Remote viewing.Is it possible?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Stagnant:

But it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. You wouldn't trust advanced quantum mechanics to a gibbon and take it's findings as gospel.

Think about this for a moment. Who does Randi call when someone decides to go up to the challenge? Well, other than his producer. The scientists in the field in question. At that point, his credentials don't matter at all.

As above, of course his credentials matter if attempting to prove or disprove a subject in a scientific manner. Scientific peer review is extremely important, or do you think Pastor Bobyauncle on Godbother TV proves the existence of a supreme being - don't worry, he's consulted with the relevant scientists of the field in question and they all say He knows you're a sinner, but the papacy thanks you for your continued donations - Jesus loves everyone.

That said, the sheer fact that nobody has ever won a challenge which should be incredibly simple for a million dollars says a lot.

It says nothing when such a large sum of money is involved and the seat of power is held in bias with their own financial motivations instead of an altruistic, independent and impartial body.

GoaThief:

As above, of course his credentials matter if attempting to prove or disprove a subject in a scientific manner.

Why do his credentials matter, if he's got people with the relevant credentials there to examine the claim being made? That's a bit like complaining that a defense attorney doesn't have the credentials to say how the murder victim died, when the attorney has called a forensic scientist to the stand. The attorney's credentials don't matter, because he's relying on the expertise of someone who does have the credentials.

That said, Randi's credentials as a magician are relevant here, because he knows how trickery works. When trying to tell fake magic from real magic, knowing how the fake magic works is important.

On top of that, if the data he provides is good, his credentials actually don't matter. What matters is the data, not who presents it. There is something to be said for ignoring people who lack credentials purely as a time-saving measure, but if you do that then you need to ignore the people claiming remote viewing exists for the same reason.

It says nothing when such a large sum of money is involved and the seat of power is held in bias with their own financial motivations instead of an altruistic, independent and impartial body.

Do you have any evidence that the test is unfairly rigged to prevent people from winning?

GoaThief:

Stagnant:

But it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. You wouldn't trust advanced quantum mechanics to a gibbon and take it's findings as gospel.

<more missing the point>

At the point where the scientists get called in to perform the test, it is then THEIR credentials which matter. Not his. He's the figurehead. What he has to say doesn't really matter. And, from what I've heard, eh does get the experts in.

It says nothing when such a large sum of money is involved and the seat of power is held in bias with their own financial motivations instead of an altruistic, independent and impartial body.

Can you prove that this bias
a) is real and
b) plays a significant role in the fact that nobody has succeeded?

TheStatutoryApe:

Yes, actually you do need to examine all of "creation", past present and future, to "know" that the categories do not overlap. Anything less you are simply making an assumption based on limited knowledge.

edit: It is not in any way incorrect to make assumptions based on limited knowledge, but it is incorrect to treat it as more than that.

I understand your point, but you are wrong.

Because we have a very clear biological definition of both what it means to be a human, and what it means to be a mushroom.

No single organism, imagined or real, can at the same time qualify for both - they have mutually exclusive criteria on the very fundamental biological level, from metabolism to morphology.

Even if we were to find a Goomba species, they wouldn't be humans - or in all probability mushrooms either - but a new third category altogether. In fact, the only way humans could exist outside of Earth is if they originated from here. Because in biology, the same species cannot evolve from different origins.

No matter what aliens or species exist in the universe, the only place where humans can have evolved is Earth. Only on Earth (or if one believes in aliens, from Earth) do we find organisms capable of fulfilling the definition of 'human'. And even if some alien did take a human, and spliced him/her with a mushroom, in order to qualify as a mushroom the person would no longer qualify as a human, because in order to be a mushroom they'd have to loose too much of their human biology.

It is a very clear case of defined non-overlapping categories. Since we know from biology that the category for 'mushroom' on a fundamental level can never overlap with 'human', in order to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that something is not a mushroom I only have to prove it is human. Or a bird. Or any category that does not overlap with the biological definition of mushroom.

If something is X, it is not Y.
Something is X
Therefore is not Y.
Thus a negative is proven.

EDIT: Or to put it in the way of atomic theory. Let us say we have a single atom. It cannot at the same time be both nitrogen, and carbon, because the definition for one categorically excludes the other on a fundamental level (proton count in this instance). And you do not have to scour the universe and not-find a carbonitrogen atom, in order to prove that the atom isn't nitrogen. Simply prove it is carbon, and with process of elimination of mutually exclusive definitions, you've proven it is not nitrogen.

Technetium:
We as humans only use around 20-22% of the capacity for our brains. If geniuses, such as Einstein were able to use 23%, just 1% more and look at how that has advanced our theories regarding the speed of light and quantnum physics, wouldn't something as far fetched as telepathy or remote viewing have a possibility of being realised? The truth is, we don't know. We know so little about so much of the Human Brain that there are procedures that we've discovered that work in "unknown ways", to quote from a recent Website I was looking at for research on neurodegenerative diseases. As we progress further into the future, with greater advancements in technology, we will soon be able to know more about ourselves, the functions of the Brain, and the infinite possibilities a 100% capacity Brain (If this becomes possible) would give us. Just because we try something now and fail doesn't mean that we won't try it again in the future and succeed.

We use 20-22% of our brain power at any given time. It all isn't working all the time. We can dump some functions onto parts of our brains if chunks are missing, but things runs best when all our brain is doing the thing it was designed to do.

There is one time our brains flare up and use 100%.

It is called a seizure.

Blablahb:

McMullen:
What did those scientific studies find?
Do you use your avatar image sincerely or ironically? Because the person who made it has no idea what either Atheism or the Big Bang really are.

They produced a few vague claims of succes, always in retrospect, and very questionable.

They claimed for instance to have predicted the release of a hostage, and his medical condition, but what they said was along the lines of "One side of him hurts, and he will be on an aeroplane".

That covers about half the world's population at any moment in time, but it didn't stop the so-called psychics from claiming succes.

That's how those conmen operate. Guesswork, background research and sometimes a little body language reading, and then they search in what happened instead for an event that fits their vague bullshit claims, and claim they predicted it.

Sometimes they did get it right.

By accident.

One person said their was a military base at X ladittude and Y longitude, but then gave nothing but incorrect statements about how the place actually looked like. Why even bother with this pyschic crap anyway?

We have things in orbit that can read the date off a dime, bugs that can fit in a penny, and all kinds of ways to see, hear, or find information from somebody even if your in a different country. Mystical powers don't match up very well to modern tech.

Reminds me of the old adage: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And James Randi has the right idea, if psychics aren't financially motivated to prove their powers, why do they charge so much for a small phone call?

Not G. Ivingname:
Sometimes they did get it right.

By accident.

Yeah, it's pretty much the same as astrology and similar stuff that is fueled merely by anecdotes. Sure you'll get something right eventually by pure chance. What we'd need are statistically significant results.

No, if it was possible at all I would imagine more people would have caught on to it. I gotta see some evidence if i'm going to believe it.

Skeleon:
Eh, everything is possible in the vaguest sense, including Solipsism (which is why I don't like to deal in what's "possible", it's a useless question).

Ah! I have a term for things that are technically possible, in the vaguest sense, because of the Bigness of Space and the Impossibility of Knowing Things for Certain:

Pockable.

It's great! Use it at parties!
"Crystals have healing powers."
"Well, that's pockable."

Use it at home!
"Honey, do you think you'll ever want to have a child?"
"Anything's pockable, dear."

Use it when making speeches!
"But, Mr. President, couldn't you be wrong about evolution?"
"That's a pockability, sure."

Some people say they can astral project when they dream, but there is no proof so I would say no.

It better not be true, its bad enough with the webcams without adding "seeing through the mind" to the voyeurism arsenal.

Quick and dirty answer(must waffle because of stupid word post limit):
No, stop being so bloody stupid!

The Thinker:
Pockable.

Great, now I want some Pocky.
Where'd you get the idea for that term from? Sounds like it might be based on some other word?

Is it possible? I guess technically it could be.
Is it plausible? No. All evidence currently says it is not.

Us pesky rationalists always rely on those damn evidence, and they say no.

Not G. Ivingname:

We use 20-22% of our brain power at any given time. It all isn't working all the time. We can dump some functions onto parts of our brains if chunks are missing, but things runs best when all our brain is doing the thing it was designed to do.

There is one time our brains flare up and use 100%.

It is called a seizure.

1) Depends how you mean 'working'. Pretty much all the brain is working all the time; parts do not switch on and off, they generally change patterns and rate of activity as required.

2) Our ability to dump functions onto parts is extremely limited. Some areas might be able to make limited corrections for problems in other connected areas, and areas with partial damage might be able to adapt and 're-wire' over time to recover full (or near to it) functionality.

3) Seizures may be caused by massive overactivity of neurones, but it's not useful to call this 100% brain power, as excessive celullar synchronisation or activity destroys information processing capability.

Skeleon:
Pocky.
Where'd you get the idea for that term from? Sounds like it might be based on some other word?

Everyone I know says "pockable" reminds them of Pocky, but I really just tried to find a pattern in the words "probable", "possible", and "plausible", and find a word similar to them. And "poccable" just looked too weird.

SakSak:
I understand your point, but you are wrong.

Because we have a very clear biological definition of both what it means to be a human, and what it means to be a mushroom.

No single organism, imagined or real, can at the same time qualify for both - they have mutually exclusive criteria on the very fundamental biological level, from metabolism to morphology.

Even if we were to find a Goomba species, they wouldn't be humans - or in all probability mushrooms either - but a new third category altogether. In fact, the only way humans could exist outside of Earth is if they originated from here. Because in biology, the same species cannot evolve from different origins.

No matter what aliens or species exist in the universe, the only place where humans can have evolved is Earth. Only on Earth (or if one believes in aliens, from Earth) do we find organisms capable of fulfilling the definition of 'human'. And even if some alien did take a human, and spliced him/her with a mushroom, in order to qualify as a mushroom the person would no longer qualify as a human, because in order to be a mushroom they'd have to loose too much of their human biology.

It is a very clear case of defined non-overlapping categories. Since we know from biology that the category for 'mushroom' on a fundamental level can never overlap with 'human', in order to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that something is not a mushroom I only have to prove it is human. Or a bird. Or any category that does not overlap with the biological definition of mushroom.

If something is X, it is not Y.
Something is X
Therefore is not Y.
Thus a negative is proven.

EDIT: Or to put it in the way of atomic theory. Let us say we have a single atom. It cannot at the same time be both nitrogen, and carbon, because the definition for one categorically excludes the other on a fundamental level (proton count in this instance). And you do not have to scour the universe and not-find a carbonitrogen atom, in order to prove that the atom isn't nitrogen. Simply prove it is carbon, and with process of elimination of mutually exclusive definitions, you've proven it is not nitrogen.

It isn't wrong. You are using inference and inference is based on assumption. Assumptions are not "proof". They may be accurate assumptions, useful assumptions, correct assumptions, but that does not make them "proof". If we were to use other examples where it is possible or even likely that the proposed mutually exclusive definitions may not be as accurate as we think they are then it would look less like "proof". You only call it "proof" because you feel you have a high level of confidence in your definitions. This changes nothing about the manner in which you achieved your result.

TheStatutoryApe:

SakSak:
I understand your point, but you are wrong.

Because we have a very clear biological definition of both what it means to be a human, and what it means to be a mushroom.

No single organism, imagined or real, can at the same time qualify for both - they have mutually exclusive criteria on the very fundamental biological level, from metabolism to morphology.

Even if we were to find a Goomba species, they wouldn't be humans - or in all probability mushrooms either - but a new third category altogether. In fact, the only way humans could exist outside of Earth is if they originated from here. Because in biology, the same species cannot evolve from different origins.

No matter what aliens or species exist in the universe, the only place where humans can have evolved is Earth. Only on Earth (or if one believes in aliens, from Earth) do we find organisms capable of fulfilling the definition of 'human'. And even if some alien did take a human, and spliced him/her with a mushroom, in order to qualify as a mushroom the person would no longer qualify as a human, because in order to be a mushroom they'd have to loose too much of their human biology.

It is a very clear case of defined non-overlapping categories. Since we know from biology that the category for 'mushroom' on a fundamental level can never overlap with 'human', in order to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that something is not a mushroom I only have to prove it is human. Or a bird. Or any category that does not overlap with the biological definition of mushroom.

If something is X, it is not Y.
Something is X
Therefore is not Y.
Thus a negative is proven.

EDIT: Or to put it in the way of atomic theory. Let us say we have a single atom. It cannot at the same time be both nitrogen, and carbon, because the definition for one categorically excludes the other on a fundamental level (proton count in this instance). And you do not have to scour the universe and not-find a carbonitrogen atom, in order to prove that the atom isn't nitrogen. Simply prove it is carbon, and with process of elimination of mutually exclusive definitions, you've proven it is not nitrogen.

It isn't wrong. You are using inference and inference is based on assumption. Assumptions are not "proof". They may be accurate assumptions, useful assumptions, correct assumptions, but that does not make them "proof". If we were to use other examples where it is possible or even likely that the proposed mutually exclusive definitions may not be as accurate as we think they are then it would look less like "proof". You only call it "proof" because you feel you have a high level of confidence in your definitions. This changes nothing about the manner in which you achieved your result.

I think you fail to understand that we define some of these categories, much like we define the axioms of mathematics. We do not assume them, we define them. We define a carbon atom based on proton count. We define what protons are based on the quarks that make it up and observed characteristics it exhibits. We define human based on biology, organs, morphology, down to requisite cellular metabolism.

In the case of atomic theory, either something has X number of protons, or it does not. If we ever find that there is such a thing as 'half-proton' to break this definition, the question needs to be asked if it is a proton to begin with.

Using logic and inference, we prove things in mathematics. If A, then B. If B, then Not C. Everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not.

How is this different?

SakSak:
I think you fail to understand that we define some of these categories, much like we define the axioms of mathematics. We do not assume them, we define them. We define a carbon atom based on proton count. We define what protons are based on the quarks that make it up and observed characteristics it exhibits. We define human based on biology, organs, morphology, down to requisite cellular metabolism.

In the case of atomic theory, either something has X number of protons, or it does not. If we ever find that there is such a thing as 'half-proton' to break this definition, the question needs to be asked if it is a proton to begin with.

Using logic and inference, we prove things in mathematics. If A, then B. If B, then Not C. Everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not.

How is this different?

As I already stated, you can only have negative proof in mathematics. In mathematics you set the definitions. In reality definitions are merely an approximate description as close to reality as we are capable of knowing. To continue the quantum physics references a rather famous dichotomy was "wave" vs "particle". Scientists were quite certain that photons must be one or the other. By certain criteria and evidence photons were a wave and by other criteria and evidence they were a particle. Ultimately it turned out that the dichotomy didn't exist. The people who "proved" photons were waves and the people who "proved" photons were particles were both wrong because of their assumptions. Evidence that a photon is a wave is not evidence that it is not a particle and vice versa. That is why one needs to realize that assumptions are just assumptions and not "proof".

The Thinker:
Everyone I know says "pockable" reminds them of Pocky, but I really just tried to find a pattern in the words "probable", "possible", and "plausible", and find a word similar to them. And "poccable" just looked too weird.

Eh... but that gives the content of the term too much credit, actually. The things I find possible or "pockable" in that sense, I consider to be far from either probable or plausible. If anything, you should try to work in words like "improbable", "unlikely", "implausible", "barely", "merely", "sliver", "shadow", "doubt" or similar. Maybe something like "well, it's posserly" or "it's possimble" or whatever. No clue.

Skeleon:

The Thinker:
Everyone I know says "pockable" reminds them of Pocky, but I really just tried to find a pattern in the words "probable", "possible", and "plausible", and find a word similar to them. And "poccable" just looked too weird.

Eh... but that gives the content of the term too much credit, actually. The things I find possible or "pockable" in that sense, I consider to be far from either probable or plausible. If anything, you should try to work in words like "improbable", "unlikely", "implausible", "barely", "merely", "sliver", "shadow", "doubt" or similar. Maybe something like "well, it's posserly" or "it's possimble" or whatever. No clue.

It's a scale
"Probably" is "likely"
"Possibly" is "could have happened"
"Plausibly" is also "could have happened"
"Pockably" is "technically, this could have happened, because, even though there is no evidence for it and, in fact, evidence against it, we can't know anything for certain except the fact of our own individual existence."

I like "possimble", though "posserly" sounds to much like "elderly" for my tastes. However, in the end, the noise-grunts don't matter, only the meaning does.

The Thinker:
It's a scale
"Probably" is "likely"
"Possibly" is "could have happened"
"Plausibly" is also "could have happened"
"Pockably" is "technically, this could have happened, because, even though there is no evidence for it and, in fact, evidence against it, we can't know anything for certain except the fact of our own individual existence."

Ah, I see. I thought it was supposed to be a combination of the other words of sorts, which is why I said it lends the content of it too much credit.

However, in the end, the noise-grunts don't matter, only the meaning does.

True, though I like the general idea of simply having a word for it, rather than having to write a paragraph of qualifications each time to explain what I mean.

Skeleon:

Ah, I see. I thought it was supposed to be a combination of the other words of sorts, which is why I said it lends the content of it too much credit.

Oh! I see how you could see that, seeing as how you could me say I could see a pattern you could also see, but didn't see the descending order. See?

However, in the end, the noise-grunts don't matter, only the meaning does.

True, though I like the general idea of simply having a word for it, rather than having to write a paragraph of qualifications each time to explain what I mean.

I agree. Noise-grunts don't matter. Time does.

Hmm... it occurs to me that "impockable" would be like saying "a sure thing". I suppose people might misuse the word "impockable". Oh well.

The Thinker:
Oh! I see how you could see that, seeing as how you could me say I could see a pattern you could also see, but didn't see the descending order. See?

Si.

Low content post? Well, in the context of this little exchange, it's practically required.

TheStatutoryApe:
In mathematics you set the definitions. In reality definitions are merely an approximate description as close to reality as we are capable of knowing.

And yet, there are mutually exclusive definitions in reality.

To continue the quantum physics references a rather famous dichotomy was "wave" vs "particle". Scientists were quite certain that photons must be one or the other. By certain criteria and evidence photons were a wave and by other criteria and evidence they were a particle. Ultimately it turned out that the dichotomy didn't exist. The people who "proved" photons were waves and the people who "proved" photons were particles were both wrong because of their assumptions. Evidence that a photon is a wave is not evidence that it is not a particle and vice versa. That is why one needs to realize that assumptions are just assumptions and not "proof".

But that's the whole reason behind the general disbelief Particle-Wave duality caused: It didn't fit either category, but is an entire third one. And the very existance of a third category forced a re-evaluation on what is matter and energy.

Atoms still behave like they did before. And electromagnetic waves likewise. All you need to prove something cannot be an atom, is to prove it is an electromagnetic wave or in this instance of trichonomy, a photon. And if we find something that exists in the middle of a photon and a particle, it is a new fourth category.

SakSak:

TheStatutoryApe:
In mathematics you set the definitions. In reality definitions are merely an approximate description as close to reality as we are capable of knowing.

And yet, there are mutually exclusive definitions in reality.

Like "particle" and "wave" right? They are only actually mutually exclusive so long as the definitions and assumptions are actually correct.

But that's the whole reason behind the general disbelief Particle-Wave duality caused: It didn't fit either category, but is an entire third one. And the very existance of a third category forced a re-evaluation on what is matter and energy.

Atoms still behave like they did before. And electromagnetic waves likewise. All you need to prove something cannot be an atom, is to prove it is an electromagnetic wave or in this instance of trichonomy, a photon. And if we find something that exists in the middle of a photon and a particle, it is a new fourth category.

It wasn't a whole new category. They were flipped over it because they finally realized that the particle/wave dichotomy doesn't actually exist. Even atoms (and theoretically more massive objects) have wave like characteristics.

KlLLUMINATI:
Remote viewing.Is it possible?

Remote viewing is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means in particular extra sensory perception ESP or "sensing with mind". Scientific studies have been conducted, some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results.Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was eventually terminated in 1995.

Things have to interact with each other to do something. Every kid knows this, it's one of the principal fundamentals of the universe. Remote viewing and other psi stuff does not have any "bits" or whathaveyou interacting with anything, so no, remote viewing is bullshit.

TheStatutoryApe:

SakSak:

TheStatutoryApe:

You don't understand. You did not "prove" that "you are not a mushroom" you "proved" that "you are a human".

Except these are one and the same.

It is technically only an assumption that since you are a "human" you are not a "mushroom" since as far as our knowledge carries us there are not "human mushrooms".

Incorrect. It is not an assumption. We know what mushrooms are. We know what humans are. The existance of a being that can be biologically both is an impossibility, as one either has the characteristics of one or the either. The categories are mutually exclusive. One might as well ask for a bird ape.

Or indeed, crocodile duck.

Pragmatically speaking we leave it at that and do not harbour concerns that you may in fact be a Goomba but technically speaking it has not actually been "proven".

Wrong. We know the definition of a human. We know the definition of a mushroom. We do not need to examine all of creation to know that the categories do not overlap.

Yes, actually you do need to examine all of "creation", past present and future, to "know" that the categories do not overlap. Anything less you are simply making an assumption based on limited knowledge.

edit: It is not in any way incorrect to make assumptions based on limited knowledge, but it is incorrect to treat it as more than that.

Humanities graduate? Sure sounds like it.

You use words like "assumption", but it isn't an "assumption", that word implies a meaning that is not present; it is a reasonable inference based on the available information. Fantasising about knowledge we do not and may never have and saying "*sputter* well, I do declare, it is possible that somewhere in the universe outside our realm of perception, a man-shroom exists, aha! I have you good sir!" is not worthwhile, it's philosophical balls resurrected by disgruntled grognards who saw themselves being displaced by actual scientists.

Just to show you how stupid this argument is, lets apply it in favour of something which most people around here think is retarded; homeopathy(noting that this is an actual argument used by actual advocates for homeopathy);

It is possible, via some unknown mechanism which we cannot understand or detect for some reason, that water has a memory and, when subjected to a specific process consisting of knocks, taps, shakes, and successive dilution, can become a medically effective treatment.

Just as it is possible, via some unknown mechanism which we cannot understand or detect for some reason, that there exists a "thing" which meets the definitions of both "human" and "mushroom", despite those being contradictory states.

By your standard, I must accept these arguments as possible, despite them both flying in the face of all existing human knowledge and experience and being technically impossible according to our understanding of that knowledge.

Rubbish. A thing is either correct, or incorrect. If you cannot prove a thing correct, it is incorrect until proven otherwise, and employing the same brand of logic that gave us "the distance between two objects is infinite because tortoise" doesn't change that.

Magichead:

TheStatutoryApe:

SakSak:

Except these are one and the same.

Incorrect. It is not an assumption. We know what mushrooms are. We know what humans are. The existance of a being that can be biologically both is an impossibility, as one either has the characteristics of one or the either. The categories are mutually exclusive. One might as well ask for a bird ape.

Or indeed, crocodile duck.

Wrong. We know the definition of a human. We know the definition of a mushroom. We do not need to examine all of creation to know that the categories do not overlap.

Yes, actually you do need to examine all of "creation", past present and future, to "know" that the categories do not overlap. Anything less you are simply making an assumption based on limited knowledge.

edit: It is not in any way incorrect to make assumptions based on limited knowledge, but it is incorrect to treat it as more than that.

Humanities graduate? Sure sounds like it.

You use words like "assumption", but it isn't an "assumption", that word implies a meaning that is not present; it is a reasonable inference based on the available information. Fantasising about knowledge we do not and may never have and saying "*sputter* well, I do declare, it is possible that somewhere in the universe outside our realm of perception, a man-shroom exists, aha! I have you good sir!" is not worthwhile, it's philosophical balls resurrected by disgruntled grognards who saw themselves being displaced by actual scientists.

Just to show you how stupid this argument is, lets apply it in favour of something which most people around here think is retarded; homeopathy(noting that this is an actual argument used by actual advocates for homeopathy);

It is possible, via some unknown mechanism which we cannot understand or detect for some reason, that water has a memory and, when subjected to a specific process consisting of knocks, taps, shakes, and successive dilution, can become a medically effective treatment.

Just as it is possible, via some unknown mechanism which we cannot understand or detect for some reason, that there exists a "thing" which meets the definitions of both "human" and "mushroom", despite those being contradictory states.

By your standard, I must accept these arguments as possible, despite them both flying in the face of all existing human knowledge and experience and being technically impossible according to our understanding of that knowledge.

Rubbish. A thing is either correct, or incorrect. If you cannot prove a thing correct, it is incorrect until proven otherwise, and employing the same brand of logic that gave us "the distance between two objects is infinite because tortoise" doesn't change that.

An ad hominem and a strawman and what seriously looks like a lack of having read the whole discussion. If you'd like maybe you can catch up and get back to me.

So, OP, you're asking for someone to give you proof of something existing or not existing?

What does it matter, anyway? Proof, to you, is only on your terms, not that of logic and reason.

while i dont totally discount it could be possible. the human body is a remarkable thing, and you do get people who exhibit normally superhuman abilities to say survive cold that would kill 99% of people. but that said something like remote viewing , etc from all the evidence at best is highly unreliable if one was to assume it existed and wasnt just imagination and lucky guesses.

*edit* ive seen some test results that show some people are statistically better at predicting certain things but yeah not enough to to be definitive

KlLLUMINATI:
Remote viewing.Is it possible?

Remote viewing is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means in particular extra sensory perception ESP or "sensing with mind". Scientific studies have been conducted, some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results.Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was eventually terminated in 1995.

This reminds of that great movie The Men Who Stare at Goats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC2TzspJn5A

If it was possible then whether it was a good or bad thing would depend on whether it was being used by Jedi or evil types.

Regards

Nightspore

Who knows, maybe it IS the next step in evolution. Or technology. All we can do is wait. Hell, we probably won't be around to find out.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked