/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10088589
>veritable mountain ranges of evidence that anyone within the field has been aware of for decades
proof?

>>10088726
Read the review in question.

There are thousands upon thousands of studies that confirm the reality of a wide range of psi phenomena as well as dozens upon dozens of supporting meta analyses.

This field has been around for over a century and its methodology has been honed to near-perfection. None of the usual handwaving and armchair dismissals work to deny said evidence as this mainstream article dutifully notes. In case you weren’t aware: Parapsychology is one of the (if not THE) most rigorous disciplines. No other field has as high a percentage of double- and even triple-blind studies as parapsychology. And no wonder! Thanks to the taboo of psi other scientists aren’t scrutinized even NEARLY as much as parapsychologists.

The phenomena are real. Deal with it. Just because the mechanism behind a phenomenon is not immediately understood it doesn’t mean that the phenomenon is suddenly just a collective figment of our imaginations. The odds of these phenomena being statistical flukes and just due to random chance generally fall in the order of a trillion to one and lower. Something is going on here for sure and it’s not “the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence” nor any of the other lazy repudiations of the evidence.

Since I mentioned the taboo both here and in the title, you might wanna listen to this Google Tech Talk presentation by Dean Radin if you don’t have anything better to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Like, I dunno, have this one while you’re gaming or something.

>>10088748
>Like, I dunno, have this one while you’re gaming or something.
*“have this on”, I meant

>>10088589
This is hard proof of how psychologists don't understand stadistic and the scientific method.
There is not such thing as psychology and parapsychology.

>>10088589
>>10088748
wtf is psi?

i think you guys are making shit up, just like Josephson. but then again, josephson was pretty based with his superconductor research....

>>10088798
>asserting that parapsychologists don’t understand “stadistic” (sic) or the scientific method

Okay, dum-dum, hope that verbal diarrhea made you feel better because it didn’t accomplish anything else, other than making you looking foolish, I suppose.

>>10088805
>wtf is psi?
Parapsychological phenomena that involve the human mind. Primarily this means mind-to-mind communication (telepathy, precognition, ...) and mind-matter interaction (psychokinesis).

And no, this isn’t made-up shit, it’s hard science, as much as certain dogmatics would like to pretend otherwise. The evidence in favor of the reality of these phenomena is crystal clear.

Take precognition/presentiment:

There is a simple experiment you can do where you sit subjects in front of a screen and continuously measure their pupil dilation. On the black screen you then regularly flash randomly selected images of varying emotional content while keeping an eye (pun intended) on the subject’s pupil dilation.

What this experiment reliably demonstrates is that humans seem to sense highly emotional negative things before they happen. In this experiment people’s pupils dilate before, I repeat: BEFORE, highly emotional negative images appear on the screen (e.g. explicit car crash pictures) but not before highly emotional positive images (e.g. porn) nor low emotional images (e.g. everyday objects).

Somehow, and we cannot be sure yet how, humans can pick up information from the future.

>>10088857

Sounds very interesting.

Of course you are able to provide a source so we can check this out ourselves?

You know, just to see if they did things like, you know, having a control group. Furthermore, to see if anyone else was able to reproduce the results of this experiment.

Seeing how they reached these amazing conclusions from their data set would also be interesting. Interesting things can be done with statistical analysis, and often the results an be misleading depending on the methodology used.

Like you said, its "hard science."

Obviously we want to take your word for it. That what you are telling us not just some made up shit produced by some crackheads. But you know, being scientists, we want independent verification. we want to subject your claims to scrutiny. You wouldn't want us to be bad scientists would you? Just believing anything anyone says because they posted it on /sci/?

Goodness no! Otherwise we would have to accept the earth is flat because some anon says so!

So please give us your source for these truly remarkable claims or fuck off.

>>10088982
Are you illiterate or why haven’t you read the review (published in a prestigious peer-reviewed mainstream journal) to which I linked yet?

That you think parapsychology doesn’t feature control groups or sophisticated statistical analyses is telling. As I told you, parapsychology is ABOVE average as far as its methodology is concerned. One more example is that most studies nowadays pre-register themselves in order to show that the results are not due to the file drawer effect. But I don’t wanna be a condescending prick like you so I’ll stop here and just list my sources:

• precognition in pupil dilation experiment:
— Tressoldi PE, Martinelli M and Semenzato L. Pupil dilation prediction of random events [version 2; referees: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2014, 2:262
(doi: 10.12688/f1000research.2-262.v2)

• meta-analysis of replication studies of said class of experiments:
— Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P., & Utts, J. (2012). Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 390. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390)

• prevalence of blind studies among various disciplines:
— https://www.sheldrake.org/research/experimenter-effects/how-widely-is-blind-assessment-used-in-scientific-research (parapsychology 85.2% with the next highest value being only 24.2% in medicine)

Anything more you wanted?

>>10088857
>highly emotional negative things before they happen
(1) What's *highly emotional* and *negative*? (2) Are *highly emotional* and *negative* things played in rapid succession -- e.g. a car accident followed by a natural disaster? what's the order of the images?
(3) Let's suppose there *is* a clear distinction between *positive images* and *negative images*, any data on the false positives? Did absolutely no one's pupils dilate upon seeing a positive image?

See, one of the main issues I'm having with this experiment is it not only presumes that there are objectively *negative images* that everyone can agree upon, but it doesn't take into account some of the rich individual experiences of the subjects.

Suppose I played a series of seemingly-positive images in back-to-back succession, would I not expect a single individual's pupils to dilate? What if I showed an image of a wedding and one of the subjects had associated negative experiences with weddings? If his/her pupils dilate is this confirming my theory or just another false positive? Can't I always justify my results by finding a particular way to construe a *positive image* as a *negative* one?

Too many questions left unanswered. Incredibly unconvincing; if this is bait, it's not exceptionally creative.

>>10089027
(1) High/low refers to the intensity of the emotion and positive/negative to the associated feeling (desirable/undesirable). Have an example for each:
• highly emotional positive: attractive nude image of the opposite sex
• low emotional positive: a pleasant landscape
• highly emotional negative: graphic pictures of injuries or diseases
• low emotional negative: photograph of a sad-looking face
• low emotional neutral: an everyday object like a pair of keys

The images in question are generally taken from the same standardized data set. There are several of these that are frequently used in regular in psychology internationally. We’re talking about highly processed and vetted data sets which have been tested over and over again so that they can serve as a reliable metric for experiments involving emotional measurements.

(2) The experimental set-up usually includes several seconds between each image so the person’s nervous system has time to calm down and return to a “neutral” baseline value. The order of the images is, as mentioned, random.

(3) Sure, just read the experiments in question, their analysis sections list the exact data on that for each. Of course you have false positives and such. No one is arguing that everyone always reacts the same to each picture. But when you aggregate the data and plot the average or median you clearly see a time-sensitive trend with the highly emotional negative pictures only (which were marked as such PRIOR to the experiment and are from aforementioned standardized data sets). Once more: It is not that you do not observe pupil dilation in subjects with the other images, it’s that with the others the dilation does not take place BEFORE the image appears on the screen.

[part 1/2]

>>10089027
>>10089055
>See, one of the main issues I'm having with this experiment is it not only presumes that there are objectively *negative images* that everyone can agree upon, but it doesn't take into account some of the rich individual experiences of the subjects.
Are you really arguing that there are no images that the vast majority of humanity (but sure, exceptions always exist) would consider negative? Take my example: Do you wanna tell us that the average subject will consider a picture of a car crash victim positive?
We’re not talking about 100% uniform reactions here but broadly similar ones across subjects. As I said in part 1 of my reply to you, these images come from standardized data sets which have been used in mainstream psychological research for decades. We KNOW how the average human rates and reacts to these images.

>Incredibly unconvincing
The effect speaks for itself. Just because you do not understand WHY it happens that does not mean that it does not happen. Here is the simple fact of the matter: With highly emotional negative images people’s pupils dilate on average BEFORE the image appears on the screen, not after (as one would expect). The same effect is not present with the other pictures.

And please keep in mind this is just one of DOZENS of different classes of parapsychology experiments. Precognition, which itself is just one of several psi phenomena, has long been demonstrated in a variety of ways. It’s even been observed and documented in animals! For example, biologists have researched dogs that sense when their owner comes home. Even with all other variables accounted for (timing, frequency, mode of transportation, distance etc.) the dogs would begin waiting near the window/door from the moment the owner formed the intent to return home.

[part 2/2]

>>10088589
>cherrypicked studies
>quantum woo
>look guys we're just as scientific as psychology

>>10089154
>no actual argument
>no actual argument
>no actual argument

Stay mad, dogmafag. Brainlet on the wrong side of history, yadda yadda yadda.

ITT: materialist cucks who fail to recognize that the philosophical underpinnings of their worldview are not falsifiable and thus not nearly as sensible as whatever scientifically derived beliefs they hold

Idealism 4 lyfe, BOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

>>10088857

Yawn

Not convincing

>>10089236
>Yawn
Maybe take a nap and return to it later, anon. Or look up any of the other dozens of experiment classes.

How about Ganzfeld trials?

>>10088589
>Parapsychology
Not parascience or paramath /thread

>>10089259
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE sciences studying humans REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You stick to your easy disciplines, anon, and leave the hard stuff to the big boys. Play with your lil’ atoms and transcendent, self-referential concepts in the corner over there, m’kay?

>>10088589
i just started reading his book (conscious universe) and i must say a lot of this stuff makes unironical sense. I was a frequent mocker of all that paranormal shit, but it's hard for me to mock that

>>10089326
Glad to hear it, anon. Have you ever watched the talk that I linked to earlier? If not, here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Maybe it will help you understand why psi is as taboo as it is and where your disbelief might have originated from.

>>10089326
theories of a conscious universe go pretty far back fyi, it can make quite a lot of sense but most modern theories are less sophisticated versions of existing philosophies

Amazing thread

>>10089326
Read his latest one yet? He’s got some serious recommendations for that one (including two positive reviews by Nobel laureates, one in physics and one in chemistry).

>>10088589


he is too concerned about sceptics to even force the shit he has to say. Lacks of charisma and the message behind the huge world of knowledge ashamedly called the "paranormal"
I resigned from academia and social relations to study this amazing world and maybe one day I will share my knowledge if by then anybody will be able to understand

>>10089154
Optimized.

didn't the C*A admit this a year or two back?

>>10089515
>maybe one day I will share my knowledge if by then anybody will be able to understand
Elaborate.

>>10089751

well, I found out, for example, I don't know if it's spiritual or not that I can connect myself with surrounding reality to the point that I am able to follow the movement of living things around me like people or animals. I for sure know that people move in some patterns that repeat constantly wherever I go. I cannot explain it right now. Many times a moving object like a bird or cat outside the window is somehow "catching" my attention even if I don't look. Besides if you're perceptive enough you will in the course of time notice patterns that happen in reality. I think either something is going to happen like some shift in consciousness or I don't know.

>>10088589
The CTMU explains how psi is possible really well.

>>10088589
>Psychologist
Fuck off

>>10089211
I'm actually stunned that the people on 4chan are so mainstream materilists. Parapsychology has been the most credible scientific study of psi phenomenon in the last century and it is hopefully getting the attention it deserves.
There is a tremendous potential for change in this research. The philosophical implications are grand enough to force us to restructure our wholr culture. I startet my psychology degree a few months back and im talking all the time to other students who don't believe and are skeptical but refuse to look at the data. The coming out of this is going to be really messy but it's sure as hell worth it.

So is there any useful applied research yet

For anybody really interested in this go and look up "New ThinkingAllowed" by Jeffry Mishlove. He's a great communicator of ideas.

>>10090024
Remote viewing was used by the us military and other foreign military units for espionage and other intelligence work.
Other than that there are many potential useful applications but those are not yet studied that well because, of course, science has to be financend and the fringes that make society and the economy shiver is not going to get any money.
I think psychic or energetic healing is going to be a huge thing once the shift into the mainstream has happend. Other than that there are enormous socio-political, economic and philosophical implications of the facts

>>10090036
>Remote viewing was used by the us military and other foreign military units for espionage and other intelligence work.
This interests me greatly. Are these things discussed in the review article posted or are there other resources?

Has anybody been able to find the paper on sci-hub?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/

>>10089563
Admit what? That psi is real? No idea. I know that the government researched it for decades (cf. remote viewing) and that Dean Radin was part of that. Every now and again new documents pertaining to that are declassified, maybe that is what you are thinking of.

>>10089827
Well, yeah, idealism and the like (panpsychism etc.) seem to be far more fruitful worldviews than materialism.

>Along with Jessica Utts, he conducted a review of CIA remote viewing experiments in 1995. He noted that the experiments "appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations" and that there are significant effect sizes "too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes." However, he stops short of "concluding that the existence of anomalous cognition has been established."

Ray Hyman, hardcore sceptic said that. Makes you think

>>10089828
Get triggered harder, STEMlord, it’s amusing to watch.

>>10090041
You can go look up things like Stargate Project which I think Dean Radin was a part of. There are hundreds of declassified documents about the U.S. governments research into paranormal phenomena.

>>10090024
Officially, this is not real (or at least that has been the mainstream stance until recently) so no, not a lot. But there are plenty of proposed as well as unofficial applied uses for these discoveries.

>>10090168
Well, once out of the public view a LOT more people are willing to entertain these ideas and even admit to personal experiences with them. But official statements linked to them? That’s rare. Thank the taboo for that.

>>10090072
As I said in the OP, if you have trouble accessing it that way, I can directly link to the PDF: https://www55.zippyshare.com/v/Z9zcBKJA/file.html

This thread was moved to >>>/x/21636972