14 ms·

I doubt anyone will read this, as I'm somewhat late to the party. I'd like to get in touch with a serious research group, because the barrier to scientific and

I doubt anyone will read this, as I'm somewhat late to the party. I'd like to get in touch with a serious research group, because the barrier to scientific and social advances is the recognition of ESP (Extrasensory Experience) as the mechanism the mind works with. I'm sure I can prove ESP and I'm not a telepath. Seriously, it is so common, that the big question is why I was blind to it. In simple experiments, with hardly any effort, I see ESP confirmed, daily. That is: mind to mind contact without relying on sound, vision, or a chemical channel. I have a hard time theorizing the mechanism, but as distance doesn't seem to be much of an obstacle (and effects are immediate), the processes seem to involve entanglement and superposition, as concepts. Not radiowaves ;) As the article never once mentions ESP, I think the title of the article is very apt. A reflection of the underlying scientific poverty. A poor scientific state of mind leads to a society which doesn't know how to properly nurture itself, thus going of on a tangent. Thus it engages in madness (as opposed to doing the mentally healthy thing), and tends to terrorize, abandon and sacrifice the individual in its pursuit.

buvanshak 8y ago
>I'm sure I can prove ESP and I'm not a telepath. Seriously, it is so common, that the big question is why I was blind to it. In simple experiments, with hardly any effort, I see ESP confirmed, daily. That is: mind to mind contact without relying on sound, vision, or a chemical channel. Can you write more about this here? What were your simple experiments, and why haven't people looking for it found it out already, if they are simple?
- childintime 8y ago
  > Can you write more about this here? What were your simple experiments. It suffices to say I am not the listening party in my experiments. The subject doesn't even know he is the subject, initially. That, I presume, makes the experiment reproducible. It is also easy to find new subjects. See also the reply above. > why haven't people looking for it found it out already, if they are simple? Really, what people are looking?? The main purpose of my post is to get to know the field. Among common people ESP seems well known, but they have no wish to live under a scientific blessing/curse. Second, ESP is literally part of how people, including scientists, work. Telepathy in particular seems to be science performed at life speed, with the model seeing a theory-space collapsing under evidence. Science is the result of this process. Third, cultural violence decides who can (be permitted to) have a voice and who can't. Evidence by non-scientists is commonly discredited.
loupeabody 8y ago
You should contact Jeffrey Mishlove or anyone who works in the field of Parapsychology.
- childintime 8y ago
  Thanks very much for your recommendation. If you look at the Wikipedia entries for ESP, telepathy, etc, the field is called out harshly for being "pseudo-science", because of bad methodology. Surely methodology would have been better if "money" had shown an interest. I need good methodology and that surely has costs.
  - childintime 8y ago
    I listened to a podcast from Kristen Truempy with Jeffrey (103). He reaches similar conclusions, notably the benefit for society and the blind eye of big-S-science. He gets emotional when dealing with blatant denial of "150 years of documented empirical evidence" (as he should). He mentions that polls suggest 2/3rd of the population recognizes the existence of some form of ESP. Jeffrey also mentioned (but not recommend) the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Indeed its setup resembles a freak show, not science. I didn't know of any of the competitions in TV-shows, nor of the $100.000 reward by the Australian Skeptics (seemingly discontinued), which "is open to any contender who can state exactly what their paranormal claim is, and the claim can give a definite yes or no result". In my view, in psychology, a definite yes or no result, doesn't exist, and no one should be asked to provide one. Not even climate scientists can convince 100% of the population of climate change despite overwhelming evidence. Nor can an advertiser force all clients to buy the intended products. Yet advertising definitely works. Note that, as should be obvious, I have no prior at all in parapsychology. Even when I was writing down my original post, I felt the need for a reality check (and repeated the experiment).
marcos89 8y ago
Hi, a couple of questions: 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? What would be your experiment context? What would you measure? How would you measure it? Which precision would you be satisfied with to say you've proven ESP? (Precision should be a quantity related to the way you're gonna measure). 2. It seems that you have actually measured this phenomenon, since you actually say: "effects are immediate" and independent of distance. That's a big statement. Could you provide us with the measures of this phenomenon and show us their independence of distance? Actually, the most interesting part would be: what equipment did you use to measure such small amounts of time? You said "effects are immediate", but "immediate" cannot be actually measures, because every equipment has its precision (so you would be only sure that two numbers are equal (which means immediate effect) until a certain point). What is your precision to measure this? What equipment did you use to do measures faster than the speed of light? (Since, you're saying that definitely radiowaves are ruled out, so that means you actually have a measure with a precision faster than the speed of light, the speed in which radiowaves communicate). If you don't have measures, then it wouldn't make sense to rule out radiowaves. Actually, if you don't have measures, it would also seem that your analysis is highly biased by what you think is true, even selecting the "cooler" laws of physics to explain the supposed phenomenon that you can measure, the quantum freaky world of "entanglement and superposition", as opposed to the good and old "radiowaves". You said it yourself, "A poor scientific state of mind leads to...", and I think a poor scientific mind is the one that pre-decides about the results of a subject in question before he can precisely say how he has (or will) measured that phenomenon. Science is not about "accepting any idea in", but more about: let's test all the ideas by measuring them in the actual world before we make a decision over it, or even if there is something to be discovered at all. Science is about a battle of ideas: all ideas should be fought and only those who present respectable evidence will raise. That's also the reason science is so effective, because it's hard to invent stuff and make scientists believe it. You would need to have actual proof that you are on the right track. So, a rich scientific mind would actually take your claims and beliefs with a very high dose of scientific scepticism. Christopher Hitchens said it better: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- childintime 8y ago
  > Hi, a couple of questions: > 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? I decided it's better to not yet describe them yet. Though I believe anyone can easily do the experiment and get confirmation, maybe there is a component that makes the pendulum swing wider in my case (no pendulum involved :). So that would deviate the discussion. I discovered the phenomenon privately while lowering a stimulus, until there was no stimulus left, but the same mind exercise. And I was left in disbelief. That was a little over a year ago. Looking back I believe I got best in class notes on science, in part because I read the mind of my professors. Now the mind-reading part is sort of an exaggeration, but I do remember understanding the professor (and by proxy the thinking in the field) was key to finding the solution. So, really, was I good in math? Or was this half some sort of disguised ESP testing taking place? > You said "effects are immediate", but "immediate" cannot be actually measures, because every equipment has its precision (so you would be only sure that two numbers are equal (which means immediate effect) until a certain point). > What is your precision to measure this? What equipment did you use to do measures faster than the speed of light? You're going overboard. We are talking human dimensions here. "Immediate" rules out chemical channels and delays as in audio. "Immediate" also refers to not implying use of the senses, so mind to mind. But you captured correctly that I spoke of proof. As in demonstration and in court. Yes, that kind of frightens me and that could derail experiments. > Actually, if you don't have measures, it would also seem that your analysis is highly biased by what you think is true, even selecting the "cooler" laws of physics to explain the supposed phenomenon that you can measure, the quantum freaky world of "entanglement and superposition", as opposed to the good and old "radiowaves". Correct. Of course. You didn't measure correctly the dimension of my words. So you come across as someone proven wrong many times, so you have to start with a reality check. But hey, hello, I'm am 55, an engineer. > You said it yourself, "A poor scientific state of mind leads to...", and I think a poor scientific mind is the one that pre-decides about the results of a subject in question before he can precisely say how he has (or will) measured that phenomenon. Exactly. I mean no disrespect to scientists. No individual is directly responsible. And where money flows scientists don't have much of a vote anyway.. Science may have been blind, but society shouldn't be. > So, a rich scientific mind would actually take your claims and beliefs with a very high dose of scientific scepticism. Agreed, within professional realms. But in the social domain, when science is one eye open, another closed, it's missing the big picture, and that creates a false testimony society feeds back to all. That's a feedback loop and a bias. You might think science knows it all. > Christopher Hitchens said it better: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Well, to be accurate, this isn't exactly cold-fusion, nor something new or specific to me. It's common sense among swaths of fellow citizens, maybe your wife, thinking with the other side of their brain, having to sustain being told, _socially_, that they are wrong. No equal-rights movement talking about the underlying problem though, which may be termed inequality through science. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to clarify. In addition I got fewer downvotes than I expected despite calling out a "poor state of mind".

buvanshak 8y ago

>I'm sure I can prove ESP and I'm not a telepath. Seriously, it is so common, that the big question is why I was blind to it. In simple experiments, with hardly any effort, I see ESP confirmed, daily. That is: mind to mind contact without relying on sound, vision, or a chemical channel. Can you write more about this here? What were your simple experiments, and why haven't people looking for it found it out already, if they are simple?

childintime 8y ago
> Can you write more about this here? What were your simple experiments. It suffices to say I am not the listening party in my experiments. The subject doesn't even know he is the subject, initially. That, I presume, makes the experiment reproducible. It is also easy to find new subjects. See also the reply above. > why haven't people looking for it found it out already, if they are simple? Really, what people are looking?? The main purpose of my post is to get to know the field. Among common people ESP seems well known, but they have no wish to live under a scientific blessing/curse. Second, ESP is literally part of how people, including scientists, work. Telepathy in particular seems to be science performed at life speed, with the model seeing a theory-space collapsing under evidence. Science is the result of this process. Third, cultural violence decides who can (be permitted to) have a voice and who can't. Evidence by non-scientists is commonly discredited.

loupeabody 8y ago

You should contact Jeffrey Mishlove or anyone who works in the field of Parapsychology.

childintime 8y ago
Thanks very much for your recommendation. If you look at the Wikipedia entries for ESP, telepathy, etc, the field is called out harshly for being "pseudo-science", because of bad methodology. Surely methodology would have been better if "money" had shown an interest. I need good methodology and that surely has costs.
- childintime 8y ago
  I listened to a podcast from Kristen Truempy with Jeffrey (103). He reaches similar conclusions, notably the benefit for society and the blind eye of big-S-science. He gets emotional when dealing with blatant denial of "150 years of documented empirical evidence" (as he should). He mentions that polls suggest 2/3rd of the population recognizes the existence of some form of ESP. Jeffrey also mentioned (but not recommend) the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Indeed its setup resembles a freak show, not science. I didn't know of any of the competitions in TV-shows, nor of the $100.000 reward by the Australian Skeptics (seemingly discontinued), which "is open to any contender who can state exactly what their paranormal claim is, and the claim can give a definite yes or no result". In my view, in psychology, a definite yes or no result, doesn't exist, and no one should be asked to provide one. Not even climate scientists can convince 100% of the population of climate change despite overwhelming evidence. Nor can an advertiser force all clients to buy the intended products. Yet advertising definitely works. Note that, as should be obvious, I have no prior at all in parapsychology. Even when I was writing down my original post, I felt the need for a reality check (and repeated the experiment).

marcos89 8y ago

Hi, a couple of questions: 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? What would be your experiment context? What would you measure? How would you measure it? Which precision would you be satisfied with to say you've proven ESP? (Precision should be a quantity related to the way you're gonna measure). 2. It seems that you have actually measured this phenomenon, since you actually say: "effects are immediate" and independent of distance. That's a big statement. Could you provide us with the measures of this phenomenon and show us their independence of distance? Actually, the most interesting part would be: what equipment did you use to measure such small amounts of time? You said "effects are immediate", but "immediate" cannot be actually measures, because every equipment has its precision (so you would be only sure that two numbers are equal (which means immediate effect) until a certain point). What is your precision to measure this? What equipment did you use to do measures faster than the speed of light? (Since, you're saying that definitely radiowaves are ruled out, so that means you actually have a measure with a precision faster than the speed of light, the speed in which radiowaves communicate). If you don't have measures, then it wouldn't make sense to rule out radiowaves. Actually, if you don't have measures, it would also seem that your analysis is highly biased by what you think is true, even selecting the "cooler" laws of physics to explain the supposed phenomenon that you can measure, the quantum freaky world of "entanglement and superposition", as opposed to the good and old "radiowaves". You said it yourself, "A poor scientific state of mind leads to...", and I think a poor scientific mind is the one that pre-decides about the results of a subject in question before he can precisely say how he has (or will) measured that phenomenon. Science is not about "accepting any idea in", but more about: let's test all the ideas by measuring them in the actual world before we make a decision over it, or even if there is something to be discovered at all. Science is about a battle of ideas: all ideas should be fought and only those who present respectable evidence will raise. That's also the reason science is so effective, because it's hard to invent stuff and make scientists believe it. You would need to have actual proof that you are on the right track. So, a rich scientific mind would actually take your claims and beliefs with a very high dose of scientific scepticism. Christopher Hitchens said it better: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

childintime 8y ago
> Hi, a couple of questions: > 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? I decided it's better to not yet describe them yet. Though I believe anyone can easily do the experiment and get confirmation, maybe there is a component that makes the pendulum swing wider in my case (no pendulum involved :). So that would deviate the discussion. I discovered the phenomenon privately while lowering a stimulus, until there was no stimulus left, but the same mind exercise. And I was left in disbelief. That was a little over a year ago. Looking back I believe I got best in class notes on science, in part because I read the mind of my professors. Now the mind-reading part is sort of an exaggeration, but I do remember understanding the professor (and by proxy the thinking in the field) was key to finding the solution. So, really, was I good in math? Or was this half some sort of disguised ESP testing taking place? > You said "effects are immediate", but "immediate" cannot be actually measures, because every equipment has its precision (so you would be only sure that two numbers are equal (which means immediate effect) until a certain point). > What is your precision to measure this? What equipment did you use to do measures faster than the speed of light? You're going overboard. We are talking human dimensions here. "Immediate" rules out chemical channels and delays as in audio. "Immediate" also refers to not implying use of the senses, so mind to mind. But you captured correctly that I spoke of proof. As in demonstration and in court. Yes, that kind of frightens me and that could derail experiments. > Actually, if you don't have measures, it would also seem that your analysis is highly biased by what you think is true, even selecting the "cooler" laws of physics to explain the supposed phenomenon that you can measure, the quantum freaky world of "entanglement and superposition", as opposed to the good and old "radiowaves". Correct. Of course. You didn't measure correctly the dimension of my words. So you come across as someone proven wrong many times, so you have to start with a reality check. But hey, hello, I'm am 55, an engineer. > You said it yourself, "A poor scientific state of mind leads to...", and I think a poor scientific mind is the one that pre-decides about the results of a subject in question before he can precisely say how he has (or will) measured that phenomenon. Exactly. I mean no disrespect to scientists. No individual is directly responsible. And where money flows scientists don't have much of a vote anyway.. Science may have been blind, but society shouldn't be. > So, a rich scientific mind would actually take your claims and beliefs with a very high dose of scientific scepticism. Agreed, within professional realms. But in the social domain, when science is one eye open, another closed, it's missing the big picture, and that creates a false testimony society feeds back to all. That's a feedback loop and a bias. You might think science knows it all. > Christopher Hitchens said it better: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Well, to be accurate, this isn't exactly cold-fusion, nor something new or specific to me. It's common sense among swaths of fellow citizens, maybe your wife, thinking with the other side of their brain, having to sustain being told, _socially_, that they are wrong. No equal-rights movement talking about the underlying problem though, which may be termed inequality through science. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to clarify. In addition I got fewer downvotes than I expected despite calling out a "poor state of mind".