Okay, if there is no ‘psychic’ ability, then I should be able to perform with a deep self-hatred and a heavily negative attitude as well as performing with self-love, and a positive mental attitude. So those PMA books are useless.
So capacitor, those who perform better while possessing a positive mental attitude, as compared to a negative one, are psychic? Alrighty then!
I couldn’t help imagining you as the woman off ‘Donnie Darko’ with her ‘fear and love’ board…
Why not post all of them so we can see the huge amount of proof that is out there, I for one would love to see some proof as all i’ve ever seen is heresay and opinion.
I’m amazed that this thread is still alive. The answer to the OP’s question is so simple and factual it should be in GQ. The answer is NO. Next question.
Ha. I love that reading of things. Scientists, those tricky bastards, cover up the truth by using facts! And we have to look past the facts to see the truth. And the truth, of course, is what we want it to be. Especially if it runs totally contrary to the facts.
Yes, not everyone reacts the same way to a dose of medicine. Then again, the results are reproduceable. If someone benefits, or gets worse, you can find out why. You can also use tests to find out if something is effective. The results don’t go POOF just because you test them, which you’re claiming is true for psychic phenomena. Reproduceability is the key to much of science; the closest thing to proof you seem to offer is excuses for why psychics can’t meet those criteria, and can’t be tested or measured. Apparently that’s because it runs on love or brain waves or NDEs or pink unicorns or something, I’m not quite sure why.
If I had a cite, The Great Unwashed, then I’d give it to you. I choose not to spend my time googling for cites. I have other things to do. It’s not my place to prove you wrong in matters of spiritual belief or lack thereof. I merely told you why I believe in these things. Now if you and Musicat had bothered to read the title and OP, you’d see that this is not a debate about the existence of psychic abilities, it is about whether or not such abilities can be developed if they exist.
Wanna debate the existence thereof, feel free to start a thread about it. Odds are somebody else has already anyway. But if you wanna keep this hijack going the way it’s headed, it’s only a matter of time till the mods decide to move it to the Pit.
To be fair, this thread is about developing psychic abilities, not about weither or not they exist.
Yes yes I know the whole “you can’t develop something that doesn’t exist” but for the sake of this thread it uses an underlying assumption.
That doesn’t make cityboy/lekatt’s claims any more ridiculous.
Covering up truth with facts? Good idea. Whatever that truth is, it sounds like a load of bullshit.
Well, There is a whole system of psychic training called Remote Viewing based on the premise that pyschic abilities can be learned and developed. The Pentagon banked on it through funding and support over several years.
I have found some interesting scientific papers and evidence here.
http://www.boundary.org/research.htm
For fun and to develop your psychic muscle!
http://www.gotpsi.org/bi/gotpsi.htm
Given the OP, and assuming psychic powers exist, we need to know the ‘mechanism’ before we can see whether training is possible.
-
If psychic powers are genetically inherited, then only those folk with the gene will be able to perform them.
Training not possible for others. -
If psychic powers are because of an accident (e.g. mutant spider bite), then only those folk who are involved will be able to perform them.
Training not possible for others. -
If psychic powers are a gift from a God to His worshippers, then only those folk with the belief will be able to perform them.
Training not possible for others. -
If psychic powers are a mental technique, then indeed training is possible.
So (using the full extent of my scientific training) this proves that the chance of training is 1 in 4 = 25%. :rolleyes:
P.S. I know this isn’t the purpose of the thread, but I’m a scientist…
From Lekatt’s link:
*Criticism: Parapsychology does not have a “repeatable” experiment.
Response: When many people talk about a repeatable psi experiment, they usually have in mind an experiment like those conducted in elementary physics classes to demonstrate the acceleration of gravity, or simple chemical reactions. In such experiments, where there are relatively few, well-known and well-controllable variables, the experiments can be performed by practically anyone, anytime, and they will work. But insisting on this level of repeatability is inappropriate for parapsychology, or for that matter, for most social or behavioral science experiments. Psi experiments usually involve many variables, some of which are poorly understood and difficult or impossible to directly control. Under these circumstances, scientists use statistical arguments to demonstrate “repeatability” instead of the common, but restrictive view that “If it’s real, I should be able to do it whenever I want.”*
I don’t know what this chap means by ‘many variables, some of which are poorly understood and difficult or impossible to directly control’. There’s only one: the psychic power itself.
I particularly like his last comment - of course us scientists think “If psychic powers are real, I should be able to do it just once.”
If psychic powers did exist, it would be simple to test for them.
Getting a believer in psychic powers to admit there is no evidence is much harder.
Then the Pentagon abandoned it, because there was no evidence it existed.
If remote viewing exists, why don’t they tell us e.g. where Saddam is now? I understand there’s a reward.
More worryingly, couldn’t terrorists track President Bush? Surely a remote viewer could have seen his recent trip to Iraq and arranged an assassination?
WHAT ARE THE SECRET SERVICE DOING ABOUT THIS THREAT?
Presumably there is some ‘mind shield’ that can be used to protect the President, perhaps made of tin foil.
Here are some quotes from there:
‘We are developing and testing new theories and descriptions of physical reality including psi functioning.’
How about the theory of dowsing?
That’s been around for about 500 years. When is the first successful demonstration due?
'Might it be that the core laws of quantum mechanics, like entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, really belong to a wider domain of nature than physics? ’
Might be. Perhaps the World is floating on a Giant Turtle.
I believe it has, on TV, in books, in research projects, and millions of others agree with me. I won’t be upset if you don’t.
That’s not what this thread is about.
Love
Skepticism is like everything else: too little and you get duped; too much and you miss out on the benefits available. Everything in life is a balance between two extremes. Healthy skepticism reserves judgement until one has studied both sides of the subject throughly and come to his own conclusion.
Unhealthly skepticism doubts everything that his teachers, peers tell him to doubt until someone proves it different to him, which is unlikely to ever happen. At its extreme it is insanity.
No one can do your homework for you, if you want to know you must do your own.
You can’t learn anything by reading only the skeptical material. Branch out and read both sides throughly.
The trickiest part of whether or not paranormal psychic abilities can be increased is of course meausring them in the first place.
W/o the baseline measurement, how can you tell if your attempts at training have been fruitful, or which attempts have been the most fruitful?
Can one begin at zero paranormal psychic ablility?
Or as is claimed, do we all have some level of paranormal psychic ability? If so do we all have exactly the same amount, or is it like other abilities, attributes and strengths- everyone’s a little bit different, (but within wide parameters)?
The initial test for the paranormal psychic abilities is the sticking point.
Once an accurate test for paranormal psychic ability is decided on, the possibility of intentional development of these abilities will become imminent and eminently assessable.
ralph, Lekatt, do either of you have agood test that’ll let one distinguish between a genuine psychic, a fraudulent con artist pretending to be psychic, and someone’s set of lucky guesses?
Once this method of discernment has been introduced, the rest of the conversation becomes drastically less controvertible. If someone would be so kind, then we could get on with the rest of this debate.
Then, Sir, you may not be so much wrong as you are in the wrong forum. If you wish to give an unsubstantiated opinion, you might get a better reception in MPSIMS. Traditionally, and by design, GD is the place where a poster’s claims need to be backed up by proof; and the more outlandish your claims are, the stronger the proof should be. To many of us, your claims are so outlandish that they fall off the edge of reason.
So my suggestion to you is: Learn to spend the time to google or haunt another forum.
You are correct, Sir. But the question of “whether or not they exist” cannot be ignored, or the OP is merely a theoretical, philosophical, metaphysical postulate and once again, is in the wrong forum.
Example: Does the Invisible Pink Unicorn have big tits? Does the IPU shit in the woods? We could debate this all day, but until someone comes up with solid, concrete evidence that an IPU exists, there is no way to test an answer, no way to prove anyone right or wrong. It would be no more than a theoretical, philosophical, metaphysical discussion, and a pretty silly one at that.
So the question of whether any psychic ability exists is a very important one, and not a hijack, at least in this forum.
First, I was simply interjecting that our Government had some reason to believe that Remote Viewing was a worthwhile intelligence project, while it lasted. It seems that experimental data supports this. This is an excerpt from one of the papers there Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications (Radin). It is a very interesting read.
Personally, I believe remote viewing was a lock step, cold war escalation in response to the Soviet Union’s own Psychic warfare project. They had it, we didn’t- 'nuff said.
I, however, am not so quick to dismiss the legitimate scientific, experimental, and analytical works at The Boundary Institute that you so cheaply and blatantly devalue with some random quotes and inarguable reasoning.
Here is also a quote from there:
“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.” – Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
So you’re not going to offer any cites for your statements?? When you said
you were joking? Or was I not being exact enough? What’s the problem with naming those four universities?
But you’re not going to even point us in the right direction? Not even cites of those four universities, ‘at least’ one of which was getting positive results? I’m sure they would be a very convincing place to start.
Or maybe you have nothing factual to offer at all, just the usual nonsense, but were hoping no-one would bother to ask?
devilsknew:
“Remote viewing” was a failure. It was discontinued by the government because it could not be demonstrated that any such ability existed. When these guys are subjected to labratory conditions they fail every time.
The Soviets discontinued their own psychic programs for the same reason-- they couldn’t authenticate any genuine psychic phenomena.
I would like to hear a believer in psychic phenomena explain to me the mechanism by which it works. By what physical process is a person able to read minds, “remote view” events in other location, predict the future, bend spoons or talk to dead people?
Is it just magic or does it follow the laws of physics? The more you examine these claims the more asinine they become.
Devilsknew, the PEAR studies have not been replicated, and much of what they report is such a small effect size as to question if anything is being detected at all.
By loosening the controls as you describe – and this sounds like a gansfeld experiment – more “hits” seem to occur. But this is precisely what a reputable researcher should not do. Tightening controls are required to reduce the possibility that what is being measured is not what is wanted.
Some of the characteristics of pseudo-science are[ul][li]Small effect sizes[]When controls are tightened, the effect diminishes[]No replicationSubjective measurement[/ul][/li]I would like to refer you to a good essay, Russell Turpin’s Characterization of Quack Theories. Please read it carefully.
I agree with your Arthur C. Clarke quote only if I can make a slight alteration. Here is is, verbatim, with only one word modified (in bold/ital):
The PEAR results have not been replicated? Can you state that with absolute certainty in fact? How would you “tighten” the controls in such an experiment?
I would never alter or misquote Arthur C. Clarke as you have done. Sacrilege!
devilsknew, while it would be impossible for Musicat to prove such a negative. it should be simple for you to show us where the PEAR results have been replicated, right?