Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

[Gobbo]

Religious:

Predominantly the more psychic of the two groups. They can move beyond the scientific indoctrination, as they do not see science as the sole arbiter of truth. The negative is that this gift is either seen as Satanic, and they are encouraged not to use it; or it is not seen that way, but what is 'seen' has a grossly religious slant to it.

The Religious who attain full psychic potential obviously remain religious, as they start to see a bunch of stuff beyond what science purports to be possible.

Athiests:

Most latent psychics who grow up in the (Liberal) Atheism paradigm are limited by the logical imperative forced onto them. Their emotional intelligence suffers and that connection to psychic potential is inhibited or cut off. I would categorized myself in this way.

The athiests who progress past this into full-on etheric vision and such typically stop being atheists and either align themselves with a higher power, or they work for the CIA or something as a morally grey agent of higher cognitive abilities. They drive sports cars and look down on the simpletons.

[Gobbo]

Some interesting experiments which prove the existence of psychic phenomenon:

1. The dog owner test: this double-blind study proved that dogs know when their owners -decide- to come home. Not the act of getting into the car, train, etc, but the moment the decision is made in the human's mind, the dog responds. This was done a couple times, actually. Sheldrake championed this one, if I remember correctly.

2. The blank card test: this double-blind study proved that all humans are capable of basic precognition. In the test the participants would turn over blank cards to reveal either a serene image, or a disturbing one. The test showed, conclusively, that before the disturbing ones were turned over the person's heart rate and brain function would coincide with what would happen if they had seen it normally, before they could actually see the card. In other words the mind know what was coming, and was already ready.

I'm at work and going from my memory. I will describe more conclusive tests as they come to me.

[James S Saint]

If you know how such magic works, is it still magic?

[Gobbo]

No, it's psychic phenomena.

[James S Saint]

No, it's psychic phenomena.

Okay then; "If you understand it and expect it, is it still a phenomenon?"

You have to realize that there is a realm for a psychic (one who mentally sees) the make of psychic phenomena.

[Gobbo]

I understand it, I think, well enough for someone in my position.

I'm just trying to help others to understand it. Early on in my history at this site I had this battle charge of 'Screw the Peer Reviewed System!' cause for a long time psychic ability was obviously real, but they would go on saying it wasn't.

Now I understand there is plenty of evidence out there. I'm going to talk, even if it is to myself, about some of that evidence. I find this stuff extremely interesting. I understand it is scary to some, but I think in the long run we should embrace things like this, as, imo, it is the future of mankind.



3. The 'You're Being Watched' Study. In this study they had participants hooked up to a machine which measures the electric changes on the surface of the human body. What they found is that when a person is being watched by another person, the body can feel it. They took this test one step further and had participants sits in a room with a camera, and then have someone else watch them, from another room, through the camera. Upon being watched, the skin would still register distinct changes which only happened while being watched. They even extrapolated this study one step further, discussing the sometimes odd behavior of celebrities who would feel this electric change near-constantly depending on their level of fame. Perhaps this minute 'feeling' can actually be addictive.

[Gobbo]

http://www.opensourcescience.net/index. ... _Return%3F

[James S Saint]

Being educated in formal psychology, I unfortunately learned that by in large psychologists are some of the worst at providing accountable experimentation. So those stories are meaningless to me. Although the Psy dept loved having an engineer in their midst to help with the effort to become more scientific, the differences in real science experimentation and the average PhD psychology mindset was much too great. I got more tests thrown out and theories dismissed in my short tenure than they had approved during the prior ten years. The Army has a much better and advanced program (thanks to your tax dollars). But of course, the Army only has one use for psychology - to get more of your dollars.

[Blurry]

I got into a conversation somewhat like this on KT, and I'll say the same thing I said there. There is nothing "supernatural" or "creepy" about psychic ability. It's nothing more than energy manipulation.

I also used these examples on KT -- when I lived in Wisconsin, there would be times when I was driving down a dark road in the middle of the night, going up a hill or coming around a corner, and suddenly I'd know without question that I needed to slow down. The certainty was such that my reaction was automatic -- step on that break peddle, and I'd get around that corner or come over the top of the hill, and there'd be a deer standing in the middle of the road. This happened to me several times.

Sometimes when my phone rings, especially if it's a member of my family, I know who it is before I even look at the phone. My mother does the same thing, and the end result is -- *ringring*...*ringring*..."Heeeey, I knew it was you!" I don't talk to anyone in my family regularly enough to be expecting them to call me at any given time. I suppose you might call it "psychic", but just the word implies something supernatural about it. I'm nearly certain, having seen some experiments myself, that these things may not yet be able to be scientifically explained, but they can absolutely be measured, and there is nothing all that extraordinary at work.

[Gobbo]

Blurred: I suppose you might call it "psychic", but just the word implies something supernatural about it.

The word doesn't imply supernatural, though. I mean...no one een said that. It's just the word you use to describe those things. You're sensing beyond the traditional 5. It's ESP. Psychic.


(I'm on a phone so I cannot do quotes.)

[Blurry]

Gobbo, I understand what you're saying, I do, but in a conversation the word "psychic" generally brings to mind all kinds of creepy supernatural b.s. I know that's not the definition, I'm talking about the way the word is commonly percieved.

[Gobbo]

Maybe if the people are children, or the elderly. Regardless, in a thread where I am obviously trying to change the way people use the word, what is the reason you are bringing up this point? It's like being with gay people and saying 'you know, for some people gay men are called faggots.'

Why even say anything?

[xzc]

In November 1994, both Jaytee's reactions and Smart's movements were monitored by two cameramen in conjunction with a team from the Science Unit of Austrian Television (ORF) headed by Dr. Heinz Lager. The video footage showed that Jaytee reacted 11 seconds after Smart was told to go home at a randomly selected time previously unknown to her. The television coverage of the experiment received considerable attention from the media. Dr. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hetfordshire and respected researcher of parapsychological claims, was asked by various newspapers and television programs for his comments on Jaytee's anticipatory behavior. In early 1995, Sheldrake invited Wiseman to test Jaytee's abilities for himself. Wiseman, Sheldrake and Smart discussed how to construct an experimental procedure that would safeguard against the following possible normal explanations:




Responding to routine – the owner would leave home at a randomly selected time

Sensory cueing from owner – the owner would return from a location which is sufficiently far away to eliminate such cues

Sensory cueing from people remaining with the pet – no one who remains with the pet would know when the owner will return

Selective memory – the experimenter would make a complete and accurate recording of the pet's behavior

Multiple guesses – the owner's behavior or intention that allegedly causes the pet to signal their return would be clearly determined before the start of the experiment

Misremembering – both owner and pet should be carefully monitored during the experiment to determine when they carried out the relevant behaviors

Selective matching – anyone attempting to judge the record of the pet's behavior and decide when (s)he made the appropriate signal should not know when the owner started to return home


In the British Journal of Psychology (BJP), Wiseman and his colleagues Matthew Smith and Julie Milton (1998) described four experiments with Jaytee in which the above protocols were used. The authors set a maximum time for each experiment (e.g. three hours), which was then broken down into a number of time blocks (e.g. eighteen time blocks, lasting ten minutes each). According to Wiseman et al, an experiment was considered successful if the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window occurred in first ten minute time block after his owner began her return trip home. After the first unsuccessful experimental session, Wiseman et al decided (based on a suggestion from Smart) that the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window for more than two minutes after his owner started returning home would be a better criterion for success. Based on this criterion, their analysis did not support the hypothesis that Jaytee could accurately detect when Smart set off to return home.

lol

untab

[xzc]

Based on this criterion, their analysis did not support the hypothesis that Jaytee could accurately detect when Smart set off to return home.

inb4it'saconspiracy

[James S Saint]

Even the word "supernatural" doesn't connote supernatural, but rather magical.
"Psychic" merely means "purely mental".
"Extra-Sensory-Perception" merely refers to the psychic ability to "sense" via mental clarity more than simple sensing would reveal. Using instruments does that same thing via physical enhancements. But as usual, the more one art gets practiced, the more the other art atrophies.

Sherlock Holmes is the psychic revealed. "Idiot savants" are another example of extra perception supplied by the mind.
Materialists are the atrophied effects revealed - from too much instrumentation being used in an effort to explain all things.

You can't leave the mind out of the game if you want to make real progress.
And you can't presume that materialists can experimentally measure mental capability.
In any case, you can't let the inmates run the Asylum.

[Gobbo]

In November 1994, both Jaytee's reactions and Smart's movements were monitored by two cameramen in conjunction with a team from the Science Unit of Austrian Television (ORF) headed by Dr. Heinz Lager. The video footage showed that Jaytee reacted 11 seconds after Smart was told to go home at a randomly selected time previously unknown to her. The television coverage of the experiment received considerable attention from the media. Dr. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hetfordshire and respected researcher of parapsychological claims, was asked by various newspapers and television programs for his comments on Jaytee's anticipatory behavior. In early 1995, Sheldrake invited Wiseman to test Jaytee's abilities for himself. Wiseman, Sheldrake and Smart discussed how to construct an experimental procedure that would safeguard against the following possible normal explanations:




Responding to routine – the owner would leave home at a randomly selected time

Sensory cueing from owner – the owner would return from a location which is sufficiently far away to eliminate such cues

Sensory cueing from people remaining with the pet – no one who remains with the pet would know when the owner will return

Selective memory – the experimenter would make a complete and accurate recording of the pet's behavior

Multiple guesses – the owner's behavior or intention that allegedly causes the pet to signal their return would be clearly determined before the start of the experiment

Misremembering – both owner and pet should be carefully monitored during the experiment to determine when they carried out the relevant behaviors

Selective matching – anyone attempting to judge the record of the pet's behavior and decide when (s)he made the appropriate signal should not know when the owner started to return home


In the British Journal of Psychology (BJP), Wiseman and his colleagues Matthew Smith and Julie Milton (1998) described four experiments with Jaytee in which the above protocols were used. The authors set a maximum time for each experiment (e.g. three hours), which was then broken down into a number of time blocks (e.g. eighteen time blocks, lasting ten minutes each). According to Wiseman et al, an experiment was considered successful if the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window occurred in first ten minute time block after his owner began her return trip home. After the first unsuccessful experimental session, Wiseman et al decided (based on a suggestion from Smart) that the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window for more than two minutes after his owner started returning home would be a better criterion for success. Based on this criterion, their analysis did not support the hypothesis that Jaytee could accurately detect when Smart set off to return home.

lol

untab

All you did was read half of the article and omit the second half which refutes the part you quoted. Obviously I linked this for a reason. It's to show the progression of acceptance towards the hypothesis. He does the experiment again to their specifications and demonstrates the correlation again.

Maybe you wanted to find a conclusion, scanned until you found it, and then felt that was enough. Maybe that is what happened. I don't know.

[Blurry]

Maybe if the people are children, or the elderly. Regardless, in a thread where I am obviously trying to change the way people use the word, what is the reason you are bringing up this point? It's like being with gay people and saying 'you know, for some people gay men are called faggots.'

Why even say anything?

Wow, you really have a problem with the idea that not everyone fits into the pretty little boxes you paint for them, don't you? The fact that you would say something like "Only children and old people believe psychic powers are supernatural" shows that you're pretty far out of touch with the average person and probably shouldn't be speaking for them. That most people are idiots and you assume yourself to be above them reinforces this even more, you should know better.

Anyway, I wasn't the one who started talking about how atheists who are able to tap into their psychic abilities often align themselves with some higher power. Hellooooooo, supernatural content anyone?

[Wobbly]

Although we believe our account of our findings to the media was accurate, we
feel that the description of our experiments in RS’s book, Dogs That Know
When Their Owners Are Coming Home and Other Unexplained Powers of
Animals, is misleading. RS has presented the results of our work in the main
text of this book. However, instead of stating that we had concluded that our
experiments did not support the existence of Jaytee’s claimed abilities, he
described our data as follows:

'The pattern was very similar to that in my own experiments, and confirmed that
Jaytee anticipated Pam’s arrival even when she was returning at a randomly
chosen time in an unfamiliar vehicle. (Sheldrake, 1999b, p. 46).
RS only described our actual conclusions (i.e., that we believe that our
experiments do not support claims about Jaytee’s psychic abilities) in an
endnote, published in a very small font, at the very back of the book (Footnote
1).

LOL

[Gobbo]

Another study came out in the Journal of Scientific Exploration the same year as the JSPR debate (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000a), and described more than 100 videotaped experiments with Jaytee, which were time-coded and scored "blind". Adopting the methodological controls as described in Wiseman et al (1998), Sheldrake & Smart found that Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time during the main period of her absence and 55% of the time when she was returning. Additionally, the authors completed a series of experiments in a more 'naturalistic' setting, where Smart returned home at non-routine times of her choosing, as well as control experiments, where Smart did not return home at all. The authors found the results of these naturalistic experiments to be significant, and showed that Jaytee did not wait at the window more and more as time went on.

The last published investigation into the phenomenon of 'dogs that know when their owners are coming home' came out in Anthrozoös, the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000b). This set of ten video-taped experiments was carried out with a Rhodesian ridgeback dog named Kane. Kane's window area was filmed continuously while his owner went to places more than 8 km away and come home at a variety of non-routine times, some of which were selected at random and communicated by a telephone pager. The time-coded videos were scored blind by an independent party. On average, Kane spent 26% of the time at the window while his owner was returning and 1% during the rest of her absence, a difference that was highly significant statistically.

lol. You guys cannot even read to the end of an article before letting your emotion get the better of you. You're accusing me of what you are far more guilty of: wanting to see a particular conclusion.

No one has presented a counterargument that makes sense if you simply read the article I presented in its entirety. I doubt anyone will, unless they have their own studies they conducted. So, I think it's time to move onto the next of many studies I have to share.

[Wobbly]

You're right, I didn't read the web article, I read the published articles of the experimenters.

[Gobbo]

The whole opensourcescience page is published articles of experimenters.

I think that's kind of the point with that website...? So I'm not sure what your point is. Explain to us why you don't need to read the other published experiments please.

[Wobbly]

Umm, the page you linked was a synopsis, and for all I know it was written by you.

I read the articles it referenced.

[Gobbo]

You clearly didn't read all of them.

Anyways you're right. The page on opensourcescience.com could have been written by me. That's smart to be wary of that possibility.

[Wobbly]

You clearly didn't read all of them.

Actually I did, not my fault that you didn't. If you had you would have seen that the last article with Jaytee was the most uncontrolled out of the lot. The scientists were not even present, the environment was wide open, and the owner and her parents did everything.

Seeing as how wiseman's criticism of RS's methodology went unanswered in RS's response(as per my first post), and the RS's next papers were based on the same trash methodology(this time conducted by a layman), only someone that is either a fool or hasn't bothered to read any of the actual articles would conclude a positive correlation between departure time and Jaytee.

[Gobbo]

On average, Kane spent 26% of the time at the window while his owner was returning and 1% during the rest of her absence, a difference that was highly significant statistically.