Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

After this, I have a few experiences that might be of interest along these same lines involving that mystical “ethereal plane”.

Can’t find the actual study, or whatever the hell the CIA released.

Yeah, I thought about that after I quoted it.

How about this one instead since we have already read the summary;

Exactly. So why do you keep asking it? I don’t feel, or see the need to ever say ‘magic’ unless it’s like…in a game, or something. Magic is just a slang word for physics playing out. You see all this inquiry as pointless because you’re looking at it the wrong way. Of course wondering about magic is pointless. I’m wondering about the syntax of existence.

People think I’m here trying to be annoying, but I’m here doing my own experiments, and there is a slight difference there. I’m truly trying to learn about people because I seem to look at things very differently.

People say to me, 'there isn’t any scientific evidence for [fringe thing] that’s just some conspiracy theory. Bring me some ‘scientific’ evidence and then I’ll consider it. Then you bring them the evidence and suddenly they go into a hyper-charged intellectual agility that usually seeks to obfuscate truth rather than seek it out. Every ‘fringe’ discussion, more often than not, ends with the skeptic demanding the person doing the assertion admit that he doesn’t know for sure, even in the face of significant correlation because, well, no one does know for sure. They don’t take that conclusion that nothing is 100% knowable with them to the real world and apply it to their beliefs there. They don’t do that because it’s fucking insane.

Yeah, there are obviously flaws in these experiments, as there are with any experiment, but if you (not the scientists) applied the same level of skepticism to everything as you do with any topic labelled ‘fringe,’ you wouldn’t have beliefs. How many sciences outside of (para)psychology even use double blind studies in practice? How many even still teach it still? If you want to assert what you are, you must go against, somewhat at least, the belief that ‘nature is blind’ - a belief many academics hold, and ask them to change their practices. Well maybe not that, but you would be dismissing their findings.

To me, the most fascinating thing is when you give people the evidence they asked for, and then they make up excuses as to why they are not going to look at it. I’m not saying it in a condescending manner. It really is the nexus of where much of psychology comes together.

When you think about it anything in the ‘fringe’ is something which the public has decided it just doesn’t like. It’s de-facto at odds with the public emotionally; if it was not it wouldn’t be fringe, it would be an area of grey research, or on-going research, or something. There are things which the public does not consider fringe supported by less scientific data than things which are (and the other way around obviously.) There is no line, intellectually; there is a line emotionally. There is no constant or correlative - education, culture, race, religion, sex - that unites those who purport different so-called ‘pseudo-sciences.’ The assumption it’s all rednecks and religious people is completely false.

As kind of an aside: the term conspiracy theorist is such an effective psychological trigger, and I applaud whoever introduced it, but at the same time it has a very telling effect. The moment someone uses that term (or others like it) to describe what you’re saying, as opposed to simply saying ‘that argument’ or ‘that’ or whatever someone would say for anything else, you catch a glimpse of their thought process. Similar to someone saying ‘gay wedding’ instead of ‘man wedding’ or ‘2 men getting married’ or something, it shows you how the person conceptualizes it. In my experience you can hear the disdain in their voice, then they go on to tell you they’re open and unbiased because they watch South Park, or something.

Ohhh stop your whining.

:mrgreen:

Haha… I just thought I’d demonstrate the next step they go to just to make it worse. :laughing:

In Old England, they just had people declared insane. In the US after the socialist take over, they just labeled you as paranoid. But since that involves a degree of science now, they just have the magog in society throw random insults and implications at you until whatever you said that isn’t supposed to be believed gets buried - playing on the herd mentality syndrome.

Conspiracy theorist is a silly term.
Who isn’t a conspiracy theorist?
Is there anyone who thinks that 9/11 was not a conspiracy? They would then have to think it was caused by pilot error.

The fact that this term is used by people who when using it are contrasting themselves with people they think are irrational is funny and ironic. But there isö unacknowledged secondary gain in using it. And when will this get noticed by the very people who tend to say their opponents are being unduly influenced by their emotions?

In a world of 800,000 sworn to be secret employees of Homeland Security spread across the country, how can anyone even use the term “conspiracy theory”. :laughing:

At what point does a theory finally get to drop its doubt and become fact?

It is remarkably difficult to track down the studies on Ganzfeld, and the one’s I did track down were mostly meta. It seems that the early Ganzfeld experiments have been abandoned by the literature itself in favor of an “autoganzfeld”. Conditions are basically the same except that a computer randomly generates the image, the experimenter is not in the room, and the stream of consciousness of the receiver is both recorded electronically and transcribed by the experimenter. (It controls for problem variables which include when an experimenter knows the image/interacts with the participants/images are physical(finger prints and warmth tip off to the receiver which was in the hands of the sender) ect.) Further, the experimenter does not know the image being shown to the Sender. Interestingly the initial Ganzfeld with the methodological problems generated a significantly higher correlation that autoganfeld.

There is a sort of end all be all study for AutoGanzfeld methodology that all the studies I found referenced as the basis for their experiment. It is Honorton 1983 or 1990, but I cannot determine which study it is, nor can I find the name of either. It may be this, as per Honorton’s pax vitae: Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies, but it is not available online.

I am at a dead end. All that I can conclude at this point, without seeing the agreed upon conditions, and keeping in mind that there is a serious documented problem where negative results are not published, is that the evidence demands further experiments. They need to test the repeatability of autganzfeld and generate the requisite amount of data. Further, the literature itself is undecided as to proof and proper controls.

As for me, besides the above, I have two serious problems with Ganzfeld based on my current knowledge of the methodology, or one problem that is two pronged. The problem is with the stream of consciousness that occurs while the receiver is in a relaxed state. The experiment lasts 30 minutes which gives the receiver enough time to pretty much say every damn thing that pops into their head, which can and does cover a whole lot of material. In studies that use a judge, would they not have a tendency to key in on the bits of the 30 minutes that correlate to the proper image? It seems to me that they obviously would.

The judge takes notes of everything the person says, then finds out the image the receiver saw, then tries to connect the notes to the image. This is quite flawed. The problem is, there are not enough studies available for me to determine how often this technique is used in the literature.

Also, why only 4 images? To me that seems like they are asking for statistical anomalies in the 200 or so experiment. Humans are cued based on sequence images are shown, and with so few images and so few tests it cannot be ruled out that this occured. I also cannot figure out why the hell the put ping-pong goggles and white noise on with a red light background. How the hell would they know if blanking out your senses would help psi when they are conducting a study trying to figure out if it even exists.

Recommendations: The conditions are replicated as per the literature, only receivers are offered far more images to choose from. Instead of 3 false and one true, do 9 false and 1 true. Also, test it under different conditions and see how the results vary. Never tell the experimenter on site or the receiver what the image was, rather leave that to someone offsite. Why risk this sort of taint when it’s so easy to get rid of it.

I don’t know how prolific these other two problems are, but they struck me as serious.

  1. One study gave a description of the images and and three were normal everyday things and one was exotic. A cup, a coin, a sofa, and then a fire breather. LOL, the right image was the fire breather and the receiver picked it…Of course it’s going to be picked, it’s the “not like the others” image.

  2. A different study used both people who claimed to be psi and those who did not. The people who claimed to be psi scored 15% correct, while those who didn’t scored 32%(which is the result of most studies I saw). The immediate problem with this is that it may suggest that an unknown cue is present. Whereas the “psi people” were focusing on there own abilities and missed it, the “lay people” were not and picked up on the cue.

Haha…
You ended up exactly where I was expecting. But thks for going through that struggle for us;

  1. Finding anything of detail online is damn near impossible. This is true concerning every endeavor including detailed physics.
  2. Even if you found the exact hand written notes (as I have on occasion), there are always questions concerning relevant details that are not noted. Thus there is still room for rational doubt.

Almost anything you hear that science has been touted as saying “has been proven” (especially statistically) is far more related to current politics than true Science. Almost anything you hear that seems fascinating is merely that, “fascination”, not true Science.

But ESP is a special field that requires truly expert analysis far beyond that of common Science. ESP involves what has been called the “ethereal plane” or field and is actually what I call the “field of relevant affectance” (from Rational Metaphysics and I just realized that I should write a thesis on that subject).

All life really is connected in a way related to what in physics is called “Entanglement”. Entanglement is when two particles are formed in such a way that they exactly reflect each other until either is treated differently. A fundamental concept in all thought is the
Equivalency Equation;
Equal Setting + Equal Treatment ==> Equal Result

All thought and indeed all life is assembled in an entangled situation. All thought by all people is formed by conceptualizing relevance. This can be perceived (and often is) in their language. And social engineers attempting to use language to alter society are very aware of that connection. And all life considers relevance as that which has affect upon its survival (else it isn’t “alive”).

Due to this entanglement at the very foundation of all life, similar strategies form from the efforts of every life. Specialties form such as to add confusing factors, but on a higher conceptual level, whether an engineer or a secretary, everyone is using problem solving algorithms to handle their situation. If anyone is perceptive to these strategies/algorithms, they can predict what life on another world will do without needing to know details or specifics. It is a case of sensing trends formed by priorities. That “field of relevant affectance” (being affected by similar things and working out similar strategies) is the “ethereal plane of reality”.

Thus when 2 people are used in these experiments, a sender and a receiver, there really is an entanglement connection between them that has no direct physical association, but rather strictly mental. But sensing that level of mental strategizing to the point of being able to predict specific actions is sensitive business. I have quite a bit of direct experience in such regards and even with me, if I think anyone is testing me or watching, I cannot perform and often do the opposite of what I want.

So when a machine is used in place of one of the people, a significant and very relevant factor is removed. The receiver must now predict strategies concerning the make of the machine and how it is being used. That one is tough and is a whole different ball of wax. So I would expect a serious change when they went to “autoganzfeld” experiments.

But such a change doesn’t invalidate the original hypothesis. It in fact constitutes an entirely new hypothesis concerning the entanglement of man-made devices and life. Once those devices become sophisticated enough to be self-learning and strategizing, the entanglement phenomena will return.

So the ESP investigator is actually doing something very relevant and important. He just has no clue what he is looking at or trying to analyze. Thus we get complete non-sense at times being reported as “Science”. But the endeavor actually is legitimate Science once they get their act together (IF). Their reports are the beginnings of the effort to finally see what is going on and they find occasional associations that even they don’t know how to screw up.

pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385502,00.asp

Apple mimics a religious experience for users. :mrgreen:

I saw the machine as a necessary step. The receiver and sender are still human, it just controls for the experimenter choosing the images and possibly cueing the receiver. If we are testing the connection between the receiver and sender only, then it’s a move in the right direction in terms of controls. But you could be right, if a connection between minds is being tested, whatever that means, then the number of minds thinking about the image ought to influence the results.

Think of it this way;
One person is asked what answer to a question the other person will give. The test discovers that the subject can reliably predict the answer. The subject, knowing that the other person is a “typical person” can deduce what answer will be given because he knows from experience what answer a typical person will give. He can think in an entangled mode, “If I were a typical person, I would give this… answer”.

But then the other person is changed to a machine. The subject is then asked, “how will the machine respond?” Now the subject has to figure out what a machine would do under the same questioning process, “will the machine be more accurate or less?” He must now “think like a machine”.

In a different scenario, a person might be asked how a Ford automobile will respond on a race track. To that question, he perhaps can give reliable answers. But then they change to a Chevy without telling him. Suddenly he is giving the wrong answers. Yet despite how obvious that scenario is, the tester/experimenter is likely to conclude that the only way to test a subject is to use Chevies or alter automobile types randomly because his prior test has shown that the subject doesn’t really have the ability to predict automobile responses on race tracks.

So there is a study I am trying to find. It’s this one:

It seems to have disappeared, but likely I just cannot find the right keywords. If anyone has seen this study, link it plz.

dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

Not the study, but similar. Tests for precognition and other phenomenon using several different methodologies.

-edit-

If Link doesn’t work, Google:

Feeling the future cornell

First result

Google:

Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions

First result is the study you described.

Haha…

Some people are just wrong way less than others, or on different orders of significance. The types of things I make mistakes on are stupid details that don’t matter.

I’m like a forerunner, out there ahead of the pack, scouting stuff out. I was given certain tools for that.

And I am definitely on my own.

Being right sucks.

And the bolded part of your signature.

Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent.

Is a non-sequitur because being true to yourself is originality.

I may have already told you about this, but when I tried some weed and was resting closing my eyes, I saw all these mandalas and colidascopes of colors. Then I saw a network of dogs all connected to each other. Endless amounts of dog spirits connected to humans and sending energy into them trying to help them be spiritually more healthy and better.

It was so selfless that I had some sort of doubt feelings about its reality. I’m usedto a system where life has to not spend its time giving and helping, it needs to hoard resources and avoid constant danger.

I know dogs have some psychic gifts. But they also have an over mind and networks set up too.

I call them rows when I see a vast or never ending aray of beings.

I’ve seen angel networks too, but that was the first time i seen a row of dog spirits.

When preforming an evocation, a spirit can tell when you are looking at their seal, or when you are wanting to do something to or with them.

When we look at something, we align with it. This can be felt, since the energy syncs. It is possible to develop stealth and not be noticed, but humans can’t usually get that level of stealth.

If we pray, for example, the spirits can sense which person we are intending to pray to.

Consciousness surrounds space and life. It effects it. If we think about someone really hard, we get to know about them better subliminally, even if we aren’t directly talking with them.