<p>I refuse to believe that things like telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition exist. </p>
<p>… unless, that is, you can cite a believable SCIENTIFIC study that proves otherwise.</p>
<p>Um, OK. </p>
<p>…Is the point of this post to get people to argue with you?</p>
<p>And what is wrong with that? It’s nice to discuss, and this is a “Caf?”…</p>
<p>Any particular reason you think parents (viz. “Parent Cafe”) would be especially interested in this topic?</p>
<p>How about biofeedback?
Ive used it to power a small motor
<a href=“http://www.lclark.edu/dept/chron/catchingwavew05.html[/url]”>http://www.lclark.edu/dept/chron/catchingwavew05.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.sonoma.edu/psychology/biofeedback/research.html[/url]”>http://www.sonoma.edu/psychology/biofeedback/research.html</a></p>
<p>I don’t know about ESP, but I always wake up when my D misses her 11:30 curfew…</p>
<p>One of my D2 favorite words is telepathic and she also has ESPN.</p>
<p>One of my D2 favorite words is telepathic and she also has ESPN.</p>
<p>My H would love to have that- but I think regular TV carries enough football games don’t you ?</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>The most documented psychic of all time:</p>
<p><a href=“http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/about_edgarcayce.asp[/url]”>http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/about_edgarcayce.asp</a></p>
<p>um…ok? so what?</p>
<p>So what? Well this thread is about psychic phenomena and I posted something about a psychic, that’s what.</p>
<hr>
<p>I just saw a show on Discovery Channel about Membrane Theory. It supposedly reconciles String Theory and (?) Gravity (something) theory. The doc featured some Harvard professors who say that M Theory is the missing theory that Einstein was working on but didn’t finish, and it is the first to explain EVERYTHING.</p>
<p>Well, M Theory postulates that there are 11 dimensions, and in some dimensions YOU don’t exist.</p>
<p>Mainstream Harvard scientists.</p>
<p>It’s the current buzz among physicists, the documentary said.</p>
<p>Well, think about it. Think about the implications, if true. </p>
<p>Maybe YOU live in a universe in which psychic phenomena is not provable. </p>
<p>Maybe someone else lives in one in which it is.</p>
<p>This could explain the interesting phenomenon in which people can find evidence to support whatever they CHOOSE to believe.</p>
<p>It’s The Matrix.</p>
<p>"I refuse to believe that things like telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition exist. "</p>
<p>What’s curious is that psychic phenomena don’t happen to people who refuse to be open to it. And, since the current world has a plethora of opposing viewpoints to choose from, you can easily coexist while NEVER believing in any of it.</p>
<p>Do you really think ANYTHING anyone could post would actually change your mind? Not likely.</p>
<p>Most psychics are just scam artists. The remainder have a screw loose.</p>
<p>
Enough said.</p>
<p>from wikipedia:</p>
<p>"ESP phenomena however have and continue to be tested elsewhere as well. Sony labs for example performed a series of experiments to evaluate the possible utility of such phenomena for possible commercial ventures. After the investigations, Sony spokesman Masanobu Sakaguchi reported: “We found out experimentally that yes, ESP exists, but that any practical application of this knowledge is not likely in the foreseeable future.”[12]…</p>
<p>…Contrary to the prediction of skeptics however, ESP studies have continued to produce statistically significant results, in spite of the improvements in methodology.[15] Dr. Dean Radin said that in recent years even many skeptics of parapsychology have had to admit that these phenomena are worthy of further funding and research.<a href=“Radin,%201997:%20205-227”>6</a> [16] But many ESP researchers claim that the phenomenon is a “taboo” subject in the scientific and materialist/rationalist communities, resulting in sociological rather than scientific barriers to research, and in denial of funding for further study and theoretical development.</p>
<p>…It has been suggested that ESP may have a subtle rather than an overt effect, and that the ability to perceive may be altered by the nature of the event being perceived. For example, some proponents of ESP claim that predicting whether a loved one was just involved in a car crash might have a stronger effect than sensing which playing card was drawn from a deck, even though the latter is better suited for scientific studies in the laboratory. This dependence of ESP on the mental states of the participants, and on the meaning of the events to those participants, is one reason why many scientists remain skeptical.</p>
<p>Proponents of ESP such as biologist Rupert Sheldrake point to cases of ESP involving subjects who are familiar with each other that they believe indicate a positive demonstration of ESP abilities. [1]. Critics respond to Sheldrake’s claims by arguing that his experiments are methodologically flawed and lack proper controls such as sufficient randomization, that they are not peer-reviewed, and as such, that they are not scientifically reliable. Sheldrake has responded to many critics. For example, he explains that he has tried countless randomization techniques, often employing methods suggested by critics, but that he still obtained results greater than chance each time. The Responses to 14 of his critics are in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS Vol 12 No. 6, 2005).</p>
<p>There are no consistent and agreed-upon standards by which ESP powers may be tested, in the way one might test for, say, electrical current or the chemical composition of a substance. Often, when self-proclaimed psychics are challenged by skeptics and fail to prove their alleged powers, they assign all sorts of reasons for their failure, such as that the skeptic is affecting the experiment with “negative energy.” The non-empirical nature of this response, as well as the practice of charlatanry in ESP and psychic circles,[17] is one reason why scientists and materialists conclude that the existence of the phenomena cannot be established scientifically by anything other than statistically strong evidence from properly controlled laboratory studies.</p>
<p>The main current debate concerning ESP surrounds whether or not such statistically compelling laboratory evidence has already been accumulated. Some dispute the positive interpretation of results obtained in scientific studies of ESP, as the most compelling and repeatable results are all small to moderate statistical results. Critics of ESP argue that the results are too small to be significant, while proponents of ESP argue that the overall results of the numerous studies show a consistent and highly significant trend. Although the combined significance derived from meta-analysis of ESP studies is large and considered to be further proof by proponents, it does not include an unknown number of unpublished non-significant findings. Some skeptics point to this “file drawer” problem as reason to doubt the significance of the meta-analyses. However, as detailed by Dr. Dean Radin in his book The Conscious Universe, there are ways to control for this problem, and meta-analyses which do so still show highly statistically significant positive results. Some have argued that the very large number of trials which must be conducted to obtain statistically significant results constitutes a problem for verifying the legitimacy of ESP claims. However, other areas of science, such as the medical field, rely heavily on this method of data collection. For example, the statistical indications of the positive effect of aspirin on the heart are less than many ESP results, yet their existence is considered well-evidenced.[2]…"</p>
<p>See the dvd “Conscious Acts of Creation - The Emergence of the New Physics” by Dr. William A Tiller, Ph.D., Stanford University Professor Emeritus</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Acts-Creation/dp/B0001Y4M5E/sr=1-1/qid=1168711688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=dvd[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Acts-Creation/dp/B0001Y4M5E/sr=1-1/qid=1168711688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=dvd</a></p>
<p>He explain IN DETAIL the controlled experiments he conducted, complete with the math, levels of significance, etc. which prove that the mind can affect matter to a highly significant degree.</p>
<p>From a review on amazon.com</p>
<p>“The target audience for this DVD seems to be people who like to speak the language of math and physics. Yes, it does take you through three experiments - under controlled conditions - designed to demonstrate the influence of mind over matter, together with mathematical formulas, graphs and everything else that may be of interest to scientific community…”</p>
<p>For the record, I agree that most of the psychics on tv making $$ are fakes. The good ones usually do not charge for their services and usually are not interested in fame and recognition. They are interested in helping people and that’s what they do. There is a built-in mechanism regarding psychic ability - when used for selfish purposes it tends to dry up really fast.</p>
<p>Here’s another of interest:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-Do-We-Know/dp/B000FKO3JO/sr=1-1/qid=1168712741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=dvd[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-Do-We-Know/dp/B000FKO3JO/sr=1-1/qid=1168712741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=dvd</a></p>
<p>What the “Bleep” Do We Know!? - Down the Rabbit Hole Quantum (2006)
Note: This video has both scientists and non-scientific spiritual people. It seems to be attempting to bridge the gap. Still, there is enough scientific info here to satisfy even the most hardcore skeptic. Thoroughly documented.</p>
<p>from a review:</p>
<p>“…In light of quantum physics (which, in a nutshell, is the physics of probabilities), the filmmakers explore the concept of multiple realities existing at once. While parallel, alternate universes are the stuff of Star Trek, this concept isn’t so far fetched considering scientists have produced a particle of light that exists in two places at the same time. Not only that, electrons and the nuclei of atoms completely disappear and reappear all the time. Where do they go? If this happens on an atomic level, what does this mean for the macro level? …”</p>
<p>I rely on intuition and have experienced spiritual healing, however I wouldn’t use [that propaganda film as a tool to inform others about which we are just starting to measure](<a href=“What the Bleep Do We Know? | Not Even Wrong”>What the Bleep Do We Know? | Not Even Wrong)</p>
<p>Eh, I don’t care for JZ Knight either - I think she’s a fake - but I thought the film was fun.</p>