Esp between family members

[kwhilborn]

Perfect examples of what I have mentioned Arioch. I agree that Things should make sense scientifically. We can agree on that.

However many scientific breakthroughs/inventions/tools are met with initial scepticism.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

I would argue that this is supposed to be a parapsychology forum, and as such people should be able to discuss these things in attempts to notice commonalities, or even ponder at the how/why.

I enjoy poking fun at you troll types here because I can stay away from sciforums for months at a time, and whenever I log back in I am sure to see Crunchycat and more just waiting for someone to mention a new topic in parapsychology.

I have been involved in psychic research and I claim that what I have witnessed and seen defies logic. It is a continuing search for the logic behind unprobably high psychic hits that draws me to these forums.

It is a shame that we will get one observation followed by 10 woohoo trolls.

Please look at this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I would think that an open and intelligent mind would be better off (pretending even) that a situation in the thread was possible and then think of how it could be so. There are no "Bad ideas" in brainstorming, and I have rolled my eyes at some parapsychology threads also. I just don't comment on them if I cannot contribute.

I have seen telepathy work (and someone will highlight this and say "SHOW PROOF!"). It really is not that hard to do. I bet you can get your spouse to bring you a taco on the way home from work or whatever it is you would like.

The ONLY way telepathy has not been proven to exist is that we must still define it as probabilities. We must say "The global consciousness experiment now shows billion to one odds that people can influence machines"

If you were some type of sceptic, and you were say offering a million dollar reward for proof of something would you accept a billion to one that the odds of it happening were above chance as proof?

Yes! Many double blind psychic experiments have astronomically high rates above chance. There are also many frauds, spoonbenders, and snake oil salesmen out there so the science can get lost in the mix.

I operate a parapsychology website and am also a science fiction writer. I invented a method of retrieving ideas from our subconsciousness based upon numbers, shapes, and concepts hidden in subliminal pictures. You must choose between random shapes hidden with auto-stereogram, etc..

This is the perfect way to hide subliminal answers as long as you do not focus on them as you should if you were trying to see a dinosaur auto-stereogram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram

This is the ONLY method ever invented to get ideas from the subconscious that is not reliant upon ideomotor reflexes. I took them out of the equation.

It is also the only method developed in the past few centuries to retrieve subconscious info. Other methods you may be familiar with quija boards, pendulums, automatic writing, scrying, etc.

I am not saying pendulums give us off worldly answers, but they can sometimes be used to know what our subconscious is thinking.

I actually feel sorry for people who have not witnessed what I have seen in my days. The whole prospect of life after death and the hope of such things becomes almost a certainty when facing some of the more plausible explanations for telepathy out there.

When I say plausible explanations I would like to narrow that and say I now seem to believe almost exactly what the medium Jane Roberts said when she channelled Seth. Whether she channelled Seth or not I do not care, but the writings and books make the most sense to me.

IF you are a believer in psychic phenom, then i highly recommend SETH.
Here is a teaser.
http://educate-yourself.org/mbc/sethcreationofmatter.shtml

Anyways.. I believe telepathy is a science that has not been verifiable above billions to one chance, and as such is fair game to ridicule from the trolls. It is just wishful thinking that this forum could be the one place to discuss the science of it.

 

[Arioch]

@Bebelina --

How do you know that nobody lives according to it?

Because holding that belief would lead to actions which couldn't do anything but lead to the termination of one's life. Holding that the universe is an illusion would require that everything in it is an illusion too, this wouldn't be a problem if such things didn't include objects like buses and forces like gravity. Belief informs action, this is one thing we can be certain about when it comes to humans because we can come to this conclusion merely by observing our own behavior. Since beliefs inform actions it necessarily follows that beliefs which are antithetical to continued existence(such as "that bus hurtling towards me isn't real") will lead to actions that are antithetical to continued existence.

I will admit that it can be fun to contemplate such philosophical musings, but it's ultimately worth about as much as a turd in a sewage plant.

And do you know someone who tried and died?

Yes, and it didn't take long to go from "living and delusional" to "dead and not".

@kwhilborn --

However many scientific breakthroughs/inventions/tools are met with initial scepticism.

I'm well aware of this, however the differences between those and the stuff that's been presented here are numerous. The previous breakthroughs you speak of(I'm assuming things like the Copernican model of the solar system and Einstein's relativity) were always supported by evidence, they weren't hypothesized without reason as things like telepathy and anything by Deepak Chopra.

And even though they always supplanted a previous system(which is something I have absolutely no problem with) they were always the most parsimonious of the theories. In science the solution with the fewest number of unneeded assumptions is always preferred, and it's never parsimonious to posit two explanations for what is apparently the same phenomenon. Telepathy, for instance, is better explained by hallucination and chance than it is by positing some unknown and apparently untestable new phenomenon, the only way this will change is if you can legitimately identify telepathy as a separate and unique phenomenon.

Do I want to see these things verified? Absolutely. I definitely want to learn how to read minds, or move things from across the room(without asking a friend to do it, that would be cheating), but so far we've seen no repeatable experiments demonstrating that these phenomenon even exist, and unfortunately the lack of repeatability is usually due to confirmation bias and poor(or nonexistent) control of variables in those asserting that they've found something. In science, such poor studies are rightly rejected regardless of whether we want to believe them or not.

I would argue that this is supposed to be a parapsychology forum, and as such people should be able to discuss these things in attempts to notice commonalities, or even ponder at the how/why.

If parapsychology is to be a true science and not just a bunch of woo then every single unsupported observation or instance of confirmation bias should be met with the harshest of criticism, that's the way it works in science. Just take a look at those guys who claimed that they found cold fusion, they shot their mouths off, were guilty of not only confirmation bias but actively fudging the data, and were ridiculed out of the scientific community. And that was in a hard science working with well established principles.

I tend to go with the late Carl Sagan when it comes to this, the more we want something to be true, the more skeptical of our findings we should be, always and without exception. I've seen none of that here or on the pseudoscience board. You may call us trolls, but all we're doing here is what scientists do every day, engage in skepticism and criticism.

If you can turn up some legitimate evidence of this(no, I'm not talking about discredited studies done by people with an ax to grind) then I'll be the first to back off on the skepticism(but not the criticism), however until that happens that's not going to happen. If you're looking for places to go and just talk about the stuff with other believers then perhaps a science website isn't the best place for you to be doing that as science, by definition, requires debate, discussion, criticism, and skepticism. If, instead you're looking for such things then you've found the right place, because that's what you can always find here.

I enjoy poking fun at you troll types here because I can stay away from sciforums for months at a time, and whenever I log back in I am sure to see Crunchycat and more just waiting for someone to mention a new topic in parapsychology.

I don't think of myself as a troll, merely an open minded skeptic. I'm more than willing to consider the possibility of ESP, psi, telepathy and whatnot, but here's the catch. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can just as equally be rejected without evidence. If someone tells me that they can read minds and I ask for evidence, when they tell me no I then have every right and every reason to reject their claim.

I actually feel sorry for people who have not witnessed what I have seen in my days. The whole prospect of life after death and the hope of such things becomes almost a certainty when facing some of the more plausible explanations for telepathy out there.

I've seen and experienced a lot of things in my short time on this planet, from drug induced hallucinations to six near death experiences(stabbed, nearly died of an infection, nearly drowned, and electrocuted three times to the point where my heart stopped). I even went through a shot time where I thought that a god was talking to me. However all of these experiences have explanations which are more parsimonious than any "spiritual" or paranormal explanation. Hence I tentatively reject them until their adherents fulfill their burden of proof.

So please don't take the "until you've seen as much as I have you just won't know" line. I've heard that too much and I've no patience for it(if that wasn't the route you were going then skip this bit).

Anyways.. I believe telepathy is a science that has not been verifiable above billions to one chance, and as such is fair game to ridicule from the trolls. It is just wishful thinking that this forum could be the one place to discuss the science of it.

But ridiculing and criticizing unverified(or unverifiable) assumptions is science. That's how we weed out the woo from that which genuinely works.

 

[Bebelina]

I will admit that it can be fun to contemplate such philosophical musings, but it's ultimately worth about as much as a turd in a sewage plant.



Yes, and it didn't take long to go from "living and delusional" to "dead and not".

I'm sorry to hear that.

If it makes you think in a new way and find new solutions to old problems then I don't think it's worthless. To set the mind free from everything we take for granted, but of course if taken to the extreme and practised as a life philosophy then busses and such can be experienced as very hard. But then again..what if your friend only dissappeared in your version of reality?

 

[Arioch]

@Bebelina --

If it makes you think in a new way and find new solutions to old problems then I don't think it's worthless.

Sure, it's always a good thing in science to start with observation and go from there, however going so far as to say "this universe is an illusion" is not only going to be detrimental to finding new solutions(what solutions can there be in an illusory universe and if the universe is an illusion then there is no need to solve any problems) but it constitutes a new and unnecessary constraint.

To set the mind free from everything we take for granted, but of course if taken to the extreme and practised as a life philosophy then busses and such can be experienced as very hard.

But we can't "free our minds" from "everything we take for granted" and still be doing science. Science works by building on previous knowledge, this is something that can't be avoided. Yes, we sometimes wind up replacing previous knowledge with new knowledge, however that can't be done without taking the previous knowledge into account. We also know that things that we know which have been confirmed experimentally hundreds, if not thousands, of times aren't likely to be wrong so we have good reason to suspect that things which run counter to these are very likely to be wrong.

But then again..what if your friend only dissappeared in your version of reality?

But then none of his assumptions would be usable in this reality and thus would still be useless. Things which can't or don't affect this reality are irrelevant to us(this is what I keep telling deists, but they just don't want to listen).

 

[Bebelina]

@Bebelina --
Sure, it's always a good thing in science to start with observation and go from there, however going so far as to say "this universe is an illusion" is not only going to be detrimental to finding new solutions(what solutions can there be in an illusory universe and if the universe is an illusion then there is no need to solve any problems) but it constitutes a new and unnecessary constraint.

I'm not in any way proposing that this universe would indeed be an illusion but I'm not ruling out the option either. So the best solution I guess is to merge science, as in using what we think we know for sure and somehow have gotten repetitive proof for with elaborating ideas that are seemingly new and could add to bringing forward the wanted solution quicker.

And I think you're taking the illusion concept to the absurd, I mean a person can keep that as an life philosophy so to speak and still be functional and able to use their senses. As in , if I can feel this table it must exist and so on..but then again, the feeling can be an illusion, but if one says that everything is an illusion one is also saying that everything is real, because then there is no difference. What we call illusion is merely a mindconcept to trick the brain to find new connections?

 

[Search & Destroy]

I think the world is an illusion but only in a certain sense. In that the table you see will be quite different than the table I see. You might see something that is useful, I might see something that wastes space etc. My perspective of reality is different than yours, but that doesn't change the underlying reality - which is not an illusion (but also is intangible).

 

[Arioch]

@Bebelina --

So the best solution I guess is to merge science, as in using what we think we know for sure and somehow have gotten repetitive proof for with elaborating ideas that are seemingly new and could add to bringing forward the wanted solution quicker.

And I think that science should, for the moment, remain as it is, with evidence being the final arbiter of reality. This is the way that works best, we have centuries of proof to support this conclusion.

And I think you're taking the illusion concept to the absurd,

I'm really not, although a reductio ad absurdum is quite easy to establish about this philosophical outlook(and it's been done many times). It is a fact that belief informs action, that our beliefs directly influence and even limit the decisions we will make. It logically follows, then, that embracing a belief which holds that the world around you is not real will result in decisions which are based on that assumption. Such decisions are antithetical to continued existence in a world which is hostile(such as the one we observe around us)

I mean a person can keep that as an life philosophy so to speak and still be functional and able to use their senses.

They can contemplate it, but they can't actually believe it without that belief affecting their actions in such a way as to prohibit their continued existence. Anyone who claims to be able to do otherwise is lying.

You can, however, believe that the data coming from your senses is an illusion without such adverse effects, but such a belief is also of limited value. All it does is tell you what neurology already tells us, that our senses are imperfect(as is the mechanism by which the brain pieces all of the data together) and that we are subject to hallucination. It doesn't help us discern what is and isn't hallucination and it doesn't inform us of why we hallucinate(again, neurology is required for that).

As in , if I can feel this table it must exist and so on..but then again, the feeling can be an illusion

This is an entirely different philosophical concept, one of whether or not we can trust our minds to discern the truth. It might be superficially identical(perhaps, I don't see many similarities between the two), but in depth they are completely different.

but if one says that everything is an illusion one is also saying that everything is real, because then there is no difference.

The illusion is real(and therefore not an illusion) yes, however what the illusion portrays(in this conversation, the universe) is by definition not real. This statement might sound deep, but it merely holds the illusion of depth(I like that, I might use that in a future discussion on the topic).

What we call illusion is merely a mindconcept to trick the brain to find new connections?

No. Illusion is a perception that does not correspond to objective reality. The perception that Jessica Alba is deeply in love with me is an illusion because the objective reality is that we've never met and are unlikely to ever change that.

 

[Gustav]

no
that is a delusion

 

[Arioch]

@Gustav --

Technically yes, you are right. But in common parlance, which is what must be used in these forums(what with technical language being undecipherable to most woomeisters) the two terms are synonymous.

 

[Bebelina]

Well, let's keep it real then. Illusion, delusion and hallucination are kept separate as they are different, in both spelling and meaning.

But it's quite admirable that you are at least trying to find logic and reasoning within this vast concept.

Personally I think science would benefit greatly from incorporating a certain amount of philosophy, as I, unlike you, am not convinced of its upheld status within our society, but am greatful for all the comforts it has brought that makes everyday life run a little bit smoother than it would have without it.

Can you please tell us a little bit more about this Jessica Alba infatuation? How does it manifest in your life?

But as for the topic, it could be illusion, delusion and hallucination or just the fact that you are smart enough and know them so good that guessing their thoughts are not that hard. But, what is guessing actually, compared to knowing. What areas in the brain are activated during the different thoughts and can investigating this determine if we guess or know something and if so then would that matter? Because what we think we know doesn't have to be the truth, and what we guess can be and vice versa. This can be discussed forever and the more you get into it the more confusing it gets and not to mention boring ( for someone who has already spent years doing it).

Is instinct something we can trust? I mean it's a very basic sense that does not evolve much thought, if any.

 

[Gustav]

bebe loves me because i can twiddle twats telekinetically over vast distances
we esp each other constantly

 

[AlexG]

bebe loves me because i can twiddle twats telekinetically over vast distances
we esp each other constantly

Do you get any kind sensory feedback from this. Or are you simply alturistic?

 

[Bebelina]

bebe loves me because i can twiddle twats telekinetically over vast distances
we esp each other constantly

:roflmao:

How about fixing some other stuff telekinetically too? There's lots to do around here, like vacuming, laundry and groceryshopping, I'm not sensing any presence there at all...not at all.

 

[Arioch]

@Bebelina --

Well, let's keep it real then. Illusion, delusion and hallucination are kept separate as they are different, in both spelling and meaning.

There are innumerable causes for each but in most cases they are functionally the same. If we were discussing, say, the biological causes of each then it would be of inestimable value to definitionally differentiate between them. However for this discussion the differences between the terms are irrelevant as they all serve the same purpose.

But it's quite admirable that you are at least trying to find logic and reasoning within this vast concept.

I'm not trying to find reason in this topic, I'm applying my reasoning and critical thinking skills to the topic.

Personally I think science would benefit greatly from incorporating a certain amount of philosophy, as I, unlike you, am not convinced of its upheld status within our society, but am greatful for all the comforts it has brought that makes everyday life run a little bit smoother than it would have without it.

I'm not saying that philosophy is worthless, just that the philosophical concept of an illusory universe is worthless. Philosophy is incredibly valuable to science as it can help us figure out which questions to ask as that's what philosophers do, they ask questions. However philosophy doesn't override observation and evidence when it comes to determining what is and isn't reality.

As for the "high place" of science in our society. Without modern science our entire civilization, from the most developed countries to the most impoverished nations, would simply cease to function. I'm not just talking about the creature comforts like TVs and Ipods, oh no. We use science because it works(leaving out, for the moment, that it's one of the few truly "human" behaviors) and we know that it works because of what we can do with it. Science took us from the plains of Africa to the moon. Science sent man made objects outside of the solar system, a distance so large that our brains can't properly comprehend them. Science has eradicated diseases that had us at their mercy for tens of thousands of years. Science can deliver safe food and clean water to places thousands of miles away from where it originated. And before anyone here gets on me for being one sided, yes, I do know that science has produced weapons which could conceivably obliterate all life on this planet, but that's just more proof that science works at discovering what's really happening around us.

I place such value in science because it is the best tool we humans have for gaining knowledge about the universe. Of all the methods we've tried, science works the best and it works consistently. You may feel differently, but how you feel(and how I feel) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're right.

Can you please tell us a little bit more about this Jessica Alba infatuation? How does it manifest in your life?

That was merely an example, not something I actually experience.

Is instinct something we can trust?

In some circumstances yes. If you're out in the jungle then trusting your agency detection instincts is a very good way to stay alive. However our instincts are piles of steaming bollocks when it comes to figuring out anything that wasn't a part of our environment during our evolutionary history, or even for explaining anything that was if it functions on too small or too large a scale in terms of size and/or speed. Anything that's too large or too small, or moving too fast or too slow, we just can't comprehend and thus our instincts are going to be almost universally unreliable. Even if your instincts do get the right answer for something, the odds are almost certain that you won't know why it is the way it is, that's another place that science helps us.

 

[Bebelina]

@Bebelina --

In some circumstances yes. If you're out in the jungle then trusting your agency detection instincts is a very good way to stay alive. However our instincts are piles of steaming bollocks when it comes to figuring out anything that wasn't a part of our environment during our evolutionary history, or even for explaining anything that was if it functions on too small or too large a scale in terms of size and/or speed. Anything that's too large or too small, or moving too fast or too slow, we just can't comprehend and thus our instincts are going to be almost universally unreliable. Even if your instincts do get the right answer for something, the odds are almost certain that you won't know why it is the way it is, that's another place that science helps us.

Imagine several thousand years from now, and that humanity still exists, highly unlikely, but still, not impossible. Imagine then how they would perceive our current state in the evolutionary setting. They would discuss this world as we live in now as our natural basic environment, and it is too.
It's a different jungle, but pretty much the same. Surely our senses must have been refined over the years too?