Telepathy

joe1776 said:

Years ago, when my daughter was six, she was stalling, not wanting to turn off the light to go to sleep. She called out to her brother in another bedroom, telling him that she had a deck of cards.She would think of the card and he should try to guess.

While sitting on the toilet, I saw a blurred image of a black facecard. After my son made a couple of wrong guesses, I asked if the card was the queen of clubs. It was.

We did five more, with my wife standing beside my daughter's bed, verifying the right calls, that evening. The next morning, with husband and wife neighbors looking over her shoulder, we did seven more. Thirteen in all, before my daughter stopped "sending." I knew she had stopped because I received nothing on the 14th attempt. My daughter had simply tired of the game.

Although there were witnesses, I am the only one who can testify that I saw an image of those cards. There is no way that my daughter and I could have been tested in a way that would rule out cheating or guesswork and the possibility of an extraordinary coincidence. I'm the only person in the world who knows that I saw those images.

That telepathy exists is a fact for me, but I have no evidence to offer. I also have one extraordinary experience with precognition that I can't verify.

Click to expand...

I don't really have a problem with that per se , but it does give me pause as to why this kind of thing doesn't ever ever happen under controlled laboratory conditions.

joe1776 said:

You seem to think that people who believe in precognition and telepathy must be simpletons.

Click to expand...

That would be a fair assessment. Like I said--beyond my help.

joe1776 said:

Yet, you seem to have a fair grasp of Probability. So, how likely is it that this Nobel Prize winning physicist and the 100 scientists who signed a petition back in 2014 to have Science lift the "taboo" on such studies are simpletons?

Click to expand...

Given the vast number of experimental studies failing to reject the null hypothesis in regard to precognitive and telepathic effects, the likelihood would pretty closely approach 100%. But hey, science is always open to new evidence.

joe1776 said:

Isn't it more likely that these scientists had experiences of precognition or telepathy of their own and aren't relying on anecdotal evidence? So, they know, just as I do, that in doing research they wouldn't be digging in a dry hole.

Click to expand...

No, that is not the more likely interpretation. It is possible that some of them may have had experiences that they believe to be examples of precognition or telepathy, just as you have--and it's probable that most of them are just hopeful believers--but given the general inability to demonstrate any such effects under controlled conditions, it would not be rational to conclude that precognition and telepathy are "real things."

I'd be sorry that I was the one to burst your bubble, but I know that bubbles such as these tend to be made out of iron and that nothing I say will prevail against them--so I don't have to be sorry. But I do have to be done with this discussion.

Have a good one....

Nowhere Man said:

I don't really have a problem with that per se , but it does give me pause as to why this kind of thing doesn't ever ever happen under controlled laboratory conditions.

Click to expand...

It does happen in lab conditions. Proving that the results weren't the result of fraud, chance, error or any other conceivable cause is impossible.

joe1776 said:

It does happen in lab conditions. Proving that the results weren't the result of fraud, chance, error or any other conceivable cause is impossible.

Click to expand...

Could you tell me where? I can't find any on Google. Mind you I'm talking about academic institutions like colleges universities xcetera were not only can you learn about the experiments , but also peer-reviewed and published material to see what's been agreed upon and what has been contested.

Axe Elf said:

Given the vast number of experimental studies failing to reject the null hypothesis in regard to precognitive and telepathic effects, the likelihood would pretty closely approach 100%. But hey, science is always open to new evidence.

Click to expand...

So, you're next to certain that the Nobel Prize winning scientist and those other 100 scientists that signed that 2014 petition protesting the taboo in science paranormal research must be simpletons --- because otherwise that would mean that you're wrong?

Nowhere Man said:

Could you tell me where? I can't find any on Google. Mind you I'm talking about academic institutions like colleges universities xcetera were not only can you learn about the experiments , but also peer-reviewed and published material to see what's been agreed upon and what has been contested.

Click to expand...

I just searched "telepathy research" on Google and got 3 million hits. There's some new stuff on there that I haven't seen.

I suggest you look at both the pro and the con commentary on the Ganzfeld and the Auto-Ganzfeld experiments to understand the difficulty involved.. Wikipedia has the Ray Hyman (con) position but they don't present the Honorton (pro) position because they're biased pussies.

Here's a link that gives the pro argument and acknowledges the con arguments:

Ganzfeld | Psi Encyclopedia

joe1776 said:

So, you're next to certain that the Nobel Prize winning scientist and those other 100 scientists that signed that 2014 petition protesting the taboo in science paranormal research must be simpletons --- because otherwise that would mean that you're wrong?

Click to expand...

No, I'm next to certain that the people you allege to have signed a 2014 petition protesting the taboo in "science paranormal research" [sic] (and anyone else) are simpletons if they believe that telepathy is a "real thing," because the vast majority of objective, replicable research suggests that it is not.

But hey, science is always open to new evidence.

Anyway... later.

joe1776 said:

I just searched "telepathy research" on Google and got 3 million hits. There's some new stuff on there that I haven't seen.

I suggest you look at both the pro and the con commentary on the Ganzfeld and the Auto-Ganzfeld experiments to understand the difficulty involved.. Wikipedia has the Ray Hyman (con) position but they don't present the Honorton (pro) position because they're biased pussies.

Here's a link that gives the pro argument and acknowledges the con arguments:

Ganzfeld | Psi Encyclopedia

Click to expand...

That's not a university or educational link.

I would consider that information (as well as any source that is not backed by educational and academic institutions) to be independent and unscrutinized.

Of course a lot of hits are there, but there are no academic and educational sources that can establish the veracity of those claims.

Nowhere Man said:

That's not a university or educational link.

I would consider that information (as well as any source that is not backed by educational and academic institutions) to be independent and unscrutinized.

Of course a lot of hits are there, but there are no academic and educational sources that can establish the veracity of those claims.

Click to expand...

What did I write that gave you the idea that I was claiming that I could persuade you of anything at all?

Your posts sounded like someone who didn't even understand the problem not someone who had made up their mind and would have to be dislodged from your opinion. Otherwise, I wouldn't have responded.

joe1776 said:

What did I write that gave you the idea that I was claiming that I could persuade you of anything at all?

Your posts sounded like someone who didn't even understand the problem not someone who had made up their mind and would have to be dislodged from your opinion. Otherwise, I wouldn't have responded.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I'm only interested if there were by any chance any scientific papers on telepathy that has already been peer reviewed in order to see what experts have to say about it as it stands right now.

Axe Elf said:

You can look at it again if you like. I got it the first time, and I tried to explain it to you. You don't agree with my explanation, and so there's no need for me to waste any further time on it.

Click to expand...

Thats fair enough.

But, may i get your interpretation on the page where it says "personal participation" and it says "remote viewing is purely voluntary." What does that mean to you? Just curious.

Fine, non-commissioned Army officers who believe that they are capable of remote viewing (McMoneagle) and highly-criticized parapsychologists (Targ) can hold any number of patently ridiculous beliefs too.

Click to expand...

Its not just beliefs, they wer part of the stargate project. What they have to say about it is very important. Who cares what some janitor has to say about it. A janitor is not part of the project.

Even "scientists" can hold any number of patently ridiculous beliefs--that's why we have the scientific method, to separate what can be reliably and objectively demonstrated from what is believed to be true. Scientific journals will only publish those results that meet the standard of scientific inquiry--but anyone can write a book on any manner of nonsense. If the Stargate Project was able to establish scientific evidence of remote viewing, their findings would have been published in respected academic journals.

Click to expand...

First, would they put it in a scientific journal if they wanted to keep the results somewhat shrouded in secrecy. If you tell your enemy what you discovered thats not smart.

Second, it seams that current science is biased by adhering to the foundation of naturalism/materialism and ruling out anything that questions this foundation.

Thirdly, why should we trust and not question anything put in a scientific journal as if it can he perfect?

Instead, a couple of the participants in the project decided to write a book telling the world that they still believed in remote viewing, even though the project failed to demonstrate any such effect.

Click to expand...

Actually, i dont believe the project demonstrated no such effect.

Well, I didn't say that, specifically; I just said that janitors (and now, NCOs, parapsychologists, and even scientists) can hold any number of patently ridiculous beliefs. However, that's basically what the government concluded about remote viewing--that it was nothing more than a ridiculous belief.

Click to expand...

Did the government conclude that or did a few individuals within government conclude that? We gotta be careful there.

From Wikipedia:

"The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation.

Click to expand...

Id like the CIA actual report on that rather then wiki this time. Dont get me wrong, wiki is nice for information, but its not always accurate and is not the best nor is it the original source. The government report i actually gave, i believe it says remote viewers are useful.

Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data,

Click to expand...

This is misleading. Some remote viewers are better then other remote viewers. Its like saying some singers are better then other singers. Or skilled fighters, some are better then others. Or being strong, some are more stronger then others. Or shifting a manual vehicle, some are better at it then others. Everyone has different skills and different levels of those skills. Remote viewing is not like turning on a machine and letting it go to work. No, remote viewing is a SKILL SET. Thats VERY, VERY, VERY important to keep in mind. And that needs to be taken into account and not ignored.

and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues."

Click to expand...

Really? Wheres the evidence of that outside suspicious judgement?

"In 1995, the project was transferred to the CIA and a retrospective evaluation of the results was done. The appointed panel consisted primarily of Jessica Utts and Ray Hyman... Hyman came to the conclusion: Psychologists, such as myself, who study subjective validation find nothing striking or surprising in the reported matching of reports against targets in the Stargate data. The overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

Click to expand...

Refer to the above response. Skill set.

"A later report by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) also came to a negative conclusion. Joe Nickell has written: Other evaluators--two psychologists from AIR--assessed the potential intelligence-gathering usefulness of remote viewing. They concluded that the alleged psychic technique was of dubious value and lacked the concreteness and reliability necessary for it to be used as a basis for making decisions or taking action. The final report found 'reason to suspect' that in 'some well publicised cases of dramatic hits' the remote viewers might have had 'substantially more background information' than might otherwise be apparent.

Click to expand...

"Might have"? That sounds like they dont know. Id say, no, its not might have, its skill set. Depends on the remote viewer doing the targets.

According to AIR, which performed a review of the project, no remote viewing report ever provided actionable information for any intelligence operation."

Click to expand...

Not according to these scientists, look under "conclusions and recommendations" >

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAR6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw2n-pYbKOF-9nwVP21PBIaI

And heres an example where it was used >

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2CZR1YYBrKcRozXF6bDF7S

If you still think the goverment believes remote viewing to be an actual and useful resource, you are beyond my help.

Click to expand...

Am i beyond help? Or are you wrong? I think your honestly wrong.

Jollybear said:

may i get your interpretation on the page where it says "personal participation" and it says "remote viewing is purely voluntary." What does that mean to you? Just curious.

Click to expand...

I don't have the page and I don't know the context, but it seems like a fairly simple English sentence that should be taken to mean that no one was forced to participate in the project as a remote viewer, kind of like "wearing X-ray glasses is purely voluntary."

Jollybear said:

First, would they put it in a scientific journal if they wanted to keep the results somewhat shrouded in secrecy. If you tell your enemy what you discovered thats not smart.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. If there had been any useful results from the Stargate Project, we probably never would have known about it--or at least we wouldn't have access to the project's complete documentation. They don't appear to want to keep the results shrouded in secrecy at all, though, since they de-classified the project in 1995 and made the results a matter of public record. The only thing they might want to keep from the enemy is their embarrassment at having wasted so much time and taxpayer dollars on a wild goose chase.

Jollybear said:

Second, it seams that current science is biased by adhering to the foundation of naturalism/materialism and ruling out anything that questions this foundation.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it just cannot study anything that has no effect in the physical world. If you want to believe that undetectable supernatural pink unicorns whiz around your head blessing you all day long, science won't rule it out; science just ignores it--science cannot confirm or deny. But science can indeed test the claims of telepathy, which are akin to saying that undetectable supernatural pink unicorns whisper in your ear the contents of a random picture being viewed in a room down the hall. Science may still not be able to determine whether they are unicorns or monkeys--but it can damn sure tell us if a person is able to "see" remotely viewed pictures at a rate consistently higher than chance.

The fact that hundreds upon hundreds of experiments designed to test for those effects have found little to no reliable evidence of them is why science has all but ruled out telepathy as having any measurable effects in the physical world.

Jollybear said:

Thirdly, why should we trust and not question anything put in a scientific journal as if it can he perfect?

Click to expand...

You shouldn't--and science doesn't. Science is in the business of testing published claims to see if the measured effects are reliable and replicable, and the more outlandish the claims, the more rigorous the testing that is required.

Jollybear said:

Actually, i dont believe the project demonstrated no such effect.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. That's the error I am trying to convince you of. I think I just like to hear myself type, though, because I'm sure all this is going straight into the "but telepathy is real anyway!" bin.

Jollybear said:

Did the government conclude that or did a few individuals within government conclude that? We gotta be careful there.

Click to expand...

No need to be careful; anyone possessed of rational faculties understands that "the government" is a collective noun that is not, itself, a conscious entity--and that any decisions, programs, or actions of any kind generally attributed to "the government" can actually be attributed to a person or group of persons acting under the auspices of the government. In this case, a small group of individuals acting on behalf of the governmental agency called the CIA reviewed the findings of the Stargate Project, determined that there was nothing of value to our governmental intelligence efforts in there, and de-classified the project.

Jollybear said:

Am i beyond help?

Click to expand...

You have virtually convinced me of it.

Jollybear said:

Or are you wrong?

Click to expand...

It would be highly unlikely. An awful lot of experimental evidence regarding telepathy would have be wrong for me to be wrong on this matter.

Jollybear said:

I think your honestly wrong.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. Again, a symptom of your overarching error.

I'd like to say that I'm not going to respond to you any more, but that's kind of like asking Hank Aaron not to swing when he gets lobbed a 50 mph pumpkin right over the plate. (I really thought I did a pretty good job of not getting caught up in responding to EVERY nugget of nonsense in your last post.)

Axe Elf said:

I don't have the page and I don't know the context, but it seems like a fairly simple English sentence that should be taken to mean that no one was forced to participate in the project as a remote viewer, kind of like "wearing X-ray glasses is purely voluntary."



You're absolutely right. If there had been any useful results from the Stargate Project, we probably never would have known about it--or at least we wouldn't have access to the project's complete documentation. They don't appear to want to keep the results shrouded in secrecy at all, though, since they de-classified the project in 1995 and made the results a matter of public record. The only thing they might want to keep from the enemy is their embarrassment at having wasted so much time and taxpayer dollars on a wild goose chase.



Science doesn't rule out the supernatural, it just cannot study anything that has no effect in the physical world. If you want to believe that undetectable supernatural pink unicorns whiz around your head blessing you all day long, science won't rule it out; science just ignores it--science cannot confirm or deny. But science can indeed test the claims of telepathy, which are akin to saying that undetectable supernatural pink unicorns whisper in your ear the contents of a random picture being viewed in a room down the hall. Science may still not be able to determine whether they are unicorns or monkeys--but it can damn sure tell us if a person is able to "see" remotely viewed pictures at a rate consistently higher than chance.

The fact that hundreds upon hundreds of experiments designed to test for those effects have found little to no reliable evidence of them is why science has all but ruled out telepathy as having any measurable effects in the physical world.



You shouldn't--and science doesn't. Science is in the business of testing published claims to see if the measured effects are reliable and replicable, and the more outlandish the claims, the more rigorous the testing that is required.



Yeah, I know. That's the error I am trying to convince you of. I think I just like to hear myself type, though, because I'm sure all this is going straight into the "but telepathy is real anyway!" bin.



No need to be careful; anyone possessed of rational faculties understands that "the government" is a collective noun that is not, itself, a conscious entity--and that any decisions, programs, or actions of any kind generally attributed to "the government" can actually be attributed to a person or group of persons acting under the auspices of the government. In this case, a small group of individuals acting on behalf of the governmental agency called the CIA reviewed the findings of the Stargate Project, determined that there was nothing of value to our governmental intelligence efforts in there, and de-classified the project.

Click to expand...

The CIA documents dont say remote viewing is unreal. Wiki says that.

What part of the CIA document and where that you say or wiki says remote viewing is useless? Thats whats most important here.

You have virtually convinced me of it.

Click to expand...

It could go both ways you know.

It would be highly unlikely. An awful lot of experimental evidence regarding telepathy would have be wrong for me to be wrong on this matter.

Yeah, I know. Again, a symptom of your overarching error.

I'd like to say that I'm not going to respond to you any more, but that's kind of like asking Hank Aaron not to swing when he gets lobbed a 50 mph pumpkin right over the plate. (I really thought I did a pretty good job of not getting caught up in responding to EVERY nugget of nonsense in your last post.)

Click to expand...

What about these 2 sources here?

Not according to these scientists, look under "conclusions and recommendations" >

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...WMAR6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw2n-pYbKOF-9nwVP21PBIaI

And heres an example where it was used >

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2CZR1YYBrKcRozXF6bDF7S

Your thoughts on this?

Curious as well how you define prophet?

Jollybear said:

Curious as well how you define prophet?

Click to expand...

I'll ignore the nonsense and just address your one legitimate question.

A prophet is someone who has the spiritual gift of prophecy.

Since you'll probly axe me to define that next, the spiritual gift of prophecy is the gift of understanding and interpreting the divine will. It is referenced in Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10 & 28, and Ephesians 4:11.

Landon Caeli said:

Is telepathy a real thing?

I know that sometimes, when my wife is talking to me, I am able to finish her sentences for her (and often do) because sometimes I know what she's going to say before she says it.

Or when reminding me about something long ago, she'll just need to mention a keyword like "pier", and although we have been to many piers on many occasions, I'll know exactly what experience she's talking about somehow. And we'll both remember together.

Click to expand...

Don’t think that is telepathy. Maybe you could characterize it as intuition?

Axe Elf said:

I'll ignore the nonsense and just address your one legitimate question.

A prophet is someone who has the spiritual gift of prophecy.

Since you'll probly axe me to define that next, the spiritual gift of prophecy is the gift of understanding and interpreting the divine will. It is referenced in Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10 & 28, and Ephesians 4:11.

Click to expand...

Ok.....i dont understand why you believe the bible but find it hard to believe in remote viewing?

Jollybear said:

Ok.....i dont understand why you believe the bible but find it hard to believe in remote viewing?

Click to expand...

Simple; there is more evidence for the things I believe about the Bible than there is for remote viewing.

Axe Elf said:

Simple; there is more evidence for the things I believe about the Bible than there is for remote viewing.

Click to expand...

Well, as much as i agree with you that there is much evidence for the bible and i believe the book myself, there appears to be just as much evidence for remote viewing.

Remote viewing is EVEN IN THE BIBLE. Its not called that, but its the same thing.

2 kings 5 as an example

"After Naaman had traveled some distance, 20Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said to himself, “My master was too easy on Naaman, this Aramean, by not accepting from him what he brought. As surely as the Lordlives, I will run after him and get something from him.”

21So Gehazi hurried after Naaman. When Naaman saw him running toward him, he got down from the chariot to meet him. “Is everything all right?” he asked.

22“Everything is all right,” Gehazi answered. “My master sent me to say, ‘Two young men from the company of the prophets have just come to me from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give them a talent d of silver and two sets of clothing.’ ”

23“By all means, take two talents,” said Naaman. He urged Gehazi to accept them, and then tied up the two talents of silver in two bags, with two sets of clothing. He gave them to two of his servants, and they carried them ahead of Gehazi. 24When Gehazi came to the hill, he took the things from the servants and put them away in the house. He sent the men away and they left.

25When he went in and stood before his master, Elisha asked him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?”

“Your servant didn’t go anywhere,” Gehazi answered.

26But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves?"