Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area ...
Comments
Last year, whilst travelling slowly (20mph) in traffic, I suddenly stepped on the brake. As I did so, a girl walked out in front of my car. She'd have been hurt if I hadn't already braked for no apparent reason.
Since then, I wouldn't go so far as to assert 'presentiment' although it's one of many occurrences over the years that left an uneasy feeling of 'something more' at work.
Maybe because of these perceived incidents, I can entertain the idea that we exist in the immediate present and past. If so, perhaps we also exist, to varying extents, in our immediate futures.
Do you know if the Tressoldi, Utts, Mossbridge presentiment meta-analysis has been published yet or is it still in press?
Regards,
Michael.
You should extract the part of the google lecture on YouTube that deals with that kind of presentiment experiment. I've shown it to several skeptical, as opposed to "skeptical" people, I know and they've had to agree that the results couldn't be explained any other way than as confirming the existence of the presentiment.
What is your take on Persinger's theory that low frequency electromagnetic waves are the means for the transfer of telepathic and clairvoyant information?
BTW, you can link directly to a timed spot in youtube video by putting the following after the URL-address:
&t=XXmYYs
where XX=cue spot in minutes
and YY = cue spot seconds
So for example, the spot for the Sixth Sense episode 05 goes like this:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TiFY-lmaKa4&t=31m42s
I seemed to have missed this episode of "Through the Wormhole."
Fascinating.
It's great to see this information presented to mainstream audiences.
I have a question. Do you think "blindsight" can explain how we receive clairvoyant images in the mind's eye?
I feel there must be connection...
Could I ask you a general question about clairvoyance? I am totally conviced about the reality of this ability, but don't know exactly how to figure out how it works.
Whith telepaty, I have no big problem accepting the solution that consciousness is a non-lokal phenomenon, and therefore telepathy seems quite reasonable - all our minds are connected in the collective field of consciousness.
But telepathy is contact in mind between minds. With clairvoyance, it is different - appearantly. When a clairvoyant person localizes say a lost object at the bottom of the sea, there seems to be no place - no mind - where this information was stored. Even if mind is non-local, which it most probably is, and therefore is in some respect present also at the sea-bottom, the information about the whereabouts of the lost object has still to be "uploaded" into our collective mind - in the form of someone seeing it, f.eks. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how the clairvoyant person should get in any sort of contact with the object.
I hope you can explain!
Best regards
Terry
http://barenormality.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/attention-double-slit/
I publish my work in peer-reviewed journals. If someone has something to say, then let him or her publish their thoughts in the same journal.
In the article linked above, the author states that psi-related research does not get published in mainstream scientific journals because such research is not conducted rigorously, employ flawed methodology, etc. In other words, psi research does not meet the strict inclusion criteria that mainstream scientific journals demand.
Isn't it true that certain mainstream journals specifically refuse to even consider any submission that includes psi-related words/terms in the text?