Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Psychic Feelings
301 Answers
Do you believe that - maybe even have examples of - some people can somehow sense what you're thinking or feeling even if they're a long distance away and haven't seen in you in a long while?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vernonk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Earlier on in this thread I suggested that it ought to be possible to construct an effective theory of psychic abilities even without needing to know the full details of what goes on. I have no idea what this will spit out, and to make it fair I also suggested that someone else could feed in any numbers that I would need to make a prediction using it.
Such an idea is completely reasonable, because (a) that's how Science works, and (b) the proposition made by DTCfan earlier is that psychic abilities might just be a poorly understood physical process. Either way I don't think I can be accused of dismissing it out of hand. I have looked at the evidence, and have decided that there is no basis currently on which to believe that such abilities exist. Yes, that may change in future. No, I don't expect it to. If someone presented a convincing case otherwise beyond anecdote I hope I'd change my mind.
Such an idea is completely reasonable, because (a) that's how Science works, and (b) the proposition made by DTCfan earlier is that psychic abilities might just be a poorly understood physical process. Either way I don't think I can be accused of dismissing it out of hand. I have looked at the evidence, and have decided that there is no basis currently on which to believe that such abilities exist. Yes, that may change in future. No, I don't expect it to. If someone presented a convincing case otherwise beyond anecdote I hope I'd change my mind.
I'd disagree because:
- Quantum Mechanics is random;
- It is governed by physical laws;
- we can still made predictions despite the inherent randomness.
Those predictions tend to apply to an ensemble so that while any one quantum state may not do what we expect, any large set of quantum states behaves overall precisely as expected.
The idea that any phenomenon can defy analysis is ... well not impossible, but would certainly buck the general trend.
- Quantum Mechanics is random;
- It is governed by physical laws;
- we can still made predictions despite the inherent randomness.
Those predictions tend to apply to an ensemble so that while any one quantum state may not do what we expect, any large set of quantum states behaves overall precisely as expected.
The idea that any phenomenon can defy analysis is ... well not impossible, but would certainly buck the general trend.
Oh, sorry DTC -- I think my proposition earlier was in reply to an earlier point of yours, or perhaps it was just idle thoughts I had in response to this entire thread.
On the assumption that the equation in my avatar is not the final theory, which everyone in Physics "knows", then yes there are new forms of energy we haven't found yet, sort of. Those forms of energy would only appear, though, at "higher energies" then we currently have access to.
On the assumption that the equation in my avatar is not the final theory, which everyone in Physics "knows", then yes there are new forms of energy we haven't found yet, sort of. Those forms of energy would only appear, though, at "higher energies" then we currently have access to.
I wanted to "close" (although I'm sure I'll be back really, I never can resist an argument) with a final thought: It's important to have an open mind, because we still have a lot to learn. I think it's just as important to know where we have been first, so that you know "what to have an open mind about", as it were.
Ideas worth considering are then those that extend the current framework but also match up with it -- it's been too successful so far to be entirely rejected, although of course there are holes and gaps -- and one should be highly sceptical of any idea that proposes that this same framework must be utterly wrong.
Ideas worth considering are then those that extend the current framework but also match up with it -- it's been too successful so far to be entirely rejected, although of course there are holes and gaps -- and one should be highly sceptical of any idea that proposes that this same framework must be utterly wrong.
Naomi, I have said may times on AB that the human brain is not by any means reliable. We often see or hear things that want to see or hear. The human brain is expert at filling in gaps to hide the deficiencies from us. I refer you again the eye.You only see a small pecentage of what you think you see, the rest is all bodging. The eyes and ears are trained to see and hear thing that are important to their owner. That is why musicians and artists sense things differently to laypersons. Your senses seem infallible only because they have no self checks.
Jim, //I think it's just as important to know where we have been first, so that you know "what to have an open mind about", as it were.//
Gosh! That sounds almost religious! Are there guidelines to what you can have an open mind about and what you can’t, then? No one has suggested that anything be rejected – except you and the others who dismiss ideas simply because they do not fit in with the status quo or your world view and are, therefore, beyond the scope of your comprehension.
Jom, //The eyes and ears are trained to see and hear thing that are important to their owner.//
Mrs.O's eyes and ears weren't trained to see and hear things that she, at the time, knew nothing about.
Gosh! That sounds almost religious! Are there guidelines to what you can have an open mind about and what you can’t, then? No one has suggested that anything be rejected – except you and the others who dismiss ideas simply because they do not fit in with the status quo or your world view and are, therefore, beyond the scope of your comprehension.
Jom, //The eyes and ears are trained to see and hear thing that are important to their owner.//
Mrs.O's eyes and ears weren't trained to see and hear things that she, at the time, knew nothing about.
There are no guidelines as such... but look -- if something contradicts where we are at the moment then there is a problem. Because where we are works! Look around you and see this -- The products of the Scientific approach, the evidence that it works, are all around you. The evidence for alternatives is far more sparse, sometimes to the point of being non-existent.
I am not rejecting this because it doesn't fit in with my world view -- I am rejecting it -- or am at least highly sceptical -- because there is no reliable evidence. Why is that such a problem?
I am not rejecting this because it doesn't fit in with my world view -- I am rejecting it -- or am at least highly sceptical -- because there is no reliable evidence. Why is that such a problem?
Jim, //if something contradicts where we are at the moment then there is a problem.//
If there’s a problem, perhaps science should take it more seriously and attempt to solve it.
//I am rejecting it -- or am at least highly sceptical -- because there is no reliable evidence. Why is that such a problem?//
What you are saying is that because the millions who have experienced this odd phenomena can only offer anecdotal (and, at the moment, it can only be anecdotal) evidence, that evidence is not worth considering. Whilst many of these people may be liars, or delusional, or potty, many of them are not. There are things happening in this world that we can't currently explain, but because hard evidence cannot be provided, science files it all under the heading 'Nonsense'. That is the problem.
If there’s a problem, perhaps science should take it more seriously and attempt to solve it.
//I am rejecting it -- or am at least highly sceptical -- because there is no reliable evidence. Why is that such a problem?//
What you are saying is that because the millions who have experienced this odd phenomena can only offer anecdotal (and, at the moment, it can only be anecdotal) evidence, that evidence is not worth considering. Whilst many of these people may be liars, or delusional, or potty, many of them are not. There are things happening in this world that we can't currently explain, but because hard evidence cannot be provided, science files it all under the heading 'Nonsense'. That is the problem.
//What you are saying is that because the millions who have experienced this odd phenomena can only offer anecdotal (and, at the moment, it can only be anecdotal) evidence, that evidence is not worth considering. Whilst many of these people may be liars, or delusional, or potty, many of them are not. There are things happening in this world that we can't currently explain, but because hard evidence cannot be provided, science files it all under the heading 'Nonsense'. //
Sounds awfully like religion to me
Sounds awfully like religion to me
It's really not that much of a problem. Don't have a perception of Scientists as close-minded. Be more concerned about the fact that people are too quick to dismiss Scientific thought and follow their own ideas, when those are often ineffective or even dangerous. Example: alternative medicines, particularly homeopathy.
In principle every Scientist investigates the world and tests ideas about it because, believe it or not, they want to know how the world works. There have already been many tests of psychic abilities so it's not like the idea has been ignored. It's just that the idea has failed to pass tests of scientific rigour. And, as that same system produces massive results everywhere else, there is little cause to take any further claims seriously.
In principle every Scientist investigates the world and tests ideas about it because, believe it or not, they want to know how the world works. There have already been many tests of psychic abilities so it's not like the idea has been ignored. It's just that the idea has failed to pass tests of scientific rigour. And, as that same system produces massive results everywhere else, there is little cause to take any further claims seriously.
Jim, that first paragraph is a bit patronising - I honestly don’t need your advice on how I should perceive science – really I don’t - but moving on….
//In principle every Scientist investigates the world and tests ideas about it because, believe it or not, they want to know how the world works.//
… and then they come across something that millions of people claim to have experienced, but because they don’t have the technology or the know-how to test it, they arrogantly decide that all those people must be wrong - and give up.
//In principle every Scientist investigates the world and tests ideas about it because, believe it or not, they want to know how the world works.//
… and then they come across something that millions of people claim to have experienced, but because they don’t have the technology or the know-how to test it, they arrogantly decide that all those people must be wrong - and give up.
I think it's patronising that you assume I'm being close-minded just because I've read up on these effects fairly extensively, found that they don't meet a critical test, and are thus worth being highly sceptical of.
By the way, occasionally I could swear I have feelings of deja vu, so it's not just "deciding that other people must be wrong", but deciding that I am as well.
By the way, occasionally I could swear I have feelings of deja vu, so it's not just "deciding that other people must be wrong", but deciding that I am as well.
Latest Posts
Unfair Notice Of Intended Prosecution
Law5 mins ago
What Does This Mean On Messenger?
Technology13 mins ago
July 2024 Crossword ( Science )
Crosswords19 mins ago
News31 mins ago
