreas because we used to use it, so if we had ESP then there'd be an entire history of human civilization that it should be recorded in, but it's not, it's really not. (i'm not talking about witches and warlocks, I mean, there'd be schools for developing your Mental powers in Ancient Greece and **** if this existed, but there arn't!)

Now, the whole X-Men idea circumvents this by saying that it's new. It just popped up. In which case, the people who first get it are using it, so it would undoubtedly become a species-wide phenomena.

 

[setAI]

BUMP-

I am bumping this because there has been an epidemic of anti-psi rhetoric by the PF admin lately- they are blatantly ignoring peer reviewed research that unambiguously demonstrates psi phenomena and bullying those of us who hold them accountable to their own rules- they deleted my recent replies wrt the knee-jerk 'extraordinary claims' rhetoric and references to Dean Radin's published work-

the only reason I am pushing this is because I find it offensive that a forum that claims to promote mainstream peer reviewed science is so anti-science on the subject of psi-

no one can ever claim I am a crackpot- I agree with and support mainstream science and the peer review process- as anyone can check- professionally I work for the largest scientific research organization on earth: The University of California- I work as a budget administrator for all of our research efforts and deal with billions in funding every year- so I am not some overzealous blogger with a chip on my shoulder-

I am sure this will be cut now too- and they will probably ban me after several years as a member- but it is more important for people who come here to at least have a CHANCE of reading about what is actually going on than worry about my rather unimportant desire to continue to be a member at PF-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps you could post some published papers. I know of no such papers. The only thing that I 've seen are extremely weak indictors of phenomena and only when viewed through the lens of meta-analysis. I have never seen direct evidence in a scientific paper that has been published in a respectable journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can, however, claim the other way, that people who are pushing for the validity of this are the ones who are ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary. Why? I had already posted this references to what I believe to be THE most comprehensive study to-date on this so-called phenomenon, by the National Academy of Sciences. I posted the reference and an excerpt of the conclusion in this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1444547&postcount=45

Yet, this study continues to be ignored.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Zapper, to be fair, that only seems to test for remote viewing which is a specific technique - it is claimed that anyone can do it with training. And then they dismiss results from what they say was a credible study [the only one that wasn't flawed!]. Also, I guess this is not available online?

 

[ZapperZ]

It's the same type of "phenomena" that Radin and SetAI are pushing for rabidly, and they both seem to claim that these things are credible. How can anyone fool themselves into saying that when the most respected and comprehensive study ever conducted so far on this thing gives a conclusion like that?

And "one" possible valid evidence out of hundreds (or even thousands) doesn't say much, and it certainly doesn't point to it being accepted, mainstream, or even credible. If this were high energy physics, it is not even a 1-sigma event.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw Michael Shermer do a RM test on a so called expert. Shermer had a photo of a galaxy hidden in a folder and challenged the viewer to draw it. Of course the viewer had not seen the photo.

He ended up drawing spirals that he described as whirlpools as representations of what he claimed to see. I thought it was either a direct hit or damned close! Shermer completely dismissed it, which I took to be highly biased. IMO this shows that people like Shermer are never interested in possible results. I've seen Randi do the same thing when he tested so called psychics. I agreed that most people seemed like cranks, but he brushed right over anything that seemed like a hit. And these are the people who effectively represent science in the public mind.