ESP, really?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Clearly illogical, because not everything has sight.

Thus clearly demonstrating that you completely and entirely missed my point. That's not illogical of you, but it is careless -- or uninsightful.

IF both evolution and ESP are true, then ESP would be pervasive. This is inescapable.

(Sometimes, when you make existential claims, it pays to try and see what some of the consequences of those claims might entail, if they were in fact true. That's one thing I very seldom see anybody try to do here.)

 

[George-ananda]

Therefore, either ESP is true or evolution is true. Not both.

I happen to believe in both. Animals have esp too.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I happen to believe in both. Animals have esp too.

Fine, believing it is one thing and you are at perfect liberty to do so. But if you'd like me to consider it, you're going to have to provide a little more than your personal say-so.

As I have said, if animals have it, that would be such a hugely greater survival/reproductive attribute than being able to hide a little better than the bug next to you, or to attract more females to let you send your genes on to the next generation that in short order, it would be what everything as doing.

 

[Nietzsche]

I happen to believe in both. Animals have esp too.

Wait. Are you claiming ESP is a hereditary trait?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Thus clearly demonstrating that you completely and entirely missed my point. That's not illogical of you, but it is careless -- or uninsightful.

IF both evolution and ESP are true, then ESP would be pervasive. This is inescapable.

(Sometimes, when you make existential claims, it pays to try and see what some of the consequences of those claims might entail, if they were in fact true. That's one thing I very seldom see anybody try to do here.)

It is only a very small part of our known universe that has sight.
Nothing on the moon, or the Sun or any of our known planets has sight.
Most of that beneath the Earth is sightless,
It is very rare according to materialism for matter to randomly bounce off itself
and then manifest sight.

Why should it be any more rare for creatures to manifest other forms of perception?
Very few creatures can shock with electricity, or jump through hoops for fish.

Just because some rare things exist, is no reason for them to be pervasive.
In fact there is no materialist reason for anything at all to exist.
Other than we know it does exist.

How could causality itself come into being?
It could not be caused.
Thus the origin of causality itself must be a-causal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is only a very small part of our known universe that has sight.
Nothing on the moon, or the Sun or any of our known planets has sight.
Most of that beneath the Earth is sightless,
It is very rare according to materialism for matter to randomly bounce off itself
and then manifest sight.

Why should it be any more rare for creatures to manifest other forms of perception?
Very few creatures can shock with electricity, or jump through hoops for fish.

Just because some rare things exist, is no reason for them to be pervasive.
In fact there is no materialist reason for anything at all to exist.
Other than we know it does exist.

How could causality itself come into being?
It could not be caused.
Thus the origin of causality itself must be a-causal.

Never mind....no idea what you're on about. New-Age woo-woo, I suppose. But I don't go there.

But just see if there's something -- you claim that "only a very small part of our known universe that has sight." How, exactly, do you define "sight?" And how do you know how much of the universe "has" it?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Never mind....no idea what you're on about. New-Age woo-woo, I suppose. But I don't go there.

But just see if there's something -- you claim that "only a very small part of our known universe that has sight." How, exactly, do you define "sight?" And how do you know how much of the universe "has" it?

I did not claim that almost none of our universe has sight.
What I said was that

It is very rare according to materialism for matter to randomly bounce off itself
and then manifest sight.

It is materialism that claims that sight is exceptionally rare.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I did not claim that almost none of our universe has sight.
What I said was that
It is materialism that claims that sight is exceptionally rare.

Excuse me, but what you said was (and I quote): "It is only a very small part of our known universe that has sight."

How is "only a small part has..." very different from "almost none has..."?

And by the way, "sight" is a response to photons. And photons are material. Materialism deals (this might surprise you) with the material.

I think I'm done with you, you don't seem to be old enough or well-versed enough to drink or philosophize (and trust me, you need to do both).

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Excuse me, but what you said was (and I quote): "It is only a very small part of our known universe that has sight."

How is "only a small part has..." very different from "almost none has..."?

And by the way, "sight" is a response to photons. And photons are material. Materialism deals (this might surprise you) with the material.

I think I'm done with you, you don't seem to be old enough or well-versed enough to drink or philosophize (and trust me, you need to do both).

Aah, a drunkard alcoholic.
Full of vitriole and frustration.
Contradiction and denial.
I'll pray for you.

 

[Nous]

Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

Repeatable experiments?

How is it possible that you read and understood even what I quoted, much less the paper linked to, and are asking whether these are "repeatable experiments"?

After you read the paper, tell us which experiments you think would not be "repeatable".

 

[Nous]

Also what the **** is this supposed to be?

This does not even cite sources from what I can see, and if it does somewhere it **** sure did not cite them properly.

Her list of references are on page 25. Do you need help finding page 25? It comes directly after page 24.

 

[Nous]

Not going to respond to some of the nonsense posted.

You haven't responded to the studies.

I realize the facts are contrary to your religion, exactly like the geological evidence is contrary to those whose religion tells them the earth is 6,000 years old.

What could be more anti-scientific than refusing to assess the evidence?

Will say this: if evolution is true (and it is, by the way), then every evolved thing would have ESP, sans exception.

What nonsense. You need to go back to about middle school. Consciousness didn't evolve in plants.

 

[Nous]

For the few here who are unafraid of the facts, there is an excellent "Compendium of the Evidence for Psi," that is nothing if not balanced. It certainly notes more failures and flaws in the studies than it does successes.

Conclusion

It appears quite clear from the above review that irrespective what interpretation is given to specific research reports, the overall results of parapsychological experimentation are indicative of an anomalous process of information transfer, and they are not marginal and neither are they impossible to replicate. In the face of this, the critic who merely goes on asserting there is no evidence for psi is using a tactic reminiscent of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraq’s former information Minister, in blindly asserting there are no American troops in Baghdad.

While the conditions for precise replication and for producing the phenomena to hand, still elude researchers, the psi-effect is replicable to the extent that it permits meaningful and productive research. This fits well with the conclusion reached by Jessica Utts (1996) in her report on government-sponsored research into remote viewing (the so-called stargate project) concerning the existence of a small to medium effect.​

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Her list of references are on page 25. Do you need help finding page 25? It comes directly after page 24.

Do you understand help getting over your ego trip?

Yeah it's not where it is supposed to be. Also she left out the experiments which got average or below average results. Frankly I'm not impressed.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It had to be said-- people posting "videos" on YouTube as if it was "evidence" are ... silly.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Clearly illogical, because not everything has sight.

Only in the cases were sight offers zero advantage-- i.e. where there is absolute darkness for millions of generations.

Even plants-- lowly plants-- have light-sensors. "sight" if you will, amply good enough for the plants in question.

So your comment is false. Perhaps you need to go back and look at the word "illogical" again? Or, even better-- look up "logical" instead...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Still looking for a clear reason why Randi changed tack.
If the reason was clear, you would have been able to mention it in one short phrase, not avoid it.

This one point, about Randi "changing tack" on his offer, is very clearly disingenuous, and demonstrates that rather than doing any looking, you are believing what you are being told by others who want to hold on to similar beliefs. That's a terrible way to accumulate "knowledge."

First, On January 4, 2008, it was announced that the prize would be discontinued on March 6, 2010 in order to free the money for other uses. In the meantime, claimants were welcome to vie for it. Do you notice anything here? TWO YEARS and more notice, giving anybody who really thought they had something ample opportunity. If Randi was trying to escape for fear of losing money, that's the absolute worst way to do it.

Even then, in 2009, the foundation changed its mind and said the offer would NOT expire in 2010, but continue. This, I think, shows not very much fear at all, wouldn't you agree?

On March 8, 2011, the JREF announced that qualifications were being altered to open the challenge to more applicants. Whereas applicants were previously required to submit press clippings and a letter from an academic institution to qualify, the new rules now require applicants to present either press clippings, a letter from an academic institution, or a public video demonstrating their ability. The JREF explained that these new rules would give people without media or academic documentation a way to be considered for testing, and would allow the JREF to use online video and social media to reach a wider audience. Does Randi look scared witless to you yet, in opening the prize up even further.

Now remember, the challenge was first created by Randi in 1964, so by 2011 it's been going for 45 years! During that time, about a thousand people have applied, but no one has been successful.

In January 2015, James Randi announced that he was officially retiring and stepping down from his position with the JREF. In September 2015, JREF announced that their board had decided that it would convert the foundation into a grant-making foundation, and they will no longer accept applications directly from people claiming to have a paranormal power. In 2015 the James Randi paranormal challenge was officially terminated.

Once again, can you see anything interesting? That termination happened FIFTY-ONE (51) YEARS after it was offered. Does it still look sudden and surprising to you?

Sorry, but your ESP friends are not being honest, and you're not looking further than what you hear and want to hear.

 

[Nous]

Do you understand help getting over your ego trip?

I'm just pointing out your errors. You should try to learn from them.

Also she left out the experiments which got average or below average results.

She provided references for the studies she was asked to examine

The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.
​

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

The fact that the findings of the studies contradict your religion is not evidence that professor Utts did something wrong.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I'm just pointing out your errors. You should try to learn from them.

She provided references for the studies she was asked to examine

The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.
​

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

The fact that the findings of the studies contradict your religion is not evidence that professor Utts did something wrong.

1) Is the study repeatable and was it double blind?

2) I don't have a religion.

 

[Callisto]

You'd think someone with those kinds of abilities would always have proof on-hand. I mean, you shouldn't be able to surprise them, right?