Parasychology is compatible with physics

B

birch

Valued Senior Member
Scientists have conducted studies where pets and owners were separated by considerable distance and found the pet could sense their owners's actions. For instance, if the owner went to leave randomly in a vehicle, around the same time, the pet would go to a window to see if their owner's car would pass by.

We know everything has a physical mechanism but the mistake is limiting possibilities or believing all is imagination just because you dont have the ability.
 
birch said:
Scientists have conducted studies where pets and owners were separated by considerable distance and found the pet could sense their owners's actions. For instance, if the owner went to leave randomly in a vehicle, around the same time, the pet would go to a window to see if their owner's car would pass by.

We know everything has a physical mechanism but the mistake is limiting possibilities or believing all is imagination just because you dont have the ability.
Click to expand...

The mistake is thinking parasychology is real

An omission is not providing a link reference supporting such a statement in which parasychology is linked to such physical reactions

par·a·psy·chol·o·gy
noun
  1. the study of mental phenomena that are excluded from or inexplicable by orthodox scientific psychology (such as hypnosis, telepathy, etc.).
Google

Which I think indicates it is all in the mind

:)
 
birch said:
Scientists have conducted studies where pets and owners were separated by considerable distance and found the pet could sense their owners's actions. For instance, if the owner went to leave randomly in a vehicle, around the same time, the pet would go to a window to see if their owner's car would pass by.
Click to expand...
You have a link to these studies? And they adequately ruled out coincidence, selection bias etc? Their science is sound?
While I'd like to believe the studies' conclusions are true, I'm fairly sure that any study that concludes as you have claimed will be shown to be full of poor science.
Otherwise I'd expect Nobel prizes to be imminent. ;)
We know everything has a physical mechanism but the mistake is limiting possibilities or believing all is imagination just because you dont have the ability.
Click to expand...
The mistake, as has been alluded to above, is in taking things as true without adequate support. Until then we can at best say that we do not know, that we haven't ruled it out etc.
 
birch said:
Scientists have conducted studies where pets and owners were separated by considerable distance and found the pet could sense their owners's actions. For instance, if the owner went to leave randomly in a vehicle, around the same time, the pet would go to a window to see if their owner's car would pass by. We know everything has a physical mechanism but the mistake is limiting possibilities or believing all is imagination just because you dont have the ability.
Click to expand...

Re: Scientists Investigate If Pets Telepathically Sense When Owners Are Returning Home
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/175...y-sense-when-owners-are-returning-home-video/

Sheldrake operates under an interpretative preconception that "parapsychology" or whatever territory is legit, with an approach that may facilitate explanations along that line (including the possibility of being lax or less rigorous with experiments).

Wiseman operates under an interpretative preconception that deems such illegitimate beforehand (or is at least cautionary about it), with an approach that may facilitate non-extraordinary explanations (including multiple re-testing / scrutiny by other researchers). That preference is line with the methodological naturalism and potentially other assumptions[*] which many scientists either formally or informally proceed under.

This doesn't necessarily mean that eccentric / discredited views like Sheldrakes's are perpetually outcast. One merely need to make them undeniably effective or utile in the public sector abroad, independent of the blessing of science establishment. But such practicality might be difficult to exploit when it comes to a matter like "telepathic pets", or if any commercially outputted marvel is itself still vulnerable to rival interpretations slash mundane explanations.

- - - - - - -

[*] Also regulating ideas like existence, causality, position symmetry, time symmetry, noncontradiction, occam’s razor, etc
 
Last edited:
https://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2009/03/the-heresies-of-freeman-dyson/56062/

... The hypothesis that paranormal are real but lie outside the limits of science is supported by a great mass of evidence. The evidence has been collected by the Society for Psychical Research in Britain and by similar organizations in other countries. The journal of the London society is full of stories of remarkable events in which ordinary people appear to possess paranormal abilities. The evidence of entirely anecdotal. It has nothing to do with science, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the evidence is there. The members of the society took great trouble to interview firsthand witnesses as soon as possible after the events, and to document the stories carefully. One fact that emerges clearly from the stories is that paranormal events occur, if they occur at all, only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion. This fact would immediately explain why paranormal phenomena are not observable under the conditions of a well-controlled scientific experiment. Strong emotion and stress are inherently incompatible with controlled scientific procedures ...
Click to expand...

http://www.oddee.com/item_99038.aspx

On the quantum level it indicates life does not work in the strict and rational way we assume it does and that quantum flux and even the illogical/absurd/twisted is evident all around us.
 
Michael 345 said:
I have noticed a few even post in Sciforums :)

:)
Click to expand...

No, even in life itself. Have you noticed or do you go around only noticing what makes sense to you or is logical?

Just because you live in your head all the time, doesn't negate the dynamics of things that go on other levels. It's just a way of compartmentalizing.
 
birch
The hypothesis that paranormal are real but lie outside the limits of science is supported by a great mass of evidence

which the definetion of paranormal supports

Paranormal

Not scientifically explainable

However

One fact that emerges clearly from the stories is that paranormal events occur, if they occur at all, only when people are under stress and experiencing strong emotion
  1. A fact cannot emerge if the paranormal is subject to if they occur
  2. Not all paranormal activites supposedly occur when people are under stress
The rest of the post is blah blah

:)
 
birch said:
No, even in life itself. Have you noticed or do you go around only noticing what makes sense to you or is logical?

Just because you live in your head all the time, doesn't negate the dynamics of things that go on other levels. It's just a way of compartmentalizing.
Click to expand...

There are so many things at ALL levels I notice

Some make sense

Some don't

But I notice them all

Disclaimer I notice those with sufficient Energy to elicit a neurological response so I might miss some

Also some will be out of the range of my senses

I miss all of those

I do find it curious when posters in forums such as this miss Poe :)

:)
 
birch said:
to see if their owner's car would pass by.
Click to expand...
This one statement is pretty much proof that the concept is utter nonsense.

Unless they're claiming they can also read the minds of pets, how can they possibly know why a pet might be doing something?
 
DaveC426913 said:
This one statement is pretty much proof that the concept is utter nonsense.

Unless they're claiming they can also read the minds of pets, how can they possibly know why a pet might be doing something?
Click to expand...

because they would go around the window in those times/instances. it just means it was able to detect more fine-tuned than we can certain things but it's an illustration/example that just because we can't understand or know something currently or we lack the ability does not equate something isn't real.
 
birch said:
because they would go around the window in those times/instances.
Click to expand...
The conclusion that we can know why they did something is bunk.
It casts a veil of wish-fulfillment of the whole study.
No study approaching anything rigorous would, even for a moment, suggest we can know the thought process in such a case.

birch said:
it just means it was able to detect more fine-tuned than we can
Click to expand...
It means no such thing. It's anthropomorphist wish fulfillment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top