3 ms·

>> The other option is that there is some unknown type of "energy" (boy, do I hate that word, BTW). And our bodies are some sort of receiver. > Ok, so test thi

>> The other option is that there is some unknown type of "energy" (boy, do I hate that word, BTW). And our bodies are some sort of receiver. > Ok, so test this. I heartily agree. I'm approaching this from my own perspectives in working with the occult. For me, I personally know its true, however this stuff must absolutely be not only measurable, but quantifiable and comparable. That's the basis of science. That's the problem with this area, given that you are the only one in the study. I've highlighted a few areas that seem interesting and possible to detect. I'm working with the basis that when psychics talk of energy, I'm assuming something within Strong/Weak/gravity/EM with regards to energy. EM is probably the easiest to construct sensors, given that Strong/Weak are extremely short range forces, and gravity sensors are... expensive. The first area I've determined that shouldn't be as hard, is to construct a way to see an aura in a camera system. It's rather easy to train oneself to see it, occult speaking. But there are some significant difficulties in even this. (One difficulty: Some can see the aura of a jpeg of a person, but when the image is cropped significantly, the aura disappears. What's going on?) I'm keeping an open mind about this, but also trying to incorporate science in quantifiable ways.

abritinthebay 9y ago
> I heartily agree. Yay \o/ common ground! > That's the problem with this area, given that you are the only one in the study. If it's only true to you and not to others then it's a perceptual thing. Therefore subjective. This would tend to indicate it's not actually a real effect but a perceived one. > The first area I've determined that shouldn't be as hard, is to construct a way to see an aura in a camera system. Well firstly you're going to have to: - define what an aura actually is. - prove auras even might exist. - prove auras are measurable. - find a system that can detect this form of energy. and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then.
- the_af 9y ago
  > and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then. Agreed. And while there's nothing wrong with it (hey, it happens with actual science too!), what's infuriating is people claiming "let's be open-minded, if only we approached this in a scientific way, if only scientists (or skeptics, or whatever) gave us a chance!" as if the discussion was new and people had just started trying to do this. Pseudo-science has been going on for ages and they had their chance, with no success. It's not a new discussion, it's an old discussion occasionally re-framed in new terms.

abritinthebay 9y ago

> I heartily agree. Yay \o/ common ground! > That's the problem with this area, given that you are the only one in the study. If it's only true to you and not to others then it's a perceptual thing. Therefore subjective. This would tend to indicate it's not actually a real effect but a perceived one. > The first area I've determined that shouldn't be as hard, is to construct a way to see an aura in a camera system. Well firstly you're going to have to: - define what an aura actually is. - prove auras even might exist. - prove auras are measurable. - find a system that can detect this form of energy. and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then.

the_af 9y ago
> and.. well... that's been the case for decades. No-one seems to have got much past step 1 because it all seems to fall apart then. Agreed. And while there's nothing wrong with it (hey, it happens with actual science too!), what's infuriating is people claiming "let's be open-minded, if only we approached this in a scientific way, if only scientists (or skeptics, or whatever) gave us a chance!" as if the discussion was new and people had just started trying to do this. Pseudo-science has been going on for ages and they had their chance, with no success. It's not a new discussion, it's an old discussion occasionally re-framed in new terms.