Psychics see big trouble over new laws
- Thread starter Reuters
- Start date
Do you know the sign of a true psychic?
They never charge, or assume they can get info off of or about a person in an artificial setting. I've seen some pretty miraculous premonitions, I have a friend who volunteers for the RCMP, but never do they presume that they can come up with info at the drop of a hat, or charge.
They never charge, or assume they can get info off of or about a person in an artificial setting. I've seen some pretty miraculous premonitions, I have a friend who volunteers for the RCMP, but never do they presume that they can come up with info at the drop of a hat, or charge.
I haven't dealt with the gypsies since selling them an unwanted child.
Free the Gypsies, stop the oppression! I think Bono should take up their cause to give it some celebrity legitimacy.
Free the Gypsies, stop the oppression! I think Bono should take up their cause to give it some celebrity legitimacy.
What's an "artificial setting," a controlled experiment? There are NO signs of a true psychic. There are no true psychics. They're frauds, con artists, or innocently deluded. They cannot do what they claim with a level of success any better than chance. Ever. Every investigation of their claims--when there's enough information available to do so--turns out to have a much simpler explanation. There's been well over a century now of serious, scholarly, academic research into psychic phenomena and it's produced exactly nothing. Any research program that so obviously fails to produce any results after so long leads inevitably to the conclusion that the phenomena are not real. They're errors, frauds, coincidences, wishful thinking, selective thinking, confabulation, and all the other ways people fool themselves into believing things they want to believe that aren't true. The real trouble over that new law is that psychics might have to demonstrate that they can really do what they claim they can do, and they know they can't.
True psychic ability falls within premonition. It's like one of those deja vu things. The vision is never clearly recognized like Madame Whateverosky and her crystal balls tell you.
Woof!
Woof!
I'm probably gonna get laughed at here, but here goes...
I have VERY clear premonitions fairly often. Like Karrie said tho, it can't really be "used" in any way. I can hardly even describe how it works, but it makes me wonder what time/space really "is" in some ways
I have gotten to a point of "confidence" where I CAN actually recognize and tell someone about the "vision" (NOT a person "involved" since that would skew it I would think) and it still comes to pass exactly as foretold
And it's not like I can "see" Lottery numbers or winners of sporting events... I CAN sometimes see situations happening far away to people I'm not in contact with, and often see "previews" of things I'd have no way of knowing about
That being said anyone who thinks they can make money of such a phenomenon (again, I believe the surest sign of a fraud is anyone offering their "abilities" to others for a fee) is indeed a fake, and there's no problem with them laws in the OP
I have VERY clear premonitions fairly often. Like Karrie said tho, it can't really be "used" in any way. I can hardly even describe how it works, but it makes me wonder what time/space really "is" in some ways
I have gotten to a point of "confidence" where I CAN actually recognize and tell someone about the "vision" (NOT a person "involved" since that would skew it I would think) and it still comes to pass exactly as foretold
And it's not like I can "see" Lottery numbers or winners of sporting events... I CAN sometimes see situations happening far away to people I'm not in contact with, and often see "previews" of things I'd have no way of knowing about
That being said anyone who thinks they can make money of such a phenomenon (again, I believe the surest sign of a fraud is anyone offering their "abilities" to others for a fee) is indeed a fake, and there's no problem with them laws in the OP
I've seen too many unexplainable premonitions, HAD too many unexplainable visions, to not think that at odd times we know more than we should. Testable? Not at all. To be able to test something, you have to be able to bring about it's occurance. And psychic ability in every last person I've seen is something that comes only at unexpected moments.
My hunch is that psychic ability is not a gift per se, but rather an innate ability we are all potentially capable of to varying degrees.... a trait that eventually will evolve within all humans.
Very few people, when pressed, will say they've never experienced anything at all that was outside the parameters of what's generally considered 'normal' - imo it's merely another sense that has yet to reach it's full potential within the human race.
I have experienced certain events - which I almost never discuss - simply because any discussion I might desire about the matter will not centre around whether or not it really happened, but around what the possibilities could be if one could really figure out how to consciously develop such abilities for some kind of constructive purpose.
Very few people, when pressed, will say they've never experienced anything at all that was outside the parameters of what's generally considered 'normal' - imo it's merely another sense that has yet to reach it's full potential within the human race.
I have experienced certain events - which I almost never discuss - simply because any discussion I might desire about the matter will not centre around whether or not it really happened, but around what the possibilities could be if one could really figure out how to consciously develop such abilities for some kind of constructive purpose.
Contrary to evolveing the inate ability it is supposed that human senses have devolved from that inate natural phychic ability following the developement of the rational mind. The story about the original sin harkens back to a time before rational human thought when we still had and exercised senses that our animal planetfellows still retain. Dexter maintains that psychic abilitys, the paranormal in general is conduct unbecoming a human, and as conventional as that thinking is it does not hold for the other spiecies.Or does it? What is thought not to be possible for us (humans) may redily be seen in birds, fish, cats etc;. I think however that rather than spend to much time crapping on the human psychics of the world we should as has been done try to understand how other species make conections that we no longer can. The mind is a powerful thing and the onionverse has many layers that mankind has not yet peeled back and may never. Observation and experimentation may yet open the door to psychic understanding, personally I have little doubt about it's reality, the mind assembles reality in seeming infinite combinations.
I have an open mind about parapsychology. I don't think all of it can be simply sloughed off as trickery or fraud. The link below should give everyone a better understanding of the field.
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html
No it ain't
Why is parapsychology so controversial?
Parapsychology has remained controversial, even with substantial, persuasive, and scientifically palatable results, for four main reasons:
First, the media and much of the public often confuse parapsychology with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal." This widespread confusion has led many scientists to simply dismiss the field as being unworthy of serious study, and thus they think it is not worth their time to examine the existing evidence.
In addition, thoroughly understanding the nature of the existing evidence in parapsychology is not easy. While the meta-analytic results are both substantial and persuasive, meta-analysis requires specialized knowledge to understand that form of evidence. For people who are not familiar with statistics, or who don't trust it (which is usually a sign of misunderstanding), the evidence will not seem very persuasive. Those same people may then go looking for the big stuff, the psi-in-your-face, self-evident proofs, and they will find enormous amounts of anecdotal evidence but almost no scientifically credible data. They may then view lengthy discussions, such as the one in this FAQ, as proof that no one really knows what is going on, and that scientists are still basically waffling and indecisive about this topic.
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#30
Who were the main contributors to this FAQ?
Revision, 28 Feb 2008, Pamela Heath, MD
Editor, Dean Radin, Ph.D.
Carlos Alvarado, Ph.D., Parapsychology Foundation, New York City
Dick Bierman, Ph.D., Anomalous Cognition, University of Amsterdam
Topher Cooper, BSc., Voice Processing Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA
Edwin May, Ph.D., Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Roger Nelson, Ph.D., PEAR Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Ephraim Schechter, Ph.D., Durham, NC, USA
James Spottiswoode, BSc., James Spottiswoode & Assoc., CA
Charles Tart, Ph.D., University of California, Davis (Emeritus), CA, USA
Why is parapsychology so controversial?
Parapsychology has remained controversial, even with substantial, persuasive, and scientifically palatable results, for four main reasons:
First, the media and much of the public often confuse parapsychology with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal." This widespread confusion has led many scientists to simply dismiss the field as being unworthy of serious study, and thus they think it is not worth their time to examine the existing evidence.
In addition, thoroughly understanding the nature of the existing evidence in parapsychology is not easy. While the meta-analytic results are both substantial and persuasive, meta-analysis requires specialized knowledge to understand that form of evidence. For people who are not familiar with statistics, or who don't trust it (which is usually a sign of misunderstanding), the evidence will not seem very persuasive. Those same people may then go looking for the big stuff, the psi-in-your-face, self-evident proofs, and they will find enormous amounts of anecdotal evidence but almost no scientifically credible data. They may then view lengthy discussions, such as the one in this FAQ, as proof that no one really knows what is going on, and that scientists are still basically waffling and indecisive about this topic.
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#30
Who were the main contributors to this FAQ?
Revision, 28 Feb 2008, Pamela Heath, MD
Editor, Dean Radin, Ph.D.
Carlos Alvarado, Ph.D., Parapsychology Foundation, New York City
Dick Bierman, Ph.D., Anomalous Cognition, University of Amsterdam
Topher Cooper, BSc., Voice Processing Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA
Edwin May, Ph.D., Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Roger Nelson, Ph.D., PEAR Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Ephraim Schechter, Ph.D., Durham, NC, USA
James Spottiswoode, BSc., James Spottiswoode & Assoc., CA
Charles Tart, Ph.D., University of California, Davis (Emeritus), CA, USA
Yes, actually, it is.
Nope. Parapsychology has produced no scientifically respectable results. That's why it's still on the fringe: it hasn't proven its claims. There's been a million dollar prize available for a long time from the James Randi Educational Foundation for anyone who can demonstrate the reality of any paranormal phenomenon. Everybody who's tried, under conditions they themselves have agreed were fair and reasonable--that's one of the conditions of the test--has failed completely. You can read all about it at www.randi.org.
I don't know about Randi but I have given you nine PHDs who say the following:
ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.
Some mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.
It should be noted that an increasing number of parapsychologists are moving beyond proof-oriented research (feeling that psi has already been sufficiently proven for anyone willing to actually read and consider the experimental research) to process-oriented, qualitative research. These studies are looking at a variety of factors (such as the kind of target used) to better understand these phenomena.
ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.
Some mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.
It should be noted that an increasing number of parapsychologists are moving beyond proof-oriented research (feeling that psi has already been sufficiently proven for anyone willing to actually read and consider the experimental research) to process-oriented, qualitative research. These studies are looking at a variety of factors (such as the kind of target used) to better understand these phenomena.