Author Topic: The True Nature of Psi  (Read 53055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 23, 2006, 12:49:30 AM
Reply #30

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.

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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 01:59:53 PM by kobok »
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

October 01, 2007, 03:32:56 AM
Reply #31

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
*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.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

February 02, 2008, 06:39:19 PM
Reply #32

BohmaN

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 83
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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

June 13, 2008, 07:36:10 PM
Reply #33

Mystan

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 14
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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.

January 01, 2009, 09:53:14 PM
Reply #34

disciple of the ages

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 30
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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.
  If you're passing by, feel free to give me a click every so often!

A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool, because he must say something. ~ Plato

January 01, 2009, 10:39:59 PM
Reply #35

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

January 01, 2009, 10:57:06 PM
Reply #36

disciple of the ages

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 30
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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?
  If you're passing by, feel free to give me a click every so often!

A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool, because he must say something. ~ Plato

January 01, 2009, 11:47:18 PM
Reply #37

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

January 12, 2009, 08:26:19 AM
Reply #38

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
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.
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

January 12, 2009, 01:05:10 PM
Reply #39

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

January 24, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Reply #40

Vegita

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 87
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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

February 01, 2009, 10:16:37 PM
Reply #41

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.)
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

February 02, 2009, 07:48:29 AM
Reply #42

Vegita

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 87
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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

June 30, 2009, 02:38:30 PM
Reply #43

Hero

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 19
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
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!

January 28, 2010, 08:15:42 PM
Reply #44

Mindlessinvalid

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1205
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Crazy and Can't Get out of Bed
    • View Profile
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.
Clothes make the man, and naked people have little or no say in society.