The Veritas Society

Academic Areas => Articles => Psi and Mental Abilities => Topic started by: kobok on October 11, 2004, 01:23:53 AM

Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on October 11, 2004, 01:23:53 AM
The True Nature of Psi

Introduction

This article is intended to clear up the common misconceptions which exist about the nature and mechanisms of psi.  This article first disputes common ideas about psi which are contradicted by the scientific evidence, and then attempts to present a more reasonable description of how psi operates.  The proposed description corresponds to the experiences of performing psi, and does not contradict the scientific evidence about the properties of psi.


Psi and Electromagnetism

The strongest pieces of evidence that psi is not electromagnetic are the following items from controlled studies (all of which can be found in the scientific literature at a good library, or you can check the references at the end *):

1.  Psi cannot be shielded by a faraday cage, lead wall, concrete wall, or by large amounts of dirt.  Electromagnetic radiation, by comparison, is shielded by each of these.
2.  Psi does not change in effectiveness or targetting with distance.  Electromagnetic radiation, by comparison, weakens in strength by one over the distance squared, or in the case of directed radiation suffers an identical weakening of aiming.
3.  Psi does not change in effectiveness when the subject and target are placed forward or backward in time with respect to each other.  Electromagnetic radiation, by comparison, only ever moves forward in time from source to destination.

The two most common misconceptions seem to be, firstly, that ultra low frequency electromagnetic radiation fits the scientific evidence.  It of course does not.  It does remedy most of the problems with item 1 above, but does not at all address items 2 and 3.  The second common misconception is that somehow "biochemical", "bioelectric", or "biomagnetic" energy can remedy these problems.  This is not the case, because each of these three things are nothing more than electromagnetic interaction in living objects, and thus are subject to the same conditions as above.

All of currently known physics consists of four known forces, the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces.  Not one of these four forces even closely fits the known scientific evidence of how psi functions.  As a consequence, it must be concluded that psi functions by means of a medium which is not due to one of these four forces.  At present, no accepted theory exists in physics which can accomodate these properties.  In order for physics to explain the mechanism of psi, it will need to expand beyond its current level of knowledge.


Psi and the Brain

In addition, I would like to address the often proposed theory that psi is a function of the physical brain.  First, the most obvious counterargument for this is that the physical brain is a biochemical organism which processes information by electrochemical impulses.  Thus the entirety of the brain's function is electromagnetic, and falls directly under the conditions described above which prohibit psi from being due to electromagnetism.

The second counterargument for psi as a function of the physical brain is that information in psi seems to be received and transmitted at a conceptual level, rather than exclusively at a linguistic or visual level.  In order to explain this as a function of the physical brain, there would have to be something fundamental about the wiring of each concept in each person, yet we know from neuroscience that there are enormous variations in how concepts are stored in each brain. Each concept is stored as a collection of neurons throughout the brain being activated simultaneously, and which collection of neurons are activated is different for each person.  As a consequence, the brain does not have a conceptual standard for relaying this information.  Therefore, psi information must be relayed by something which can convey conceptual information directly, and this is not the brain.


So What is Psi?

The essence of the human mind can be divided into two categories, the physical brain (an electrochemical organism) and a non-physical component which is not restricted to spatiotemporal interaction.  The standard English term for the non-physical component of the self is the "soul", and by the above argument it must be this non-physical component which is responsible for psi.

I define the soul as "the part of ourselves which performs psi, which separates from the body during out of body experiences, and which continues existing after the death of the physical body."

From the conditions imposed by out of body experiences, we know that the soul must be separable from the body.  In addition, from the experiments involving use of psi across distances and across time, we know that the soul must be able to extend and relocate itself throughout space and time without regard for the amount of intervening distance or time, and without regard for any physical barriers placed in between two positions.

From the understanding of how telepathy functions, it can be deduced that the soul is capable of processing conceptual information, yet in a significantly different way than the brain processes information.  A thorough understanding of this can only be achieved by experiencing it, but a rudimentary description can be made.  The brain processes information by considering options, weighing lessons learned from past experiences, and then eventually a response becomes active.  By comparison the soul becomes shaped by the experiences of living, and decisions in the soul just "are".

The soul can be considered to be more "us" than the brain, as the soul is the more lasting and central component of our identity.  This is similar to the argument which says that the brain is more "us" than the arm.

The abilities of psi:  sensing the world, changing the world, and communicating with others, are all exclusively performed by the soul.  However, the physical brain has a key role in this, as it holds the conscious and subconscious thoughts which shape, direct, and interpret the performance of psi.

When psi is performed in a controlled manner, the psion forms an intent or plan in the conscious mind, and then forms this intent in the soul, perhaps with the assistance of the subconscious mind.  In the case of the sensing abilities, the soul receives conceptual input which is then passed into the physical brain for interpretation by the brain.  Psi abilities can also occur in a less controlled fashion, as the soul, being more central to who we are, can perform psi without the instruction or guidance of the brain.

In either case, however, the actual performance of psi is done by the soul, and the brain is left to guide and interpret the soul, just as the soul in turn guides and learns from the brain.


* Example references covering the three points
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Athiril on October 11, 2004, 01:29:42 AM
Rated 3 for leaving out facts, and taking one side over another, you seem to have your idea of psi set in stone, and will not accept anything else.  

in point 1) none of those things block out the entire EMR spectrum.    

in point 2) there is plenty of explanation for that, including everything is connected to everything else, quantum mechanics/physics.

in point 3) past, present, and future, all occur in the same instance.

Oh yes, psi could be EMR, if so, like light, it could have a dualistic nature, like how sometimes light behaves like a wave, and sometimes like a particle.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on October 11, 2004, 02:02:03 AM
Athiril:  Your rebuttal #1 is addressed immediately below that section of the article.  Your rebuttals #2 and #3 do not correspond to actual physics.  Entanglement of particles with each other ends upon contact with the surrounding environment, and entanglement cannot pass information superluminally (see EPR experiment), nor does it remedy the aiming or strength issue of #2.  As for #3, past, present, and future are by definition different instances, and this is very definite in the behavior of electromagnetism and the other known forces of nature.  Only to the soul do the differences between these become irrelevant.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Rafnul! on October 11, 2004, 08:27:19 AM
I enjoyed it.  I personally would have chosen to describe the soul in broader terms, being the immaterial portion of the self, but you're a scientist not a philosopher so I suppose I can understand this.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kakkarot on October 11, 2004, 08:28:59 AM
It seems that there might be some confusion on Kobok's point #1, so let's see if I can rephrase it to more clearly convey the understanding.

Various "things" will block out various ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum - ie all the stuff kobok listed in the article - but there is not one thing which blocks out the entire electromagnetic spectrum (Athiril's point). However, due to the fact that psi is not blocked in the least by any of those things, it can be easily inferred, especially given points 2 and 3 by kobok, that psi is not electromagnetic in nature and is not propogated via electromagnetic waves. Or at least, not any part of the electromagnetic spectrum as we currently know it to be.

Is that clearer?
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Samael on October 11, 2004, 09:01:47 AM
I thought this article was extremely biased, neglected to explain rivaling viewpoints with any degree of coherency.  Your negligence to provide documented studies really hinders the overall effectiveness of your arguments; the reader doesnít know if itís true or false.  You need to add a bit more sustenance.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Silverdawn on October 12, 2004, 07:00:17 AM
Four stars because of the clear and interesting writing style, with the final star missing not really because of your arguments but because it's not *my* truth entirely. Worthy addition though, good stuff.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Lightbringer on October 12, 2004, 05:47:22 PM
I found the arbitrary description of the soul (or even the mention of the soul) very out of place in an article written with a scientific approach.  You also neglect to look at what other body parts could contribute to the control of psi.  The body is not made of isolated units, but you seem to be caught in the need to find one specific body part that controls psi, so much so that you've fallen back on a body part that is not known to exist.  This wasn't so much an article about the true nature of psi, but just an article about what psi isn't: EMR.  Not much substance overall in my own opinion.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on October 12, 2004, 07:34:47 PM
Lightbringer:  The body is composed entirely of electromagnetic interaction.  All chemical interactions are electromagnetic interaction.  There is nothing else in the physical body besides this, thus we must look elsewhere.  The point I am making here is that it's not more scientific to claim that psi is due to a known element of physics, because that contradicts the evidence.  Thus the only scientifically valid claim is to consider psi due to another medium beyond known physics.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Lightbringer on October 12, 2004, 10:17:56 PM
Yes, but your claims about the "true nature of psi" are guesswork.  Pure and simple.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Zake on October 13, 2004, 01:47:04 PM
Not guesswork at all, it seems to me.  Its very vague in some respects, yah... however, what it does say is well thought out and backed up.  Really, we don't know all that much about psi in either case, when it comes down to it, so empty vagueness is to some degree called for, I guess.

And the misconception of psi being EMR-based has arguably existed longer than the concept of psi itself, so its great to see a rebuttal of that alone :cool:.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: DarkInferno on October 16, 2004, 06:48:55 PM
When giving an explination of somthing like that to help out people who don't yet understand it you need to show less favoritism, you need to look at both sides and  give you explination of it objectively and not try and force people into taking your side and believing that it is the only way.

All in all it was a good article, you showed that you knew what you were talking about the favoritism was the only thing that brought it down.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Koujiryuu on October 18, 2004, 04:29:22 AM
It isn't "favoritism" as no people were involved. He proved a point that a lot of people don't neccessarily agree with because they are deluded, and he did it logically through the medium of science and reason. He didn't force anything on anyone, he only proved a good point. Excellent article kobok.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Prophecy on October 19, 2004, 01:00:13 PM
He proposed an idea and provided supporting facts by which one could deductively conclude his view on the matter.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: DarkWaterMoon on October 22, 2004, 12:21:12 PM
This article is quite biased but has some good facts. I give it  2 stars.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on October 27, 2004, 09:21:10 AM
The point of course was that the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports one side.  If the evidence is not impartial, then neither will my article be, since the goal is to get closer to the true fundamental nature of psi.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Fightingwarrior on October 28, 2004, 03:41:14 PM
this is a very good article
P.S. how do i add a rating?
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Ramza1 on October 28, 2004, 07:54:58 PM
Over all the article was good, if you didn't like whole soul concept, then you could just as validly think of the "soul" as being merely the part of your non-physical mind associated with the use of psionic abilities.

P.S. Fighting Warrior, look above all the replies, at the end of the article their is a little bit where you can choose a rating.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Falcon on November 25, 2004, 02:18:12 AM
I think it's very good, you have taken this and writen lots about something, you have been informative. Hat of for Kobok
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Salubrion on July 01, 2005, 12:52:48 PM
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,693324,00.html (http://"http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,693324,00.html")
 
They have been able to change the state of an atom by chaging the quantom state of another atom. Which happens instantly over an infinite amount of distance. They just were able to teleport solid particles using this. Now if you read this article closley I find it is far more related to psi than the "soul". That is not my point though. My point is their are so much physic's, especially in energy, not yet known, that it is unreasonable at this moment to think psi is anything we know of, the best we can do is find what it might be related to. Also, Kobok you article was one sided, anyone can argue a point and win if the other side cannot respond back to point out your flaws and misconceptions.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on July 01, 2005, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: Salubrion
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,693324,00.html (http://"http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,693324,00.html")
 
They have been able to change the state of an atom by chaging the quantom state of another atom. Which happens instantly over an infinite amount of distance. They just were able to teleport solid particles using this. Now if you read this article closley I find it is far more related to psi than the "soul". That is not my point though. My point is their are so much physic's, especially in energy, not yet known, that it is unreasonable at this moment to think psi is anything we know of, the best we can do is find what it might be related to. Also, Kobok you article was one sided, anyone can argue a point and win if the other side cannot respond back to point out your flaws and misconceptions.


The popsci article you referenced does say that it happens "instantly", but the journalist who wrote the article unfortunately got the physics wrong.  Quantum teleportation requires a classically traveling intermediate particle, and is thus limited to traveling below the speed of light.  Quantum tunneling is faster than the speed of light, but is restricted to ultra-short distances.  Journalists often get these two techniques confused even though they are completely different.

Psi, in comparison, travels faster than light (by virtue of being able to send information backward in time) and remains unchanged in effectiveness by distance.
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Salubrion on July 01, 2005, 01:52:23 PM
I would like to argue with some of your theories kobok, but that would be pointless sence it is all theories right now, which brings us back to my point. We do not know yet, we can say it might work like this, but right now nothing is definitive. Wether or not the article had a mistake, my point still remains valid, and apparently ignored by you kobok.
 
To make it obvious and simple, this should'nt be The Nature of Psi, it should be Theories of the Nature of Psi, ( Or considering what you wrote about the most, False Theories of the Nature of Psi )
Title: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on July 01, 2005, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: Salubrion
To make it obvious and simple, this should'nt be The Nature of Psi, it should be Theories of the Nature of Psi, ( Or considering what you wrote about the most, False Theories of the Nature of Psi )


Well, the point made in the article is that psi is necessarilly due to a non-physical component of ourselves (more specifically, a component which does not interact by means of the four physical forces).  And the term I use to label this non-physical component of ourselves which performs psi is "soul", as that is the term most commonly used in English for a non-physical component of a person.  Then, I proceed to give a description of the necessary properties of the soul (leaving out the more subjective properties) given the known capabilities of psi.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: lordkamon on March 09, 2006, 01:08:47 AM
Even though this topic hasn't been posted on for almost a year, I need to put my 2 cents on it, because in all the psi sites I've been to, this article has a good scientific base and has a low guess factor. I agree with the fact that psi can't be electromagnetic in nature, though it does share some properties of bieng as such. Also, the concept of the "soul" doesn't seem to be treated religiously here, more like the best noun for the concept of who you are and your actual sentient existance. Psi is hard to be treated by more than guesswork, but a lot of the views expressed here seem to be similar to the ones i experience when using psi. Except for the time part, it's hard for me to conceptualize how one can send energy back in time... five stars for a pretty solid article. Not completely one sided, but sometimes data points to one side more than the other anyways.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: NotoriousCriminal on August 19, 2006, 03:43:48 PM
Pardon me, but what was the faraday cage used? There's not much information on it. Nor pictures. Nor is it described the lab environment, tools used, etc. The books also lack this (from what I summerize, anyway). May I request a more detailed explanation of the utilities used?
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Arpspasm on August 20, 2006, 10:06:47 AM
I believe that the faraday cage is generally used for shielding sensitive electronic equipment from e.m.f's  when doing high energy experiments i.e. telsla coils e.t.c. its basically a big cage built of earthed aluminium mesh.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on August 21, 2006, 12:33:51 PM
Quote
Pardon me, but what was the faraday cage used?

There has not been one experiment using a faraday room or faraday cage, but many, so "the faraday cage" is not quite right to say.  There's an example picture of a faraday room, and a description of what it means, in this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage).

Faraday cages are considered pretty standard equipment, so this is probably why you haven't found detailed descriptions of them in summary books on parapsychology.  But if you want more information on how they work, a better place to look would be a book on electromagnetism.  Faraday cages are usually introduced as an example problem shortly after Gauss's law is introduced.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: NotoriousCriminal on August 21, 2006, 06:56:59 PM
I believe you both misunderstand me. Since he's talking about what appears to be a specific experiment, I wish to know what type of faraday cage was used. I also wish to know this for the numerous other experiments just brought to mention. I highly doubt that they are all the exact same duplicate type, hence my question for a description of the one (or more) in use. Unless the original poster wasn't speaking of a specific experiment. In which case, he should have posted links to these experiments conducted.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on August 21, 2006, 11:10:14 PM
Quote
I believe you both misunderstand me. Since he's talking about what appears to be a specific experiment, I wish to know what type of faraday cage was used. I also wish to know this for the numerous other experiments just brought to mention. I highly doubt that they are all the exact same duplicate type, hence my question for a description of the one (or more) in use. Unless the original poster wasn't speaking of a specific experiment. In which case, he should have posted links to these experiments conducted.

I was not referring to a specific experiment, but instead to a large collection of experiments, which have used a variety of different faraday cages.  The most common are probably copper walled and steel walled rooms.  For one relatively recent example of faraday cage experiments that were conducted with high quality, you can examine the autoganzfeld experiments in which the participant acting as receiver was enclosed in a soundproof electromagnetically shielded room with steel walls.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: NotoriousCriminal on August 22, 2006, 09:52:03 PM
Links to these tests please?
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on August 23, 2006, 12:49:30 AM
Quote
Links to these tests please?

The original autoganzfeld studies are discussed in:

Honorton, C., R. E. Berger, M. P. Varvoglis, M. Quant, P. Derr, E. I. Schechter, and D. C. Ferrari.  1990.  Psi communication in the ganzfeld:  Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies.  Journal of Parapsychology 54:99-139.

There were also tests done with faraday cages and other shielding in the SRI experiments.  You should be able to find information about this in:

May, E. C., J. M. Utts, V. V. Trask, W. W. Luke, T. J. Frivold, and B. S. Humphrey.  1998.  Review of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International (1973-1988).  SRI International Technical Report (March)

and

Puthoff, H. E. 1996.  CIA-initiated remote viewing program at Stanford Research Institute.  Journal of Scientific Exploration  10:63-76 (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v10n1a3.php).

You can probably find descriptions of most of these results on the internet somewhere, but if you want in-depth details, you usually have to check the literature.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: solstice on October 01, 2007, 03:32:56 AM
*Another year later*

You guys can also find information dealing with the non-local aspect to energy, from of these other sources:
"Morphic Fields, and Morphic Resonance" and "Mind, Memory and Archetype" by Rupert Sheldrake (sheldrake.org).
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and I think Bohr and Pauli had contributed.
Bell Test Experiments, one of which was conducted by Alain Aspect.
"Dreaming Universe" by Fred Wolf, which is a unique attempt to connect physics with psychology. 
"Interference of Idependent Photon Beams" by Pfleegor and Mandel.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: BohmaN on February 02, 2008, 06:39:19 PM
I do not understand the criticism given to this article. The evidence arguing that psi does not belong to electromagnetism, but rather something non-physical and not bound to spatiotemporal interaction, is simply irrefutable.  I thought it was very comprehensive and nicely written - well done. 5/5
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mystan on June 13, 2008, 07:36:10 PM
I agree with BohmaN, a good article and very compelling.

Personally, I keep an open mind. Just because right now this is the best way to explain it, doesn't mean at some future point in time, we find out some unknown rules or exceptions to electromagnetism that explains such. I don't think it likely but it doesn't mean its impossible. We are forever learning and growing in both our knowledge and understanding of these concepts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it is best in my opinion not to become to entrenched in your own opinion that you can't consider someone else's with an open mind. Most of what we consider fact is an opinion or theory that just hasn't been proven wrong yet (in my opinion). I think we attatch to much emotion to our personal opinions and consider them part of our identity and thus get ruffled when someone has something that differs. Go with what makes sense the most and if something comes along that sounds like it better explains it, go with that. Currently, what makes sense to me is that it is not Electromagnetic but just because current knowledge compells me to that viewpoint does not mean that I discount it. It just isn't logical to me at this time.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: disciple of the ages on January 01, 2009, 09:53:14 PM
I think this article was very well thought out and written with compelling arguments in favor of psi energy being something that requires further study. The arguments were laid out solidly enough with supporting information and basic misconceptions and their counterarguments were given due credit. The only area that may seem a little "weak" is the reference to "soul". Would ethereal energy fall into this category I wonder? Or does that fall somewhere on the electromagnetic spectrum? I think some people are having trouble accepting the idea of "soul energy" in a scientific argument.  I would give this 5/5 stars, if I knew how to rate. I read the post that explained how, but I don't understand where the person is talking about. "above the replies", uhhh ok I don't see a rating button. Probably because I'm new and not used to this forum lol. If someone could point out where that is I would be very appreciative. Also, I'm not sure I understand all the dynamics of Psi just from this article. However, great post Kobok.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on January 01, 2009, 10:39:59 PM
The star rating system was from our old forum software.  That feature is no longer available.

As for the term "soul", I'm quite familiar with this term making people uncomfortable.  People can feel free to relabel it to a term that makes them more comfortable, as long as they still attribute the same essential properties to it that we know exist.  Namely, that psi is performed by a part of ourselves which does not operate by the spatiotemporal interactions by which all physical things are constrained.  What you want to call this non-physical part of yourself is purely a matter of language.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: disciple of the ages on January 01, 2009, 10:57:06 PM
Well, that explains why I can't find the rating button haha. Is ethereal energy an appropriate term that could be applied to it? In addition, do you think it is true that the pineal gland is (my words) a "gateway" for the passage of information from the soul (ethereal power stronghold) to the rest of the physical brain and conscious mind as http://www.crystalinks.com/thirdeyepineal.html <- that website may suggest?
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on January 01, 2009, 11:47:18 PM
Is ethereal energy an appropriate term that could be applied to it?

I've seen people who prefer to call the soul an etheric body.  I don't much care if they do, just as long as this does not promote confusion.  :)

In addition, do you think it is true that the pineal gland is (my words) a "gateway" for the passage of information from the soul (ethereal power stronghold) to the rest of the physical brain and conscious mind

No.  This myth is based on a misconception started, or at least significantly propagated by, Descartes.  He based this idea on his belief that the pineal gland was the only part of the brain without two hemispheres.  This belief was not only inadequate to draw this sort of conclusion, but also happened to be false, as the pineal gland does have two parts.

The function of the pineal gland is much more constrained than the broader interaction between soul and brain.  There does not need to be a point of contact for this interaction, since the actions of the soul are not so spatially constrained, as discussed above.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Tankdown on January 12, 2009, 08:26:19 AM
I can't see this how this is solid and the whole one sided thing I sort of don't care about. I can't picture anything higher then 2/5 stars.

Yes it gives some examples of evidence agasint electromangetism but it quickly defines that its beyond without giving any other explaintations of different phyiscs that can go through a lead wall or faraday cage. Now I'm not talking about little things like sound and heat(which I found odd since some heat can travel through a lead wall). But other things like neutrnios or maybe even the most crazy idea of gravity itself.

Now the time expairments I just never agreed with so I'm letting that part side however the distance argument I found misleading since we only tested it on such small distances compared to comsological scales and such of a "fact" can not be determiated.

Which leads to the title which should have be stated more on the lines of oberservations not on "true nature".

I can go on with ideas on how he presented himself in this, like if psi can go through time it doesn't have to pass through lead which can't be jumped to the assumption that it can.

I can't see how this is a good article no matter how many times I read it.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on January 12, 2009, 01:05:10 PM
Yes it gives some examples of evidence agasint electromangetism but it quickly defines that its beyond without giving any other explaintations of different phyiscs that can go through a lead wall or faraday cage.

Actually, if you check again, the immediate three sentences after the three-item list give an example of physical that can go through a lead wall or faraday cage.  But the simple fact is, as stated there, none of these physical mechanisms are invariant with respect to displacements in distance and time.  This includes the two examples you state of neutrinos and gravity, both of which become weaker with distance and only transmit information one-directionally through time.  (I did also list these directly in the article when I reference weak and gravitational forces.)

As for distance scales that have been tested, I think you don't quite realize how big the planet is.  The amount of physical energy required to transmit a physical signal across the entire planet which could be discerned by physical means, with no difference in signal strength with distance, is quite large, far exceeding the physical energy available.  And for this to match the experimental data, this would have to be broadcast at all times, and throughout time (which clearly no known force can do).  In addition, the difficulty in separation of a physical signal is staggering.  Consider just telepathy.  Try to imagine 6 billion people broadcasting all of their thoughts using some physical spatiotemporal mechanism all the time throughout the preceding and following three years or so.  Even just including this relatively short time period, would mean that there are 10^18, or a million-trillion seconds worth of people's thoughts being broadcast past you every second.  Yet, with minimal effort we can pick out a single individual using nothing more than a name on a computer screen.  Even if you don't believe the physical evidence, conceptual linking makes more sense just on this prima facie basis of the implausibility of a neural network operating at kilohertz rates being able to somehow process what, by information theory, would have to be at minimum a many-exahertz signal in order to support a physical explanation.  With conceptual linking, this problem does not exist.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Vegita on January 24, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Kobok, I thought the article was very good. Let me ask you a question to ponder. Do you think it is possible that "physical" is simply limited by vibrational frequency of matter? There are many theories out regarding higher dimensions. One which I find particularly fascinating is that a fourth or fifth dimension or even more might exist and be essentially just as physical and real as our own reality, but due to the vibrational rate of matter in those dimensions being much faster, our dimension simply cannot experience them physically. So perhaps the "soul" is an actual physical entity, of some sort that is just vibrating at a much higher rate and therefore we cannot experience it with any of the five senses (so far including any technology we use). In this scenario, nothing other than first hand experience interacting with this entity (which we all obviously do every day) can validate it's existence. So basically, unless someone is of the line of thinking that all our emotions, all our personal characteristics, all exist because of electromagnetic signals in our brain interacting with the systems of our bodies and our environment. Then there is really no argument against a "soul" regardless of what the actual hypothesis a person holds about it it does exist, and we can't measure or test it physically.  Anyways I just wanted to get your thoughts on this. Thanks
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kobok on February 01, 2009, 10:16:37 PM
There are many theories out regarding higher dimensions. One which I find particularly fascinating is that a fourth or fifth dimension or even more might exist and be essentially just as physical and real as our own reality, but due to the vibrational rate of matter in those dimensions being much faster, our dimension simply cannot experience them physically.

A dimension is basically a direction.  Left/right is a dimension, front/back is a dimension, up/down is a dimension (thus yielding three of them).  This standard physical definition of dimension is different from the sci-fi definition you seem to be using here.

Also, even though a number of people talk about it, there is no such thing as a vibrational rate of matter in the context you are using.  (Atoms vibrate due to heat, but this cannot relate to what you are speaking about.  And all matter has a wavefunction, but this also cannot result in what you are talking about.)
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Vegita on February 02, 2009, 07:48:29 AM
There are many theories out regarding higher dimensions. One which I find particularly fascinating is that a fourth or fifth dimension or even more might exist and be essentially just as physical and real as our own reality, but due to the vibrational rate of matter in those dimensions being much faster, our dimension simply cannot experience them physically.

A dimension is basically a direction.  Left/right is a dimension, front/back is a dimension, up/down is a dimension (thus yielding three of them).  This standard physical definition of dimension is different from the sci-fi definition you seem to be using here.

Also, even though a number of people talk about it, there is no such thing as a vibrational rate of matter in the context you are using.  (Atoms vibrate due to heat, but this cannot relate to what you are speaking about.  And all matter has a wavefunction, but this also cannot result in what you are talking about.)


Isn't string theory that what makes up "atoms" are vibrating strings? I am not saying it is true, just that there are theories out about it.

Here is a short clip that explains dimensions a bit more in depth then "a direction".

http://revver.com/video/99898/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/

V
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Hero on June 30, 2009, 02:38:30 PM
lol I may seem naive for saying this but to me
 it dosen't really matter what psi is..

There are things that may not exist physically. yet still live on.
explainable or not, they shape the world we live in.

As long as the world keeps sight on its senses and feelings
while not loosing heart

If so then I'm fine with any
outcomes..

what is psi. to me it is a great way to disapline and live life.
to love eachother and bond..

thank you for everyone sharing their knowledge and
time with me

nice article!
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on January 28, 2010, 08:15:42 PM
Sorry for the necro posting. I wanted to voice my impressions of the article, and the people who have posted about it.

I enjoyed this article for several reasons. The primary reason is that it was very scientific, and unbiased (anyone who says otherwise needs to check the logical conventions regarding science and impartial reasoning.)

There is no need to give voice to an opposing claim if you refute the fundamental grounds upon which it operates. It is a formality used in scientific journals for ease of reference, rather than an actual necessity. The only time both sides of an issue are ever needed are in ethical argument. Science is guessing what is, by find out what is not. In science, I can say "I did this and this happened" and attempt to find out when "this" will happen, and when it won't. If "this" doesn't happen when I do "that" under 500 different circumstances, I can safely say there are 500 different situations when "this" is not caused by "that." Kobok adequately gave us his reasons why psi is not EMR. Even if psi met two out of three of those qualifications, it would still be disqualified as EMR, because EMR follows a very rigid definition. As elecromagnetic frequency, it is subject to interference from other electromagnetism sources. As radiation, it needs a definitive origin and a definitive termination point. Because psi does not have a definitive origin and no definitive termination point, it can't be radiation of any type. It takes more evidence to justify re-writing the definition of an accepted system than it does to say "we don't know what it is, but here's a tentative hypothesis"

Until I had read this article, I was an avid proponent of the EMR argument; though thinking in retrospect, my experiments regarding this could have been subject to experimental contamination merely on the grounds that If one "charges" a conducive object expecting to see an increase in electrical resistance, you will see an increase in resistance because psi tends to take on patterns readily.

I'll give this article 5 stars, mainly because one can have no opinions on fact (which kobok laid out) and that it was very well thought out and had very cogent arguments.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Epsilon Rose on March 02, 2010, 06:15:58 PM
This is a good article, but I like several others take issue with the name. It does a good job of showing that psi is not em radiation, however it does not do a good enough job of ruling out other possibilities to say what it is; both the extra dimensions posited in string theory and quantum entanglement seem like reasonable alternative explanations (as for quantum entanglement not being fast enough or working over long enough distances seems to be addressed by this experiment [the set up can be found by clicking the supplementary information link and downloading the pdf]).
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on March 02, 2010, 07:29:15 PM
Science isn't about proving what is, It's about providing evidence of what isn't.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: darthlobo on March 02, 2010, 07:49:25 PM
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

-sh*tmydadsays
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Steve on March 03, 2010, 06:41:12 AM
Science isn't about proving what is, It's about providing evidence of what isn't.
Science is the study of nature/reality.

~Steve
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on March 03, 2010, 08:40:44 AM
I wasn't pointing at the reason for science so much as how it works.

The Scientific Method in the positive is a logical fallacy (of a basic syllogism) when you extrapolate your data.

The Scientific Method in the negative is a logical proof (basic syllogism again) in the same scenario.

x before y,
x,
 therefore y

x can exist independently of y, but we assume y is there because of x is the positive of the scientific method, which is why we always call scientific ideas of a positive to be postulates, natural laws, and theories (though theory is the most complete of the three). Anything stated by science in the positive is subject to change without exception.



x denies y.
x,
therefore not y.

this is an example of science in the negative. We have a fact that says in these circumstances, x does not allow for the existence of y. We can extrapolate that fact into a more solid idea by finding out more situations where x bars the existence of y.

Science tells us not what is, but what isn't. From that we can safely make assumptions in place of actual knowledge of what is.

To reference the daodeching and some hermetic science (hope no-one hits me for the two being mixed)

Never underestimate the value of what doesn't exist. The spokes on a wheel give it form, but the shaft in the hub makes way for the axel. Without windows and a door, a room is but a tomb.

and in hermetics,

what is is not knowable until you can perceive what isn't.

hence my argument.
 (I've got Taoism, hermetics, and syllogisms on my side, what could possibly go wrong?) <- failed attempt at humor.


Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Steve on March 03, 2010, 09:26:54 AM
Then I have to disagree with you again. Science can only show what is, and can never show what isn't; the closest that science can come to showing what isn't is by exhaustive testing in order to determine as many things that are in order to say "we've done all that we can in trying to figure out whether this Thing A exists or not, but are unable to find it. We must therefore conclude that we cannot as of yet find it using our current levels of understanding, testing, and technology. As such, any person who says that Thing A does exist must provide some pretty good evidence that we ourselves have not been able to find."

Many bad scientists shorten the foregoing into just saying "If we can't find it with science, then it doesn't exist" but that is not truly the case with science (it is just the case with those who call themselves scientists).

In fact, we even have a logical fallacy named for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

~Steve
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on March 03, 2010, 10:22:53 AM
Were talking on two different scales here.

On the large scale, we use what doesn't work to show what does.

On the small scale, we find out what doesn't work and what does under what circumstances.

You compile successes and failures to form the large scale ideas. It's all based on narrowing down possibilities.

A a paraphrased from death world is a very good example.

"what If I told you a stingbat was hanging in the doorway?
*everyone aims theirguns at the door*
 "well what if I told you that there is something that resembles a sting bat, but is in fact a large insect with a talent for mimicry?"
*hesitatation, then they all aim their guns at the door*
 "it was a spinner fly, and it mimics the most dangerous life form on the planet as a defensive mechanism. In a survival situation, you would not have time to make that judgement, but there are other possibilities other than what is at face value."
*someone raises their hand*
"but there are no spinner flies here."
"for the purpose of my argument, pretend they were left inside one of our incoming food crates. If we had time to rule out the creature being an aggressive predator,then we could stand to profit and bring more wealth into the planet and use that for survival."
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: darthlobo on March 03, 2010, 07:08:12 PM
Why wouldn't you just shoot the damn thing anyways just to be safe?
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on March 03, 2010, 07:57:07 PM
That's my point.

For the common man, science is a luxury.

For a scientist, it's a vocation.

Scientists have to rule out many possibilities before making a claim.

The common man is allowed to take what he sees at face value.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: darthlobo on March 04, 2010, 08:04:50 AM
So...a scientist wouldn't shoot it?  Is that why they always die first in sci fi films?
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on March 04, 2010, 08:26:26 AM
I think you're either trolling or taking this too literally.

If they had time (to not die) to figure out that it wasn't a sting bat and that it wasn't dangerous, it opens up new possibilites that can lead to better lives.

They need to shoot the creature (hypothetical creature) to survive, but if it wasn't what they thought it was then what is it?

Scientific Method in Death world.
Hypothesis: There is a sting bat in the doorway.

It doesn't seem aggressive.

It's not a sting bat. Hypothesis invalidated.

What is it then?

It's making silk.

The silk seems to have high monetary value on interplanetary markets.

Hypothesis: If we cultivate these creatures, then we can make money to buy weapons to fight off the real stingbats.

The silk does not seem to be in great supply.

Buyers who are inclined to buy the silks are not worried about price or origin.

We now have enough money to buy weapons. Hypothesis Verified.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: kingrichdickenson on August 24, 2011, 12:45:01 PM
I know this is an old topic now, but I must say that I enjoyed your point of view, and I must give props to how well it was written. While I do not agree completely, this article has given me a new point of view on the nature of psi. Five stars dude.
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: naimihero on September 15, 2011, 11:49:18 AM
im sorry, but im about a quarter of the way in, and i have to tell ya this is a beauty of an article. in evidence, i know nothing about psi and im still engaged :D
Title: Re: The True Nature of Psi
Post by: Mindlessinvalid on September 15, 2011, 12:53:14 PM
The book I referenced a few posts back was written in 1925 by Harry Harrison. My mind has been blown.