Mar 23, 2010 -- 2:13PM, inthemidstwest wrote:

Erey~

 

Blu's right in the sense that ESP has to be classified as paranormal, as no branch of science can consistently prove that there is a distinct cause for (or lack of) extra sensory perception.

 

However, some of the studies on ESP or acknowledment of government entities using remote viewing during the 1950's is mindboggling.

 

If you're more science based, you might google The Ross Institute, or www.rossinst.com

 

~Science doesn't come to a screaching halt because one theory can't be proven.

 

Au contraire, science is all about formulating hypotheses (not theories) and designing experiments to prove them.  Paranormal phenomena are not "non-scientific," they just can't be explained by our current understanding of the physical world. 

Dr. Ross may very well be able to shoot an energy beam out of his eyes.  We can see the effect, but we haven't yet designed and built an instrument capable of detecting that energy beam.  This discussion reminds me of the state of understanding of electromagnetic radiation in the 19th century.  We knew visible light existed.  We could percieve it with our senses, and had instruments to measure it.  We knew there were other forms of light which we couldn't see or detect with instruments.  Sientists at the time called these forms of energy "hot light" and "chemical light."  Hot light could make objects warmer; chemical light could make certain chemicals decompose.  With the advent of elelctrical instruments in the 20th century, we were able to detect and understand the nature of these types of light now known as infrared and ultraviolet light. 

But I can imagine the ability melt something without using heat or visible light would be described as paranormal at the time.  One can dismiss chi or ESP as superstition, or one can bring science and the scientific method to bear on it.  Unfortunately, biology, physiology, and the human mind are not as cut and dried as physics.  F=MA (force = mass * acceleration) will always work the same way every time.  Studying human behavior or even the reaction to a particular biologically active compound requires statistics and the statistical method.  Expose five different people to a barking german shepard and you might get five different responses, yet we still consider psychology a science, not paranormal.

I firmly believe much of what is now considered paranormal will become part of the ordinary world by the end of this century.

Mar 24, 2010 -- 2:03PM, teilhard wrote:

Mar 23, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Blü wrote:

Erey

I am interested in the concept of it being more a natural phenomenon that we realize and it not being exactly paranormal

Leaving aside that ESP has never been satisfactorily demonstrated, no one reports any standard physical causes associated with it under controled conditions - electromagnetic emission or sensitivities &c - so it has to be paranormal.

Or ... maybe our Standard Definitions need revisiting and revising ...

Mar 31, 2010 -- 1:31PM, BeerLover wrote:

I did a bit of web research on this topic over lunch and found a link to the study I had read about a while ago.  A researcher took a group of 63 volunteers.  Each volunteer gave the test administrator the names and numbers of four friends.  The administrator then had one of the four call the volunteer, and they were right 45% of the time compared to 25% which would be random chance.  The odds of this being concidence in such a large group was calculated to be 1 trillion to one.  Link:  www.naturalnews.com/020312.html

 

Here is another good summary of scientific study of ESP in the 20th century:  www.psychic-experience-for-you.com/

Do I uncritically accept these findings as proof of ESP?  No, but neither do I reject them out of hand like some scientists have.  From the article, "Scientists are reluctant to accept the idea of psychic ability because the concepts involved seem to break the scientific laws which they believe govern our whole existence."  In other words, "It must be bunk because it doesn't fit my concept of the universe."  I've heard this idea stated before in different ways.  Proof?  No, not really proof, just evidence in favor- not 100% correlation, but "statistically significant" results. 

Have a look, follow the links, google the names involved.  There has actually been a great deal of scientific research done already.

I see a beer in my future,

BeerLover the precognitive

 

"Beer" -- The "Wort of God" in a Bottle ... !!!

Apr 4, 2010 -- 8:46AM, BeerLover wrote:

The Wort of God???

Slightly sacreligious but I like it

see: various Parables ( reportedly ) told by The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth, in which "Fermentation by Yeast" is a Theme about GOD's Activity ...