Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it possible to develop different psi abilities?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by RainCrow View Post
    I have been trying to develop more control over this, but it seems that any time I try to do anything psychic on purpose, I don't do so well.
    I suggest you find a psychic development class. These are often taught at spiritualist churches. Spiritualist churches are also a good place to meet other people who have had similar experiences. I have described some of my experiences both good and bad with psychic devleopment at spiritualist churches here:

    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/psi_experience
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/dark_side

    I also have a web page that describes how to induce psychic experiences.

    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p...ral_mediumship

    It is based on the observations that 1) theta brain waves have been reported to correlate with psychic experiences, 2) theta waves occur in the hypnogogic state, 3) visualization exercises induce theta waves, and 4) visualization and other relaxation exercises can induce the hypnogogic state, 5) it is easy for a person to recognize when they are in the hypnogogic state so they don't need expensive equipment to know when they are producing theta waves.

    The web page is oriented for mediumship but I've also used the method successfully for remote viewing and have had precognitive perceptions using it.

    I have never had problems with frauds at spiritualist churches but I've read there are some out there so you have to be aware of that.
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8p..._psychic_mafia
    Last edited by anonymous; October 17th, 2009, 12:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      testing your psychic abilites, we all have them

      I Believe We All Are Born With Psychic Abiliites. One Way To Improve 0ur Abilites Is To Test It And Practice Using Them.
      When You Cant Get Someone You Know "out Of Your Mind", Contact Them And See What Is Going On With Them And Ask If They Have Been Thinking Of You. You Can Put Your Energy Towards Someone Else You Know And See If They Contact You. Guess On Little Things Everyday And You Will Be Surprised How Psychic You Really Are.
      There Is A Website Psychic Project - The Best Psychic Development Tool On the Net - And It's Free! That Has Targets (people, Things, Events) You Guess Information About Using Your Psycic Abilities. You Can Immediately See The Correct Answers To Certain Questions Asked. You Can Then Compare Your Answers To Other People Guessing The Targets. You Can Also Comment On Helpful Insights, Psychic Info For The Targets That Are People.
      Its Just A Lot Of Fun. You Can Stop And Log Back In Later If You Cant Finish At One Time.

      Comment


      • #18
        In the real world...

        There are some incredible personal stories, but good evidence that people can develop psi abilities is nowhere to be found. The trend more often reported in parapsychology is for subjects to get *worse* with more trials.

        Consider the facilities we do have. We take in a huge amount of information, and we have an amazing facility for language. If remote viewing, telepathy, or telekinesis worked, they would provide huge advantages and we should have evolved to exploit them.

        Our scientific understanding of language and of vision is in its infancy, though there is a lot we know. We continue to get better at transferring thoughts between minds, with tools such as cell phones, browsers, Google and Wikipedia. Parapsychology on he other hand, has given us nothing; psychics, even less.


        -Bryan

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BannedBySkeptiko View Post
          If remote viewing, telepathy, or telekinesis worked, they would provide huge advantages and we should have evolved to exploit them.
          You say that like it is fact. The truth is, even if you accept the reality of psi that doesn't mean you know how it works. The underlying process responsible for psi experiences may not allow 'strong' psi to develop in the natural world. But then again, maybe it does. We simply don't know. The evolutionary argument against psi looks appealing on first glance but it assumes so much about a phenomena we know little about.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BannedBySkeptiko View Post
            . We take in a huge amount of information, and we have an amazing facility for language. If remote viewing, telepathy, or telekinesis worked, they would provide huge advantages and we should have evolved to exploit them.
            Bryan, you are wrong to include 'telepathy' in there.

            - If you shared perfect telepathy with another mind, whose thought is whose? It would destroy your sense of individuality, your sense of ego and if anything reduce ability to survive. Perhaps creatures with a less developed sense of individuality do have an increased group telepathy e.g. collonies of ants, flocks of birds, etc.

            - Also remember the greater the sense of individuality the more cunning the creatures. Thoughts are subjective, that means information not matching physical reality can be passed too, deceptions can be passed, hallucinations could be passed, however only that which matches physical world is a clear evolutionary advantage in a physical world.

            Also Bryan, do not make the very common skeptic mistake of assuming psi must be a local brain generated function.....*if* brain iis filtering the mind, the brain would evolve to filter out that which does not directly pertain to physical survival. You are only correct if psi were a brain generated local function

            With regard to remote viewing, this could just be an aspect of telepathy. Tests to rule this out would need to remote view things no person has observed. Also some survivalists argue, a discarnate mind is supplying the information via telepathy and it just appears like remote viewing.

            With regard to telekinesis, first the evidence for it in labs is not that good. Second, the more common claim is that people witness an object moving by itself, not so much 'I did that with my mind' . Most claims of objects moving seem to occur unconsciously ... and tend to be reported by people as occuring in their presence rather than 'I did that' ... the evidence these can be consciously willed to move isn't that compelling.

            In conclusion if one looks upon the brain as a filter of consciousness, not the source of consciousness then the logical evolutionary consequences are very different than from assuming psi as purely a brain function.

            Psi doesn't need to be a conscious effect. Unconscious psi is being reported in parapsychology labs too. In fact if the brain evolved to filter out telepathy to increase individuality ... psi may be stronger as unconscious collective effects ... individual conscious psi may have evoled much weaker.

            Cheers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Psi may not be a consequence of physical organs like the brain and therefore it may not be subject to evolution. A random mutation can't change your soul.

              Psi may be leakage of spirit abilities that are for the most part (but not completely) unavailable while incarnated.

              That is why spontaneous psi is rare and effect size in psi experiments is low.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                With regard to remote viewing, this could just be an aspect of telepathy. Tests to rule this out would need to remote view things no person has observed. Also some survivalists argue, a discarnate mind is supplying the information via telepathy and it just appears like remote viewing.
                Interesting point. One could argue that clairvoyance could always be interpreted as either telepathy or precognition. After all, either the remote viewer (precognition) or someone else (telepathy) has to observe the object/event that is being viewed in order to verify that remote viewing has taken place. Otherwise there is no way to distinguish 'imagination' from 'remote viewing'. To take your example, even if the object of interest were an object that no person has yet obseved, the object must be observed at some point in time by some person in order to verify the test, thus allowing for either precognition or telepathy. Then again, perhaps that is simply a limitation in how we verify things rather than an indication of how the underlying phenomena works.

                Comment


                • #23
                  There have been remote viewing experiemnts where the target was chosen randomly and was unknown to any living person until after the remote viewer gave his description of the target.

                  This rules out telepathy from living persons as an explanation for some remote viewing.

                  Also the history of the term telepathy is somewhat interesting. Initially it meant getting information from a particular person known to the psychic. When it was found that psychics could get information unknown to the sitters they were reading, the definition was expanded to include any living person.

                  Military remote viewing cannot be explained by the original definition. Telepathy from any living person might be better put under the umbrella term "super-spi" rather than telepathy.

                  If you look at the etymology of the word clairvoyance it seems most properly defined as percieving psychic information as visual imagery. The process by which the information is obtained is not really part of that definition. Clairvoyance can occur in mediumship, psychometry, remote viewing, telepathy, precognition etc etc.

                  Remote viewing does not require feedback. An experimenter can verify if the remote viewer was correct or not. If you define precognition as cognition of something that will happen to the psychic, then precognition can also be ruled out as an explanation for some remote viewing. If you want to use the definition that precognition is about anything that will happen it becomes a meaningless distinction. (A) What is the point of suggesting remote viewing is not knowing something at a remote location now but really knowing something at a remote location one second from now? (B) Or, what is the point of assuming remote viewing is not knowing something about a remote location now but is really about something that will happen to an experimenter but unknown to the psychic. B is no different from A.

                  In these discussions it would be nice if we could all agree as to which terms are descriptive and which are process oriented.

                  Remote viewing, I think, is like clairvoyance, it is best used to describe a type of perception and not a process.
                  Last edited by anonymous; November 3rd, 2008, 07:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                    You say that like it is fact. The truth is, even if you accept the reality of psi that doesn't mean you know how it works.
                    It's an argument against these abilities, and evolution does not care if an organism knows how its abilities work.

                    Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                    The underlying process responsible for psi experiences may not allow 'strong' psi to develop in the natural world.
                    When I talk about it being real, I mean in the natural world, not the magic world of someone's imagination.

                    Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                    But then again, maybe it does. We simply don't know.
                    Because psi is immune to dis-proof. Psi can explain *anything* -- that much we know about it.

                    -Bryan

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Kakrafoonian Telepathy

                      Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                      Bryan, you are wrong to include 'telepathy' in there.

                      - If you shared perfect telepathy with another mind, whose thought is whose? It would destroy your sense of individuality, your sense of ego and if anything reduce ability to survive.
                      Fair point. Telepathy of the type suffered by the Belcebron people of Kakrafoon[*] could be an evolutionary disadvantage.

                      So we might answer question 1 in on OP with, "let's sure hope not". We are fortunate that the evidence for telepathy's existence is so bad.

                      -Bryan
                      [*]Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 1980.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BannedBySkeptiko View Post
                        It's an argument against these abilities, and evolution does not care if an organism knows how its abilities work.
                        I was not suggesting that organisms need to know how psi works in order for evolution to select such an ability.

                        This is my point: you have to know how psi works in order to say for certain that psi experiences would have evolved past a certain 'strength' (although it's not clear to what degree you are suggesting these experiences would have evolved).

                        Firstly, there might be something about the fundamental nature of the process underlying psi experiences that prevent those experiences from ever being developed past a certain 'strength'.

                        Secondly, there might be developmental contraints that prevent whatever structure is supporting psi (brains?) from developing 'strong' experiences.

                        Regardless of whether any particular trait confers an advantage to the organism or not, the trait has to be present within the population in the first place. If the development of a trait is physically constrained then there is not much for evolution to act on.

                        However, for all we know, we may indeed be able to develop 'strong' abilities that are hereditary and subject to evolutionary forces.

                        I am merely saying that the evolutionary argument, as an argument against the existence of psi, is very weak because it assumes so much about the phenomena.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                          I was not suggesting that organisms need to know how psi works in order for evolution to select such an ability.

                          This is my point: you have to know how psi works in order to say for certain that psi experiences would have evolved past a certain 'strength' (although it's not clear to what degree you are suggesting these experiences would have evolved).
                          The question was about "developing psi abilities", and the answer is that the evidence is decidedly against psychic abilities of a sort that people can develop.

                          Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                          I am merely saying that the evolutionary argument, as an argument against the existence of psi, is very weak because it assumes so much about the phenomena.
                          What's psi? If one thinks it to be a scientific hypothesis, then it must be specific and predictive, open to refutation by evidence. The evidence is against it.

                          The problem is not that we do not know enough about some actual phenomenon, it's that "psi" is just a term parapsychologists made up so they don't have to come out and say "magic". Magic is immune to disproof, that much is true, but that's no excuse for pretending we live in total ignorance.

                          -Bryan

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BannedBySkeptiko View Post
                            The question was about "developing psi abilities", and the answer is that the evidence is decidedly against psychic abilities of a sort that people can develop.
                            Basing an assertion about whether psi experiences can be developed to a particular degree should quite rightly be based on evidence - scientific evidence. The assertion should not be based on evolutionary arguments that carry little weight.

                            What's psi? If one thinks it to be a scientific hypothesis, then it must be specific and predictive, open to refutation by evidence. The evidence is against it.

                            The problem is not that we do not know enough about some actual phenomenon, it's that "psi" is just a term parapsychologists made up so they don't have to come out and say "magic". Magic is immune to disproof, that much is true, but that's no excuse for pretending we live in total ignorance.

                            We can talk about evidence for psi in terms of empirical knowledge. That's fine, I have no problem with that. But you were talking about psi experiences in the context of an evolutionary just-so-story where psi is a cognitive ability or trait subject to evolutionary forces. I'm just trying to get the point across that when you use that kind of argument, you have to make certain assumptions about how far psi experiences can actually be developed in an evolutionary sense.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I have heard many anecdotal reports from psychics that the ability does seem to run in families. It's too bad that our society is so anti-psi (burning witches, super-skeptical etc). If it were more accepted we might have more research on the subject and know if these data hold up to more rigorous study.

                              However some humans societies have a habit of murdering people (burning witches etc) suspected of being psychic.

                              If selection can increase psi ability we might not see it in these socieites.

                              Using test subjects of European and or Christian ancestry might be a poor choice for an experimental system.

                              Psi might be more pervalent in shaministic societies, but this is also one reason the dogs that know experiments could be imporant.
                              Last edited by anonymous; November 4th, 2008, 08:40 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                                Basing an assertion about whether psi experiences can be developed to a particular degree should quite rightly be based on evidence - scientific evidence. The assertion should not be based on evolutionary arguments that carry little weight.
                                Hey, if you can show psi to your "particular degree", please do so. I keep asking what anyone can actually show for real, and so far all I've gotten are excuses.

                                Does evolution do an amazing job of exploiting real abilities? Absolutely yes. How strong are the psi abilities we've evolved? Indistinguishable from zero.

                                If you believers in magic are unconvinced by the evidence, well, we realists are not surprised.


                                Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                                We can talk about evidence for psi in terms of empirical knowledge.
                                And you and I have, in this very thread. There's no evidence telling us anything specific about it. Psi is still totally fantasy, not empirical hypothesis.

                                Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                                That's fine, I have no problem with that. But you were talking about psi experiences in the context of an evolutionary just-so-story where psi is a cognitive ability or trait subject to evolutionary forces. I'm just trying to get the point across that when you use that kind of argument, you have to make certain assumptions about how far psi experiences can actually be developed in an evolutionary sense.
                                And we're past that. If you assert nothing about "psi" that distinguishes it from magic, then it is permanently immune to dis-proof. Here, I'm considering reality, not your religion.

                                -Bryan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X