Psychic Abilities For Humans?

[HIjol]

Very interesting and engaging Thread, with thoughtful, intelligent Posts!

We know relatively little of the physiology, psychology and potential of the Human Brain. We do not really know what is possible and attainable with respect to the "mental" abilities inherent in our minds.

That said, I believe Spock/Nimoy said it best.

"I like to think there are always...Possibilities"
Spock, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", and many other times.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

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

CAPTRousseau, this information is very interesting indeed, and I thank you for it. I hadn't heard of the Stargate Project until you mentioned it, nor had I realized that the U.S. Army was involved in experiments re: psychic phenomena. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

IMHO, remote viewing is far less likely to be successful than something like a Vulcan mind-meld, where the participants need to be in the same room, preferably touching, so that the electrical impulses being transmitted are easier to decipher.

HIjol, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if at least some psychic phenomena were to be proved as fact--and I'm not talking about counting cards. Why cross psychic occurrences off the list when so much of the mind remains unexplored?

 

[Marsden]

HIjol, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if at least some psychic phenomena were to be proved as fact--and I'm not talking about counting cards. Why cross psychic occurrences off the list when so much of the mind remains unexplored?

Well, there is a set of the population that likes everything categorized and set and anything that upsets that fragile balance for them is said not to exist. After all accepting something would mean they might have to question their own worldview, so they demand "proof" for anything they don't want to accept. They hide behind science like a shield rather than using it to learn.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

HIjol, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if at least some psychic phenomena were to be proved as fact--and I'm not talking about counting cards. Why cross psychic occurrences off the list when so much of the mind remains unexplored?

Well, there is a set of the population that likes everything categorized and set and anything that upsets that fragile balance for them is said not to exist. After all accepting something would mean they might have to question their own worldview, so they demand "proof" for anything they don't want to accept. They hide behind science like a shield rather than using it to learn.

Allow me to return to the analogy of Leonardo da Vinci sketching helicopters. He was ahead of his time by a few centuries, but science caught up eventually. There's always hope, right?

 

[MantaBase]

Well, there is a set of the population that likes everything categorized and set and anything that upsets that fragile balance for them is said not to exist. After all accepting something would mean they might have to question their own worldview, so they demand "proof" for anything they don't want to accept. They hide behind science like a shield rather than using it to learn.

There are MANY misconceptions about science and the scientific method. Folks that like things put into two boxes (black or white, right or wrong, left or right) make poor scientists.

One of the biggest misconceptions about science efforts has to do with "proof" (or near certainty) and "evidence" (or support). These two words mean very different things. For example, there is much evidence for the existence of ghosts - and if one throws out the concept of them as "supernatural" then there is plausible scientific evidence of ghosts -and much of it.

It's about at this point someone with a dualistic universal view would roll their eyes and become dismissive - but they are not science folk. As a scientist I am forced to consider this evidence without bias (and any failure to do so is my own personal failure). And there is evidence that opposes the existence of ghosts - much more rare, but I have to consider that (not that I study this subject mind you - but ifr I did). Scientifically, the only current conclusion to come to on ghosts it that it is inconclusive. There is no certainty in either direction and thus claiming any is a belief, not science. And yet you will find many folks that will claim some strange scientific shield for the subject. When in fact, we just don't know. Going anyplace beyond "unlikely" as an interpretation is a personal feeling or a "bet"....not science. EDIT: Not that I want to insult anyone who thinks ghosts are real....I do not.

So, I used a way out there example, but I hope it helps.

As far as my personal beliefs on this example subject? I will keep that personal.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

For example, there is much evidence for the existence of ghosts

Such as?

 

[MantaBase]

Such as?

Well,

EM fluctuations in off the grid facilities that are coincident with temperature drops - using DC equipment with separate and isolated power (lol....I love that one....they were batteries). Audio anomalies. Eyewitness accounts/testimonials (some even from skeptics) of localized foul smells, otherwise unexplained object movements, strange sounds, strange sights, etc.... Video anomalies. I suspect you know the drill.

So that is evidence in support of. Some of it anecdotal. some of it measurement. Is it Proof? Not at all (not even close). Is it even good evidence? Debatable - some of it is certainly interesting. Interesting enough that if I were retired and didn't give a crap about my reputation, I would investigate it further - and a bit more properly. But its evidence none-the-less.

The fact that much of the evidence might be explained by something other than ghosts (or whatever the pseudo technical term is) - malfunctions, hysteria, mis-interpreted natural phenomena - is relevant and important - but unless those alternative explanations can be proven reproducibly (and few seem interested in doing so), they are only plausible. Thus the claim of evidence (not proof) of ghost phenomenon holds. I am not opposed to a bit of Ockham's Razor here, but even that needs some confirmation in some cases.

Not really sure why that bothers some people - you know, that evidence can exist for something that may not be true (or might).

Think about a courtroom. Evidence is presented from both sides - each supporting a different premise. Only one premise is true, but there can be evidence for both. Of course, in the courtroom they also get to suppress that which doesn't support their claim. Good science doesn't intentionally do that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Such as?

Well,

EM fluctuations in off the grid facilities that are coincident with temperature drops - using DC equipment with separate and isolated power (lol....I love that one....they were batteries). Audio anomalies. Eyewitness accounts/testimonials (some even from skeptics) of localized foul smells, otherwise unexplained object movements, strange sounds, strange sights, etc.... Video anomalies. I suspect you know the drill.

So that is evidence in support of. Some of it anecdotal. some of it measurement. Is it Proof? Not at all (not even close). Is it even good evidence? Debatable - some of it is certainly interesting. Interesting enough that if I were retired and didn't give a crap about my reputation, I would investigate it further - and a bit more properly. But its evidence none-the-less.

The fact that much of the evidence might be explained by something other than ghosts (or whatever the pseudo technical term is) - malfunctions, hysteria, mis-interpreted natural phenomena - is relevant and important - but unless those alternative explanations can be proven reproducibly (and few seem interested in doing so), they are only plausible. Thus the claim of evidence (not proof) of ghost phenomenon holds. I am not opposed to a bit of Ockham's Razor here, but even that needs some confirmation in some cases.

Not really sure why that bothers some people - you know, that evidence can exist for something that may not be true (or might).

Think about a courtroom. Evidence is presented from both sides - each supporting a different premise. Only one premise is true, but there can be evidence for both. Of course, in the courtroom they also get to suppress that which doesn't support their claim. Good science doesn't intentionally do that.

No. Not even a little bit.

 

[MantaBase]

No. Not even a little bit.

Hmmm....explain please? Or is it just opinion.

EDIT - Actually, it occurs to me I don't even get your answer. It's nonsensical. What are you saying no to....and why?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No. Not even a little bit.

Hmmm....explain please? Or is it just opinion.

There's nothing in your post that constitutes evidence, in any way, shape, or form, supporting the existence of ghosts. I hope that's clear enough.

If you'd like to discuss this topic further, I suggest that you open a thread for it in the Science and Technology forum, accessible from the main page of the site. There, you can present all the evidence you like, subject to moderation by the SciTech moderators.

This sort of thing is pretty off-topic, for TOS.

 

[MantaBase]

There's nothing in your post that constitutes evidence, in any way, shape, or form, supporting the existence of ghosts. I hope that's clear enough.

If you'd like to discuss this topic further, I suggest that you open a thread for it in the Science and Technology forum, accessible from the main page of the site. There, you can present all the evidence you like, subject to moderation by the SciTech moderators.

This sort of thing is pretty off-topic, for TOS.

Thank you for the suggestion, but the subject of the thread includes psychic abilities. Multiple post confused "evidence" with "proof" as part of the natural wandering of the thread. I am giving over-the-top examples to make a point - but I am in topic of the thread at this point.

Please define "evidence" - because thus far I only have your opinion, which is no more valid than mine or any other person's. So Far it seems to be defined by you as "if it supports by belief paradigm, then it is evidence". And that is not the general or accepted definition of the word which is closer to "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." These types of claims are part of the available body of facts - unless they are falsified - which needs to be shown but since there are plenty of alternative explanations, I suspect they are not falsified.

And also, don't bait folks. That wasn't very cool really - and not nice.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sorry, no. The topic of the thread is properly regarding psychic abilities in the original series of Star Trek. Whenever we've expanded the discussion to involve the real world, so far it's generally always been with an eye on how it does or might relate to Star Trek. It's not a free-for-all for all paranormal topics, and, in my opinion, straying to discuss whatever scientific evidence there may or may not be for ghosts in the real world is straying to far, and that discussion really belongs in the SciTech forum. That's what that forum is for. I apologize for having invited that discussion with respect to ghosts at all in this thread, because I really shouldn't have.

 

[MantaBase]

Sorry, no. The topic of the thread is properly regarding psychic abilities in the original series of Star Trek. Whenever we've expanded the discussion to involve the real world, so far it's generally always been with an eye on how it does or might relate to Star Trek. It's not a free-for-all for all paranormal topics, and, in my opinion, straying to discuss whatever scientific evidence there may or may not be for ghosts in the real world is straying to far, and that discussion really belongs in the SciTech forum. That's what that forum is for. I apologize for having invited that discussion with respect to ghosts at all in this thread, because I really shouldn't have.

Threads have to be allowed to wander a bit and the view that some folks have in relation to science (in RL) in this thread which relates to TOS are flawed. Seriously (no know mechanism = false? Really?)

However, you are correct....my use of over-the-top examples invited attention (yours included) which were not ST related -outside the subject - this is not a "paranormal forum". It was just supposed to be an example. I'll try to not do that - or not comment at all really. I don't like offending folk or calling them out...so sorry if my request for a definition seemed that way.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Threads have to be allowed to wander a bit and the view that some folks have in relation to science (in RL) in this thread which relates to TOS are flawed.

Yes, threads have been allowed to wander. But, to get into the nature of science and evidence is surely beyond the scope of TOS and properly belongs in the SciTech forum. That was something key that I was getting at.

I wouldn't assume that the moderators of the TOS forum want to moderate such a discussion, when there is that other forum available just for that purpose, with moderators all willing and able.

If the TOS moderators assure us otherwise, then I suspect there are at least several board members who'd be delighted to have a discussion about the nature of evidence right here in this thread, if they'd choose to participate, in addition to the SciTech forum. Until *I* get such assurances, though, I won't comment further.

 

[MantaBase]

I wouldn't assume that the moderators of the TOS forum want to moderate such a discussion, when there is that other forum available just for that purpose, with moderators all willing and able.

I am certain the moderators will PM me or take other action if required. Thank you for your advice. As said, I will stay away from over the top examples. Are there any other expressions I should be afraid of making that may induce the reaction of the moderators? Can I mention Data in the TOS forum (as an example)?

EDIT: Jeesh - I think now *I* am trolling. My Apologies. For me it is Friday and my child is out of town and I am spending too much time in front of the thought killing box. Talk to you later. I only ever cam to this forum to relax and talk to folks about a strange passion for TOS ST.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I wouldn't assume that the moderators of the TOS forum want to moderate such a discussion, when there is that other forum available just for that purpose, with moderators all willing and able.

I am certain the moderators will PM me or take other action if required. Thank you for your advice. As I said, I will stay away from over the top examples. Are there any other expressions I should be afraid of making that may induce the reaction of the moderators? Can I mention Data in the TOS forum (as an example)?

Ask a moderator.

 

[T'Bonz]

OK, back to Trek.

And don't mini-mod, CorporalCaptain. Digits and I are perfectly capable of slapping people if necessary. We don't need assistance. Thanks.

 

[Marsden]

I only ever cam to this forum to relax and talk to folks about a strange passion for TOS ST.

Me, too!


We Reach!

 

[LadyT'Anna]

It's interesting that both Khan Noonian Singh and Gary Mitchell appear to have eidetic memory and perfect recall, yet only Mitchell is deemed to be an esper.

 

[Floyd McKack]

I am entirely against psychic abilities for humans. As if technology wasn't enough of a distraction already; do we really need pyrokinesis and similar newfangled distractions? I say no. I urge you all to boycott those retailers selling psychic abilities. Our teenagers have a hard enough time in school already.