is ESP real

[Judgeofwings]

Scientologist

Well, Will Smith is one. He was legendary in American Gangster.

[Rhinox]

http://oi52.tinypic.com/hs2hs5.jpg

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO INSINUATE HERE FRIEND

[Cooleko]

I actually read the research article a few months ago and had a lot of fun with it. It is full of terrible statistics but if they are right you should race home after your test to study so you will always do better on the test.

[Max™]

deja vu. you never saw these things in your dreams, but you "remembered" dreams that never happened later.

I know you won't believe me, and I'm not trying to convince you, just putting the most likely explanation out there. we have an exceedingly strong urge to believe that our memories are infallible when they are quite the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconception

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/misconceptions.png
'Grandpa, what was it like in the Before Time?'
'It was hell. People went around saying glass was a slow flowing liquid.
You folks these days don't know how good you have it.'

[Khamsin]

It seems to me the best way to test for "ESP", if they want to find the "see the future/clairvoyance/mind reading" kind as opposed to the "use knowledge, experience and perception to make educated guesses" kind, would be to not offer any multiple choice tests at all. Just simple ask "What's going to happen next?" and do something totally random, like whip out a balloon and pop it, or throw a glass of water at them.

It's kind of a flaw to test for ESP by asking multiple choice questions, or asking for the next random number generated by a computer or even a card from a shuffled deck. If someone had actual ESP, I doubt it'd be something that could give you such concise, yet useless, information on demand.

[Alleya]

The best thing to do if you want to know if ESP is real is to look at the applicants for the James Randi prize. Psyhics get to choose their own method of testing, provided it meets certain standards of rigor, and then fail miserably at them for our amusement.

What does this accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Even after failing utterly at the tests, the psychics just claim that their energies were blocked or some other crap.

[Max™]

It seems to me the best way to test for "ESP", if they want to find the "see the future/clairvoyance/mind reading" kind as opposed to the "use knowledge, experience and perception to make educated guesses" kind, would be to not offer any multiple choice tests at all. Just simple ask "What's going to happen next?" and do something totally random, like whip out a balloon and pop it, or throw a glass of water at them.

It's kind of a flaw to test for ESP by asking multiple choice questions, or asking for the next random number generated by a computer or even a card from a shuffled deck. If someone had actual ESP, I doubt it'd be something that could give you such concise, yet useless, information on demand.

The irony being, if someone had a psychic ability to obtain concise useless information on demand, it is quite possible that you would never have any opportunity to notice it, nor consider testing it.

Happily though, the lack of any evidence other than "3 people out of 1000 did this!" makes it a pretty easy thing to dismiss.

I mean, according to this: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/.../mor-mortality, 5 people managed to fart themselves to death in the last decade or so.

I'd argue that is a more impressive feat than guessing coin flips at a better than 50% rate.

[miokomioko]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconception

They could also add that Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Daniel Drawbaugh did, but lost the patent due to corrupt judges later found to have significant stock in Bell Telephone.

[Psion]

Not to say that ESP doesn't need testing with far larger sample sizes and the like, but the James Randi million dollar challenge has been had a lot of controversy over its standards, whose methodology wouldn't win any hearts in peer-reviewed journals.

I do wish people would do a test with say, 100,000 people or more, however, to at least get a better sample size.

The reason why multiple choice answers are generally used, however, is because remote viewing, where people try and see a distant object or area with their mind and describe it, requires a subjective researcher to read through and analyze what they wrote, which leads to biases, conscious or not. A researcher who believes in ESP, for instance, might be more forgiving in scoring how close a person came, while a disbeliever might reject possible evidence for ESP. Multiple choice options, however, can at least have issues like sample size addressed.

As for why ESP seems to be so weak, there's several possibilities. A) it's just a bunch of pseudoscience crap, and all results that show a possible positive effect for ESP are file-drawer effects and selective results. B) ESP is real, but it's just not strong C)ESP is real, and it's strong, but only a small amount of people can use it D)ESP isn't real, and all results are due to flawed experiments and machine malfunctions E) ESP is real, and strong, and everyone can use it, but it requires training like learning to lift heavy weights: anyone can do it, but only with lots of practice.

As far as those against, A and D are used to explain away all positive results, while most parapsychologists seem to favor E, where everyone seems to exhibit traits of it, and certain individuals, like those who have meditated for years, seem to be more powerful by quite a healthy margin. Unfortunately, the topic is almost as hotly debated as the existence of God, so it's nigh impossible to get any answers not steeped in either cynisicm (which people pretend is skepticism), or die hard belief. It's just one of those subjects I feel where whatever you believe to be true, is the correct answer.

[Khamsin]

Not to say that ESP doesn't need testing with far larger sample sizes and the like, but the James Randi million dollar challenge has been had a lot of controversy over its standards, whose methodology wouldn't win any hearts in peer-reviewed journals.

I do wish people would do a test with say, 100,000 people or more, however, to at least get a better sample size.

The reason why multiple choice answers are generally used, however, is because remote viewing, where people try and see a distant object or area with their mind and describe it, requires a subjective researcher to read through and analyze what they wrote, which leads to biases, conscious or not. A researcher who believes in ESP, for instance, might be more forgiving in scoring how close a person came, while a disbeliever might reject possible evidence for ESP. Multiple choice options, however, can at least have issues like sample size addressed.

As for why ESP seems to be so weak, there's several possibilities. A) it's just a bunch of pseudoscience crap, and all results that show a possible positive effect for ESP are file-drawer effects and selective results. B) ESP is real, but it's just not strong C)ESP is real, and it's strong, but only a small amount of people can use it D)ESP isn't real, and all results are due to flawed experiments and machine malfunctions E) ESP is real, and strong, and everyone can use it, but it requires training like learning to lift heavy weights: anyone can do it, but only with lots of practice.

As far as those against, A and D are used to explain away all positive results, while most parapsychologists seem to favor E, where everyone seems to exhibit traits of it, and certain individuals, like those who have meditated for years, seem to be more powerful by quite a healthy margin. Unfortunately, the topic is almost as hotly debated as the existence of God, so it's nigh impossible to get any answers not steeped in either cynisicm (which people pretend is skepticism), or die hard belief. It's just one of those subjects I feel where whatever you believe to be true, is the correct answer.

The problem with that is, if we assume ESP to be real, it must have a mechanism. I'm sure there's been research into that angle of it, that, if it were real, would offer an explanation of how it could work. And I have trouble believing in a "real, strong, ESP that takes training to use" without some sort of plausible mechanism that enables such a thing.

Set up some sensors around people's brains, try to pick up electromagnetic radiation, changes in gravity/weak force/strong force/the force, or whatever, and conduct the experiment inside a box that blocks all outside interference of the kind being tested, and see what's there. It's probably a better angle than asking people to guess, and trying to differentiate between statistical deviation and ESP candidates. I don't really believe in ESP, but I just get the feeling that the current popular methods of "testing" for ESP are going about it all the wrong ways. Researchers aren't being smart about it, they're just sticking to the romanticized notion of how we envision ESP might be, rather than looking seriously into any possible mechanism of extrasensory perception, including those that don't necessarily turn you into a mind-reading psychic fortune teller as a result.

Besides, human senses are kind of a grey area as it is, we've got our usual five senses that we learn before we even hit kindergarten, but also several more whose purpose is mainly to give us information about our selves, both inside (hunger, pain, etc.) and out (balance, position, etc.). If ESP were real, it wouldn't be a sixth sense, it'd be a hundredth sense, and might not be as neatly categorized as we'd like.

[Ansems]

I don't think ESP is real but I do think we underestimate the abilitys of our brains.

[Kaylia]

Fuck no, not this again.


I will take a debate about religion over this any fucking day.

[ZarakiKujata]

What if the religion is based on ESP?

[Qalbert]

I don't think ESP is real but I do think we underestimate the abilitys of our brains.

you just said abilitys. I think you are overestimating the abilities of yours.

[Psion]

The problem with that is, if we assume ESP to be real, it must have a mechanism. I'm sure there's been research into that angle of it, that, if it were real, would offer an explanation of how it could work. And I have trouble believing in a "real, strong, ESP that takes training to use" without some sort of plausible mechanism that enables such a thing.

Set up some sensors around people's brains, try to pick up electromagnetic radiation, changes in gravity/weak force/strong force/the force, or whatever, and conduct the experiment inside a box that blocks all outside interference of the kind being tested, and see what's there. It's probably a better angle than asking people to guess, and trying to differentiate between statistical deviation and ESP candidates. I don't really believe in ESP, but I just get the feeling that the current popular methods of "testing" for ESP are going about it all the wrong ways. Researchers aren't being smart about it, they're just sticking to the romanticized notion of how we envision ESP might be, rather than looking seriously into any possible mechanism of extrasensory perception, including those that don't necessarily turn you into a mind-reading psychic fortune teller as a result.

Besides, human senses are kind of a grey area as it is, we've got our usual five senses that we learn before we even hit kindergarten, but also several more whose purpose is mainly to give us information about our selves, both inside (hunger, pain, etc.) and out (balance, position, etc.). If ESP were real, it wouldn't be a sixth sense, it'd be a hundredth sense, and might not be as neatly categorized as we'd like.

To be fair, the current field is pretty much running on a budget funded entirely by donations and researchers own pockets. I'm not sure they can AFFORD to use most standard equipment, considering the costs. That being said, some research has tried to test to see these things, and one did scan the brains for unusual activity when trying to do ESP, but they reported nothing. However, one paper I read mentioned the data was flawed, as although the few (3? it was very small) couples tested didn't show any unusual PK activity, one pair that was NOT included in the paper showed significant activity as well as abnormal brain patterns, so it's possible it was just a flawed test. There has been experiments seeing if ESP and PK were based on electromagnetism, but putting people in Faraday cages and shielding against radiation supposedly improved the results, and such effects seem to apply regardless of time or distance without seeming to lose strength. Make what you will of that, flawed equipment or a force we don't understand, but ESP might not be something we can currently measure.

Of course, some parapsychologists have attempted to use quantum mechanics to explain a possible method to ESP, speculating over possible quantum state ions or some such in some structure in neurons. Sorry, I forgot exactly, but supposedly there was a structure in there that could support such quantum state particles. It wasn't confirmed that said particles existed in our brains when I read the paper, just that it should be possible and someone should check. Of course, physicists ::coughcoughwooziehack:: froth at the mouth over parapsychologists "abusing" their field by trying to use their models to explain their so called "hocus pocus", but eh, who cares about those dicks anyways? (i love you woozie, please don't kill me <3 ) Whether quantum physics actually has the answer or not, is just something we'll have to wait and see, however. Until we got the theory of everything, though, and it's been tested to explain it all, we can't really say with 100% certainty ESP does or doesn't exist, unless better testing methods and a lot of luck with breakthrough discoveries show beyond a reasonable doubt it does.

Fuck no, not this again.


I will take a debate about religion over this any fucking day.

And you hush, Kaylia, we aren't mucking up your LHC thread anymore, this is a ESP thread. You don't like the fact we're talking about ESP in a thread about ESP being real or not, then go back to your sciencey stuff in the LHC thread and don't bother reading this one.

[Chun Liroy]

WHERE DO YOU GET THESE GIFS ZAKARI.

Also, lol at this thread/article/everything.

[ZarakiKujata]

WHERE DO YOU GET THESE GIFS ZAKARI.

Also, lol at this thread/article/everything.

Because I'm really Rainn Wilson and in 2008 I took Jenna Fischer hostage to promote my awesome movie, The Rocker co-starring Emma Stone. During her captivity I forced her to make the videos these gifs are taken from

[BerenTebogo]

Is it ESP if you can predict that at least once a month someone will post a ridiculously fucking stupid pseudo-science supporting topic?

[foopy]

Is it ESP if you can predict that at least once a month someone will post a ridiculously fucking stupid pseudo-science supporting topic?

no sath, that's predicted by astrology.

[Alleya]

So far the argument in favor has been "the tests were just flawed! Quantum mechanics! If they would just give it more money it could be proven, despite all the dis-confirming evidence which I have previously explained away!"

Is anyone even going to bother with this one? I know I'm not.