Skeptical Attempts to Dismiss Psychic Phenomena

Does anybody here know of sources that considered this angle?

lol

Considering angles is for con artists, marketing executives, lawyers and propagandists.  Not much do with a sincere parsing of the phenomenon of remote viewing.

lol

Considering angles is for con artists, marketing executives, lawyers and propagandists.  Not much do with a sincere parsing of the phenomenon of remote viewing.

Is it sincere to ignore that Stargate was run by the CIA during the height of the cold war, and involved Uri Geller, both parties being professional liars?
Is it sincere parsing if you do not even consider the possibility that this was a deliberate misinformation operation by an organization that has the permission and duty to operate that way?

Is it sincere to ignore that Stargate was run by the CIA during the height of the cold war, and involved Uri Geller, both parties being professional liars?
Is it sincere parsing if you do not even consider the possibility that this was a deliberate misinformation operation by an organization that has the permission and duty to operate that way?

I am not looking for "angles".  Data rule, in my scope of thinking.

Calling a spy organization and a magician -- liars and tricksters -- (a tautology)  has no standing in debate other than in your own mind.  You are welcome to your conspiracy narrative.

Would I offer the CIA and other worldwide spy interests in Psi, as a proof of anything.  No, of course not.  It is just a few more data points.  I am only interested in the big data patterns about how mind works.

Is it sincere to ignore that Stargate was run by the CIA during the height of the cold war, and involved Uri Geller, both parties being professional liars?
Is it sincere parsing if you do not even consider the possibility that this was a deliberate misinformation operation by an organization that has the permission and duty to operate that way?

I would say that thinking Stargate was a misinformation campaign seems somewhat conspiratorial. Spend a large amount of money recruiting researchers and staff and fund operations for years just to say at the end of it "Nah wasn't really any point".

Not to mention that most of the Stargate documents have been declassified and don't hint to any kind of misinformation campaign.

You don't have any obligation to placate their delicate egos. Just keep on going. Surely someday there will be a compelling theory from which we can derive and test new hypotheses and ultimately develop technology.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....62992/full

~~ Paul

This is my view as well. I don't believe that all types of PSI are true, but some have significant evidence. Either we find out a way in which PSI works, or it's all wrong and I would say nearly every single study in psychology and potentially rippling out into medicine and some of the harder sciences gets brought into questions.

Win win, really.

This is my view as well. I don't believe that all types of PSI are true, but some have significant evidence. Either we find out a way in which PSI works, or it's all wrong and I would say nearly every single study in psychology and potentially rippling out into medicine and some of the harder sciences gets brought into questions.

Win win, really.

Finding the "works" is not so simple, but the only way forward.

From the article Paul linked:

 Nevertheless, these “demonstration studies” might even be more complicated if we also take into account that psi effects tend to disappear when the same experiment is replicated, which is described as the elusive nature of psi (Hansen, 2001; Kennedy, 2003). When a psi experiment is set-up, a distinction between two variables or a hypothesis is proposed (true/false). If another experiment uses the same hypothesis, many researchers have reported that the effect tends to disappear (Kennedy, 2003)12. In this regard, using the same hypothesis twice for a psi experiment could be like asking a comedian trying to make the public laugh with the same joke twice. Psi interactions seem to be the expression of a novelty and novelty, by definition, can be new only once. It might explain the strange results – inversion, displacement, and disappearance of the effect – that appear when the same experiment is replicated (Lucadou, 1995) 

Very thoughtful comment from the authors.  It made me think of the Quantum Zeno Effect.  Constant observation of QM circumstance lowers the scope of active change.  Here - observing an hypothesis (structured information object) multiple times reduces the scope of active effect.

Neither, makes sense without observation being a variable effecting the outcome.  Then it does make sense if it is active factor. 

As soon as we drop thinking that reality is mind independent - we see new stuff!

We join our observations together with stories… the stories ain’t how nature works…

We join our observations together with stories… the stories ain’t how nature works…

The stories coming from the minds of living things are just as natural as the lives they lead.  They are just a shimmering reflection of nature in nature.

good to see you post