God experience can change atheists

[ecco]

Why make arguments that would only convince people who already agree with you? What's the point?

Do you seriously believe that any posts in any threads convince people who believe the opposite? Seriously?

Do you honestly believe that unbiased minds would conclude that I didn't read the article because you emphasized the critical points in a well-balanced article?

You believe in ESP. You linked to an article that clearly did not support ESP. I questioned whether you had actually read it since it didn't support your views. In fact, the findings in the article were that there was nothing to ESP.

Why would anyone post an article that goes contrary to their own beliefs? Oh, maybe they hadn't read and /or understood it.

Do you honestly believe that ridiculing an opponent's position by labeling it "woo" persuades unbiased minds that you're right? Ridicule alerts intelligent readers of your extreme bias on the topic. That' isn't smart. If you want to make arguments that persuade people, you should at least learn to fake objectivity.

Fake it - like pretending you read an article beyond the headline? I don't need to fake anything. If you think I am ridiculing your position by labelling the topics of your beliefs as woo, well, that's your opinion. I find the word "woo" covers a lot of ground - ESP, telekinesis, spoon bending, dowsing alien abductions and on and on and on.

Three simple letters - "w", "o", "o" is just so much easier.

When one makes a debatable claim, the burden of proof is theirs. However, in fairness, that burden should be reasonable. It's no great trick for opponents to raise the standard of proof to an unreasonable level. Both you and Charlie used that unfair tactic on me in this forum, but Charlie backed off when I pointed it out. You haven't.

Charlie can comment as he sees fit. I'll comment as I see fit. The burden of proof for woo (there's that word again) is the same as the burden of proof for anything else. What unreasonable level did I impose on you?

Interestingly that's the very same unfair tactic that mainstream scientists use against psi research.

It seems we have come full circle. If memory serves, you posted something like that a ways back and I responded that that sounded a lot like the complaints that Creos make. So, I'll just say again, that sounds a lot like the complaints that Creos make.

Mainstream scientists are dominated by philosophical materialists which explains their bias against psi research.

Do you mean "mainstream scientists" like the ones who study geology or aeronautics? What "mainstream scientists" are you talking about? What "mainstream scientists" are involved in researching woo esp?

Philosophy should play no role in science but unfortunately it does. If the standard of proof for ordinary experiments in psychology was as high as it is for psi, none would make the grade.

I have no idea why you are jumping back and forth between commenting about scientists and people studying psychology and parapsychology.

But, I agree testing woo should be done without any attention to philosophy. I doubt the Randi Institute or other testing facilities incorporate philosophy while busting frauds.

Despite the bias and lack of funding, there's been some worthwhile research done.

Perhaps there is a lack of funding because most rational people, at least those with or controlling money, have come to understand that there is nothing to research.

Here's a list of some of the research available on the topic you have ridiculed by labeling it "woo," the subject which you claim has no evidence to support it. You'll also find links to other lists.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

No. I'm not going to chase another of your blind links. If you think, after actually reading the contents for yourself, that there is anything there that supports your case, then post some excerpts and add your own commentary about what it means.

 

[joe1776]

Do you seriously believe that any posts in any threads convince people who believe the opposite? Seriously?

No, but I believe that now and then an unbiased mind does read these posts. I also believe it's pointless to make arguments that would convince people who already agree with you.

You believe in ESP. You linked to an article that clearly did not support ESP. I questioned whether you had actually read it since it didn't support your views. In fact, the findings in the article were that there was nothing to ESP.

You didn't understand what you read.

Fake it - like pretending you read an article beyond the headline? I don't need to fake anything. If you think I am ridiculing your position by labelling the topics of your beliefs as woo, well, that's your opinion. I find the word "woo" covers a lot of ground - ESP, telekinesis, spoon bending, dowsing alien abductions and on and on and on. Three simple letters - "w", "o", "o" is just so much easier.

Well, if ridicule of an opponent's position is the best you can do, so be it.

Charlie can comment as he sees fit. I'll comment as I see fit. The burden of proof for woo (there's that word again) is the same as the burden of proof for anything else. What unreasonable level did I impose on you?

Just as an example...you demanded that I explain how the autoganzfeld worked. 1)It's not my job here to educate you (2) You aren't qualified to grade the methods anyway. (3) I linked you to the Skeptics Dictionary to support my claim that the method was not under attack by leading skeptics. That should have been enough for you.

But, I agree testing woo should be done without any attention to philosophy. I doubt the Randi Institute or other testing facilities incorporate philosophy while busting frauds.

James Randi and associates had no qualifications as scientists. Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore are scientists skeptical of psi who made it a point to distance themselves from Randi and his undoubtedly bogus million-dollar challenge.

Perhaps there is a lack of funding because most rational people, at least those with or controlling money, have come to understand that there is nothing to research.

Well, of course, that's what we're told.

No. I'm not going to chase another of your blind links.

C,mon tell the truth. You clicked that link and you were intimidated by that long list of studies. Were'nt you?

 

[atanu]

Subjective views of a subjective experience does not mean anything to me regardless of how many times you say valid.

Considering there are no objective definitions of mystical experiences it is still completely subjective. Again it does not mean anything. If I fart I can easily start checking off boxes on your silly list. It does not mean anything.

No I said the conclusions of the people involved is unsound as is the self-reporting.

If they thought a subjective set of views they can not validate in any objective way is sound they are crackpots.

Pseudobabble. Do note you didn't say medical professional just some "teacher"

Do you reject your own subjective experiences? Much of neuro science depends on third party reports and correlation of those reports with brain states. Reject all of those too? Do you have any idea that with your view we cannot believe any report on subjective matter: pain, illness, joy, love ....,

Your position is not tenable, imo.

I disagree with your dogma that subjective reports can have no validity at all. Since there seems not an iota of agreement I will not respond to your posts.

Best.

 

[atanu]

Well, if ridicule of an opponent's position is the best you can do, so be it.

One can only believe in what one has experienced. It is a similar phenomenon when one cannot empathise with physical pain of an older relative and acts callous. They reject love too, since love is subjective woo.

Ha ha.

 

[atanu]

You make nonsensical evasive comments like that​

You lazily post a link to an entirely different paper

I'll not post my conclusions about your methods because I don't want to get wrist-slapped - you're simply not worth it.

I will not answer individually to your accusations. Loaded comments like the ones in red above do nothing to promote a friendly discussion and that is why I avoid responding to you.

...

MEQ 30 is a 4 factor questionnaire consisting of 30 questions. I had linked the shorter version of MEQ 30 paper (a validation study) in an earlier post and I am doing it again, since you found the original MEQ 30 paper too big.

Validation of the revised Mystical Experience Questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin. - PubMed - NCBI

When already the original paper with the list is linked, why should it be obligatory on my part to list out 30 items? And write down all the numbers from the papers? But still if you want, the bare list is also linked below.

The 30-item checklist to know if you’ve had a mystical experience (the MEQ30)

Finally I can only request you to forget me and examine the 30 questions in MEQ 30.

 

[charlie sc]

Both you and Charlie used that unfair tactic on me in this forum, but Charlie backed off when I pointed it out. You haven't.

You seem to make assumptions that are false, like the Islam thread. I usually end a discussion when I think it's over and/or there's no point continuing. You talking nonsense about me prompted a reply. The last thing I said was me giving psi the benefit of the doubt, but that does not mean I think psi is a real thing. As a sceptic, I cannot honestly say something does not exist if if there is no substantial evidence for its existence. It would be like me saying the celestial teapot, god, Bigfoot and Santa-clause do not exist. If their very nature is to be invisible to detection, there's no way to disprove the positive claim. Similarly, psi is apparently invisible to detection when it fails and there's still some gullible and wishful-thinking person claiming it exists. Only the faithful think in this manner: if it fails there's some explanation instead of accepting the truth. How am I able to argue with anyone that thinks the celestial teapot is unfalsifiable? It's impossible and the best someone can do is ignore these people so they can continue in their delusional hope. Even in the link you gave, there are numerous studies there we spoke about and others that have not found psi, yet you think this long list is proof nor does this list give the whole story.

If you really think your daughter can remote view you, test her. Go into another room and draw something, then ask her what you drew. Do this three times and make it more complex than a simple shape. If you succeed in this, contact parapsychologists, you'd be providing evidence for a topic that's seen as nonsense. If you cannot do this then your so called evidence falls into the billions of anecdotal evidence lined up with alien abduction stories, religious miraculous stories and spiritual nonsense claims like those breatharians.

 

[atanu]

Link does not work on my end. Can anyone else confirm this?

My mistake. The link is below:

Entheogens and Existential Intelligence: The Use of Plant Teachers as ...journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/download/2843/2140/

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, but I believe that now and then an unbiased mind does read these posts. I also believe it's pointless to make arguments that would convince people who already agree with you.

You didn't understand what you read.

Well, if ridicule of an opponent's position is the best you can do, so be it.

Just as an example...you demanded that I explain how the autoganzfeld worked. 1)It's not my job here to educate you (2) You aren't qualified to grade the methods anyway. (3) I linked you to the Skeptics Dictionary to support my claim that the method was not under attack by leading skeptics. That should have been enough for you.

James Randi and associates had no qualifications as scientists. Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore are scientists skeptical of psi who made it a point to distance themselves from Randi and his undoubtedly bogus million-dollar challenge.

Well, of course, that's what we're told.

C,mon tell the truth. You clicked that link and you were intimidated by that long list of studies. Were'nt you?

As I have said before, by using only our "lizard brain" we can always find evidence over the internet to confirm and support our own presuppositional claims. Should I conclude that only critical thinkers can have God experiences? Or, that Atheists and skeptics are not critical thinkers? Or, that only a critical thinking problem-solving mind is essential in the belief in God? Since you are not intimidated by the number of scientific studies trying to compare God-beliefs(experiences) and behavior, to a condition of the brain, then what is your takeaway insight on the below studies? Especially, in the last video by V. S. Ramachandran(neuroscientist), where Shermer and Harris are in the audience?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8YBzEAMq0

https://www.seeker.com/videos/health/how-does-religion-manifest-in-your-brain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af0Sbwxj8WE

If you are really interested in how the mind interacts with the body, then this video might expand the scope of your somewhat limited narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcR8-Sq8dZk

Clearly, our religious beliefs are interconnected with our physical brain, in a much more complicated manner. But belief can only be a subjective illusion of the mind. There are no objective physical manifestations of the mind's religious beliefs. Simply experiencing a drug-induced religious manifestation, does not make the conceptual experience physically perceptive. We may all be induced to hear the ocean in a sea shell, but the ocean really doesn't exist in the sea shell.

The million dollar challenge was real, not bogus(empty assertion). As well as all the other challenges from other institutes from all over the world(ignored). Exactly what qualifications would you need to see if a person can levitate, read minds, see into the future, or speak to the dead? But it seems that convincing billions to believe in everlasting life(or torment), or the existence of a multi-omni spiritual father figure, does require the use of our brain's critical thinking ability. There is no such thing as an unbiased mind. But we should all strive to be impartial and skeptical.

My pet peeve is people that can only use the internet to speak for them. They're entire argument is basically just an internet referral service. These sites should only be used to highlight, and support their beliefs and assertions. These sites should never be used as a replacement or a substitute for their beliefs and assertions. We can't argue directly with internet sites and expect a response. So hiding behind selective sites and cites, is just another intellectually dishonest cope-out, designed to obfuscate intuition and common sense. IMHO.

 

[ecco]

You didn't understand what you read.

You cannot back up that comment with any evidence, can you? Just like nothing you posted was evidence for any esp.

Well, if ridicule of an opponent's position is the best you can do, so be it.

If you believe in woo, it is not me who is causing ridicule.

Just as an example...you demanded that I explain how the autoganzfeld worked. 1)It's not my job here to educate you (2) You aren't qualified to grade the methods anyway. (3) I linked you to the Skeptics Dictionary to support my claim that the method was not under attack by leading skeptics. That should have been enough for you.

So, you can't explain the stuff you believe in. I didn't think so.

James Randi and associates had no qualifications as scientists. Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore are scientists skeptical of psi who made it a point to distance themselves from Randi and his undoubtedly bogus million-dollar challenge.

You have made several disparaging comments about Randi's challenge. I have refuted all of them. You know full well that there was nothing "bogus". One again, you make comments that you cannot back with any evidence. It must get embarrassing.

C,mon tell the truth. You clicked that link and you were intimidated by that long list of studies. Were'nt you?

Actually, I didn't. Why would I? You have no credibility left at all.

Yes, I recognize embarrassed smiles when I see them, in person or in a forum.

 

[ecco]

One can only believe in what one has experienced. It is a similar phenomenon when one cannot empathise with physical pain of an older relative and acts callous. They reject love too, since love is subjective woo.

Ha ha.

What a silly comment.

 

[ecco]

But still if you want, the bare list is also linked below.

The 30-item checklist to know if you’ve had a mystical experience (the MEQ30)

Please describe what this means...

Complete mystical experience was defined a priori as having scores 60% or above on all four MEQ30 subscales [30].​

RE: the MEQ30 from your link: Are these posed as yes or no questions?

The article in your OP states:

Abstract
Naturally occurring and psychedelic drug–occasioned experiences interpreted as personal encounters with God​

What I could not find in the report was the correlation between "personal encounters with God" and the results of the MEQ30 (or 40).

Does agreeing with one of the 30 questions qualify as a "personal encounters with God"?

For example, if I, as a respondent had ever experienced 22. Loss of your usual sense of time, would the researchers have placed me in the category of those who had a "personal encounters with God"?

Or, does it have to be at least 16 of the thirty?


On further reading the MEQ30 that you linked, there is no mention of "god" at all...

The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is what researchers use to evaluate whether a participant has had a mystical experience, defined as “the experience of profound unity with all that exists, a felt sense of sacredness, a sense of the experience of truth and reality at a fundamental level (noetic quality), deeply felt positive mood, transcendence of time and space, and difficulty explaining the experience in words.”
​

Yet you and the survey authors used phrases like:
Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences":


Why would honest researchers use a Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and presume that a Mystical Experience is god related?

 

[joe1776]

You seem to make assumptions that are false, like the Islam thread. I usually end a discussion when I think it's over and/or there's no point continuing. You talking nonsense about me prompted a reply. The last thing I said was me giving psi the benefit of the doubt, but that does not mean I think psi is a real thing...

It seems you misunderstood my post. My comment was about your initial rejection of the Bem review which you later were willing to review. I saw your initial position as unreasonable given that this is an Internet forum not a scientific journal.

As a sceptic, I cannot honestly say something does not exist if if there is no substantial evidence for its existence. It would be like me saying the celestial teapot, god, Bigfoot and Santa-clause do not exist...

Biased skepticism is pseudoskepticism. If you were an unbiased skeptic you wouldn't ridicule my position by comparing it to the Bigfoot and Santa Claus, neither of which have research to support their existence. Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore are scientists skeptical of psi but we know that their bias is not as strong as yours because they have spent long hours over several years trying to find flaws in the research. They wouldn't have done that if they thought that Bigfoot and Santa Claus were a fair comparison.

If you really think your daughter can remote view you, test her.

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is showing. There was no "remote viewing" involved in the experience of telepathy I described.

I know as a fact that she's a gifted telepathic sender because I was the one who received images from a deck of 52 playing cards -- which by the way was a far more difficult task than seeing the difference between the five distinctly different Zener cards used in some psi research.

I have a theory on it. I think people who use both sides of their brains see images better than people who are left-side dominant. I think genius, in people like Einstein, isn't just a matter of IQ, I think they sometimes see images of the entire problem as metaphor (measuring light from a moving train) that lead to solutions. Thus your belief that such phenomena as telepathic communication is impossible might be true -- for you.

 

[joe1776]

Actually, I didn't. Why would I? You have no credibility left at all.

You use ridicule and ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned debate. If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't need such tactics.

Close your eyes now, you won't want to see this. This site is maintained by Dean Radin Last updated May 3, 2016.

Selected Psi Research Publications
This is a selected list of peer-reviewed journal articles about psi (psychic) phenomena, most published in the 21st century. There are also some papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list of important articles and books would run into the thousands. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The Parapsychological Association – an international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena – is an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world and the publisher of the journal Science, one of the most prominent scientific journals.

I mention this because some individuals who call themselves “parapsychologists” are not scientists. They are better described as paranormal enthusiasts, ghost hunters, exorcists, or other practitioners of occult or esoteric arts. While such activities are interesting to many in the general population, the people engaged in them are not practicing science as defined by the AAAS, and as such their use of the term parapsychologist is inappropriate.

This page is maintained by Dean Radin. Last updated May 3, 2016.

Healing at a Distance
Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot

Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.

Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study

Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients

Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda

Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.

Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.

Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence

Physiological correlations at a distance
Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.

Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects

Richards et al (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects.

Achterberg et al (2005). Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis

Radin (2005). The sense of being stared at: A preliminary meta-analysis.

Radin & Schlitz (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study.

Schlitz et al (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology.

Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate.

Ambach (2008). Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.

Hinterberger (2010). Searching for neuronal markers of psi: A summary of three studies measuring electrophysiology in distant participants.

Schmidt (2012). Can we help just by good intentions? A meta-analysis of experiments on distant intention effects

Jensen & Parker (2012). Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds.

Parker & Jensen (2013). Further possible physiological connectedness between identical twins: The London study.

 

[joe1776]

Telepathy & ESP
Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

Puthoff & Targ (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research

Eisenberg & Donderi (1979). Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.

Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton

Bem (1994). Response to Hyman

Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane.

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). A dog that seems to know when his owner to coming home: Videotaped experiments and observations.

Storm & Ertel (2001). Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research

Milton & Wiseman (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001)

Sheldrake & Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy.

Sheldrake & Smart (2003). Videotaped experiments on telephone telepathy.

Sherwood & Roe (2003). A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESP Programme

Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures

Hastings (2007). Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard

Radin (2007). Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?

Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology

Storm et al (2010). A Meta-Analysis With Nothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)

Tressoldi (2011). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences

Tressoldi et al (2011). Mental Connection at Distance: Useful for Solving Difficult Tasks?

Williams (2011). Revisiting the Ganzfeld ESP Debate: A Basic Review and Assessment

Rouder et al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010)

Storm et al (2013). Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013)

 

[joe1776]

General Overviews & Critiques
Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning

Alcock (2003). Give the null hypothesis a chance

Parker & Brusewitz (2003). A compendium of the evidence for psi

Carter (2010). Heads I lose, tails you win.

McLuhan (no date). Fraud in psi research.


Survival of Consciousness
van Lommel et al (2001). Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

van Lommel (2006). Near-death experience, consciousness, and the brain

Beischel & Schwartz (2007). Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol

Greyson (2010). Seeing dead people not known to have died: “Peak in Darien” experiences

Kelly (2010). Some directions for mediumship research

Kelly & Arcangel (2011). An investigation of mediums who claim to give information about deceased persons

Nahm et al (2011). Terminal lucidity: A review and a case collection.

Facco & Agrillo (2012). Near-death experiences between science and prejudice

Matlock (2012). Bibliography of reincarnation resources online (articles and books, all downloadable)

Beischel, J., Boccuzzi, M., Biuso, M., & Rock, A. J. (2015). Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: Replication and extension. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing, 11(2), 136-142. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001


Precognition & Presentiment
Honorton & Ferrari (1989). “Future telling”: A meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments, 1935-1987

Spottiswoode & May (2003). Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response: Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study

Radin (2004). Electrodermal presentiments of future emotions.

McCraty et al (2004). Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition: Part 1. The Surprising Role of the Heart

McCraty et al (2004). Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition: Part 2. A System-Wide Process?

Radin & Lobach (2007). Toward understanding the placebo effect: Investigating a possible retrocausal factor.

Radin & Borges (2009). Intuition through time: What does the seer see?

Bem (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect

Bem et al (2011). Must psychologists change the way they analyze their data?

Bierman (2011). Anomalous switching of the bi-stable percept of a Necker Cube

Radin et al (2011). Electrocortical activity prior to unpredictable stimuli in meditators and non-meditators.

Radin (2011). Predicting the unpredictable: 75 years of experimental evidence

Tressoldi et al (2011). Let your eyes predict : Prediction accuracy of pupillary responses to random alerting and neutral sounds

Galek et al (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi

Mossbridge et al (2012). Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Bem et al (2015). Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events

Theory
Josephson & Pallikari-Viras (1991). Biological utilisation of quantum nonlocality

May et al (1995). Decision augmentation theory: Towards a model of anomalous mental phenomena

Houtkooper (2002). Arguing for an observational theory of paranormal phenomena

Bierman (2003). Does consciousness collapse the wave-packet?

Dunne & Jahn (2005). Consciousness, information, and living systems

Henry (2005). The mental universe

Hiley & Pylkkanen (2005). Can mind affect matter via active information?

Lucadou et al (2007). Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory

Rietdijk (2007). Four-dimensional physics, nonlocal coherence, and paranormal phenomena

Bierman (2010). Consciousness induced restoration of time symmetry (CIRTS ): A psychophysical theoretical perspective

Tressoldi et al (2010). Extrasensory perception and quantum models of cognition.

Tressoldi (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power?

 

[joe1776]

Mind-Matter Interaction
Crookes (1874). Researches in the phenomena of spiritualism

Crookes (1874). Notes of séances with DDH

Medhurst & Goldney (1964). William Crookes and the physical phenomena of mediumship.

Merrifield (1885/1971). Merrifield’s report (on D. D. Home)

Braude (1985). The enigma of Daniel Home.

Zorab (1971). Were D. D. Home’s ‘spirit hands” ever fraudulently produced?

Jahn (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective.

Inglis (1983). Review of “The spiritualists. The passion for the occult in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Ruth Brandon.”

Schmidt (1987). The strange properties of psychokinesis.

Schmidt (1990). Correlation between mental processes and external random events

Radin & Nelson (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems

Radin & Ferrari (1991). Effects of consciousness on the fall of dice: A meta-analysis

Jahn et al (1997). Correlations of random binary sequences with pre-stated operator intention: A review of a 12-year program.

Nelson et al (2002). Correlations of continuous random data with major world events.

Crawford et al (2003). Alterations in random event measures associated with a healing practice

Freedman et al (2003). Effects of frontal lobe lesions on intentionality and random physical phenomena

Bierman (2004). Does consciousness collapse the wave function?

Jahn & Dunne (2005). The PEAR Proposition.

Bosch et al (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators

Radin et al (2006). Reexamining psychokinesis.

Radin et al (2006). Assessing the evidence for mind-matter interaction effects.

Radin (2006). Experiments testing models of mind-matter interaction.

Radin. (2008). Testing nonlocal observation as a source of intuitive knowledge.

Nelson & Bancel (2011). Effects of mass consciousness: Changes in random data during global events.

Radin et al (2012). Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

Radin et al (2013). Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern

Shiah & Radin (2013). A randomized trial investigating the roles of intention and belief on mood while drinking tea.

Radin et al (2015). Psychophysical interactions with a single-photon double-slit optical system.

Radin et al (2016). Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system.


Potential Applications
Carpenter (2011). Laboratory psi effects may be put to practical use: Two pilot studies

Schwartz (1980/2000). Location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure … [by remote viewing]

Beischel, J., Mosher, C. & Boccuzzi, M. (2014-2015). The possible effects on bereavement of assisted after-death communication during readings with psychic mediums: A continuing bonds perspective. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 70(2), 169-194. doi: 10.2190/OM.70.2.b

 

[joe1776]

Some recommended books (click to see book details at Amazon.com)
Radin (1997, 2009). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena

Radin (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality

Irwin & Watt (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology

Mayer (2008). Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind

Kelly et al (2009). Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century

Tart (2009). The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal Is Bringing Science and Spirit Together

Carter (2010). Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death

Van Lommel (2011). Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience

Sheldrake (1999; new edition 2011) Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home

Alexander (2012). Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife

Carpenter (2012). First Sight: ESP and Parapsychology in Everyday Life

Carter (2012). Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics

Targ (2012). The Reality of ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities

Beischel (2013). Among Mediums: A Scientist's Quest for Answers

Sheldrake (2003; new edition 2013) The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind

Radin (2013). Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities

Dossey (2014). One Mind: How Our Individual Mind Is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters

Broderick & Goertzel (2014). Evidence for Psi: Thirteen Empirical Research Reports

May et al (2014). ESP WARS: East and West: An Account of the Military Use of Psychic Espionage As Narrated by the Key Russian and American Players

May and Marwaha (2014). Anomalous Cognition: Remote Viewing Research and Theory

Kelly (2014). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality

Cardeña (2015). Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century.

May & Marwaha (2015). Extrasensory Perception: Support, Skepticism, and Science

Websites with access to more articles
Daryl Bem: Click here

Brian Josephson: Click here

Edwin May: Click here

Stephan Schwartz, Click here

Rupert Sheldrake: Click here

James Spottiswoode: Click here

Charles Tart: Click here

Russell Targ: Click here

Patrizio Tressoldi: Click here

Jessica Utts: Click here

Richard Wiseman: Click here

Journal of Scientific Exploration: Click here

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory: Click here or here.

Division of Perceptual Studies, University of Virginia: Click here

Esalen Center for Theory and Research: Click here

Windbridge Institute: Click here.

Koestler Unit of the University of Edinburgh: Click here.


Videos
Greyson (2008). Consciousness without brain activity: Near Death Experiences (United Nations talk)

Radin (2008), Science and the taboo of psi (Google TechTalk)

Sheldrake (2008) The extended mind (Google Tech Talk)

 

[charlie sc]

My comment was about your initial rejection of the Bem review which you later were willing to review. I saw your initial position as unreasonable given that this is an Internet forum not a scientific journal.

When you first replied to me, you gave a link to Daryl Bem reviewing the book 'Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century.' This book was not written by Daryl Bem. First, it's odd you want me to critique a review of a book. Second, my comment was directed at parapsychology and psi as a whole.

Biased skepticism is pseudoskepticism. If you were an unbiased skeptic you wouldn't ridicule my position by comparing it to the Bigfoot and Santa Claus, neither of which have research to support their existence. Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore are scientists skeptical of psi but we know that their bias is not as strong as yours because they have spent long hours over several years trying to find flaws in the research. They wouldn't have done that if they thought that Bigfoot and Santa Claus were a fair comparison.

Your wonderful list excluded a reply by Hyman but included replies to this reply lol. I wonder who is biased now? Anyway, you are factually incorrect. I looked at his reply and his view aligns with mine perfectly. I'll repeat just in case it's difficult to process the first time: you are factually incorrect. Here is a quote by Hyman in his reply to Storm et. al. meta analysis -
"For parapsychologists who believe in psi, such inconsistencies must be discouraging, indeed. Their typical remedy is to propose that such inconsistencies are an inherent property of psi. This not only begs the question but makes it impossible to prove the existence of psi within the framework of science. Science cannot investigate a phenomenon that is inherently unpredictable and evasive." - Hyman, R. (2010). Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals

This is literally the same thing I said, so what the hell are you talking about?

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is showing. There was no "remote viewing" involved in the experience of telepathy I described.

I know as a fact that she's a gifted telepathic sender because I was the one who received images from a deck of 52 playing cards -- which by the way was a far more difficult task than seeing the difference between the five distinctly different Zener cards used in some psi research.

I have a theory on it. I think people who use both sides of their brains see images better than people who are left-side dominant. I think genius, in people like Einstein, isn't just a matter of IQ, I think they sometimes see images of the entire problem as metaphor (measuring light from a moving train) that lead to solutions. Thus your belief that such phenomena as telepathic communication is impossible might be true -- for you.

So go test it rather than spouting nonsense. Testing a theory is much more difficult than making one up.

 

[ecco]

You use ridicule and ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned debate. If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't need such tactics.

I asked valid questions. You evaded answering them. Instead, you posted links.

I made valid arguments. You evaded addressing them. Instead, you posted links.


Below you post more links to more articles. Where are your comments? Where are your excerpts and summaries of the articles? They don't exist. You say nothing. Like many other posters with nothing, you just post links. If you can't discuss the contents of the articles, why should I bother looking at them? I told you before that I was done chasing your blind links.

Close your eyes now, you won't want to see this. This site is maintained by Dean Radin Last updated May 3, 2016.

Selected Psi Research Publications
This is a selected list of peer-reviewed journal articles about psi (psychic) phenomena, most published in the 21st century. There are also some papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list of important articles and books would run into the thousands. Click on the title of an article to download it.

The Parapsychological Association – an international professional organization for scientists and scholars interested in psi phenomena – is an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the world and the publisher of the journal Science, one of the most prominent scientific journals.

I mention this because some individuals who call themselves “parapsychologists” are not scientists. They are better described as paranormal enthusiasts, ghost hunters, exorcists, or other practitioners of occult or esoteric arts. While such activities are interesting to many in the general population, the people engaged in them are not practicing science as defined by the AAAS, and as such their use of the term parapsychologist is inappropriate.

This page is maintained by Dean Radin. Last updated May 3, 2016.

Healing at a Distance
Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot

Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.

Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study

Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients

Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda

Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.

Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.

Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence

Physiological correlations at a distance
Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.

Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects

Richards et al (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects.

Achterberg et al (2005). Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: A functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis

Radin (2005). The sense of being stared at: A preliminary meta-analysis.

Radin & Schlitz (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study.

Schlitz et al (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology.

Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate.

Ambach (2008). Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects − a replication study.

Hinterberger (2010). Searching for neuronal markers of psi: A summary of three studies measuring electrophysiology in distant participants.

Schmidt (2012). Can we help just by good intentions? A meta-analysis of experiments on distant intention effects

Jensen & Parker (2012). Entangled in the womb? A pilot study on the possible physiological connectedness between identical twins with different embryonic backgrounds.

Parker & Jensen (2013). Further possible physiological connectedness between identical twins: The London study.

 

[ecco]

Telepathy & ESP
Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

General Overviews & Critiques
Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning

Mind-Matter Interaction
Crookes (1874). Researches in the phenomena of spiritualism

Some recommended books (click to see book details at Amazon.com)

Apparently, you are under the impression that the ability to cut and paste is evidence that you understand and can intelligently discuss a subject. You are wrong.