5 ms·

> A group in the US Army performed a serious analysis of the Gateway Hemisync process, concluding that "there is a sound, rational basis in terms of physical sc

> A group in the US Army performed a serious analysis of the Gateway Hemisync process, concluding that "there is a sound, rational basis in terms of physical science parameters for considering Gateway to be plausible in terms of its essential objectives", which include "out-of-body movement", "terrestrial information gathering trips", and "possible encounters with intelligent, non-corporal energy forms when time-space boundaries are exceeded" They concluded a lot of woo around when they were looking into silly things such as Targ's Remote Viewing. All of that later was revealed to be nonsense. Army and CIA, while are generally rational, are not necessarily great at critical thinking or science.

waterheater 3y ago
Ah, you are referring to the SRI experiments, though I'm not sure who "they" are. You should, however, be aware that the Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume: 64, Issue: 10, October 1976) contain a paper presenting the results of a remote-viewing experiment with n=36 and p=0.0000006 [1]. Many people who purport to "love science" set aside how much of one's understanding of the universe is axiomatic. Now, I've never directly experienced time dilation, and I have heard that GPS satellites have been created to take time dilation effects into account. I have, however, experienced and validated Newtonian dynamics (physics classes). In either case, both Newtonian dynamics and time dilation were presented to me as axiomatic; that is to say, I haven't performed a full, independent derivation of these two ideas of physics. However, I still accept that the general ideas are sound. If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it. >Army and CIA, while are generally rational, are not necessarily great at critical thinking or science. That's funny to say, seeing as it's well-established that military technology across all domains is significantly more advanced than the average person's technology. As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one. [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1454638 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1454638
- fluoridation 3y ago
  A paper from 1976 claims to have detected ESP in its participants. The paper appears to have only been cited twice since, both in 1979, one to explain the 1976 results as experimental bias, and the other to report failure to reproduce. I wouldn't throw out my walkie-talkie just yet. >If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it. Okay. What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?
  - waterheater 3y ago
    According to Google Scholar, the paper has been cited 19 times [1], which isn't groundbreaking but is an order of magnitude larger. Also, I imagine the fringe nature of scientific research into remote viewing keeps researcher numbers and therefore citation counts low. Perhaps a better paper is "The Persistent Phenomena of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn, who, at the time of publication, was Dean of Engineering at Princeton [2]. According to Google Scholar, this paper has 286 citations [3]. Or consider "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena", also by Jahn, with 238 citations, according to Google Scholar. Or even Jahn's book "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World", which, according to Google Scholar, has 736 citations. > What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers? I recommend you look at link 2, page 21, starting at the section "Theoretical Concepts." It overviews a number of plausible models, including one derived from quantum mechanics. Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remote%20viewing%20experiment%20in%20a%20group%20setting&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remo... [2] http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22The+persistent+paradox+of+psychic+phenomena%3A+An+engineering+perspective%22&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22...
    - jules22 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_... Experiments under Jahn's purview also explored remote viewing and other topics in parapsychology. In 1982, at the invitation of the editors of Proceedings of the IEEE, Jahn published a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective.[8] A subsequent critique of this review by psychologist Ray Hyman, which was also invited by the journal's editors, discussed Jahn's work in the context of a long history of flawed psychic research.[9] Psychologist James Alcock carried out an extensive review of Jahn's research and found there to be "serious methodological problems".[10] Statistical flaws in Jahn's work have been proposed by physicist Stanley Jeffers.[11] Jahn closed the PEAR lab in 2007.[12]
- jules22 3y ago
  > As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one. I never said they weren't good at tech and engineering. Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience.
  - waterheater 3y ago
    > Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience. As of 2017, the military actively conducted research in the domain of Anomalous Mental Cognition [1]. The modern terminology is different and more technical, but the goal remains the same: to identify and understand precognitive and extrasensory abilities. Also, SRI International was a defense contractor, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A defense contractor may well be charged by the military to make a device for Anomalous Mental Cognition. [1] https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/ https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/
    - jules22 3y ago
      Fine. I accept that the Army contracts everything out. In which case, my point is that you were ascribing scientific credibility to the Army because they make stealth bombers and I was arguing that the engineering expertise is a.) not pertinent, b.) not within the institution. I don't consider Annie Jacobson to be an unbiased source. Here are some glaring criticisms of her past books in terms of her competence. Leading space historian Michael J. Neufeld, gave a negative review of the book: “Jacobsen concentrates on the scandals, which inevitably leads to an imbalance in presentation. Little is said about the substantive contributions of von Braun.” Space historian Dwayne Day, for instance, called Area 51 a "poorly-sourced, error-filled book" in which the author makes an argument that "defies common sense" and is reliant on one anonymous source. Jeffrey T. Richelson and Robert S. Norris, critiquing Jacobsen's factual errors on the blog Washington Decoded, stated that "[t]here are so many mistakes that it is hard to know where to begin ... Area 51 is a case study of how not to research and write about top-secret activities." Historian Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, also criticized the book's sensationalistic reporting of "old news" and its "error-ridden" reporting. He wrote: "All of [her main source's] claims appear in one or another of the various publicly available Roswell/UFO/Area 51 books and documents churned out by believers, charlatans and scholars over the past 60 years. In attributing the stories she reports to an unnamed engineer and Manhattan Project veteran while seemingly failing to conduct even minimal research into the man's sources, Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent." The book was sharply criticized for extensive errors in an essay by a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior fellow at the National Security Archive. I will accept it when mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists acknowledge it as something that exists. Not one or two of them, but most of them.
- jules22 3y ago
  > n=36 and p=0.0000006 That is how pseudoscientific studies often look like. Low n, fantastic p, yet no replicability when you should expect 100% replicability. Why? They always turn out to be badly conducted experiments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_recept... The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates. Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues. James Randi has written controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.

waterheater 3y ago

Ah, you are referring to the SRI experiments, though I'm not sure who "they" are. You should, however, be aware that the Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume: 64, Issue: 10, October 1976) contain a paper presenting the results of a remote-viewing experiment with n=36 and p=0.0000006 [1]. Many people who purport to "love science" set aside how much of one's understanding of the universe is axiomatic. Now, I've never directly experienced time dilation, and I have heard that GPS satellites have been created to take time dilation effects into account. I have, however, experienced and validated Newtonian dynamics (physics classes). In either case, both Newtonian dynamics and time dilation were presented to me as axiomatic; that is to say, I haven't performed a full, independent derivation of these two ideas of physics. However, I still accept that the general ideas are sound. If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it. >Army and CIA, while are generally rational, are not necessarily great at critical thinking or science. That's funny to say, seeing as it's well-established that military technology across all domains is significantly more advanced than the average person's technology. As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one. [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1454638 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1454638

fluoridation 3y ago
A paper from 1976 claims to have detected ESP in its participants. The paper appears to have only been cited twice since, both in 1979, one to explain the 1976 results as experimental bias, and the other to report failure to reproduce. I wouldn't throw out my walkie-talkie just yet. >If a model of physics supports the idea of remote viewing, so be it. Okay. What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers?
- waterheater 3y ago
  According to Google Scholar, the paper has been cited 19 times [1], which isn't groundbreaking but is an order of magnitude larger. Also, I imagine the fringe nature of scientific research into remote viewing keeps researcher numbers and therefore citation counts low. Perhaps a better paper is "The Persistent Phenomena of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert G. Jahn, who, at the time of publication, was Dean of Engineering at Princeton [2]. According to Google Scholar, this paper has 286 citations [3]. Or consider "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena", also by Jahn, with 238 citations, according to Google Scholar. Or even Jahn's book "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World", which, according to Google Scholar, has 736 citations. > What's that model? Are brains RF transceivers? I recommend you look at link 2, page 21, starting at the section "Theoretical Concepts." It overviews a number of plausible models, including one derived from quantum mechanics. Yes, brains are RF transceivers. This is why transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remote%20viewing%20experiment%20in%20a%20group%20setting&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%20confirmatory%20remo... [2] http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf http://phere.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22The+persistent+paradox+of+psychic+phenomena%3A+An+engineering+perspective%22&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=%22...
  - jules22 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn#Parapsychology_... Experiments under Jahn's purview also explored remote viewing and other topics in parapsychology. In 1982, at the invitation of the editors of Proceedings of the IEEE, Jahn published a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective.[8] A subsequent critique of this review by psychologist Ray Hyman, which was also invited by the journal's editors, discussed Jahn's work in the context of a long history of flawed psychic research.[9] Psychologist James Alcock carried out an extensive review of Jahn's research and found there to be "serious methodological problems".[10] Statistical flaws in Jahn's work have been proposed by physicist Stanley Jeffers.[11] Jahn closed the PEAR lab in 2007.[12]
jules22 3y ago
> As a small example, neither one of us could make a stealth bomber capable of dropping nuclear ordinance anywhere in the world nor perform the required R&D to properly design one. I never said they weren't good at tech and engineering. Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience.
- waterheater 3y ago
  > Anyway, the army and CIA make none of those. They just contract it out to Northrop or such, no? I haven't accused defense contractors of paranormal pseudoscience. As of 2017, the military actively conducted research in the domain of Anomalous Mental Cognition [1]. The modern terminology is different and more technical, but the goal remains the same: to identify and understand precognitive and extrasensory abilities. Also, SRI International was a defense contractor, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A defense contractor may well be charged by the military to make a device for Anomalous Mental Cognition. [1] https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/ https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/
  - jules22 3y ago
    Fine. I accept that the Army contracts everything out. In which case, my point is that you were ascribing scientific credibility to the Army because they make stealth bombers and I was arguing that the engineering expertise is a.) not pertinent, b.) not within the institution. I don't consider Annie Jacobson to be an unbiased source. Here are some glaring criticisms of her past books in terms of her competence. Leading space historian Michael J. Neufeld, gave a negative review of the book: “Jacobsen concentrates on the scandals, which inevitably leads to an imbalance in presentation. Little is said about the substantive contributions of von Braun.” Space historian Dwayne Day, for instance, called Area 51 a "poorly-sourced, error-filled book" in which the author makes an argument that "defies common sense" and is reliant on one anonymous source. Jeffrey T. Richelson and Robert S. Norris, critiquing Jacobsen's factual errors on the blog Washington Decoded, stated that "[t]here are so many mistakes that it is hard to know where to begin ... Area 51 is a case study of how not to research and write about top-secret activities." Historian Richard Rhodes, writing in The Washington Post, also criticized the book's sensationalistic reporting of "old news" and its "error-ridden" reporting. He wrote: "All of [her main source's] claims appear in one or another of the various publicly available Roswell/UFO/Area 51 books and documents churned out by believers, charlatans and scholars over the past 60 years. In attributing the stories she reports to an unnamed engineer and Manhattan Project veteran while seemingly failing to conduct even minimal research into the man's sources, Jacobsen shows herself at a minimum extraordinarily gullible or journalistically incompetent." The book was sharply criticized for extensive errors in an essay by a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and a senior fellow at the National Security Archive. I will accept it when mainstream psychologists and neuroscientists acknowledge it as something that exists. Not one or two of them, but most of them.
jules22 3y ago
> n=36 and p=0.0000006 That is how pseudoscientific studies often look like. Low n, fantastic p, yet no replicability when you should expect 100% replicability. Why? They always turn out to be badly conducted experiments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Scientific_recept... The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates. Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues. James Randi has written controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.