Scientific evidence for psychic powers

[Leo Gura]

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." -- Nietzsche

[Mason Riggle]

"Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing." - Clive James

[This]

I can't even imagine how to conjure up a belief in any of this psychic stuff. I begin to yawn when i hear or read about psychic powers or magic or demons or angels or horoscopes or stuff like that. It works for me in videogames and movies but that's it.

Life must be so different when there's all that stuff going on.

[TheAlchemist]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. People would simply never accept it so why bother trying to convince them?

If you showed people levitation, half of them would think you're a fraud/cult leader, half would think you're Satan and want to kill you, and half would start to worship you like blind monkeys.

Yeah that's what I said. Somebody who can levitate, would probably (hopefully) be conscious enough to not want to show it to the general public, knowing the possible consequences. 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, This said:

I can't even imagine how to conjure up a belief in any of this psychic stuff. I begin to yawn when i hear or read about psychic powers or magic or demons or angels or horoscopes or stuff like that. It works for me in videogames and movies but that's it.

Life must be so different when there's all that stuff going on.

Don't have to conjure up a belief when you've actually experienced for yourself

[BipolarGrowth]

Feel free to shoot me a message, and we can do a call to discuss our various experiences with this. I don’t care enough to type everything out lol. 

[Endangered-EGO]

22 hours ago, Applegarden said:

Otherwise, how aren't they dead.

The USSR used to pour mercury in people's shoes to poison them over time.

YES, and the mercury is not liquid, how about that!

"Amalgam" google it, you'll have your answer.

It's probably not 100% mercury.

 

Either sadhguru is a psychic alchemist who can manipulate matter with mind or he is a bad magician.

Or he simply doesn't know anything about chemistry and believes the bs he tells.

One way to prove it: let him manipulate it and then take a sample to the lab.

I would bet all my money on chemistry, not on sadhguru's psychic powers.

[Nahm]

@Carl-Richard

Would you really want the absence of gravity? 

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Carl-Richard

Would you really want the absence of gravity? 

Naaah I'm fine 

[Nahm]

@Carl-Richard

Me neither. 

[This]

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Carl-Richard

Would you really want the absence of gravity? 

I used to daydream as a child what it would be like if gravity would "flip vertically".

I would imagine myself walking on the roof going to the front door and looking down only to see the sky and the clouds and the sun. And looking up there would be a roof made out of ground stuff, with buildings hanging from the roof like beehives(because they would magically still be there). I on the other had, would "obviously" fall into outer space if i ever stepped outside. 

Note: this is not a picture taken by me

Edited February 11, 2021 by This

[Nahm]

@This

Neat pic. ?

[Gesundheit]

I'd choose science over psychics anytime.

It's not like scientists don't want the paranormal phenomenon to be real, it's just that it didn't prove itself real by the scientific standards that are applied to everything else in our modern understanding of reality.

There's absolutely no reason for a scientist to be closed to paranormal phenomenon other than it actually being a delusion according to the established system. Think about it, why would anyone deny that reality could be more exciting? Studies and experiments have been done, and the results have been consistent that these things are pseudo-science, or at best, merely placebo.

Why would a scientist who is absolutely objective with everything else be biased here? It doesn't make sense. Scientists can dismiss psychedelic experiences as delusions because of the subjective nature of the experiences, and therefore the possibility of them being prone to personal interpretations, which are considered biased and unscientific.

On the other hand, people who doubt the integrity of scientific research have not been able to prove anything themselves. Otherwise, we would have seen at least a few examples, given the fact that free speech is encouraged. It's not like science is one evil person who is sitting on the top of the establishment fighting tooth and nail against the paranormal to preserve his beliefs. It's more likely that the people who claim the paranormal are themselves deluded or have no objective evidence for their claims. A well-respected scientist would be taken seriously if they could prove the paranormal. It's very suspicious that none of the highly respected scientists participates in such things, because it's very unlikely that all of them are simply closed-minded. At least a few of them have to be open-minded.

Note: I'm not discussing the metaphysics of science here, and I agree that they should be questioned. I'm saying that within the current establishment, paranormal phenomenon are not scientific claims, and there's no reason to believe otherwise.

[Forestluv]

@Carl-Richard During a class last semester, I wanted to introduce the scientific method to non-science majors in a fun way. . . The students paired up and were give Zenner Cards. These are five cards, each with a color symbol. One student chooses a card and tries to mentally/energetically project the image to the other student. No verbal or body gestures are allowed. 

This was a spontaneous, very relaxed environment. When I said to choose partners, two students immediately connected. They had been on the same wavelength the whole semester. They expressed joy as they partnered up saying "We've totally got this". . . During the exercise, there was a lot of fun and laughter. It was super relaxed. 

Each pair had 20 trials. Random guessing would be 20% correct, which is 4 out of 20. The group mentioned above got 16 or 20. And they thought they should get partial credit for a couple misses. (For one card, the student imagined a nature scene for the water symbol. The other student imagined a nature scene and chose the star from the starry sky). We decided to be more stringent and only count the 16. Statistically, 16/20 is extremely unlikely and is statistical "evidence" that there was more than random chance.

Yet the tricky part now becomes how to reproduce, verify and prove they have a paranormal ability. It's possible that there was a psychic phenomena in that environment. The environment was spontaneous, relaxed and fun. They had no idea they were doing this and there was zero pressure. We cannot reproduce that exact environment. 

I then asked them: "How would you feel about proving your psychic ability in a scientific lab? There will be cameras set up, to make sure you are not giving each other cues and cheating". There aura completely changed. The aura of a relaxed, flowing, spontaneous fun environment changed to one of anxiety and pressure. One responded "I'd rather not, yet I'd I'm willing do it if she wants to". The vibe is now completely different. If they fail to reproduce their results in a manufactured, stressful environment in which they must "prove" their psychic ability - does that mean that there was no psychic phenomena in the original, relaxed, flowing environment in which they get to have fun exploring psychic phenomena?

Reproducing internal / external environments is can be extremely difficult. And it's difficult to establish what counts as evidence.

It's possible that the two students were in a temporary flow state of consciousness, similar to athletes. Yet such a flow state can be very difficult to reproduce, since it is interconnected with the environment. The behavior of teammates, fans, coaches and film crew all effect the vibe and the flow state. It is a combination of individual and collective flow. Even what the person had for lunch or his interaction with his wife that morning can have an impact. . . It would be very difficult to manufacture an environment and tell someone to prove they can enter a flow state.  Doing it on demand is very different than having an ability that spontaneously arises when multiple connections come together. 

From my perspective, most people with psychic phenomena cannot turn it on by demand. It's not like opening one's eyes and seeing. Perhaps we are in the early evolutionary stages of psychic ability and it is somewhat crude. Similar to the early evolution of the visual system, when color perception began to arise. Only a minority of humanoids could perceive color and those that could saw colors crudely - like a greyish-redish color. If early humanoids were placed in a science lab and told to "prove" color perception, they might only be able to distinguish greyish-red from greyish-green, 80% of the time. And they may not be able to do it under all environments. For example, they might need a certain intensity of sunlight to do it and not be able to do it via candlelight. This makes sense to us know, yet at the time it wouldn't have. Similarly in 200 yrs, we may learn a lot about psychic phenomena. In the year 2200, people might look back and realize that in the year 2020, we don't know how to properly observe psychic abilities and develop them. 

[Aaron p]

Ok Im really hesitant to post this...but the Catholic church seem to really be strict with what they define as a miracle...and they look at the hard facts. Apparently there's been at least 70, documented, "verifiable" miracles at a place called Lourdes. Which is meant to be some kind of healing pool. I have to say, the cases they present look pretty robust.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/its-a-miracle-lourdes-healing-officially-declared-supernatural-84194

I heard about this place from a netflix show called "down to earth" which is basically Zack Efron, ripped as fuck, pretending to be some big humanitarian hahaha. Gimmi a fucken break lol. All he cares about is his abs, which I am definitely jealous of fuck sake lol. 

https://grottonetwork.com/keep-the-faith/prayer/zac-efron-feels-power-of-prayer-on-down-to-earth-show/

It's honestly really relaxing to watch. And who knows maybe Zacks abs arent as shallow as we thought. He talks about the earth and healing. But yes! Allegedly verified Catholic miracles

[docs20]

On 10/2/2021 at 2:57 AM, Heart of Space said:

Psychic powers are very real and they don't have to be subtle either.  

I have a spiritual guru that does his work almost exclusively through this way.

You'd be shocked at what is possible.  It's become a normal part of my life, but I'm still shocked all the time at what's possible.  

Feel free to ask any specific questions.  I have a ton of very real experience with this.

I would like to know more about your experiences

[Carl-Richard]

@This Oh yeah I've also thought about that before.

 

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Why would a scientist who is absolutely objective with everything else be biased here? It doesn't make sense. 

This is a naive interpretation in multiple ways. Leo has already given a good explanation for this specifically earlier in the thread.

 

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

A well-respected scientist would be taken seriously if they could prove the paranormal. It's very suspicious that none of the highly respected scientists participates in such things, because it's very unlikely that all of them are simply closed-minded. At least a few of them have to be open-minded.

"A well-respected scientist" would never dare to risk their career by seriously studying paranormal phenomena. Look at what happened to Rupert Sheldrake. He used to do regular science and now he is labeled as a kook.

 

@Forestluv I couldn't have asked for a better way to concretize my points. Amazing 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Endangered-EGO]

@Forestluv Very interesting experiment!

 

The issue is also, you don't know what caused the effect. Maybe it's the flow state, maybe it's them falling in love for the first time.

I'mbad at statistics and too lazy to check it for myself. But have you calculated the statistics with the entire class of pairs making the experiment? Like if there were 400pairs of students, what's the chance of at least one pair having 16 or more guesses correct?

If it's less than 5% (which I guess it is) it needs to be reproduced or manipulate a variable to increase the rate of people guessing more than 4/20.

Or filter people who score above average.

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@This

This is a naive interpretation in multiple ways. Leo has already given a good explanation for this specifically earlier in the thread.

"A well-respected scientist" would never dare to risk their career by seriously studying paranormal phenomena. Look at what happened to Rupert Sheldrake. He used to do regular science and now he is labeled as a kook.

My post was partly in response to Leo's post, which contained claims that are incorrect.

You seem to have a wrong idea of how scientists are and how science works. Just because it doesn't conform to your beliefs does not justify you coming up with speculations for why it doesn't do so. In fact, it just shows how biased and identified you guys are with your beliefs. Scientists are more objective than you can ever be, because that's their job and they're judged and ranked according to how objective they are, but they work within a certain limited framework that does not allow all sorts of hocus pocus ideas, because there are other more important stuff to be researched instead. Science has a clear mission, which is to advance the human survival. I'm not interested in questioning the scientific framework here, rather I'm clarifying certain misconceptions that Leo is spreading about science. It's like a normal person questioning a neurosurgeon who is performing brain surgery. You don't have the qualifications to do so, because that's not your specialized field of work. There are experts in surgery who got their degrees by dedication and hard work and deep study for decades. By no means you should come up to a neurosurgeon and teach them how to perform brain surgery. That would be extremely foolish. Similarly, you shouldn't teach scientists how to do science unless you're a scientist yourself. In which case, you should know better that there's no tangible scientific evidence for the paranormal up to this moment.

You might say: but science is being closed-minded because of yada yada yada, and I would agree. But you should understand that that's exactly what makes science science, because otherwise it wouldn't be science but rather something else that doesn't put out tangible material results as it does right now. You want to expand research to invest more in the paranormal, which can be extremely inefficient financially-wise. It would require a lot of money and it might not yield anything of value. It might be just a waste of time in the current time. Instead, capitols invest in researches that have high chances of success and profit. Don't confuse the materialist paradigm with the lack of integrity/open-mindedness that you're projecting onto scientists. Scientists are open to tangible results, for example, they have confirmed that meditation has actual benefits, such as reducing anxiety and prolonging the attention span, etc... So, clearly they have nothing against spirituality or the paranormal like you're suggesting.

This guy you mentioned is a believer without any tangible evidence. Otherwise, let him bring forth his evidence. If it can prove itself correct, then nobody's gonna deny him that. In fact, he will be recognized and respected more for his breakthroughs. But since he can't provide evidence, he is considered a pseudo-scientist.

Again, I'm not interested in deconstructing the metaphysics of science here, that's a topic for another day.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

28 minutes ago, Endangered-EGO said:

 

have you calculated the statistics with the entire class of pairs making the experiment? Like if there were 400pairs of students, what's the chance of at least one pair having 16 or more guesses correct?

If it's less than 5% (which I guess it is) it needs to be reproduced or manipulate a variable to increase the rate of people guessing more than 4/20.

Or filter people who score above average.

That is an excellent question. A similar situation would be flipping a coin. Imagine someone flipped a coin 20 times and got "heads" 18/20. That is statistically very unlikely. We would expect something fishy is going on. However. . . like you said, if we had 400 people each flipping a coin 20 times, the odds are decent that one person will flip 18/20 heads.

To look at an individual event, we use a chi square analysis. In our class, two individual groups (out of 8) had a significant value <0.05. To test ALL groups together as you suggest, we use Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). At the meta group level, only the two girls I mentioned above came out statistically significant. 

If we try to verify there result, we need to be mindful of what we are actually testing for. Imagine we redo the experiment and the two girls cannot reproduce the result. That shows that there is not a psychic phenomena that is reproducible in a new environment, yet it doesn't rule out the possibility that there was a psychic phenomena in the original environment. Technically, we cannot test that with 100% confidence since there is no way to re-create the environment exactly the same. 

Scientists try to control environment as much as possible, yet there is no way to do so 100%.