Is There Any Evidence For Any Psychic Phenomena?

Let us be as inclusive as possible and still maintain some kind of rigor.

Is there any evidence other than personal acounts for:

Abominable snowmen
acupuncture
alien abductions
amulets
angels
apparitions
astral travel
astrology
augury
automatic handwriting
banshees
Bermuda triangle
bigfoot
black cats
boogey men
broken mirrors
brownies
channeling
clairvoyance
crop circles
curses
demigods
demons
devil
divination
Einsteinian vortices (confusion hill)
elves
EMTs
extra sensory perception
extraterrestial beings
fairies
faith healers
fire starters
fortune telling
four leaf clover
Frankensteins
Friday the 13th
ghosts
ghouls
Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Goblins
God
hauntings
heaven
hell
hex
hobs
immortality
imps
incantations
incubae
jinx
Jonah
karma
kirilian photography
ladders (don't walk under them)
leprechauns
leviathans
levitations
life after death
lochness monster
lucky charms
madame Blavatsky
magic
magnetic bracelets
mermaids
miracles
mummy
necromancy
Noah's ark
Nostrodamus
numerology
omens
ouija boards
palm reading
phantom
phrenology
pixies
poltergeists
possession
prayer
precognition
prescience
prognostication
prophecy
psychic healing
psychic surgery
pyramid power
rabbit's foot
reincarnation
saints
Santa Claus
séance
shades
soothsayer
specters
spells
spirits
sprites
soul
succubae
Tai chi
talisman
telekinesis
telepathy
theosophy
time travel
transcendental meditation
transmigration of souls
trolls
ufos
undead
unicorns
Uri Geller
vampires
virgin birth
voodoo
warlocks
werewolves
wights
witches
wizards
wraiths
yeti
yin and yang
zombies

* In mathematics when you multiply two negatives you get a positive. So I am wondering, if I walk under a ladder indoors with an open umbrella, should I expect good luck?

Does anyone know of experiments that were conducted rigorously, showed statistically significant results and were repeated multiple times to confirm the results?

I've seen plenty of trolls over the Internet, and Santa Claus dressed as my grandpa. Friday the 13th is real, too. The last one was in May this year, next one will be in October next year. There seem to be one to three of the m in any given year. Undoubtedly some superstitious will act in a way that causes them misfortune on those days, and people will also note the date on those days if something bad happens to them.

As Samuel Johnson said "It is wonderful that five thousand years have now elapsed since the creation of the world, and still it is undecided whether or not there has ever been an instance of the spirit of any person appearing after death. All argument is against it; but all belief is for it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Let us be as inclusive as possible and still maintain some kind of rigor.

Is there any evidence other than personal acounts for:
prayer
Does anyone know of experiments that were conducted rigorously, showed statistically significant results and were repeated multiple times to confirm the results?

---

I presume the question is whether there any evidence that intercessory prayer makes things happen. That is completely misunderstanding any Christian understanding of prayer, which is no magic technique to persuade God. It is a relationship with God and God is beyond scientific proof, as God by definition beyond any existence.

But there is plenty of other sorts of prayer, particularly contemplative prayer, which need no scientific research to justify them.

Yes, there is evidence for psi phenomena. See Dean Radin's texts or check out the following reference list: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

The way I see it, anyone who does not accept this evidence is anti-scientific.

As far as seeing ghosts go, I've seen one myself. I know that is anecdotal, but there are many other people who have reported shared death experiences, near dear experiences and after death communications. Again, these are all anecdotal, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

If this kind of phenomena is real it is not going to be something that one can objectify into an unconscious technology, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

It is curious that all human cultures, however separate in time and space, develop a consistent belief in the supernatural. It is also curious how many of these beliefs overlap - almost every culture, for example, has the concept of ghosts.

That being said, scientific evidence is thin on the ground. James Randi has, since the early 1960s, offered a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any sort of supernatural manifestation under laboratory conditions, and nobody has yet claimed it - despite the many thousands of people world wide who claim to have paranormal abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Yes, there is evidence for psi phenomena. See Dean Radin's texts or check out the following reference list: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

The way I see it, anyone who does not accept this evidence is anti-scientific.

As far as seeing ghosts go, I've seen one myself. I know that is anecdotal, but there are many other people who have reported shared death experiences, near dear experiences and after death communications. Again, these are all anecdotal, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

If this kind of phenomena is real it is not going to be something that one can objectify into an unconscious technology, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

---

So skeptics are not allowed in your world? If there was undeniable evidence, someone would have claimed Randi's prize, like Loki said. No one has. I do not see a lot of other scientist's on board with this fringe's contentions, so accroding to you most scientists are anti-scientific. There must be some powerful names on that list who are anti-scientific.

You provided about 200 links, way too many. I have read one so far. When an enthusiast writes up the results of someone else's study, I have a reason to be skeptical. It might be noted that the someone else in this case is an enthusiast, as well.

I do not know what accounts for dogs seeming to know when their owners are returning home, when every effort seems to have been made by experimenters to make that time random and unpredictable.

It appears that either the experimenters have forgotten to account for something, or dogs have a degree of what we call broadly ESP. Those are my two main suspects.

If past is precedent and the latter proves true, we will be using ESP in commercial and military applications long before we understand it well.

Lokasenna, you came up with thoughts that have to be addressed. Take your first sentence. The Vikings may have been far removed in space and time from the Etruscans, but they were both primitive and pre-scientific. The headwaters of all cultures begin in the dark long ago, huddled around a campfire, listening to unknown sounds. It is from ancient sources that most of our superstitions hail. I do not really want to count Slenderman and other urban myths as the same thing. Millions of people can be made to believe something stupid by a post that goes viral.

People around that ancient campfire did the best they could, which was to anthropomorphsise everything. If lightning was being cast from the sky, then someone was casting it. Those ancient people had no tools, absolutely no way to reasonably explain the mechanics of things around them. If a tree branch fell and killed a member of their tribe, some conscious personality did that, too.

To human beings, superstitions are like the water the little Dutch boy does not have enough thumbs and fingers to hold back. Social media has proven that new breeds of superstition can be invented and disseminated rapidly to take root. They may differ somewhat from ancient superstitions, especially in the minds of the holders', but I would wager there is a substantial amount of commonality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

I presume the question is whether there any evidence that intercessory prayer makes things happen. That is completely misunderstanding any Christian understanding of prayer, which is no magic technique to persuade God. It is a relationship with God and God is beyond scientific proof, as God by definition beyond any existence.

But there is plenty of other sorts of prayer, particularly contemplative prayer, which need no scientific research to justify them.

---

In fact, the most recent experiment I read from Yes/No's monster link list was a study concerning the effects of intercessory prayer on hospital patients with bloodstream infections. Everything was randomized, double-blinded etc. They say they acheived significant results and list them along with the data and experiment design. A few percent difference is a significant result. I do not doubt their integity. But I do have to wonder what is going on.

Out of these several hundred links, I doubt I will find a single study not acheiving significant results in the positive direction. So what is going on? Are that many scientists unconsciously designing experiments that are biased?

Brian Josephson is a scientist of first rank who has been a huge advocate of parapsychological research since the 1970s. He is a big believer in ESP. Yet, why has someone of Joshephson's rank not stepped forward to announce results and claim Randi's $1,000,000 dollar prize? He has suffered many slings and arrows from the scientific establishment for his beliefs. He must feel he does not have anything yet, but these other scientists feel that they do. What is going on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

In fact, the most recent experiment I read from Yes/No's monster link list was a study concerning the effects of intercessory prayer on hospital patients with bloodstream infections. Everything was randomized, double-blinded etc

---

Since the prayers are offered out of love for the patients nor out of faith in God, just to show how clever you are, it isn’t Christian prayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Since the prayers are offered out of love for the patients nor out of faith in God, just to show how clever you are, it isn’t Christian prayer.

---

Because you say so?

Did you mean to say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Since the prayers are not offered out of love for the patients nor out of faith in God, just to show how clever you are, it isn’t Christian prayer.

---

It does not say they paid the one who prayed. The person might have done it out of philia.

When I hear Randi mentioned I think of Rupert Sheldrake's comments on him and his prize:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3SAD-gHTc

Much of what we believe is based on assertions and we follow various herds in our thinking. That is, we ground ourselves in theories. If the evidence goes against our chosen theories we reject the evidence. I do this myself. I am not trying to point a finger at anyone with this comment.

A scientific mentality would more quickly reject a theory than a herd mentality. However, it is not easy to know what the evidence actually is even in something not psi related. We have to be open to cognitive dissonance which is a painful experience, but there is no other way out of a cultural box.

For example, does "dark matter" exist? The current herd thinking assumes it exists and so people start looking for it. All the herd has to do is change the theory and the need to fund research to search for dark stuff vanishes. At the moment, I don't think there is any evidence for dark matter. At some point we will stop looking for it. Or find it. Or say we found it when we haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Did you mean to say:



It does not say they paid the one who prayed. The person might have done it out of philia.

---

I understood you to say that they were praying to prove a scientific experiment.

By Christian prayer I was thinking of the Garden of Gethsemane:

And (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Those who were experimenting to see if prayer “works” seemed to regard intercessory prayer as a form of magic.

Intercessory prayer seems to me to be a form of magic, but I don't understand how it fits in with the problem of psi phenomena.

There does seem to be a problem with using a word like "magic" to describe psi phenomena. It suggests negative qualities when used by some theists as well as some atheists. Both groups want to claim they are not doing magic, but for different reasons.

The theists, on the one hand, want only their priests or pastors to officiate over orthodox rituals (magic). They want to monopolize religious authority and not share it with "pagan" magicians. The atheists, on the other hand, don't like the magician's subjectivity interfering with their unconscious technology (magic). If atheists want to bend a spoon they will put one end of the spoon in a vise and twist the other end with a pliers. This way they can ignore the fact, because it is too obvious, that they needed their subjectivity to intend to bend the spoon in the first place. The vise and pliers would not have wasted their time doing it without them.

Sometimes I think our very ability to use language is a form of psi phenomenon. We just take it so much for granted, we don't see language as an unusual ability. However, for it to be a psi phenomenon would require some theory of psi that would explain language and also be able to make predictions so the theory could be falsified.

Intercessory prayer is not magic in the sense that it is not a technique for acquiring results. And it is not confined to ministers or priests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Intercessory prayer is not magic in the sense that it is not a technique for acquiring results. And it is not confined to ministers or priests.

---

But isn't it a technique that does acheive results, at least according to some? How does that make it not a technique for acquiring results? Are you saying the results are merely an unimportant by product?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

But isn't it a technique that does acheive results, at least according to some? How does that make it not a technique for acquiring results? Are you saying the results are merely an unimportant by product?

---

Then some have got the wrong end of the stick. There is no clear scriptural basis for intercessory prayer for others. Given belief in the Christian (or the Islamic) God it can't possibly be a means of getting God to do something. It is cooperation with God and an act of love for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Then some have got the wrong end of the stick. There is no clear scriptural basis for intercessory prayer for others. Given belief in the Christian (or the Islamic) God it can't possibly be a means of getting God to do something. It is cooperation with God and an act of love for others.

---

Okay. What do you mean by clear? What should one be thinking about as they pray for a sick relative?

By “clear” I mean I can’t off hand think of any passage in the Bible which gives the rationale for intercessory prayer.

If you are to do a scientific experiment to see if intercessory prayer for third parties works, then there will be a comparison between a group of those in need for whom prayer is offered and a group in similar need for which it is not. If the objects of prayer improve and the others don’t, you have proof.

In which case somebody makes a decision about a group of people in serious need that nobody can pray for them. And that’s not Christian or even humane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson

Then some have got the wrong end of the stick. There is no clear scriptural basis for intercessory prayer for others. Given belief in the Christian (or the Islamic) God it can't possibly be a means of getting God to do something. It is cooperation with God and an act of love for others.

---

This makes sense to me and may help explain why psi phenomena do not always work. The "cooperation" is the key point.

With typical unconscious technology, say a computer, we do not cooperate with the computer to get something done. When we intend to do something, we tell the computer what to do and it does it. The computer does not cooperate with us. It has no intention of its own. That means this is generally a repeatable process because the computer is constructed on deterministic or uniform random processes and so it cannot make a choice on its own. The repeatable process does not go on forever. Eventually the computer breaks down and we buy a new computer.

With prayer (or psi or magic or interpersonal communications) there are other conscious beings involved. We have to "cooperate" with these other agents (God, angels, muses, family members, pets). We may intend to get something done, but they may not have the same intention. It is not just our intention that is involved.

I've tried googling psi and come up with pounds per square inch or Public Services International. They can't be what you mean. Can you explain what psi means, please?

The word "psi" is another word for psychic phenomena which is part of what is on desiresjab's list, but it doesn't include everything on that list. It is a restricted area of research. Here is Radin's bibliography: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm It includes things like telepathy, ESP, healing at a distance, survival of consciousness and precognition. If some specific psychic phenomenon is not in this list I am neutral whether it exists or not.

In looking at desiresjab's original list there are items on that list that I do not think there is empirical evidence for. Some of the items on the list I don't consider "psychic phenomena".

In particular, I don't think there is any empirical evidence for "time travel" like one might see on Doctor Who. There might be some theoretical speculation, perhaps involving Einstein's gravitation theory, that suggests this is possible. That is a kind of evidence, but I want something more tangible since the theory could be wrong. I don't think anyone has claimed they've seen someone from the future or the past except in fiction. I suspect there is more empirical evidence for bigfoot than there is for time travelers. Or does someone know of such evidence for time travelers?

I've had my own experiences (strange and varied) that's all I need to know.

Seek and ye shall find!

It is harder to answer 179 links than it is one or two.

I have not looked at every single link, but I have waded through yet more of them from time to time. Is there any link here that really grabs anyone as strong evidence for the supernatural?

Some of the items on your list I agree with you don't exist. Time Travel is one of them. There are things I consider inanely supernatural that some people who call themselves "scientists" believe in. Many Worlds would be one of them.

The word "supernatural" assumes we agree on what "natural" means. Radin's bibliography, that I linked to earlier: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm, is not about the "supernatural". He would probably call it "supernormal" since that is the title of one of his books.

You don't have to read all the items in the bibliography. Pick one. I'll read it as well and we can discuss it.

How about this one by Targ & Puthoff (1974), Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Targ1974Nature.pdf

It is the first one in the Telepathy & ESP section, involves Uri Geller and is only six pages.

Compare this to the following article on AI allegedly creating a language that no one can understand but them at some Facebook research lab: https://www.fastcodesign.com/9013263...ould-we-let-it

Which do you find more credible? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Some of the items on your list I agree with you don't exist. Time Travel is one of them. There are things I consider inanely supernatural that some people who call themselves "scientists" believe in. Many Worlds would be one of them.

The word "supernatural" assumes we agree on what "natural" means. Radin's bibliography, that I linked to earlier: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm, is not about the "supernatural". He would probably call it "supernormal" since that is the title of one of his books.

You don't have to read all the items in the bibliography. Pick one. I'll read it as well and we can discuss it.

---

That is all right. You and I do not have to play the definition game here. We both have strong understandings of what the other means by supernatural or super normal. It is best to limit the word games to take a serious look at these tough to analyze phenomena.

Putting trust in the numbers outputted is a tough one, because you also have to have some trust in the methods and corrections used to derive the values. To invent a category like Effect Size for Non Contact Therapeutic Touch, and to retain some kind of faith in the manipulated value down the line, takes a real creature of faith, not science, perhaps.

* * * * *

In any case, here is the truth of it. The results are always borderline, never a smashing success that will convert throngs of skeptics once it is out. The results suggest more and better designed experiments might be a worthy enterprise for future researchers, they do not prove a thing, and only barely are strong enough to keep a discussion going.

Any alert follower is aware that these forces must be awfully weak, that is minute, in the human frame of experience. A person praying full time is not known to get results any different from the one praying only on his lunch break. That is a bet I would love to get a piece of. And I know there are plenty of deniers around who would bet on what they want to be true rather than what they suspect is true.

* * * * *

I have not worked on any such studies, so I do not know the mechanics from the inside. What I suspect is one makes some awesome leaps of faith in assigning certain initial values in such a system. If a person wants to play word games in mathematics, statistics is the place to do it. The same techniques work exquisitely well when sampling products off an assembly line at random for testing. But these are not light bulbs but people and their consciousnesses in all their complexity. I would have great trouble putting faith in any statistical study of these matters. There are too many unknowns not represented in the equations. I would have to follow the study from beginning to end myself and participate in it it actively.

With any study of this complexity, fault could always be found.

The thing is, there is no study in all these links that converts anyone I can think of on the spot. If there are results that strong, I missed them. They all suggest more study might be in order or show positive results so small as to suggest that some other factor the experimenters have not considered may well be at work.

* * * * *

Still--someone arguing for the results will say--the results are positive, and by the rules of the game agreed on large enough to be considered significant.

Fine, I say, for light bulbs.

What people find credible, I believe, is based on something called social mood as defined by socionomics. All positions are “borderline” to someone until that someone under the influence of social mood gets that aha feeling and chooses to believe or disbelieve in them. It doesn’t matter if it is Uri Geller’s remote viewing or time travel or belief in the existence of deterministic laws of nature or the existence of social mood itself.

As a species we have hundred of millions, if not billions, of years left to get all this right. We might as well enjoy that part of the journey, called “now”, that we are given.

My daughter showed me a video of a time traveler yesterday which I will share below. I recall that time travel is supposedly justified by Einstein's general relativity, but I don't know how. I found, with a quick search, this article which said it had something to do with "wormholes": http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=131 That doesn't help much. I figure if Einstein's theory leads logically to time travel it should be replaced by a theory that is more rational.

Here's the video which also makes me question if there is any evidence for whatever the latest food fad is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

What does Randi have to say about Edgar Cayce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

My daughter showed me a video of a time traveler yesterday which I will share below. I recall that time travel is supposedly justified by Einstein's general relativity, but I don't know how. I found, with a quick search, this article which said it had something to do with "wormholes": http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=131 That doesn't help much. I figure if Einstein's theory leads logically to time travel it should be replaced by a theory that is more rational.

Here's the video which also makes me question if there is any evidence for whatever the latest food fad is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA

---

I´m not following your discussion but I enjoyed the video. I thought the husband would collar the time traveler out of the house to be able to eat in peace.

I was puzzled by what the husband was doing at the end when he left. Perhaps he needed to get out of the way so the time traveler could have some breakfast? He did have that stereotypical male bored look throughout which I thought was humorous.

One topic on the list, unlike time travel, that I think has some validity is "kirilian photography": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography As a photographic technique there can be nothing wrong with it. However, it starts becoming questionable when one associates it with “auras”. Seeing auras is not difficult. The following video shows you how to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYlb_XtNP7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYlb_XtNP7c

I’ve even taken a spoon and held it against a light colored wall and saw its aura. Even non-animate objects have an aura.

I don’t think auras are supernatural, nor are they even supernormal. We don't normally see them because we aren't looking for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I was puzzled by what the husband was doing at the end when he left. Perhaps he needed to get out of the way so the time traveler could have some breakfast? He did have that stereotypical male bored look throughout which I thought was humorous.

---

Me too. But I didn´t understand the end so well.