Discussions

What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?

Posted Feb. 3, 2011 by IONS Staff in Big Questions

Anonymous Icon

commented on Dec. 5, 2013
by dustproduction

Quote

160

Science of Psi

© Benjamin Haas | Dreamstime.com

What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?

The opportunity to look at both the resistance to and the evidence for the validity of psi phenomena has never been greater since news came out that Cornell professor emeritus Daryl Bem would be publishing a study in a mainstream psychology journal presenting evidence for precognition. The response has been passionate on both sides of the issue, which IONS has been closely following. IONS Director of Research Cassandra Vieten has written two blogs about it ( “It’s about Time – Psi Research at a Tipping Point” and “Responding to the Debate”), and this month we feature an article from Senior Scientist Dean Radin ( “Getting the Facts Straight” ) and an excerpt from a new book called Debating Psychic Experience.

A growing conclusion among those who study anomalous phenomena is that the issue is less about problems with the data than with what such evidence represents: a fundamental challenge to scientific materialism, the bedrock of modern science, which states that matter is primary and nothing (such as mind) exists outside of that. Given what’s at stake, can such beliefs ever be overcome? Is it even worth the effort? What do you think?

Please join this discussion by sharing your response to this question in the comment space below.


  • 160 Comments  
  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 05, 2013

    Mr Bray,

    Is there a reason to "spam" several discussions with the same message?
    You might of at least been kind enough to work the mention of your book into the conversations like you did in your 2011 comments

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 05, 2013

    G'day wbilly

    We mention consciousness & we all have a slightly different definition in what we define as consciousness.

    To me it defines a natural intelligence outside of the human mind. We think as soon as we bring in intelligence it somehow becomes an unnatural controlling process but why does intelligence always define control? We desire so we have to have control to desire but if you take a way desire from intelligence what do you have? A very natural process of creation with no hoogly-boogly stuff involved.

  • Anonymous Icon

    wbilly3814 Dec 05, 2013

    I have a text which describes a unique definition for consciousness that I am making avilable to all IONS members for free. It is 800 pages of Quantum Theory, the history of it, most particularly where and how the idea that consciousness plays a role in 'painting the universe into being' came from, and how it got lost along the way, bringing about speculative approaches to Quantum Physics that exclude consciousness from the equations altogether, even mocking the idea.

    It is a great history lesson in Quantum Theory and Physics mellowed down to the lay reader's ability to fully grasp.

    The second half of the text puts this unique defintion back into Quantum Theory, and describes the physics as the founders had saught to do, but didn't live to do, because they could not find this definition for cosnsciousness suitable within the framework of Quantum Physics, the Religions and Philosophies of Man.

    If you would like a copy (free) email me at wbilly3814@yahoo.com, put IONS Memebr in the subject line, and let me know if you would like a pdf, kindle, or epub.

    thank you

    william joseph bray

  • Joseph Smith Jun 10, 2013

    I can't deny the truth. After I heard voices of the past speaking to me in the Constitution, I went to sea on a sailboat I named "Bold Venture." I spent two years in a sea adventure. When I left the sea, I'd saved seven lives, including my own from a watery grave. How can I think that God's hand was not on my wheel? When I left the sea, my charmed life continued. All of my dreams have come true. Would I not want to pass on what I know?

    It all began when my life was in ruins. I cut from the herd on Good Friday, arriving in Miami, Florida for the first day in my new life on Easter Sunday. I set sail on the South Atlantic on Christmas Eve 1975. In 1980, out of the blue, came my soul mate--my fourth wife. It has been wine and roses ever since. Somehow, I knew she was the right one for me the moment we met--like she was someone I'd known before. The feeling has never left me.

    God bless America!
    Land that I love.
    Stand beside her,
    And guide her,
    Through the night with a light from above.

  • Joseph Smith Jun 10, 2013

    I bring you the truth. Forget the notion that science will ever find a connecting link with consciousness and the physical. Science has now found the Higgs boson, supposedly the one final indivisible particle, only to find that there are smaller divisions.

    Consciousness is fundamental. There is only more conscious awareness. Reality is anything we think. Faith was never meant to be blind. Faith is in that which is revealed, revealed through the lives of many who have come before us. When I studied the Constitution, it was as though voices of the past were speaking to me. The Constitution supports the idea that we are meant to be self-governed. I'm living proof that it pays.

    When the world comes to realize what I already know, we will live together according to the will of our Creator. Jesus said it; I say it. Luke 21: There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, and distress among the nations. "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

  • Joseph Smith Jun 10, 2013

    In the interest of p.s.I. development, I recommend my guru, Evan Harris Walker, who happens to be a Christian. Walker speaks of "this trinity of man, mind and God--of brain consciousness and collective will"--as not being the full realization of the fabric of reality."I also see, as one and the same, a Buddhist conception." What! No, I never heard a Christian say that. In fact, a Christian told me that God never speaks to physics. I'm psychic. God speaks to me. I mean, really! How can some of us be so misled? Jesus wasn't a Christian. His message was to everyone. Religion is not for this present world. To survive, religion has to be updated. We are moving into an age when we all become our brother's keeper, with no place for holy wars.

    Walker: "a unity of nature, all things being aspects of mind," I never heard a Christian say that. To Christians, it seems, it's "pie in the sky." Says Walker, "We see the separation that lies between us and the rest of reality." I don't think so. We don't see that. A universe that has only matter cannot have consciousness. We exist in an eternal state of consciousness--while here and after we die. Naturally, authority does not want you to believe that. You'd have control over your life. So much for "some bright morning, when this life is I'll fly away to a home on God's celestial shore."

    Do we not have out-of-body experiences while alive? Yes, we do. The kingdom of God in you. It's self-evident, Walker speaks of a God for tomorrow. I'm already there, my dreams come true!

  • Joseph Smith Jun 10, 2013

    The unanswered question: I’ve noted that the basic issue I raise in discussions—here and everywhere else—is never answered. This all began in 1973, with my letter to U.S. Attorney General William B. Saxbe, a Tricky-Dickey Nixon appointee. I advised him that I’d see him in court; that he was unconstitutionally supporting Federal Income Tax. The government, through Federal Income Tax, put me out of business. My wife divorced me. I’m not a lawyer, but the law allows me to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Not many lawyers can practice law before the Supreme Court. I made good my promise. Saxbe appeared in the Supreme Court in defense of Federal Income Tax, with me in opposition. You would not believe who won.

    The IRS ate crow on the front page of The Palm Beach Post—admitted that it was mistaken. By myself—with the world against me—I proved the power that lies within us (for all the good it did).

    America’s National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden faces criminal investigation for revealing that NSA is gathering all kinds of information on the American people. NSA’s chief, Mr. Clapper, says Snowden is doing the American people great harm. This information helps stop terrorist acts, says your government. Why didn’t we know this was taking place? Are we too dumb to know the truth?

    New age science maintains that there is no such thing as objective reality, as far as human beings are concerned. New age science now finds that what we had thought was an independent and objective physical world is in fact contingent on the observer. The observer interacts with matter. The will of human beings transcends the limits of time and space. We have the capability to intervene in the material events of the world.

    This brings me to “our Lord and Savior,” and I’m not even a Christian. When this anti-religious misfit reads the Gospels, I read my answer. In Matthew 6, Jesus said, “in earth as it is in heaven….But seek ye first the kingdom of God.” Jesus said the kingdom of God in you. Authority says the kingdom of God is in heaven. Mr. Clapper indicates the kingdom of God is in Washington D.C. Is it to be new age science or “give me that Old Time Religion, it’s good enough for me?”

  • Joseph Smith Jun 06, 2013

    Sorry guys, but it is inaccurate to say that scientific materialism is the bedrock of modern science. It is beating a dead horse. Modern science says we're more than matter. To be accurate, you must now say that the mind is in contact with the functions of the meat--your brain. We've discovered that the mind, through the will, affects matter. First things first. The mind, in tune with the nature of consciousness, transcends time and space. There is no question about it. It is now accepted that without consciousness, nothing could exist.

    You can't take apart consciousness, for it is a state, a "non-local" quality. Modern science measures consciousness to discover how the mind, through the will, affects matter. This transcends the limits of time and space--in other words, extrasensory. There is no truth without a beginning. Understand the beginning and move on. There is nothing left to explain.

  • bestearth Jun 06, 2013

    The intuitive state of psi is not available through the analytical mind. If people are deeply armoured then it makes it impossible for them to experience the calm portal required for psi states. On this psi arcade game from ions 'Garden of Dreams' . I find I do better when I don't try. It's a great game, a guessing and remote sensing game that tracks your progress. It's based on the focused mind's ability to affect random number generators.
    Most scientists are still following Aristotlien logic based on two values, on off, fact not fact, black white. It has the effect of obliterating the middle ground where human subtleties and nuances, subjectivity are. And therefore where the gateway to psi is. This old logic system is great for building machines, programming computers and finding facts but doesn't work on humans. It tends to reduce people to machines.

    'Science ' is made up of individuals and if those individuals remain armoured in various ways they can never get a personal taste of psi which would change their perceptions.

    References. 'The End of Suffering" Targ ,Hurtak

  • Billgreenjeans May 28, 2013

    "Old scientists never accept new concepts; they just die. But young scientists grow up in the environment of the new concept and accept it automatically." Wernher von Braun

  • Billgreenjeans May 25, 2013

    Attrition

  • Joseph Smith May 23, 2013

    I don't need science to explain what I already know. We are transcendental--free to expand our thinking vastly beyond current ideas of time and space. I was told by an astrologer that I was psychic. I didn't know that. The mere suggestion triggered me to psychically hear voices in distress far out of hearing range. Three kids were snorkeling over a reef. Caught by an ocean current, they were taken out to sea. I was cruising on my sailboat a couple of miles off the Palm Beach coast when I psychically heard said voices.

    We learn from the microcosmic that the macrocosmic, in basic makeup, is the same as the microcosmic, and that our minds interact. I've nothing to lose by accepting this idea. Others have invested much to gain prestige in their theories. They have a lot to lose. The authorities 500 years ago held that the planet Earth was at the center of the universe. You were judged to be a heretic if you didn't believe it, and subject to torture, imprisonment, or death.

    We now have only our own self-limitation. For some reason, I was born free to think for myself. After thinking wrong a number of times, I've come to think better.

  • frequencytuner Apr 12, 2013

    Just a thought to ponder: if there are suppressed, possibly 'alien' technologies in the energy and propulsion industries that are deliberately suppressed by those that benefit from their suppression, how is it not possible that the 'psi' fringe science is one of those very technologies that some benefit from by keeping it suppressed.

    Nuclear technology was exploited before mankind was ready for it, and now it has become our deadliest danger. Perhaps there is a reason why certain things are not divulged for the everyday person. Whether this reason is logical, reasonable or ethical does not matter. The world saw recently what happens when children get ahold of loaded guns. What happens when angry, violent teenagers learn to harness 'superhuman' abilities? What happens when greedy, immoral and powerful adults learn these and other more powerful abilities? Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix explains this analogously perfect.

  • Anonymous Icon

    186000c Apr 06, 2013


    When it becomes their idea. Schools of thought avoid any semblance of proposing anything that detracts from respect. Science has become the new church clearing house for ideas that it is not ready to declare acceptable.
    Control of an idea is actually two fold, validation is one control it is accepted into mainstream science. The other is non-validation which keeps it the realm of crack pots, such as I, and phonies.
    This controls the flow of ideas. This colors peoples lives and the development of the vocabulary that leads to the development of ideas.
    Science is not public attention. Television presents documentaries which are for the public pallet. I have copy written books on precognition but it is not respectable until a scientists says> I found it. They its like they have a magic wand which they pass over an idea and its theirs. I have read advice from "Respected Scientists that said people who are not working in the field should shut up.
    Yes well I have answers now to the nature of life, precognition, death, sleep, social dreaming, the need to recognize time as a dimension and not an abstract concept. I am a "crackpot" with the answers that are not poetic rationalization. How do you bridge the gap between the crackpot and the scientist, Give up you don't. Simply make your work rational, and understandable. They watch as the feeding frenzy starts and your work disappears into their respectable ideas.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jan 14, 2013

    While it doesn't resolve the question of how psi relates to physics, Carpenter's book "First Sight" presents a fairly clear theory regarding how psi may relate to psychology:

    http://www.amazon.com/First-Sight-Parapsychology-Everyday-Life/dp/1442213906

  • mrmathew1963 Jan 14, 2013

    G'day IONS

    I agree with Dustproduction that it's the churches & related religious doctrines that's stopping or hindering investigations into psi not science because science has nothing to fear from such investigation, in actual fact it has a lot to gain, it's the churches that feel threatened by such investigation & for a very good reason one of them being that it's not all hoogly-boogly & in actual fact very little of it is. You take away the hoogly-booglies from religion what has it got because it’s based on fear & hoogly-boogly stuff, meaning it’s not all divine will but instead a part of our natural world not some God of mans will. I found God/creative source through science as I believe there is more to us than this crude matter so I am a believer.

    Science has their own egos & dogmas to deal with as well but it is overcoming this through common sense & to a certain degree so is religion.

    Don’t get me wrong here I’m more into spirituality than science by far where I think Dustproduction is the opposite but if you allow common sense to prevail & drop the dogmatism associated with science & religion/spirituality you see more especially outside the square.

    Love
    Mathew

  • parker Jan 14, 2013

    Anticipating acceptance of psi phenomenon by the practitioners of science is futile. Why would we suspect that science is capable of accepting the validity of human consciousness reality, let alone anything as absolute as psi phenomenon. Science most certainly holds every characteristic of its human practitioners; that of skepticism which is inherently an aspect of human nature. Science remains skeptical, because in addition to their skeptical human nature, science practitioners have been specially trained and programmed to be scientific. The scientific method of proving that which makes it into scientific lore, does not favor that form of immeasurable, yet practical common sense also inherent to human nature, that enables recognition of the human potential, and which by its very existence, overrides any need for, or justification by scientific proof.

    It is obvious then, that the inherent shortcomings of science and its practitioners, are not to be blamed for marginalizing or ignoring human potential, or psi phenomenon, it is merely that science is simply incapable based upon its own limited protocols.

    Thus it is proper that science (as science has defined itself), marginalizes, ignores or otherwise refuses to accept human potential and psi phenomenon. Likewise it is proper that we resist temptation to seek validation of the vastness of our human potential from such a constricted source. We can accept the limitations of science, therefore let them alone in their impoverished and self-constrained thoughts.

  • telephoenician Sep 21, 2012

    More importantly, why should the limitations of mainstream science on psi limit our own experiences?

  • telephoenician Sep 21, 2012

    Isaac Asimov pointed out some 50 years ago that the biological sciences lag frightfully far behind the physical sciences. Less than 50 years after the invention of flight, man went to the moon. But what's really become of biological sciences since Watson/Crick -still 100 years later when compared to space flight? Somewhere earthbound, I'd imagine.

  • telephoenician Sep 19, 2012

    Q: What will it take for mainstream science to accept psi?
    A: For psi to become mainstream science.

    Remember : Thoughs, and by extension, Words are powerful things. Be careful how you use both.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 29, 2012


    Is the question whether Scientific Materialism "endorses" the practice of mindfulness?
    Science certainly researches it: http://marc.ucla.edu/workfiles/pdfs/MARC-mindfulness-research-summary.pdf

    http://marc.ucla.edu/

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 29, 2012

    (Anger is the sign of a weak argument. I'll confine myself to the topic and not personal attacks)

    "Scientistic Materialism is the belief, the irrational belief that only that which can be observed and measured through the technique of Scientific Method is real, and everything else is unreal (or "Superstition"; or "Mysticism", using the term in a derogatory sense). This is basically the same attitude as that taken by the religious fundamentalists, who claim that only the Bible is true and valid. In both cases there is this absolute limiting standard, which is used to measure everything in existence, even when it is not even applicable.
    In the Western world at least, Materialism is derived mainly from Protestant Christianity; a religion that postulates a God who works in a rational, lawful way, and reveals his teachings through a single Revelation, the Bible. In order to understand God's will therefore, you must study only this particular written text. Thus fundamentalist Protestantism (from Luther and Calvin to the present day Evangelist revival) rejects any form of esoteric or mystical interpretation whatsoever, and insists that only by examining and analysing the words of the Bible at face value can you come to an understanding of the work-ings and the message of God."

    If anything stops the investigation of psi, it is not science, which does research into it, but the church.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 29, 2012

    re: "we should also consider that it has prevented much of the world from appreciating the various forms of psi and the subjective experience of introspection."
    If this were true, there would be evidence that such an appreciation exited before science, and that appreciation would still persist.
    As for introspection, or the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes, where does science discourage this?
    "Scientific research into mindfulness generally falls under the umbrella of positive psychology. Research has been ongoing over the last twenty or thirty years, with a surge of interest over the last decade in particular."

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jul 29, 2012

    Paragraph five of my previous post should read:

    Human experience is subjective experience. When humans explore atomic particles and galaxies, they do not experience atomic particles and galaxies, they experience a conceptual understanding of galaxies and atomic particles. Conceptual understanding is a subjective experience.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jul 28, 2012

    I would like to respond to the topic “What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?”, from another perspective.

    The academic or scholarly term for mainstream science is “Scientific Materialism”.

    Inherent within Scientific Materialism is the demand for “objectivity”. The demand for objectivity deserves our close attention.

    The objectivity of Scientific Materialism dictates that science can provide an adequate view of the entire natural world that includes only objective phenomena, while excluding subjective experience altogether.

    Human experience is subjective experience. When humans explore atomic particles and galaxies, they do not experience atomic particles and galaxies, they experience a conceptual understanding of galaxies and atomic particles.

    Human experience is subjective experience and to treat subjective experience as irrelevant, categorizes Scientific Materialism as a primordial form of ignorance.

    A fundamental reason why Scientific Materialism refuses to accept the evidence for psi is that like thoughts, emotions, and conceptual understanding, psi is a subjective experience.

    Naturally, only a fool would proclaim that Scientific Materialism serves no purpose. It has provided the inventions which make human life somewhat tolerable. However, we should also consider that it has prevented much of the world from appreciating the various forms of psi and the subjective experience of introspection.

    Abraham Maslow’s research dealing with peak experiences revealed that when his students accepted the validity of peak experiences and began discussing peak experiences, they began having peak experiences. It seems reasonable to conclude that this phenomenon would occur if psi were given the “OK to experience” stamp of approval by the scientific community.

    I can say something here in Discussions, that scientific courtesy prevents the scientists of IONS from saying to Scientific Materialism scientists:

    >You cannot accept our evidence for psi because your minds are imprisoned by the demands of objectivity. When objectivity demands that subjective experience be treated as irrelevant; it is not simply an invalid assumption, IT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. <

  • Anonymous Icon

    greenowlwisdom Jul 28, 2012

    I find it curious that scientists who disagree, in spite of evidence, simply because it does not match their notions of what is or is not possible are employing the same, faith-based reasoning as those who agree simply because they believe. Direct, internal experience cannot be measured using traditional, quantitative, measurement tools. Until "science" accepts accounts of one's direct experience, main-science will not accept psi-related phenomena.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 20, 2012


    I see that I have incorrectly been typing BERN and not the correct name of Daryl Bem.
    My error.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 16, 2012


    My point is that the quote comes from the Daryl Bern's research and the link to Johan Lerner's blog. It's worth reading for whose who have not done so.
    You can use the link found in the question on top.

    ( “It’s about Time – Psi Research at a Tipping Point” and “Responding to the Debate”),

  • A I Jul 15, 2012

    What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?

    Time. it will just take time.

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 15, 2012

    There's also that one by Lewis Carroll: Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds like uncommon nonsense! = dustpoduction's comments 95% of the time~~narry an original thought posted, just lots of copy/paste and nonsensical minimal non-explanation.

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 15, 2012


    Lewis Carroll...Einstein...it's all genius....and Twain, too..

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 13, 2012

    Looking at the research paper where The response has been passionate on both sides of the issue, which IONS has been closely following. IONS Director of Research Cassandra Vieten has written two blogs about it ( “It’s about Time – Psi Research at a Tipping Point” and “Responding to the Debate”), and this month we feature an article from Senior Scientist Dean Radin http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possible/ is the link to Jonahs Lender's writing that examine it " The data collection was automated and accurate; the paper passed peer-review. (Charles Judd, who oversaw the review process at JPSP, said: “This paper went through a series of reviews from some of our most trusted reviewers.”) Only time will tell if the data holds up. But at least time will tell us something. Bem ends the paper with a reference to Lewis Carroll:

    Near the end of her encounter with the White Queen, Alice protests that “one can’t believe impossible things,” a sentiment with which the 34% of academic psychologists who consider psi to be impossible would surely agree. The White Queen famously retorted, “I daresay you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    So the quote is Daryl Bem;s

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jul 13, 2012

    Boy, did goof.

    I should have said my intuition cant always be trusted, but I intuit that Einstein may have said that.

    The quote is attributed to Lewis Carroll.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jul 13, 2012

    Dustprocuction,

    I believe that Einstein said that.

    I responded to your comments in Awareness, but someone posted moments later and you will have to scroll for it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 13, 2012

    "Near the end of her encounter with the White Queen, Alice protests that “one can’t believe impossible things,” a sentiment with which the 34% of academic psychologists who consider psi to be impossible would surely agree. The White Queen famously retorted, “I daresay you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”'

    Who's quote? Did anyone write the homework?

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 13, 2012


    Many scientists are not fulfilling their roles as explorers of phenomena that are currently unexplained. When confronted with such things, most of my physicist, astrophysicist, and bio-med friends often say, "Oh, I don't believe in that,I am a scientist!" relegating whatever it is to the realm of "belief," or myth or the unreal, in general. That is hubristic and humorous. In most cases, they have not tried to pursue any serious research or find answers about paranormal subjects, because they have dismissed the topic altogether, they disregard any evidence on the topic, or they are unwilling to jeopardize their careers in pursuit of answers.

    When we start seeing academic journals seriously exploring this phenomena, and scientists trying to come up with measures and verifiability, it will be very promising. I applaud the few folks who are trying to find answers to what is currently considered "paranormal" because they are on the cutting edge and they may find their jobs on the chopping block.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 12, 2012

    While it was noted at the time, that Mack was "inclined to take these [abduction] reports at face value". Mack replied, "Face value I wouldn't say. I take them seriously. I don't have a way to account for them."
    Similarly, the BBC quoted Mack as saying, "I would never say, yes, there are aliens taking people.
    Mack suggested that abduction accounts might best be considered as part of this larger tradition of visionary encounters.
    Regarding Harvard's investigation into Mack's research, he received legal help from Roderick MacLeish and Daniel P. Sheehan, including Harvard Professor of Law Alan Dershowitz.
    In the end, Harvard had no choice but to issue a statement stating that the Dean had "reaffirmed Dr. Mack's academic freedom to study what he wishes and to state his opinions without impediment,"
    As for funding Laurance Rockefeller funded Mack's non-profit organization for four consecutive years at the expense of $1,000,000, which counts the claim of "no funding". So this may well be considered main-stream science really science Mack was researching the psychological aspects of the claimants.
    By all accounts this story seems to confirm that the academic world, including science, leaves few stones unturned.

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 08, 2012


    Shando, It is largely a corrosive environment for getting funding for these types of experiments. Someone has to either piggyback it on to other more standardized research or be pretty well-known and respected in the discipline in order to have a proposal accepted. Even then, there are no guarantees. I think of the late John Mack, for instance, at Harvard, who faced a great deal of professional attack because he was investigating the psychology of those who claimed to be UFO abductees. He was fiercely chastised for not caving into the mainstream. Few people have his sort of integrity.

    I don't know what it will take, but things do evolve slowly...eventually.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 08, 2012

    Re: "Few can afford to buck the current paradigm"

    There is a great investment of time and attention into the aspects of science that are funded. The sciences are broken down into two main streams: pure science and applied science. If we look at where funds at invested into research it is in areas of applied that will produce jobs and products that can turn a profit, such as big pharm, space exploration, weapons, energy. Look at the investment in CERN. This is the paradigm.
    But people have always been involved in raising their own levels of consciousness. Why must we insist that this happen on a mass scale? As with Buddhism, awareness is a personal pursuit. The world is perfect as it is.

  • Anonymous Icon

    shando Jul 08, 2012

    What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?

    In the olden days science began in star trek mode: go where no one has gone before and discover new things without knowing in advance what they might be. All scientists were amateurs. Today, most scientists are professionals - they have to earn a living from their craft. Few can afford to buck the current paradigm - this is the core problem I think.

    In this kind of corrosive environment, associating oneself with phenomena outside the purview of the current paradigm can be, and is, career damaging. The safe path is to choose a specialty and keep inside the hazard markers. Thus the behavoir of mainstream scientists is quite understandable. Most of them have no hard feelings toward psi - they just cannot afford to display any curosity or interest they may have in it.

    To get them to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena the fear and danger must be removed - is has to be made safe for them to participate.

    How to accomplish this?

    When psi is successful as an applied science it will become acceptable to display interest in the subject. Psi effects are subtle and poorly understood. They are manifest only statistically and most of the general public have a poor understanding of statistics. Hence it is very easy for professional skeptics to poo-poo psi with baseless opinions.

    What is needed is a massive demonstration of the power of psi to affect "real world" events.

    Take lotteries for example. What if we organized a team of tallented psi operatives to win lotteries? If it could demonstrated that this is doable, the public would become convinced of the validity of psi and it would become safe for mainstream scientists to involve themselves in psi investigations. This would, of course, kill lotteries as a money generator for state coffers - but the project could be made self-financing.

    QED

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 06, 2012


    It is just too difficult to ignore statement so obviously uninformed.
    Anyone one who can Google would find information such as this: "Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was eventually terminated in 1995, because it had failed to produce any useful intelligence information.[3][4]"

    Research into "Remote View" has been going on for decades, and this is just one type of paranormal activity being researched.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

  • slowlygetnthar Jul 05, 2012


    Hi Shando,
    I think it is an important question. The investigations into psi, paranormal situations, and all are beginning to evolve. Investigators are attempting to develop methods of measurement to validate experiences people are reporting. These are sciences in their infancies. It will take time before more reliable methods are developed, tested, and technology produces more tools with which to work. Eventually, this will coalesce into amassing data that can be examined and these phenomena will be better understood. Perhaps mainstream science will begin to accept these phenomena as "real" (whatever that is...) It will take time, but I am hopeful. Public dialogue, twenty years ago, did not even consider the kinds of examinations of phenomena we are seeing, today.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 04, 2012

    RE: Take for example dustproduction. If any of the things dustproduction said in his posts caused a negative reaction such as resentment in me, it would not be because of anything he said, but because a part of me was already harboring resentment for some reason, and something dustproduction said was a catalyst to cause me to express my own resentment. Dustproduction therefore provides a service to us that is very valuable, by potentially helping us to see ourselves as we really are. If we receive a hearty laugh from the way he uses other peoples’ words to constantly contradict himself, we should thank him for that laugh. If we feel resentment, confusion, or negative reactions to his words we should also thank him, because he has pointed us to areas within ourselves that are in error and in need of correction through the healing power of Love. If I choose to answer dustproduction it is not because I believe I can teach him, but because spirit might send someone else along that for some reason might need to read it.

    I had not seen this posting that was written by "iamonesoru" until I was prompted to read more of the comments and refocus on the question here.
    Iamonesoru is entirely correct in his observations of my comments. Many times in my commenting I play the role of the skeptic and the provocateur. But many time I am providing the research and findings of others, famous people of note. In doing so the compliant is that I "copying and paste," as if doing so somehow lessens the knowledge presented. It is extremely interesting to see the emotional reactions people have here.

    "What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?" Do we need scientist to believe psi so that we can. Clearly, strong emotional reactions do not emerge from our own higher levels of awareness. So, if you are a believer, the question might be, "What will it take for "you" to practice what has been validated about psi phenomena?" Unlike religion, there is no requirement to convert others over to a certain way of thinking.

  • Anonymous Icon

    shando Jul 03, 2012

    What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?

    Can we come back to the topic at hand? I have a suggestion regarding this, but I don't know if anyone is interested in the answer to this question anymore.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 23, 2012

    iamonesoru,
    Let's be clear, here. NO ONE ASSIGNED THE ROLE OF TEACHER TO YOU. YOU ARE JUST PROSELYTIZING YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
    It's that simple.

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 22, 2012

    Dear Jim and others:

    You have proven my point about the near impossibility of teaching more poignantly than I could ever possibly have hoped to. Thank you and bless you.

    Since you have assigned the role of teacher to me, I would like to point your attention to something that may help you to gain some insight and understanding from this discussion.

    The intellectual mind is about focusing your attention. The intuitive mind is about expanding your awareness of whatever it is you are focusing on.

    You exercise your intellect at the expense of the intuitive mind by ignoring insightful information meant to cause you to think. You have not “seen” the forest because you focus solely on the distractions of the trees.

    You have missed many important insights because you have become focused on proving me to be a “missionary” and a “teacher”. In fact you became so focused in this attempt that you never realized that you yourselves became missionaries and teachers. Consider this a lesson in the “tough love” that you presumed, and quite arrogantly I might add, to teach me.

    The most important point I made is this; I am you. This is the “forest”. Everything else is just trees. We are all one. There is no real separation. There is only One. Did you not “see” this in your enlightenment experience?

    Are you telling me that some forty odd years after “the experience” you still believe yourself to be the identity or personality the world taught you to believe yourself to be?

    Is it somehow possible that forty years after “the experience” you still believe yourself to be a human being who had a spiritual experience, rather than a spiritual being having a human experience?

    To me, the most important maxim of all time is - Know Thyself - Do you seriously expect me to follow you into an empty mindless state and block out both my intuitive and intellectual mind as well as any and all possibility of learning anything about myself or anything else?

    I am your mirror. You have gazed into me, and for some reason you did not like what you saw. If you re-read this thread you may or may not “learn” to understand this. I have gazed into many mirrors, including you, but always my focus is on learning, and expanding my awareness of, and love for, whatever it is that I see, no matter how it may look.

    It is not what you see, but how you see it, and that is dependent on a function called perspective. Use it or lose it. The choice is up to you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 20, 2012

    iamonesoru,

    This is a followup to slowlygetnthar’s comment.

    The notion that we are all one is based on consciousness.

    It has been pretty well established by IONS science that consciousness is not confined within individual brains as was previously thought. Consciousness is a characteristic or expression of the universe which we all share; in that sense we are all one.

    To bring the concept “we are all one” into discussions and claim that you are not teaching us, but teaching yourself; is on one level egocentric and another level highly irrational.

    This is similar to saying that your personal masturbation experiences are intended to bring us all to a state of sexual ecstasy.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 20, 2012

    iAMONESORU

    Here's what you said: I am you, and the others here, trying to wake myself up.

    Now, try to explain to me how that can mean that you aren't trying to "wake up" everyone and thus, convert others to your perspective.
    Convoluted logic and language does not negate that.

    Smell the coffee....snort it if you must...

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 20, 2012

    Dear Jim:
    Is it possible that you are confusing a transpersonal state that recognizes the persoality as illusion with an impersonal state of lack of spirituality?

    Is it possible that you and others here assumed that I am trying to teach you?

    I know that you, I, and the others here, already know everything there is to know. We have simply forgotten that we know it.

    From this perspective I am you, and the others here, trying to wake myself up.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 19, 2012

    iamonesoru,

    From your comments, I gathered that your intention was to be a teacher; this was an inescapable conclusion without you stating that intention, as you did.

    I see your posts as containing abundant information, but devoid of spirituality. The website that I referred you creates the experience of spirituality without requiring one to absorb burdensome amounts of data.

    The purpose of empty mind is to detach from monkey mind, but it also serves a deeper purpose. Empty mind is a doorway from which the absolute can be sensed; a domain emanating spiritual insights, but void of conceptual density.

    I generally avoid “listen to this” teachings, regardless how gift wrapped they are in New Age or other forms of self help psychology.

    We are at an impasse in the attempt to communicate, so I will not encourage it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 19, 2012

    Prayer is talking to your interpretation of the Creator. Meditation is listening. The purpose of achieving empty mind is to block out the “monkey mind” so that you are better able to “hear”, which makes you a better listener, which makes you a better learner, which makes you more capable of change.

    Everyone who comes into our lives does so for a purpose, and that purpose is to give us a gift. More often than not, we do not experience it as a gift because of unsound judgment. When someone comes to us with a gift that we judge as a problem, that persons’ gift is usually a gift of mirroring a problem that already exists within ourselves.

    If it did not exist within ourselves, we wouldn’t notice it as a problem.

    Take for example dustproduction. If any of the things dustproduction said in his posts caused a negative reaction such as resentment in me, it would not be because of anything he said, but because a part of me was already harboring resentment for some reason, and something dustproduction said was a catalyst to cause me to express my own resentment.

    Dustproduction therefore provides a service to us that is very valuable, by potentially helping us to see ourselves as we really are. If we receive a hearty laugh from the way he uses other peoples’ words to constantly contradict himself, we should thank him for that laugh.
    If we feel resentment, confusion, or negative reactions to his words we should also thank him, because he has pointed us to areas within ourselves that are in error and in need of correction through the healing power of Love.

    If I choose to answer dustproduction it is not because I believe I can teach him, but because spirit might send someone else along that for some reason might need to read it.

    There are more things in heaven and earth than are written of in our philosophies, books, and science fiction movies. I hope your judgment of me won’t cause you to judge my words in ways they are not wont to be judged, but this is your free will right and I honor and respect and love you for it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 19, 2012

    Dear Jim:
    I appreciate your wisdom, as well as your concern. I am well aware of not only what you call the missionary complex, but the savior or messiah complex as well. Nothing I have said here is meant to either save or convert.

    I have spent many years learning self discipline, and learning to observe myself in relation to the rest of the world. My journey since my experience has been a journey to self awareness. You could never be as tough on me as I have been on myself.

    I have no emotional attachment to what anyone may believe about me, and I know that I don’t possess the data or information to make sound judgments about others, so I choose not to make uninformed judgments.

    I have learned that it is not only nearly impossible to teach another being anything, but also arrogant of me to try. I teach basically because it is the best way for me to learn. I share my learning in the hope that someone might gain some insight from what I am learning.

    Learning requires that we make a choice to learn, and only you can make that choice. It also requires a direction or goal, as well as a path for seeking that goal. There are many paths and many goals, but the one constant is change.

    Change comes through learning or seeking to learn information that we did not possess before the change. The empty mind is an important state to achieve, however, seeking to remain in a state of empty mind must eventually become counterproductive to change, and counterproductive to learning.

    Everything that we experience as creation is a created illusion, however, it is an important illusion. Without the illusion “the experience” would not be possible. It is the worldly pains and sorrows we experienced before the experience that caused the experience of the experience to be so profoundly life changing.

    continued next post

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 16, 2012

    iamonesoru,

    Perhaps we were a bit tough on you.

    I do not know the circumstances through which you entered the experience, but perhaps you were at a disadvantage because you didn’t have the background that prepared you for it. With that in mind, what follows is a very broad overview of the experience.

    The experience can occur on different levels of intensity. It has been referred to with the following terms:

    Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, One with the Universe, Universal Mind, Nirvana, Samadhi, Enlightenment, The Nondual State, The Awakening, Quantum Consciousness, Nonlocal Awareness, Nonlocal Consciousness, The True Self, No Self and other terms. These terms have been used to designate lesser experiences.

    Traditionally, meditation has been considered the doorway for entering the experience, but there are other methods.

    The experience contains many characteristics that are beyond description. One characteristic of the experience is to be acutely aware that physical reality is an illusion. Much of cutting edge science is being performed by individuals who have had some taste of the experience. If you wish to get a sense of this, check out the topics “An Interesting Overview and “A Second Try” in these discussions.

    After you have spent some time on the site referred to in my last comment and have questions that I may be able to answer, comment to me in the topic “A Second Try”……Jim

  • charliet Jun 15, 2012

    Slowlygetnthar and Jim C

    Slowly-------: your insight is so very true, we see it every day in many ways. Great input.

    Jim C - your "Missionary Complex" is also very right on, some will gain a small bit of insight and suddenly become a "Master".

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 15, 2012

    Jim & Iamonesoru,
    I have had plenty of spiritual experiences, but I don't think I am particularly enlightened. It seems to me that truly enlightened beings have no need to sit around and contemplate how much illumination they have received or to try to hold it up as the image others should strive to obtain. Role models, such as the Bodhisattvas no longer proselytize (a la missionary complex) or operate in the web of "I"-centered and ego centered realms. They seem to be out there committing acts of spiritual righteousness and fully operating in the illumination with no expression of "self" diluting what they transmit.

    So, it seems to me that if we are sitting around talking about how enlightened we have become and trying to make others conform to our notion of enlightenment, we aren't "there" yet. What do you think?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 15, 2012

    Iamonesoru,
    I hope that you have not escalated to a height of egocentricity that prevents you from accepting a bit of advice.

    Millions of people over the world have had “the experience”, it forms the foundation for Buddhism, Hinduism and other forms of esoteric traditions. The experience is a factor in motivating people to meditate. It is important to recognize that you are not unique.

    In a previous comment, I discussed the “Missionary Complex”, which is a common behavior pattern following the experience. Often it takes an expression of tough love to make an individual aware that they are experiencing the Missionary Complex. In my opinion, drawn from over forty years of study and research, you are experiencing the Missionary Complex.

    The experience reveals the true nature of reality; very often conclusions that are drawn following the experience can be illusory.

    If you would like to hear a man speak who has had the experience and speaks to hundreds of others in a calm and comforting manner, follow the below link. On this site you will find thirty or forty excerpts of talks lasting a few minutes each that address the experience from a variety of contexts. Go to “teachings” and “videos”.

    http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=teachings

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 15, 2012

    There will be a great need for teachers, and those of us who awakened or had "the experience" before everyone else will naturally find ourselves to be in great demand, not because we are more "special" than anyone else, but because we have gained knowledge and the wisdom of experience a little ahead of the "curve".

    We have been experiencing a transitional period, for quite a few decades, in which we are individually, as well as collectively, releasing the negative energies of the old paradigm. The fears generated by our old false beliefs are surfacing in order to be healed. All healing is simply the correction of errors of thoughts and actions caused by false beliefs.

    Science has a great opportunity to exert a tremendous force toward these corrections if scientists will open their minds to the possibility of Intelligent Design. Mainstream Science has already discovered proof of Intelligent Design, but is not aware of this fact because it chooses not to expand its awareness of anything it judges as less than physical or meta-physical.

    The main reason for this is intellectual pride and our neglect of the feminine, emotional, intuitive half of our minds, as well as the way we identify ourselves as the physical body rather than as souls inhabiting physical bodies.

    In terms of quantum mechanics, we are both the wave and the particle, but because we don't understand the power, force, and direction of the wave, we fight against it as a particle that believes itself to be separate from the wave, and in danger of being carried away by the wave.

    We must learn to surrender to the power, force, and direction of the wave and go with the flow of the current. The current knows where it is going but the particle does not yet possess this information, and so the particle must learn to experience the flow as a joyful journey rather than a constant struggle to survive.

    "I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one". "All you need is Love"

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 15, 2012

    In the words of John Lennon "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". I "see" the vision of what our new paradigm may potentially look like, however, I also realize that it won't necessarily become manifest in an instant. A couple of generations may be seen in cosmic terms as a "twinkling of an eye".

    When we reach this point of critical mass there will be a kind of "magical" transformation, but it will come in the form of expanded human awareness by the population. This expanded awareness will be emotional and intuitive in nature, which will cause us to awaken to the possibility of Unity, brotherhood, Love, and compassion.

    As you say, after "the experience" is over, we return to our formerly mundane experience of our apparently mundane world, however, we don't have to experience it as mundane. We choose how we wish to experience it according to the way we quantify or interpret the meaning of the experience based on our worldly beliefs, and the directions of seeking we choose after the experience.

    It is not what you see, but how you see it.

    Not only will "the experience" cause the experiencers to seek it again, but there will be a great need for them to come to understand their own transformations. They will also naturally quantify or qualify that experience according to each individuals formerly dogmatic belief system, or seek understanding from others.

    The old beliefs that prop up and maintain our current paradigm or the scaffolding boundaries that we use as benchmarks to define our experience of "reality" must eventually be dismantled, however, Rome wasn't built in a day and dismantling it in a day would result in widespread chaos and confusion.

    Our new paradigm will have it own beliefs and boundaries as well, and since we are moving into a new paradigm of love and compassion, those boundaries will be the boundaries of love and compassion. Does love and compassion have boundaries? According to the wisdom of experience they must.

    At first our experience of love and compassion will be the experiences lacking the wisdom of experience of those boundaries because the building of those boundaries can only result from the experiences of love and compassion without boundaries.

    Everything in our world we have to be re-defined from a perspective of love and compassion, and this must necessarily include our beliefs as well as our social agreements.

    We will have to learn new ways of governing ourselves, new ways to interact within new communities, new ways of raising and teaching our children, new ways of sharing the abundance of the world equitably. We will basically have to learn new ways of performing all the activities of life as well as the ways we experience life itself.

    continued next post

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 14, 2012

    This is the event our ancient teachers have prophesied as the "rapture", the "harvest" etc. which is what is now being called the ascension. Your part in it is up to you to decide consciously, and the purpose of meditation and going within is to learn to connect with the "Holy Spirit", "Wholeness Navigator", or inner teacher that knows what role you have chosen to play in the Ascension process this time around.

    I look forward to continuing our discussions.
    Namaste'
    Russ

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 14, 2012

    Dear Jim:
    Each of us who has had "the experience" was given it to awaken us to our potential. Each of us chose certain lessons to learn and teach during this part of our journey. Each of us, in our earthly identities, are products of our perceived environments, and no two of us have exactly the same experiences within this virtual environment.

    continued next post
    Two of the most important questions we may ask ourselves, in my own opinion, I found in the book: A Course in Miracles. These questions are; What do you treasure most, and how much do you treasure it? There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, however, one will experience biases and tendencies to seek whatever it is we treasure most, even though we sometimes do not realize what that truly is.

    I believe that what I treasure most is the way the experience changed me so profoundly in an instant, and my deepest desire is to find a way to cause others to have the experience so that we may all share in the joys of Love, Compassion, and Abundance. I have evolved through the path of my hearts deepest desire by dedicating every aspect of my life to the learn/teaching of unconditional love. In other words, what I want for myself, I want for everyone, however, I cannot violate the first or primary Universal Law that we call "free will".

    I have learned from my experience that it is nearly impossible to teach or help another being directly, and that the most important work we may do is to radiate our realization of oneness into our world, however, to radiate the realization of oneness you must first realize it or make it real by learning to walk the walk (not nearly as easy as talking the talk).

    I am here mainly because I seek others like myself who are capable of "hearing" what I have to say. We know each other intimately in spirit, and we agreed to come here at this time and awaken each other so that we might change our world through the cooperative radiation of our realization that will, because of the Law of Attraction or action at a distance and the principle of resonance, raise the vibrations of the collective unconscious consensus reality to a point called critical mass, which will change our perspectives through "the experience" being given to the masses, causing a great awakening and the creation of a collective consciousness of Unity that has been called the "Noosphere" as well as the "Kingdom of Heaven".

    Our radiation of the transmutational power we call Love and the resulting expansion of awareness of the collective consciousness will cause all the people of the world to make their own free will choice to expand their awareness and raise their vibrations along with the consensus reality, or leave the planet.

    continued in next post

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 14, 2012

    Dear iamonesoru,

    You did not violate any protocol by posting here. I do not believe there is an appropriate topic for our exchange. I began with that comment because some have voiced criticism when I have posted off topic.

    Over the years, I have met others who have had “the experience” and was somewhat disappointed because the compatibility or close relationship that I expected was not there. It seems that following the experience, although individuals are rooted in spirituality, they can express or pursue their spirituality in different ways. If two or more were in the experience together, there may be some form of cosmic bonding, but once the experience ends, we are nothing more than normal folks with run of the mill hang-ups.

    A common characteristic following the experience is what has been referred to as the missionary complex. This involves attempting to instruct others or convince them of “appropriate” beliefs. I was a victim the missionary complex for several years, until one of my teachers informed me what I was going through.

    Following this common behavior pattern of missionary complex, individuals go in a variety of directions.I have met or heard of individuals who became reclusive and devoted their lives to meditation, others became focused on paranormal experiences and others became meditation instructors or involved in some creative process. Still others experimented with and advocated the use of psychotropic substances. So although compatibility with others who shared the experience may occur occasionally, it is certainly not assured.

    Edgar Mitchell, the founder of IONS had the experience while in space and then founded IONS. You can read about his experience somewhere on this website.

    In my last comment to you I referred to the path which I am currently following, but may not have been clear. I have never experienced elevated consciousness by study nor gaining knowledge, so that domain has little interest for me

    What is most satisfying to me is following the Buddhist advice of cultivating and going through life experiencing the empty mind [experiencing no thoughts or as few as possible, unless required to perform some task requiring thought] This involves solitude and not becoming overly occupied with conceptual constructs such as scientific discoveries or esoteric literature. I will occasionally take a position on a topic, simply to be somewhat sociable.

    It is gratifying to meet another who has shared the experience, interesting to notice what paths they are following and occasionally, what advice they can offer each other.

    Best wishes,
    Jim

    As a side note, I do not recommend attempting to advise dustproduction on spiritual matters. He is has an aversion to any form of spirituality and is often aggressive in his disdain for spirituality. It is rare that someone responds to his comments.


  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 13, 2012

    Dear Jim Centi:
    I apologize if I have violated protocol by responding to you here, but I am not aware of another avenue of response. If you would be so kind as to enlighten me to another avenue I would be more than happy to discuss and compare our experiences of Nirvana. I am very happy to have finally found someone who might understand my experience.

    I don't know how much you may have learned about the chakra system, but your comment about your awareness crystallizing is important because these energy centers actually become more crystalline in nature as we grow our understanding and practice of unconditional love.

    Love is not the fair trade agreement we have been taught to believe. True Love is a language that we must learn to speak in order to expand our brains ability to begin to access the eleven thousand spiraling levels of awareness that it is potentially capable of in its present evolutionary form.

    I myself focused solely, at first, on spiritual pursuits through "New Age" practices and philosophy which led me to more esoteric practices and understanding. I eventually had to revisit religion in order to clear the fear generated by sub-conscious false beliefs held deep within the core of my being.

    The clearing of these false beliefs afforded me a mental and emotional clarity that triggered certain genetic sequencing codes that have actually mutated my brain as a result of chemical reactions caused by the secretions of the pineal gland. The glands of the endocrine system are directly related to the chakras, and may well be seen as their physical manifestations.

    We were not given these experiences solely to cause us to seek that experience again, although it is such a fantastic experience we can't help but seek it. We were given these experiences to show us where our journey is leading us and awaken us to the possibility of the experiencing and expressing of that unconditional love here within the illusion.

    We are a Unity that has forgotten its unity, and our journey is a journey back to Unity through mindfulness or the expansion of our awareness. The intellect or mental body is about focusing the attention within the illusion, while the intuitive emotional body is about expanding our inner awareness of the occult (hidden) or meta-physical parts of ourselves that may then be manifested within the illusion by focused attention, intent, and will.

    We already create in exactly this way every day, however, our creations lack the wisdom of true Love, and require physical actions and the passage of what we misunderstand as time to manifest. Avatar abilities simply don't require physical work and the passage of time because the avatar has learned Universal Law rather than what we call our laws of physics which are peculiar and different from one dimension to the next.

    Thank you so much for being here and for being who you are. I look forward to any kind of discussion or relationship either physical or virtual.
    Namaste'

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 12, 2012

    Dear iamonesoru,

    This may be deviating from the discussion topic, but I am responding to you here because this is where your comments to me were posted.

    Your posts contain an abundance of information. In responding to your comments, I will focus on Nirvana and a specific form of illusion.

    Without going into detailed descriptions of our experiences of Nirvana, there is no way to determine if we shared the same experience. I have learned that attempts to provide a detailed description for others is counterproductive, in that it creates a model or concept of the experience and individuals may pursue the model or concept rather than pursue the meditative state of empty mind or proper prayer that is conducive or responsive to the experience.

    My experience occurred over forty years ago and lasted about three hours. Following the experience, I explored many spiritual traditions in an attempt to learn about elevated states of consciousness and perhaps find the key to re-enter the experience.

    This leads me to where I am now in attempting to respond to your comments.

    Over the years, an awareness has been forming and during the past few weeks I could say that it has become somewhat crystallized.

    For many years, following my experience, I was entrenched in the illusion that the accumulation of knowledge….be it scientific, highly spiritual or esoteric knowledge…..was productive or essential in attaining elevated states of consciousness.

    I now believe that there are levels of human existence. On one level the accumulation of scientific and/or esoteric knowledge can be beneficial in elevating consciousness: on another level, the compulsive accumulation of any form of knowledge, scientific or esoteric, can be an obsessive distraction from the spiritual state of empty mind.

    What are your views on this?

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 11, 2012

    Dearest Jim Centi, and slowlygetnthar:

    The “I” that is experiencing is an illusion, and so is the free will it believes itself to be experiencing, precisely because all of creation is an illusion. Everything that appears to be real is a created product of the Intelligence of an Infinite Creator, or energy source beyond our ability to comprehend from our current paradigm, perspective, or point of view.

    This is not to say that We, I, the individual, and free will are not important concepts. The purpose of seeing the illusion as an illusion is to learn to use it to experience whatever it is you desire to experience.

    No matter how “sacred” we may believe the Jungian, Newtonian, Darwinian, or any other models to be, they are simply models we use to grow our understanding as well as our ability to understand, and we must learn to surrender our beliefs in the infallibility of those who came before us.

    The purpose of a model is not to replace the original, but to give us a type of “overview” perspective to help us to better understand the original. We ourselves manufacture these models and then focus our attention on the model, and then tend to forget about the original.

    Models that we create only contain the information or data that we put into them. They do not contain the information or data of the original because we did not possess all the information or data at the time we created them.

    Models, therefore, are useful only to a certain point. If you somehow glean understanding from the model, then the model must be re-built to reflect this new understanding, but always with the knowledge that everything you think you know about the original could possibly be wrong.

    Our current paradigm is itself a model that our ancestors built, and we maintain, according to beliefs about our “fallen” paradigm, which is represented or symbolized by the story of Adam and Eve.

    Our new paradigm, if we incorporate all of the positive information or data that is now available to us, in the form of the widely separated beliefs of science, religion, and philosophy, could potentially be a model of “The Kingdom of Heaven” or the Utopian paradise that dreamers of every age have envisioned.

    It would be helpful to consider and integrate the new information coming out of the fields of Quantum Mechanics with the information coming out of the fields of Neuroscience because what we call the mind exists in a state of meta-physical non-locality, and the physical information processor we call brain exists in a state of relativity.

    We, I, and the individual are one and the same, and this Unity existed before the “Big Bang” in a state called “Potentia”. This is the meaning of non-locality.

    Our models of the human brain are woefully inadequate and inaccurate, and until we come to this realization we will remain unable to tap into its amazingly powerful avatar-like potential.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 09, 2012


    People who consider themselves SCIENTISTS need to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

    On another thread I related how, at a 2012 conference, a panel of leading scientists from different disciplines said they had "NEVER SEEN EVIDENCE" regarding benefits and extended human capacities demonstrated by yogis & others, so, it turns our that they are not looking for it or at it. Intelligent scientists~~really good ones~~ should always reconsider the facts as evidence is uncovered. It seems we do not have many open-minded folks, but just ones who like to stay rooted in the paradigm that was popular when they were undergrads.

    The solution: when you meet them on the road, hand them research from IONS.

  • Anonymous Icon

    derek32 Jun 05, 2012

    I think it's more along the lines of what they will say in public that might harm their career as opposed to what they might say sitting next to you on the Metro. Gordon Cooper said this on military brass and ufo's.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 30, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    Until there is a clear acceptance of the neuroscience revelations within the individuals posting here, it is futile to discuss the matter and it is meaningless to begin discussing how our definitions of “I”, “self” and ego will change.

    Respectfully, with a bit of introspection, it should be somewhat apparent that if freewill and the “I” are firmly recognized and accepted as illusions, our previous concepts and experiences of I, self and ego become invalid.

    I will allow better minds than mine to redefine these concepts when the neuroscience revelations are accepted by those we look to for authority, if we indeed have those we look to for authority.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 30, 2012

    Concepts like ego are part of a model developed by those that lack the knowledge we now share. Freud and Jung did not have access to fMRIs and lacked the understanding of neurons, synapses, axions and Egos do not actually exist. There is no assemblage inside of a person that is ego. There are observable patterns that can be referred to as ego, but then one must also continue with the model: super ego, Id.

  • slowlygetnthar May 30, 2012


    Respectfully, Jim, we may be on the brink of a paradigm shift, but I am not sure we are fully shifting yet. Would it be helpful to revisit Jungian definitions of I and self and ego, etc.,...? Would that help? If these don't help, maybe you could describe how your perspective of I and we and self and ego have changed in light of the new information re: free will? Maybe that would foster a more coherent dialogue? ...just a suggestion...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 29, 2012

    Re: considering neurosciene

    In considering neuroscience's approach to self referential terms we encounter a similar problem: who's approach.
    Called the world's most important psychologist, Daniel Kahneman inspired the trend for pop-psychology books (which could be said to be accessible to a mass audience), won a Nobel in economics, and has devoted his life to studying the logic of irrationality. He has written "Thinking, Fast and Slow" which offers us language of a fast, type 1 thinking, unconsciousness, and a type 2, slow, analytical thinking consciousness. The illusion here is that most of our decision making flows from the unconscious and not conscious awareness.
    Consideration can be given to the research by Benjamin Libet. One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

    This is not a "new paradigm," merely the hypothesis that unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought.

    If anything, this brings into question "consciousness" and "higher consciousness" in the sense that it is often used, in spiritual references.
    What Antonio Demasio called "self-consciousness", in his model of mind, consciousness and self, is a more useful term, but requires a common understanding of the model. Something that is always a problem here.

    Still the point that "I-ness" and terms like "we" subjectively, influenced by personal feelings, beliefs or opinions, ones internal experiences that are not sharable.
    But not to get to far off topic here: The question here asks, "What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?"
    Why is acceptance important? Social acceptance only seems necessary in the absence of self acceptance.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 29, 2012

    We have arrived at a point in this discussion when it is appropriate to consider the information coming out of neuroscience. Succinctly stated, it is that freewill and the “I” that believes it experiences freewill are illusions. This indicates the appearance of a new paradigm.

    The previous comments use terms such as “we”, “I” and “the individual” and it seems that these terms may require redefining within the new paradigm.

    Unless we indicate from which paradigm we are writing and speaking, we will be straddling two paradigms and there will be paradoxes and contradictions.

    If we continue this dialogue, perhaps our first task is to agree or disagree on the validity of the new paradigm being introduced by neuroscience. If we agree on its validity, we may wish to consider what meaning the terms “we”, “I” and “the individual” have in the new paradigm, if any.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 29, 2012

    RE: The Universe is a well of information and all of that information is available to all of us at all times, however, the war between science and religion keeps us from coming to an understanding of spiritual and meta-physical truths by our own refusal to accept that anything spiritual or meta-physical even exists.

    This is such a Western version of reality. Saying, " the free thinkers who refused to be controlled by religion" and condemning Christians ignores the rest of humanity. Are there no other places in the world where these seeds of truth could take hold? Surely, someone somewhere would have tapped into this well of information and all of that is available to all of us.
    Might it be that the world is perfect as it is, and that acceptance of this fact is what is needed?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 29, 2012

    Statements like "To truly change the world" sound hollow, and smacks of the notion that it is "we" are in control to the world, or need to be. It is dogmatic. Similarly, "become the consciously evolving co-creator" is an external exercising of the ego, for the benefit of others.

    Again, the suggestion is that the individual is of no consequence to nature.


  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru May 29, 2012

    The point is to evolve our personalities away from our "us against them" mentalities. To truly change the world you must become the change you wish to see and experience. It is not what you see, but how you see it.

    Why ask why unless the point of your query is to become the consciously evolving co-creator you were meant to be?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 29, 2012

    Isn't the condemnation of the pursuit of science and the essence of religious practices just a reaction to the orientations and indoctrination we all receive and then complain about?
    Is it really science and religion that we are against, or the dogmatic treatment these subjects receive by the well intentioned and partially informed, that seek to gain power and influence in the guise of helping others find there higher selves.
    Why must "enlightenment" (feel free to substitute, awareness, consciousness etc) be more than an individual and personal endeavor?

    The question here asks, "What will it take for mainstream science to accept the validity of evidence for psi phenomena?"
    Why is acceptance important? We might as well ask what it would take for people to understand that the world was not flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe.
    Have we not learned this lesson yet?

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru May 29, 2012

    As I see it, the problem is that mainstream science has become just another religion. This is not an attack on religion or mainstream science, but the impartial observations of one who has learned to observe, without judgment or condemnation. I consider myself to be a cosmologist/consciousness explorer, and actually, we all are whether we realize it or not.

    During our climb out of the dark ages, the free thinkers who refused to be controlled by religion, or subjugated by the powers and authorities of their historical time period, studied both physical and meta-physical science with equal enthusiasm. Their enthusiastic learning, experiencing, and expressing became contagious and resulted in a flowering of civilization and society as a result of a beginning awareness of the unlimited potential of humanity.

    Pre-Christian meta-physical scientists, call them prophets, seers, astrologists, shamans, or whatever, were converted through the Roman's use of terror to stamp out the "Holy Spirit" along with the early "Gnostic" Christians, and over time meta-physical scientists became religionists by embracing the belief that "God" could not be understood. Meta-physical science or the science of the "occult" (study of that which is hidden or cannot be seen) morphed into a state of awareness of blind obedience to that which cannot be understood, and gave up its role of raising the awareness of humanity in favor of dogmatic beliefs meant to manipulate and control humanity.

    The war between science and religion, which started during the Renaissance, forced the free thinkers to see themselves as victims of religious persecution, and over time changed the perspective of scientists from seekers of truth and champions of free thought, to the defenders of scientific beliefs that are just as dogmatic as those of organized religions. As a result of religious persecutions, scientists wanted nothing to do with anything that "smacked" of religion, and basically threw the baby out with the bath water.

    It doesn't matter what you believe about "God". Even the belief that there is no "God" is still a belief about "God", and science's refusal to accept the existence of anything meta-physical is the result of dogmatic beliefs about the Creator. The self-righteousness of religious leaders is no more arrogant than the intellectual pride of scientists.

    The Universe is a well of information and all of that information is available to all of us at all times, however, the war between science and religion keeps us from coming to an understanding of spiritual and meta-physical truths by our own refusal to accept that anything spiritual or meta-physical even exists.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 17, 2012

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

    "Still, the journal will publish a sceptical editorial commentary alongside the paper, says Judd. "We hope it spurs people to try to replicate these effects."

    This appears to be the actual report: http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

    "The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

    That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all. But well-established phenomena such as the ability of low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks are based on similarly small effects, notes Melissa Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, who has also blogged about Bem's work at Psychology Today."

  • drquantum Feb 09, 2012

    It is going to take a willingness to develop an equivalent 'Science of the Inner'. Within the context of outwardly oriented science, we examine a host of so called independent variables in order to attempt to predict some dependent event. When it comes to more inwardly oriented investigation we inquire inward with the light of our awareness into a host of self dependency forming variables, like our various emotions, like our various thought forms, like our love or hate of the various defined by us variables - we keep experiencing. In such a way that we begin to liberate ourselves into becoming ever more freely independent inventive. Until such time as we begin to feel ourselves completely liberated from all forms of dependency. Every moment we feel increasingly liberated, we begin to sense ourselves as nothing more than a highly sophisticated energy system able to process pure unlimited quantum level energy. Of course the more and more aware of our pure energetic nature we become, the more we begin to realize that everything is composed of an everywhere infinitely entangled, here end now pure super light - energy spirit - presence. From here the moment we get this, this is how we transform ourselves into much larger than mere materialistically oriented beings, into the world of the extra-ordinary or 'well' beyond so called ordinary, in fact para or above normal way of seeing into what amounts to our Uni or great One Verse. From the last chapter in my upcoming book, Grow Your Inner Wise-Dome to the Max
    Dr. Quantum

  • Anonymous Icon

    BECHAMEL Feb 05, 2012

    for F Alexander;

    As presented here it sounds like certain people have skillsets which others doubt. Could it be we all posess capacity for such things but relatively far less of those willing to admit to it and even fewer bother to or, ever recognize how to, develop it further? The next to normal paralell experiences are part of the natural universe. Has this not been established? I would be skeptical when it comes to my own experiences. It is only appropriate to exhaust all plausible, rational explanations, however this renders the experiencer not only doubting self, but defending against th potential for being perceived as irrational, or implausible. So, understand if someone else would be skeptical, as would be no less concerning own experiences.

  • KYRANI Dec 07, 2011

    You know health is a major issue because there is a lot of money on the table BUT it's not the only issue. Just as big an issue is the paradigm shift. They have got to fully appreciate that the reality is not mechanistic. Cause and effect are an illusion. Ooops! That means the whole of science comes crumbling down and right now they can see that but instead of accepting it and moving on they are desperately trying to cement the bottom of the scientifc columns. It's not as though everything done so far become unuseful. It won't. Just look at Newton's laws of motion for instance. They are brilliant mathematically and we can send a rocket to the moon using them with a high degree of accuracy but the physics is wrong. The physics is fantasy. Along comes Einstein and everything changes but mathematically the correction is small. So what has been developed thus far will still be useful but it needs to be recognized that the description of reality it portrays is just plain wrong. We could compare the scene to say a computer game. We have characters on the screen runing around and firing misiles at one another etc but they are two dimensional, we drive them. If we could give them some limited level of consciousness they would then be able to look at the reality of cyber space and some of them might be able to derive laws of physics based on what they see and experience. But we know that all of it is in a computer program so nothing is really thrown from thither to yonder, but some data changes in a matrix. We could name them Newton and Marie and Hawkins and we could get them to say "there is no need to invoke the idea of God to explain the universe, it all just comes from nothing because nothing is unstable. That is why we have something.. all this reality etc. etc. etc.. LOL.

  • KYRANI Dec 05, 2011

    Yes I agree with you that it is important to connect with the lay people and help them become acquainted with what is going on, in their language. I am trying to use simple language to try and reach everyone. So your idea of getting together the important studies and writing them out in simple terms and in a way that is personal to people. People will respond when they realize that their health is on the line.. and for money!
    By the way I only lasted a couple of days on Dawkins site, they felt so offended by my post that they have barred me forever! Still all of the stuff they posted without giving me a chance to answer I am going to answer on my own site when I get it up. I am going to make them and others like them eat their words. On interesting remark they made was "what you appear to know about evolutionary biology, I don't think we have much to be concerned about". If I was an expert then what would they be concerned about? Is it that they know their theory is total garbage? Interesting. But yes I won't be spending much time on people like them but it is worth seeing their objections because I can see that I can answer all of them to the average person's total satisfaction.

  • F_Alexander Dec 04, 2011

    Well I certainly hope that kind of revolution will happen ^_^
    If you can remove the strain on one's health that comes from banging the head of reason against the wall of ignorance then I guess you possess a rare and useful ability dealing with more close-minded folks. I think you might want to spend less time on the pseudoskeptics like the Dick Dawkins crowd though, as I don't think there's a way to get through to them O_o

    I think one of the ways we will change group perceptions is by repeatedly presenting verified and corroborated evidence and anecdotal experiences of phenomena. I'm not sure where the best place is for evidence to be spread... it's a personal question that I've been thinking on lately. I find myself learning all kinds of facts that leave me surprised how easily the pseudoskeptics have been duped, and it's hard to suppress the desire to debunk all those things one discovers are so blatantly untrue. Perhaps I should begin collecting all of the studies I come across and just start making them more available for other people.

    Anyways, I just thought I'd share that little dilemma of mine since it relates to this overall question.

  • KYRANI Dec 03, 2011

    I believe that at present the truth is being concealed. For example medical scientists keep talking about how more people are surviving cancer as compared to 50yrs ago, which is true. But what they're not saying is that there is 100%+ increase in that time span. And heart disease was unheard of in women in the late 60s. Today it is the #1 killer of women and half the female population will die of it!

    There is an argument to counter the ethic excuse to try to stop the experiments. The experiments to be done properly need to utilize non-toxic people because toxic people will never comply as they will move to be deceitful to hide their handiwork. A non-toxic person though has a different draw-back and that is they cannot, even for the sake of an experiment, harbor the sort of hatred that motivates a toxic person and particularly with regard to the level of ill will that they use against people. This means the danger element is really not there as it is in real life. A person with a loaded gun is not dangerous unless they mean to use the gun to kill. Only then is there danger and that needs to be mimiced by a non-toxic person. So the danger would be small compared to real life. However we would still see sufficient effect to be able to realize what happens in real life. And after all we don't need to kill or seriously injure the subjects to prove the point. After debriefing and after they see others go through the system, they can then go through the experiments again. This time with knowledge so they will see how different it is. One can stand against the foul play when one understands it. I can relate to you occasions when the maximum level of danger was used and I sailed through it almost on an even keel most of the time. I certainly do not suffer any harm and I can protect my two dogs as well. What people will learn is powerful. It helps give people confidence, it validates them and it helps them cope with stress and more. The battle against the offenders is fought in the mind, the common non-physical realm and ideas are weapons when they can be used powerfully and the potential victim needs not gun carrying individuals. When one begins to understand the mental dynamics at play, they can take an incredibly strong stance and stop the culprits in their tracks. The experiments would help people understand all this. At present concealed real loaded weapons and relationship are used to pose danger and cause a person to unwittingly react and then to use that situation creatively to cause all manner of diseases. How about that? Is that not unethical to the extreme? And if that is not enough I have heard some doctors say it is not their duty to warn people but only to develop drugs to fix the problem. It is an outrage. Ordinary people are not dumb. When they see that their health and their lives are at stake they will revolt. The revolution needs to take place in the form of doing the experiments and empowering people. It will happen.

  • KYRANI Dec 03, 2011

    Yes F_Alexander you are absolutely right the scientists that cause all the problems now will suddenly find an ethical bone and cite a problem to try and stop such experiments based on ethical grounds. However when it comes to people's lives and health it is no longer an academic matter. If we don't do the experiments properly we will see nothing and that is exactly what these scientists want. There is a huge industry out there and there is a lot of money involved in disease. There are trillions of dollars made by a relatively small number of people, everything from the pharmaceutical companies to the doctors to the allied medical industries and the research prima donnas who find not only a very healthy income but power and prestige as well. In my opinion it would be many of these people that would be screaming the experiments are not ethical. Check out what happened when I spoke about my experiences conquering cancer on the Richard Dawkins site. The re-admitted my comment that they had removed but they have barred me forever. They are definitely playing the ethical card and claiming I am offensive even in talking about cancer outside of the norm.
    http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643953-disproving-intelligent-design-with-a-mouse-trap/comments?page=2
    Meanwhile a couple of billion people’s lives are suffering and many die of their ailments.
    And think too that the subjects of such experiments would have to go into them ignorant of what they will be up against. HOWEVER once the experiment is over they can be debriefed AND watch as others as they are put through the same ordeals. It is so enlightening that one quite literally levels up in life in a way that they never imagined before. People have mental powers to be discovered that change the landscape so much it is near unrecognizable. I am up against hundreds and probably thousands of toxic people who are going all out to destroy my life and they have and are failing to do so because I have learnt so much from my experiences that I can alone stand against them. I am under fire 24/7 and far from being depressed about it I am rejoicing in how fast I am learning and I know now in my very being that i will expose the foul play that brings diseases into being. It needs more people though to show conclusively and demonstratively what I have learnt. People will begin to realize that their wellbeing can be enhanced and they can reduce their risk of disease to ZERO! Furthermore most people die an untimely death with some sort of terminal illness at some point in their lifetime. This is highly profitable no doubt to some but it is MURDER and our societies are crumbling.

  • F_Alexander Dec 02, 2011

    I think I now understand what you mean with the notion that we need more laypeople conducting experiments: the idea that it would be beneficial to get more of the general public involved in verifying these effects for themselves. That is definitely an idea that some parapsychologists have put forward, and Rupert Sheldrake and IONS have made some efforts to that end. http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/mobiletelepathy.html
    http://www.psiarcade.com/garden/
    I must caution against the idea of testing with true threats however. Such a testing paradigm would no doubt be seen as ethically regressive in the eyes of many scientists, and their results would be socially blacklisted I fear. In other words, it will become all the more difficult to talk about these phenomena openly, because no one will want to become associated with "that guy" or "oh, THOSE experiments." At least this has happened in the past when individuals have done things which they hoped the public couldn't ignore... often they are all the more easily labeled as extreme, so ironically their work goes unseen as a consequence.

  • KYRANI Nov 26, 2011

    And I want to add that these toxic people do not only play foul games at home and in the workplace. Their actions affect the financial markets and politics because there are networks of networks of them. Their actions adversely touch everyone's life. It needs for a group of dedicated scientists to get together and involve the public and conduct experiments without the double blinds and stuff the journals. Publish on the net and let the public review the work. In these experiments we need to pose real danger and allow the subject NO sensory means of perception but use people that are closely related and ideas to convey the danger. But the danger posed must be real. No Mickey Mouse effort will show anything. People don't react to fantasy. The fear reaction will be strong. When all looks normal but the person feels impending doom the can even be driven to panic. So we are not talking about doing a million trial to see a bleep. We see stark reactions EVERY SINGLE TIME! That way the rogue scientists that are screaming "unscientific" and "soft sciences" and all the rest won't be able to do so anymore. This is a matter of public health and safety, economics and security. Revolution is the only way to go. Who is going to do it? It might have to be done by the lay people themselves and not by scientists but it has to be done and soon. A couple of decades from now it might be too late. People will all be born sick, live sick lives and die untimely deaths. This is not a legacy we should allow to befall the future generations.

  • KYRANI Nov 26, 2011

    This is not so simple. Yes there are parapsychologists as the ones you mention and others who are working hard to bring the matter of psi to light. And they should be commended for their work. However instead of that their work is being cast down and within the scientific community as much as the sckeptics outside of it. Their peers as well as other in the scientific arena are demanding that the experiments are done their way. Then when a paper makes it to a prestigious journal as for instance the New York times published an article about how Bem's work would be published in such a journal, there was an outrage from everywhere soft sciences as well as hard and the objections many of them raised were the very conditions that they demanded. So for instance statistical and enough trials and enumeration of favorable circumstances, peer reviews doesn't say its acceptable science all the way to deflamatory remarks about Bem and by psychologist and parapsychologists. And don't expect those that are there to cause dissention are going to be waving flags. Not at all! They are going to look respectable enough but they are also the ones demanding things are done with double blinds and the rest.

    The big problem is that the vicious and very public outcry sends a loud and erroneous message to the public that psi is fantasy land and not accepted as science. The average lay person believes in ESP but they are also up against remarks that appear to them that ESP is not real. So you get the remarks over and over ..but is it real? Is it real? why is there such an outcry? Yes there is the matter of an impending paradigm shift and they don't like it but these is plenty more that points in that direction and it doesn't create the same deafening raucous.

    The problem here is that ESP is objectionable science because of interests outside of science and some of those are scientists anyway. You have the medical industry who are afraid of loosing their bounty of trillions of annual income from drug and surgical procedures sales. ESP points to the true causes of disease and the toxic people who adversely affect others around them in their lives.

    Then there is the toxic people themselves. We are not talking a trivial number here- possibly 10-15% of the total population, maybe even 20%. In the US alone possibly 55-60 million! These people want to get their own way and count no cost. They are prepared to harm those around them callously and want to be able to do so with impunity. These are toxic spouses who want to keep their partner under their control but these days they can't use a ball and chain. Foul play utilizing like minded "friends" does the job better since they are not obvious for what they do.. not obvious that is until ESP inside of relationship can be shown in stark colors.

  • F_Alexander Nov 23, 2011

    Many of the tests being run today are indeed not optimized for the detection of psi effects, but this is being carried out by parapsychologists in this manner so as to make their experiments as maximally convincing as possible to their peers. Parapsychologists are very much aware of the detrimental effect boredom plays on psi effects, and they often point out this observation to people. I think researchers in this area are often privy to the fact that they are testing these effects without ideal conditions, and actually this is a common lamentation for those testing social effects in laboratory settings. But they test this way because they must, and STILL they successfully detect the psi interactions in their untrained participants. When one views the effect size produced by these combined studies, it is clear that they have achieved their goal of providing proof of this effect to anyone who wishes to view their results. I have so far not seen any indication that there are many parapsychologists involved in downplaying extended human capabilities.
    What you have said about the placebo effect in drug trials is something which resonates well with much that I have learned from those involved in such work. Very few people realize that the placebo effect is present for those taking active chemicals instead of sugar pills, as you pointed out. I remember in developmental psychopathology we were astonished at just how much of a drug's effectiveness was often due to the placebo effect alone. In the future, perhaps you should also mention those practices of pre-testing and removal of participants who are good at curing themselves, as this was shown to us to be a common practice among big biomedical which somehow curves test results in an illusory manner.

    But I digress, for my point is that I have seen people like Dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake putting forth a lot of effort to have their science be seen and understood, and so far the biggest force to obscure such data has come from pundits calling themselves "skeptics." Parapsychology has actually produced a wealth of convincing evidence, but unfortunately parapsychology's critics are much louder and don't need to play by the same rules they demand. By conducting experiments in the current manner they are made very convincing for those who actually manage to see them, and in a couple decades when this all more widely known to be real, then we can conduct more nuanced inquiries under more facilitative conditions.

  • KYRANI Nov 18, 2011

    reasons cont.
    4. They have the subjects guessing. This is a significant ESP lowering factor. The brain rationalizes its fuel materials to give the best advantage to those areas that are most needed at any one time. Thus if we are preoccupied with guessing the areas for thinking/reasoning are active and those for perception, even sensory-aided perception are lowered. How can we justify that the card “games” that they are doing as experiment are legitimate. They are not. It’s like going to get your eyes tested and the optometrist turns of the light box with the letters and then expects you to read them AND when you can’t read them he tells you you’re blind and you might even have 20 /20 vision.
    5. They have the one subject passively viewing something. This again is the most minimum conditions possible. If they had the subjects (both experiments with those distanced and those related) actively addressing /speaking mentally to the other subject then they would get a much greater effect.

    The truth is that when people discover that all of the stress that leads to disease and thus all of the diseases that plague modern societies are essentially maltreatment and ESP under fear conditions, by which it is even more greatly enhanced, is a critical factor then they will realize how to get well without the need for medicines and doctors. I would say in that case the almighty medical industry goes to the wall! It seems to me that hiding ESP is business policy. By demanding that the experiments be done thus and so they can keep ESP under wraps and all the diseases stay on the agenda, items for trade and with trillions of dollars earned every year. It seems to me that good researchers are prevented from doing the experiments at all. I hope your right but I suspect that it is going to take a public outcry, revolution and experiments done by lay people and done scientifically.. with a control and not with conditions that sabotage the experiments, to prove the matter and prove it unequivocally.. conclusively. It will be done!

  • KYRANI Nov 18, 2011

    I hope you're right F_Alexander but I have reservations for the following reasons.
    1. There is pressure to double blind everything and to say it is necessary for the experiments to be done scientifically. This is rubbish and we can see that when we see what we get in drug trials. First let me say there are two types of ESP as I see it. The one type is the direct mental perception of anything and everything in the universe. This one I call intuition, in order to distinguish it from the other. This type of ESP is extremely weak in most people. Not because they don't have it, they do. The reason is that most people live in a comfort zone to one extent or another and depending on how they feel in their environment at any particular time. A comfort zone is NOT rest but a mental fuzz. The price they pay for seeming comfort is they loose intuition. The other type of ESP (which essentially is not different in kind) is the type that exists when people are or have been related. This type of ESP is almighty strong. I call this type insightful perception, again just for identification purposes. We can see in drug trials that in single blinds a large number of the patients with the drug exhibit a placebo effect. Indeed I would say all of them would do so but may be not all are conscious of the fact. The patient with the blank do not get well so we can safely say there is no placebo effect. Researchers then moved to double blind the trials in order to get rid of the placebo effect. Indeed they have made things worse. Let me first say that what the second blind is about is the relational distancing of the two parties, ie the doctors and the patients. Now we see the placebo effect in those with the blank! Indeed I would say that the placebo effect now is right across the board and that is why I say they have made things worse. Why? People in a drug trial are often people desperate to get well. If they are blinded then they don't have ESP, ie they are insightfully blinded. So what they do is to say to themselves, hey I got a fifty fifty chance of having got the drug so why not just accept that I got the drug? That way a large number if not all of them (drug and blank) would be exhibiting a placebo effect. But of course the research doctors don't want to admit that so they call the blank a placebo and take the drug results as all genuine. This is untruthful in my book.
    2, Biomedical researches know, or at least they should know, that attention is deactivated through familiarity and bordom. So repeated tiresome trials of flipping coins etc., is going to give a false negative reading in the end.
    3. Relevance is a very important aspect. When a matter is relevant to us we are going to be able to "pick up on it", ie ESP will be at a higher level. This may mean that even a comfort zone may be temporarily lowered sufficiently, so the mental fuzz is less.
    then #4.. see next post

  • F_Alexander Nov 17, 2011

    Wow, well I don't know about the whole "AIDS and caner are cured" frequencytuner, but you made a good point that we should always search for deep-rooted preconceptions that affect our worldview. Also a good post by Saoirse illustrating the difficulty we sometimes face when trying to inform people of facts that support an unwelcome truth. But while I also like KYRANI's thoughts on the placebo effect, I disagree with this notion that there are many parapsychologists intentionally burying evidence. I know Susan Blackmore joined the pseudoskeptics, an odd maneuver, and she began preaching that she just hadn't found enough evidence for psi... omitting all of the successful replications of psi effects she had conducted. People like that are in the minority however, and indeed there are a great many scientists who have rigorously countered all of the arguments made by skeptical pundits, and now there is not a single criticism of psi research that can survive a thorough fact-checking.

    "Because no plausible explanations remain for the experimental results, today the few remaining hard-core skeptics rehash the same old polemical arguments used in past decades. The core assertion is the tired claim that after 100 years of research, parapsychology has failed to provide convincing evidence for psi phenomena. This argument follows a certain logic. Skeptics refuse to believe that psi experiments, which they admit are successfully demonstrating something, are in fact actually demonstrating psi itself. By stubbornly insisting that the results are real and unexplainable on the one hand, but those results could not possibly be due to psi on the other, then of course they can claim that parapsychology is a failure. This is like a skeptic who refuses to call a group of nine players who win the World Series a “baseball team.” In that case, the skeptic can simply smile, shrug and doggedly claim that yes, people do apparently go running after balls that other people occasionally hit with a bat. But still, after 100 years there is no solid evidence that anything called a baseball team actually exists."

  • KYRANI Nov 17, 2011

    I say that main stream medicine is the biggest obstacle but they will very soon have to admit that ESP is real. I am close to launching a website where I show the general public how their health is affected by those around them, most particularly people who are toxic and who form toxic relationships with others. These people play foul games that cause an unsuspecting person to react as to suffer stress. It is done for the sake of gaining power and influence over the other person in relationship and hence be able to manipulate and control them without being obvious. Two key ingredients are the staging of potential danger so as to create fear in the person targeted and the presentation of ideas through ESP. Inside of relationship ESP is very strong and within fear conditions perception is enhanced. We don't need endless statistical analysis to try and see a signal. We get close to 100% results. What has happened is that there are many people involved in Parapsychological research but many, and I would say that perhaps the greatest number are doing experiments in such a way as to disprove ESP and for that they are well rewarded with ever larger parcels of research money. Once the general public get involved in doing the necessary experiments (and they are not bound by having to do experiments in ways that prohibit the clear expression of ESP -such as double blinding) and they discover that their health and indeed even their life is at stake, then the medical industry I reckon will be in its death throws. At present the good researchers are being told what to do and how to do it in the name of being scientific but the whats and the hows only stand in the road of seeing the effect in its most potent form. Take placebo effects for instance -those that ar given by doctors to patients as medicine. There are times when the placebo works well, there are times when it doesn't work at all and there are times when it can even make the patient sick.. and it's just sugar! Why is this happening? Let me first say that doctors don't double blind their patients. They give their patients the placebo themselves. A great deal involves ESP inside of relationship. If the doctor thinks to themselves "I've given these pills before and they work wonders" the patient will perceive that and it will give them confidence to get well. If the doctor however has doubts and thinks "Oh dear am I doing the right thing this has no "active ingredients" again the patient will perceive it but this time not get well because they will believe the medicine given is no good. If the doctor is greedy and wants to give a drug with "kick backs" then he may think "giving them this makes one want to spew" and the patient perceiving these thoughts gets sick on placebo! And it’s all about ESP!

  • frequencytuner Nov 13, 2011

    Cancer is cured, did you know that? Probably not. AIDS is cured too, I bet you didn't know that either. As a matter of fact I bet you would stop reading if I told you every sickness and disease on earth has been cured. Why haven't you heard about it yet? -->WRONG QUESTION. Why don't you listen? The answers all resounding all around, the proof is there for the viewing but mainstream ideologies are so deep seated in the psyche of so many people - you included - that you won't let yourself see what's right in front of you: just open your eyes.

  • Saoirse Nov 13, 2011

    A friend of mine was once paid as an expert to test a psychic for an episode of Unsolved Mysteries. He did so, and found that she was using basic stage mentalist tricks to cheat. So he reported his findings to the producers. The producers were furious and didn't want to pay him. He pointed out that they had hired him as an expert to test her, and that was exactly what he had done. They replied that they had assumed he'd confirm that she was the real thing. After all, they said, the show wasn't called "Solved Mysteries." This is what continues to bother me in the whole debate. If people really think the stuff is real, and if they really want to learn about it, they would want the frauds exposed and debunked. What use is it to study some con artist who knows a few stage magic tricks if you want to learn about real mediumship? There's this idea that mysteries are sacred and shouldn't be solved, so anyone who actually solves them is a pariah and any solution that comes up must be rejected, in favor of the ultimate goal, which is to perpetuate the mystery. I don't see how this can lead to progress.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 06, 2011

    Excellent point F_Alexander!

    Because this stuff is taboo, it is, by default, BS in the minds of many. Therefore, somebody like Randy can utter one word - "debunked" - and everybody believes him.

  • F_Alexander Nov 05, 2011

    One considerable problem which is unfortunately retarding the public discussion of psychical research is the uneven nature of accountability in which pseudoskeptical talking heads can say a great many false things. Richard Wiseman announced to the world that he had refuted Rupert Sheldrake's experiment on animal telepathy (experiment with Jaytee), despite the fact that the actual data he collected mirrored Sheldrake's. Indeed, sometime later he conceded to Sheldrake that this was the case, and that his claimed debunking was utterly false, but the reality of the situation never made its mark in the public debate. James Randi is another figure who has claimed to have debunked this same piece of research. He critiqued the content of the video evidence in Sheldrake's experiment... he later admitted that he had never even seen the tapes, but that didn't stop him from telling the public what he had seen in the tapes, and thus the public received a bunch of "facts" that never actually happened. But he had also claimed at the time that he had run his own tests and refuted Sheldrake's research, and this is the version of truth the public received and all of the "skeptic" crowd received. In reality, there is no evidence that he ever ran an experiment of this nature, and after a series of different stories he settled on a "I lost what little notes I had taken in a flood" version to explain why he suddenly possessed no records.
    I really should stop writing about such things because it really does sap one's energy. But the pseudoskeptics are so worried about being duped and so reactive towards anything that sounds like superstition that they have fallen headfirst into an enormous illusion of false media (and suppressed media). What's really hard for me to bear, is the utter strangulation that some scientists and sub-fields have had to endure at the hands of polemic ignorance. It's amazing that even though many of the "big name skeptics" say things that aren't actually true, and some don't even look at the evidence that they proceed to judge, they are nonetheless able to convince the "skeptic" crowd that they are agents of integrity and reason.

  • F_Alexander Oct 21, 2011

    Well said capt, really well said :-)

  • capt_infinity Oct 20, 2011

    Thank you F_A for a well thought out post. If we want to see human thought at its worst just look at modern day politics. Now take modern day politics and run their ideas through the scientific method. Does anyone think we would be anywhere near the mess we are in today if we did?
    I have a very good friend who is a lightbringer. We constantly communicate sharing our ideas. We don't put each other down and we both learn. We start to see the amazing coincidences that happen in both the scientific and metaphysical world and we arrive at a consensus on so many things. We see things in different ways but we find where our different ways are not all that different. That is the way it is supposed to work.

    Where there is smoke there is fire and anyone who denies people are experiencing all sorts of phenomena is a fool. Anyone who believes these things cannot be tested is another fool. We seek knowledge. There is no failure when we seek knowledge. The failure is making excuses not to seek knowledge. All thoughts are illusions until proven otherwise. I could have just as easily said the world is round. In reality both statements are identical. We live on a round world with a flat mind.

    Socially we are barely out of our caves. Scientifically we are on the verge of discovering God. I keep reading where it is the other way around. Now can someone please tell me again why the scientific method cannot be applied to all things spiritual?

  • F_Alexander Oct 19, 2011


    Well I'm sure some people will read your post Captain and will get ticked off, but what you said is a needed observation, and you are putting forward the kind of balanced and healthy view which is regretfully all too rare in this debate. Those people who cultivate a willing ignorance in order to keep holding on to an appealing belief have become the only people that skeptics see on our side of the line. Saoirse's last comment pretty much sums up the way some people view all of parapsychology, and indeed any person who has come to believe in anything that their camp opposes. Some of the people who call themselves "skeptics" have become so repetitious and polemic in their arguments probably because they perceive a world filled with willful ignorance which must be cured. All of those people who really don't think critically as much as they should (our airy-fairy friends) just lend more kindling to this fire, and more conviction to this sweeping worldview.
    It is also likely that many of those individuals who have taken an even more devout and religious affiliation with anything bearing the brand name "skeptic" are still recovering from the effects that a Christian upbringing can wreck upon a child's mind. They need some decompression time from the whole "big angry god" concept. But both the fanciful versions of reality that many religions give us and even simpler illusions like Santa Claus can leave many children feeling like idiots for believing. They develop a significant fear of being wrong, and yet this is coupled with natural social pressure to have an opinion on all kinds of matters. So when they are driven to form an opinion about something that they have very little information about, perhaps only what a loud and assertive person on TV has told them is the only reasonable thing to believe, they nevertheless become devoted to that opinion. This can similarly happen when one has a sufficiently weak sense of self, as they can be much more inclined to invest themselves heavily in one "side" and defend it as if their validity as a person depends upon it.

    I'm personally not too worried anymore that the "pseudo-skeptic" camp will hinder our progress substantially for much longer. Now that I've been less afraid to mention morphogenic field theory and split-personality suffers' shifts in biochemical processing to my biology friends, I find that they often pull the conversation into even more exceedingly paranormal topics. So while I was starting to feel much like LawrenceCarson five posts down there, I think now that the "mainstream" will be coming towards the psi people much sooner (and more easily) than you all think. Then again, I might just lack information on how truly widespread the incorrigible flavor of disbelief is.

  • capt_infinity Oct 18, 2011

    Saoirse -Thank you. Shakespeare would love this thread. I agree but there in lies the rub. All ideas are illusions until they can stand the test of reality. The scientific method didn't just happen, it evolved from logic.

    It happened because of plague, or famine or the fact people needed a better light to read at night. So we take our intuitions and research and test them against reality and mankind adds a new tool to our inventory.

    In the meantime all the people out there, who are experiencing phenomena they don't understand have no problem finding a boat load of people who use all sorts of methods that are just as illusional as the thoughts scientists have, say just about anything especially if it involves a little money flowing into their pocket. The only difference is they are not required to test their intuitions against reality.

    Now that I have no doubt succeeded in ticking everyone off I have one question. What the hell has changed as far as social evolution in the last 100 years? There may be a little less prejudice but not much. Millions suffer, Hundreds of thousands lose their lives, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I can count on both hands the people who have really made a difference in the last 100 years.

    The greatest evolution has been in information technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and their compatriots will go down in history as the men who changed a world. The only reason we have not made similar strides in understanding mans spirituality and niche in the universe is because we do not apply the scientific method to understanding our own existence.

    It is totally ridiculous and we should be ashamed of ourselves. In the early 1900's we had an opportunity to understand spirituality using the scientific method and we turned our back on it. Had we not done so the world would have changed. Six million people would not have been marched off to their death like cattle. 200,000 would not have died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with millions more in Southeast Asia and Africa due to war. Diseases that killed millions more would have been conquered sooner and there would be no hunger in the world. I really believe that but what is done is done.

    Every human being on this planet who hears, sees, or senses something he or she cannot explain should be able to go to someone akin to a Doctor who will not ridicule them and who will listen to them and who can do whatever it takes to move what their senses tell them from illusion to reality if that is possible. Not everyone can build a lab anymore. That ended when the last century started. This is a new century.
    We can chalk the last one up to a learning curve. What the hell is going to be our excuse this time?

  • Saoirse Oct 17, 2011

    Capt., I think you nailed it when you said "know or believe they have..." Science isn't about belief. Part of the problem as I see it is, that those who believe they have special powers have a lot of emotion invested in that belief. I honestly don't think most of them want it looked at too closely. And if their abilities are tested under controlled conditions and it turns out that when normal cues are eliminated, the "ability" disappears, are they going to say, "That's interesting. I didn't realize I was relying on those cues," or are they going to say the tests were unfair, there was too much negative energy, they had a headache that day --- or whatever else it takes for them to be able to hang on to their belief that they have special powers? If their approach is, "We want this tested by mainstream science, but we'll only accept results that confirm our belief system," then what's the point of the testing? Because if that's the approach, the question they're asking is not "What will it take for mainstream scientists to take this subject seriously?" but "What will it take to convert mainstream scientists to my religion?" And that's a whole different question entirely. The scientific method wasn't designed to examine religious beliefs, and it would be a waste of time trying to use it for that purpose.

  • capt_infinity Oct 16, 2011

    Once again Saoirse you read my mind. Maybe we need to set up a test. Reading back through the comments theoldman raised a very good point. Those who know or who believe they have PSI ability need no proof. I applaud his statement "Do No Harm" I did at a young age and lost my ability in that area. Did I deny myself or was I denied because of the misuse of my ability? I don't know. The ones who have it need no proof but the ones that don't have the ability do. Because all ideas are illusions until proven, no one should fault science for taking the approach we should probably be following for all ideas.

    Is there any purpose for mankind to exist if we remove the pursuit of knowledge from our existence? The world would be far better served if we stayed on the same evolutionary path the chimpanzees did if the pursuit of knowledge is taken off the table. Is there a reason we dropped a chromosome pair and went down a separate path or was it a permutation of DNA recombination?

    All we have to do is look at the state of the world today and it is blatantly obvious our species knows precious little about what makes us tick. I applaud all those who have found spiritual enlightenment no matter how you have found it but why do so many of you want to keep it to yourselves and not share it with your fellow man? Calling it everyone's personal journey is a cop out. If our species can degrade itself to the point we round up six million people and put them to death how in hell can anyone of us have the luxury to say, it is my own journey?

    The scientific method is the best tool we have come up with to date to show everyone ideas are real and not just illusions. Is there a better way? I don't know. Let's come up with one if there is but nothing is going to change if we all sit in our self appointed spaces contemplating our own personal journey. Of course we all have to make our own personal journeys but the thing none of us can forget is we are not taking it alone.

  • Saoirse Oct 15, 2011

    That last post illustrates a pattern that I see regularly. It accuses everyone involved in mainstream science of being closed minded, scornful of any belief system outside of their own, and unwilling to communicate with those whose worldview differs from theirs. And yet, look at what's being said in the post -- the poster is expressing the exact same attitudes that he's condemning mainstream scientists for. I don't see how progress of any kind can be made if people on both sides of the imaginary line are so convinced that they have the Truth-with-a-capital-T that they aren't willing to look at anything outside of their own belief system. We learn when what we think we know is challenged, not by withdrawing to an island where everyone believes as we do, and locking the gate to prevent alternative ideas from getting in. The latter is human nature. For the sake of survival, early humans needed to be cautious about strangers approaching the camp, or encountering other cultures where misunderstandings could lead to hostility and violence. So humans still feel most comfortable on their own "island." But we're not living in that kind of an environment anymore. At our current state of culture, I think such isolationism only leads to stagnation.

  • Anonymous Icon

    LawrenceCarson Oct 14, 2011

    I applaud those with the love …patience … and tenacity to continually work on those “Reductionistic – Duality Focused” scientists. Either you have all of those gracious attributes listed above … or you are a glutton for scorn, ridicule and punishment … or you are really thirsty for drops of approval from a crowd that really are stuck in their lives spent on protecting their opinion libraries of outdated belief systems. Either way …I truly do applaud your tenacity.

    For me I got really tired of it. So now I communicate with those that already know. Those that have already been in “strange places” and experienced eye opening … awareness expanding mind states that are so far beyond linier micro-measurement. The very word “Science” does not mean to measure …. Or to replicate. From Latin Science ( scire ) literally means to know. And all moms and dads know through experience the one of the most important events in their lives is when our children are introduced into this world at the hospital. That is “Experiencing” …. That is “Knowing” … and That is SCIRE! 

    My Wish:
    If I only had one wish it would be that from now on all of the brilliant researchers would stop writing books and white papers to convince those that do not have the inner sensory acuity skills to “get it” …and instead focus your research and reports on assisting us that already know these realms exist … but we want to have better access to … and navigational skills to play in these incredible places. I want to go see what Walt Disney is up to when I am deep asleep at night here in Boise. Can you assist??

    Lawrence on pondering ... this ... that ... and other things ... all through the meta-scope of curiosity.

  • F_Alexander Sep 21, 2011

    It was actually quite comforting to hear comments Stuart Hameroff made recently regarding the backwards time effects that Radin and Bierman have been studying. Hameroff said that after Bierman told his friends in the field to examine the data in mainstream neuroscience for this effect. Indeed they not only found this observable quantum effect, but are also kindling an interest in this phenomena among researchers in the field.

    "I was talking to somebody today who said that a neuroscientist working with monkeys is seeing the exact same thing: the monkey reacts before the image appears, by the same several hundred milliseconds—up to two seconds—but even several hundred milliseconds is a long time in the brain. The point is that this backward-time effect is now appearing in mainstream neuroscience, and once people get over the fear of being ridiculed, I think everybody is going to come out and say, Oh yeah! I see that; everybody sees it. In the next few years we’re going to see this explode."

    On the less productive side, when Bierman talked with Antonion Domasio about this effect in his data, he replied “That’s crazy! That means there’s backward time, and that can’t be” and refused to look at his own data.
    So one can likely expect a lot more resistance of that nature :-/ But these kinds of branching efforts among researchers, combined with up and coming publications like the results of Anirban Bandyopadhyay's experiments with microtubules in Japan, should be powerful forces for the ushering in of a new paradigm across the sciences.

    Full Hameroff interview: http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-thirteen-august/what-is-consciousness-hameroff/

  • F_Alexander Sep 19, 2011

    Whoa! Yeah, if "studies" like that are still being done and published under the mantel of parapsychology, then this a total case of the phrase "please, please don't be on my side." You said this was done by a famous person too? Now I want to know who it was. Here's my e-mail if you have a free moment to send some info, I just need their name and then I can do the rest.
    alexfournier@earthlink.net

  • Saoirse Sep 16, 2011

    Thanks, Capt.! I enjoy yours as well! I'm not so sure about funding being the problem, though, because in most of the cases I've seen, finding wouldn't have made a difference. There's a researcher who put out a famous study, repeatedly claiming in public that no one had ever managed to find a flaw in his method. However, he was well aware at the time that eleven major flaws had been pointed out, any one of which would have invalidated the results on its own. When confronted about it, his response was that he knew the study was flawed but if anyone wanted him to design one properly, they could give him the funding. But saying he couldn't afford to do a properly designed study doesn't seem to be any reason t accept the results of a poorly designed one.

    Also, in the same study, funding wouldn't have mattered. For example, the researcher assigned a task to two groups, a group of "mediums" and a control group, and claimed that the mediums performed significantly better than the control group. However, when his methods were examined, it turned out that he hadn't assigned the same task to both groups. Instead, he'd assigned an easier task to the mediums than he had to the control group. The mediums were asked to choose from a list of facts presented to them, while the control group was asked to create a list from scratch. This meant that there was no way you could legitimately compare the two results, because the method was heavily weighted in favor of the medium group. It wouldn't have cost any more to do this properly by giving the control group the same list the mediums were given to work from so that the conditions were identical for the two groups.

    In another experiment, which involved a medium doing phone readings, one particular reading stood out from all the others. It was amazing in its accuracy. Why was this reading so different? Could it have something to do with the fact that the medium had access to a manuscript copy of the sitter's autobiography? The researcher was aware of this but didn't consider it an issue. Again, it would have cost no more to eliminate that sitter. There was no lack of other volunteers.

    Those are the kinds of issues I think need to be addressed. I don't think more expensive studies are needed -- just better controlled ones. One of the most fun studies I ever worked on used a couple of reused fish tanks, a few plastic bottles. some wooden dowels and a supply of cheap chocolate pudding, mustard and yogurt. :-)

  • truthseeker999 Sep 16, 2011

    I believe that current science community will never accept the idea of psi phenomena. Throughout the history, the only way the new ideas were accepted by scientists was not through re-learning of the old scientists, but through the death of the old paradigm and appearing of the new one. I don't even see the point in trying to prove something to the scientists of the old paradigm. "Practice is the criteria of the truth" - if some things do work in practice, why do you need someone else to approve that they do? Eventually "quantity shifts into quality" thus if more people learn about new sciences like neuroscience, noetics, quantum physics, psychosomatics and infosomatics the faster the old paradigm will cease to exist. Have a great weekend. p.s. if you know how to really use your brain, you follow the laws of Nature and your own spirit, then health, success in business and relationships are just side effects...

  • F_Alexander Sep 10, 2011

    Here Here! especially for that notion: "There is no failure. Every test teaches you something."

    Capt_infinity's insight into the funding constraints involved is probably an apt one, but it sounds like parapsychologists have been also very good at coping with this constraint in recent years. To say that most or many psi experiments today are dealing with a lot of methodological shortcomings seems to be a myth rather than an observation. Outside critics like Alcock have been slanting the history of psi experimentation and its design validity for ages to suit the perceptions of reality that they are so emotionally invested in. Meanwhile, the work of professors such as Dean Radin often exhibit far better control for confounds than many of the psych studies we considered "sound evidence" in my social psych capstone seminar! In addition, such respected experimenters usually test and retest an effect quite rigorously, sometimes far exceeding the number of trials needed to validate an observed effect by the standards of social psychology for instance.

    If anyone encounters people who are ready to believe something on minimal evidence, I can guarantee they are not one of this lot ^_^
    But to explain why some professionals in other fields shake their heads when someone says something "needs to be verified through rigorous testing first," I think this quote captures their psychology quite well:

    "When I observe a number of suffering patients who did not respond to our usual treatment modalities suddenly get better after TFT algorithms are given, I don't need a double-blind controlled study to tell me the value of TFT." (Thought Field Therapy)
    —James McKoy, MD; Kaiser Permanente Pain Clinic, Hawaii

  • capt_infinity Sep 09, 2011

    Saoirse I really like your posts and the question you raise at the end of your last comment deserves and answer and here is mine. Strenuous testing requires strenuous amounts of money. Psi research finds itself in a situation similar to where mainstream science was in the 1800's. In the 1800's there was enough knowledge out there to suggest a phenomena like electricity had unlimited potential. All over the world people who studied the phenomena, either on their own or in a university environment, started putting together batteries, winding coils and combining the effects with magnets which possessed similar but puzzling characteristics. It didn't take a lot of money and ideas flowed. Scientists like Edison were able to try just about anything and go where it took them.

    If psi phenomena is real it occurs at very low energy levels. Low enough other energy sources affect it like the alignment of the planets. Non scientific observations tell us something is going on other than pure imagination but our ability to observe and measure it is akin to there being no power outlet on the wall.

    Building a device that amplifies miniscule signals in the ultraviolet to near ultraviolet range requires a lot of money. I envy those that could grab a few magnets, wind coils and connect up a battery. In many cases they had less theory and knowledge then we have when it comes to psi research.

    Looking for the unknown is a process of elimination and you do it one step at a time. There is no failure. Every test teaches you something. Sometimes you end up observing something you had no idea existed and a new force is discovered. It really isn't a new force, it has been there since the universe came into existence. We just inadvertently found it because we were looking for something.

    Today it costs a lot of money to look and finding irrefutable evidence of psi phenomena is going to gore a lot of oxes. Religion, politics, philosophy and sadly the concepts of many mainstream scientists. There is no mystery here. The miracle is IONs exists at all.

  • Saoirse Sep 07, 2011

    I come from a bit different place than most here. I recognize that there is always resistance to new paradigms, but I'm also very puzzled by the other side of things. I don't understand the aversion to evidence, or the desire to believe something without evidence. I guess I get it in a psychological sense of wanting something to be true, but for me, that's never going to be enough. There are lots of things that I would love to think are real. But I wouldn't want to believe they were real, if they aren't, and also, I don't feel that we can learn about anything if we don't separate it out from things that confuse the issue. I know I'm not being very clear, so I'm going to attempt an example.

    Suppose I think there's an unknown species living in my back yard. I hear vocalizations. I find tracks. I want to know if it really is an unknown species, and I want to learn more about it. But here's the problem -- other species make similar vocalizations, and leave similar tracks. If I assume all of those tracks and calls are my unknown, I'm not going to learn anything. Maybe my unknown is nocturnal. But suppose a common diurnal critter makes similar vocalizations. If I'm not careful to rule out that known species, then I'll erroneously assume my unknown is active both by day and by night. Maybe my unknown is entirely herbivorous, but a known species with very similar tracks is carnivorous. If I don't take care to eliminate the tracks caused by the known animal, I'm going to see tracks near a kill, and come to the erroneous conclusion that my unknown is omnivorous. So what have I learned about my unknown animal by not bothering to rule out other species? Not a thing. Worse, I think I know something about it but none of it is accurate. Wouldn't I be better off if I'd done my research more carefully, and controlled for the factors that could confuse the issue?

    The same general idea applies (for me, anyway) with things like psi and ADC. If I have an experience, I want to know whether it was a genuine experience or just my mind playing tricks on me, or a statistical anomaly. Because if it was a real experience, it's exciting, and worldview changing, but if it was just my mind playing tricks, or a statistical anomaly, then it's of no consequence. The difference between the two is enormous. So I would want to do anything and everything in my power to determine which it was. Forget "mainstream science." I would want those peer-reviewed studies to be done for my own sake. I'd want others to double check my logic and my numbers, to make sure I wasn't falling into any traps of logical fallacy, or misinterpreting the numbers, or running up against confirmation bias. It's hard for an individual to be objective about an experience, especially if it's an experience that they're emotionally invested in.

    So... I'm puzzled about why people object to the idea of strenuous testing. I see what's to be gained by it, but I don't see what can be lost by it.

  • F_Alexander Sep 07, 2011

    I just read Guy Dauncy's post at the bottom of this page from back in early February, and it brings me back to psychological considerations. What he said about creating a framework to attempt to explain psi data thus far does seem like it would also help open the door to more public acceptance, particularly because it doesn't ask skeptics to abandon their schemas without giving them new ones to fill the void. Just as Dauncy said, people have their mental comfort zones, and they get very defensive when they are threatened.

  • F_Alexander Sep 03, 2011

    I think what Saoirse said really rings true for me, as many of my peers in psychology had adopted a gospel of cynicism and uber-materialism and didn't appreciate anything that would threat their depressive world view. There had apparently been a lot of this going on in the Biology department at our school, and my experiences had mostly confirmed that, but hopefully there are indeed a great many open minded biologists. I know one of the biggest achieving bio students, a real intellectual powerhouse, was an ex-wiccan girl who had no problem talking about magic and Buddhism.

    Perhaps psi research has found itself categorized in the most hostile territory possible. I would surely like to believe that most of the biologists and physicists out there would not take offense to a person because they can do cool things, and I know most of the explicit resistance I've seen to even the mention of words like "psychic" or "soul" has come from psych research students. Maybe I've just been in the most hostile territory this whole time :-)

    Thanks again to Saoirse for giving me a sense that things are not such an uphill battle.

    For many researchers the acceptance of these studies will mean the beginning of a formal and sweeping paradigm shift for western society. While for many people it will mean their official acceptance into the portrait of society, and eventually an end to their stigmatization.
    Just something to think about and work towards.

  • StanEllis_Author Sep 02, 2011

    Regarding a definition of the Null Hypothesis, I refer to this one, "There is no relationship between two phenomena." Through hypothesis testing one researches the relationship between the two phenomena to verify the absence/presence of a cause & effect or catalytic relationship. In this instance it does'nt matter if information or evidence is objective or subjective since the null hypothesis reference was used as a simplified anecdotal posit.

  • capt_infinity Sep 02, 2011

    The answer is and always has been money, especially when you are trying to go where no man has gone before. The only ones that don't need gobs of cash are mathematicians and their work can be just as woo woo as any meta-physicist out there. If we go back 100-150 years, we needed to discover everything and anyone with an idea could experiment. Everyone in those days could get their hands on a low power microscope, chemicals were cheap (the results weren't always) and there was no one telling them they couldn't do something because they simply did not have the education to do it. Ideas counted. Obviously education helped but it was all about the ideas.

    Today we need things like electron microscopes, tunable lasers, colliders, accelerators, thermal ovens they couldn't conceive of in the 1800's and a rocket to lift our idea into space if we need to. Costs of medical research are through the roof. If one can't sell a room full of troglodytes on profits that border on shameful or put the feather in the hat of a university science department you had better have a rich uncle. What chance would the greatest American inventor, Thomas Edison,have of getting funded today? Hell even in his day he had to make a wealthy man obscenely wealthy by telling him how to build an automobile in order to keep the money coming in in his early years. OSHA would shut him down before he got started if he tried to set up a lab today.

    What is it going to take for scientists to start taking chances again? Edison knew there were no such things as failures and over 1200 patents proved that isn't a bad way to approach ones science projects. Try running that concept through any board room or college administration today. Maybe they will all start getting a clue when a category 5 hurricane is considered a nice day.

    My hypothesis is the spirit particle/wave follows quantum rules and is an open string and yes the side that rests in our physical body is located near the pineal gland. I have idea for experiments that will either prove or disprove my hypothesis. Who knows where the experiments will take us and that is awesome. Edison, Batchelor and Adams didn't know what was going to happen when they started fiddling with magnets and coils on the acoustic telegraphy they were experimenting on for Western Union. The following pages should be required reading in every science lab in this country. No one had to explain anything to anyone. They just used their imaginations and knowledge and mankind witnessed the birth of RF communications in a dusty lab on a cold night in New Jersey in 1875. It starts on this page: http://edison.rutgers.edu/images/ac/ac0197.jpg Simply increase the number by one when you want to turn the page and witness what science used to be..

  • Saoirse Sep 01, 2011

    In response, particularly to F_Alexander, I think it really does come down to quality of evidence, in the end (there's a "however" coming... wait for it...) and it seems like in most cases the people who are doing the studies are less than qualified to design the type of study involved, and the majority of folks looking at the studies are less than qualified to actually analyze the studies. People tend to think that anyone with a Ph.D. is qualified on both counts, regardless of their field of study. But, for example, a person could have a Ph.D. in a clinical field, rather than an experimental field, or one might have a Ph.D. in physics, which doesn't leave one very good at designing or interpreting studies involving human subjects. But a lot of people only see that someone with a Ph.D. conducted a study, and that's all they want to know. Whether the Ph.D is in a field that qualifies the researcher to design or analyze the type of study involved is irrelevant.

    Here's the "however" I promised above -- I think people trying to get new theories looked at in the field of experimental psych (which is where the psi stuff falls) do have a harder row to hoe than in many other fields. Physicists and biologists, for example, tend to get really excited about new ideas and theories. They will still require the same standards of evidence, but they're intrigued by new theories. For some reason the vast majority of experimental psychologists are simply not interested in new.... anything. They want to replicate studies done 20 years ago, or design studies to confirm what's already been confirmed a hundred times over. "Hey, look! Baby monkeys STILL don't grow up normally in isolation! Just like they didn't back in the 70's!" There are some small strides forward, such as with feed forward learning theory, but it's incredibly slow. The entire field seems to have stagnated. I'm as solid an empiricist as you'll find, but I think the whole field of experimental psych could use a good shake-up.

  • Theoldman Aug 31, 2011

    I posted a reply in the other topic on science and it applies here equally as well. I appreciate reading others that see the vast difference between observer relativity and unity consciousness. No two things anywhere in the known universe are alike (same or identical) be it on the cosmic level or on the micro level. No two events or actions are alike anywhere. The only exception to the last two phrases is that everything on all levels share one thing in common - everything changes always. Therein lies a singular and universal truth -the only constant is change - which defines the paradox of creation and the source power of our existence. If you can see the universe or even perceive seeing it in it's entirety you immediately step into another realm - outside the confines of the observer.

    Science separates the observer, limits our reality through measures of causality much the same way religion tend their flock, or the coveted elitist, in their limited addiction to their perceptions of wealth and power. All forms of control (religious, scientific, government or corporate/elitism) that attempt conscious control over a constantly changing universe, are more an expression of ignorance than wisdom and are more on par with the definition of cultism, on many levels in our world. Necessity has always been the progenitor of creation - we need to decide was is necessary in our world in order for us all to survive. Blessings - Eamonn

  • F_Alexander Aug 30, 2011

    One would hope that groups like IONS can slowly erode the taboo concerning psi by simply creating an ever larger body of well-designed studies. However, I think that understanding the psychology behind the taboo may be paramount to dissolving it, as I have witnessed too many students in the sciences actually becoming more hostile or moody as the credibility of the evidence being discussed increases.

    It would normally be expected for someone who sees themselves as a scientist to be passionately opposed to efforts that are of faulty design, or theories which are not intellectually sound. So why would someone who wishes to be considered a scientist react with greater hostility as an argument is revealed to be increasingly scientifically thorough and convincing? I know I have seen this effect more times than I can count, and I'm one of the LEAST preachy people when it comes to convincing other people that what I think is THE truth.

    I've become increasingly convinced lately that the primary barrier to any productive discussion of human abilities on a large scale is a question of paradigm, or schema to use psychology terminology. Our schemas are our predictive beliefs about things, and many people form strong schemas for the laws of reality, for the laws of what is possible in the world around them. Now when something happens that forces us to change one of our schemas dramatically this usually causes us great distress, as we are suddenly without the safety of that predictive system until we have come to terms with a new one. For instance, what if you found out that the person who you idolized and always quoted wasn't actually real.

    In addition to this principal, I think another reason I have seen some people become all the more resistant to examining a psi study when they hear it was done well is the fear of what else its results may imply. A great many people often fear the unknown, reacting first with reservation or anxiety to something they do not understand. Though whether this ties back into the dynamics of schematic threat I do not know.
    Regardless, I have seen far more evidence than I can communicate in any small space that makes me wish I better understood the psychological dynamics of this taboo, and I look forward the day I do understand it in its entirety :-) I think that once we have mapped the mental terrain of the closed minded person we shall have great insight to debates such as these.

  • Saoirse Aug 30, 2011

    Sure... I'll zip you an email, and use my username in the subject so you'll recognize me.

  • Fallensoul Aug 30, 2011

    Saoirse you've hit the nail on the head. Can we connect? I would like to discuss further: adhamere@gmail.com

  • Saoirse Aug 29, 2011

    One could as easily say that matter creates energy -- the two are two sides of the same thing, and we know that in a closed system, the combined amount of matter and energy will remain constant, even though the matter may be converted to energy or the other way around.

    I'm puzzled though, by your interpretation of the Null Hypothesis. Maybe it's a different thing in Noetics. In the standard scientific method, the Null Hypothesis simply states that the results produced by the study in question are nothing more than a statistical anomaly produced by chance. The job of the researcher is to refute the Null Hypothesis, i.e., to demonstrate that the results are not just a statistical anomaly. In order to accomplish this, it's necessary to include proper controls. If you tried to call everything evidence, regardless of source or objectivity, you'd end up with a muddle that anyone could interpret to their fancy, like an inkblot test.

    I worked for many years in a field of research that was initially brushed off by "mainstream" scientists. Now that field is well-established in the mainstream. So, the question of what it takes to make the mainstream scientific community sit up and take notice is an issue I'm intimately familiar with. And having come through that experience is what tells me that it's more productive to listen to the critique and tighten up the studies than is to just keep doing the studies the same way, ignore the criticisms, and complain that no one will take them seriously.

    I'm not saying that folks who believe in psi have to use the scientific method to study it, or that they have to choose to be bound by the principles of science. I'm just saying, if the question is what it will take for mainstream scientists to take it seriously, the answer is -- studies that meet the standards of evidence required in the field of experimental psych. I'm not even saying people have to like it or even that I do. Just that, in the real world, that's what it's going to take.

  • StanEllis_Author Aug 29, 2011

    The issue that "matter is all that matters" was undone by the scientifically accepted fact matter does not create matter, energy does. The mainstream resistance to this is of course characterized in the materialst reductive process inability to develop empirical research, thus they are closed-minded to their noetic peers theorhetical research and even acceptable hard-science replicable findings regarding PSI phenomena. These so-called mainstream scientist have abandoned a major tenent of their basic research paradigm, the "null hypothesis." Including all data, premise, etc., without bias, whether said information is objective, subjective, empirical, anecdotal, etc. is included in hypothesis testing via the null hypothesis. Any information that does not have a clear cause & effect or catalytic relationship to what is being researched (the hypothesis) is then ruled-out and cataloged. The origin of what is ruled-out or rule-in really does'nt matter (pun intended).
    I would love to see more media exposure for PSI Phenomena research, debunking mainstream scientist contradictions, and open debates between reputable PSI Researchers and Mainstream Researchers. Alas, we may have to wait for the dinosaurs to die...Stan Ellis

  • Saoirse Aug 28, 2011

    I think there is an issue with the quality of evidence produced (thus far) in labs, and the fact that the folks interested in conducting the studies are rarely the ones with the expertise to design the studies properly and interpret the statistical results. I was at a lecture some time ago which addressed, in particular, the fact that there are so few people with the right combination of skills, so that in most cases, when work is done on the subject in a lab, either they don't control properly (you almost have to be a stage magician as well as an experimental psychologist to get the controls right in this kind of study) or they end up using the wrong statistical analysis for the type of data they're collecting.

    I don't think there needs to be a dichotomy between good science and the study of things like psi phenomena. I don't think there should be any stigma placed on a scientist who chooses to investigate it. Science should be about the investigation of anything we don't fully understand yet -- which is most of the universe. At the same time, I think people sometimes have an odd idea about what "science" is. Science is a method, not an organization. So when people say, "What will it take for mainstream science to accept it," I think the answer is simple -- several properly controlled, replicable, peer reviewed studies producing results that meet the same standards that are expected in other experimental psych studies. That's what science is. So I'm always bothered by the idea that so many people ask "mainstream science" to accept ideas, but at the same time maintain that those ideas should not be held to the same standards of evidence as other theories.

    So maybe, if it were looked at honestly, the question being asked isn't "When will mainstream science accept it?," but "When will mainstream scientists come to accept that some things must be taken on faith?" But then, there IS a dichotomy, because science is based on the principle that everything in the universe is ultimately knowable, while religion (which term I use loosely here to mean faith-based approaches) holds that the there are some things inherently beyond understanding. It's hard to reconcile those two principles.

  • Anonymous Icon

    deb1311 May 11, 2011

    I agree with the simple answer. Just keep talking about it until slowly it is accepted as 'normal.' Some months ago Dean Radin featured the story of Bill Bengston in the IONS Newsletter. Bill cured mice of cancer with energy healing. I found his website, bought his book and his CDs and wondered why it is that this information is not on the front page of every newspaper? I was pleased to hear when Dean Radin interviewed Bill last week that there may be further research in this area in conjunction with IONS. This story is an amazing example of how some areas of the scientific community will not accept something that makes no sense to them regardless of rigorous experimentation that proves it. I tell lots of people this story, direct them to the research and let them make up their own minds, they always seem to have the same reaction as I did! Amazement! :-)

  • Anonymous Icon

    Kalara May 03, 2011

    There is no way that most scientists will easily admit to anything PSI. Few are brave enough to embrace the truth, when their entire lives they have known only misdirection, which they believed was truth. You would think that scientists in particular, with their supposed love of discovering new things, would want to immerse themselves in the collective consciousness that is out there. That would mean they would have to give up "themselves" to be "oneself" and they cannot do it.

    I believe the world must begin to acknowledge what PSI is, once again, after this knowledge has been generally lost from the masses of people for so very long. This will happen no matter what most scientists say or do to try to discredit anything they cannot or will not touch with the regular five senses.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Soulweaver May 02, 2011

    "A growing conclusion among those who study anomalous phenomena is that the issue is less about problems with the data than with what such evidence represents: a fundamental challenge to scientific materialism, the bedrock of modern science, which states that matter is primary and nothing (such as mind) exists outside of that. Given what’s at stake, can such beliefs ever be overcome?"

    My initial response to the statement and question above is this: So - because we are afraid of the consequences of discovering we are more than what we appear to be, we should live without truth? Because modern science will be turned on it's heel, let's bury our heads in the sand. Because religious traditions will need major overhauls, let's deny the truth and make it evil to explore, speak or even think about it.

    Such thinking is why we have NOT given more credence to these types of things. Imagine the caveman saying, "I won't explore fire, because then I may have to admit that I could get burned".

    I choose to know the truth about myself. No matter what that may be. I am a creation of the gods - fine - I can deal with that. I am the offspring of aliens - great - when do I get to meet them? I am a figment of my own imagination - wonderful, it's been a great dream.

    Denial of Who and What we are will continue until Humanity is ready to hear, see, and accept Truth.

    I sure hope they're ready soon - because I'm tired of waiting to find out ;-)

  • cprize Apr 19, 2011

    Seriously the only way you are ever going to get them to pay attention is to foresee a major disaster and preempt the loss of lives it would cause. I can tell you of several. Which one would you like to start with? The next tsunami in Japan? With some participation by dreamers and their journals we could save at least 28,000 because this next one is bigger than the last one near Sendai. Our www.godofdreams.com website will be ready to start the ball rolling on that any day. This of course assumes that enough corroborating dreams are supplied so the precognitive evidence is sufficient (to overwhelming) that the Japanese will take action in advance. I'm expecting the tsunami to occur in mid May this year, however even though I know it is that soon, using just what I foresee isn't enough. You need corroboration by at least 5, to get any interest, and probably 100+ before an official evacuation is mounted. Maybe this time they will get the nuclear power plant shut down in advance so it doesn't become another disaster itself (on the west end of Shikoku).

    Maybe you've noticed what percentage of society is controlled by non-believers in key positions (press, government, admins of many co's)... who disbelieve that anyone can foresee even though the Bible indicates how it is done in Numbers 12:6. Let me tell you of few other events... like in the next 20 years will see 7 new volcanoes. (Only 3 new ones in the last 70 years stayed visible.)

  • Anonymous Icon

    mppulley Apr 18, 2011

    Most scientist in traditional fields won't even admit that general and basic psychology is a 'real' science, so to expect them to accept the possibility of precognition is a little far-fetched. Hopefully one day though.

  • Anonymous Icon

    QuantumOcean Mar 14, 2011

    Simple answer: How about just by having more people talk about it until it become ingrained (and thus normal) in our consciousness!

    I'm finding that people are hungry to talk about science and spirituality and have been contemplating it all along, but have been too afraid to bring up the topic. They just need a trusting ear and safe space to get the ball rolling! You start by striking up a conversation, which is what we do with people we meet, and now my husband and I have an informal monthly group of 20+ folks who meet and talk about science and psi topics. So we're helping to put that energy out there into the collective consciousness, albeit one person at a time.

    I just read a new release addressing new science, consciousness, and psi studies..."Your Magical Soul: How Science and Psychic Phenomena Paint a New Picture of the Self and Reality" by Jeffrey A. Marks. The funny thing is, I finally just had a free weekend to read Dan Brown's hefty "The Lost Symbol," and it hit me that "Your Magical Soul" was the perfect background read to introduce one to noetic science!

    Cheers, Heidi

  • marcusantonio91 Mar 07, 2011

    What I worry about is that now we have scientific evidence for remote viewing, precognition, telepathy etc; once and if it becomes accepted, because with people like Dawkins, Dennet and Randi, who seem to have double standards when it comes to science, will we human beings use it for our barbaric nature or for good. I watched a documentary about the lost symbol, and Dan Brown said that he was worried we may use these gifts for alterior motives. We may use it for war and crime instead of for good, that is my fear. I'm sorry if I sound pessimistic but Humanity hasn't exactly got a good track record when it comes to use of power, the past 70-80 years alone highlight this. These are my fears, I pray that they are wrong, but I do worry

  • Fallensoul Mar 05, 2011

    a long time.

  • ewaweel Feb 28, 2011

    Hi to all,

    Many very good answers have already being written here and I hesitated to say more on the subject but something personal happened yesterday that convinced me that I should write a more formal answer.

    When we dream, our subconscious mind lives in a parallel universe. Sometimes this world interferes with reality and warns us of impending danger like during a dream. Sometimes one can read other people’s mind. Some people are more gifted than others in terms of psy powers, like identical twins or lovers.

    The existence of psy powers is not a problem anymore in this community. The problem now is too explain this “magic”, so they say, to mainstream science. Demonstrating the reality of psy powers could change all current scientific dogmas forever, so they think. Experimenting with identical twins gives good results because they are natural telepaths, but the powers of a natural telepath are not constant.

    The equivalent of the ultraviolet catastrophe for psy research will be found in the emotional brain activity of a couple of telepaths. Lovers are telepaths because of the love they have for one another. Former research at Princeton have already demonstrated this. Do not ask lovers to guess triangles, squares and circles of colors like seals do with balls in circus. Better let them live freely, but watch their brain response to their daily activities. Instead of doing statistics on a great number of subjects and one single event, use statistics with a great number of events and a single couple of telepaths.

    The energy produced by a “telepath” is directly related to its emotional power and to its level of consciousness in time. Because of this equation, the best subjects will be surrendered with events happening with synchronicities. Such an investigation would give results that would convince mainstream science.

    E.W. Aweel

  • Anonymous Icon

    zepov Feb 27, 2011

    IMO it's of little or no consequence what is accepted by mainstream scientists and their cadre. Those who know and explore psi and related fields would do well to simply respect themselves and their work and keep following their own path. Science in its actuality is a method and a search for knowledge. That many have set up a narrow framework of knowledge and act as if said framework is the actuality of science is amusing. To seek validation from those ensconced in that framework is sad.

  • Melvin Morse Feb 25, 2011

    Hi,
    This is my first posting here at Noetic Sciences. I think that the great Skeptic/Believer debate is GAME OVER! For the past 20 years easily, the embedded myth of science has NOT been materialism, but rather spiritism.

    From functional neurogenesis to information theory, it is clear that mainstream science today supports the concept that consciousness comes first.

    Consciousness>Information>Physical Laws>Material World.

    I wrote a blog on this and I would love to hear people's reactions to my blog.
    http://spiritualscientific.com/DrMorseBlog/
    Melvin L Morse MD

  • Anonymous Icon

    choicecoach Feb 19, 2011

    I recognize that acceptance by the mainstream would be validating, and would make funding easier, but I'm not sure that it is so important to spend time and energy trying to "earn" that acceptance. The full acceptance of psi would turn a considerable proportion of science upside down, which would probably cause a fair amount that is currently useful to be called into question. Multiple confusions would result, which might be helpful to the general public. Those who are ready, will come to believe as they have their own experiences. More research into the how and why of what works without regard to what the "mainstream" believes would be my way to go. The more we know, the more the noosphere will pick up and transmit.

  • Anonymous Icon

    carolynann Feb 18, 2011

    An experience which proved precognition to me.
    My husband and I were due to sit a BA exam that morning in aneighbouring town - in a house we had not seen been to before. Before breakfast he said to me "I had a dream in which we drove up to our exam, parked the car and you got out. Then I got out and as we walked towards the gate, a small black and white dog ran up to me barking and started to bite at my trousers. In the dream I had no shoes on."
    After breakfast we drove to the house where we were to sit the exam. All happened exactly as the dream portrayed - the only difference was that my husband had shoes on in his dream.
    This proved to me that our subconscious mind lives in the future and is there to warn us perhaps of impending danger.

  • REAP1 Feb 16, 2011

    EXPERIENCE! This might be a rather simplistic response to the question, but I strongly believe in it. When one truly experiences a PSI event one KNOWS that it is real. I am a Physicist, trained in the normal materialistic model. However, once I began to have PSI experiences myself, there was no longer any question in my mind about its reality. And actually, this is the True and Honest way that a Scientist, or at least a Physicist, would investigate the possibility of PSI phenomena. After all, we know that it took only one very minor phenomenon to overturn Newtonian Physics and launch Quantum Physics. This one problem phenom was the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe”. Classical Mechanics could satisfactorily explain all observations except for Blackbody radiation in the ultraviolet range. If there is one genuine phenom that the Current Physical Theory cannot explain, even a very small one, the Theory must be modified or even overturned to another Theory that does include the phenom. Thus arose Quantum Physics.
    When an honest Scientist has a Genuine PSI experience, no matter how insignificant, just as with the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, he must expand or reassess his world view to include it. We all know that the Psyche is not a closed system. It extends beyond the physical body in time and space. Because the Psyche is essentially an open system one consciousness can meld with another consciousness and bring to it a PSI experience that would ordinarily be beyond its borders. After such an experience the honest Scientist would need to conclude, “I don’t understand it, but it is REAL.” So I vote for EXPERIENCE!

  • Sunshadow Feb 15, 2011

    Thanks to all, and especially to theold man, PsychoticAdvisor, and MarcusTAnthony for your perspectives. I feel humble in the presence of those here who are so well read and well schooled in science and yet open minded to other ways of knowing, here. Re: the question, what's it going to take for science to acknowledge psi, PsychoticAdvisor hit the nail on the head. My joining of the IONS site comes from the spiritual/intuitive side. I have friends who consider themselves scientists of sorts who seem to be completely and entirely clueless about what it is like to have a psi experience, or to believe that there could be a force (god or otherwise) in the universe other than human beings on planet Earth. Reading all of your comments, I feel elated to hear/see others who are not threatened by the idea that science is only one way of knowing. MarcusTAnthony, you are so right about how hard it is to get people away from technology! Anyway, I just wanted you all to know that. I have had psi experiences, telepathic dreams, and more subtle experiences, myself. I really don't feel a *need* to have it explained by science; I tend to see this mostly like theoldman. But thanks for being here to share your great insights, thoughts, and feelings. We need the scientifically adept with "heart" to hopefully protect us all from the scientists who seem so unware of or devoid of connection to the Spirit-that-moves-in-all-things.

  • DyckDyck Feb 14, 2011

    Why do we ask this question? Do I accept reality or truth only if the many concur? And does this make it true? Perhaps the answers you seek are in the blood of the question, not the subject at all.

  • Gretchen Dreisbach Feb 13, 2011

    Thank you Eamonn, (theoldman), for coming back to us and for speaking the truth! Your gentle whisper is a roar in my ears! I salute you and your great amount of wisdom! be well all, love, Gretchen Grace who is not yet invisible but who respects all life and tries very hard to do no harm and who always pays close attention to what Eamonn writes!

  • Theoldman Feb 13, 2011

    The presence or reality of PSI. The personal experiences in my life have taught me that I do not need to prove it's existence - only to learn how to use it - and cause no harm. The ability to shift energy and matter through our consciousness - is the stuff of "gods" and in keeping with that icon - "demons". The danger for a person, is not having these abilities, but being exposed and feared by those who do not have these skills. The challenge living in a life of this understanding, is knowing when you show it to others it changes their lives permanently. The proving of PSI to scientific community reminds me of the dog chasing and biting it's own tail, forgetting how much it hurt the last time the dog forgot it was his own tail. The true quest is not to "perform" PSI attempting to prove it to the scientific and religious schools of consciousness, nor to get caught in the trap of fame, idolatry and riches; the quest is to walk invisibly in this world - silent of your identity knowing it is your effect in humanity, not the cause, that is important.
    Each step a heart beat - each breath a prayer - of respect for all life and do no harm.
    eamonn

  • RedDog Feb 10, 2011

    I think the entanglement between twins was done already Guy. It was positive.
    But, not easy to replicate consistently, hence nobody really takes notice, or rather they are free to ignore the results.
    This statement you quoted seems silly if you think about it.
    ""Anything that turns out not to be successfully treatable with a well-specific and testable model is rather quickly defined (italics) out of physics. When we focus on consciousness ... "
    Why does consciousness need to be defined by a man made activity like math or physics? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

  • Guy Dauncey Feb 09, 2011

    I am currently reading Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, two mainstream physics professors, which is a very honest account of the "skeleton in the closet" that is created by the deeper questions of quantum physics.

    On page 156, they write: "Anything that turns out not to be successfully treatable with a well-specific and testable model is rather quickly defined (italics) out of physics. When we focus on consciousness ... we offer no such model - no-one has ever come up with one. Until one is developed, consciousness won't qualify for study as physics."

    We have done well at proposing various field theories - but they remain unspecific and untestable. For science to distinguish between the Akashic Field (Laszlo) the Zero Point Field (for instance), and the Flying Spaghetti Field, there needs to be something testable.

    Having just read Guy Playfair's book Twin Telepathy, and it is very clear that they share a common field of consciousness, of which they are occasionally conscious. The supposition would be that we all share in the same field, but that for most of us it is almost always unconscious and very weak, hence very hard to demonstrate in a replicable experiment.

    I wonder if it would be possible to set up an experiment involving identical twins who have shown repeated telepathic abilities, giving them isolated but simultaneous fMRI brain scans. One twin is exposed to a sudden and unexpected shock, such as a loud noise, creating a measurable simultaneous brain response in the other twin. The merit of the MRI is that it can show where the brain response happens, enabling the researchers to focus on a specific area of the brain which responds to the field. If such evidence were attainable, I think that most neuroscientists would sit up immediately, and pay great attention.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Inquisitivegirl Feb 08, 2011

    First of all there needs to be psi experiments done in which the the results are very clear and don't require high numbers of participants and result "massaging". Anyone who has performed statistical analysis on large groups of data knows what I mean when I mean "massaging". Someone might say, well these are the same approaches used in psychological studies etc. The unfortunate thing about doing research on topics that lies outside the present dogma is that you are held to a higher standard. This is true in all areas of science, so psi researchers shouldn't feel personally slighted. Once there is statistically significant data on a relatively small group (30?...not 1000s) then there needs to be the development of a good hypothesis. Whether that hypothesis is testable or not currently is not important but a move in the right direction....a step beyond the hand waving that says " We observe it so it happens, anyone who doesn't believe us is ignorant and blind and refuses to see the truth". I have read alot of those kinds of comments on the board which aren't very productive.
    Another step to take would be to try and assemble people in the mainstream scientific community who have personal experience with psi phenomena...who could sit down with psi researchers and discuss this topic, maybe something productive could come from such a meeting.

  • Labbate Feb 06, 2011

    Interesting what you say about the olfactory to the pineal. I've studied remote viewing a bit, and had the strangest (very surprising) experience. I was assigned a target to view (the target assigned is given as a numerical sequence so there are no preconceived notions) and during the process, I actually smelled the target event. I noted the perception as "animal smells, probably horses" and the historical event we were viewing had many horses in it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    PsychoticAdvisor Feb 06, 2011

    It will take a new kind of "mainstream science". There is a brand of scientific chauvinism that borders on religious zealotry. The requirements for something to be accepted in mainstream science are empirical observation and repeatability of experimentation with identical, or at least similar results. Although this tradition has served the scientific community for centuries, it is socially understood that there are other ways to obtain and apply general knowledge. In dealing with any type of psi phenomena, a plethora of problematic obstacles come into play. It strikes me that mainstream science will probably never accept the validity of "evidence" because from a scientific (empirical/objective double blind study) perspective, there is no evidence. If and when some chemist develops a psi enhancing pill that can cause any ordinary subject to repeatedly identify 25 out of 25 hidden Zener cards, then and only then will the scientific community acknowledge some validity. Even then it would be met with great skepticism and years of resistance. This likelihood should not be discouraging to those who would enjoy a different viewpoint or those who choose to attempt to apply psi phenomena to their daily lives. I don't need a periodic table of elements to enjoy the oxygen around me.

  • frequencytuner Feb 05, 2011

    There is no need for this happen. This is like asking why night and day can never occur at the same time. You will find the answer to this in the Sphinx, at the sunrise and sunset of each day.

  • MarcusTAnthony Feb 05, 2011

    Guy Dauncey is spot on. Remember, a majority of ordinary people have no problem with the idea of psi-related experience being genuine. It is dominant science which distances itself from such subject matters. It is a relatively easy matter to gain the personal experinces to confirm phenomena like ESP, clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition and spiritual guidance and so on. The thing is that many trained in modern education systems and science simply won't "visit' those places, nor engage those other ways of knowing required. What will shift things most quickly will be when science develops the technology to identify the mechanisms involved, including whatever forces or energies are in operation.

    Meanwhile research and discussion of these things willl have to continue to occcur outside the mainstream. I live in Hong Kong, and spend much time in China, and I can assure you it is no different here. If anything, mainstream education and science are even more closed off from discussions of such things, unless it is compartmentalised into traditional culture and medicine.

    Modern consumerism and materialism also lend themselves to a focus upon externals and ego gratifications. Again, if anything, East Asia is now worse in this regard. Work, money and technological amusement dominate. One thing I do here is teach people how to reconnect with intuition, and I can tell you it is extremely diffficult to get them to tear themselves away from their mobile phones and computers to take the time to make an inner journey.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Unique Feb 05, 2011

    I have a question.,There is a simple test to proof that a focused mind can influence how many marbles which should distribute according to the normal (or Gaussian) distribution theory and travel through a vertical maze and fall into slots and form a graph or curve which looks like a symmetric hill, when all marbles are poured dead center of the maze. If nobody watches that process, the outcome is the symmetrical hill shape, but if a person sits in front of the maze and concentrates on any slot of the maze and expects to see more marbles in that slot the form of the hill changes. Is that considered psi forces?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Winston Feb 05, 2011

    The question seems to be “How do we bring about a shift in the world-view? The world-view is a belief-set. We each see the world through the filter of our own world-view. With as much as we know about how profoundly the observer affects what they are observing, how is that we still become trapped within our own world-view? This has to do with the nature and structure of human consciousness.

    How did innovative researchers like Freud and Jung come up with such far out ideas and get everyone to buy them? The subconscious, the collective unconscious, archetypes; these are aspects of the consciousness that can never be positively identified and yet, we have still accepted them into our world-view.

    I agree with Guy Dauncey’s idea about more focus on the causal framework and the nature of consciousness. We’re really trying to bridge this relationship between consciousness and what we call Science. The thing that is so fascinating is that it is us, as living consciousnesses that are observing, studying, and focusing on all these aspects of this world we live in, and we call this Science. This goes back to the reality that every scientist can only view the world through the filter of his/her own world view.

    I think we are on the right track. Each of us must continue to engage in our research and experience and continue to share it as best we can. There will be a hundredth monkey, in the meantime we teach it to each other one person at time.

    I love ION’s strong focus and intention toward this shift in our world-view.

    Winston Hampton, M.A.
    Great Barrington, Ma

  • acorn Feb 05, 2011

    I think any breakthrough will come from Asian medicine, specifically focusing on acupuncture, chi, and the chakral centres and nadis.

  • Anonymous Icon

    pquinnphd Feb 05, 2011

    Further research is warranted.

    I will remain skeptical as long as the evidence is based on large sample statistics. If studies using single subject designs can demonstrate control of a dependent variable by a well defined independent variable in reproducible experiments, I will be "persuaded". Then, if there is a practical application I will be enthusiastic.

    However, a tenet of all science is philosophic doubt; by persuaded I only mean there is persuasive evidence. I don't "believe" anything.

    IMJ: If your position on this issue is based on your belief (either for or against, pro or con, etc.) then you are looking for reassurance rather than the truth. (You can determine that your position is based on belief, if you have a compelling and emotional need to defend it, whatever it is.)

    I am a behavior analyst by trade, so even mainstream psychological studies using statistics don't do that much for me.

  • Larry Davis Feb 04, 2011

    every one plesae read purposeful universe carl calleman

  • RedDog Feb 04, 2011

    They will not accept it.
    Never.
    What the five senses revel are all they can capture and dissect.
    How can one explain to a blind mind the concept of color??
    It is a waste of both time and energy.

  • Abhijith Feb 04, 2011

    Also as Larry Davis said , http://www.ritualgoddess.com/the2012vortex/?tag=mayan-calendar
    we are approaching the end of one era and opening another.
    So no one could stop us from unleashing these knowledge portals of self realization.

  • Abhijith Feb 04, 2011

    I believe that , despite what Mr.Guy Dauncey had pointed out, the science environment will be ready to accept the intriguing psi phenomenon.
    Noetics has proved to the mainstream scientists that there is no point in staying blind to the arousing interest in untold and untapped fields which were considered humbug or foolish by them in the past. Especially when considering the history , that most of the scientific milestones were inspired from ideas like these.For example say, the Robots.

  • mysticmuse Feb 04, 2011

    My thoughts in another part of the site may relate to this theme:

    http://noetic.org/discussions/extended-human-capacities/5/#comment_1450

    Best of All,

    James

  • Guy Dauncey Feb 04, 2011

    If (if...) all existence is conscious, then every neuron and synapse in the brain possesses some form of proto-consciousness; from this perspective, psi occurrences would not happen "to" the pineal gland or the amygdala; but these might well be the neuro-sensory organs that convey the entangled psi experience to the consciousness, via the olfactory nerve.

    Is there a way to switch olfactory nerve off?

    If so, = it would be possible to test psi transference by creating a test,= using identical twins with known psi aptitudes, and monitoring brain function during a thought resonance experiment, first with and then "without" the olfactory nerve.
    -Guy

  • Guy Dauncey Feb 04, 2011

    II do not think the scientific mainstream will not accept the psi data until it is accompanied by is a credible hypothesis with regard to cause.

    Physics accepts string theory with no evidence, because it relates to existing quantum and relativity theories. Most psi data, on the other hand, comes in like a rude and difficult uncle at a polite and charming tea-party.

    Most humans don’t actually want to know the full truth. We want just enough truth to create a mental comfort zone, and once we have found it, we are very resistant to having it disturbed.

    Without a psi theory that relates to the existing framework of physics, the new data is too uncomfortable; it means throwing away too much hard-won work. For a career physicist, the psi data say the foundations of physics are flawed and about to collapse - taking your life’s work with it. It is only obscure patent-office clerks who can tackle the foundations with fear of career collapse.

    This tells me that we should devote more attention to fitting the data into a credible framework; I find it exciting that quantum theory’s entanglement work opens the door to just this possibility. I have just finished reading Guy Playfair’s Twin Telepathy. He lays out clear indisputable evidence for telepathy among young, extraverted identical twins, and ties it to entanglement.

    Maybe we need to devote less attention to evidence of psi, and more to the causal framework and the nature of consciousness. If telepathy between twins and entanglement between particles operate in a similar manner, maybe we need to be examining entanglement more closely, and asking how it relates to consciousness, exploring the premise that all matter is possessed of proto-consciousness, right down to the atomic and particle level.

    If we can demonstrate entanglement between identical twins, can we also demonstrate it between slime moulds? Bacteria? Proteins? This way, we can take it down closer to the micro-level where entanglement is known to work.

    I have also just read Jeremy Narcher’s Intelligence in Nature, exploring evidence of intelligence in primates, birds, insects, plants, slime moulds, and bacteria.

    Could we take this right down to the neuron and the synapses, and work with neuroscientists to explore in far greater detail what happens in the brains of identical twins at the moment of telepathy, now that we have a reliable way to produce replicable telepathic data and demonstrate brain change at the exact moment of thought resonance?

    Anyway, I’d best get back to my day-job!

    -Guy Dauncey
    Victoria BC
    www.earthfuture.com

  • Anonymous Icon

    William Page Feb 04, 2011

    I believe the only way to convince the scientific community is to discover the "Holy Grail" of neuroscience. I refer to it as the Neurophysiolgic Basis of Spirituality. Idea is that for external events to alter cortical processing (ie. thoughts), the external events need to be transformed into a neural code (transduction). We need to find where "6th sense" transduction occurs. My hypothesis is the maxillary sinuses. The pathway into the cortex will likely be a very fundamental pathway common to all animals. My bet is the olfactory nerve to the pineal gland ... to the amygdala.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS