Evidence for psychic phenomena?

[Gazic]

Hi. Leo recently stated that there was plenty of scientific evidence for psychic/paranormal phenomena, but I've never seen anything remotely convincing myself. I recently watched the Joe Rogan podcast with the "mentalist" Banachek, where he talks about debunking Uri Geller and tricking scientific researchers for years to prove that all self-proclaimed psychics use psychological tricks and sleight of hand.

While I'm sceptical, I'm also open minded, so was wondering if anyone had any evidence they could share. Or just general thoughts on the subject? Is it all tricks, delusion or wishful thinking? Or is something more subtle going on?

Thanks.

[Mu_]

I'm just some random dude on the internet so I doubt youll let any first hand stories that have proved to me these phenomena exist, but here goes a short one

I use to work with an autistic kid who didn't talk and responded to very little requests.  One day I just had a wacky idea to think to him requests and see what happened (Ive done mushrooms before and had some psychic communications with friends, so I knew it was possible, at least on mushrooms).  So i really concentrated my thoughts like I was when I was on mushrooms to him, and about 75% of the time he would  do what I asked with no verbal communication or eye contact.  He was playing with this ball one time, and 75% of the time when I asked for him to pass it to me, he did.  He never did this before and didn't when I didn't ask.  Fast forward a few months when I was going to leave the job I decided I should tell the mom at this point, since I had no repercussions of her firing me due to me being crazy.  To my surprise she confirmed her suspicions.  She said there were to many times where she was in the kitchen and thinking of an item she needed and the kid would come over and give it to her.  She thought she was just imaging or may of said something to one of her other kids and he heard.

 

[Gazic]

Hey, thanks for the reply. That's fascinating. Anecdotes like that are what keep me open minded.

I just don't get why they never seem to be testable under controlled conditions. You'd have thought statistically significant results would be easy enough to obtain, unless there's some kind of spooky quantum observer effect going on. But then I'm no expert on that, so I'll stop talking...

[FrgttnDeer]

There are two or more books on Leo's booklist which are exactly what you are looking for.

[SoonHei]

@Gazic here's something

 

ALL IS POSSIBLE

 

it is possible to manifest a live elephant in-front of your house just by thinking/power of will

it is possible to do ESP

it is possible to do mind reading

levitation

 

 

ever since Leo's video about absolute infinity and few others related to that topic. i understand how reality is ALL THAT WHICH CAN BE

and there cannot be any limit which can be placed upon ALL THAT WHICH CAN BE 

 

the question becomes whether you're living in a reality in which whatever the crazy sounding psychic phenomena is can be

 

also, if it isn't present now you cannot conclude oh, i live in a reality where it cannot happen

because what if it happens the next day?

then do you live in that reality where it cannot happen or where it could happen?

 

the truth is, each second you're in a "different" reality with infinte possiblies

it is about having the means/method and most importantly, the belief in whether or not it can be done or not.

[FrgttnDeer]

14 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

ALL IS POSSIBLE

 

How do you know this?

[Gazic]

1 hour ago, Gazic said:

I just don't get why they never seem to be testable under controlled conditions. You'd have thought statistically significant results would be easy enough to obtain, unless there's some kind of spooky quantum observer effect going on. But then I'm no expert on that, so I'll stop talking...

Hmm, just to go off at a tangent... your icon moves when I'm not looking directly at it. When I observe it, it stops. It's like an iconised double slit experiment

[SoonHei]

@FrgttnDeer

 

there is nothing which can enforce a limit on reality

reality is infinite

reality is infinite pixels which can render infinite colors - infinitely 

 

ergo, all is possible

also, in one of @Leo Gura's videos he mentions reality as being an infinte sandbox with everything in it already there. just has to be found/stumbled upon 

 

also, heck, even from a materialist paradigm , i read something online somewhere that scientists estimate, given the size of the universe, that somewhere in the universe there really is the exact 1 to 1 similarity of a REAL VERSION of star wars occurring somewhere

 

keep in mind, that is with the understanding of a "limited sized" universe

 

and in truth, the universe/reality is INFINTE

 

ALL THAT CAN BE, IS

ALL OF IT. THAT IS WHAT GOD IS. IT IS THIS. ALL OF THIS. EVERYTHING!

 

[Gazic]

Could you tell me this week's Euro Millions lottery numbers then please? Thanks in advance x

[SoonHei]

@Gazic LOL

sure thing!

but the probability of them manifesting as the winning numbers won't be very high

 

i'm working on the canadian lotto numbers myself!  

[Leo Gura]

Many statistical studies have been done on ESP. They all come out positive in meta-analysis.

The chances of ESP not being true are like one in a billion according to the statistical analysis. The problem is that no serious scientist wants to accept it because it would ruin his career.

Not to mention that you can teach yourself to do it.

Check out Dean Radin's research.

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura it’s shoking how Plotinus, whose biography you recommended in the book list, is only at LOC 674. What is all that absolute, nothingness crap you mentioned in the booklist under his book ?. He’s only at the level of no self.

[SoonHei]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that no serious scientist wants to accept it because it would ruin his career.

just watched your video about this topic yesterday

the whole system is set up with all the accreditation of peer-reviews and what not and the fact that an enlightened person can never be employed as a director/prof at a uni cuz they would be passed off as a goo-goo-gaa-gaa 

[Strikr]

ho man I was a pure atheist, nihilist, now I believe in the intelligent design, not in the budha.

want to see intelligent design ? LSD or mushroom, better than EVERY fucking word I could put in this topic.

if you don't call it psychic phenomena, it's just a matter of "value x word"

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

@Leo Gura it’s shoking how Plotinus, whose biography you recommended in the book list, is only at LOC 674. What is all that absolute, nothingness crap you mentioned in the booklist under his book ?. He’s only at the level of no self.

I don't agree that Plotinus was that low.

Seems clear to me from his writings that he was deeply nondual and conscious of God way beyond no-self.

[FrgttnDeer]

4 hours ago, SoonHei said:

reality is infinite

How do you know this?

[cetus]

3 hours ago, SoonHei said:

i'm working on the canadian lotto numbers myself!

@SoonHei  They are already there waiting. Meet 'em half way is all you need to do. 

Oh yea. watch in your dreams too.

 

[FrgttnDeer]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Many statistical studies have been done on ESP. They all come out positive in meta-analysis.

The chances of ESP not being true are like one in a billion according to the statistical analysis. The problem is that no serious scientist wants to accept it because it would ruin his career.

Not to mention that you can teach yourself to do it.

Check out Dean Radin's research.

@Leo Gura I don't think you are being critical enough here.

They don't all come out positive in meta-analysis.

A problem with meta-analysises is the file-drawer problem. A meta-analysis only gives an overview of published studies. Many studies are not published because they fail to find significant results.

In addition to that, many of these results are the results of dubious statistical methods.  It is possible to attain significance for any data if you just keep applying different statistical methods. An honest researcher should decide BEFORE he collects data, which pieces of the data he is going to analyse and with which methods.

This is as much a problem with non-PSI psychological research btw. Fun fact: one of the studies ("Feeling the future" by Daryl Bem) mentioned in the book caused a revolution in psychology. Not because it proves the existence of PSI-phenomena but because 'if a study like this can get significant results, something must be very wrong with our statistical methods'. 

Furthermore, many of these studies fail to replicate. If a significance of one in a billion is found then a significant replication should not be a problem.

I only looked into some of these studies, so I am not sure if this is the case for every one of them. But I would advise learning some statistics and reading the papers yourself before believing everything you read.

One of the problems I think is that, as you said, it is a big step to start doing this kind of research because you will be ridiculed. I think that before you take this step as a researcher you must REALLY believe it is true. As with all believes you try to protect it, so when you find insignificant results you get tempted to not be very honest with your methods. Same thing happening on the other side of the argument.

I do think the problem is a lack of open-mindedness in the scientific community, which causes dishonesty on both sides.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by FrgttnDeer

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, FrgttnDeer said:

I do think the problem is a lack of open-mindedness in the scientific community

That is where you are wrong.

The confirmation bias in this case is on behalf of the materialist scientists who reject the statistical and anecdotal data.

The data is all there. People just suck at handling the radical truth.

The mind naturally denies whatever does not fit its survival agenda. That's all it is.

Bigoted minds deny cutting-edge truths all the time. This has been happening in every domains of life for over 5000 years of human history. And you can bet it happens today.

The problem is that you're trying to capture subtle phenomena using gross means, like trying to capture a delicate butterfly using a bulldozer. And then you complain that butterflies don't exist. Yeah, because you kill them with your fucking bulldozer.

The solution is: leave your bulldozer at home.

[cetus]

For anyone who is interested      http://www.edgarcaycenewzealand.com/pdf02/SL1401.pdf

"We must develop the faculty between the finite and the infinite, so that the infinite may become a portion of us. We seek to become one with the infinite by the reduction of our soul to its simplest self - its divine essence - and realize this union and identity."