Do any of you have psychic powers yet?

Originally posted by Ellimist
Ertai-
~if you want to prove something like government statements... PROVIDE THEM, GODDAMNIT... STOP HIDING.
Click to expand...

Well, I was stopping from coming here... There is so much mess from skeptics and faith believers that there is no use in trying to talk on these forums about these unprovable debates..


If you seek around the most powerfull search tool on the world (the internet of course!) you will see a lot of stuff..

There are known universities in the USA that have ongoing projects about this matters..

Research institutes, and other serious scientific departments that study these phenomena..

CIA did had the remote viewing project, It even invented the term remote viewing, this is a No Brainer for anyone that lived thru 1995 and saw all the media talk about it, etc.. (I assume your just not a tennager... right?)

Anyway Im not waiting for you to reply here, I hardly check this forum nowadays, it only wastes my time with these "lead to nowere discussions"

Im just trying to point out the facts here, If you are a skeptic I wont try to "teach you my faith" or anything else..


Oh and BTW I dont have to prove to you anything, Im just telling you that for some decades there as been experiments with REPEATABLE ESP and PK effects, althought not much accepted by the general mainstream science..

You can say on this forums with all your skeptic rage: "Nooo... I dont believe it, Prove It!"

Its not my scientific studies, and I wont prove a thing If I did not made those, you should just check those out and make up your own mind..

I was just here to remember those teenagers that these things have been seriously studied, and even sometimes articles with experiments proving the veracity of ESP phenomena on Nature and Scientific American have been published..

Now you use your scientific curiosity if you wan to really know at least a little bit about it.. even if in the end you take the conclusion that all is a lie..

You believe in what you want, Im not here to change that..

Cya now...
 
I don't expect that Ertai will reply to this and I really don't care if he does... this isn't for him. It's for the impressionable young minds that are eagerly reading this forum to satisfy their senses of curiostity and hunger for discovery. These are very positive traits, unfortunately they are misleading without a balance of skepticism.

Skepticism isn't a bad word. In fact, it's definition is: "An undecided, inquiring state of mind; doubt; uncertainty." Being certain is something that exists in very small quantities in science. And just to be clear, science isn't a discipline that's reserved just for scientists, Ph.D.'s, and researchers. Everyone can benefit from science and scientific method. The most primitive culture on the planet, undoubtedly, uses science. Think of the pastoralist who monitors the weather by observing phenomena he is experienced at interpreting; or the hunter that can identify game, when it was present on the trail, how fast it was traveling and a host of other information by observing the nature of its tracks.

The problem is that unskeptical belief in many new age ideas and supernatural "phenomena" leads people into the realm of pseudoscience and anti-science. We forgoe the methods of science and the rigors of peer review for wild speculation and, often times, out-right lies by people with hidden agendas.

Remote viewing is one such "wild speculation."

Originally posted by Ertai
Well, I was stopping from coming here... There is so much mess from skeptics and faith believers that there is no use in trying to talk on these forums about these unprovable debates..
Click to expand...

Someone who has "faith" in their position, welcomes scrutiny from his/her peers. Very little in life can be proven unqestionably, but more information/evidence exists to indicate that remote viewing is a fantasy than to say otherwise.


Originally posted by Ertai
If you seek around the most powerfull search tool on the world (the internet of course!) you will see a lot of stuff..
Click to expand...

False. It just happens to be the most readily available. You will see a lot of stuff, but being on the internet is hardly a credential.

Originally posted by Ertai
There are known universities in the USA that have ongoing projects about this matters..

Research institutes, and other serious scientific departments that study these phenomena..
Click to expand...

Name two. You're probably right, of course, but my point is you are speaking about things which you don't know. Ertai assumes these facts.

Originally posted by Ertai
CIA did had the remote viewing project, It even invented the term remote viewing, this is a No Brainer for anyone that lived thru 1995 and saw all the media talk about it, etc.. (I assume your just not a tennager... right?)
Click to expand...

This is hardly a credential. The government has a long history of taking positions and making claims that are wrong or inappropriate. Just try to convince a Native American that reservations were always a 'good' thing. Or look at the work of Senator McCarthy during the Eisenhower administration. Perhaps the government's decision about Japanese Americans was a good one? The Tuskegee Experiment?

Originally posted by Ertai
Im just trying to point out the facts here, If you are a skeptic I wont try to "teach you my faith" or anything else..
Click to expand...

Again.. there are no "facts" that I've seen. And, again, to go through life without skepticism is foolhardy. There are plenty of con-artists who live to take your money.


Originally posted by Ertai
Oh and BTW I dont have to prove to you anything, Im just telling you that for some decades there as been experiments with REPEATABLE ESP and PK effects, althought not much accepted by the general mainstream science..
Click to expand...

One thing is correct. Ertai doesn't have to prove anything. But for us to blindly accept what he's saying without some proof is foolhardy. I, for one, am offended that people like Ertai expect this in others.

He is wrong to say that "decades" of experiments exist with "Repeatable" results in ESP and any other supernatural experience. That claim is an outright fabrication. His statement that experiments are "not much accepted by the general mainstream science" should be telling in, and of, itself. Science has no choice but to accept any phenomena or anomaly that meets the three criteria I've mentioned at the end of this post.

Originally posted by Ertai
You can say on this forums with all your skeptic rage: "Nooo... I dont believe it, Prove It!"
Click to expand...

Ertai might just as well have claimed to have a "one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple-people eater" in his garage. And then expect others to prove him wrong. Then when someone calls his bluff out of frustration of the wild claims, he'll change the rules: "oh, you can't see him... didn't I tell you? He's invisible."

He states there is a preponderance of evidence that supports his claim. We (the vocal and more skeptical few) say, "sure... show us." In return, we get, "it's not my job... you disbelieve me, so you look for my supporting evidince. But, oh... didn't I tell you? It's invisible."

Originally posted by Ertai
Its not my scientific studies, and I wont prove a thing If I did not made those, you should just check those out and make up your own mind..
Click to expand...

It's purple... no wait... it only eats purple people. ..... but it does have only one eye, I assure you. (yes... there is a bit of uncharacteristic ridicule... but only because your position is 'ridiculous').

Originally posted by Ertai
I was just here to remember those teenagers that these things have been seriously studied, and even sometimes articles with experiments proving the veracity of ESP phenomena on Nature and Scientific American have been published..
Click to expand...

A search at Nature (all journals) for "remote viewing" produced this two hits. This was one of them: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v419/n6904/abs/419269a_fs.html

That paper suggests that "out of body" experiences are attributable to "failure by the brain to integrate complex somatosensory and vestibular information" as a result of electrical stimulation of the angular gyrus. Not at all a complimentary bit of research. The other hit was to do with telemicroscopy and is a real, but very explainable, form of remote viewing (it utilizes tiny cameras).

The same two words, "remote viewing," gave "no results" in a search at Scientific American (www.sciam.com). The term "ESP" gave exactly three hits:

1. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000464CE-BC82-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
This article was titled "Psychic Drift" and was about why scientists doubt ESP and psi phenomena.

2. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002F4E6-8CF7-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2
"Smart People Believe Weird Things," an article about weighing facts before deciding what to believe. I highly recommend this one.

3. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000547F6-C50D-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
"Hermits and Cranks" is about Martin Gardner, the author of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

Originally posted by Ertai
Now you use your scientific curiosity if you wan to really know at least a little bit about it.. even if in the end you take the conclusion that all is a lie..
Click to expand...

There seems to be little else to believe after satisfying my "scientific curiostity" with the ONLY sources of credibility that Ertai has ever mentioned.

Originally posted by Ertai
You believe in what you want, Im not here to change that..
Click to expand...

It's not about "believe," it's about weighing the evidence.

The preponderance of evidence is against the notion of ESP, Psi ability, or Remote Viewing. I concede that there was one study that indicated that more data was needed, but this study was conducted by an authority that was trying to justify the CIA's Stargate program. The two researchers that led the study disagreed over the results of the methods that, clearly, biased to positive results. This study is cited in a previous post of mine.

To all those who are reading with anticipation about the claims of those who've had "Psychic" experiences or anomalies, you must keep in mind this quote by Vilayanur S Ramachandran at the Nelson Mandela Lecture Theatre, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford:
There's an important lesson here in the history of science. And I think in general it's fair to say that for a curious phenomenon, an anomaly to make it into mainstream science and have an impact, it has to fulfil three criteria, and that is first you have to show it's a real phenomenon. Second, you have to have a candidate mechanism that explains what it might be. And third it has to have broad implications.
Click to expand...

"Remote viewing" satisfies the third criteria in that it would have very broad implications. But it fails in the first and second criteria.
 
If we would all be so sceptical,it would be sad.do you want to believe that once we die,we die? there's no "after" life? I don't...
Someone said "If God didn't exist,it would be worth it to create this belief".After all,we want to become better when we think of reincarnation. ..And I don't think we evolved from apes.
There're many things we don't know about. Anything is possible.
Respectfully,
simple_art
 
Originally posted by SkinWalker

It's not about "believe," it's about weighing the evidence.

Click to expand...

Or it’s about selective vision. You are looking only at the evidence that supports the way you are inclined to think. You don't believe in psychic phenomena so you only go looking for those articles whose opinions make you feel more secure that your own are correct (maybe we all do that even if we like to think we don’t). You didn't weigh anything.

For instance, there is scientific evidence that directly contradicts that OBEs are an illusion, as suggested in that link you posted.

One of the arguments against OBEs and NDEs as a real phenomenon is that the brain is still functioning, that there is in both cases neural activity. So the ‘dying’ person still has brain function, and enough of it to generate illusions and memories that are related later as out of body experiences.

Despite the fact that many people in these situations accurately report what they saw and heard at these times, the inclination of many sceptics is to say that they witnessed these experiences via their own senses. After all, the brain was still functioning, they say. Fair enough, nothing can be proved at that point, no one could deny that a brain with neural activity is still very much alive.

I think most scientists would say that ‘Life’ is when there is neural activity. They would say that there is no soul, all there is is a many-layered, folded mat of neurons, and that once these neurons cease to buzz with activity we are very much dead. No neural activity means no memories, no thoughts, a complete absence of consciousness – as dead as it is possible to be.

So it would be impossible for a person to have an OBE while their brain is not functioning. With no neural activity there is simply nothing, no electrical energy to generate the images, sounds, or the power to remember it. For if it was possible to do this, for the brain to ‘dream’ in this way, where would the energy come from in a brain that was dead?

For instance, an event is committed to memory by neurons connecting up in a certain way, when we decide we want to remember the event, a connection reoccurs and bingo, there it is in our heads. If you were undergoing an operation and died on the table, then revived, the memory of the OBE you may have had could be explained as the work of these neurons creating an impression of the OBE based on memories, fears, hopes, cultural influences etc. Even though you died in a technical sense, the brain function continues for a time, therefore the sceptics say you created it, it certainly is possible.

There is a medical procedure called Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest, where the brain is drained of blood, and the temperature lowered to hypothermic levels to perform delicate brain surgery. This operation is one where the patient is technically killed, in that their brain ceases to function. The technical details of how the blood flow is terminated and the brain temperature lowered can be read in the articles linked below, written by Dr Robert A. Solomon, the neurosurgeon. Also included are details of experiments on rats. It can be seen in these articles the remarkable ability of neurons to survive considerable amounts of time in a hypothermic state. There is no neural activity during these times, and yet patients often seem to recover with no reduced mental abilities, as far as I can tell.

It would be remarkable if someone were to have an OBE in this state, for with no brain activity it would be hard for sceptics to maintain the argument that they are generated by the random firings of neurons. The complex set of real-time memories (audio and visual) can only be generated by neural activity, according to them, so it ought to be impossible to have the illusion of an OBE under the circumstances of this operation.

However, that’s exactly what seems to have happened to a patient called Pam Reynolds, who witnessed her entire operation while in this brain frozen state. Not only did she witness what happened to her, she was able to describe afterwards the instruments used in the operation, though she never saw them. Her eyes were taped shut beforehand, and for sterilization reasons the instruments were kept out of sight in their boxes and hidden under sheets until the moment of the operation. Also they were not ‘ordinary’ instruments, but specialist ones, and she was able to describe them well enough to convince the doctors that she had seen them.

I believe the operation lasted an hour, during this time she was out of her body at a time when her brain’s neural activity had been arrested. How could she generate illusions of being out of her body, and then remember them, if the necessary power to generate them was absent at the time? The answer would seem to be that the experience was real, and that neurons therefore are not responsible for consciousness. If this is the case, and that there has been no missreporting of the facts, then it raises serious questions about the accuracy of current thinking of science on the relationship between the brain, consciousness and whether it is stuck fast inside your head.


http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nsg/NSGCPMC/articles/1998hyp.html

People.


http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nsg/NSGCPMC/articles/1992red.html

Rats.


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Pam Reynolds.
 
blocalsteve Wonderful post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I actually do agree that there is much to be learned about the brain, consciousness, and what happens when we die.

I don't mean to imply (which I probably did) that Psychic anomalies and ESP phenomena are beyond the realm of possibility. What I do hope to make clear is that being possible should mean accept it as truth, especially when someone makes claims that have not basis in fact or that cannot be supported by legitimate study.

Pam Reynolds' case appears very interesting, and, although the site appears somewhat slanted toward giving a reason to go to church, I have to agree that there is more going on than we can fully explain at the moment.

Still, he has yet to publish a paper on the methodology and results along with his conclusions, at least that I could find in the few minutes I looked, so I'll reserve final comment on the subject until a proper research study is published.

One must also consider that neural activity is the result of electrical connections that exist within neural pathways and are transmitted via ions like calcium, potassium, sodium and others. These ions will have charges regardless of whether a person has blood in their brain or not, but the hypothermia certainly will impede their "intermingling."

Wonderful post, however.
 
Its been awhile for me too!

I don't come hear that often anymore, I've been training my mind. But after all these weeks my abilities have grown very strongly. I was in my room and the tv came on by itself. But at the time I was thinking about getting my living room tv on.

thx

goodbye...until we meet again...
 
Here are serious sources for studied ESP phenomena..
you cant find them on nature and SCIAM sites because they dont have articles prior to 1996..
But you can find some sites with those articles... or you can go search in the Nature or SCIAM archives :D


1973
7 December - Nature - Editorial: "A Challenge to scientists"

1974
18 October - Nature Vol.251 - Editorial: 'Investigating the Paranormal' pp.559-560 #/ R.
Targ & H. Puthoff. "Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding" p.603-7

1975

13 February - New Scientist - "Can MoD Prevent Taylor from Using Money to Study 'Geller
Effect'" p.400

1974
14 October - National Enquirer - "ESP experiment defies odds of 10 billion to 1"

1973
August - Scientific American - Martin Gardner "Mathematical Games: An Astounding
Self-Test of Clairvoyance by Dr. Matrix" pp.98-101#
 
@skinwalker
I have been a silent reader of this thread, but now I want to butt in. My thought was: What if everyone of you is right? How can that be?
From very early childhood we are being “conditioned” to see what others see, to hear what others hear, to feel what others feel. We can therefore anticipate (but could never know) that other people experience the world quite similar to ourselves. What we learn includes in every society I came to know:
- it is basically good to be like others
- the waking hours are the “reality”, dreams are “unreal”
- there is only either reality or phantasy (or craziness) – if you see or sense things others cannot you are insane
- humans are the smartest beings on Earth
- people in distress can be funny (I have often seen children cry during comedies while adults laugh, that’s why I think this perception is something that MUST be learned)
- …continue if you wish…
But then all – now I am at a loss for words – philosophies/religions are basically trying to get us to *unlearn* those things.
We see things that surround us as “solid”, but maybe one can change? I here remember the mother in “God of the small things” saying that people are but “wholes in the universe”. Some meditation techniques include the reverse seeing of objects (like in my example above) or the not-seeing of solid objects in favour of their shadows. One argument of mine (I have another one up my sleeve) would be that different people are in different states of unlearning how they were conditioned to see the world. Opinion?
 
Hey Sparkle..

Ive got the same opinion..

And alot of people in the Psi functioning research field thing the same way as you...

Yes, for to believe in such non-logical things one must unlearn basic truths from our society..

just because we learn something doesnt mean its de final truth.. What do you think of past as holding any "truth"?
The future will certainly conclude that we were indeed far from the truth :p

Anyway, thats just some of my philosophy..

Sparkle what you just said is basically what Ive read on about some Remote Viewing books ;) Have you been reading some?
or just Psychological articles or ideas..

The though processes of the human mind it yet to be fully unferstood by us :)
 
I hope this thread is not entirely dead yet because I have a little something to contribute. I have a feeling I will get ridiculed to no end for this, but I fear not scrutiny, so I must have no intent to decieve. Right?

I no longer have any real psychic abilities or anything aside from prognostications in the form of dreams and visions, but I did once and I lost it. Well it is not as if I just woke up one morning and looked about asking "where is my spirit energy"? Rather I purposefully supressed it to make life harder on myself. I don't know what everyone would consider to be unnatural ability, but my body just naturally did things for me that no one else did, and my parents found it odd, but just thoght of me as a gifted child. For example, I was a very avid sugar eater and not a frequent flosser, so I got a cavity. My cavity was filled and that was that until the filling came out and the cavity vanished. I had never been sick until I lost my whatever you would call it with the exception of a feverish migrane (if you would call that a sickness). I also had a mental connection with my brother; we never spoke to each other unless we were around other people, but when it was just us, we knew what the other was thinking and what the other wanted and had a good time. The interesting thing about my brother and I is that we are not even twins; however, we were born exactly a year and a half apart--to the hour. As far as now, I have no abilities that everyone else does not have, but I knew what it was like to have full range of my entire set of abilities, and I would do nearly anything to get that back.

A little advice to Kinetic Spirit, don't get your hopes up on finding psychic powers unless you know what you are trying to achieve.
 
@Ertai
Great that you think the same way. To be honest: I don’t even know what remote viewing is all about (could be I know it under another name, though), I have not been able to follow most of the links given here (bad phone lines). I have also not read about this topic. What started me thinking was the mentioned remark hidden in “The God of small things”, and observations (I often meet shamans in my work).
It’s quite depressing to have found out yourself and then someone comes and says: hey, that’s been around for some time :)
Let’s see what you guys say to my second argument, which even more comes from observation.

@QuiotusII
I am itching to reply, but I will wait for skinwalker to answer first. Will be in the bush for the next days, completely offline. Your posting goes into the direction of what my second argument will be. After I have returned to a phone line I’ll go into more details. Promise.
 
@Sparkle,
astounding post
I have always thought like that but never solidified it into formal statments (I always just pushed it aside).
 
Yeah, skinwalker is the skeptic fellow around here.. and I like his posts

He does serve some purpose...
without skepticism we would just foul ourselves into believing in fairytales, monsters and a lot of crappy mystic stuff..

Im on the scientific and serious side of it, and contrary to popular knowledge serious paranormal research is still done by the thousands each year...

thats because every year those small labs have to prove to the people funding it that repeated lab experiments can be done regarding to the parascience issue...

Over and out :cool:
 
I'm here to back Ertai up. Randi's test conditions are not practical, it's been established by several people willing to take him up on the offer. For over a hundred years magicians have been used to evaluate the truthfulness of many psi experiments, and in reality, the ratio of frauds to success is invariably large. But people don't hear much about the successes. Anyway. Randi may have had help from scientists in developing his "test," but that hardly makes it scientific.

Now, you want references? here:

Velinov, Ivan, "Recent Soviet Experiments in Telepathic Communication," Foreign Science Bulletin, Vol 4, No 8, Aug., 1968

Science and Religion, The Impact of Thought Upon Matter. Papers at 2nd Oxford Conference, oxford, England: Mind and Matter Trust, 1959

Schwarz, berthold E., "Possible Telesomatic Reactions," Journal of the Medical Society of New Jesey, Vol. 64, No. 11, 1967

Schafer, Georg, "In Defiance of theIdeologists; Parapsychology in the Soviet Union," Journal of parapsychology, Vol. 30, NO 1, 1966

Ryzl, M., and Ryzlova, J., "A Case of High Scoring ESP Performance in the Hypnotic State," Journal of parapsychology, Vol 26, No. 3, 1962.

"a Repeated Calling ESP test with Sealed Cards," Journal of parapsychology, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1963

"Precognition SCoring and attitude toward ESP," J.O.P., Vol 32, No. 1, 1968

"New Discoveries in ESP," Grenzgebiete der Wissenshaft, No. 6, 1967, no. 1, 1968

"Psi developements in the USSR," Bulletin Foundation for Research on the nature of man, NO. 6, summer 1967

"Psychic power gets global test," The Independant, San Diego, Aug. 3, 1967

Reichenbach, Baron Karl von; The OD force; Letters on a newly discovered power in nature. Boston: 1854

Romains, Jules, "A fruitful Series of experiments," International journal of parapsychology, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1965

Rush, J., "Review of experiments in mental suggestion," JOurnal American society for psychical research, July, 1964

Ryzl, Milan, "research in telepathy in soviet Russia," J.O.P. Vol. 24, No. 2, 1961

"Psi Communications Project," The Newark College of Engineering research Foundation, 1966

Mutschall, Vladimir, "the Present Status of research in telepathy in the soviet union," Foreign Science Bulletin, Vol4, no 8, 1968. Aerospace technology divisoion, Library of congress.

Kirkbride, Katherine, "ESP Communication for the space age," Science and mechanics, Aug, 1969

"Plethysmograph Recordings as ESP responses,: International Journal of Neuro-psychiatry, Vol 2, Oct, 1966

Experiments in Mental Suggestion. Hampshire, England: Gally Hill Press, 1963.

Soukaresby, Lazar, "Biological information rather than parapsychology," Science and Religion, No 3, 1966

"Isotopes at the service of parapsychology," Znanie-Sila, 1967

"Preparation of Moscow-Sofia Telepathy Experiment," Oteschestven Front, Aug. 22, 1965, Bulgarian

'Some Electroencephalographic Indices in experimental research in Bio-telecommunicaton," Moscow, 1967

Pavlovam L.P., "Results and discussion of experiments with the NEdra-20," Paper presented: Seminar of technical parapsychology section affiliated All Union Engineering Institute, Moscow, Aug 4, 1967

"Changes in Dermo-Optics Sensitivity in vatoius Conditions of Illumination," Questions of of Complex Research on Dermo-Optics. Sverdlovsk: Pedagogical Inst, 1968

"Possibilty of Experimental Study of the properties of Time," Joint publications Research Service, Dept of Commerce, USA

"Methods and results of telepathic transmission of images," Paper presented: Symposium on parapsychology and health, section of technical parapsychology affiliated all union engineering inst, Moscow, april 24, 1967

Honestly, need I say more? There are thousands of papers and books published on the research conducted by scientific institutions. Many of such have been validated by nobel prize winning scientists. It does no credit to your intelligence to deny outright something you know absolutely nothing about.
 
Hmm...looks like I was replying to some posts made a few pages back in this thread. I went to look over my reply, and didn't recognize a single post before it. Oops. Anyway. I am a full blown sceptic(traditional spelling), and having such a mind has helped me to evaluate all the data that presents itself to me on this subject. Skinwalker is right, scepticism is aboslutely necessary for an impartial view. With such a mentality towards this research, I have only a mind to put stock in what has been proven, and being that so much indeed has been established on this subject(albeit, not by american scientists, slow, unwilling as they are) I have no choice but to support with all of my being much of what is being discussed here. America is a society of disbelievers in this branch of study, and they will be for a long time, and as a result they decades behind in research, but most importantly, they are decades behind in the desire for research.
 
Originally posted by Halcyon
Honestly, need I say more?
Click to expand...

Only about why none are from the last decade. Or the last two decades. Most of these references are over 30 years old. Are there any that you can point to that are closer to this century? :p

Originally posted by Halcyon
Many of such have been validated by nobel prize winning scientists.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in reviewing those if you could point them out.

Originally posted by Halcyon
It does no credit to your intelligence to deny outright something you know absolutely nothing about.
Click to expand...

It does no credit to one's intelligence to discount that in the "science" of Remote Viewing, no significant "viewings" have been documented and validated. The anecdote about finding an airplane is simply that. There is no evidence that supports that this was done by remote viewing.

It also does no credit to one's intelligence to discount the works of James Randi or his challenges... as there is no evidence that any of his work is invalid nor incorrect. His challenge still stands and it's prize is unclaimed.

I do, however, concede that there is less evidence than I would like (or appears to be at any rate) that proves the improbability of "psi" abilities, but, again, this burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to convince others of their claims. If there was any promising research within those references, there would be follow-on studies with more recent publication dates. The problem is, that there did, in fact, exist a fad within pop culture to accept this type of phenomena as reality (psi, telepathy, ufo's, positive energies, pyramid power, etc.) during the 1960's and 1970's. My field of study is anthropology, so I've been making it a point to examine this aspect of pop culture.

The motive for my skepticism isn't for the joy of being skeptical. Rather, I dislike the fact that among those "thousands" of works that exist on the subject of Remote Viewing (among other New Age poppycock) are books that tout themselves as legitimate, but in reality, are merely seeking to make money off of those who are willing believers.... as P.T. Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute." It is unfortunate that there are those who are more than willing to take advantage of this human failing... we want to believe.

I would very much like to believe in Remote Viewing. Years ago, I bought one of the books (or perhaps borrowed it from a library) and even attempted the process..... I wasn't always skeptical. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top