Yale Psychiatrist show that Psychic Abilities exist

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I have shown you and you haven't refuted anything I have said.

YOUR CONCLUSION IS UNSUPPORTED BY YOUR OWN SOURCE AND YOUR THREAD TITLE IS A BLATANT LIE.
There. I've refuted it. For about the hundredth time. Now, instead of blathering the same old crap about how I'm wrong, why you don't you show me where in your source it says so?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I have shown you and you haven't refuted anything I have said.

YOUR CONCLUSION IS UNSUPPORTED BY YOUR OWN SOURCE AND YOUR THREAD TITLE IS A BLATANT LIE.
There. I've refuted it. For about the hundredth time. Now, instead of blathering the same old crap about how I'm wrong, why you don't you show me where in your source it says so?

Do you even know my conclusion? Based on my OP and subsequent posts, what conclusion did I reach?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I have shown you and you haven't refuted anything I have said.

YOUR CONCLUSION IS UNSUPPORTED BY YOUR OWN SOURCE AND YOUR THREAD TITLE IS A BLATANT LIE.
There. I've refuted it. For about the hundredth time. Now, instead of blathering the same old crap about how I'm wrong, why you don't you show me where in your source it says so?

Do you even know my conclusion? Based on my OP and subsequent posts, what conclusion did I reach?

Well, going by your thread title: Yale Psychiatrist show that Psychic Abilities exist... There's also this line that you keep parroting:

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's a biological basis for psychic ability and this is very important.

Take your pick.

Nice deflection, by the way. Not that it was unexpected. Have to try and change the subject somehow, when you get called out on your BS, don't ya?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I have shown you and you haven't refuted anything I have said.

YOUR CONCLUSION IS UNSUPPORTED BY YOUR OWN SOURCE AND YOUR THREAD TITLE IS A BLATANT LIE.
There. I've refuted it. For about the hundredth time. Now, instead of blathering the same old crap about how I'm wrong, why you don't you show me where in your source it says so?

Do you even know my conclusion? Based on my OP and subsequent posts, what conclusion did I reach?

Well, going by your thread title: Yale Psychiatrist show that Psychic Abilities exist... There's also this line that you keep parroting:

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's a biological basis for psychic ability and this is very important.

Take your pick.

Nice deflection, by the way. Not that it was unexpected. Have to try and change the subject somehow, when you get called out on your BS, don't ya?

Just as I thought, you have no clue as to what I'm talking about.

One of the mods around here has wisely said something to the effect of, "Do not attempt to teach those who refuse to learn."

At this point, all we're doing is bumping the thread of a troll who will not admit he is wrong, and whose entire method of argumentation involves using quotes out of context, calling people silly, typing 'LOL,' and claiming victory when it's clear to everyone he is wrong.

He is either trolling, or beyond learning. I don't know which and frankly do not care.

As Cicero said (I am paraphrasing), "Any man can make a mistake, but only a fool persists in err."

Cicero was describing the OP.

I won't be visiting any more of his threads, as they are all wastes of time and energy. Good luck to the rest of you trying to teach this guy something.

OP can have the last word now. I suspect he's going to need it. He doesn't impress me as the kind of guy who can let something go.

a reply to: Greggers

I think the op is beyond being taught anything, let alone the basic reading skills he needs.

I do agree though and I'm going to leave the op to wallow in his misinterpretation.

You can't teach the willfully ignorant. I'm out too.

a reply to: Greggers

You're running to the Mods because you can't debate? You need to check my history. I've been around here for awhile and the popularity of my posts tell the story why.

I'm just not closed minded like you and I can explore these topics with an open mind and so can many others.

You didn't even know what the paper was about. You said it has nothing to do with voices and it has everything to do with voices and how the ability of Psychics to control them could be utilized by schizophrenics.

So until you actually read and understand what you're debating you shouldn't even comment.

What if I get the author/s of this said piece to make a small clarification that states it has nothing to do with verifying the claim of Psychic abilities but on the mental illness control factor?

If so would you admit you are in error?

(I have to receive permission to post something first)

Edit:

For anyone curious, in my former career a long time ago I worked for Child Protection Services, this required me to have a Psychology degree and a legal degree (and security credentials as Law Enforcement) (I initially intended to do Criminology but reliased too late how much work was required so I deferred many modules), those were granted by a top University with ties to many others around the world, the same University I am at for Astrophysics; this is one of my main areas of expertise, is it strange I am on this forum? No I find it relaxing and I'm a paranormal nut.

It is quite interesting to see the level of denial in here.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

That would be good. But with the CB of the OP, it's unlikely to matter.

Any chance you could give a rundown of the methodology regarding the selection of subjects?

Scientific evidence for psychic powers?


A respected peer-reviewed journal in psychology, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, is about to publish a paper that presents scientific evidence for precognition.  The paper, by Daryl Bem of Cornell University, is called “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect,” and you can download a preprint on his webpage.  I’ve scanned the paper only briefly, and am posting about it in hopes that some of you will read it carefully and provide analyses, either here or elsewhere.


The paper purports to show that a choice that you make in a computer test can be influenced by stimuli you receive after you’ve already made the choice.  This implies you have some way, consciously or unconsciously, of detecting things that haven’t yet happened.  In an article in Psychology Today, “Have scientists finally discovered evidence for psychic phenomena?“, psychologist Melissa Burkley at Oklahoma State University summarizes two of Bem’s studies:

However, Bem’s studies are unique in that they represent standard scientific methods and rely on well-established principles in psychology. Essentially, he took effects that are considered valid and reliable in psychology – studying improves memory, priming facilitates response times – and simply reversed their chronological order.

For example, we all know that rehearsing a set of words makes them easier to recall in the future, but what if the rehearsal occurs after the recall? In one of the studies, college students were given a list of words and after reading the list, were given a surprise recall test to see how many words they remembered. Next, a computer randomly selected some of the words on the list as practice words and the participants were asked to retype them several times. The results of the study showed that the students were better at recalling the words on the surprise recall test that they were later given, at random, to practice. According to Bem, practicing the words after the test somehow allowed the participants to “reach back in time to facilitate recall.”

In another study, Bem examined whether the well-known priming effect could also be reversed. In a typical priming study, people are shown a photo and they have to quickly indicate if the photo represents a negative or positive image. If the photo is of a cuddly kitten, you press the “positive” button and if the photo is of maggots on rotting meat, you press the “negative” button. A wealth of research has examined how subliminal priming can speed up your ability to categorize these photos. Subliminal priming occurs when a word is flashed on the computer screen so quickly that your conscious brain doesn’t recognize what you saw, but your nonconscious brain does. So you just see a flash, and if I asked you to tell me what you saw, you wouldn’t be able to. But deep down, your nonconscious brain saw the word and processed it. In priming studies, we consistently find that people who are primed with a word consistent with the valence of the photo will categorize it quicker. So if I quickly flash the word “happy” before the kitten picture, you will click the “positive” button even quicker, but if I instead flash the word “ugly” before it, you will take longer to respond. This is because priming you with the word “happy” gets your mind ready to see happy things.

In Bem’s retroactive priming study, he simply reversed the time sequence on this effect by flashing the primed word after the person categorized the photo. So I show you the kitten picture, you pick whether it is positive or negative, and then I randomly choose to prime you with a good or bad word. The results showed that people were quicker at categorizing photos when it was followed by a consistent prime. So not only will you categorize the kitten quicker when it is preceded by a good word, you will also categorize it quicker when it is followed by a good word. It was as if, while participants were categorizing the photo, their brain knew what word was coming next and this facilitated their decision.

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Where's the part about hallucinations?

a reply to: Phage


Actually we all hallucinate this because the resultant effect of sensory input results in an internal representation.


I already explained that.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

You said:

What if I get the author/s of this said piece to make a small clarification that states it has nothing to do with verifying the claim of Psychic abilities but on the mental illness control factor?

This makes no sense based on what I have been saying throughout the entire post. The control factor of these psychic abilities gives these abilities a biological basis.

Do people actually read what I have posted?

a reply to: neoholographic

You are delusional. (And I am not making an insult)

Nothing you say makes sense "Oh if the authors may say that it is nothing to do with it, they're wrong because my word is better then theirs".

Nothing more to be said with your rubbish.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MuonToGluon

That would be good. But with the CB of the OP, it's unlikely to matter.

Any chance you could give a rundown of the methodology regarding the selection of subjects?

Sorry, Phage, I couldn't.

I had nothing to do with this study, getting in contact with an author of a paper (people do not like to have their work associated with quack science) and getting into a long drawn out conversation/debate about their area of study are 2 different things...I don't want to debate and converse about it as my ability to feign interest I lost long ago.

a reply to: MuonToGluon
I thought you might be a subscriber.
I'm not gonna pay $40 for it.

a reply to: Phage

My bad.

Very much the same, my monies can go towards other meaningful stuff...like a pack of cigarettes.

Anyways I'm out of this thread, his last reply has summed up everything in this thread that you have said; does not matter what is said he is going to keep peddling his lies.

originally posted by: Phage

The skeptic has been saying for years that Psychics are liars and charlatans but this study is telling us that some Psychics are telling the truth.

No. It isn't. It says that some people really think they hear voices that don't originate from their own heads.

Just in case someone doesn't read the article, it says that you don't have to be tormented by those voices you hear. It just depend on your point of view.

They found that the voices experienced by this group are similar in many ways to those reported by people with schizophrenia, with a few big differences: Psychics are much more likely to perceive the voices as positive or helpful and as experiences that can be controlled, according to a new study published Sept. 28 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.

Do you believe in any psychic abilities? The article is obviously bunk, but was just wondering.

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

originally posted by: Phage

The skeptic has been saying for years that Psychics are liars and charlatans but this study is telling us that some Psychics are telling the truth.

No. It isn't. It says that some people really think they hear voices that don't originate from their own heads.

Just in case someone doesn't read the article, it says that you don't have to be tormented by those voices you hear. It just depend on your point of view.

They found that the voices experienced by this group are similar in many ways to those reported by people with schizophrenia, with a few big differences: Psychics are much more likely to perceive the voices as positive or helpful and as experiences that can be controlled, according to a new study published Sept. 28 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.

Do you believe in any psychic abilities? The article is obviously bunk, but was just wondering.

I'm not sure if the article is bunk.

I do NOT personally believe in psychic abilities, but I think the psychiatrist in the OP's article has some valid reasoning for going down the track he is going. That is, why can some people who hear voices in their heads (people who think those voices come from psychic ability) function so well in life while other people who hear voices in their head are tormented by it?

It's a great question, so I don't think the study mentioned in the OP is bunk at all. It might lead to a way to help those tormented by the voices how to cope with the voices.