I was just wondering if there was a scientific basis for any seemingly supernatural powers.
Give me your opinian
Give me your opinian
Can you be psychic?
| reddishblue wrote: |
| I was just wondering if there was a scientific basis for any seemingly supernatural powers.
Give me your opinian |
No there is no scientific basis for such proposed Psi powers. Never has been.
The Russians 'sciencified' the area during the cold war which still leads to lots of miseading/untestable claims about their research, but I think the whole thing is best summed up by the standard adage :
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'
Chris.
It is not yet possible to acquire supernatural powers by any scientific means.
Certain people are sometimes born with supernatural gifts or acquire them after hours and days of meditation and solitude.
Certain people are sometimes born with supernatural gifts or acquire them after hours and days of meditation and solitude.
| GameFreak wrote: |
| It is not yet possible to acquire supernatural powers by any scientific means.
Certain people are sometimes born with supernatural gifts or acquire them after hours and days of meditation and solitude. |
Please provide evidence for that last claim because I would challenge it vigorously.
C
Some people are just better BS'ers than others.
i friend and i were playing backgammon threw the same di as each other more than 8 times ..,
ie i throw a 6 and 4
he throws the same .
then i throw a 2 and 4
he throws the same ..
\
etc etc ..
it not psychic but the odds of that happening are pretty staggering i think ..
not sure exactly how to work that out ...
does show some kind of connection i think ...
ie i throw a 6 and 4
he throws the same .
then i throw a 2 and 4
he throws the same ..
\
etc etc ..
it not psychic but the odds of that happening are pretty staggering i think ..
not sure exactly how to work that out ...
does show some kind of connection i think ...
| sphangman wrote: |
| i friend and i were playing backgammon threw the same di as each other more than 8 times ..,
ie i throw a 6 and 4 he throws the same . then i throw a 2 and 4 he throws the same .. \ etc etc .. it not psychic but the odds of that happening are pretty staggering i think .. not sure exactly how to work that out ... does show some kind of connection i think ... |
Maybe shows a di bias (same dice).
The stats are :
chance of throwing a particular 2 number sequence is 2:36 for non doubles so the chance of your friend repeating your throw is 2:36.
This is the same for each occurance. For 8 consecutive occurances this would be 2/36x2/36x2/36........8 times. You can work it out on a calc.
It is a remote probability for sure.
Chris
When electricity was first being discovered people thought it was so taboo, nowadays we don't realize how much of our life is extended into electrical circuits, I see a similar trend in psychic abilities, it's taboo now, but may be a everyday nessesity for survival in the age to come.
From the top ...
The big bang....
A depression in the universal energy field the size of a photon could have trigured the big bang, this was us at some time... Paradox?
Anyhow... imagine two dots on a ballon, blow it up, the universe seems to be spreading apart, but by the law of contagion we are still apart of the same field, which originally was neither time or space.
This field was called in the ancient vedas the maya,
It is called the field by Energy healers and new age scientist who see quantum physics as a reasonable oasis for explaining things such as psychic connections amongst people.
There was once a time on earth similar today many pseudoscientist are theroizeing this time was about 10,000 years ago, when there was world wide trade and communication using technology somewhat superior to modern day but harnessing energy through crystals and shapes, pyrimads megaliths, this sounds crazy, but they were using psychic phenomenon to neutralize gravity to make 100ton blocks weightless, and power of crystals and intent to send information, which is similar to fiber obtics, electro magnetism and talking through a telephone,
then again,
I could be wrong. I think science is explaining psychic phenomenon finally without dismissing it, but embracing it, and if it hasn't and these explanations are only displayed as complex quantum physics formulas or poeticly assumed by pseudo science, I believe this is the time in history that it will be accepted.
The ancients had a concept called Science magic, to me, it makes me think of... the medium between religion in science, which is really neither.
Perhaps Sacred Sciences will become a new fad in the coming age of enlightenment.
From the top ...
The big bang....
A depression in the universal energy field the size of a photon could have trigured the big bang, this was us at some time... Paradox?
Anyhow... imagine two dots on a ballon, blow it up, the universe seems to be spreading apart, but by the law of contagion we are still apart of the same field, which originally was neither time or space.
This field was called in the ancient vedas the maya,
It is called the field by Energy healers and new age scientist who see quantum physics as a reasonable oasis for explaining things such as psychic connections amongst people.
There was once a time on earth similar today many pseudoscientist are theroizeing this time was about 10,000 years ago, when there was world wide trade and communication using technology somewhat superior to modern day but harnessing energy through crystals and shapes, pyrimads megaliths, this sounds crazy, but they were using psychic phenomenon to neutralize gravity to make 100ton blocks weightless, and power of crystals and intent to send information, which is similar to fiber obtics, electro magnetism and talking through a telephone,
then again,
I could be wrong. I think science is explaining psychic phenomenon finally without dismissing it, but embracing it, and if it hasn't and these explanations are only displayed as complex quantum physics formulas or poeticly assumed by pseudo science, I believe this is the time in history that it will be accepted.
The ancients had a concept called Science magic, to me, it makes me think of... the medium between religion in science, which is really neither.
Perhaps Sacred Sciences will become a new fad in the coming age of enlightenment.
In my opinion there is no such thing as paranormal fenomena. A lot of research was done on the subject but the results were not reproducible nor credible. In spite of lack of evidence, there still are some scientific institutions dedicated on the subject. See for example Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research :
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
| zenkirevolutions wrote: |
| When electricity was first being discovered people thought it was so taboo, nowadays we don't realize how much of our life is extended into electrical circuits, I see a similar trend in psychic abilities, it's taboo now, but may be a everyday nessesity for survival in the age to come. |
Completely false analogy.
Electricity was demonstrable as a phenomena - ie when Galvani, Volta and others talked about the 'thing' they had found, they could demonstrate it and repeat the demonstration on demand whenever required. No psychic has ever done this.
| Quote: |
|
The big bang.... A depression in the universal energy field the size of a photon could have trigured the big bang, this was us at some time... Paradox? |
Universal energy field ? I don't know what that is.
| Quote: |
|
Anyhow... imagine two dots on a ballon, blow it up, the universe seems to be spreading apart, but by the law of contagion we are still apart of the same field, which originally was neither time or space. |
Law of contagion ? That is a 'magic' law based on the mumbo-jumbo surrounding modern day pseudo-science and classical thaumatology. Hardly something relevant to science...better kept for fantasy books.
| Quote: |
|
This field was called in the ancient vedas the maya, It is called the field by Energy healers and new age scientist who see quantum physics as a reasonable oasis for explaining things such as psychic connections amongst people. |
Largely because they
a) Don't understand quantum physics
b) Don't really understand science
| Quote: |
|
There was once a time on earth similar today many pseudoscientist are theroizeing this time was about 10,000 years ago, when there was world wide trade and communication using technology somewhat superior to modern day but harnessing energy through crystals and shapes, pyrimads megaliths, this sounds crazy, but they were using psychic phenomenon to neutralize gravity to make 100ton blocks weightless, and power of crystals and intent to send information, which is similar to fiber obtics, electro magnetism and talking through a telephone, |
Hogwash
| Quote: |
|
I could be wrong. I think science is explaining psychic phenomenon finally without dismissing it, but embracing it, and if it hasn't and these explanations are only displayed as complex quantum physics formulas or poeticly assumed by pseudo science, I believe this is the time in history that it will be accepted. |
Science is not explaining psychic anything because there is no science to be done. Statisticians have tried to analyze various 'demonstrations' of psi ability and the only one I know that is perhaps worthy of comment is Utt's work in the field.
| Quote: |
|
The ancients had a concept called Science magic, to me, it makes me think of... the medium between religion in science, which is really neither. Perhaps Sacred Sciences will become a new fad in the coming age of enlightenment. |
It might sell in California perhaps.
Chris
Isnt there a paranormal studies facilty in england ?(i dont remember university)
I dont know any scientific facts/basis to psychic claims, but i feel there is perhaps more going on than we realise, perhaps some kind of etheral link between people that we cant see?
Have you ever picked your mobile phone up to text (SMS) someone and suddenly the person in question calls you at the same time, or your in a crowded room/office and look up straight into the eyes of someone staring at you from a distance?
I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences, but how to explain them, I havent a clue!
Have you ever picked your mobile phone up to text (SMS) someone and suddenly the person in question calls you at the same time, or your in a crowded room/office and look up straight into the eyes of someone staring at you from a distance?
I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences, but how to explain them, I havent a clue!
Asuming is the mother of all researches.
You asume that there is not such thing;
You should research though, to prove that it does, or does NOT, exist.
Research shall go on.
But NO there currently is no such thing
You asume that there is not such thing;
You should research though, to prove that it does, or does NOT, exist.
Research shall go on.
But NO there currently is no such thing
Since psychic, telepathic, telekinesis power are part of the standard science fields of studies mean they don't exist. Magnetism was recognized as magic back in 1400's and many studying them were burn because they were known as witches.
It's already difficult to prove that something exist, it's even more difficult to prove it doesn't.
It's already difficult to prove that something exist, it's even more difficult to prove it doesn't.
| HellsCowbells wrote: |
| Since psychic, telepathic, telekinesis power are part of the standard science fields of studies mean they don't exist. Magnetism was recognized as magic back in 1400's and many studying them were burn because they were known as witches.
It's already difficult to prove that something exist, it's even more difficult to prove it doesn't. |
They are not part of the standard fields of science - hence we use the name 'para' normally.
There are no credible mechanisms for these 'phenomena' which, when coupled with the lack of verifiable results, means there is no science to be done.
One the second part - very true. Another slant on the Induction Problem - can't prove something right no matter how many observations you make.
The answer is refutation - 1 example which a hypothesis says cannot happen is enough to refute the hypothesis. The same is true here - it is not possible to prove something exists but if it's existence is part of a scientific theory then it should be possible to prove it does not exists. This does not apply, of course, to metaphysical phenomena such as Deities since they are described, normally, in non-refutable terms and, as such, are not scientific phenomena. The same holds true for any theory - if it cannot be shown to be wrong then it is not science and cannot be the subject of useful scientific research.
Chris
| watersoul wrote: |
| Have you ever picked your mobile phone up to text (SMS) someone and suddenly the person in question calls you at the same time, or your in a crowded room/office and look up straight into the eyes of someone staring at you from a distance?
I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences, but how to explain them, I havent a clue! |
There's no need to explain this phenomenon, because it's just as likely as you thinking of texting person A, picking up your phone, and having person B call you--there's no significance to the events happening at the same time. The only difference between your proposed situation and mine is that humans have evolved to notice patterns and connections, because often they are significant, so we feel like there must be some deeper reason why the events coincided in your situation. If you think of all the possible combinations of events that might seem significant, and the amount of time you've been alive, it's really not surprising that several of these have happened purely by chance.
| sphangman wrote: |
| i friend and i were playing backgammon threw the same di as each other more than 8 times ..,
ie i throw a 6 and 4 he throws the same . then i throw a 2 and 4 he throws the same .. \ etc etc .. it not psychic but the odds of that happening are pretty staggering i think .. not sure exactly how to work that out ... does show some kind of connection i think ... |
This is really the same thing, though slightly more subtle. In this case, the probability of this particular event happening to you is very small, to be sure--small enough, in fact, that I would bet a lot of money that it will never happen to me. However, there are billions upon billions of people in this world, and enough of them throw dice on a semi-regular basis that it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it will happen to someone--you in this case--at some point. In fact, I'd bet all the money I'll ever possess that it will happen again to someone. Because it happened to you, it seems significant, but once again, it's simply chance.
An interesting corollary to this line of thought: somewhere in time and space must be or have been or will be a person whose life is filled with extraordinary coincidences, purely by chance. What a terrible and wonderful life that would be.
Finally, to play the devil's advocate for a moment: there is legitimate research that has been done on "paranormal" phenomena. The scientific community is (understandably) generally unwilling to recognize it or fund it, since there is so little basis for it, and so much bogus research that shouldn't be recognized or funded. But take a look at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR). There has not been much practical application of their conclusions, and their theory, as I recall, is a bit outlandish and difficult to test, but not totally ridiculous. And unless they're flat out lying, it's hard to argue with the rigor of their methods. For more detail, read the book "Margins of Reality."
IMPORTANT: This does not prove that people have psychic powers. For one thing, the term "psychic" is not even well defined. Moreover, as I said, there has not been a practical demonstration of anything like telepathy or telekinesis (the two most commonly proposed psychic powers). It merely suggests that human consciousness has a small effect on probabilistic phenomena, that should be investigated further.
It always worries me when engineers or applied scientists start mucking around with paranormal, psychology and physics at the same time. Engineers for some reason have a bad track record in this area - many of the 'scientists' in the ID/Creationist camp are engineers....I wonder what it is about the discipline that causes such a phenomena in an otherwise normal scientific mind :-)
Regards
Chris
Regards
Chris
"Any Sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" according to Asimov.
I am torn between belief and skepticism on this issue, though the whole subject of paranormal phenomema, psychic abilities, and the supernatural is increadibly fasinating to me.
On the one hand, there is no scientific proof that any of it is real, but on the other hand, well, it just keeps happening.
The problem with investigating these things scientificaly is that science calls for an objective observer, but psychic phenomenon are, by their very nature, subjective.
This does not mean that they do not happen, but that our current scientific method is unequiped to handle them.
Until a way is invented to objectively quantify ESP we will never be able to say what it is or if it exists with certainty.
I do not believe that we can dismiss it as utter hogwash at this point either. There is something going on that we do not understand. That is certain. Unfortunately all the evidence we have is anecdotal (or classified top secret if you believe the conspiracy theorists).
I am torn between belief and skepticism on this issue, though the whole subject of paranormal phenomema, psychic abilities, and the supernatural is increadibly fasinating to me.
On the one hand, there is no scientific proof that any of it is real, but on the other hand, well, it just keeps happening.
The problem with investigating these things scientificaly is that science calls for an objective observer, but psychic phenomenon are, by their very nature, subjective.
This does not mean that they do not happen, but that our current scientific method is unequiped to handle them.
Until a way is invented to objectively quantify ESP we will never be able to say what it is or if it exists with certainty.
I do not believe that we can dismiss it as utter hogwash at this point either. There is something going on that we do not understand. That is certain. Unfortunately all the evidence we have is anecdotal (or classified top secret if you believe the conspiracy theorists).
| Jinx wrote: |
| "Any Sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" according to Asimov.
I am torn between belief and skepticism on this issue, though the whole subject of paranormal phenomema, psychic abilities, and the supernatural is increadibly fasinating to me. On the one hand, there is no scientific proof that any of it is real, but on the other hand, well, it just keeps happening. |
| Quote: |
|
The problem with investigating these things scientificaly is that science calls for an objective observer, but psychic phenomenon are, by their very nature, subjective. |
Why ? Subjective in part, certainly, but unless there is an objective outcome or effect then you may as well call it dreaming...
| Quote: |
|
This does not mean that they do not happen, but that our current scientific method is unequiped to handle them. |
I think you were right the first time - they do not happen. Why is the assumption made that science is the problem when some pseudo-science or paranormal phenomenon fails to meet the standards. It's like blaming the tape measure because it tells you you're only 5ft 10 and not 6ft...
Any objective causal phenomenon should be measurable. If it is measurable then it can be studied using scientific method. The problem that I see is that the only stuff I regard as credible is straining so hard at the statistics to show a non random occurance that it feels like wishful thinking rather than good observational science...
| Quote: |
|
Until a way is invented to objectively quantify ESP we will never be able to say what it is or if it exists with certainty. |
Refutation is the key.
ESP, involves trnsmission of information across time and spoce. No mechanism is specified and no theory is offered that makes physical sense. OK..the scientist takes the simple approach.....Show Me !
If you can pass information then you have a cause-effect phenomena and you can surely pass information in a way which can be measured....you would imagine so anyway.....but, what a surprise, no can do, say the psi-lot.
'It's sensitive', or 'it comes and goes' or 'you have to believe in it' or other gibberish is just offensive to the senses and wasteful of the time. If there is something happening and we cannot measure how it happens then at least show that something IS happening...Psi experiments have rarely got beyond even this initial point.
| Quote: |
|
I do not believe that we can dismiss it as utter hogwash at this point either. There is something going on that we do not understand. That is certain. Unfortunately all the evidence we have is anecdotal (or classified top secret if you believe the conspiracy theorists). |
I believe hogwash is not only justified, it is indicated.
That is not to say that I cannot be convinced, but it will take a lot lot more than has been achieved in the last 200 yrs or so...I'm not holding my breathe...
Regards
Chris
| Quote: |
| at least show that something IS happening |
Mothers who Know that there is something wrong with thoer childern, even though they are across town
A parent dies, and at the monent of death the child in another city sees that parent, before they get the call
A personal example:My father, when he was younger, knew something was wrong at home and called to find out his brother had shot himself in the leg.
Events like this are reported all the time. This is also what I meant by it being subjective - there is no physical proof of the transmission of information, and because of the highly personal and emotional nature of the experience it would be difficult to duplicate in a labaratory setting (unless you wanted to go around shooting the loved ones of your test subjects).
Unless you simply want to assume that every person who has reported such an event is lying, the sheer number of similar stories should carry some weight.
Einstien realized that something was missing from his theories, so he invented a substance (I forget what the original name for it was, but I believe that thay call it "Dark Matter" today). There is no way to measure this substance. You can't put a little Dark Matter in a test tube or in an electron microscope. Physicists aren't even sure what it is. They only know that something is missing from their equasions, so they had to make something up to account for why the Universe hasn't collapsed in on itself. They could see the effects of it, but not the substance or force itself.
My point is, there is evidence for the existance of a means for transmitting information, instantly, from person to person with no apparent physical carrier. It seems to be affected by strong emotions that are difficult to replicate on demand.
Perhaps it is related to the bonding of sub-atomic particles (if I'm using the right terms) where two paritcles are linked in such a way that what afects one partacle also changes its linked twin, instantaneously and regardless of distance. Perhaps the same force that permits this faster-than-light transmission of information is somehow used by our brains. (This is just a crack-brained theory, I'm obviously no physicist)
Basicaly, what I'm trying to say, and I admit I didn't express myself very well in my first post, is that there are still areas where we lack the tools (physical or theoretical) to measure the forces involved.
The human brain is still very much a mystery.
| Jinx wrote: | ||
Mothers who Know that there is something wrong with thoer childern, even though they are across town A parent dies, and at the monent of death the child in another city sees that parent, before they get the call A personal example:My father, when he was younger, knew something was wrong at home and called to find out his brother had shot himself in the leg. Events like this are reported all the time. This is also what I meant by it being subjective - there is no physical proof of the transmission of information, and because of the highly personal and emotional nature of the experience it would be difficult to duplicate in a labaratory setting (unless you wanted to go around shooting the loved ones of your test subjects). |
All of these are objective - 'knowing' or getting a picture is recordable - the fact that people don't do so is not a problem. The real problem is that you need a deep grasp of stats to understand the probabilities in play here - they are very often neither common nor sense. I've probably already posted a simple example, but at the risk of repeating :
Take a class of 25 childrean. What chance that 2 will have the same birthday within the class ? Have a guess. What do you think ? 1 in 10 ? More ? In fact it is around 50% (1 ion 2) probable. That is counter intuitive for most people....365 days, say 200 at school, 25 kids, surely should be somewhere around 10 to 1. If that was the figure you thought then a visit to any local school would be, for you, a journey into the paranormal as you found every other classroom had twinned birthdays.
| Quote: |
|
Unless you simply want to assume that every person who has reported such an event is lying, the sheer number of similar stories should carry some weight. |
No, not at all. Some lie, for various reasons. About 1 million US citizens regularly hallucinate, another 2-5 million are psychologically or psyiologically damaged in such a way as to make them particularly receptive to this sort of thing.
One-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a "serious" disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to function day to day, according to the largest and most detailed survey of the nation's mental health, published yesterday.
| Quote: |
|
Einstien realized that something was missing from his theories, so he invented a substance (I forget what the original name for it was, but I believe that thay call it "Dark Matter" today). There is no way to measure this substance. You can't put a little Dark Matter in a test tube or in an electron microscope. Physicists aren't even sure what it is. They only know that something is missing from their equasions, so they had to make something up to account for why the Universe hasn't collapsed in on itself. They could see the effects of it, but not the substance or force itself. |
Be careful, please, when attributing motives and words to great scientists. Also when telling physicists what they do and do not know. I'm not a physicist myself but several readers are. Many of us known him quite well from his writings and get tetchy when people claim that such a scientist REALLY believed that they were right, or some similar mallarky. Einstein did not think something was missing in the sense you mean. He found it difficult to accept the idea that the Universe could not be static (as he, and most others at the time, thought it was).
He introduced the cosmological constant to provide a counter for gravitational attraction and, thereby, stabilising the universe as a whole. Unfortunately, as we now realise, his reasoning was wrong and the cosmological constant does not explain expansion in the form he proposed it.
If you want to talk about Dark energy and Dark matter then you need to do some reading first to understand the basics. I can recommend the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant **
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html ****
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/darkmatter.html ****
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html ***
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/MystDarkMatter.html ***
| Quote: |
|
My point is, there is evidence for the existance of a means for transmitting information, instantly, from person to person with no apparent physical carrier. It seems to be affected by strong emotions that are difficult to replicate on demand. |
No there is not. Evidence is exactly what there is NOT. There are stories, anecdotal and mostly second hand. There are personal instances of deja-vu or a similar 'spooky' feeling. Sure, no problem. When the slide-rule comes out, though, and people are measured to see if such a thing is really improbable or if such a feeling really did occur at such a time - well, then we have our problem.
In the examples you give it should be possible to identify someone who is either naturally talented or has a genetic advantage or similar and is, therefore, better at psi yhan average. We haven't found such a person yet which is odd.
Let's take a concrete example. You write :-
| Quote: |
| My father, when he was younger, knew something was wrong at home and called to find out his brother had shot himself in the leg. |
OK. Now I would say that this is not only unremarkable but actually bordering on the mundane. If he had felt a sudden pain in his leg at the time of the shooting then I might be tempted to consider further.
Think about it this way. An average man thinks of sex every 7 seconds according to some psychs..(I think they are full of it, but, hey, it's their field). How many times do you think a man thinks about home in a day ? Now when you later say 'knew something wrong' what it probably keys to is that your dad thought of home and rang. He found his brother had shot his leg and immediately thought - 'I knew something was wrong'.
I can't do the stats for this since it's difficult to do probs on this sort of sample. I would guess, however, that this sort of event would be very very common due to simple blind chance. The same would be true for the mother and children - most mothers think of little else when separated and so I would actually PREDICT that a mother would know when across town. She knows every time she crosses town that the child is ill, missing, dying, abducted etc etc. Sooner or later she will be right...simple stats.
| Quote: |
|
Perhaps it is related to the bonding of sub-atomic particles (if I'm using the right terms) where two paritcles are linked in such a way that what afects one partacle also changes its linked twin, instantaneously and regardless of distance. Perhaps the same force that permits this faster-than-light transmission of information is somehow used by our brains. (This is just a crack-brained theory, I'm obviously no physicist) |
Arghhh....my pet hate is when someone goes from very little knowledge of physics to suddenly postulating an antirely new field within the subject. The BBC is full of cosmological theorists and Relativity de-bunkers who don't know a lepton from a cup of lipton's tea. You have got hold of a bit of several things here. You are basically sort of talking about quantum entanglement but such theory cannot really be talked about in these terms since it is necessary to know a bit of QM/QE before the concepts are meaningful. Talking about particles 'linked' or similar is not really what it is all about. Physics is hard stuff. You need good math and a lot of study.
First do the math, then the nobel-prize winning cosmology model :-))
| Quote: |
|
Basicaly, what I'm trying to say, and I admit I didn't express myself very well in my first post, is that there are still areas where we lack the tools (physical or theoretical) to measure the forces involved. |
What tools would we need. In the examples you gave, a simple clock, paper and pen would have been sufficient to record the event. The tools are not the problem. Finding something to measure - that's the problem.
[
Regards
Chris
ok, I'm making a total hash out of my arguments. You are right, I should have left physics out of it, having only a hazy layman's understanding of the subject from reading a book about it years ago. I wasn't trying to argue the definate existance of psychic abilities, only that they shouldn't be ruled out as a possible explanation for certain events.
As I said in my first post, I'm torn between belief and skepticism on the subject. Such events are all too easy to fake.
But in some cases it does appear to be more than a statistical coincidence.
Take the case of my father that I mentioned earlier for example: What I failed to mention (and probably should have) was that he was at work, in a potato shed, when his brother shot himself. He was so convinced that something was wrong that he left work to find a telephone, risking losing his job. It was not simply a casual call home to check up on things.
You are right that simply recording the time of his 'premonition' would have been proof, but who, under such curcumstances, would take the time to hunt for a pen and paper.
I'm getting off on tangents again.
I was just reading a thread in the religion and philosophy forum about the existance of god, and Indi (I think it was Indi, I'll have to go back and check) made an argument about not being able to prove a negative. She (or He?) used the example of a yellow and pink polkadot termite. I guess what I'm trying to point out is similar to the point Indi was trying to make - You assert that there is no such thing as psychic penomenon, but I believe that there are enough examples of it to prove your assertion wrong.
As I said in my first post, I'm torn between belief and skepticism on the subject. Such events are all too easy to fake.
But in some cases it does appear to be more than a statistical coincidence.
Take the case of my father that I mentioned earlier for example: What I failed to mention (and probably should have) was that he was at work, in a potato shed, when his brother shot himself. He was so convinced that something was wrong that he left work to find a telephone, risking losing his job. It was not simply a casual call home to check up on things.
You are right that simply recording the time of his 'premonition' would have been proof, but who, under such curcumstances, would take the time to hunt for a pen and paper.
I'm getting off on tangents again.
I was just reading a thread in the religion and philosophy forum about the existance of god, and Indi (I think it was Indi, I'll have to go back and check) made an argument about not being able to prove a negative. She (or He?) used the example of a yellow and pink polkadot termite. I guess what I'm trying to point out is similar to the point Indi was trying to make - You assert that there is no such thing as psychic penomenon, but I believe that there are enough examples of it to prove your assertion wrong.
| Jinx wrote: |
| ok, I'm making a total hash out of my arguments. You are right, I should have left physics out of it, having only a hazy layman's understanding of the subject from reading a book about it years ago. I wasn't trying to argue the definate existence of psychic abilities, only that they shouldn't be ruled out as a possible explanation for certain events.
As I said in my first post, I'm torn between belief and skepticism on the subject. Such events are all too easy to fake. |
Well....science never rules anything out completely since most things are statistically possible, if extremely unlikely.
| Quote: |
|
But in some cases it does appear to be more than a statistical coincidence. Take the case of my father that I mentioned earlier for example: What I failed to mention (and probably should have) was that he was at work, in a potato shed, when his brother shot himself. He was so convinced that something was wrong that he left work to find a telephone, risking losing his job. It was not simply a casual call home to check up on things. |
Well. as I said, I'm no statistician and although I can do simple probability calcs I wouldn't want to start computing complex multi-variable systems lest I give myself a headache and end up looking a Pratt when I get it wrong.
I would just point out that
a) human memory is extremely malleable - it is easy to change someone’s memory of an event, very easy.
b) Eye witness reports are a terrible basis to formulate theory. A few hundred years ago you could have found thousands of people who would claim seriously to have seen a demon or devil. Were they all lying? Some were for sure, but surely not all? No, of course not. Reality is a personal construction of the perception. If perception is rooted in reality and consciousness and thought work well then the individual has a good working model of reality. It is never perfect, though. It is astonishingly easy to be convinced that you saw, felt or heard something that was simply not there. Magicians do it all the time and police interviewers have to go on long courses to learn how to avoid doing it.
Given all this, the best model to work out what is real is scientific method. Repeatable, explicable and logically coherent thought. It is doing amazingly well so far and I, for one, would be unwilling to junk the majority of physics without some pretty impressive evidence of Psi. To date I have seen nothing that even raises my interest above a mild curiosity (the recent work by J Utts). Most of the psi world is inhabited by charlatans, cheats, crooks and con-merchants. Spiritualism often gets mixed into the parapsychology to give a new mumbo-jumbo (quantum mechanics always features somewhere because those who have read a bit of it can make wildly improbable statements and only the real scientist will know what nonsense they are babbling when they explain how wave probability fields collapse into personal conscious states etc etc...
There are some proper scientists working on consciousness and physics. Roger Penrose springs to mind. His work will be much more interesting that a bunch of statisticians with Ghostbusters costumes on.....
| Quote: |
|
I was just reading a thread in the religion and philosophy forum about the existance of god, and Indi (I think it was Indi, I'll have to go back and check) made an argument about not being able to prove a negative. She (or He?) used the example of a yellow and pink polkadot termite. I guess what I'm trying to point out is similar to the point Indi was trying to make - You assert that there is no such thing as psychic penomenon, but I believe that there are enough examples of it to prove your assertion wrong. |
No - I assert that it is extremely unlikely. Most things are possible at some remote outpost of the last chance saloon, but most improbabilities are, as the name implies, unlikely.
I point out that science knows how it works, has a system of principles which work when we test them, has explanations for nearly the whole cosmology we see around and, whilst certainly not having a full model of reality, it has a pretty good work in progress.
Psi phenomena require you to start again, almost from first principles.
The best way I can say it is :
if a man walks into a pub and offers you a brand new Aston Martin DB9 for 20 quid then he could be genuine, it is certainly possible. If you know that the guy has repeatedly cheated other people with the same offer then you might be a bit wary. If you also find out that he has never actually produced a DB9 in a crowd (only when 1 or 2 people go round to his garage).
At that point I would buy a round, sit down, and watch what happens next.
I wouldn't be reaching for a 20 quid note...
Regards
Chris
| Jinx wrote: |
| ok, I'm making a total hash out of my arguments. You are right, I should have left physics out of it, having only a hazy layman's understanding of the subject from reading a book about it years ago. I wasn't trying to argue the definate existence of psychic abilities, only that they shouldn't be ruled out as a possible explanation for certain events.
As I said in my first post, I'm torn between belief and skepticism on the subject. Such events are all too easy to fake. |
Well....science never rules anything out completely since most things are statistically possible, if extremely unlikely.
| Quote: |
|
But in some cases it does appear to be more than a statistical coincidence. Take the case of my father that I mentioned earlier for example: What I failed to mention (and probably should have) was that he was at work, in a potato shed, when his brother shot himself. He was so convinced that something was wrong that he left work to find a telephone, risking losing his job. It was not simply a casual call home to check up on things. |
Well. as I said, I'm no statistician and although I can do simple probability calcs I wouldn't want to start computing complex multi-variable systems lest I give myself a headache and end up looking a Pratt when I get it wrong.
I would just point out that
a) human memory is extremely malleable - it is easy to change someone’s memory of an event, very easy.
b) Eye witness reports are a terrible basis to formulate theory. A few hundred years ago you could have found thousands of people who would claim seriously to have seen a demon or devil. Were they all lying? Some were for sure, but surely not all? No, of course not. Reality is a personal construction of the perception. If perception is rooted in reality and consciousness and thought work well then the individual has a good working model of reality. It is never perfect, though. It is astonishingly easy to be convinced that you saw, felt or heard something that was simply not there. Magicians do it all the time and police interviewers have to go on long courses to learn how to avoid doing it.
Given all this, the best model to work out what is real is scientific method. Repeatable, explicable and logically coherent thought. It is doing amazingly well so far and I, for one, would be unwilling to junk the majority of physics without some pretty impressive evidence of Psi. To date I have seen nothing that even raises my interest above a mild curiosity (the recent work by J Utts). Most of the psi world is inhabited by charlatans, cheats, crooks and con-merchants. Spiritualism often gets mixed into the parapsychology to give a new mumbo-jumbo (quantum mechanics always features somewhere because those who have read a bit of it can make wildly improbable statements and only the real scientist will know what nonsense they are babbling when they explain how wave probability fields collapse into personal conscious states etc etc...
There are some proper scientists working on consciousness and physics. Roger Penrose springs to mind. His work will be much more interesting that a bunch of statisticians with Ghostbusters costumes on.....
| Quote: |
|
I was just reading a thread in the religion and philosophy forum about the existance of god, and Indi (I think it was Indi, I'll have to go back and check) made an argument about not being able to prove a negative. She (or He?) used the example of a yellow and pink polkadot termite. I guess what I'm trying to point out is similar to the point Indi was trying to make - You assert that there is no such thing as psychic penomenon, but I believe that there are enough examples of it to prove your assertion wrong. |
No - I assert that it is extremely unlikely. Most things are possible at some remote outpost of the last chance saloon, but most improbabilities are, as the name implies, unlikely.
I point out that science knows how it works, has a system of principles which work when we test them, has explanations for nearly the whole cosmology we see around and, whilst certainly not having a full model of reality, it has a pretty good work in progress.
Psi phenomena require you to start again, almost from first principles.
The best way I can say it is :
if a man walks into a pub and offers you a brand new Aston Martin DB9 for 20 quid then he could be genuine, it is certainly possible. If you know that the guy has repeatedly cheated other people with the same offer then you might be a bit wary. If you also find out that he has never actually produced a DB9 in a crowd (only when 1 or 2 people go round to his garage).
At that point I would buy a round, sit down, and watch what happens next.
I wouldn't be reaching for a 20 quid note...
Regards
Chris
yes i think we can be a psychic.
Some times i feel different and amazing things like seeing something unusual, seeing something already happened or from the future, deja vu, and feeling something unusual.
I cant enumerate those incidents, but i have felt those.
If u think from the science's point of view, its fake, but still we happen to believe in some para-human things.
So i believe in being a psychic
Some times i feel different and amazing things like seeing something unusual, seeing something already happened or from the future, deja vu, and feeling something unusual.
I cant enumerate those incidents, but i have felt those.
If u think from the science's point of view, its fake, but still we happen to believe in some para-human things.
So i believe in being a psychic
yeah i agree we can be psycic just most of us hardly have any power
| Jinx wrote: |
|
Einstien realized that something was missing from his theories, so he invented a substance (I forget what the original name for it was, but I believe that thay call it "Dark Matter" today). There is no way to measure this substance. You can't put a little Dark Matter in a test tube or in an electron microscope. Physicists aren't even sure what it is. They only know that something is missing from their equasions, so they had to make something up to account for why the Universe hasn't collapsed in on itself. They could see the effects of it, but not the substance or force itself. |
Wow, that's way off. Dark Matter is basically non-light emitting matter in the universe. For example, if you were on another planet circling another star, you would not be able to see earth since it does not emit light. That is why it's called "dark matter". There's nothing mysterious about it. Every time you do a test on something that doesn't emit light, you do a test on dark matter! Dark matter first came into discussion since astronomers calculations were'nt adding up. Because of the laws of gravity, there seemed to be a lot of matter in the universe that we cannot observe in the night sky. To account for this, they computed how much mass there should be among galaxies, and subtract this from what you actually can see. The remaining portion is called dark matter because it is the matter that is 'unseeable'. The whole reason that this is even an issue in physics and astronomy is that there seems to be a lot more dark matter than what we would expect there to be. There is nothing inherently weird or psychic about dark matter. It just happened to be a cool name that people who don't know physics latch onto. And the fact it has not been entirely explained causes the pseudoscientists to go wild over it.
On to the topic at hand. In order for any "psychic" even to occur, there has to be a transmission of information from the event that the psychic sees, to the psychic. Since there is no means by which this information can get transferred, I don't believe that psychic abilities are possible. For example, in computers, electrons (or electric current rather) carries all of the information that comes through that monitor you're staring at. There is no physical link between an event and the person that would transfer this information to the person. So it isn't possible.
| the1991 wrote: |
|
Wow, that's way off. Dark Matter is basically non-light emitting matter in the universe. For example, if you were on another planet circling another star, you would not be able to see earth since it does not emit light. That is why it's called "dark matter". There's nothing mysterious about it. Every time you do a test on something that doesn't emit light, you do a test on dark matter! Dark matter first came into discussion since astronomers calculations were'nt adding up. Because of the laws of gravity, there seemed to be a lot of matter in the universe that we cannot observe in the night sky. To account for this, they computed how much mass there should be among galaxies, and subtract this from what you actually can see. The remaining portion is called dark matter because it is the matter that is 'unseeable'. The whole reason that this is even an issue in physics and astronomy is that there seems to be a lot more dark matter than what we would expect there to be. There is nothing inherently weird or psychic about dark matter. It just happened to be a cool name that people who don't know physics latch onto. And the fact it has not been entirely explained causes the pseudoscientists to go wild over it. |
You beat me to it :-) Better explanation than I would have managed though..nice one.
| Quote: |
|
On to the topic at hand. In order for any "psychic" even to occur, there has to be a transmission of information from the event that the psychic sees, to the psychic. Since there is no means by which this information can get transferred, I don't believe that psychic abilities are possible. For example, in computers, electrons (or electric current rather) carries all of the information that comes through that monitor you're staring at. There is no physical link between an event and the person that would transfer this information to the person. So it isn't possible. |
Ahh, but the pseudo-science lobby never let something minor like that stand in the way of their beliefs. No doubt we will hear a theory which relies on EM waves from the brain 'entraining' passing RF waves and modulating the waves to carry thoughts....:-)
Damn...that will probably give them ideas ...LOL
Regards
Chris
I personally think of these as "strange coincidences." I get a couple. I think everyone does. Once I was telling my mother about the Apple's macintosh computer commercials while we were watching television during intermission and then I don't know I guess it was pure impulse but I went on a random channel and the timing could have been a little better but it was the last 6 seconds of an Apple's macintosh computer commercial. Another time I was holding a pack of cards and I was like, I really like the 3 of spades and I pull out a random card, and it happened to be the 3 of spades. There were other "strange coincidences." And yes I consider all of these just mere coincidences.
These "Strange Coincidences" happen more often than can be attributed to just coincidence ...
Maybe there is really some amount of psychic ability in all of us. Was there any large scale tests done to measure the psychic ability to guess a card or things like that ?
Maybe there is really some amount of psychic ability in all of us. Was there any large scale tests done to measure the psychic ability to guess a card or things like that ?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Please provide evidence for that last claim because I would challenge it vigorously. C |
If you don't know anything about supernatural powers, you cannot argue against it
| coolsmile wrote: |
|
If you don't know anything about supernatural powers, you cannot argue against it |
I do know a bit about science and if supernatural powers actually exist then it seems to me that the only way to examine and explain them would be to use scientific methods since this has been shown to work with all other observable phenomena that we have encountered.
Regards
Chris
Related topics
 |