Let's talk about psychics

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280


If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves. If humans can sync brainwaves, then it's plausible that the syncing would serve as a communication medium, ergo ESP as a concept now has a scientific basis.

Score one for the woo merchants.
It's not inconceivable, afterall, thoughts are electrochemical pulses and the whole reason an EEG works is because of this.
Brain cells have also shown to contain quantum tubules, so once again it is conceivable.

In some way, I think people are unfair, wanting psychic abilities to be as reliable as a calculator and just as predictable.
However, there are 3 parts that lend some credence to the woo merchants ;)
1) Where there's smoke there's probably fire. This kind of worldwide spread of people who claim to be able to do so must have had its origins in something, likely true.
2) Some of them have been more right than just random chance can account for.
3) Being careful of the Fallacy fallacy, any technology sufficiently advanced or unexplained will seem like magic to the layman.

I concede it is possible and possibly even likely but I think that if it does exist, we've made it socially unacceptable to be so.... based on the large number of people that so easily try and label it as "woo woo" and more than likely actively bred it out of society?
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
It's not inconceivable, afterall, thoughts are electrochemical pulses and the whole reason an EEG works is because of this.
Brain cells have also shown to contain quantum tubules, so once again it is conceivable.

In some way, I think people are unfair, wanting psychic abilities to be as reliable as a calculator and just as predictable.
However, there are 3 parts that lend some credence to the woo merchants ;)
1) Where there's smoke there's probably fire. This kind of worldwide spread of people who claim to be able to do so must have had its origins in something, likely true.
2) Some of them have been more right than just random chance can account for.
3) Being careful of the Fallacy fallacy, any technology sufficiently advanced or unexplained will seem like magic to the layman.

I concede it is possible and possibly even likely but I think that if it does exist, we've made it socially unacceptable to be so.... based on the large number of people that so easily try and label it as "woo woo" and more than likely actively bred it out of society?
Yeah - I agree - where there is smoke ....
To many incidences of "psychic abilities" to just laugh it off as a hoax.
And (as with anything) there be many charlatans.

If birds can sense the magnetic field of the planet, fish can sense the electromagnetic field of (generated by) other living things, and bats can (possibly) sense each others "thoughts", it opens up all sorts of possibilities.
What abilities do we humans have.

We humans think that we know such a lot, but we actually know almost nothing.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
Does anybody think that it be consciousness that collapses the wave function?
Please provide your answer with reasons.
We don't know if it's consciousness that collapses the wave function. That's why there's so many interpretations of QM. It's the "measurement problem" of QM. Personally, it's a difficult topic, because on 1 hand, you are a quantum system, observing a quantum system. What you're referring to where consciousness causes the collapse is the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation.


If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves. If humans can sync brainwaves, then it's plausible that the syncing would serve as a communication medium, ergo ESP as a concept now has a scientific basis.

Score one for the woo merchants.
No, still no score for woo.
You're like a woo magnet.

"If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves."
No. Provide concrete evidence to support your claim. Not if's, maybe's and perhaps. If you think it's likely, then go test it.

Let me know when it's proven. Until then, it's still woo.

It's not inconceivable, afterall, thoughts are electrochemical pulses and the whole reason an EEG works is because of this.
Brain cells have also shown to contain quantum tubules, so once again it is conceivable.

In some way, I think people are unfair, wanting psychic abilities to be as reliable as a calculator and just as predictable.
However, there are 3 parts that lend some credence to the woo merchants ;)
1) Where there's smoke there's probably fire. This kind of worldwide spread of people who claim to be able to do so must have had its origins in something, likely true.
2) Some of them have been more right than just random chance can account for.
3) Being careful of the Fallacy fallacy, any technology sufficiently advanced or unexplained will seem like magic to the layman.

I concede it is possible and possibly even likely but I think that if it does exist, we've made it socially unacceptable to be so.... based on the large number of people that so easily try and label it as "woo woo" and more than likely actively bred it out of society?
In some way, I think people are unfair, wanting psychic abilities to be as reliable as a calculator and just as predictable.
I wouldn't call it unfair. I would call it BS. There's been 1 million dollars. That's One + Million + Dollars that's been on the line since 1964 for psychics to come forth and claim their prize and not once has any psychic been able to replicate their "special powers".

More here:

What abilities do we humans have.
We have lots. We can swim. Understand Quantum Mechanics, and we can create forum posts about metaphysical woo.

PS: I am also psychic. I maintain that somebody reading this is going to be at least 5/10 butt-hurt. I'm currently on the way to claim my 1 million dollars. Oh damn. They ended that in 2015 :/ - I guess 50 years of no psychic ability was enough for them. If anything is going to cause "psychic abilities" it's going to be technology. But then it's not going to really be psychic, is it?

I've been to 2 psychics before in my life. Both in times of "trouble", convinced by members of my family to go to said psychic. On 1 occasion, 1 psychic said something which caught my attention and made me think that maybe it could be real. After some times I realised I gave the psychic WAY too much info and my body language likely gave my away like a deer in the headlights. I don't believe any of it. In fact, I am sick of so-called psychics pulling in unsuspecting people and essentially making an easy buck off of them. They prey on the weak and the wary. Just like religion.

Sorry for further necro'ing this thread, @Arksun :p
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,235
We don't know if it's consciousness that collapses the wave function. That's why there's so many interpretations of QM. It's the "measurement problem" of QM. Personally, it's a difficult topic, because on 1 hand, you are a quantum system, observing a quantum system. What you're referring to where consciousness causes the collapse is the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation.


No, still no score for woo.
You're like a woo magnet.

"If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves."
No. Provide concrete evidence to support your claim. Not if's, maybe's and perhaps. If you think it's likely, then go test it.

Let me know when it's proven. Until then, it's still woo.



I wouldn't call it unfair. I would call it BS. There's been 1 million dollars. That's One + Million + Dollars that's been on the line since 1964 for psychics to come forth and claim their prize and not once has any psychic been able to replicate their "special powers".

More here:


We have lots. We can swim. Understand Quantum Mechanics, and we can create forum posts about metaphysical woo.

PS: I am also psychic. I maintain that somebody reading this is going to be at least 5/10 butt-hurt. I'm currently on the way to claim my 1 million dollars. Oh damn. They ended that in 2015 :/ - I guess 50 years of no psychic ability was enough for them. If anything is going to cause "psychic abilities" it's going to be technology. But then it's not going to really be psychic, is it?

I've been to 2 psychics before in my life. Both in times of "trouble", convinced by members of my family to go to said psychic. On 1 occasion, 1 psychic said something which caught my attention and made me think that maybe it could be real. After some times I realised I gave the psychic WAY too much info and my body language likely gave my away like a deer in the headlights. I don't believe any of it. In fact, I am sick of so-called psychics pulling in unsuspecting people and essentially making an easy buck off of them. They prey on the weak and the wary. Just like religion.

Sorry for further necro'ing this thread, @Arksun :p
Bogus skeptic. It's also well known that contest is rigged and not scientific itself.
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
No, still no score for woo.
You're like a woo magnet.

"If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves."
No. Provide concrete evidence to support your claim. Not if's, maybe's and perhaps. If you think it's likely, then go test it.

Let me know when it's proven. Until then, it's still woo.
Ok, I take it you will be the willing human guinea pig that will allow scientists to stick electrodes into your brain via invasive procedures all for the sake of getting some experimental data? :sneaky:

Is there a reason why you believe that animal brains are fundamentally different from human brains such that human brains would not be capable of repeating the feats found in animal brains?
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
We don't know if it's consciousness that collapses the wave function. That's why there's so many interpretations of QM. It's the "measurement problem" of QM. Personally, it's a difficult topic, because on 1 hand, you are a quantum system, observing a quantum system. What you're referring to where consciousness causes the collapse is the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation.


No, still no score for woo.
You're like a woo magnet.

"If bats can sync brainwaves, humans can sync brainwaves."
No. Provide concrete evidence to support your claim. Not if's, maybe's and perhaps. If you think it's likely, then go test it.

Let me know when it's proven. Until then, it's still woo.



I wouldn't call it unfair. I would call it BS. There's been 1 million dollars. That's One + Million + Dollars that's been on the line since 1964 for psychics to come forth and claim their prize and not once has any psychic been able to replicate their "special powers".

More here:


We have lots. We can swim. Understand Quantum Mechanics, and we can create forum posts about metaphysical woo.

PS: I am also psychic. I maintain that somebody reading this is going to be at least 5/10 butt-hurt. I'm currently on the way to claim my 1 million dollars. Oh damn. They ended that in 2015 :/ - I guess 50 years of no psychic ability was enough for them. If anything is going to cause "psychic abilities" it's going to be technology. But then it's not going to really be psychic, is it?

I've been to 2 psychics before in my life. Both in times of "trouble", convinced by members of my family to go to said psychic. On 1 occasion, 1 psychic said something which caught my attention and made me think that maybe it could be real. After some times I realised I gave the psychic WAY too much info and my body language likely gave my away like a deer in the headlights. I don't believe any of it. In fact, I am sick of so-called psychics pulling in unsuspecting people and essentially making an easy buck off of them. They prey on the weak and the wary. Just like religion.

Sorry for further necro'ing this thread, @Arksun :p
"We don't know if it's consciousness that collapses the wave function."
I asked if anybody thinks that it be consciousness that collapses the wave function.
You responded that "we" (whoever that is) don't know.
You acknowledge that "we" don't understand reality, and that you don't have a problem with that.
You however effectively argue that if something cannot be scientifically proven, it is not real.

What has your opinion of what is real or not have to do with reality?
 
Last edited:

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
Ok, I take it you will be the willing human guinea pig that will allow scientists to stick electrodes into your brain via invasive procedures all for the sake of getting some experimental data? :sneaky:

Is there a reason why you believe that animal brains are fundamentally different from human brains such that human brains would not be capable of repeating the feats found in animal brains?
Ok, I take it you will be the willing human guinea pig that will allow scientists to stick electrodes into your brain via invasive procedures all for the sake of getting some experimental data? :sneaky:
If you insist ;_;


Is there a reason why you believe that animal brains are fundamentally different from human brains such that human brains would not be capable of repeating the feats found in animal brains?
I don't know, you made the claim that X = Y so you tell me :p I'm agnostic as to this. Until critical scientific consensus = proof, I am not going to declare that I know.

"We don't know if it's consciousness that collapses the wave function."
I asked if anybody thinks that it be consciousness that collapses the wave function.
You responded that "we" (whoever that is) don't know.
You acknowledge that "we" don't understand reality, and that you don't have a problem with that.
You however effectively argue that if something cannot be scientifically proven, it is not real.

What has your opinion of what is real and what is not have to do with reality?
Quantum mechanics = real. God = Not real. Simple
I'm okay with not knowing because I know there are great minds working on this stuff. We may never know the proper way to interpret a quantum system. Maybe we need a quantum theory of gravity. That will certainly help with understanding reality better and how the universe came to be.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
If you insist ;_;


Is there a reason why you believe that animal brains are fundamentally different from human brains such that human brains would not be capable of repeating the feats found in animal brains?
I don't know, you made the claim that X = Y so you tell me :p I'm agnostic as to this. Until critical scientific consensus = proof, I am not going to declare that I know.


Quantum mechanics = real. God = Not real. Simple
I'm okay with not knowing because I know there are great minds working on this stuff. We may never know the proper way to interpret a quantum system. Maybe we need a quantum theory of gravity. That will certainly help with understanding reality better and how the universe came to be.
How do you know that God = Not real?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
How do you know that God = Not real?
I'm not really wanting to get into a debate about the existence of god, however I can't really answer your question until you define god, and we can both agree on that definition. However, I don't know for sure, but I am inclined to believe that god = not real because I have no evidence for god. This is considering a general sense of the word god that most people use. Example, an all knowing, all powerful, supernatural being who is in control of the universe.

Edit: @Ponderer How do you know god is real?
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
I'm not really wanting to get into a debate about the existence of god, however I can't really answer your question until you define god, and we can both agree on that definition. However, I don't know for sure, but I am inclined to believe that god = not real because I have no evidence for god. This is considering a general sense of the word god that most people use. Example, an all knowing, all powerful, supernatural being who is in control of the universe.
I notice that you are now an Agnostic, and no longer an Atheist.
You used to be (but is no longer) absolutely sure that GOD does not exist.

What makes you think that something must be scientifically proven to exist for it to exist?
What makes you so sure that there is no such thing as "psychic abilities"?
Has it been scientifically proven that there is no such thing as "psychic abilities"?
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
If you insist ;_;
The only time such experiments are conducted on humans are with epilepsy patients just before they have surgery to have parts of their brain removed; the electrodes are inserted into the patient's brain to help the surgeons figure out what can be cut and what must be left alone.

For this reason, a lot of research into the human brain is carried out on so-called model organisms.

I don't know, you made the claim that X = Y so you tell me :p I'm agnostic as to this. Until critical scientific consensus = proof, I am not going to declare that I know.
As I was telling Saor in another thread, even though we diverged from amphibians 250 million years ago, we can still map homologous structures in the brains of amphibians as compared to our brains.

We diverged from mammals like bats a lot later in the evolutionary line, say 60 million years. So unless you can point me to the special thing in bat brains that bats have that no other mammal has, I'm going to conclude that there's no reason this development cannot be present in mammals generally, which would include humans.

An example of how we use animal models to tell us about the human brain:
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
So unless you can point me to the special thing in bat brains that bats have that no other mammal has, I'm going to conclude that there's no reason this development cannot be present in mammals generally, which would include humans.
So unless you can point me to the special thing in bat brains that bats have that no other mammal has
I don't need to do this, you need to do this. You're making the claim so the burden of proof lies with you.

I'm going to conclude that there's no reason this development cannot be present in mammals generally, which would include humans.
If you think there's a reason, provide evidence for the reason. Otherwise you're just guessing.

:
"A bat's hippocampus is very similar to a human's"

1) Similar does not equal same.
2) Bats use echolocation, humans don't, therefore I am going to conclude that we will never fully be able to utilize a bat's brain to understand a human brain. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
I don't need to do this, you need to do this. You're making the claim so the burden of proof lies with you.
You're the one asserting that the two are not the same despite a common origin. Should I now go and conclude that black and white brains can't be the same because of different skin colours? If they're different, show what the crucial difference is. Otherwise as a general principle mammalian brains are somehow capable of telepathic synchronisation.

If you think there's a reason, provide evidence for the reason. Otherwise you're just guessing.
Well there was that one time that my cousin and I were experimenting and had the other guess which hand had the black vs. white chess pawn; when I was trying to screw with my cousin mentally by meditating on the wrong choice, his success rate was 50/50. When I was doing the opposite, the success rate was closer to 90%.

:
"A bat's hippocampus is very similar to a human's"

1) Similar does not equal same.
2) Bats use echolocation, humans don't, therefore I am going to conclude that we will never fully be able to utilize a bat's brain to understand a human brain. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Yeah, this is just an appeal to ignorance, which I won't be wasting my time on.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
Yeah, this is just an appeal to ignorance, which I won't be wasting my time on.
So unless you can point me to the special thing in bat brains that bats have that no other mammal has, I'm going to conclude that there's no reason this development cannot be present in mammals generally, which would include humans.
and this isn't an appeal to ignorance?
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
and this isn't an appeal to ignorance?
I have my evidence, I have chosen to interpret it in such a way that is consistent with the rest of my beliefs/experiences about the world. I've tried to give you a reasonable elaboration of my thinking on the subject.

Telling you that I'm not going to take your claims of "prove it" seriously, isn't me making an appeal to ignorance, it's me rejecting your skepticism as unnecessarily extreme.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
@Prawnapple

Don't forget to respond to post #1770.

<edit>
BTW - since when is non-proof science?
Science (the methodology) requires proof, and not non-proof.
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
@Prawnapple


True or false, the idea that the brain is receptive to EM-waves and can synchronise to them like the bat brains is a highly plausible explanation for the phenomenon Clarkson empirically demonstrates.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,235
and this isn't an appeal to ignorance?
There is more evidence that our brains are similar than they are not, so no. This discussion reminds of the evolution discussions where a side can only claim that the evidence is so overwhelmingly strong in their favour because of their preconceived beliefs.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
@Prawnapple


True or false, the idea that the brain is receptive to EM-waves and can synchronise to them like the bat brains is a highly plausible explanation for the phenomenon Clarkson empirically demonstrates.
:confused:

The ONLY thing Clarkson empirically demonstrates is that putting a remote to your head extends it's range, turning your head into an antenna. That's it. There's no other conclusions, especially empirical ones, that can be drawn from that experiment.

Also be very careful when presenting binary arguments, especially yours above when you say "true or false" and then present multiple points, one of which is neither true nor false but highly plausible.
Binary arguments serve only your interest in the conversation and does little to forward the discussion in a constructive manner.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,836
:confused:

The ONLY thing Clarkson empirically demonstrates is that putting a remote to your head extends it's range, turning your head into an antenna. That's it. There's no other conclusions, especially empirical ones, that can be drawn from that experiment.

Also be very careful when presenting binary arguments, especially yours above when you say "true or false" and then present multiple points, one of which is neither true nor false but highly plausible.
Binary arguments serve only your interest in the conversation and does little to forward the discussion in a constructive manner.
To add to (and not detract from) your post.
Science is limited.
That which is known (that can be scientifically proven to be true) is dwarfed by that which is not (yet) known.
It is downright silly to argue that something is not true/real if it is not scientifically proven to be true/real.
Non-proof is not proof.
 
Top