Physicist Michio Kaku said “ Some scientists sneer at the mention of higher dimensions because they cannot be conveniently measured in the laboratory.” So as for ESP it is possible that scientific methods may be difficult but that does not necessarily mean that ESP should be ruled out .
In science we are sceptical of everything, and only accept the most rigorously tested and demonstrated positive evidence. In that sense science isn’t about ruling things out, we default to skepticism and rule things in only as the evidence compels us.
@@thesystem6246 it’s certainly true that it is impossible to prove a negative. As Hume pointed out we can’t rule out the idea that the universe might cease to exist tomorrow, we can just assign it an extremely small probability. All knowledge is contingent and that applies to scientific knowledge just as much as anything else. It’s important to recognise that. I don’t mean that the scientific method doesn’t rule stuff out, ruling things out is the default. Newtonian mechanics is a great example to think about. It was ruled in because it was so fantastically good at explaining observed behaviour for hundreds of years. It still works for all those observations, and we still use it to this day in engineering far more often than we use the theories that ultimately supplanted it. There’s a reason it’s still taught in schools. In that sense it’s not been ruled out at all. It’s just that now we understand it’s limitations. We know our current theories have limitations too. However that’s no reason to just accept any suggestion that comes along. Each potential new theory or observation has to meet the highest most rigorous standards of evidence. Every time those standards are compromised it doesn’t end well. You’re right, history is littered with examples of discarded theories that were ruled out, probably hundreds for every theory that ever got ruled in. That’s why we have to be so careful.
"Telepathy exists,.. .,only, . Yes, not quite, Small noises, actually it's caused by just thinking, eg words of like, fondness, words of, dislike, hate, violent acts,.. ..., but we can know, it's not just that since we communicate with animals who we assume don't think a human language manner.
@@TheDeepening718 Just so everyone knows what your comments said, this, "Thoughts cannot show contempt for what is inferior." You pertain to the idea that only a greater force, intelligence, decides, "What is inferior," Well many believe in that way, look at the Golden Age, when -------s used the sword, took slavess, destroyed, one, two, there, up and coming civilisations, when at their will, the Third Reich killed 600, 000, 000, disabled, mentally ill, gypsies, homosexuals, and what was the other, oh, Je---. I take it this is what you wish to draw peoples attention to, approx, "Because they think this is what god says, this what we can do, should do,.." I think people will be glad you commented, huh!
@@John-uh8kl I don't care what everyone knows about the actions of this body, it's the ego and the ego is false, and besides the western world is a disgrace, they have no authority to point fingers.
Beginning at 3:20 Robert introduces what I've also observed. Comes under the term *confirmation bias* where you choose the results that suit your agenda and throw out all the rest. Seems to be particularly strong in ESP research. I've seen Rupert Sheldrake, for example, promoting a particularly compelling subset of results for three sisters and their ability to anticipate phone calls from each other - but at the end of the day, how replicable was this, from amid the myriad of other results that he chose to reject? Which brings us to 5:56 "Could ESP be something [...] not subject to replicability?" Great reply from Jonathan Schooler, and a wonderful example of how conversations in science should proceed. My own bias is in favor of entanglement. But ESP, while perhaps related, is not the same thing. ESP, as popularly understood, relates to the transmission of tangible information in localized contexts (like between specific people and places), whereas entangled selves relates to something quite different, nonlocal. So yes, you can be swayed in favor of nonlocal entanglement, while remaining cautiously skeptical about ESP. In the spirit of Schooler's approach, I can keep an open mind.
All good points, but it's also important to remember that 'confirmation bias' is simply an inherent part of human psychology, and so makes its presence felt across all domains of scientific inquiry. The near-infinite number of different models for inflation, and likewise for string theory, come to mind easily. As do any number of other physical models. That said though, keeping an open mind - being a good Bayesian thinker - is something that most people _don't_ do. Smart people are always willing to accept new evidence into their mental frameworks, thus keeping themselves open to new possibilities. Einstein got quite a few things right during his stellar career, but crucially he also got quite a lot wrong, too. He didn't have access to any information that wasn't available to anyone else, he was just better than everyone else at being able to sieve through it all and pull out the relevant pieces. The great 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes was asked once by a journalist why it was that he kept changing his economic models all the time, he responded: *"When the facts change I alter my mind accordingly! What do **_you_** do, sir?"*
I think using subjective experience as an example of something that is true but which science can not 'prove' surely can't be applied to anything else and can't really get us anywhere, because it's completely self evident and is the foundation of our very existence. Other unproveable things are not so self evident.
In some number of years, the expansion of space will make it such that we will not be able to see a single other galaxy from the Milky Way. Based on our current understanding of physics, future civilizations will look up at a largely empty sky and have literally 0 scientific way to prove their are other galaxies; all they'll have to know them by is historical records. Another intelligent species on another planet that comes into existence _after_ that point won't even have historical records; they'll just think the entire universe is our single galaxy with no reason to think and no way to prove otherwise. That might be why subjective experience seems like a singular example that "can't be applied to anything else". Much like other galaxies to that future intelligent species on the other side of the Milky Way, we simply have little to no capacity to even be aware of those things which science cannot prove.
I had one experience with it so I know it is real. Nothing like it ever happened again to me and this was impossible. I would not believe anyone who told me this happened to them so that is fair. But real is real. Short version is I was 14 playing a baseball game that my dad said he would make it to. Halfway through the game we were at bat sitting in the dugout and he was not in the stands. I kept running though my mind where he could be and what he could possibly be doing right now that was making him late. Suddenly my entire upper lip felt a sensation that I had never felt before. It was very strongly itching but not itching. The sensation was confined to my upper lip and lasted about a minute or two. I thought maybe poison ivy but yet it did not feel like it. He never made the game but I told my mom about the weird feeling on my lip and that maybe I had poison ivy. When we got home we found my dad had gotten home from work late and had just decided out of the blue, without saying anything to anyone beforehand, to shave off his mustache that he had worn for many years. I was more than a bit freaked out. It was such a powerful sensation and years later when I started shaving myself, the sensation finally made sense and matched the action.
Nice . . . intellectual honesty . . . if not actual scientific rigor. And i must accept his position that so called scientific rigor may never be able to apprehend some aspects of existence.
It is a tantalising question: are there natural phenomena that are objectively true that cannot be determined by the scientific method? I'll need to think about that one.
If a phenomenon is objectively true, it can, by definition, be determined by using the scientific method. Originally, the guy proposes a new method that could reveal whether ESP is objectively true, but then, when they don't get the results he want, he resorts to the "invisible dragon" (something I claim exists but cannot be detected) argument.
I don't believe in spiritual experiences or ESP--I know. I am not interested in studies nor am I interested in proving it to anyone; I can't. I have had dreams which accurately show me what is going to happen and when it happens it is with perfect detail. I do not study ESP nor entertain thoughts about it; it just happens. Now I can't prove this to anyone and what I am saying means nothing to anyone. But my personal subjective experience is enough for me to know it is incredibly real.
An elder sasquatch showed me psychic phenomenon is real. Those sasquatch can affect your dreams, give you psychic visions (project images), remote view, astral project, and cloak. Clairaudence and telekinesis seems to be real too.
When I think about these sorts of things, I think about the methodology of science. Science works by trying to understand phenomena by understanding the simplest solutions to questions, and it works quite well at this. But what happens when a question is increasingly complex? Science fails to describe the questions addressed by the humanities for precisely this reason. Understanding how a neuron works does not explain why a person feels the way they do, for example. And the more complex a question, the more difficult it is to understand it scientifically. Eventually science reaches a limit. So if parascientific phenomena are too complex to be replicated, this does not mean they are not real. It merely means we can’t use scientific tools to understand them. So what do we use? That’s the big question, and one to which I’m afraid I don’t have an answer.
When I was very young my father, always fascinated by Native America culture, told me the following was a well known Native American saying (I’ve since heard it attributed to several different ethnic groups) ‘One white crow proves all crows aren’t black’ In my scientific meanderings over the years, that concept plagued many of my thoughts. It would serve to become a useful explanation for the following experience. I was 11 years old being raised in a traditional loving and supportive family. Both my parents were more often than not working past the time I was to get home from school. It was an ordinary day from school. The school bus let me off three doors away from home. I said an enthusiastic goodby to my friends as I walked towards my house, remembering my instructions that if my mother wasn’t there (my father never got home early) I was to wait inside the house for about 15 minutes and if she didn’t make it, go to the next door neighbours to wait. I walked up to the screen door, opened it to the inner proper door, and while grabbing the handle was immediately frozen and filled with anticipation of something to prepare for. Before I was able to push the door open, a tiny bright blue light, similar to a electric welding arc spark about the size of a B.B. came through the door, through my belly and out through my back. Now I anticipated something very negative. I slowly, cautiously opened the door to find my father sitting in his lounge chair deceased. There was no car in the driveway, my mother had drove him home because he felt slightly ill, the used the car to return to work. There was nothing to give me a hint he would be there. Let alone deceased. He was 47 years old, never ill. A heart attack. Now. I don’t believe that it necessarily means there’s a forever continuation of life after death, or any possibility of clear detailed communication imperative from my father. But something inexplicable happened. Nothing like that happened ever again. But I was 11 years old, non-religious household, never any discussions regarding topics in this category. Nor was I given any expectation something like this would ever happen, to me or anyone. But it did. My first pure, untainted experiment. Never to be repeated. But it happened. My White crow.
Quoted from our lovely internet: "The scientific study of love is still ongoing, as there hasn't been any hard evidence to determine whether or not love is, in fact, real-or that it's just made up and merely exists in our minds." Don't let science be the arbiter of what is real in the short-term. Science is the guys who thought all of space was filled with some aether that transmitted gravity like air transmits sound. I mean, really? How thick was that aether and how did the planets move through it? Why didn't we feel it on the surface of the Earth? Science is brilliant long-term but in the short-term it is often stunningly stupid. The aether theory dominated scientific thinking for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
Also lack of spam ESP calls in foreign languages. Seems to happen only in language understood by the receiver. May be there is a universal translator on the ESP channel. /sarcasm
What a monomentally stupid comment. If the phenomenon is real why should it work like that? Demonstrate that you can have an errection instantly and wherever or we will conclude your are impotent.
Our grip on this subject is not such that we cannot be certain if ESP is for real. For instance animals could have ESP and we maybe not. Other than that the casino business is shady not sure why you bring up those clowns.
@@saigopalauantum mechanics, relativity, chaos theory, information theory, etc, etc. There are plenty of things that are deeply counterintuitive that we have investigated, tested and accepted. I see no reason to believe that us a significant obstacle. If anything ESP is too simplistically intuitive, simply drawing a line from intention to action without bothering with the hard work of figuring out the details of causation. That’s why people keep falling for it. The simplicity is too seductive. This is also why it’s such a rich field for charlatans. I intend this, hand wavey theatrics, it happens. Just don’t investigate the theatrics too much, or it all falls apart.
The discussion hear suggests that those conducting ESP research are basically manipulating results; this is a pity as it appears to betray a bias against the subject from the start. I do agree with the later suggestion that ESP in the wider world of human experience may be a real thing that cannot be easily tested in a lab.
Claims that some event can be attributed to ESP is equivalent to claiming that the event in question is attributable to unknown physics. Therefore, threshold for significance should be that which is used in physics experiments, .0000003 (approx 1 in 3.5 million). .05 is absurdly low, IMHO.
Google retrocausality and the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Google Stuart Hameroff and microtubules for why the brain might be subjected to quantum effects. Google quantum entanglement across time. Put these three subjects together, all being investigated by reputable scientific investigation, and you can piece together a story for precognition. The brain has a quantum component within the microtubules of nerurons. Neural networks generate our thoughts. Retrocausality has been demonstrated in quantum experiments. Therefore, there is a chain of reasoning, somewhat speculative, that leads to a natural explanation for precognition. Neural networks may have evolved to harness quantum entanglement with a its future state, resulting in a survival advantage of being able to react to danger more quickly than classical physics can account for. The sensing the future is a weak affect, so we don't go around sensing what's going to happen next. It is overwhelmed by the classical operation of our normal thoughts. People generally experience precognition when in a relaxed mental state, and the future event is unexpected. Therefore, if you wanted to test for it, you would want test subjects who believe they experience precognition frequently and you would want the test conductors to be skeptical, say someone like yourself, lol. Google Dayrl Bem precognition. Yes, his test method/analysis have been questioned, but that has to be expected for making the claim that the future already exists and that it can be sensed.
It's difficult to understand and even more difficult to spot. When you're found to have a 6th sense, a crew of professionals get flown out to assault your senses, poison you, and make you have a mental breakdown. They make sure you can't work of course. If you had money you would simply move. Basically you're seen as a freak and a genius at the same time. The funny part is they always know when to stop the sensory assault. Then they resume like a well-oiled machine.
My form of telepathy makes most sense it's just talking mentally. I don't know about mind reading or hypnoses even. To me mind reading is not really communicating, seeing what others are seeing or knowing what's in someones else's mind. Thought transmission is treu telepathy.
"Could you have a real phenomena that is not subject to replicability?" Most emphatically yes. In fact, such phenomena are common. Think of human relationships that just...work. Try to repeat that with a random stranger. Fail. Think of a movie project that hits on all cylinders. Hollywood would love you if you could replicate that. Few directors can. Those few who can do so end up monstrously rich because it is a rare feat.
Plato - learning is merely a recollection. 'A sculpturer merely removes the coarse from the sculpture; the form is already there, in the stone'. The intelligible realities is indispensable. Somehow we're able to acknowledge, comprehend, relate to, make sense of, sympathize , or greater yet empathize. The Soul certainly must be realized: the union and relation of all things.
At least some forms of ESP are perfectly consistent with known physics. My "Questioning the mechanistic-universe paradigm using chaotic systems" argues the case for this counterintuitive claim. In the appendix of my "Remembering the Future" I describe a very simple field experiment which anyone can repeat. It worked frighteningly well for me. Twice.
Well, I had better go buy your books since you won't reveal the field experiment that definitely worked twice and never again to prove ESP. Did you know I'd post this reply to you?
@@Bill..N many physicists argue for a lack of fundamental direction of time. It doesn't seem infeasible for subconscious routines are providing information outside of the physical sensory if your subconscious has access to non local and non temporally bound information. we already know that, as of last year, there are no hidden variables with quantum spook. this implies, to an extent, that we already have reason to believe in non local processes. If you combine this concept with panpsychism, which isn't thaattt fringe but fringe nonetheless, you could create a model of consciousness that runs on a buffer window of time and space. maybe you aren't a discrete line where the future is ahead and the past is behind but rather you are perceiving and processing a constantly buffered window that drops off in both directions of time ie you are basically always using a few milliseconds worth of backwards and forwards info to make decisions. anyways not confirmed at all but there are serious^tm philosophers, metaphysics and consciousness nerds who are dipping there toes into it. this isn't some radical idea of ghosts or voodoo, just that your consciousness may have access to a bit more than you think in order to commit the perception of progress, action, choice, time, things, etc.
I would like to argue, that the definition for absurdity(insanity) is to believe in things, that are less than 3d etc. nonexisting, or unnatural/supernatural, as there is just infinite empty space with some materia.
All this awkward straining to hope something is true... for what? What's the utility of this hypothetical elusive property about which we can't make predictions, recreate conditions to examine or even define? Just entertainment?
the mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master, as long as the mind does as required all goes well... 'esp' belongs to the realm of the heart I experience it every day... the heart is where 'I am' resides.
Maybe "you" reside nowhere, it is just a trick of the mind to survive to give you such illusion. A wave resides nowhere in essence as a part of the ocean. If the ocean is consciousness then you never decay.
I have had only ONE experience that seemed hands-down to be an example of ESP: I called a friend (against our policy; he is always supposed to call me due to his having a cheaper plan) and when he didn't answer his phone within 3-4 rings (he is a gardener and there was no rational reason for him to answer his phone in fewer than half a dozen rings on any given day; this was a land-line) I felt a wave of FEAR overcome me. He answered but died later that day. He was killed by an unknown and unknowable error in his diabetes medicine. It starved his brain and he slowly died in his home. So far as I knew, he should have lasted for years. So what prompted me to call him (for literally the first time in YEARS) and why did I feel such an uncharacteristic wave of terror? ESP is not non-existent but it is either rare or rarely non-trivial. I've never seen ball-lightning but I know it exists. In thousands of years of human history, 95% of people have never seen it. At all. 357.
Depending on the study and the experimental setup, all you need is a single non- null result for ESP. If I tried a million times to lift a pencil with my mind, and fail, but succeed on the 1,000,001 time... that's proof positive enough for something like ESP. Any significant non- null result would be indicative of SOMETHING.
That’s not how science works. Evidence must be repeatable. What are the chances when performing the experiment that you make a mistake, that you think it moved when it didn’t, that it moved for a reason you failed to take into account. Is the chance one in a million? Even if the chance is one in ten million, that’s too high for a single measurement to be accepted. The standard fur accepting evidence in the physical sciences is very exacting. There is no reason to apply lesser standards to ESP than we do in other investigations in physical science.
@@simonhibbs887 if ESP is real, I'm going to differ with you on that. I know how science works, I'm just saying that in reality, a clear example of telekinesis against a million failed tries, means there's probably telekinesis, whether it meets a scientific threshold or not. Because if ESP is not real, it should never work. Statistically significant would be anything that's not zero for something telekinetic. Guessing a card, you have a 1/ 52 chance, so if testing comes out at 3/ 52, over and over, that's probably statistically significant. But if someone recites to you all 52 cards in order one out of a million times, and fails the rest of the time, that's also significant, because you can have more permutations of 52 cards than there are grains of sand on all earth's beaches. I'm just saying, a large signal in a lot of noise would be significant, so the definitions of statistical significance would depend on the thing tested and the strength of the signal. And I argue, you need to lower that threshold for significance on certain tests.
Why worry? Just use Wikipedia to smear any investigator in Psi and pretend you're open and objective when you're about as closed minded as you possibly can be. Censorship for the win!
theres not enough true scientific evidence based on my research but there certainly is anecdotal experience. I tend to think extra sensorial experience happen when they want to.
I see a problem with the argument at the end of the video. If there are things that will literally evade our scientific knowledge no matter how advanced such knowledge becomes, then it seems odd that the effects of these unknowable laws would show themselves, given our admittedly low level of current understanding, with any significance statistically. You can't eat your cake and still have it, too. Go Bluejays!
The foundational premise of my ToE is that all of the information ever generated since the beginning of Existence is stored within a nondimensional database (what we call "the past"). I also argue that this nondimensional information can be instantaneously accessed without the "speed of light" barrier that we experience within multidimensionality. When you die, your life-information gets added to the collective database and the information that makes up "you" has instant access to this data. This could also explain some confusing aspects of quantum entanglement. So, even though I do not believe that anyone living actually has ESP, the "concept" that you can simultaneously be thinking what someone else is thinking or know where someone three states away has buried a body is plausible. What would not fit with my model is _"knowledge of the future."_ ... You cannot have precog knowledge of events that have not yet happened.
You believe the exact opposite of me! Sounds like you believe in a God, or an experimentalist, because you give death a special significance, when all will be revealed. Whereas I believe in precognition and skeptical of remote viewing, you are opposite. I suggest that remote viewers are shown the target location near the end of the viewing session. So the accuracy of their remote viewing may be precognition of what they will be shown at the end of the test. Daryl Bem of Cornell has conducted experiments that suggest memorizing the answers after taking a test helps you do better on the test. Quantum retrocausality + quantum brain = premonition.
A variation on the Double slit test has shown otherwise on the quantum level information is transferred as if there is no time and space in other words the future can effect the past just by observation. It blew my mind
@@OldTestament1 *"information is transferred as if there is no time and space in other words the future can effect the past just by observation."* ... I'm not convinced anything can be "pulled from the future" since the future is only a specific degree of possibility based on data acquired from past and present events. I think if someone thinks this is happening it's because the scientific data is being misinterpreted. It seems like people are far more willing to accept things that don't make sense - especially when these fantastic claims have science backing them. I'm guilty of that to a degree. I know my "instantaneous data" theory is an unproven claim, but I'm not arguing it's purely "scientific." Since information is dimensionless, I can logically argue that it wouldn't be subject to time or restrained by distance.
@@OldTestament1That’s a consequence of violation of the Bell inequalities. The settings of an instrument performing a measurement are correlated with the variable they are measuring. Classically this seems impossible because the variable is determined ‘before’ the measurement is made. However it seems as though in QM terms the point of measurement and point of origin of the quantum variable are in some way coterminous. They appear to somehow occur simultaneously. At least that’s what appears to happen. We have no idea how to reconcile this with relativity though. It’s a real conundrum. Personally I favour superdeterminism as offering a plausible resolution but that’s not a popular view. It does seem to be gaining credence though.
The thing is there are many different kinds of information. There’s quantum information which is always preserved, but really just means that at any given point the universe contains all the information needed to determine its state at a future point. Then there’s classical information which is encoded in the relationships between macroscopic phenomena such as bits in a computer or writing on paper. Then there’s information about things, or knowledge, which is information describing other physical states. It’s when classical information corresponds to other classical information. So for example information about the weather in a database, or the blueprints of a house that correspond to the structure of the house. So it very much depends what sort of information we’re talking about. I think the organisation of my body is classical information. When my body decays, that information will be lost. On the other hand if the block time hypothesis is true, the fact that it existed as me is an absolute fact of the block universe. Fun stuff to think about.
People can test their own ESP when driving a car in traffic. Watch the cars ahead and predict when a driver ahead will change lanes. If you do this often, you will see that you often can get it right. I think without this low level ESP-like abilities, we would have many more traffic accidents. Not a controlled experiment, but interesting and anyone can try it.
Belief is all there is. Scientific method is a system of belief. Tao te Ching is a system of belief. Different systems don't disagree, they talk about different things. Pitch forks and salad forks are functionally identical, use the proper tool for the proper task.
The scientific method is not a belief because the method itself does not tell you what to believe. Rather it is a system for testing beliefs. This is what distinguishes it from all the actual belief systems you listed, and it is why the scientific method can be applied to them. The method itself does not care what it verifies. If ESP worked then the scientific method would test it and demonstrate it to be accurate.
@@simonhibbs887 I only read far enough to see you missed the word system. Science is a system that aids in establishing objective well documented concepts of reality. The outputs science can give are things I believe. It is the system my beliefs about everything are derived from in applying. I believe the system of science. Science is my system of belief. I have also the belief system of Taoism. Taoism provides a system not for objectifying the world for me, for me Taoism is a system of framing my experiences as to the dynamics of the interplay between elements of the universe of my habitat. I believe the system of belief of Taoism. Like I said there are pitch forks and salad forks, best to use the technology which is best suited for the task.
@@Στο_πιο_δικαιο I thought you’d listed some other belief systems in your post but maybe I was mistaken. Taoism does seem more or less compatible with science in its claims, more so than many traditional belief systems.
I can testify that E.S.P. most certainly does exist as I personally experienced this strange phenomenon all through my teenage years until I reached my early twenties and then it just slowly faded away. and never returned. We lived in the countryside and our house was a short distance from the road and mysteriously I always knew a few minutes before there was the slightest sound of an approach, a visitor was sure to arrive, it never, whatever it was, failed to alert me and used to scare the hell out of my parents. I had other strange uncanny experiences over the course of my lifetime that included U.F.O. sightings, and experiences that could be best described as paranormal.
Dr Richard S. Broughton, in his book "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science" reported a piece of research that demonstrated a phenomenon dubbed "fear of ownership", which says that psi abilities appear to be hindered by a subconscious(?) fears that we possess these abilities, and this fear literally stops us from using them. The workaround, and how the experiment proceeded to demonstrate the effect, was to have a group of people all focus on a particular psi effect, but be convinced that "someone else" was actually responsible, and even being told that someone was "faking" the effect. And in initial phases they had someone do that, to get the subject's minds used to the idea that something would occur. But then they removed the faker, and it still happened. The book makes more sense than I can here. Worth a read. One of the few books to attempt to address "how" rather than just "if", though it does spend some time on that, of course. Fear is powerful. It cripples the mind for even ordinary actions. Give this some thought. :)
Very fair and balanced interview on the subject. I also agree that it's possible, and even likely, that this could be consistently unreproducible. That said though, the burden of proof is still on the experimentalists.
4:44 Some guy once said that if one used any large paged book like Moby Dick to look for phrases in it then they would also find things in it as was found in the bible using the bible code. And then another guy quickly chimed in with, God wrote Moby Dick too?
The general practice of divining using books is called bibliomancy. The Romans used to perform divinations by selecting random passages in Virgil’s Aeneid.
ESP is real...and I would love to talk about it....I just want to keep my anonymity....it's not what you think...or maybe it is....I DO NOT WANT MONEY OR PUBLICITY...I actually want the opposite...I would just love to have a discussion.
we use telepathy in technology, slash we talk to each other intuitivately but we can hear each other. Not getting into it but throwing it out there ;) By the way, dont be mad and not believe me, it wont help you ;)
Is this what you really think? It seems there is (probably) thought … and then there are accounts of thought … and they are not the same. By this account I have no access to my own thought but by this account. This exists, while the thought is inferred. An interesting state of affairs.
There is some study (I have to search) that found repeatable significance sigma 5 when the group consisted of people in meditation. It is on YT from an institute in California -- seriously done. Why is it ignored that some people could have a higher sense for such phenomena than others who are incapable at that moment to bring about a translucent state of consciousness with a brain and physiological activity that corresponds with such altered states? There is too much "garbage" in the ordinary mind that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a clear signal that corresponds with measurable facts. Those who state "nonsense" (or are too enthusiastic as believers) -- both lack openness to anything new that does not fit their preoccupations.
Definitely not real as portrayed on TV and in movies. But there is human intuition, mind flashes, inspiration, spooky experiences, weird coincidences, and people do see and hear things. This winter, for example, i was possessed by an evil spirit, but i also understood it was my mind playing tricks on me.
people hearing and seeing things is a subjective experience, hence it can be just a perceptual issue. Yet when they hear or see something that can be confirmed in our shared reality, that's another story. However, the theme of weird coincidences is a good one. Although mostly anecdotal, we all experience them, and maybe it's possible to design an experiment that makes these experiences replicable. Moreover, coincidences of 1 in 1 million, despite happening every day in a world of 8 billion people, become really weird when they override and hence lead this probability to an infinitesimal fraction. Check out, for instance, the story of Anthony Hopkins with the book by George Feifer "The Girl from Petrovka". Not only did he find a copy of the book on the subway bench after giving up searching for it in bookshops in London, but he met the author some years later, who said he didn't have a copy of his own book. Feifer told Hopkins that his copy was full of his own annotations on the margins. Astonished, Hopkins pulled up the copy he found in the subway 2 years before and asked him "Is that the copy you owned?". It was. (Google "Hopkins odd coincidence" to learn more). So this is not one improbable coincidence alone, it's a chain of improbable coincidences that make it all highly improbable. This is worth it investigating. And I have to admit, I have experienced the same level of absurdity not only once, but several times in my life. it's possible to design an experiment that makes these experiences replicable.
Since perception is the being conscious of those thoughts that originate in the sense organs, being conscious of thoughts that originate extra to the sense organs cannot be called perception. It is well known that sense organs can stimulate the brain subliminally. That is to say, information from the sense organs can stimulate one's brain without one being conscious of the stimulation. The effect of this stimulation may affect one's predictions so that they come true more often than expected and this may lead one to erroneously conclude Extra Sensory Perception is an actuality when it isn't.
You've never shared a sentiment worth consideration. Only childish opinions and little remarks do you ever pollute the discussions section with. Your opinions do not matter! You are not a researcher; nor do you seek, study, or have a keen intelligence. We know who does from their very sentiment. It's not true that there's no evidence. It's verily only not what you wanted. Sure, buddy, sure. You can deny esp and the Soul because they're not objective things, and therefore, you have a real problem now requiring an explanation. And I bet you don't have the slightest clue as to what is indirectly posited from denying the Soul do you. You made it to the bus stop bud, and sorry to break it to ya, there ain't no bus coming for you.
If any of you believe NDT when he says, " we breathe the same molecules of the humans of our past" and Einstein, when he labeled quantum entanglement, " spooky action at a distance" then you are obligated to believe Psychic phenomena. Regardless of whether you can comprehend it.
To remark that "we cannot prove subjective experience" is silliness. 1. All experience is subjective; no experience is objective. So we should simply say "experience". 2. Only goofy philosophers would demand evidence beyond experience to "prove" that they experience experience. It is a verb and a noun, isn't it. In the present, it is a verb. In the past, it is a noun. But you prove that there was a past. Where is the proof? (psst. it's in the past). This is what is called "getting nowhere fast."
I have much personal anecdotal evidence that precognition exists. For instance, driving down an unfamiliar highway on a cool predawn morning. All of a sudden, the Pittsburg Steelers pops into my head. I do not follow football and couldn't tell you who played in the Super Bowl. I spend the next 30 seconds thinking about only one thing: Why in the hell did the Pittsburg Steelers pop into my head. At this point, a black pickup truck with a huge Pittsburg Steelers emblem, pulls out in front of me from a side street, causing me to hard brake to avoid rear ending him. Play Psycho movie shower scene music as you picture the scene of me closing in on this black truck at night and my headlights illuminate this huge emblem that fills my vision. This was a defining momement for me, a physicalist, atheist engineer. Remember, I never think about football. BTW, this happened in Florida, not Pittsburgh. Religious friends said God was trying to warn me. I told them it had distracted my driving, so maybe He was trying to kill me, lol. At this point, I discovered that serious physicists posit retrocausality as an explanation for experiments like the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. I also learned that Stuart Hameroff posits that the microtubules within nerurons provide a shielded environment where quantum effects like entanglement can persist for significant durations. More rcently, there are experiments that claim entanglement can happen across the temporal deminsion as it does across the spatial ones. Put these 3 things together and you get premonitions. In my case, in the near future, a truck with an obscenely large Steeler emblem pulls out in front of me. This stimulates my neurons associated with Steelers recognition. Now the miracle occurs, quantum entanglement backwards in time persists in enough of those neurons such that it enters my consciousness 30 seconds in the past. I then spend the next 30 seconds pondering why this random thought occurred. Now going forward in time, my pondering reinforces the backward entanglement. So, my hypothesis, stated more succinctly, is that precognition is the weak quantum entanglement of ones current brain state with a more intense future state. This happens most often whe you are in a relaxed, free association state of mind, like dreaming or a cool relaxing early morning drive. If you read all of this, my only explanation is that you had a premonition that it was going to have a profound impact on your future perception of reality!😂
@@malna-malna That occurred to me as well. I had just moved to the area and had always gone a different route to work, avoiding this particular route even though it was shorter in distance but a longer drive time because of traffic. Since it was well before rush hour that morning, I decided to go the shorter distance route. In the 10 years since, I have never seen that truck again and very rarely any other vehicle with a Steelers emblem, none of which were as large. This incident eliminated my skepticism of premonitions. IMO, for me, this incident rises above confirmation bias, deja-vu, or just remberining the random thoughts that happen to come true and not the ones that didn't.
@@malna-malna I was cleaning up the downloaded files on my phone when I found a relevant document to this discussion, Feelingfuture.pdf, written by a Cornell University professor Daryl Bem. You can Google it. One experiment is to wire subjects up and present them with randomly selected images that are either neutral, erotic, or disturbing. Apparently the claim is that the subjects exhibit statistically significant physiological reactions just prior to being shown the erotic and disturbing images when compared with the neutral ones. In another experiment, subjects were given a list of words to memorize and then repeat back as many as they could recall. AFTER taking the test, some subjects were given the list again to study it longer and other subjects were not. Result was that subjects who were allowed to study after the test faired better than those who were not. BTW, the subjects did not know that they were being tested for precognition. Experiments like these on normal people, not people who claim they are psychic, are the way forward. I think conducting the experiments on subjects who were in a relaxed state of mind might show better results. In the movie Minority Report, three "pre-cogs" are put in sensory deprivation chambers and their brains wired up so that you could see their visions of future crimes. The criminals would then be arrested before committing the crime. If this movie plot was true, they were viewing possible futures, which would be evidence for the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics. I enjoyed that movie back when it came out but dismissed the underlying premise of seeing the future. Neural implants today are allowing thoughts to be read and control artificial limbs. That movie may come true one day.
Asking if esp is real is like asking if love between two people is real; or ones love for music, art, poetry and life for example. You can't prove what love is, because it's not objective; is merely experienced.
The only thing we know for sure exists is subjective experience. ESP is subjective experience. You cannot prove to external observer your experience exists. So, ESP cannot be proven. Is my logic undeniable?
For now thats true. Since recent ai has learned to translate the brains electrical fields to words and even sentenses of what people are thinking. So in the future this could be proven maybe by a shared coupling of fields. I think the problem is more how can people be so naive to think al humans have the same level of talent if this should exist. for inner awareness! 99.9999999% cant even keep awareness at deep sleep stage or any sleep stage. A minority can at dream state rem sleep, lucid dreamers. If it exist only very few people will have a tiny bit talent for this. We humans are noobs when it matters consciousness, really beginners.
Curses, damned bad luck, who did it? They better run. I am an atheist, and I will rule the hell of those that do me wrong. We do not need a God to have an afterlife. Hell is from being unfair, from doing others wrong. There are eternal consequences for every choice we make. Paranormal abilities exist in a realm of war. I will win because I am not doing others wrong. The All Powerful All rules me and no one else. Grant me victory over my difficulties. See what happens next. Aliens are becoming active here on our little planet. For those of you that are fair-minded I am on your side. There will be justice from and for all.
They know it's true but they beat around the bush. Everything is made up of information and bathes in a field of information. Quantum entanglement shows that infinite speed is possible, and time has been shown to go both ways. So there's no wonder information can move instantly from a present place to a present place, or from the past and future to the present time.
There is plenty of stuff which could be called ESP. Your answer shows that you lack the sensitivity and intelligence to notice such stuff in your life.
"You're the first person I've been willing to have a conversation with..." Listen dude, knock that attitude off right now. You're not special. No one cares who YOU'VE been willing to have a conversation with. Keep your channel good and don't let your half million subs turn your ego against you.
LOL you think Dr. Kuhn cares about a rando on the internet telling him what he should or shouldn't do? And that he cares if his channel has subs or not? He has a very good career and fans outside of youtube, so I doubt it.
@@OneGeekStudios *"LOL you think Dr. Kuhn cares about a rando on the internet telling him what he should or shouldn't do? And that he cares if his channel has subs or not? He has a very good career and fans outside of youtube, so I doubt it."* ... A YT comment thread is the lowest level of structured communication. In kitchen terms, it's like a garbage disposal.
@Luo Ji "The reason [why] I don't try to adjudicate the phenomenon is because, on both sides of the phenomenon: 1. People who are absolutely sure it exists, for various reasons: some experiements, mostly anecdotal; [and] 2. People who are sure it can't exist, because it seems to be violating physical law, and that's impossible, for physicaliats. They are [both] absolutely, solid, concrete in their position. So, therefore, I'm not going to bother with it [that kind of argument]. I'm just going to have fun with it. You are the first person I am willing [able] to have a conversation on whether the phenomenon is real or not, because of your approach to it." Fixed that for you.
Physicist Michio Kaku said “ Some scientists sneer at the mention of higher dimensions because they cannot be conveniently measured in the laboratory.”
So as for ESP it is possible that scientific methods may be difficult but that does not necessarily mean that ESP should be ruled out .
In science we are sceptical of everything, and only accept the most rigorously tested and demonstrated positive evidence. In that sense science isn’t about ruling things out, we default to skepticism and rule things in only as the evidence compels us.
@@thesystem6246 it’s certainly true that it is impossible to prove a negative. As Hume pointed out we can’t rule out the idea that the universe might cease to exist tomorrow, we can just assign it an extremely small probability. All knowledge is contingent and that applies to scientific knowledge just as much as anything else. It’s important to recognise that. I don’t mean that the scientific method doesn’t rule stuff out, ruling things out is the default.
Newtonian mechanics is a great example to think about. It was ruled in because it was so fantastically good at explaining observed behaviour for hundreds of years. It still works for all those observations, and we still use it to this day in engineering far more often than we use the theories that ultimately supplanted it. There’s a reason it’s still taught in schools. In that sense it’s not been ruled out at all. It’s just that now we understand it’s limitations.
We know our current theories have limitations too. However that’s no reason to just accept any suggestion that comes along. Each potential new theory or observation has to meet the highest most rigorous standards of evidence. Every time those standards are compromised it doesn’t end well. You’re right, history is littered with examples of discarded theories that were ruled out, probably hundreds for every theory that ever got ruled in. That’s why we have to be so careful.
"Telepathy exists, it's just that the carrier wave is small mouth noises."
-Terrence Mckenna
"Telepathy exists,.. .,only, .
Yes, not quite,
Small noises, actually it's caused by just thinking, eg words of like, fondness, words of, dislike, hate, violent acts,..
..., but we can know, it's not just that since we communicate with animals who we assume don't think a human language manner.
@@John-uh8kl Thoughts can't show contempt for what is inferior.
@@TheDeepening718 Just so everyone knows what your comments said, this, "Thoughts cannot show contempt for what is inferior."
You pertain to the idea that only a greater force, intelligence, decides, "What is inferior,"
Well many believe in that way, look at the Golden Age, when -------s used the sword, took slavess, destroyed, one, two, there, up and coming civilisations, when at their will, the Third Reich killed 600, 000, 000, disabled, mentally ill, gypsies, homosexuals, and what was the other, oh, Je---.
I take it this is what you wish to draw peoples attention to, approx, "Because they think this is what god says, this what we can do, should do,.."
I think people will be glad you commented, huh!
@@John-uh8kl I don't care what everyone knows about the actions of this body, it's the ego and the ego is false, and besides the western world is a disgrace, they have no authority to point fingers.
Beginning at 3:20 Robert introduces what I've also observed. Comes under the term *confirmation bias* where you choose the results that suit your agenda and throw out all the rest. Seems to be particularly strong in ESP research. I've seen Rupert Sheldrake, for example, promoting a particularly compelling subset of results for three sisters and their ability to anticipate phone calls from each other - but at the end of the day, how replicable was this, from amid the myriad of other results that he chose to reject? Which brings us to 5:56 "Could ESP be something [...] not subject to replicability?" Great reply from Jonathan Schooler, and a wonderful example of how conversations in science should proceed.
My own bias is in favor of entanglement. But ESP, while perhaps related, is not the same thing. ESP, as popularly understood, relates to the transmission of tangible information in localized contexts (like between specific people and places), whereas entangled selves relates to something quite different, nonlocal. So yes, you can be swayed in favor of nonlocal entanglement, while remaining cautiously skeptical about ESP. In the spirit of Schooler's approach, I can keep an open mind.
All good points, but it's also important to remember that 'confirmation bias' is simply an inherent part of human psychology, and so makes its presence felt across all domains of scientific inquiry. The near-infinite number of different models for inflation, and likewise for string theory, come to mind easily. As do any number of other physical models. That said though, keeping an open mind - being a good Bayesian thinker - is something that most people _don't_ do. Smart people are always willing to accept new evidence into their mental frameworks, thus keeping themselves open to new possibilities.
Einstein got quite a few things right during his stellar career, but crucially he also got quite a lot wrong, too. He didn't have access to any information that wasn't available to anyone else, he was just better than everyone else at being able to sieve through it all and pull out the relevant pieces.
The great 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes was asked once by a journalist why it was that he kept changing his economic models all the time, he responded:
*"When the facts change I alter my mind accordingly! What do **_you_** do, sir?"*
Many of us have experiences that seem to give some validity to ESP. No one has control over them.
I think using subjective experience as an example of something that is true but which science can not 'prove' surely can't be applied to anything else and can't really get us anywhere, because it's completely self evident and is the foundation of our very existence. Other unproveable things are not so self evident.
A lot of people don't seem to recognize subjective experience as self-evident, which always perplexes me.
In some number of years, the expansion of space will make it such that we will not be able to see a single other galaxy from the Milky Way. Based on our current understanding of physics, future civilizations will look up at a largely empty sky and have literally 0 scientific way to prove their are other galaxies; all they'll have to know them by is historical records. Another intelligent species on another planet that comes into existence _after_ that point won't even have historical records; they'll just think the entire universe is our single galaxy with no reason to think and no way to prove otherwise.
That might be why subjective experience seems like a singular example that "can't be applied to anything else". Much like other galaxies to that future intelligent species on the other side of the Milky Way, we simply have little to no capacity to even be aware of those things which science cannot prove.
I had one experience with it so I know it is real. Nothing like it ever happened again to me and this was impossible. I would not believe anyone who told me this happened to them so that is fair. But real is real. Short version is I was 14 playing a baseball game that my dad said he would make it to. Halfway through the game we were at bat sitting in the dugout and he was not in the stands. I kept running though my mind where he could be and what he could possibly be doing right now that was making him late. Suddenly my entire upper lip felt a sensation that I had never felt before. It was very strongly itching but not itching. The sensation was confined to my upper lip and lasted about a minute or two. I thought maybe poison ivy but yet it did not feel like it. He never made the game but I told my mom about the weird feeling on my lip and that maybe I had poison ivy. When we got home we found my dad had gotten home from work late and had just decided out of the blue, without saying anything to anyone beforehand, to shave off his mustache that he had worn for many years. I was more than a bit freaked out. It was such a powerful sensation and years later when I started shaving myself, the sensation finally made sense and matched the action.
Nice . . . intellectual honesty . . . if not actual scientific rigor. And i must accept his position that so called scientific rigor may never be able to apprehend some aspects of existence.
It is a tantalising question: are there natural phenomena that are objectively true that cannot be determined by the scientific method?
I'll need to think about that one.
If a phenomenon is objectively true, it can, by definition, be determined by using the scientific method. Originally, the guy proposes a new method that could reveal whether ESP is objectively true, but then, when they don't get the results he want, he resorts to the "invisible dragon" (something I claim exists but cannot be detected) argument.
@@saigopalaSubjectively we can make up any old crap, and a lot if people very often do.
I don't believe in spiritual experiences or ESP--I know. I am not interested in studies nor am I interested in proving it to anyone; I can't. I have had dreams which accurately show me what is going to happen and when it happens it is with perfect detail. I do not study ESP nor entertain thoughts about it; it just happens. Now I can't prove this to anyone and what I am saying means nothing to anyone. But my personal subjective experience is enough for me to know it is incredibly real.
I agree!!
An elder sasquatch showed me psychic phenomenon is real. Those sasquatch can affect your dreams, give you psychic visions (project images), remote view, astral project, and cloak. Clairaudence and telekinesis seems to be real too.
When I think about these sorts of things, I think about the methodology of science. Science works by trying to understand phenomena by understanding the simplest solutions to questions, and it works quite well at this. But what happens when a question is increasingly complex? Science fails to describe the questions addressed by the humanities for precisely this reason. Understanding how a neuron works does not explain why a person feels the way they do, for example. And the more complex a question, the more difficult it is to understand it scientifically. Eventually science reaches a limit. So if parascientific phenomena are too complex to be replicated, this does not mean they are not real. It merely means we can’t use scientific tools to understand them.
So what do we use? That’s the big question, and one to which I’m afraid I don’t have an answer.
When I was very young my father, always fascinated by Native America culture, told me the following was a well known Native American saying (I’ve since heard it attributed to several different ethnic groups) ‘One white crow proves all crows aren’t black’
In my scientific meanderings over the years, that concept plagued many of my thoughts.
It would serve to become a useful explanation for the following experience.
I was 11 years old being raised in a traditional loving and supportive family. Both my parents were more often than not working past the time I was to get home from school. It was an ordinary day from school. The school bus let me off three doors away from home. I said an enthusiastic goodby to my friends as I walked towards my house, remembering my instructions that if my mother wasn’t there (my father never got home early) I was to wait inside the house for about 15 minutes and if she didn’t make it, go to the next door neighbours to wait. I walked up to the screen door, opened it to the inner proper door, and while grabbing the handle was immediately frozen and filled with anticipation of something to prepare for. Before I was able to push the door open, a tiny bright blue light, similar to a electric welding arc spark about the size of a B.B. came through the door, through my belly and out through my back. Now I anticipated something very negative. I slowly, cautiously opened the door to find my father sitting in his lounge chair deceased. There was no car in the driveway, my mother had drove him home because he felt slightly ill, the used the car to return to work. There was nothing to give me a hint he would be there. Let alone deceased. He was 47 years old, never ill. A heart attack.
Now. I don’t believe that it necessarily means there’s a forever continuation of life after death, or any possibility of clear detailed communication imperative from my father. But something inexplicable happened.
Nothing like that happened ever again. But I was 11 years old, non-religious household, never any discussions regarding topics in this category. Nor was I given any expectation something like this would ever happen, to me or anyone. But it did. My first pure, untainted experiment. Never to be repeated. But it happened. My White crow.
Thank you for sharing this
If it was real, Vegas wouldn't be like it is.
Rigged?
Quoted from our lovely internet: "The scientific study of love is still ongoing, as there hasn't been any hard evidence to determine whether or not love is, in fact, real-or that it's just made up and merely exists in our minds."
Don't let science be the arbiter of what is real in the short-term. Science is the guys who thought all of space was filled with some aether that transmitted gravity like air transmits sound. I mean, really? How thick was that aether and how did the planets move through it? Why didn't we feel it on the surface of the Earth?
Science is brilliant long-term but in the short-term it is often stunningly stupid.
The aether theory dominated scientific thinking for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
ESP and other psychic stuff does not make sense for many reasons. Here's one: The existence of casinos.
Also lack of spam ESP calls in foreign languages. Seems to happen only in language understood by the receiver. May be there is a universal translator on the ESP channel. /sarcasm
😂👍🏻
What a monomentally stupid comment. If the phenomenon is real why should it work like that? Demonstrate that you can have an errection instantly and wherever or we will conclude your are impotent.
Our grip on this subject is not such that we cannot be certain if ESP is for real. For instance animals could have ESP and we maybe not. Other than that the casino business is shady not sure why you bring up those clowns.
@@saigopalauantum mechanics, relativity, chaos theory, information theory, etc, etc. There are plenty of things that are deeply counterintuitive that we have investigated, tested and accepted. I see no reason to believe that us a significant obstacle. If anything ESP is too simplistically intuitive, simply drawing a line from intention to action without bothering with the hard work of figuring out the details of causation. That’s why people keep falling for it. The simplicity is too seductive.
This is also why it’s such a rich field for charlatans. I intend this, hand wavey theatrics, it happens. Just don’t investigate the theatrics too much, or it all falls apart.
The discussion hear suggests that those conducting ESP research are basically manipulating results; this is a pity as it appears to betray a bias against the subject from the start. I do agree with the later suggestion that ESP in the wider world of human experience may be a real thing that cannot be easily tested in a lab.
Come on folks, science is weird enough. We don't live in a world with wizards and warlocks!
“All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.” [S. Wright]
Claims that some event can be attributed to ESP is equivalent to claiming that the event in question is attributable to unknown physics. Therefore, threshold for significance should be that which is used in physics experiments, .0000003 (approx 1 in 3.5 million). .05 is absurdly low, IMHO.
Google retrocausality and the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Google Stuart Hameroff and microtubules for why the brain might be subjected to quantum effects. Google quantum entanglement across time. Put these three subjects together, all being investigated by reputable scientific investigation, and you can piece together a story for precognition. The brain has a quantum component within the microtubules of nerurons. Neural networks generate our thoughts. Retrocausality has been demonstrated in quantum experiments. Therefore, there is a chain of reasoning, somewhat speculative, that leads to a natural explanation for precognition. Neural networks may have evolved to harness quantum entanglement with a its future state, resulting in a survival advantage of being able to react to danger more quickly than classical physics can account for. The sensing the future is a weak affect, so we don't go around sensing what's going to happen next. It is overwhelmed by the classical operation of our normal thoughts. People generally experience precognition when in a relaxed mental state, and the future event is unexpected. Therefore, if you wanted to test for it, you would want test subjects who believe they experience precognition frequently and you would want the test conductors to be skeptical, say someone like yourself, lol. Google Dayrl Bem precognition. Yes, his test method/analysis have been questioned, but that has to be expected for making the claim that the future already exists and that it can be sensed.
It's difficult to understand and even more difficult to spot. When you're found to have a 6th sense, a crew of professionals get flown out to assault your senses, poison you, and make you have a mental breakdown. They make sure you can't work of course. If you had money you would simply move. Basically you're seen as a freak and a genius at the same time. The funny part is they always know when to stop the sensory assault. Then they resume like a well-oiled machine.
...of course not that´s the whole appeal! ( the moment it would make sense is the end of the appeal
My form of telepathy makes most sense it's just talking mentally. I don't know about mind reading or hypnoses even. To me mind reading is not really communicating, seeing what others are seeing or knowing what's in someones else's mind. Thought transmission is treu telepathy.
"Could you have a real phenomena that is not subject to replicability?"
Most emphatically yes. In fact, such phenomena are common.
Think of human relationships that just...work. Try to repeat that with a random stranger. Fail.
Think of a movie project that hits on all cylinders. Hollywood would love you if you could replicate that. Few directors can. Those few who can do so end up monstrously rich because it is a rare feat.
Plato - learning is merely a recollection.
'A sculpturer merely removes the coarse from the sculpture; the form is already there, in the stone'.
The intelligible realities is indispensable. Somehow we're able to acknowledge, comprehend, relate to, make sense of, sympathize , or greater yet empathize. The Soul certainly must be realized: the union and relation of all things.
reguardless of if esp is real, its an excellent episode!!!
At least some forms of ESP are perfectly consistent with known physics. My "Questioning the mechanistic-universe paradigm using chaotic systems" argues the case for this counterintuitive claim. In the appendix of my "Remembering the Future" I describe a very simple field experiment which anyone can repeat. It worked frighteningly well for me. Twice.
Well, I had better go buy your books since you won't reveal the field experiment that definitely worked twice and never again to prove ESP.
Did you know I'd post this reply to you?
Friend, WHAT form of ESP do you think would be consistent with physics?
@@ZeroOskul The are public domain articles. Just Google the the title - TH-cam won't allow links in a comment.
@@Bill..N Premonition - which I interpret as "future memory" - and many other manifestations of future memory in disguised form.
@@Bill..N many physicists argue for a lack of fundamental direction of time. It doesn't seem infeasible for subconscious routines are providing information outside of the physical sensory if your subconscious has access to non local and non temporally bound information. we already know that, as of last year, there are no hidden variables with quantum spook. this implies, to an extent, that we already have reason to believe in non local processes. If you combine this concept with panpsychism, which isn't thaattt fringe but fringe nonetheless, you could create a model of consciousness that runs on a buffer window of time and space. maybe you aren't a discrete line where the future is ahead and the past is behind but rather you are perceiving and processing a constantly buffered window that drops off in both directions of time ie you are basically always using a few milliseconds worth of backwards and forwards info to make decisions. anyways not confirmed at all but there are serious^tm philosophers, metaphysics and consciousness nerds who are dipping there toes into it. this isn't some radical idea of ghosts or voodoo, just that your consciousness may have access to a bit more than you think in order to commit the perception of progress, action, choice, time, things, etc.
Electronic Stability Program ?
Well, I for one turn it off always
I would like to argue, that the definition for absurdity(insanity) is to believe in things, that are less than 3d etc. nonexisting, or unnatural/supernatural, as there is just infinite empty space with some materia.
All this awkward straining to hope something is true... for what?
What's the utility of this hypothetical elusive property about which we can't make predictions, recreate conditions to examine or even define? Just entertainment?
It should be perfectly simple to prove it, but it never is.
the mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master, as long as the mind does as required all goes well... 'esp' belongs to the realm of the heart I experience it every day... the heart is where 'I am' resides.
Maybe "you" reside nowhere, it is just a trick of the mind to survive to give you such illusion. A wave resides nowhere in essence as a part of the ocean. If the ocean is consciousness then you never decay.
I have had only ONE experience that seemed hands-down to be an example of ESP: I called a friend (against our policy; he is always supposed to call me due to his having a cheaper plan) and when he didn't answer his phone within 3-4 rings (he is a gardener and there was no rational reason for him to answer his phone in fewer than half a dozen rings on any given day; this was a land-line) I felt a wave of FEAR overcome me.
He answered but died later that day.
He was killed by an unknown and unknowable error in his diabetes medicine. It starved his brain and he slowly died in his home.
So far as I knew, he should have lasted for years.
So what prompted me to call him (for literally the first time in YEARS) and why did I feel such an uncharacteristic wave of terror?
ESP is not non-existent but it is either rare or rarely non-trivial.
I've never seen ball-lightning but I know it exists. In thousands of years of human history, 95% of people have never seen it. At all.
357.
Depending on the study and the experimental setup, all you need is a single non- null result for ESP. If I tried a million times to lift a pencil with my mind, and fail, but succeed on the 1,000,001 time... that's proof positive enough for something like ESP. Any significant non- null result would be indicative of SOMETHING.
That’s not how science works. Evidence must be repeatable. What are the chances when performing the experiment that you make a mistake, that you think it moved when it didn’t, that it moved for a reason you failed to take into account. Is the chance one in a million? Even if the chance is one in ten million, that’s too high for a single measurement to be accepted. The standard fur accepting evidence in the physical sciences is very exacting. There is no reason to apply lesser standards to ESP than we do in other investigations in physical science.
@@simonhibbs887 if ESP is real, I'm going to differ with you on that. I know how science works, I'm just saying that in reality, a clear example of telekinesis against a million failed tries, means there's probably telekinesis, whether it meets a scientific threshold or not. Because if ESP is not real, it should never work. Statistically significant would be anything that's not zero for something telekinetic. Guessing a card, you have a 1/ 52 chance, so if testing comes out at 3/ 52, over and over, that's probably statistically significant. But if someone recites to you all 52 cards in order one out of a million times, and fails the rest of the time, that's also significant, because you can have more permutations of 52 cards than there are grains of sand on all earth's beaches. I'm just saying, a large signal in a lot of noise would be significant, so the definitions of statistical significance would depend on the thing tested and the strength of the signal. And I argue, you need to lower that threshold for significance on certain tests.
Why worry? Just use Wikipedia to smear any investigator in Psi and pretend you're open and objective when you're about as closed minded as you possibly can be. Censorship for the win!
Specific instances of quantum entanglement are not amenable to replication.
theres not enough true scientific evidence based on my research but there certainly is anecdotal experience. I tend to think extra sensorial experience happen when they want to.
Simple answer...no !
I see a problem with the argument at the end of the video.
If there are things that will literally evade our scientific knowledge no matter how advanced such knowledge becomes, then it seems odd that the effects of these unknowable laws would show themselves, given our admittedly low level of current understanding, with any significance statistically.
You can't eat your cake and still have it, too.
Go Bluejays!
Robert i want to talk with you sir how can I?
I see what you did there.
It looks like the people who have the ability stay off the radar for a good reason
The foundational premise of my ToE is that all of the information ever generated since the beginning of Existence is stored within a nondimensional database (what we call "the past"). I also argue that this nondimensional information can be instantaneously accessed without the "speed of light" barrier that we experience within multidimensionality.
When you die, your life-information gets added to the collective database and the information that makes up "you" has instant access to this data. This could also explain some confusing aspects of quantum entanglement.
So, even though I do not believe that anyone living actually has ESP, the "concept" that you can simultaneously be thinking what someone else is thinking or know where someone three states away has buried a body is plausible.
What would not fit with my model is _"knowledge of the future."_ ... You cannot have precog knowledge of events that have not yet happened.
You believe the exact opposite of me! Sounds like you believe in a God, or an experimentalist, because you give death a special significance, when all will be revealed. Whereas I believe in precognition and skeptical of remote viewing, you are opposite. I suggest that remote viewers are shown the target location near the end of the viewing session. So the accuracy of their remote viewing may be precognition of what they will be shown at the end of the test. Daryl Bem of Cornell has conducted experiments that suggest memorizing the answers after taking a test helps you do better on the test. Quantum retrocausality + quantum brain = premonition.
A variation on the Double slit test has shown otherwise on the quantum level information is transferred as if there is no time and space in other words the future can effect the past just by observation. It blew my mind
@@OldTestament1 *"information is transferred as if there is no time and space in other words the future can effect the past just by observation."*
... I'm not convinced anything can be "pulled from the future" since the future is only a specific degree of possibility based on data acquired from past and present events. I think if someone thinks this is happening it's because the scientific data is being misinterpreted.
It seems like people are far more willing to accept things that don't make sense - especially when these fantastic claims have science backing them. I'm guilty of that to a degree. I know my "instantaneous data" theory is an unproven claim, but I'm not arguing it's purely "scientific."
Since information is dimensionless, I can logically argue that it wouldn't be subject to time or restrained by distance.
@@OldTestament1That’s a consequence of violation of the Bell inequalities. The settings of an instrument performing a measurement are correlated with the variable they are measuring. Classically this seems impossible because the variable is determined ‘before’ the measurement is made. However it seems as though in QM terms the point of measurement and point of origin of the quantum variable are in some way coterminous. They appear to somehow occur simultaneously. At least that’s what appears to happen. We have no idea how to reconcile this with relativity though. It’s a real conundrum. Personally I favour superdeterminism as offering a plausible resolution but that’s not a popular view. It does seem to be gaining credence though.
The thing is there are many different kinds of information. There’s quantum information which is always preserved, but really just means that at any given point the universe contains all the information needed to determine its state at a future point.
Then there’s classical information which is encoded in the relationships between macroscopic phenomena such as bits in a computer or writing on paper.
Then there’s information about things, or knowledge, which is information describing other physical states. It’s when classical information corresponds to other classical information. So for example information about the weather in a database, or the blueprints of a house that correspond to the structure of the house.
So it very much depends what sort of information we’re talking about. I think the organisation of my body is classical information. When my body decays, that information will be lost. On the other hand if the block time hypothesis is true, the fact that it existed as me is an absolute fact of the block universe.
Fun stuff to think about.
People can test their own ESP when driving a car in traffic. Watch the cars ahead and predict when a driver ahead will change lanes. If you do this often, you will see that you often can get it right. I think without this low level ESP-like abilities, we would have many more traffic accidents. Not a controlled experiment, but interesting and anyone can try it.
Talk about spooky action…
Belief is all there is. Scientific method is a system of belief. Tao te Ching is a system of belief. Different systems don't disagree, they talk about different things. Pitch forks and salad forks are functionally identical, use the proper tool for the proper task.
The scientific method is not a belief because the method itself does not tell you what to believe. Rather it is a system for testing beliefs. This is what distinguishes it from all the actual belief systems you listed, and it is why the scientific method can be applied to them. The method itself does not care what it verifies. If ESP worked then the scientific method would test it and demonstrate it to be accurate.
@@simonhibbs887 I only read far enough to see you missed the word system. Science is a system that aids in establishing objective well documented concepts of reality. The outputs science can give are things I believe. It is the system my beliefs about everything are derived from in applying. I believe the system of science. Science is my system of belief. I have also the belief system of Taoism. Taoism provides a system not for objectifying the world for me, for me Taoism is a system of framing my experiences as to the dynamics of the interplay between elements of the universe of my habitat. I believe the system of belief of Taoism. Like I said there are pitch forks and salad forks, best to use the technology which is best suited for the task.
@@Στο_πιο_δικαιο I thought you’d listed some other belief systems in your post but maybe I was mistaken. Taoism does seem more or less compatible with science in its claims, more so than many traditional belief systems.
I can testify that E.S.P. most certainly does exist as I personally experienced this strange phenomenon all through my teenage years until I reached my early twenties and then it just slowly faded away. and never returned. We lived in the countryside and our house was a short distance from the road and mysteriously I always knew a few minutes before there was the slightest sound of an approach, a visitor was sure to arrive, it never, whatever it was, failed to alert me and used to scare the hell out of my parents. I had other strange uncanny experiences over the course of my lifetime that included U.F.O. sightings, and experiences that could be best described as paranormal.
Dr Richard S. Broughton, in his book "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science" reported a piece of research that demonstrated a phenomenon dubbed "fear of ownership", which says that psi abilities appear to be hindered by a subconscious(?) fears that we possess these abilities, and this fear literally stops us from using them. The workaround, and how the experiment proceeded to demonstrate the effect, was to have a group of people all focus on a particular psi effect, but be convinced that "someone else" was actually responsible, and even being told that someone was "faking" the effect. And in initial phases they had someone do that, to get the subject's minds used to the idea that something would occur. But then they removed the faker, and it still happened. The book makes more sense than I can here. Worth a read. One of the few books to attempt to address "how" rather than just "if", though it does spend some time on that, of course. Fear is powerful. It cripples the mind for even ordinary actions. Give this some thought. :)
Very fair and balanced interview on the subject. I also agree that it's possible, and even likely, that this could be consistently unreproducible. That said though, the burden of proof is still on the experimentalists.
4:44 Some guy once said that if one used any large paged book like Moby Dick to look for phrases in it then they would also find things in it as was found in the bible using the bible code. And then another guy quickly chimed in with, God wrote Moby Dick too?
The general practice of divining using books is called bibliomancy. The Romans used to perform divinations by selecting random passages in Virgil’s Aeneid.
No use letting ring 50 times if they just won't answer. Doesn't mean they're not home. 😁
No. Next!
ESP is real...and I would love to talk about it....I just want to keep my anonymity....it's not what you think...or maybe it is....I DO NOT WANT MONEY OR PUBLICITY...I actually want the opposite...I would just love to have a discussion.
we use telepathy in technology, slash we talk to each other intuitivately but we can hear each other. Not getting into it but throwing it out there ;) By the way, dont be mad and not believe me, it wont help you ;)
"Does ESP make sense?"
No. That was simple.
Lawrence should interview some of these UFO people who are coming out of the woodworks these days.
That we don't have access to other people's thoughts is no proof that they don't exist.
Is this what you really think?
It seems there is (probably) thought … and then there are accounts of thought … and they are not the same. By this account I have no access to my own thought but by this account. This exists, while the thought is inferred. An interesting state of affairs.
@@christianrokicki Hmm... Let me think a little more...
There is some study (I have to search) that found repeatable significance sigma 5 when the group consisted of people in meditation. It is on YT from an institute in California -- seriously done.
Why is it ignored that some people could have a higher sense for such phenomena than others who are incapable at that moment to bring about a translucent state of consciousness with a brain and physiological activity that corresponds with such altered states?
There is too much "garbage" in the ordinary mind that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get a clear signal that corresponds with measurable facts.
Those who state "nonsense" (or are too enthusiastic as believers) -- both lack openness to anything new that does not fit their preoccupations.
Nonsense.
Definitely not real as portrayed on TV and in movies. But there is human intuition, mind flashes, inspiration, spooky experiences, weird coincidences, and people do see and hear things. This winter, for example, i was possessed by an evil spirit, but i also understood it was my mind playing tricks on me.
people hearing and seeing things is a subjective experience, hence it can be just a perceptual issue. Yet when they hear or see something that can be confirmed in our shared reality, that's another story. However, the theme of weird coincidences is a good one. Although mostly anecdotal, we all experience them, and maybe it's possible to design an experiment that makes these experiences replicable.
Moreover, coincidences of 1 in 1 million, despite happening every day in a world of 8 billion people, become really weird when they override and hence lead this probability to an infinitesimal fraction. Check out, for instance, the story of Anthony Hopkins with the book by George Feifer "The Girl from Petrovka". Not only did he find a copy of the book on the subway bench after giving up searching for it in bookshops in London, but he met the author some years later, who said he didn't have a copy of his own book. Feifer told Hopkins that his copy was full of his own annotations on the margins. Astonished, Hopkins pulled up the copy he found in the subway 2 years before and asked him "Is that the copy you owned?". It was. (Google "Hopkins odd coincidence" to learn more).
So this is not one improbable coincidence alone, it's a chain of improbable coincidences that make it all highly improbable. This is worth it investigating. And I have to admit, I have experienced the same level of absurdity not only once, but several times in my life. it's possible to design an experiment that makes these experiences replicable.
Since perception is the being conscious of those thoughts that
originate in the sense organs,
being conscious of thoughts that
originate extra to the sense organs
cannot be called perception.
It is well known that sense organs can stimulate the brain subliminally.
That is to say,
information from the sense organs can stimulate one's brain without
one being conscious of the stimulation.
The effect of this stimulation may affect one's predictions so that
they come true more often than expected and
this may lead one to erroneously conclude
Extra Sensory Perception is an actuality when it isn't.
Not one piece of evidence to show that the phenomena exists.
You've never shared a sentiment worth consideration. Only childish opinions and little remarks do you ever pollute the discussions section with.
Your opinions do not matter! You are not a researcher; nor do you seek, study, or have a keen intelligence. We know who does from their very sentiment.
It's not true that there's no evidence. It's verily only not what you wanted.
Sure, buddy, sure. You can deny esp and the Soul because they're not objective things, and therefore, you have a real problem now requiring an explanation. And I bet you don't have the slightest clue as to what is indirectly posited from denying the Soul do you.
You made it to the bus stop bud, and sorry to break it to ya, there ain't no bus coming for you.
If any of you believe NDT when he says, " we breathe the same molecules of the humans of our past" and Einstein, when he labeled quantum entanglement, " spooky action at a distance" then you are obligated to believe Psychic phenomena. Regardless of whether you can comprehend it.
Does ESP exist? No, it doesn't..
To remark that "we cannot prove subjective experience" is silliness. 1. All experience is subjective; no experience is objective. So we should simply say "experience".
2. Only goofy philosophers would demand evidence beyond experience to "prove" that they experience experience. It is a verb and a noun, isn't it. In the present, it is a verb. In the past, it is a noun. But you prove that there was a past. Where is the proof? (psst. it's in the past). This is what is called "getting nowhere fast."
I experienced by my self the esp the supernatural, and i'm sceptic person, and i must admit it real thing, not something like paraideola
I start seriously thinking to delve into an infinite hibernation 😂😂😂😂😅😅
I have much personal anecdotal evidence that precognition exists. For instance, driving down an unfamiliar highway on a cool predawn morning. All of a sudden, the Pittsburg Steelers pops into my head. I do not follow football and couldn't tell you who played in the Super Bowl. I spend the next 30 seconds thinking about only one thing: Why in the hell did the Pittsburg Steelers pop into my head. At this point, a black pickup truck with a huge Pittsburg Steelers emblem, pulls out in front of me from a side street, causing me to hard brake to avoid rear ending him. Play Psycho movie shower scene music as you picture the scene of me closing in on this black truck at night and my headlights illuminate this huge emblem that fills my vision. This was a defining momement for me, a physicalist, atheist engineer. Remember, I never think about football. BTW, this happened in Florida, not Pittsburgh. Religious friends said God was trying to warn me. I told them it had distracted my driving, so maybe He was trying to kill me, lol. At this point, I discovered that serious physicists posit retrocausality as an explanation for experiments like the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. I also learned that Stuart Hameroff posits that the microtubules within nerurons provide a shielded environment where quantum effects like entanglement can persist for significant durations. More rcently, there are experiments that claim entanglement can happen across the temporal deminsion as it does across the spatial ones. Put these 3 things together and you get premonitions. In my case, in the near future, a truck with an obscenely large Steeler emblem pulls out in front of me. This stimulates my neurons associated with Steelers recognition. Now the miracle occurs, quantum entanglement backwards in time persists in enough of those neurons such that it enters my consciousness 30 seconds in the past. I then spend the next 30 seconds pondering why this random thought occurred. Now going forward in time, my pondering reinforces the backward entanglement. So, my hypothesis, stated more succinctly, is that precognition is the weak quantum entanglement of ones current brain state with a more intense future state. This happens most often whe you are in a relaxed, free association state of mind, like dreaming or a cool relaxing early morning drive. If you read all of this, my only explanation is that you had a premonition that it was going to have a profound impact on your future perception of reality!😂
Could be.
That's interesting. don't you think your subconscious mind could have glimpsed that car and the emblem earlier from the side road?
@@malna-malna That occurred to me as well. I had just moved to the area and had always gone a different route to work, avoiding this particular route even though it was shorter in distance but a longer drive time because of traffic. Since it was well before rush hour that morning, I decided to go the shorter distance route. In the 10 years since, I have never seen that truck again and very rarely any other vehicle with a Steelers emblem, none of which were as large. This incident eliminated my skepticism of premonitions. IMO, for me, this incident rises above confirmation bias, deja-vu, or just remberining the random thoughts that happen to come true and not the ones that didn't.
@@malna-malna I was cleaning up the downloaded files on my phone when I found a relevant document to this discussion, Feelingfuture.pdf, written by a Cornell University professor Daryl Bem. You can Google it. One experiment is to wire subjects up and present them with randomly selected images that are either neutral, erotic, or disturbing. Apparently the claim is that the subjects exhibit statistically significant physiological reactions just prior to being shown the erotic and disturbing images when compared with the neutral ones. In another experiment, subjects were given a list of words to memorize and then repeat back as many as they could recall. AFTER taking the test, some subjects were given the list again to study it longer and other subjects were not. Result was that subjects who were allowed to study after the test faired better than those who were not. BTW, the subjects did not know that they were being tested for precognition. Experiments like these on normal people, not people who claim they are psychic, are the way forward. I think conducting the experiments on subjects who were in a relaxed state of mind might show better results. In the movie Minority Report, three "pre-cogs" are put in sensory deprivation chambers and their brains wired up so that you could see their visions of future crimes. The criminals would then be arrested before committing the crime. If this movie plot was true, they were viewing possible futures, which would be evidence for the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics. I enjoyed that movie back when it came out but dismissed the underlying premise of seeing the future. Neural implants today are allowing thoughts to be read and control artificial limbs. That movie may come true one day.
Lord Krishna explained ESP in Bhagbat Gita or preciously say if anyone can be union with Bramhyan then he or she will get ESP power.
Asking if esp is real is like asking if love between two people is real; or ones love for music, art, poetry and life for example. You can't prove what love is, because it's not objective; is merely experienced.
What a waste of time. Of course science can not deal with non-material aspects of reality.
The only thing we know for sure exists is subjective experience. ESP is subjective experience. You cannot prove to external observer your experience exists. So, ESP cannot be proven. Is my logic undeniable?
For now thats true. Since recent ai has learned to translate the brains electrical fields to words and even sentenses of what people are thinking. So in the future this could be proven maybe by a shared coupling of fields. I think the problem is more how can people be so naive to think al humans have the same level of talent if this should exist. for inner awareness! 99.9999999% cant even keep awareness at deep sleep stage or any sleep stage. A minority can at dream state rem sleep, lucid dreamers. If it exist only very few people will have a tiny bit talent for this. We humans are noobs when it matters consciousness, really beginners.
Rupert Sheldrake. Dogs that know when their owners are coming home. Dogs have ESP.
Curses, damned bad luck, who did it? They better run. I am an atheist, and I will rule the hell of those that do me wrong. We do not need a God to have an afterlife. Hell is from being unfair, from doing others wrong. There are eternal consequences for every choice we make. Paranormal abilities exist in a realm of war. I will win because I am not doing others wrong. The All Powerful All rules me and no one else. Grant me victory over my difficulties. See what happens next. Aliens are becoming active here on our little planet. For those of you that are fair-minded I am on your side. There will be justice from and for all.
They know it's true but they beat around the bush. Everything is made up of information and bathes in a field of information. Quantum entanglement shows that infinite speed is possible, and time has been shown to go both ways. So there's no wonder information can move instantly from a present place to a present place, or from the past and future to the present time.
There is No such thing as ESP...
It’s total Garbage ...!
@@tonyb5492😂
There is plenty of stuff which could be called ESP. Your answer shows that you lack the sensitivity and intelligence to notice such stuff in your life.
@@fortynine3225 Total garbage.
@@bozo5632 Not sure what drugs you are on.
@@fortynine3225 Try a Ouija board.
First
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
"You're the first person I've been willing to have a conversation with..."
Listen dude, knock that attitude off right now. You're not special. No one cares who YOU'VE been willing to have a conversation with. Keep your channel good and don't let your half million subs turn your ego against you.
LOL you think Dr. Kuhn cares about a rando on the internet telling him what he should or shouldn't do? And that he cares if his channel has subs or not? He has a very good career and fans outside of youtube, so I doubt it.
@@OneGeekStudios *"LOL you think Dr. Kuhn cares about a rando on the internet telling him what he should or shouldn't do? And that he cares if his channel has subs or not? He has a very good career and fans outside of youtube, so I doubt it."*
... A YT comment thread is the lowest level of structured communication. In kitchen terms, it's like a garbage disposal.
@Luo Ji
"The reason [why] I don't try to adjudicate the phenomenon is because, on both sides of the phenomenon:
1. People who are absolutely sure it exists, for various reasons: some experiements, mostly anecdotal; [and]
2. People who are sure it can't exist, because it seems to be violating physical law, and that's impossible, for physicaliats.
They are [both] absolutely, solid, concrete in their position. So, therefore, I'm not going to bother with it [that kind of argument]. I'm just going to have fun with it.
You are the first person I am willing [able] to have a conversation on whether the phenomenon is real or not, because of your approach to it."
Fixed that for you.
@@OneGeekStudios "And that he cares if his channel has subs or not?"
He most certainly does.
@@mattperkins2538 Such practical approach :)
If science denies evidence based on a lack of explanation it deservers a paddling.
🎉
#1st