Psychic Abilities For Humans?

[Nebusj]

The Nebuses of his day would have had exactly your attitude towards da Vinci that you do towards the possiblities of human sensory powers beyond the accepted five.

Scientific progress does not get made by the wise orthodox sitting somewhere saying "It cannot be." Scientific progress is made by the rebel, the questioner of orthodoxy asking "Can it be?"

And by giving the evidence. Provide the phenomenon that shows it. Provide the explanation grounded in well-accepted theories that implies it. Provide the experiment that would, if done right, show the thing, or refute it.

Psychic abilities would be expected to provide an enormous evolutionary advantage; they should be widespread. They have been seriously sought after by scientific methods that should be suitable to find something for nearly a century now. Nothing has turned up. One can make excuses to explain this while supposing psychic powers to still exist. But the supposition that they do not exist fits all available observed repeatable phenomena and all generally accepted theories. There are some things that just aren't so, however fun they might be to imagine.

 

[Poltargyst]

The Nebuses of his day would have had exactly your attitude towards da Vinci that you do towards the possiblities of human sensory powers beyond the accepted five.

Scientific progress does not get made by the wise orthodox sitting somewhere saying "It cannot be." Scientific progress is made by the rebel, the questioner of orthodoxy asking "Can it be?"

And by giving the evidence. Provide the phenomenon that shows it. Provide the explanation grounded in well-accepted theories that implies it. Provide the experiment that would, if done right, show the thing, or refute it.

Psychic abilities would be expected to provide an enormous evolutionary advantage; they should be widespread. They have been seriously sought after by scientific methods that should be suitable to find something for nearly a century now. Nothing has turned up. One can make excuses to explain this while supposing psychic powers to still exist. But the supposition that they do not exist fits all available observed repeatable phenomena and all generally accepted theories. There are some things that just aren't so, however fun they might be to imagine.

Or they do exist but are not amenable to laboratory testing.

 

[BillJ]

The Nebuses of his day would have had exactly your attitude towards da Vinci that you do towards the possiblities of human sensory powers beyond the accepted five.

Scientific progress does not get made by the wise orthodox sitting somewhere saying "It cannot be." Scientific progress is made by the rebel, the questioner of orthodoxy asking "Can it be?"

And by giving the evidence. Provide the phenomenon that shows it. Provide the explanation grounded in well-accepted theories that implies it. Provide the experiment that would, if done right, show the thing, or refute it.

Psychic abilities would be expected to provide an enormous evolutionary advantage; they should be widespread. They have been seriously sought after by scientific methods that should be suitable to find something for nearly a century now. Nothing has turned up. One can make excuses to explain this while supposing psychic powers to still exist. But the supposition that they do not exist fits all available observed repeatable phenomena and all generally accepted theories. There are some things that just aren't so, however fun they might be to imagine.

Or they do exist but are not amenable to laboratory testing.

Which is one of those excuses he is talking about.

 

[Phantom]

And by giving the evidence. Provide the phenomenon that shows it. Provide the explanation grounded in well-accepted theories that implies it. Provide the experiment that would, if done right, show the thing, or refute it.

Psychic abilities would be expected to provide an enormous evolutionary advantage; they should be widespread.

Who says they aren't. We've all had those "gut feelings" and moments where we just knew what someone was thinking.

They have been seriously sought after by scientific methods that should be suitable to find something for nearly a century now. Nothing has turned up.

That is debatable.

One can make excuses to explain this while supposing psychic powers to still exist. But the supposition that they do not exist fits all available observed repeatable phenomena and all generally accepted theories.

But it does not fit all the phenomena when you include the very real experiences of people who have had psychic events happen to them.

"Generally accepted theories" once held that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat. And that sicknesses were a matter of imbalanced "humors" in the body (and bloodletting was the treatment).

There are some things that just aren't so, however fun they might be to imagine.

Nothing is ever discovered or proven by the "scientist" who refuses to accept even the possibility of a phenomenon and therefore doesn't investigate it.

 

[Poltargyst]

And by giving the evidence. Provide the phenomenon that shows it. Provide the explanation grounded in well-accepted theories that implies it. Provide the experiment that would, if done right, show the thing, or refute it.

Psychic abilities would be expected to provide an enormous evolutionary advantage; they should be widespread. They have been seriously sought after by scientific methods that should be suitable to find something for nearly a century now. Nothing has turned up. One can make excuses to explain this while supposing psychic powers to still exist. But the supposition that they do not exist fits all available observed repeatable phenomena and all generally accepted theories. There are some things that just aren't so, however fun they might be to imagine.

Or they do exist but are not amenable to laboratory testing.

Which is one of those excuses he is talking about.

"Excuses" sounds like a word used by someone who's already decided psychic abilities don't exist.

 

[BillJ]

Or they do exist but are not amenable to laboratory testing.

Which is one of those excuses he is talking about.

"Excuses" sounds like a word used by someone who's already decided psychic abilities don't exist.

Like God and Aliens, for me, the proof is in the pudding. I'll believe in these things when someone offers actual, physical proof.

It's like Big Foot, most everyone on the planet has cell phones yet no one can get an actual picture of it...

 

[Gov Kodos]

Which is one of those excuses he is talking about.

"Excuses" sounds like a word used by someone who's already decided psychic abilities don't exist.

Like God and Aliens, for me, the proof is in the pudding. I'll believe in these things when someone offers actual, physical proof.

It's like Big Foot, most everyone on the planet has cell phones yet no one can get an actual picture of it...

Sure, use empiricism, like that ever proves anything. Next, you'll be expecting repeatable and independent verification and validation of the phenomenon.

 

[BillJ]

"Excuses" sounds like a word used by someone who's already decided psychic abilities don't exist.

Like God and Aliens, for me, the proof is in the pudding. I'll believe in these things when someone offers actual, physical proof.

It's like Big Foot, most everyone on the planet has cell phones yet no one can get an actual picture of it...

Sure, use empiricism, like that ever proves anything. Next, you'll be expecting repeatable and independent verification and validation of the phenomenon.

I don't have anything against God, Aliens, Big Foot or psychic powers. I'm just someone that needs the proof. I watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel and they sling the bullshit pretty well. But it still comes back to proof, which they have none.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Like God and Aliens, for me, the proof is in the pudding. I'll believe in these things when someone offers actual, physical proof.

It's like Big Foot, most everyone on the planet has cell phones yet no one can get an actual picture of it...

Sure, use empiricism, like that ever proves anything. Next, you'll be expecting repeatable and independent verification and validation of the phenomenon.

I don't have anything against God, Aliens, Big Foot or psychic powers.

So, this was your last job interview?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV6XTMpWU8Y[/yt]

 

[BillJ]

So, this was your last job interview?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV6XTMpWU8Y[/yt]

Pretty much.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

Like God and Aliens, for me, the proof is in the pudding. I'll believe in these things when someone offers actual, physical proof.

It's like Big Foot, most everyone on the planet has cell phones yet no one can get an actual picture of it...

Sure, use empiricism, like that ever proves anything. Next, you'll be expecting repeatable and independent verification and validation of the phenomenon.

I don't have anything against God, Aliens, Big Foot or psychic powers. I'm just someone that needs the proof. I watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel and they sling the bullshit pretty well. But it still comes back to proof, which they have none.

That proof may yet be coming:

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/20/42457...can-read-your-mind-and-prove-it-with-pictures

 

[BillJ]

Sure, use empiricism, like that ever proves anything. Next, you'll be expecting repeatable and independent verification and validation of the phenomenon.

I don't have anything against God, Aliens, Big Foot or psychic powers. I'm just someone that needs the proof. I watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel and they sling the bullshit pretty well. But it still comes back to proof, which they have none.

That proof may yet be coming:

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/20/42457...can-read-your-mind-and-prove-it-with-pictures

That is technology reading brain waves and thought patterns. I think what is being talked about here, is the unassisted ability to use the mind to read other people's thoughts and move objects.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

That is technology reading brain waves and thought patterns. I think what is being talked about here, is the unassisted ability to use the mind to read other people's thoughts and move objects.

BillJ, what I'm suggesting is that technology of the sort mentioned in the article may be of help in offering proof that psychic abilities exist.

 

[Pauln6]

That is technology reading brain waves and thought patterns. I think what is being talked about here, is the unassisted ability to use the mind to read other people's thoughts and move objects.

BillJ, what I'm suggesting is that technology of the sort mentioned in the article may be of help in offering proof that psychic abilities exist.

Certainly if someone could focus some kind of extra-sensory perception to do what the equipment does you can see a scientific basis for touch or short range telepathy of a similar level of sophistication to Troi's empathy.

 

[MantaBase]

I have found this thread very interesting. I am actually a space scientist and a number of the post put forward sparked my interest as there seems to be, with all do respect, some misconception about science.

For example, the fact that a mechanism is unknown - or even thought unplausible - does not mean a phenomena does not exist. We study known phenoms for mechanism, not the reverse. The Titus-Bode equation is an example of a phenom with no known mechanism.

In other words, just because one (or science) doesn't have a current explanation for something doesn't mean it does not exist or is not possible. Humans don't get to decide. It's not that easy. Reality exists outside of us - not because we decide it to be so.

Busting Another myth....scientists can indeed prove negatives. We just can't prove universal and non-spatially or temporally constrained negatives because we have no access to those variables or observations.

Also, just because it doesn't work in a lab doesn't mean it's not possible. Example, we can culture less than 1% of all bacteria. So a clean petre dish doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.

Interesting though. As for me. I do not preclude psychic abilities. There is much anecdotal evidence. However, the few studies I have bothered to read have all been flawed in testing for it.

EDIT: But the subject is human psy folks in Star Trek - so sorry to digress.

Anyways - interesting thread!

 

[LadyT'Anna]

I have found this thread very interesting. I am actually a space scientist and a number of the post put forward sparked my interest as there seems to be, with all do respect, some misconception about science.

For example, the fact that a mechanism is unknown - or even thought unplausible - does not mean a phenomena does not exist. We study known phenoms for mechanism, not the reverse. The Titus-Bode equation is an example of a phenom with no known mechanism.

In other words, just because one (or science) doesn't have a current explanation for something doesn't mean it does not exist or is not possible. Humans don't get to decide. It's not that easy. Reality exists outside of us - not because we decide it to be so.

Busting Another myth....scientists can indeed prove negatives. We just can't prove universal and non-spatially or temporally constrained negatives because we have no access to those variables or observations.

Also, just because it doesn't work in a lab doesn't mean it's not possible. Example, we can culture less than 1% of all bacteria. So a clean petre dish doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.

Interesting though. As for me. I do not preclude psychic abilities. There is much anecdotal evidence. However, the few studies I have bothered to read have all been flawed in testing for it.

EDIT: But the subject is human psy folks in Star Trek - so sorry to digress.

Anyways - interesting thread!

Please don't worry overmuch about digressing, MantaBase. The last part of Starborn Dragon's thread intro asked, "Why shouldn't humans be able to develop these abilities in themselves?" I took that to mean any humans, not just those in Trek.

May I ask what the flaws were in the studies you read? Also, may I ask what abilities were being posited in them?

 

[MantaBase]

May I ask what the flaws were in the studies you read? Also, may I ask what abilities were being posited in them?

Hmmm....it's been a long time (back when I had more time), but one sticks in my mind because it looked good at first. They were testing folks with cards. They had to guess the card on top of a deck. Sometimes the color, sometime the suit sometimes the actual card depending on which test. New deck every time and the subject never got to touch it. The subjects (or some of them) were consistently doing better than than random guessing at a statistically significant level. The test was double blind. Seemed good. But I got to thinking, they didn't track (or at least show) the progress through the deck and - after each prediction was made, the subject was shown the card - and they used single regular decks. Near the end of the deck, a pretty savvy person would be doing great - and maybe not even know they were counting cards.

I can't recall the details of the others ATM - but they had problems - like having the interviewer knowing the answers ahead of the "prediction". Some people are naturals at picking up very subtle clues from other people.

Also (and not to put down Russians) much of that stuff came out of USSR during the cold war. Not sure how trust worthy it really was by the time it got here.

Russians were (supposedly) testing telekinesis and also telepresense (not sure what it is called - but the person can see another location). I only heard of those studies - didn't see any actual outcome - so it could be totally untrue. Come to think of it...I can't recall were I heard it.

So, maybe I knit pic, but you know....the Segan Posit - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Maybe someday a tight study may show something.

 

[Poltargyst]

I have found this thread very interesting. I am actually a space scientist and a number of the post put forward sparked my interest as there seems to be, with all do respect, some misconception about science.

For example, the fact that a mechanism is unknown - or even thought unplausible - does not mean a phenomena does not exist. We study known phenoms for mechanism, not the reverse. The Titus-Bode equation is an example of a phenom with no known mechanism.

In other words, just because one (or science) doesn't have a current explanation for something doesn't mean it does not exist or is not possible. Humans don't get to decide. It's not that easy. Reality exists outside of us - not because we decide it to be so.

Busting Another myth....scientists can indeed prove negatives. We just can't prove universal and non-spatially or temporally constrained negatives because we have no access to those variables or observations.

Also, just because it doesn't work in a lab doesn't mean it's not possible. Example, we can culture less than 1% of all bacteria. So a clean petre dish doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.

Interesting though. As for me. I do not preclude psychic abilities. There is much anecdotal evidence. However, the few studies I have bothered to read have all been flawed in testing for it.

EDIT: But the subject is human psy folks in Star Trek - so sorry to digress.

Anyways - interesting thread!

My thinking exactly, thank you.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

May I ask what the flaws were in the studies you read? Also, may I ask what abilities were being posited in them?

Hmmm....it's been a long time (back when I had more time), but one sticks in my mind because it looked good at first. They were testing folks with cards. They had to guess the card on top of a deck. Sometimes the color, sometime the suit sometimes the actual card depending on which test. New deck every time and the subject never got to touch it. The subjects (or some of them) were consistently doing better than than random guessing at a statistically significant level. The test was double blind. Seemed good. But I got to thinking, they didn't track (or at least show) the progress through the deck and - after each prediction was made, the subject was shown the card - and they used single regular decks. Near the end of the deck, a pretty savvy person would be doing great - and maybe not even know they were counting cards.

I can't recall the details of the others ATM - but they had problems - like having the interviewer knowing the answers ahead of the "prediction". Some people are naturals at picking up very subtle clues from other people.

Also (and not to put down Russians) much of that stuff came out of USSR during the cold war. Not sure how trust worthy it really was by the time it got here.

Russians were (supposedly) testing telekinesis and also telepresense (not sure what it is called - but the person can see another location). I only heard of those studies - didn't see any actual outcome - so it could be totally untrue. Come to think of it...I can't recall were I heard it.

So, maybe I knit pic, but you know....the Segan Posit - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Maybe someday a tight study may show something.

Nitpicking is good in circumstances like these. I very much hope that someday a well-designed and -executed study will demonstrate the existence of a psychic power that will prove beneficial to people in general. I don't see many practical applications for guessing the correct card outside a casino (and they'll kick people out for that given enough correct guesses ). But it would be enormously helpful if psychics could be trained to find missing children, say, or to prevent a mass shooting.

 

[CAPTRousseau]

Well, at the time "Where No Man" was made, the idea was taken more seriously. In the '60s and '70s, some experiments seemed to show there was some kind of legitimate psychic phenomenon going on. It was later that we figured out that a lot of the experimental subjects were frauds; scientists merely report the evidence of their observations, so if you can fool their senses, i.e. give them bad data, they'll draw bad conclusions. Which is why it took magicians like James Randi and Johnny Carson to expose the frauds. (Carson and Randi totally demolished Uri Geller on The Tonight Show by setting up their tests in ways that didn't let Geller use the cheats he normally used.) Also, a lot of it was bad experimental design by researchers who were maybe a bit too eager to believe. (Like Zener cards, those cards from Ghostbusters with the shapes on them. Since there are only five of them, the odds of making a string of lucky guesses are much higher than they'd be for regular cards; also, some experiments failed to avoid reflective surfaces in which the testees could see the cards' reflections.)

So there was a lot of SF in the era that took psi powers seriously -- The Demolished Man, for instance, or a lot of Larry Niven's and Anne McCaffrey's work. (She was on record as believing that psi powers were real and scientifically valid; otherwise she wouldn't have used them in her work, since she always considered her work science fiction rather than fantasy.) WNM's idea that future science would have learned to codify and test for psi abilities in humans was pretty much in keeping with the thought of the era.

^^ That.

Google "Stargate Project" Not the Sci-Fi series. There was an actual CIA program that dealt with "Remote Viewing" as a form of psychic intel gathering. It was actually successful, but not to the extent it was a viable and useful program