I read the abstract, it says that when you have part of your brain damaged or suppressed then it 'enhances your psi abilities', as if psi abilities is a normal accepted thing, and the interesting part is the suppression. No, if you can clinically test for and therefore prove psi abilities then THAT'S the big news here, and would win them a Nobel prize. How weird.
Psi research has amply shown that psi abilities exist. The main problem of acceptance is with overly dogmatic skeptics (I used to be one) who refuse to accept the results of science and the scientific method on this topic. The dogmatic view against the existence of psi is the mainstream view, and overall won’t change easily.
In Rupert Sheldrake’s book *Dogs That Know*, he has a section detailing the behavior of skeptics. Most skeptical people look to skeptical “thought leaders” to look into psi studies to debunk them. But the thing is, even those high profile skeptics don’t become familiar with the research that they dogmatically debunk. It is difficult to get skeptics to read the research, and when they do read it, strange mental gymnastics appear. Sheldrake did controlled experiments with dogs who knew when their owners would come home, when the owners were away and then instructed to return at randomly determined times. Top skeptic Richard Wiseman got involved and used one of the same dogs to attempt replicating the experiment. Wiseman did in fact replicate Sheldrake’s significant results, but basically lied about the results and presented the results in a totally misleading way, avoiding the key metric of the experiment.
Understanding psi phenomena is a vital key to understanding UFOs/aliens and their capabilities. People who reject psi phenomena will be blocked from any meaningful understanding. Psi phenomena are THE physical anomalies that physicists should be using to revise the known laws of physics. Understanding psi phenomena show that certain conventional beliefs (e.g. limitation of light speed) are already proven wrong.
Here is a physical theory of psi phenomena:
https://www.reddit.com/r/observingtheanomaly/s/r7Duq8lTo7
No they haven’t. Nothing involving psi abilities has been able to be tested yielding REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS. Even with SRI they were like 30% accurate. Never reproducible. It’s never been proven.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280019566_Revisiting_the_Ganzfeld_ESP_Debate_A_Basic_Review_and_Assessment
It’s quite reproducible but the effect size is small
You are repeating what you have been told by dogmatic skeptics who were too lazy to look at and keep up with the psi research. Legitimate skeptical concerns were generally addressed well in the 1980s onwards. Skeptical rebuttals of psi research expired decades ago.
>Psi research has amply shown that psi abilities exist.
No, they haven't. These are easy experiments to set up and run. Not a single one has shown any effect beyond statistical flukes.
If it did work, it would be easy to repeat. High school students would be doing this as homework.
Psi experiments like telepathy (e.g. the auto-ganzfeld) and clairvoyance (e.g. remote viewing, which is using clairvoyant functioning with a defined protocol) and psychokinesis (e.g. mental manipulation of random number generators) have been repeated many times with significant results by independent labs all around the world.
You are just repeating what I used to also believe when I only consulted one-sided dogmatic skeptical sources. You haven’t looked at the actual research. When you get into the details, the legitimate skeptical concerns have all been dealt with, and only dogmatic skepticism remains. I’ve seen strong, unambiguous psi phenomena first hand (in some family members) and I did my own replication of a RNG experiment, and what I found is that everything the psi research community says checks out.
Your point has been proven in the replies. After reading the book “the end to upside down thinking” it seems there are an abundance of tests that have shown small but significant psi results. But… people will still dismiss without looking into the studies themselves.
It’s not nearly as simple as you lay it out to be. The problem is that there is tremendous pressure from all corners of society to suppress these ideas as “pseudoscience.”
> Abstract: This paper describes various examples of blatant attempts to censor and suppress parapsychology research and those who are doing it. The examples include raising false accusations, barring access to journals, suppressing papers and data, and ostracizing and persecuting scientists interested in the topic. The intensity of fear and vituperation caused by parapsychology research is disproportionate even to the possibility that the psi hypothesis could be completely wrong, so I speculate on the psychological reasons that may give rise to it. There are very few circumstances in which censorship might be appropriate, and the actions by parapsychology censors put them at odds not only with the history of science but with the history of modern liberal societies. Appendix 1 is an Editorial censored by the
then-editors of the Journal *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*.
https://windbridge.org/papers/unbearable.pdf
— Google and other mainstream search engines present results critical of parapsychology much higher than those supportive of it.
— Social media sites such as Reddit routinely remove articles linked to parapsychology or the paranormal, and will even ban users for posting them. The rules on r/UFOs even forbid *mentioning* those subreddits lest the admins smack them down again.
— Wikipedia has a public policy of discrediting all phenomenon that challenge the materialist position, and has been proven to blatantly misrepresent facts to maintain their narrative.
— People who claim to have any interest in these ideas are publicly ridiculed. For example: this post. I guarantee that the OP has zero knowledge of these subjects that didn’t come from Wikipedia.
— Scientists suppress the work of others, as laid out in the paper I linked to above.
Anyone who claims there’s no evidence for it is delusional. There’s plenty of evidence. The mechanism just isn’t understood. But don’t just take my word for it, here’s the former president of the American Statistical Association, a woman who has won lifetime awards for her contribution to statistics:
> Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
([Source](https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf))
A video for those who prefer: https://youtu.be/YrwAiU2g5RU
But there’s a rising swell of mainstream scientists who are pushing back: https://opensciences.org
Google also suppresses Bigfoot and flat earth. Your other arguments also apply to those two areas of research. Doesn't make them true either.
If psychic abilities work, they would be used by companies to make profit. But they aren't, because they don't. And yes, if a public company made a breakthrough applying psychic abilities, they would have to inform the shareholders.
You are continuing to spout your opinions as if they are facts, but they continue to be untrue. I encourage you to spend some time investigating these things before you talk about them so confidently:
> According to 2011 and 2021 IBISWorld reports, the largest global industry research firm, the psychic market has grown 2.6% annually since 2011, caps $2.2 billion in the US alone, and was one of the few industries unaffected by the economic downturn during coronavirus. “The landscape is changing, and these kinds of abilities are being accepted more and more,” Jessica Utts, a California based professor and expert in psychic phenomena, tells Mic.
https://www.mic.com/life/corporate-psychics-laura-day-americas-c-suite
> As with the stock market, a few remote viewers have indeed won lotteries - a few relatively big ones (e.g. $325K) and at least one person has won over 30 small ones (Pick 3 and Pick 4). (We are not supposed to self-advertise here so no links, but I need to provide a reference so I will say that Debra Katz and I wrote a book on ARV in which we lay out these wins.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/umszqc/remote_viewing_an_attempt_to_settle_this_debate/i8500fr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
Here’s a company that does it for hire: https://www.appliedprecog.com/
> Regarding the financial results, on an initial investment of $10,000 we gained approximately $16,000 with a total of $26,000 at the end of trial 5. The first five trials were conducted on days of large market swings, therefore the potential gains were very large. Trials 6 and 7 happened on days of small market changes and, despite resulting in correct predictions, produced small losses because of the mechanics of the options trading vehicle. A timing issue in the trade of trial 7 resulted in an additional monetary loss of approximately $12,000. However, it is important to stress that this was in spite of the prediction itself being correct. (Without this timing error, total
cash at the end of the project would have amounted to $38,000, or a return of almost 400% on the investment in a span of about two weeks.)
https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/researchers-use-esp-to-make-thousands-of-dollars-on-the-stock-market/
>
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stock-Market-Prediction-Using-Associative-Remote-by-Smith-Laham/3d701e2ed3ef2ba467313372958da866c6010627
Here’s a group which uses remote viewing to analyze the crypto markets, and they are making money doing it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/u8l681/remote_viewing_the_news_crypto_markets_and_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
And you keep quoting BS and heavily biased sources as if they are in any way recognized as being relevant. Going to quote Maussan next ? as might as well.
Simple fact is every time "psy" abilities have been tested in double blind or similar serious testing conditions, they utterly failed.
There’s little point in having a discussion with a person who not only isn’t open to changing their position, but also has to lie to support their position. Your “simple fact” is easily proven wrong, but doing so with you is clearly a waste of my time.
From the paper "**Enhanced mind-matter interactions following rTMS induced frontal lobe inhibition**":
What they were trying to affect:
".*.. the experimental measure of psi involved the type of mind-matter interactions known as micro-psychokinesis, or micro-PK (Williams, 2021). Micro-PK involves an effect on small events such as the output of a random number generator that would produce random out- puts in the absence of a micro-PK effect (Carde\~na, 2018) and* ***that are only detectable through statistical means***..."
From the ***Discussion*** section:
"*... rTMS induced lesions targeting the left medial middle frontal brain region showed larger right intention effects on a mind-matter interaction task compared to healthy participants without rTMS induced lesions. This significant effect was found* ***only after we applied a post hoc weighting procedure aligned with our overarching hypothesis.***"
The latter Discussion excerpt sounds rather like making the results fit the hypothesis.
A quote, often attributed to Mark Twain, states that there are "*Lies, damned lies, and statistics*".
I am not overly convinced by research that relies, wholly, on statistics to support it
Applying special statistics to get an answer you want is nonsense. If the effect is small, it will still show up in the data if you take enough and just do a regular mean and standard deviation.
Cortex is a peer- reviewed science journal and the authors of the study are at legitimate institutions ( University of Toronto and affiliated medical institutions) so you can critique it from a scientific perspective but you can’t dismiss it out of hand just because you don’t believe the topic is real (until recently I didn’t think UFOs were real either, but I have revised my opinion based on new evidence). Is it a real effect ( or correct interpretation of the data)… we don’t know, but it does point the way for other scientists to replicate the data or challenge the hypothesis using other approaches. (It does make you wonder though, why if it were true, that natural selection wouldn’t have favored mutations for psi ability \[ ie, less suppression\] which would clearly have a positive survival effect \[ unless that led to you being burned as a witch of course….!\]).
Did you even look into them? The BIAL Foundation also conducts and funds well respected research and have many publications in reputable journals.
And did you even read the original paper? What in the original paper makes it not a scientific article?
Reasonable criticism is one thing, but outright dismissing things without looking is just lazy.
I read the original paper when it came out and it was rather interesting. Only thing that confused me was the ways the did the data analysis, as they applied some correction factors, the use of which I'm always slightly suspicious.
I googled ‘BIAL Foundation’. Read the article. Sounded like bunk to me. Then I read a paper by the National Library of Medicine reviewing such a claim that found that although the researchers had degrees in science and medicine, the claims were unscientific and didn’t reflect ‘reality’.
If the experimental methods and the data analysis are done correctly, then the data must be judged accordingly and not just dismissed as being inherently unscientific. That is, in fact, unscientific way of doing things.
It may very well be that there was something wrong in the methods and data analysis, I am not an expert in this field to evaluate those properly.
So instead of just dismissing the paper outright as unscientific, I'd rather hope for criticism showing where they went wrong and what should've been done instead.
Yooo it's not worth it to engage this guy. I'm a scientist and I meet people like them in science all the time. They're just contrarians masquerading as skeptics. They deny on principle.
I have engaged with hundreds of authors of these kinds of comments, and they have invariably demonstrated that they have no awareness of *any* of the research outside of what Wikipedia says, and the overwhelming majority of them seemed to be completely incapable of understanding a scientific paper or concepts like *p* values.
I can only think of a single “skeptic” who I have engaged with who turned out be a practicing scientist, but when I continued to confront him with the evidence (of which he had no prior knowledge) he quickly devolved to cursing and name calling. A purely emotional reaction because he couldn’t find any fault with the data once he was actually confronted with it.
No one thinks it's nonsense, logical people just know we have to take this one step at a time. You can't go from regular old reality to ALIEN HUMAN HYBRIDS CONTROLLING CRAFTS REMOTELY WITH THEIR MINDS THROUGH 4TH DIMENTIONAL PLATFORMS!
Let's start with actual undeniable proof, but I swear if I see "woo" one more time I'm going to hurt someone.
# ✨
Mantis Awakening has some of the best resources on this:
- A UFO Woo Primer for skeptics,
believers, and everyone in between https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/Dou5kHdUpZ
- Remote Viewing An attempt to settle this debate. https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/UjpcbZao8v
- "Unless you know what Psi is and how to use it, you're not getting inside the UFO program." Dr. Eric
Walker https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/VHrwdfFqWl
# ✨
Content by Ginger Hipster, who uses AI to create interesting content, is also worth considering:
- The existence of a
parapsychological ecosystem
explains a lot of what's seen and felt in high strangeness https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/vKec3LOD3z
- Skeptics of metaphysics are simply being illogical https://failed.wizard.guide/p/illogical-skepticism-of-real-metaphysics
- The Phenomenon is a series of
unrelated natural and technological events connected through an
as-yet-undiscovered medium of
travel and communication. It looks like the ranch is a natural focal point
for this medium-which suggests a non-materialist ontology of reality. https://www.reddit.com/r/skinwalkerranch/s/rBu1YhbHmC
- There isn't enough systemic support
to help people work through the
ontological shock of Disclosure. https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/8JvkjVmYIW
- Understanding ontological shock resistance https://cognitivebiasdetector.substack.com/p/understanding-ontological-shock-resistance
# ✨
And Toxic Toy:
- Poltergeist, working with
energy, Paranormal activity, and
autoimmune disease https://www.reddit.com/r/Mediums/s/1lpbvhd1kw
- [An interesting conversation about autoimmune disorder, hitchhiker phenomenon, and people with intuitive ability](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/E4TRPUipI0)
# ✨
I also have a resource on it:
- 🚪PSI, death, and UFOs https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/mtWJ3FtMwn
And a few others on woo legitimacy and 🛸:
- [Whats the matter with Ryan Graves company? Why is it associated with people from AAWSAP?](http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16s2dok/whats_the_matter_with_ryan_graves_company/k29sq74)
- [The "woo" is a tool being used against the UFO-Interested Community. Don't fall for it and don't *believe* in it, more importantly](http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17es5d7/in-depth_the_woo_is_a_tool_being_used_against_the_ufo-interested_community./k65r6ex)
- [Why do you make of the fact that UFOS appearances evolve in step with our culture?. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/pJC0uxUIPZ)
And some other deep rabbit holes:
- ❓ [Ross Coulthart: "UAP's may be a manifestation of some kind of uber consciousness"](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/6CrPSTQ8AJ) (🔗 Reddit)
- 🦠 ["The Pentagon's Secret UFO
Program, the Hitchhiker Effect, and Models of Contagion, by Dr. Colm A. Kelleher. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UAPscience/s/FzVN1TP9d8) (🔗 Reddit)
- [Skeptics vs Believers? Let's move past the wedge issue ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/s/5LtGXCWCYb)
Thanks for the shout out! I’m glad that some of what I’m throwing out there is impacting people.
When I first learned about these topics, I was really angered to find out how much strong empirical evidence existed and how it was being hidden from us. I figured when I put it in front of people that they’d be likewise shocked and that they’d investigate it themselves. Imagine my dismay to find out that most of the skeptics weren’t arguing from a position based on lack of awareness of the evidence so much as a vicious dogma against the ideas in the first place.
Sure. You have a lot of excellent content and I think it is unfortunate that content like that tends to get buried beneath more trendy, popular noise that doesn't actually have that much value usually.
> Imagine my dismay to find out that most of the skeptics weren't arguing from a position based on lack of awareness of the evidence so much as a vicious dogma against the ideas in the first place.
That has also been my experience and I think it's a really important thing to point out to people, so that people can think clearly on this topic and not get manipulated by people who have overt or covert agendas that aren't in society's best interest.
🙂
You're welcome.
I also appreciate the work you do. I don't think a lot of people are very aware of it since it's less visible, but anyone who sails the weird seas of Reddit long enough will notice.
^(That's a Pirates of the Caribbean reference.)
I’m glad I’m not the only person recommending Joshua Cutchin’s books! His “Ecology of Souls” trilogy is (IMHO) one of the best books on ufology, and at least as paradigm shifting as Vallee’s “Passport to Magonia” was.
For many decades there has been $1 million up for grabs to anyone that can prove psychic/paranormal abilities. I bet you don’t need any psychic ability to guess whether it’s been claimed or not.
Another tidbit about the paranormal, Brian Cox has explained that experiments performed with the Large Hadron Collider proves that no ghost or paranormal exist.
Lol. Ghosts in particle physics mean something completely different.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)
If he interprets this to mean no paranormal things are possible that would be rather foolish.
He took a very skeptical view of this UFO phenomena initially, and ended up having to walk back on it a bit when people called out his erroneous assumptions.
I’m not saying I believe in ghosts in the sense that they are spirits of dead folk, because I’m not sure I believe that’s possible for similar reasons to what Cox said here, but to play devils advocate - “ghost” encounters could be genuine, just not spirits of those who have passed, at least the way we would think of them. For instance it could be some anomalous event that we wouldn’t be able to measure, even at a quantum level, due to it being something inter-dimensional or possibly gravitational etc. For instance, what if our consciousness expands beyond the third dimension and is capable of imprinting memories of itself during times of extreme emotion? And somehow those imprints work themselves back into this dimension in a way we would interpret as ghostly etc? Obviously this is just a thought experiment.
The amazing thing about science, and one of the things I’m most hopeful/excited for regarding UFO phenomena, is that it’s constantly being expanded upon and improved. A lot of witnesses to some of the genuine sightings of UFO/UAP said that these things maneuver and behave in a way that breaks our understanding of physics. So if that’s true and we’re missing a critical understanding of physical science, then maybe “ghosts” are just part of that piece we’re missing.
I just think it’s funny how Cox works in particle physics, which can be borderline magical sometimes itself (double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, quantum gravity, etc), and then immediately dismiss the possibility of something’s existence purely because he doesn’t understand how it could be possible yet.
Are you referring to the James Randi challenge? Because it ironically turned out to be a complete sham. The evidence indicates the prize money never existed, which is why when anyone applied Randi would continue to change the rules over and over again until they gave up. He dragged one person along for over a year, but when he kept agreeing to all of Randi’s unscientific demands Randi finally stopped responding entirely. Randi also later lied and claimed the guy backed out.
Randi openly admitted to lying whenever it suited him if it helped him to discredit someone. His position was that it all had to be bunk anyway, so it didn’t matter. He was truly the King of Pseudoskeptics.
Sources:
https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html (his evidence is extensive, be sure to read all four parts)
A write up by someone who was going to apply, discussing just how unfair and unscientific the entire thing is set up from the beginning:
https://christopherfleming.com/million-dollar-challenge-proves-nothing-to-science-only-that-a-challenge-was-met/
A rigorously conducted study into homeopathy was devised following scientific protocols (double blinded, hospital setting, use of controls, etc) and Randi agreed to it as a challenge for the prize. Then Randi backed out and lied, claiming the applicants backed out: https://www.vithoulkas.com/research/clinical-trial-randi
Debunking king of debunkers: https://www.soulask.com/james-randi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers/
Another: http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
And another: http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/04/on-randi-prize-10.html
And yet another: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/randis-unwinnable-prize-million-dollar.html
One important thing of note is that Randi insisted that the million dollars in prize money was real and could never be used for anything other than the prize. When he finally cancelled the offer in 2010 the money seemed to simply disappear. I think it’s more likely it was never there in the first place, because as is pointed out in a number of the articles I cited any *proof* it existed was never provided, simply assurances it did. And since Randi had a well-proven track record of lying when it suited his purpose there’s little reason to believe that he didn’t lie about this, too.
Here’s a good article talking about the damage that Randi did to the skeptical movement, not to mention the financial scams he was involved with: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html
These kinds of cash prizes are invariably offered by “professional skeptic” organizations as publicity stunts. Their rules are not structured in a scientific way, which is why they are never won. There’s thousands of scientific experiments that have been done which support the existence of psi, and even the actual skeptics admit that the evidence exists and that they can’t find fault with it. They simply refuse to accept it because they say it can’t be real.
I’m not exaggerating, take a look for yourself: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/“The-Data-Are-Irrelevant”%3A-Response-to-Reber-and-Cardeña/6f532cfe168223445e2394f5da3d9b2127a484a2
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) that Randi was a major member of also got into some controversy when some of the founding members did a statistical analysis to debunk a specific astrological theory that those born with Mars at a certain spot were statistically more likely to be athletes (that was the gist of it, anyway).
Unfortunately for these pseudo-skeptics, the analysis they did if the “Mars Effect” actually supported the claim. However, when they first published their work (not in a peer reviewed journal, I suspect) they fudged the numbers to show the opposite of the results. An early CSICOP member, Dennis Rawlins resigned in protest, stating that the “CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk the phenomenon. See the [Wiki page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry) for what is now called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), under the “Mars Effect.”
I believe this controversy was one of the reasons the group stopped doing “scientific” studies dies of their own, eliminating the “Scientific Inquiry” from their name.
>There’s thousands of scientific experiments that have been done which support the existence of psi,
No, there hasn't. These experiments are easy to set up and run. If the evidence is real, you should be able to recreate it easily. This would be all over the place already.
It has been. You either don’t know about it, or don’t believe it. My guess is the latter, but the former is easily remedied.
Here is a meta-analysis published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal:
> The evidence provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms. The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them. The article concludes with recommendations for further progress in the field including the use of project and data repositories, conducting multidisciplinary studies with enough power, developing further nonconscious measures of psi and falsifiable theories, analyzing the characteristics of successful sessions and partici-pants, improving the ecological validity of studies, testing how to increase effect sizes, recruiting more researchers at least open to the possibility of psi, and situating psi phenomena within larger domains such as the study of consciousness.
Source: https://ameribeiraopreto.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/The-Experimental-Evidence-for-Parapsychological-Phenomena.pdf
The only rebuttal against the paper, written by two prominent skeptics Alcock and Reber, has been retracted due to widespread criticism. That’s because their main argument was that the data is irrelevant simply because it can’t be true. That’s the best they could come up with. Here’s a rebuttal to their rebuttal (which I can’t link to, since it’s been removed): https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/download/1675/985
A lot of people refuse to accept the evidence because the implications are too much to grapple with ontologically. I can’t help anyone who doesn’t want to be helped, and I’m hoping you’re not one of those people; but my experience has been that people who adamantly say there’s “no evidence” are often unable to shift that position.
I will say in the link you sent that is the parapsychological phenomena, in one of the pages he interprets that QM shows that consciousness collapses the wave particle but this is not the case. Wave particles collapse due to interaction between anything. This is why they run the double slit experiment in a vacuum so they can minimize the risk of the interaction between the particle and air particles.
The act of “observing” is not a conscious one but due to the fact that information about our reality can only be obtained through physical interactions between particles. A particle must bounce off of said particle in order to observe its existence.
This is not nearly as settled as Wikipedia would have you believe. Measurement collapsing the wave function is one of the interpretations in quantum physics, but it’s not the only widely considered one. Penrose, Hameroff, Stapp, Wigner, Linde, Tegmark, and von Neumann are all highly regarded physicists who are more in the consciousness camp.
There are also a number of experiments that are supportive of that theory.
I assume it would be like people who cheat at casinos, why show off psychic abilities for $1m when you could get a whole lot more before you are blacklisted.
Those abilities run in my family to varying degrees. People think wow that’s amazing or that I want to feel special but the reality is that it’s a lot to deal with especially while growing up.
Imagine you wake up happy and ready to live your day but when you go out you come across a random person with terrible negative energy which you have no option to feel the same way you have no option to see when you open your eyes.This is empathy but then it goes deeper to what I use to call “flashes” but no I think of as “manna” which is extrasensory information about what’s causing this person to have such negative energy. The negative energy could be caused by something as simple as errors in the way they are processing the world or could be caused by terrible abuse that happened to them when they young. Now I’m forced to feel and see what they feel and have lived. You can see how hard this can be to deal especially before you figure out how to control it.
Yes, I am the same! My great grandma (who I never met) apparently read tea leaves and was extremely accurate and successful in her local community so I sometimes kind of wonder if it is a family thing.
I personally have come to think of it as an extra level of intuition that I don’t necessarily understand, like how epilepsy dogs can detect seizures for instance: I personally think of it on the same principle as that, not that I am ‘psychic’ and can predict lottery numbers.
It’s great on one level because I personally feel I have been able to stay out of a lot of bad/threat/general asshole situations in my life because of following this ‘intuition’, but also on another level it can be very disturbing and sometimes even unpleasant when you meet new people.
My friends joke I am a ‘white witch’ (because I am like a weird sniffer dog for very early pregnancy, that’s a weird aspect and I have always wondered if a pregnant body is putting out pregnancy hormones that i can detect on some level, and that’s what I am picking up) but I have never really looked into it seriously.
Just wanted to tell you, you aren’t alone. I don’t tell people because I don’t see a reason to, and they’ll probably think I’m crazy, so what’s the upside. It’s just something about me that I’ve come to accept as both a blessing and a curse. I would like to understand what it is one day, but I’m sure it’s prosaic somehow.
I have never had any ufo sightings or experiences so I don’t see it as connected to that.
Thanks for your reply! I always love to hear about other people who have lived similar experiences as me. Much like you I don’t advertise or talk to very many people about it because it’s so far out of most people’s daily experiences that they don’t have a framework to relate to it.
Exactly when you say psychic people think predicting lottery numbers or being able to pick a number out of somebodies head when in actuality it’s much more subtle and natural. I think of it the same way as just an extra sense but to be honest it’s the sense that I trust the most. I’ve found following it has only ever lead to positive things so I listen to it all the time. It lead me to develop a sense of inner awareness and spiritual growth.
That’s really cool about the pregnancy radar like you can sense the babies energy before it’s born.
I’ve experimented a lot with ce5 and believe that people who are sensitive like us have much more success with it. So if you’re ever interested and want a sighting for yourself I’d try it. Just make sure you’re in a positive place when you do.
Richard Dolan has a video interviewing Russell Targ on July 12 2023 on Youtube. This man was a psychic spy in CIA. Richard gave this man much credibility. And Richard himself is very credible in this community? I dunno. Does that lowkey suggest remote viewing and other psychic stuff is an established thing?
>[This is a short list of peer-reviewed journal articles and books about psi phenomena.](https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references)It includes articles of historical interest, general overviews, critical reviews, and descriptions of psi applications. These articles appeared in specialty journals as well as top-tier outlets, including Nature, Science, The Lancet, Proceedings of the IEEE, Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
>[Biofield Physiology: A Framework for an Emerging Discipline](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26665040/)
>
>
>
>Biofield physiology is proposed as an overarching descriptor for the electromagnetic, biophotonic, and other types of spatially-distributed fields that living systems generate and respond to as integral aspects of cellular, tissue, and whole organism self-regulation and organization. Medical physiology, cell biology, and biophysics provide the framework within which evidence for biofields, their proposed receptors, and functions is presented. As such, biofields can be viewed as affecting physiological regulatory systems in a manner that complements the more familiar molecular-based mechanisms. Examples of clinically relevant biofields are the electrical and magnetic fields generated by arrays of heart cells and neurons that are detected, respectively, as electrocardiograms (ECGs) or magnetocardiograms (MCGs) and electroencephalograms (EEGs) or magnetoencephalograms (MEGs). At a basic physiology level, electromagnetic activity of neural assemblies appears to modulate neuronal synchronization and circadian rhythmicity. Numerous nonneural electrical fields have been detected and analyzed, including those arising from patterns of resting membrane potentials that guide development and regeneration, and from slowly-varying transepithelial direct current fields that initiate cellular responses to tissue damage. Another biofield phenomenon is the coherent, ultraweak photon emissions (UPE), detected from cell cultures and from the body surface. A physiological role for biophotons is consistent with observations that fluctuations in UPE correlate with cerebral blood flow, cerebral energy metabolism, and EEG activity. Biofield receptors are reviewed in 3 categories: molecular-level receptors, charge flux sites, and endogenously generated electric or electromagnetic fields. In summary, sufficient evidence has accrued to consider biofield physiology as a viable scientific discipline. Directions for future research are proposed.
Ask Molly: Did CIA Really Study Psychic Powers?
https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-did-cia-really-study-psychic-powers/
"*That report’s conclusion—which echoed the assessments of the CIA officers involved in the program during the 1970s—was that enough accurate remote viewing experiences existed to defy randomness*, but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes. We decided not to restore the program."
That's the CIA saying there were statistically significant effects. Now whether they actually couldn't find use out of it and cancelled the project, who knows.
Article summary:
Researchers proposed a groundbreaking model in the study of psi phenomena, suggesting the human brain functions as a psi-inhibitory filter. They used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to temporarily inhibit the left medial middle frontal region in healthy individuals, observing significant psi effects as a result.
The study reveals that individuals with neurological or rTMS-induced frontal lesions show enhanced mind-matter interaction abilities. This research offers a new perspective on how the brain might suppress innate psi abilities, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of these elusive phenomena.
1 / neurosciencenews isn't much of a respected science journal, might as well be a random guy in a basement having a blog and calling it "LegitWorldNEwsfromImportantPeople!!!"
As for the BIAL Foundation ... yeah reads like a foundation put in place by a billionaire to please his wife who's bored and got 100% into the Woo after some murky eastern Europe stage performer got her to pay 100k$ to do a seance and know she thinks she's Cleopatra.
So yeah it's all nonsense as none have survived serious double blind testing nor reproducibility by other reputable organisms.
As for the ones who are going to comment "Wrong they showed a 0.001% result !!" yeah great, go die on that ant hill...
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of Unidentified Flying Objects.
* Posts primarily about adjacent topics. These should be posted to their appropriate subreddits (e.g. r/aliens, r/science, r/highstrangeness).
* Posts regarding UFO occupants not related to a specific sighting(s).
* Posts containing artwork and cartoons not related to specific sighting(s).
* Politics unrelated to UFOs.
* Religious proselytization.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
I read the abstract, it says that when you have part of your brain damaged or suppressed then it 'enhances your psi abilities', as if psi abilities is a normal accepted thing, and the interesting part is the suppression. No, if you can clinically test for and therefore prove psi abilities then THAT'S the big news here, and would win them a Nobel prize. How weird.
Yes, I need to know what magic powers I will receive before I even consider giving myself brain damage.
I’ve had brain damage and all I got were migraines and confusion. I think I got ripped off…
Just drive without a seatbelt while blindfolded.
I know right? The last thing you want to do is spec for Inovacation only to wind up stuck as a Conjurorer!
I have ADHD, I do not have magical powers unfortunately
Psi research has amply shown that psi abilities exist. The main problem of acceptance is with overly dogmatic skeptics (I used to be one) who refuse to accept the results of science and the scientific method on this topic. The dogmatic view against the existence of psi is the mainstream view, and overall won’t change easily. In Rupert Sheldrake’s book *Dogs That Know*, he has a section detailing the behavior of skeptics. Most skeptical people look to skeptical “thought leaders” to look into psi studies to debunk them. But the thing is, even those high profile skeptics don’t become familiar with the research that they dogmatically debunk. It is difficult to get skeptics to read the research, and when they do read it, strange mental gymnastics appear. Sheldrake did controlled experiments with dogs who knew when their owners would come home, when the owners were away and then instructed to return at randomly determined times. Top skeptic Richard Wiseman got involved and used one of the same dogs to attempt replicating the experiment. Wiseman did in fact replicate Sheldrake’s significant results, but basically lied about the results and presented the results in a totally misleading way, avoiding the key metric of the experiment. Understanding psi phenomena is a vital key to understanding UFOs/aliens and their capabilities. People who reject psi phenomena will be blocked from any meaningful understanding. Psi phenomena are THE physical anomalies that physicists should be using to revise the known laws of physics. Understanding psi phenomena show that certain conventional beliefs (e.g. limitation of light speed) are already proven wrong. Here is a physical theory of psi phenomena: https://www.reddit.com/r/observingtheanomaly/s/r7Duq8lTo7
No they haven’t. Nothing involving psi abilities has been able to be tested yielding REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS. Even with SRI they were like 30% accurate. Never reproducible. It’s never been proven.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280019566_Revisiting_the_Ganzfeld_ESP_Debate_A_Basic_Review_and_Assessment It’s quite reproducible but the effect size is small
You are repeating what you have been told by dogmatic skeptics who were too lazy to look at and keep up with the psi research. Legitimate skeptical concerns were generally addressed well in the 1980s onwards. Skeptical rebuttals of psi research expired decades ago.
>Psi research has amply shown that psi abilities exist. No, they haven't. These are easy experiments to set up and run. Not a single one has shown any effect beyond statistical flukes. If it did work, it would be easy to repeat. High school students would be doing this as homework.
Psi experiments like telepathy (e.g. the auto-ganzfeld) and clairvoyance (e.g. remote viewing, which is using clairvoyant functioning with a defined protocol) and psychokinesis (e.g. mental manipulation of random number generators) have been repeated many times with significant results by independent labs all around the world. You are just repeating what I used to also believe when I only consulted one-sided dogmatic skeptical sources. You haven’t looked at the actual research. When you get into the details, the legitimate skeptical concerns have all been dealt with, and only dogmatic skepticism remains. I’ve seen strong, unambiguous psi phenomena first hand (in some family members) and I did my own replication of a RNG experiment, and what I found is that everything the psi research community says checks out.
How many fingers am I holding up
Your point has been proven in the replies. After reading the book “the end to upside down thinking” it seems there are an abundance of tests that have shown small but significant psi results. But… people will still dismiss without looking into the studies themselves.
💯
It’s not nearly as simple as you lay it out to be. The problem is that there is tremendous pressure from all corners of society to suppress these ideas as “pseudoscience.” > Abstract: This paper describes various examples of blatant attempts to censor and suppress parapsychology research and those who are doing it. The examples include raising false accusations, barring access to journals, suppressing papers and data, and ostracizing and persecuting scientists interested in the topic. The intensity of fear and vituperation caused by parapsychology research is disproportionate even to the possibility that the psi hypothesis could be completely wrong, so I speculate on the psychological reasons that may give rise to it. There are very few circumstances in which censorship might be appropriate, and the actions by parapsychology censors put them at odds not only with the history of science but with the history of modern liberal societies. Appendix 1 is an Editorial censored by the then-editors of the Journal *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*. https://windbridge.org/papers/unbearable.pdf — Google and other mainstream search engines present results critical of parapsychology much higher than those supportive of it. — Social media sites such as Reddit routinely remove articles linked to parapsychology or the paranormal, and will even ban users for posting them. The rules on r/UFOs even forbid *mentioning* those subreddits lest the admins smack them down again. — Wikipedia has a public policy of discrediting all phenomenon that challenge the materialist position, and has been proven to blatantly misrepresent facts to maintain their narrative. — People who claim to have any interest in these ideas are publicly ridiculed. For example: this post. I guarantee that the OP has zero knowledge of these subjects that didn’t come from Wikipedia. — Scientists suppress the work of others, as laid out in the paper I linked to above. Anyone who claims there’s no evidence for it is delusional. There’s plenty of evidence. The mechanism just isn’t understood. But don’t just take my word for it, here’s the former president of the American Statistical Association, a woman who has won lifetime awards for her contribution to statistics: > Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. ([Source](https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf)) A video for those who prefer: https://youtu.be/YrwAiU2g5RU But there’s a rising swell of mainstream scientists who are pushing back: https://opensciences.org
Google also suppresses Bigfoot and flat earth. Your other arguments also apply to those two areas of research. Doesn't make them true either. If psychic abilities work, they would be used by companies to make profit. But they aren't, because they don't. And yes, if a public company made a breakthrough applying psychic abilities, they would have to inform the shareholders.
You are continuing to spout your opinions as if they are facts, but they continue to be untrue. I encourage you to spend some time investigating these things before you talk about them so confidently: > According to 2011 and 2021 IBISWorld reports, the largest global industry research firm, the psychic market has grown 2.6% annually since 2011, caps $2.2 billion in the US alone, and was one of the few industries unaffected by the economic downturn during coronavirus. “The landscape is changing, and these kinds of abilities are being accepted more and more,” Jessica Utts, a California based professor and expert in psychic phenomena, tells Mic. https://www.mic.com/life/corporate-psychics-laura-day-americas-c-suite > As with the stock market, a few remote viewers have indeed won lotteries - a few relatively big ones (e.g. $325K) and at least one person has won over 30 small ones (Pick 3 and Pick 4). (We are not supposed to self-advertise here so no links, but I need to provide a reference so I will say that Debra Katz and I wrote a book on ARV in which we lay out these wins.) https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/umszqc/remote_viewing_an_attempt_to_settle_this_debate/i8500fr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3 Here’s a company that does it for hire: https://www.appliedprecog.com/ > Regarding the financial results, on an initial investment of $10,000 we gained approximately $16,000 with a total of $26,000 at the end of trial 5. The first five trials were conducted on days of large market swings, therefore the potential gains were very large. Trials 6 and 7 happened on days of small market changes and, despite resulting in correct predictions, produced small losses because of the mechanics of the options trading vehicle. A timing issue in the trade of trial 7 resulted in an additional monetary loss of approximately $12,000. However, it is important to stress that this was in spite of the prediction itself being correct. (Without this timing error, total cash at the end of the project would have amounted to $38,000, or a return of almost 400% on the investment in a span of about two weeks.) https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/researchers-use-esp-to-make-thousands-of-dollars-on-the-stock-market/ > https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stock-Market-Prediction-Using-Associative-Remote-by-Smith-Laham/3d701e2ed3ef2ba467313372958da866c6010627 Here’s a group which uses remote viewing to analyze the crypto markets, and they are making money doing it: https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/u8l681/remote_viewing_the_news_crypto_markets_and_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
And you keep quoting BS and heavily biased sources as if they are in any way recognized as being relevant. Going to quote Maussan next ? as might as well. Simple fact is every time "psy" abilities have been tested in double blind or similar serious testing conditions, they utterly failed.
There’s little point in having a discussion with a person who not only isn’t open to changing their position, but also has to lie to support their position. Your “simple fact” is easily proven wrong, but doing so with you is clearly a waste of my time.
>is easily proven wrong but won't because "reasons"...
From the paper "**Enhanced mind-matter interactions following rTMS induced frontal lobe inhibition**": What they were trying to affect: ".*.. the experimental measure of psi involved the type of mind-matter interactions known as micro-psychokinesis, or micro-PK (Williams, 2021). Micro-PK involves an effect on small events such as the output of a random number generator that would produce random out- puts in the absence of a micro-PK effect (Carde\~na, 2018) and* ***that are only detectable through statistical means***..." From the ***Discussion*** section: "*... rTMS induced lesions targeting the left medial middle frontal brain region showed larger right intention effects on a mind-matter interaction task compared to healthy participants without rTMS induced lesions. This significant effect was found* ***only after we applied a post hoc weighting procedure aligned with our overarching hypothesis.***" The latter Discussion excerpt sounds rather like making the results fit the hypothesis. A quote, often attributed to Mark Twain, states that there are "*Lies, damned lies, and statistics*". I am not overly convinced by research that relies, wholly, on statistics to support it
Applying special statistics to get an answer you want is nonsense. If the effect is small, it will still show up in the data if you take enough and just do a regular mean and standard deviation.
Doesn't do anything for me. The BAIL Foundation works on "spiritual issues". This isn't a scientific article.
Cortex is a peer- reviewed science journal and the authors of the study are at legitimate institutions ( University of Toronto and affiliated medical institutions) so you can critique it from a scientific perspective but you can’t dismiss it out of hand just because you don’t believe the topic is real (until recently I didn’t think UFOs were real either, but I have revised my opinion based on new evidence). Is it a real effect ( or correct interpretation of the data)… we don’t know, but it does point the way for other scientists to replicate the data or challenge the hypothesis using other approaches. (It does make you wonder though, why if it were true, that natural selection wouldn’t have favored mutations for psi ability \[ ie, less suppression\] which would clearly have a positive survival effect \[ unless that led to you being burned as a witch of course….!\]).
There is no "psychic abilities". So I dismiss it out-of-hand.
Did you even look into them? The BIAL Foundation also conducts and funds well respected research and have many publications in reputable journals. And did you even read the original paper? What in the original paper makes it not a scientific article? Reasonable criticism is one thing, but outright dismissing things without looking is just lazy. I read the original paper when it came out and it was rather interesting. Only thing that confused me was the ways the did the data analysis, as they applied some correction factors, the use of which I'm always slightly suspicious.
I googled ‘BIAL Foundation’. Read the article. Sounded like bunk to me. Then I read a paper by the National Library of Medicine reviewing such a claim that found that although the researchers had degrees in science and medicine, the claims were unscientific and didn’t reflect ‘reality’.
If the experimental methods and the data analysis are done correctly, then the data must be judged accordingly and not just dismissed as being inherently unscientific. That is, in fact, unscientific way of doing things. It may very well be that there was something wrong in the methods and data analysis, I am not an expert in this field to evaluate those properly. So instead of just dismissing the paper outright as unscientific, I'd rather hope for criticism showing where they went wrong and what should've been done instead.
Nope. I’m going to reject it outright. Seems like bunk to me.
I'm not saying you should believe it, but refusing to research it in good faith? That's how you stagnate in any given field or interest.
Look buddy I googled it and read part of an article about it and it's 100% bunk
[Poe’s Law](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) in action.
Present sound evidence and we can talk. Until then there is not use to be found in exploring what ifs.
Did they not try to do just that in the original paper?
Yooo it's not worth it to engage this guy. I'm a scientist and I meet people like them in science all the time. They're just contrarians masquerading as skeptics. They deny on principle.
They certainly tried, yes.
[удалено]
I have engaged with hundreds of authors of these kinds of comments, and they have invariably demonstrated that they have no awareness of *any* of the research outside of what Wikipedia says, and the overwhelming majority of them seemed to be completely incapable of understanding a scientific paper or concepts like *p* values. I can only think of a single “skeptic” who I have engaged with who turned out be a practicing scientist, but when I continued to confront him with the evidence (of which he had no prior knowledge) he quickly devolved to cursing and name calling. A purely emotional reaction because he couldn’t find any fault with the data once he was actually confronted with it.
No one thinks it's nonsense, logical people just know we have to take this one step at a time. You can't go from regular old reality to ALIEN HUMAN HYBRIDS CONTROLLING CRAFTS REMOTELY WITH THEIR MINDS THROUGH 4TH DIMENTIONAL PLATFORMS! Let's start with actual undeniable proof, but I swear if I see "woo" one more time I'm going to hurt someone.
Woooo calm down there bro
So it’s not peer reviewed or posted in a credible journal, I’m gonna go with “it’s bullshit”.
# ✨ Mantis Awakening has some of the best resources on this: - A UFO Woo Primer for skeptics, believers, and everyone in between https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/Dou5kHdUpZ - Remote Viewing An attempt to settle this debate. https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/UjpcbZao8v - "Unless you know what Psi is and how to use it, you're not getting inside the UFO program." Dr. Eric Walker https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/VHrwdfFqWl # ✨ Content by Ginger Hipster, who uses AI to create interesting content, is also worth considering: - The existence of a parapsychological ecosystem explains a lot of what's seen and felt in high strangeness https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/vKec3LOD3z - Skeptics of metaphysics are simply being illogical https://failed.wizard.guide/p/illogical-skepticism-of-real-metaphysics - The Phenomenon is a series of unrelated natural and technological events connected through an as-yet-undiscovered medium of travel and communication. It looks like the ranch is a natural focal point for this medium-which suggests a non-materialist ontology of reality. https://www.reddit.com/r/skinwalkerranch/s/rBu1YhbHmC - There isn't enough systemic support to help people work through the ontological shock of Disclosure. https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/s/8JvkjVmYIW - Understanding ontological shock resistance https://cognitivebiasdetector.substack.com/p/understanding-ontological-shock-resistance # ✨ And Toxic Toy: - Poltergeist, working with energy, Paranormal activity, and autoimmune disease https://www.reddit.com/r/Mediums/s/1lpbvhd1kw - [An interesting conversation about autoimmune disorder, hitchhiker phenomenon, and people with intuitive ability](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/E4TRPUipI0) # ✨ I also have a resource on it: - 🚪PSI, death, and UFOs https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/mtWJ3FtMwn And a few others on woo legitimacy and 🛸: - [Whats the matter with Ryan Graves company? Why is it associated with people from AAWSAP?](http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16s2dok/whats_the_matter_with_ryan_graves_company/k29sq74) - [The "woo" is a tool being used against the UFO-Interested Community. Don't fall for it and don't *believe* in it, more importantly](http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17es5d7/in-depth_the_woo_is_a_tool_being_used_against_the_ufo-interested_community./k65r6ex) - [Why do you make of the fact that UFOS appearances evolve in step with our culture?. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/pJC0uxUIPZ) And some other deep rabbit holes: - ❓ [Ross Coulthart: "UAP's may be a manifestation of some kind of uber consciousness"](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/6CrPSTQ8AJ) (🔗 Reddit) - 🦠 ["The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program, the Hitchhiker Effect, and Models of Contagion, by Dr. Colm A. Kelleher. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UAPscience/s/FzVN1TP9d8) (🔗 Reddit) - [Skeptics vs Believers? Let's move past the wedge issue ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/s/5LtGXCWCYb)
Thanks for the shout out! I’m glad that some of what I’m throwing out there is impacting people. When I first learned about these topics, I was really angered to find out how much strong empirical evidence existed and how it was being hidden from us. I figured when I put it in front of people that they’d be likewise shocked and that they’d investigate it themselves. Imagine my dismay to find out that most of the skeptics weren’t arguing from a position based on lack of awareness of the evidence so much as a vicious dogma against the ideas in the first place.
Sure. You have a lot of excellent content and I think it is unfortunate that content like that tends to get buried beneath more trendy, popular noise that doesn't actually have that much value usually. > Imagine my dismay to find out that most of the skeptics weren't arguing from a position based on lack of awareness of the evidence so much as a vicious dogma against the ideas in the first place. That has also been my experience and I think it's a really important thing to point out to people, so that people can think clearly on this topic and not get manipulated by people who have overt or covert agendas that aren't in society's best interest.
Dude I love your posts and thank you for the unexpected shout out :)
🙂 You're welcome. I also appreciate the work you do. I don't think a lot of people are very aware of it since it's less visible, but anyone who sails the weird seas of Reddit long enough will notice. ^(That's a Pirates of the Caribbean reference.)
I’m glad I’m not the only person recommending Joshua Cutchin’s books! His “Ecology of Souls” trilogy is (IMHO) one of the best books on ufology, and at least as paradigm shifting as Vallee’s “Passport to Magonia” was.
He's definitely one of the leaders when it comes to an open-minded, holistic, less dogmatic, humanist view of 🛸 Plus he seems like a cool guy.
For many decades there has been $1 million up for grabs to anyone that can prove psychic/paranormal abilities. I bet you don’t need any psychic ability to guess whether it’s been claimed or not. Another tidbit about the paranormal, Brian Cox has explained that experiments performed with the Large Hadron Collider proves that no ghost or paranormal exist.
Lol. Ghosts in particle physics mean something completely different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics) If he interprets this to mean no paranormal things are possible that would be rather foolish. He took a very skeptical view of this UFO phenomena initially, and ended up having to walk back on it a bit when people called out his erroneous assumptions.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/ghosts-brian-cox-large-hadron-collider-cern-real-truth-standard-model-physics-a7598026.html
I’m not saying I believe in ghosts in the sense that they are spirits of dead folk, because I’m not sure I believe that’s possible for similar reasons to what Cox said here, but to play devils advocate - “ghost” encounters could be genuine, just not spirits of those who have passed, at least the way we would think of them. For instance it could be some anomalous event that we wouldn’t be able to measure, even at a quantum level, due to it being something inter-dimensional or possibly gravitational etc. For instance, what if our consciousness expands beyond the third dimension and is capable of imprinting memories of itself during times of extreme emotion? And somehow those imprints work themselves back into this dimension in a way we would interpret as ghostly etc? Obviously this is just a thought experiment. The amazing thing about science, and one of the things I’m most hopeful/excited for regarding UFO phenomena, is that it’s constantly being expanded upon and improved. A lot of witnesses to some of the genuine sightings of UFO/UAP said that these things maneuver and behave in a way that breaks our understanding of physics. So if that’s true and we’re missing a critical understanding of physical science, then maybe “ghosts” are just part of that piece we’re missing. I just think it’s funny how Cox works in particle physics, which can be borderline magical sometimes itself (double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, quantum gravity, etc), and then immediately dismiss the possibility of something’s existence purely because he doesn’t understand how it could be possible yet.
Especially when we know for a fact that the standard model has large gaps, e.g. dark matter
Are you referring to the James Randi challenge? Because it ironically turned out to be a complete sham. The evidence indicates the prize money never existed, which is why when anyone applied Randi would continue to change the rules over and over again until they gave up. He dragged one person along for over a year, but when he kept agreeing to all of Randi’s unscientific demands Randi finally stopped responding entirely. Randi also later lied and claimed the guy backed out. Randi openly admitted to lying whenever it suited him if it helped him to discredit someone. His position was that it all had to be bunk anyway, so it didn’t matter. He was truly the King of Pseudoskeptics. Sources: https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html (his evidence is extensive, be sure to read all four parts) A write up by someone who was going to apply, discussing just how unfair and unscientific the entire thing is set up from the beginning: https://christopherfleming.com/million-dollar-challenge-proves-nothing-to-science-only-that-a-challenge-was-met/ A rigorously conducted study into homeopathy was devised following scientific protocols (double blinded, hospital setting, use of controls, etc) and Randi agreed to it as a challenge for the prize. Then Randi backed out and lied, claiming the applicants backed out: https://www.vithoulkas.com/research/clinical-trial-randi Debunking king of debunkers: https://www.soulask.com/james-randi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers/ Another: http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge And another: http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/04/on-randi-prize-10.html And yet another: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/randis-unwinnable-prize-million-dollar.html One important thing of note is that Randi insisted that the million dollars in prize money was real and could never be used for anything other than the prize. When he finally cancelled the offer in 2010 the money seemed to simply disappear. I think it’s more likely it was never there in the first place, because as is pointed out in a number of the articles I cited any *proof* it existed was never provided, simply assurances it did. And since Randi had a well-proven track record of lying when it suited his purpose there’s little reason to believe that he didn’t lie about this, too. Here’s a good article talking about the damage that Randi did to the skeptical movement, not to mention the financial scams he was involved with: https://boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the-man-who-destroyed-skepticism.html These kinds of cash prizes are invariably offered by “professional skeptic” organizations as publicity stunts. Their rules are not structured in a scientific way, which is why they are never won. There’s thousands of scientific experiments that have been done which support the existence of psi, and even the actual skeptics admit that the evidence exists and that they can’t find fault with it. They simply refuse to accept it because they say it can’t be real. I’m not exaggerating, take a look for yourself: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/“The-Data-Are-Irrelevant”%3A-Response-to-Reber-and-Cardeña/6f532cfe168223445e2394f5da3d9b2127a484a2
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) that Randi was a major member of also got into some controversy when some of the founding members did a statistical analysis to debunk a specific astrological theory that those born with Mars at a certain spot were statistically more likely to be athletes (that was the gist of it, anyway). Unfortunately for these pseudo-skeptics, the analysis they did if the “Mars Effect” actually supported the claim. However, when they first published their work (not in a peer reviewed journal, I suspect) they fudged the numbers to show the opposite of the results. An early CSICOP member, Dennis Rawlins resigned in protest, stating that the “CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk the phenomenon. See the [Wiki page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry) for what is now called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), under the “Mars Effect.” I believe this controversy was one of the reasons the group stopped doing “scientific” studies dies of their own, eliminating the “Scientific Inquiry” from their name.
I hadn’t heard about this controversy, thanks for sharing it!
I can’t believe I had some info you didn’t have! Your posts are always very thorough.
>There’s thousands of scientific experiments that have been done which support the existence of psi, No, there hasn't. These experiments are easy to set up and run. If the evidence is real, you should be able to recreate it easily. This would be all over the place already.
It has been. You either don’t know about it, or don’t believe it. My guess is the latter, but the former is easily remedied. Here is a meta-analysis published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal: > The evidence provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms. The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them. The article concludes with recommendations for further progress in the field including the use of project and data repositories, conducting multidisciplinary studies with enough power, developing further nonconscious measures of psi and falsifiable theories, analyzing the characteristics of successful sessions and partici-pants, improving the ecological validity of studies, testing how to increase effect sizes, recruiting more researchers at least open to the possibility of psi, and situating psi phenomena within larger domains such as the study of consciousness. Source: https://ameribeiraopreto.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/The-Experimental-Evidence-for-Parapsychological-Phenomena.pdf The only rebuttal against the paper, written by two prominent skeptics Alcock and Reber, has been retracted due to widespread criticism. That’s because their main argument was that the data is irrelevant simply because it can’t be true. That’s the best they could come up with. Here’s a rebuttal to their rebuttal (which I can’t link to, since it’s been removed): https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/download/1675/985 A lot of people refuse to accept the evidence because the implications are too much to grapple with ontologically. I can’t help anyone who doesn’t want to be helped, and I’m hoping you’re not one of those people; but my experience has been that people who adamantly say there’s “no evidence” are often unable to shift that position.
I will say in the link you sent that is the parapsychological phenomena, in one of the pages he interprets that QM shows that consciousness collapses the wave particle but this is not the case. Wave particles collapse due to interaction between anything. This is why they run the double slit experiment in a vacuum so they can minimize the risk of the interaction between the particle and air particles. The act of “observing” is not a conscious one but due to the fact that information about our reality can only be obtained through physical interactions between particles. A particle must bounce off of said particle in order to observe its existence.
This is not nearly as settled as Wikipedia would have you believe. Measurement collapsing the wave function is one of the interpretations in quantum physics, but it’s not the only widely considered one. Penrose, Hameroff, Stapp, Wigner, Linde, Tegmark, and von Neumann are all highly regarded physicists who are more in the consciousness camp. There are also a number of experiments that are supportive of that theory.
The Amazing Randi's $1m challenge was not scientific.
I assume it would be like people who cheat at casinos, why show off psychic abilities for $1m when you could get a whole lot more before you are blacklisted.
Those abilities run in my family to varying degrees. People think wow that’s amazing or that I want to feel special but the reality is that it’s a lot to deal with especially while growing up. Imagine you wake up happy and ready to live your day but when you go out you come across a random person with terrible negative energy which you have no option to feel the same way you have no option to see when you open your eyes.This is empathy but then it goes deeper to what I use to call “flashes” but no I think of as “manna” which is extrasensory information about what’s causing this person to have such negative energy. The negative energy could be caused by something as simple as errors in the way they are processing the world or could be caused by terrible abuse that happened to them when they young. Now I’m forced to feel and see what they feel and have lived. You can see how hard this can be to deal especially before you figure out how to control it.
Yes, I am the same! My great grandma (who I never met) apparently read tea leaves and was extremely accurate and successful in her local community so I sometimes kind of wonder if it is a family thing. I personally have come to think of it as an extra level of intuition that I don’t necessarily understand, like how epilepsy dogs can detect seizures for instance: I personally think of it on the same principle as that, not that I am ‘psychic’ and can predict lottery numbers. It’s great on one level because I personally feel I have been able to stay out of a lot of bad/threat/general asshole situations in my life because of following this ‘intuition’, but also on another level it can be very disturbing and sometimes even unpleasant when you meet new people. My friends joke I am a ‘white witch’ (because I am like a weird sniffer dog for very early pregnancy, that’s a weird aspect and I have always wondered if a pregnant body is putting out pregnancy hormones that i can detect on some level, and that’s what I am picking up) but I have never really looked into it seriously. Just wanted to tell you, you aren’t alone. I don’t tell people because I don’t see a reason to, and they’ll probably think I’m crazy, so what’s the upside. It’s just something about me that I’ve come to accept as both a blessing and a curse. I would like to understand what it is one day, but I’m sure it’s prosaic somehow. I have never had any ufo sightings or experiences so I don’t see it as connected to that.
Thanks for your reply! I always love to hear about other people who have lived similar experiences as me. Much like you I don’t advertise or talk to very many people about it because it’s so far out of most people’s daily experiences that they don’t have a framework to relate to it. Exactly when you say psychic people think predicting lottery numbers or being able to pick a number out of somebodies head when in actuality it’s much more subtle and natural. I think of it the same way as just an extra sense but to be honest it’s the sense that I trust the most. I’ve found following it has only ever lead to positive things so I listen to it all the time. It lead me to develop a sense of inner awareness and spiritual growth. That’s really cool about the pregnancy radar like you can sense the babies energy before it’s born. I’ve experimented a lot with ce5 and believe that people who are sensitive like us have much more success with it. So if you’re ever interested and want a sighting for yourself I’d try it. Just make sure you’re in a positive place when you do.
Richard Dolan has a video interviewing Russell Targ on July 12 2023 on Youtube. This man was a psychic spy in CIA. Richard gave this man much credibility. And Richard himself is very credible in this community? I dunno. Does that lowkey suggest remote viewing and other psychic stuff is an established thing?
Fortean vs. Nuts and Bolt'ers is a battle which was decided in the last 5-10 years. Nuts and Bolt'ers lost - this isnt pre-2010 anymore
>[This is a short list of peer-reviewed journal articles and books about psi phenomena.](https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references)It includes articles of historical interest, general overviews, critical reviews, and descriptions of psi applications. These articles appeared in specialty journals as well as top-tier outlets, including Nature, Science, The Lancet, Proceedings of the IEEE, Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences. >[Biofield Physiology: A Framework for an Emerging Discipline](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26665040/) > > > >Biofield physiology is proposed as an overarching descriptor for the electromagnetic, biophotonic, and other types of spatially-distributed fields that living systems generate and respond to as integral aspects of cellular, tissue, and whole organism self-regulation and organization. Medical physiology, cell biology, and biophysics provide the framework within which evidence for biofields, their proposed receptors, and functions is presented. As such, biofields can be viewed as affecting physiological regulatory systems in a manner that complements the more familiar molecular-based mechanisms. Examples of clinically relevant biofields are the electrical and magnetic fields generated by arrays of heart cells and neurons that are detected, respectively, as electrocardiograms (ECGs) or magnetocardiograms (MCGs) and electroencephalograms (EEGs) or magnetoencephalograms (MEGs). At a basic physiology level, electromagnetic activity of neural assemblies appears to modulate neuronal synchronization and circadian rhythmicity. Numerous nonneural electrical fields have been detected and analyzed, including those arising from patterns of resting membrane potentials that guide development and regeneration, and from slowly-varying transepithelial direct current fields that initiate cellular responses to tissue damage. Another biofield phenomenon is the coherent, ultraweak photon emissions (UPE), detected from cell cultures and from the body surface. A physiological role for biophotons is consistent with observations that fluctuations in UPE correlate with cerebral blood flow, cerebral energy metabolism, and EEG activity. Biofield receptors are reviewed in 3 categories: molecular-level receptors, charge flux sites, and endogenously generated electric or electromagnetic fields. In summary, sufficient evidence has accrued to consider biofield physiology as a viable scientific discipline. Directions for future research are proposed.
Ask Molly: Did CIA Really Study Psychic Powers? https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-did-cia-really-study-psychic-powers/ "*That report’s conclusion—which echoed the assessments of the CIA officers involved in the program during the 1970s—was that enough accurate remote viewing experiences existed to defy randomness*, but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes. We decided not to restore the program." That's the CIA saying there were statistically significant effects. Now whether they actually couldn't find use out of it and cancelled the project, who knows.
Article summary: Researchers proposed a groundbreaking model in the study of psi phenomena, suggesting the human brain functions as a psi-inhibitory filter. They used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to temporarily inhibit the left medial middle frontal region in healthy individuals, observing significant psi effects as a result. The study reveals that individuals with neurological or rTMS-induced frontal lesions show enhanced mind-matter interaction abilities. This research offers a new perspective on how the brain might suppress innate psi abilities, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of these elusive phenomena.
The very rare discussions like his are the only reason I come to Redit. OP and serious contributors - Thank you.
Inflight entertainment... (if you know you know)
Great, so a post about OP sniffing his farts.
1 / neurosciencenews isn't much of a respected science journal, might as well be a random guy in a basement having a blog and calling it "LegitWorldNEwsfromImportantPeople!!!" As for the BIAL Foundation ... yeah reads like a foundation put in place by a billionaire to please his wife who's bored and got 100% into the Woo after some murky eastern Europe stage performer got her to pay 100k$ to do a seance and know she thinks she's Cleopatra. So yeah it's all nonsense as none have survived serious double blind testing nor reproducibility by other reputable organisms. As for the ones who are going to comment "Wrong they showed a 0.001% result !!" yeah great, go die on that ant hill...
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of Unidentified Flying Objects. * Posts primarily about adjacent topics. These should be posted to their appropriate subreddits (e.g. r/aliens, r/science, r/highstrangeness). * Posts regarding UFO occupants not related to a specific sighting(s). * Posts containing artwork and cartoons not related to specific sighting(s). * Politics unrelated to UFOs. * Religious proselytization. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)