Sometime i'll imagine how is the psychic power works... in psychology study, the pioneer said human have the psychic power but they are not learn to use it. so, do you believe in psychic? Sometime i also don't understand what criteria should have in the 'psychic things' so that people will call it 'psychic'.
Psychic!
there are many different forms of alleged psychic ability, of course.. premonition, remote viewing, healing powers, etc
I'm somewhat skeptical about many psychic claims.. for example, why do you never hear of psychics winning the lottery?
but I have actually had two incidents of premonition where I knew well in advance that something very specific, and totally uncommon, would happen.. we're talking things that happen once in a lifetime, not just "oh that sort of thing happens once in a while, but how could I know it would happen at exactly that time?"
for that reason, I know that it's possible to tap into some sort of 'psychic' realm.. what that actually is, I have no idea
I'm somewhat skeptical about many psychic claims.. for example, why do you never hear of psychics winning the lottery?
but I have actually had two incidents of premonition where I knew well in advance that something very specific, and totally uncommon, would happen.. we're talking things that happen once in a lifetime, not just "oh that sort of thing happens once in a while, but how could I know it would happen at exactly that time?"
for that reason, I know that it's possible to tap into some sort of 'psychic' realm.. what that actually is, I have no idea
There is, to my knowledge, 1 single 'credible' study on the whole issue which seems to indicate a small anomaly. This is a study by Jessica Utts - a professor of statistics at California University (and, it should be said, a parapsychology proponent.)
Every other study I have seen, read, reviewed, or even heard of from reliable sources, has drawn a complete blank when trying to show evidence of psi phenomena, or has drawn conclusions which are either doubtful or ambiguous in some way. There are certainly other studies which show something, perhaps, but non that I regard as deserving serious study because of either flaws in experimental procedure, invalid or doubtful scientific methodology, partial or interested sponsorship of the study in question (in either direction) or simply vagueness and ambiguity of results.
Professor Utts results are certainly worthy of serious consideration, since she is clearly a properly qualified and experienced academic, and she is publishing in peer reviewed journals in her own discipline. It would be silly and ignorant to deny that her results have academic merit.
Utts 1991 study is actually a composite of several earlier studies which she analyses in a statistically novel way using a process of meta-analysis which claims to show a positive correlation with several subjects. The results have been challenged (properly and according to scientific protocol by several statisticians. Most notable Professor Hyman who has co-authored several studies with Utts and comes from a sceptical position.
The arguments and counters are extremely technical and beyond my mathematical ability to comment sensibly on. Basically Hyman maintains that the process of meta-analysis used by Utts is misleading and produces a false-positive result because of methodological rather than genuine anomalies. Utts maintains that the method is valid and that the results indicate a genuine positive (i.e. higher than statistical average) result in some of the psi experiments she analysed.
Interested readers with more ability in stats can follow the claims and rebuttals here :
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/may.html
and here
http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp-c5.html
Suffice it to say that this is not a page-turner unless you are REALLY into statistical meta-analysis techniques.
So that is it...the evidence for the phenomena (remote viewing, telekinesis, precognition, thought transference - all the major flavours and brands of psi).
The evidence against ? How long have you got ?
1) Numerous negative studies - whilst a negative result does not disprove the phenomena, it is surely relevant to point to the sheer number and scope of the negative results.
2) Mechanism. Psi proponents constantly fail to address the issue of mechanism when making claims. Science is asked to throw away several major theories in favour of psi phenomena but given no causal mechanism or proposed explanation of how these phenomena act, what the limitations are, how they interact with other physical laws etc.
3) Randi and the financial incentive. James Randi (an American magician) still has 1 million dollars on offer to anyone who can demonstrate any type of psi phenomena in a proper scientific setting. It applies to any paranormal activity - telekinesis, spoon bending, thought transfer, remote viewing - the lot. So far not a single claimant has even come forward, much less been successful. Whilst, again, this cannot be seen as confirmation that the phenomena do not exist, is surely represents fairly strong circumstantial support for this position.
Whilst we can never say never (science does not work that way) I think it is not unreasonable to maintain an extremely sceptical position on psi phenomena in general and certainly not start throwing away existing solid theory until there is some quality, peer reviewed, data which attains a consensus in the disciplines in question.
So far Utts results are certainly not universally accepted and, in fact, are quite widely doubted. The fact that a new statistical technique was used in a type of analysis not normally considered suitable for it would certainly lead to a fair question about the validity of the results and I would maintain that, at the very least, further studies should be carried out before statisticians accept the current results as anything other than a potential statistical anomaly.
Regards
Chris
Every other study I have seen, read, reviewed, or even heard of from reliable sources, has drawn a complete blank when trying to show evidence of psi phenomena, or has drawn conclusions which are either doubtful or ambiguous in some way. There are certainly other studies which show something, perhaps, but non that I regard as deserving serious study because of either flaws in experimental procedure, invalid or doubtful scientific methodology, partial or interested sponsorship of the study in question (in either direction) or simply vagueness and ambiguity of results.
Professor Utts results are certainly worthy of serious consideration, since she is clearly a properly qualified and experienced academic, and she is publishing in peer reviewed journals in her own discipline. It would be silly and ignorant to deny that her results have academic merit.
Utts 1991 study is actually a composite of several earlier studies which she analyses in a statistically novel way using a process of meta-analysis which claims to show a positive correlation with several subjects. The results have been challenged (properly and according to scientific protocol by several statisticians. Most notable Professor Hyman who has co-authored several studies with Utts and comes from a sceptical position.
The arguments and counters are extremely technical and beyond my mathematical ability to comment sensibly on. Basically Hyman maintains that the process of meta-analysis used by Utts is misleading and produces a false-positive result because of methodological rather than genuine anomalies. Utts maintains that the method is valid and that the results indicate a genuine positive (i.e. higher than statistical average) result in some of the psi experiments she analysed.
Interested readers with more ability in stats can follow the claims and rebuttals here :
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/may.html
and here
http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp-c5.html
Suffice it to say that this is not a page-turner unless you are REALLY into statistical meta-analysis techniques.
So that is it...the evidence for the phenomena (remote viewing, telekinesis, precognition, thought transference - all the major flavours and brands of psi).
The evidence against ? How long have you got ?
1) Numerous negative studies - whilst a negative result does not disprove the phenomena, it is surely relevant to point to the sheer number and scope of the negative results.
2) Mechanism. Psi proponents constantly fail to address the issue of mechanism when making claims. Science is asked to throw away several major theories in favour of psi phenomena but given no causal mechanism or proposed explanation of how these phenomena act, what the limitations are, how they interact with other physical laws etc.
3) Randi and the financial incentive. James Randi (an American magician) still has 1 million dollars on offer to anyone who can demonstrate any type of psi phenomena in a proper scientific setting. It applies to any paranormal activity - telekinesis, spoon bending, thought transfer, remote viewing - the lot. So far not a single claimant has even come forward, much less been successful. Whilst, again, this cannot be seen as confirmation that the phenomena do not exist, is surely represents fairly strong circumstantial support for this position.
Whilst we can never say never (science does not work that way) I think it is not unreasonable to maintain an extremely sceptical position on psi phenomena in general and certainly not start throwing away existing solid theory until there is some quality, peer reviewed, data which attains a consensus in the disciplines in question.
So far Utts results are certainly not universally accepted and, in fact, are quite widely doubted. The fact that a new statistical technique was used in a type of analysis not normally considered suitable for it would certainly lead to a fair question about the validity of the results and I would maintain that, at the very least, further studies should be carried out before statisticians accept the current results as anything other than a potential statistical anomaly.
Regards
Chris
| JoeFriday wrote: |
|
but I have actually had two incidents of premonition where I knew well in advance that something very specific, and totally uncommon, would happen.. we're talking things that happen once in a lifetime, not just "oh that sort of thing happens once in a while, but how could I know it would happen at exactly that time?" |
In the course of a prolonged period it is very likely that one will have such premonitions because what this could possibly represent is an unconscious pattern recognition or sensitivity to unconscious or unnoticed triggers and stimulae. The human brain is remarkably adept at pattern recognition - it can be a damn nuisance sometimes because it looks for patterns where non exist. It is not, therefore, suprising that it occasioanlly makes an 'intuitive' leap which we cannot explain but is probably reliant on signals and triggers that we are not consciously aware of.
One also has to figure in the statistics when thinking about deja-vu, premonition and the like. Most people instinctively misunderstand the nature of probability and statistics, and therefore make very bad guesses about probability of things happening.
Let me illustrate this.
Supposing you are at school (pupil or teacher, it matters not).
Further suppose that there are 25 pupils in the class.
What do you think the chances are that 2 pupils in the class would share the same birthday ?
Think about it!
Give a rough number.....20 to 1 ? 15 to 1 ? 10 to 1 ?
Instinctively we think something like this :
365 days per year, 25 pupils; therefore something like 365/25 = 14 to 1. Wrong wrong wrong.
The actual probability is higher than an even chance (around 52/48 ).
I'll leave you to think this through without explaning why this is the case just yet - but trust me, this is correct and there is no trickery or catch here, just plain simple statistics. Most people are suprised and many refuse to believe this is true...it is.
Chris.
I believe that we have a course in life and if it is include to develope this kind of gifts then it will be. Premonition, healing are somethings that are given but at the same time all of us have the capacity of develop them. The point is for what and how we will use them, I think this is a matter of responsability because as much as good you can do as much as the bad. If you have one of this gifts and has developed it then I hope you use it in favor of the general comunity of the world and not in a selfishness way. And to probe that it exists it happen the world is full of people with experiences like that.
| Quote: |
| I believe that we have a course in life and if it is include to develope this kind of gifts then it will be. |
Not necessarily. The evolution manages what we develop and in a way that whatever is needed is developed to some higher degree; of course there are physical boundaries...
| Quote: |
| There is, to my knowledge, 1 single 'credible' study on the whole issue which seems to indicate a small anomaly. This is a study by Jessica Utts - a professor of statistics at California University (and, it should be said, a parapsychology proponent.) |
Yes well, those studies never show that much. Only small statistical anomalies. And it is logical that when you take many differnet people of many different occupations of many different IQs you really get an average. Well somewhat stronger than average as it appears.
What needs to be done is to take a "boundary case" and experiment on that person. Perhaps people could be trained to some extent on say telekinesis. You take 1000 people and over a time of say 1 month (every day) you encourage them to try and move certain objects of small weight in front of them. You take say 20% most sucessful and repeat the process with them for another month and so on until you reach few of the most promissing candidates. And then you "test" them seperately with many many tests. I bet that way one could get more substantial results. Anyway, that's just me.
I found 2 results of most prominent cases of telekinesis:
Uri Geller, the Israeli famous for his spoon-bending demonstrations, allegedly by PK.
and
Nina Kulagina, alleged Soviet psychic of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Nina seems to me like a more interesting case:
Nina Kulagina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nina Kulagina, Ninel Sergeyevna Kulagina (Russian: Нине́ль Серге́евна Кула́гина) (1926 - 1990) was a Russian woman who reportedly had great psychic powers, particularly in psychokinesis. Academic research of her phenomenon was conducted in the USSR for the last twenty years of her life.
During the Cold War, silent black-and-white films of her apparently moving objects on a table in front of her without touching them, supposedly demonstrating her abilities under controlled conditions for Soviet authorities, caused excitement to many psychic researchers around the world, some of whom believed that they represented clear evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena.
Nina claimed that in order to manifest the effect, she required a period of meditation to clear her mind of all thoughts. In this extended preparation time, some saw potential for trickery. When she had obtained the focus required, she reported a sharp pain in her spine and the blurring of her eyesight.
One of Nina's most celebrated experiments took place in a Leningrad laboratory on 10 March 1970. Having initially studied the ability to move inanimate objects, scientists were curious to see if Nina's abilities extended to cells, tissues, and organs. Sergeyev was one of many scientists present when Nina attempted to use her energy to stop the beating of a frog's heart floating in solution. She focused intently on the heart and apparently made it beat faster, then slower, and using extreme intent of thought, stopped it.
In the late 1970s, a near fatal heart attack forced Nina to scale back her activities. According to a report produced by Dr. Zverev, her heartbeat was irregular, she had high blood sugar, and her endocrine system was disturbed. Over the long term, she suffered from pains in her arms and legs, could not coordinate properly, and experienced dizziness. Purportedly, these symptoms were the result of her paranormal exertions, and limited her ability to demonstrate psychokinesis under controlled conditions.
References
Gris, Henry, and Dick, William. The New Soviet Psychic Discoveries. London, Souvenir Press, 1979.
Inglis, Brian. The Paranormal ? An Encyclopedia of Psychic Phenomena. Granada publishing, 1985, p112.
Ostrander, Sheila, & Schroeder, Lynn. Psychic Discoveries? The Iron Curtain Lifted. London, Souvenir Press, 1997 (1971).
Spencer, John & Anne. The Poltergeist Phenomenon. London, Headline 1997, pp 227-8.
External links
Braude, Stephen. Unusual Powers of Mind Over Matter --> http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/MINDOVER.htm
The Psychic Powers of Nina Kulagina Comprehensive Biography of Nina Kulagina --> http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina.htm
Uri Geller, the Israeli famous for his spoon-bending demonstrations, allegedly by PK.
and
Nina Kulagina, alleged Soviet psychic of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Nina seems to me like a more interesting case:
Nina Kulagina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nina Kulagina, Ninel Sergeyevna Kulagina (Russian: Нине́ль Серге́евна Кула́гина) (1926 - 1990) was a Russian woman who reportedly had great psychic powers, particularly in psychokinesis. Academic research of her phenomenon was conducted in the USSR for the last twenty years of her life.
During the Cold War, silent black-and-white films of her apparently moving objects on a table in front of her without touching them, supposedly demonstrating her abilities under controlled conditions for Soviet authorities, caused excitement to many psychic researchers around the world, some of whom believed that they represented clear evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena.
Nina claimed that in order to manifest the effect, she required a period of meditation to clear her mind of all thoughts. In this extended preparation time, some saw potential for trickery. When she had obtained the focus required, she reported a sharp pain in her spine and the blurring of her eyesight.
One of Nina's most celebrated experiments took place in a Leningrad laboratory on 10 March 1970. Having initially studied the ability to move inanimate objects, scientists were curious to see if Nina's abilities extended to cells, tissues, and organs. Sergeyev was one of many scientists present when Nina attempted to use her energy to stop the beating of a frog's heart floating in solution. She focused intently on the heart and apparently made it beat faster, then slower, and using extreme intent of thought, stopped it.
In the late 1970s, a near fatal heart attack forced Nina to scale back her activities. According to a report produced by Dr. Zverev, her heartbeat was irregular, she had high blood sugar, and her endocrine system was disturbed. Over the long term, she suffered from pains in her arms and legs, could not coordinate properly, and experienced dizziness. Purportedly, these symptoms were the result of her paranormal exertions, and limited her ability to demonstrate psychokinesis under controlled conditions.
References
Gris, Henry, and Dick, William. The New Soviet Psychic Discoveries. London, Souvenir Press, 1979.
Inglis, Brian. The Paranormal ? An Encyclopedia of Psychic Phenomena. Granada publishing, 1985, p112.
Ostrander, Sheila, & Schroeder, Lynn. Psychic Discoveries? The Iron Curtain Lifted. London, Souvenir Press, 1997 (1971).
Spencer, John & Anne. The Poltergeist Phenomenon. London, Headline 1997, pp 227-8.
External links
Braude, Stephen. Unusual Powers of Mind Over Matter --> http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/MINDOVER.htm
The Psychic Powers of Nina Kulagina Comprehensive Biography of Nina Kulagina --> http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina.htm
i'm no expert on the subject, but i every once in awhile it seems that i have an extreme case of deja vu. I seem to remember everything i see from an exact moment, colors, people, objects. I'm not really sure what to make of it though. so to answer the question, i'd have to say there must be some kind of psychic ability that we have that most people just can't control
I remember reading somewhere, sorry, forget the source, that there is a scientific reason for deja vu, some sort of simultaneous fire of frontal brain cells.
Anyway, about not being able to circumstantially proove psychic abilities, it may be that this is not something that can be consciously controlled. Maybe true psychics are involuntary? This would explain both the lack of scientific evidence, and explain the high number of negative results, (any attempt to proove must be a scam, as it is not conscious.)
I'm not saying this is true or that I believe it, but it would explain a lot.
Anyway, about not being able to circumstantially proove psychic abilities, it may be that this is not something that can be consciously controlled. Maybe true psychics are involuntary? This would explain both the lack of scientific evidence, and explain the high number of negative results, (any attempt to proove must be a scam, as it is not conscious.)
I'm not saying this is true or that I believe it, but it would explain a lot.
In a book of Medical Physiology by Ganong, I've come across this effect. The medical deja vu comes in cases of injury to a particular part of the brain. I'll refer and tell which part exactly. But i don't think all psychics will have an injury at that particular area of the brain.
Just my thought, but i don't think they all can be having head injuries leave alone such specific ones.
Just my thought, but i don't think they all can be having head injuries leave alone such specific ones.
No, I'm not saying that deja vu is a form of psychic ability. I am saying it is unrelated because of this. It is false deja vu. Heck, I even get this.
| ne2 Luka wrote: |
| I found 2 results of most prominent cases of telekinesis:
Uri Geller, the Israeli famous for his spoon-bending demonstrations, allegedly by PK. |
Not worthy of further consideration. He is, and was a fraud. His 'demostrations' have been repeated many times by Randi and others and both times he was subjected to lab conditions he failed to demonstrate any abilities.
| Quote: |
|
Nina Kulagina, alleged Soviet psychic of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Nina seems to me like a more interesting case: |
Perhaps, but since there are the cold-war propoganda influences, the lack of current testable subject and the questionable nature of the Russian data then I suspect this is not a case where science can say anything sensible...
Chris
Foregt where I read it, but tests showed an acid on where the spoon bent, and the same tests revealed it on his thumb, where he had rubbed the spoon. I agree with Bikerman, he's a fraud.
can a psychic really heal other people without using any tools?? then how about those people who claim they can connect or contact with spirit? should we call them as psychic? How do we know they are psychic? and how do you believe they are really psychic?? i think since now, i never see psyhic unless on the TAPS tv show, a series that a team of people who find ghost or spirit... they are using some kind of "temperature viewer??" and i saw an old guy "suck" "something" i don't know what is it, maybe is the other person's tought and the old man told him back his history... until now i feel amazing but is that real??
| cvkien wrote: |
| can a psychic really heal other people without using any tools?? then how about those people who claim they can connect or contact with spirit? should we call them as psychic? How do we know they are psychic? and how do you believe they are really psychic?? i think since now, i never see psyhic unless on the TAPS tv show, a series that a team of people who find ghost or spirit... they are using some kind of "temperature viewer??" and i saw an old guy "suck" "something" i don't know what is it, maybe is the other person's tought and the old man told him back his history... until now i feel amazing but is that real?? |
Safest assumption is the following :
Anyone claiming psychic powers is either deluded, a con-artist, a publicity seeker or a misguided social worker with poor ethical judgement.
If you use that as a working assumption you will not go too far wrong.
C.
All I know is, this woman is an embarassment.
| schnitzi wrote: |
| All I know is, this woman is an embarassment. |
Yes..that's a particularly incompetent as well as tasteless example of cold reading at work. Sometimes these people really think (or at least say they do) that they help deceased people with this stuff. A conforting lie to me is worse than nothing. With nothing the person is sad - that is natural, we all grieve differently but we normally are sad. With the comforting lie the person is still sad, maybe a bit less, but now they also have an idea that is not true to deal with. I'm not saying that they will all become Ouija-board seance nuts, but a false world-view has been planted by this misguided 'helper' and that is never, to me, a positive thing and can lead to really screwing that persons sense of self/reality up. It is unforgivable, and all spiritualists should be locked in a room. (just that...locked in a room. Not killed or injured. Just lock them away. I'm perfectly happy if you want to imagine that room as a fantastic place to be..let them be happy by all means, just keep them away from real people. In the spirit of scientific open-mindedness I would, however, give them a chance to demonstrate their claim empirically. I thought of giving the key to a Chinese woman and then telling them that when they can 'divine' me her name and address in China they should write and ask for the key. I'd even let them use their own Ouija boards and give them a nice set of tarrot cards and a crytal ball if it made them happy.
Chris.
 |