• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Remote Viewing and Other Phenomena

qII

Banned
Q
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
565
From Princeton University:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2a.html

In another class of studies, the ability of human participants to acquire information about spatially and temporally remote geographical targets, otherwise inaccessible by any known sensory means, has been thoroughly demonstrated over several hundred carefully conducted experiments.


http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

Anyone have any comment on this. It seems very credible to me.

Also, nonlocality as described in quantum mechanics is about as "spooky" as it comes. In my opinion this spookiness qualifies for paranormal activity. How do I go about collecting my million bucks?
 
I believe that similar studies have shown the same thing over at the Stanford Research Institute.


(by the way, i am not a kooky psychic here to cause trouble. Instead, I am searching for the truth)
 
olaf said:
you'll need to elaborate please.
Click to expand...

Try copy/paste the link instead:

http://www.skepticreport.com/

It's the first article.

It's a commentary on the findings of PEAR's RV experiments. After much ballyhoo, they admit in their most recent paper that their results are "now completely indistinguishable from chance."
 
Try copy/paste the link instead:

http://www.skepticreport.com/

It's the first article.
--

Boy did that link ever mess up my computer. I hope that was not intentional.

I would like to read the link. I am interested in learning the truth.
 
After reading Your other thread on QM, I think I know what Your asking. There are some who believe that the Brain has an impact on varying experimental data . That in a word is true, but not in the witchcraft kind of sense. It has to do with QM and what is called a deterministic effect on certain experiments.

Simply put , in the double slit experiment the agent or observer becomes an active part of the process by determining what they are measuring. Have two slits and you will see an interference pattern that is produced by a wave phenomenon , use one slit and you will have a single line that represents light to be particle like in nature.

There have been all kinds of statistical and double blind experiments . but it appears that this a fundamental quirk of QM. It does not however translate to macroscopic frames ( as far as we can tell ) but reside strictly at the level of atomic particles. Or everyone would be cheating at the slots in Las Vegas : )
 
Thank you for your reply Till E.

I am going to keep an open mind in both directions. I will admit that I find it fascinating that the possibility exists.

After reading about some of the spooky things that went on at Stanford research institute I have to explore this further. I don't think those people are lying. it is possible that there is some grand mistake that was made, but it is also possible that humans might be able to tap into some unknown energy field.

Possibly humans and animals possess some of the phenomena of quantum particles. afterall, are we not really nothing more than a collection of undetermined energy packets -- quantum material??

I believe that it will be the physicists who will ultimately explain the true workings of the human body not the biologists and chemists.
 
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Okay i read it but i am not convinced at all. One must consider the bias that is involved. i think just about anything can be laid to waste by anyone. A team of writers could make Mother Theresa look like public enemy number 1 if they put enough time into it, interviewed enough of her associates.

However, the paper does give useful information so that i can keep an open mind.

thanks.
 
It seemed like they were nitpicking and it also seemed as though they had an agenda right from the very start. When an author has an agenda I am immediately suspicious. But to be fair, many researchers who post the original study have an agenda also.
 
olaf,

I still don't understand you.

Who are "they"? What are they nitpicking about?

Can you point to specific parts of the article?
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
........There are some who believe that the Brain has an impact on varying experimental data . That in a word is true, but not in the witchcraft kind of sense. It has to do with QM and what is called a deterministic effect on certain experiments.

Click to expand...

This captures my attention. I need to get to the bottom of it. I think it might explain why some studies work for some researchers but when tested by others it may fail.

do you mean that the researcher is unconsciously guiding the results, or what??
 
CFLarson's a little grumpy that's all. Bugger probably hasn't taken his pills. :D

It seems that somewhere between results showing a higher-than expected accuracy, a critique, and another publication, the results now fall within the limits expected by chance.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Sadly, I can't read this PEAR-side, because I can't acces their publications.

Oh well.
 
CFLarsen said:
olaf,

I still don't understand you.

Who are "they"? What are they nitpicking about?

Can you point to specific parts of the article?
Click to expand...

I don't have time to go into the details because it would just end up going round and round. However, it followed the same script of bashing that is done on other things that I know works.

I am getting better at spotting it. I think it may be easy for you to miss it if you are biased to begin with. the trick is to have an open mind. Otherwise 'skepticism' becomes 'pessimistic skepticism' or it becomes a game to discredit everything that seems strange.

It is a dangerous trap to fall into. the negativity becomes contagious; the next thing you know your whole family ends up thinking you are a bore or a depressive bore.

That is not science. That is not the way science operates.

The evidence of certain things may seem shaky but that does not mean it is false.
 
It seems like you made up your mind about what you wanted to see, olaf.

That's not an open mind at all.
 
olaf said:


I don't have time to go into the details because it would just end up going round and round. However, it followed the same script of bashing that is done on other things that I know works.

I am getting better at spotting it. I think it may be easy for you to miss it if you are biased to begin with. the trick is to have an open mind. Otherwise 'skepticism' becomes 'pessimistic skepticism' or it becomes a game to discredit everything that seems strange.

It is a dangerous trap to fall into. the negativity becomes contagious; the next thing you know your whole family ends up thinking you are a bore or a depressive bore.

That is not science. That is not the way science operates.

The evidence of certain things may seem shaky but that does not mean it is false.
Click to expand...
Olaf,

It was PEAR themselves who said they had a negative result for RV. Not skeptics or critical scientists or Randi or anyone here. PEAR did the experiments, gathered the data, did the analysis, published the papers. PEAR admitted themselves that 25 years of their own data found nothing at all beyond chance. You cannot blame "negativity" or "pessimism" for this - PEAR were highly optimistic about the results...at first. Then they analysed them properly and found out the plain truth.

The problem was that PEAR knew that result many years ago, they still know it now, they even admit it, and yet they choose to keep on holding out their hand for huge private grants while burying their results in so much garden mulch that it is almost impossible to read them. Why? For the money, my friend, for the money.
 
Zep said:
PEAR admitted themselves that 25 years of their own data found nothing at all beyond chance.
Click to expand...


So you believe PEAR when they say that about RV, but don't believe them when they don't say that about RNG experiments eh? :)


Why? For the money, my friend, for the money.
Click to expand...

Oh please... not this canard again. I'd guess skeptical organizations make more than they do. Why don't you tell us how much money PEAR makes yearly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom