Just catching up on all the posts and messages I've missed!
Hope everyone is doing alright??
Hope everyone is doing alright??
Merkabah
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
Same - I’m not attracted to the more negative or cynical sorts of skepticism, but very much to the positive sort. Keeping an open mind, suspending belief in order to see where ideas lead, knowing that all our knowledge is relative - being always open to new insights.
Thanks. Yes I’m a lot better now apart from a slight residual cough. I hope you are managing to keep your head above water. A mild dose of flu is nothing compared to what you cope with.
Have a great evening
Much love
I'm the same for the most part....it's very easy to tear anything down in a negative way, but to really be a skeptic you have to think of all possibilities, even those we don't personally prefer or like.
I agree that that is the way toward gaining more knowledge...I find what you say and my own thoughts on it make the most sense to me - as it IS relative.
Good to hear John!
Same stuff here, different day, lol.
I fucking hate that I feel the way I do, but I've accepted it is what it is and that takes a great weight off my shoulders actually....though that is exactly what is hurting so bad lately, lmao!
Damn muscle spasms...almost impossible to break apart they get really hard in there!
I have a crystal ball of hematite and pyrite that is the perfect size to roll around on them and crunch them apart...it hurts like hell, but it works!
Better than a neck full of rocks!
And meditation of course helps....I was just reading a study that confirmed this fact about muscle spasms and meditation.
I got this.
Glad all is well otherwise!
You're always such a gentleman John.
Much love!
We really do live in exciting times. I'm looking forward to what will happen if I'm lucky to be part of it.
Love the metaphor! We are often both receivers and producers, or even just plain media for something to go through, but I can see how the being producer part is recently a bit too over emphasized in comparison to the receiving/filtering/interpreting part of the "mobile interpersonal connecting".
To be fair the hug was also sort of "drawing away pain". I can imagine this with physical pain as well..hmhh digging the self-healing propperties here.
Much love to you too!
Teenagers are like that...haha...man I was really angsty looking back...my poor parents lmao!
But yeah, you are right...things are quite different than when I was in HS...we didn't have the proliferation of cell phones in the early 90's...it must be almost a totally different social experience for them.
I think it is becoming more and more accepted as a legitimate phenomena.
There are far more people these days who are publicly admitting they believe in ghosts or other paranormal occasions with less of a social taboo as there used to be.
Yes, I often think of the incredible amount of particles passing through our bodies and brain at any given second...billions of neutrinos...such incredibly large amounts of dark matter/energy we are practically swimming in it - yet we cannot even detect it.
I find no issues with the idea that some kind of signal could pass through such a soup...then if you go extra-dimensional, you lose time and you lose our perspective on distance after we add more dimensions (such as entangles particles reacting simultaneously regardless of distance).
Perhaps the soup IS consciousness...perhaps it is the "collective consciousness"...there could be entire worlds passing through us and we wouldn't know it necessarily if they existed in the undetectable melange of stuff.
If time is also relative and subjective, then such particles passing by our own could exchange all kinds of information even though neutrinos are said to travel at almost the speed of light (some say faster in certain instances).
We don't even know that things traveling in dark matter/energy are restricted by the speed of light at all...they may very well go double or 10000000Xs faster!
It's all very speculative...but there are some real phenomena out there!
Such as being stared at...you can feel when someone is looking at you...women have a higher hit rate actually than men, but both in all the studies done have hit rates far beyond chance.
There was even a passage in a US Military spy manual warning those following others or coming up behind someone to kill them NOT to look directly at their target lest they feel your eyes on them and turn around!
I find that fascinating!
Yes...if I remain in focused meditation I can keep really bad pain at bay...it's remaining it that state that can be difficult...especially when you have cats, or a cell phone, or traffic, someone trying to talk to you, etc.
But for the bad stuff...I breathe in cold, anesthetic air....and as I exhale the pain evaporates from whatever part is currently hurting...it works really well for me as my go-to visualization.
Glad that you have your own things you have found that work!
Self love is very important...I feel that some of us as children got the wrong message about self-love/care and selfishness or egocentric behavior as very often it seems that one invokes the other negative response which then kinda defeats the purpose of self-love.
Have a great week and lots of love!
I laughed out loud so hard to this.
Haha. ...still am.
Also... I really like this image. I've always been a *my hand on your heart* fan. But the style and color choice intrigued me.
I looked up more of his artwork.
I really enjoy it.
Wow, cool Brit!!
I hadn't looked up the image artist yet - thanks!
Those are all so cool....I really dig the one with the triangles and the woman in 3 parts!
Glad to give you a good laugh!
Have a wonderful week!
Eh...sooome.
Good to see you man!
Good to see everyone!!
Thought this was a really great article...even if you don't have a chronic illness or pain.
It's very important not to keep our emotions bottled up.
Telling someone to always stay positive is dismissive of that person as well as the range and depth of their emotions.
It's okay to be angry sometimes...to deny yourself is not healthy.
Much love all!
Enjoy!
“Have you considered listing all the positive things happening in your life?” my therapist asked me.
I winced a bit at my therapist’s words.
Not because I thought gratitude for the good in my life was a bad thing, but because it glossed over the complexities of all that I was feeling.
I was talking to her about my chronic illnesses and the way it impacts my depression — and her response felt invalidating, to say the least.
She wasn’t the first person to suggest this to me — not even the first medical professional.
But every time someone suggests positivity as a solution to my pain, it feels like a direct hit to my spirit.
Sitting in her office I began to question myself:
Maybe I do need to be more positive about this?
Maybe I shouldn’t be complaining about these things?
Maybe it isn’t as bad as I think?
Maybe my attitude is making all this worse?
Positivity culture: Because it could be worse, right?
We live in a culture steeped in positivity.
Between memes spouting messages meant to uplift (“Your life only gets better when you get better!” “Negativity: Uninstalling”), online talks extolling the virtues of optimism, and countless self-help books to choose from, we are surrounded by the push to be positive.
We are emotional creatures, capable of experiencing a wide range of feelings.
However, the emotions that are deemed preferable (or even acceptable) are far more limited.
Putting on a happy face and presenting a cheery disposition to the world — even when going through really tough stuff — is applauded.
People who push through hard times with a smile are praised for their bravery and courage.
Conversely, people who express their feelings of frustration, sadness, depression, anger, or grief — all very normal parts of the human experience — are often met with comments of “it could be worse” or “maybe it would help to change your attitude about it.”
This positivity culture transfers over to assumptions about our health, too.
We’re told that if we have a good attitude, we will heal faster.
Or, if we’re sick, it’s because of some negativity we put out into the world and we need to be more conscious of our energy.
It becomes our job, as sick people, to make ourselves well through our positivity, or at the very least to have a perpetually good attitude about the things we’re going through — even if that means hiding what we’re truly feeling.
I admit that I have bought into many of these ideas.
I’ve read the books and learned about the secret to manifesting good into my life, to not to sweat the small stuff, and how to be a badass.
I’ve attended lectures about visualizing all I want into existence and listened to podcasts about choosing happiness.
For the most part I see the good in things and people, look for the silver lining in unpleasant situations, and see the glass as half full.
But, despite all that, I’m still sick.
I still have days where I feel most every emotion in the book except for the positive ones.
And I need that to be okay.
Chronic illness can’t always be met with a smile
While positivity culture is intended to be uplifting and helpful, for those of us dealing with disabilities and chronic illness, it can be detrimental.
When I’m on day three of a flare-up — when I can’t do anything but cry and rock because the meds can’t touch the pain, when the noise of the clock in the next room feels excruciating, and the cat’s fur against my skin hurts — I find myself at a loss.
I’m grappling with both the symptoms of my chronic illnesses, as well as guilt and feelings of failure associated with the ways I’ve internalized the messages of positivity culture.
And in that way, people with chronic illnesses like mine just can’t win.
In a culture that demands we face chronic illness inauthentically, we’re asked to deny our own humanity by concealing our pain with a “can-do” attitude and a smile.
Positivity culture can often be weaponized as a way of blaming people with chronic illnesses for their struggles, which many of us go on to internalize.
More times than I can count, I’ve questioned myself.
Did I bring this on myself?
Am I just having a bad outlook?
If I’d meditated more, said more kind things to myself, or thought more positive thoughts, would I still be here in this bed right now?
When I then check my Facebook and a friend has posted a meme about the power of a positive attitude, or when I see my therapist and she tells me to list the good things in my life, these feelings of self-doubt and self-blame are just reinforced.
‘Not fit for human consumption’
Chronic illness is already a very isolating thing, with most people not understanding what you’re going through, and all the time spent in bed or homebound.
And the truth is, positivity culture adds to the isolation of chronic illness, magnifying it.
I often worry that if I express the reality of what I’m going through — if I talk about being in pain, or if I say how frustrated I am at having to stay in bed — that I’ll be judged.
I’ve had others say to me before that “It’s no fun to talk to you when you’re always complaining about your health,” while still others have remarked that me and my illnesses were “too much to handle.”
On my worst days, I started to pull back from people.
I’d keep quiet and not let anyone know what I was going through, except for those closest to me, like my partner and child.
Even to them, though, I’d jokingly say that I wasn’t “fit for human consumption,” trying to maintain some humor while also letting them know it may be best to just leave me alone.
Truthfully, I felt shame about the negative emotional state I was in.
I’d internalized the messages of positivity culture.
On days where my symptoms are especially severe, I don’t have the ability to put on a “happy face” or gloss over the things going on with me.
I learned to hide my anger, grief, and hopelessness.
And I held onto the idea that my “negativity” made me a burden, instead of a human being.
We are allowed to be authentically ourselves
Last week, I was lying in bed in the early afternoon — lights off, curled up in a ball with tears quietly running down my face.
I was hurting, and I was depressed about hurting, especially when I thought about being bed-bound on a day I’d had so much planned.
But there was a shift that happened for me, ever so subtle, when my partner walked in to check on me and asked me what I needed.
They listened as I told them all the things I was feeling and held me as I cried.
When they left, I didn’t feel so alone, and even though I was still hurting and feeling low, it somehow felt more manageable.
That moment acted as an important reminder.
The times when I tend to isolate are also the times that I actually need my loved ones around me the most — when what I want, more than anything, is to be able to be honest about how I’m really feeling.
Sometimes all I really want to do is have a good cry and complain to someone about how hard this is — someone to just sit with me and witness what I’m going through.
I don’t want to have to be positive, nor do I want someone to encourage me to change my attitude.
I just want to be able to express my full range of emotions, to be open and raw, and have that be totally okay.
I’m still working on slowly unravelling the messages that positivity culture has ingrained in me.
I still have to consciously remind myself that it’s normal and perfectly okay to not be optimistic all the time.
What I’ve come to realize, though, is that I am my most healthy self — both physically and emotionally — when I give myself permission to feel the full spectrum of emotions, and surround myself with people who support me in that.
This culture of relentless positivity won’t change overnight.
But it’s my hope that, the next time a therapist or a well-meaning friend asks me to look at the positive, I’ll find the courage to name what I need.
Because every one of us, especially when we’re struggling, deserves to have the full spectrum of our emotions and experiences witnessed — and that doesn’t make us a burden.
That makes us human.
It's very important not to keep our emotions bottled up.
Telling someone to always stay positive is dismissive of that person as well as the range and depth of their emotions.
It's okay to be angry sometimes...to deny yourself is not healthy.
Much love all!
Enjoy!
‘Stay Positive’ Isn’t Good Advice for Chronically Ill People.
Here’s Why
Here’s Why
“Have you considered listing all the positive things happening in your life?” my therapist asked me.
I winced a bit at my therapist’s words.
Not because I thought gratitude for the good in my life was a bad thing, but because it glossed over the complexities of all that I was feeling.
I was talking to her about my chronic illnesses and the way it impacts my depression — and her response felt invalidating, to say the least.
She wasn’t the first person to suggest this to me — not even the first medical professional.
But every time someone suggests positivity as a solution to my pain, it feels like a direct hit to my spirit.
Sitting in her office I began to question myself:
Maybe I do need to be more positive about this?
Maybe I shouldn’t be complaining about these things?
Maybe it isn’t as bad as I think?
Maybe my attitude is making all this worse?
Positivity culture: Because it could be worse, right?
We live in a culture steeped in positivity.
Between memes spouting messages meant to uplift (“Your life only gets better when you get better!” “Negativity: Uninstalling”), online talks extolling the virtues of optimism, and countless self-help books to choose from, we are surrounded by the push to be positive.
We are emotional creatures, capable of experiencing a wide range of feelings.
However, the emotions that are deemed preferable (or even acceptable) are far more limited.
Putting on a happy face and presenting a cheery disposition to the world — even when going through really tough stuff — is applauded.
People who push through hard times with a smile are praised for their bravery and courage.
Conversely, people who express their feelings of frustration, sadness, depression, anger, or grief — all very normal parts of the human experience — are often met with comments of “it could be worse” or “maybe it would help to change your attitude about it.”
This positivity culture transfers over to assumptions about our health, too.
We’re told that if we have a good attitude, we will heal faster.
Or, if we’re sick, it’s because of some negativity we put out into the world and we need to be more conscious of our energy.
It becomes our job, as sick people, to make ourselves well through our positivity, or at the very least to have a perpetually good attitude about the things we’re going through — even if that means hiding what we’re truly feeling.
I admit that I have bought into many of these ideas.
I’ve read the books and learned about the secret to manifesting good into my life, to not to sweat the small stuff, and how to be a badass.
I’ve attended lectures about visualizing all I want into existence and listened to podcasts about choosing happiness.
For the most part I see the good in things and people, look for the silver lining in unpleasant situations, and see the glass as half full.
But, despite all that, I’m still sick.
I still have days where I feel most every emotion in the book except for the positive ones.
And I need that to be okay.
Chronic illness can’t always be met with a smile
While positivity culture is intended to be uplifting and helpful, for those of us dealing with disabilities and chronic illness, it can be detrimental.
When I’m on day three of a flare-up — when I can’t do anything but cry and rock because the meds can’t touch the pain, when the noise of the clock in the next room feels excruciating, and the cat’s fur against my skin hurts — I find myself at a loss.
I’m grappling with both the symptoms of my chronic illnesses, as well as guilt and feelings of failure associated with the ways I’ve internalized the messages of positivity culture.
And in that way, people with chronic illnesses like mine just can’t win.
In a culture that demands we face chronic illness inauthentically, we’re asked to deny our own humanity by concealing our pain with a “can-do” attitude and a smile.
Positivity culture can often be weaponized as a way of blaming people with chronic illnesses for their struggles, which many of us go on to internalize.
More times than I can count, I’ve questioned myself.
Did I bring this on myself?
Am I just having a bad outlook?
If I’d meditated more, said more kind things to myself, or thought more positive thoughts, would I still be here in this bed right now?
When I then check my Facebook and a friend has posted a meme about the power of a positive attitude, or when I see my therapist and she tells me to list the good things in my life, these feelings of self-doubt and self-blame are just reinforced.
‘Not fit for human consumption’
Chronic illness is already a very isolating thing, with most people not understanding what you’re going through, and all the time spent in bed or homebound.
And the truth is, positivity culture adds to the isolation of chronic illness, magnifying it.
I often worry that if I express the reality of what I’m going through — if I talk about being in pain, or if I say how frustrated I am at having to stay in bed — that I’ll be judged.
I’ve had others say to me before that “It’s no fun to talk to you when you’re always complaining about your health,” while still others have remarked that me and my illnesses were “too much to handle.”
On my worst days, I started to pull back from people.
I’d keep quiet and not let anyone know what I was going through, except for those closest to me, like my partner and child.
Even to them, though, I’d jokingly say that I wasn’t “fit for human consumption,” trying to maintain some humor while also letting them know it may be best to just leave me alone.
Truthfully, I felt shame about the negative emotional state I was in.
I’d internalized the messages of positivity culture.
On days where my symptoms are especially severe, I don’t have the ability to put on a “happy face” or gloss over the things going on with me.
I learned to hide my anger, grief, and hopelessness.
And I held onto the idea that my “negativity” made me a burden, instead of a human being.
We are allowed to be authentically ourselves
Last week, I was lying in bed in the early afternoon — lights off, curled up in a ball with tears quietly running down my face.
I was hurting, and I was depressed about hurting, especially when I thought about being bed-bound on a day I’d had so much planned.
But there was a shift that happened for me, ever so subtle, when my partner walked in to check on me and asked me what I needed.
They listened as I told them all the things I was feeling and held me as I cried.
When they left, I didn’t feel so alone, and even though I was still hurting and feeling low, it somehow felt more manageable.
That moment acted as an important reminder.
The times when I tend to isolate are also the times that I actually need my loved ones around me the most — when what I want, more than anything, is to be able to be honest about how I’m really feeling.
Sometimes all I really want to do is have a good cry and complain to someone about how hard this is — someone to just sit with me and witness what I’m going through.
I don’t want to have to be positive, nor do I want someone to encourage me to change my attitude.
I just want to be able to express my full range of emotions, to be open and raw, and have that be totally okay.
I’m still working on slowly unravelling the messages that positivity culture has ingrained in me.
I still have to consciously remind myself that it’s normal and perfectly okay to not be optimistic all the time.
What I’ve come to realize, though, is that I am my most healthy self — both physically and emotionally — when I give myself permission to feel the full spectrum of emotions, and surround myself with people who support me in that.
This culture of relentless positivity won’t change overnight.
But it’s my hope that, the next time a therapist or a well-meaning friend asks me to look at the positive, I’ll find the courage to name what I need.
Because every one of us, especially when we’re struggling, deserves to have the full spectrum of our emotions and experiences witnessed — and that doesn’t make us a burden.
That makes us human.
Last edited:
In case you need more convincing...
by Steve Taylor
When I write articles explaining why I’m open-minded about the existence of psi phenomena (i.e. parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena), I usually receive many positive comments from readers who have had psi experiences (e.g. precognitive dreams or telepathic experiences) and are pleased that an academic is taking the topic seriously.
However, there are also usually a few sceptical comments, with questions like “if the evidence for these phenomena is there, why don’t we know about it?
If the evidence really exists, why do most scientists still reject the possibility of psi?”
This is quite a common viewpoint.
Many people assume that science is an open, objective enterprise and that scientists will gladly update and revise their views when presented with sufficient evidence.
And I would say that in most areas, science does operate in that way.
But unfortunately, the field of psi is often an exception.
Materialism as a Belief System
There is a prevailing worldview associated with science, and with modern western secular culture in general.
This worldview (or belief system) could be described as ‘materialism’ and is based on the principle that matter is the essential reality of the world, and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of the interactions of material particles.
According to this worldview, consciousness is produced by neurological activity, and our mental activity (thoughts, memories, feelings of love or happiness etc.) is the result of brain functioning.
Psychological problems can be explained in terms of neurological problems (hence the belief that they can be corrected with psychoactive drugs).
Another tenet of materialism is that human beings are essentially genetic machines, living in separation to one another, and the survival and replication of our genes is the main motivation of our behavior.
This belief system also denies the possibility of psi phenomena.
Telepathy cannot be possible because it suggests that human beings are not separate, that our minds are not just enclosed inside our heads, so that we are able to sense each other thoughts and intentions without communicating directly.
Precognition suggests that the common sense linear view of time is not correct — in some circumstances, we may able to anticipate or sense future events.
Worldview's or belief systems are important to us.
They give us a sense of orientation, help us to make sense of our lives.
They even give us a sense of control.
Feeling that we understand the world means that we overstand it, with a sense of power.
So findings and theories which contravene a belief system are perceived as threatening.
And this applies to psi phenomena, which are often disregarded out of hand, without being properly evaluated.
The Evidence for Psi
In my view, the evidence for psi is already very convincing.
In recent years, a series of studies showing significant results from psi phenomena have been published in a whole range of major psychology journals.(1)
A number of comprehensive overviews of the evidence have also been published.(2)
Most notably, last year American Psychologist carried an article by Professor Etzel Cardeña entitled “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A Review.”
Cardeña showed clearly that the evidence for phenomena like telepathy, precognition and clairvoyance has proven so significant and consistent over a massive range of difference experiments that it cannot simply be explained away in terms of fraud, the “file drawer” effect (when researchers don’t bother to publish negative results) or poor methodology.
Cardeña also showed that there is no reason at all to take the view that these phenomena break the laws of science, science they are compatible with many of the theories and findings of quantum physics (which is why many quantum physicists have been open to their existence.)
I don’t have space to include many specific examples of evidence here, but here are a couple.
A meta-analysis of more than three thousand Ganzfeld trials that took place from 1974 to 2004 had a combined ‘hit rate’ of 32 per cent.
A seven percent higher than chance rate may not seem so impressive, but over such a large number of experiments, this equates to odds of thousands of trillions to one—and a figure far too significant to explained in terms of the file drawer effect.(3)
In addition, in Ganzfeld experiments that have been undertaken with creative people, there has been a significantly higher than normal rate of success.
In 128 Ganzfeld sessions with artistically gifted students at the University of Edinburgh, a 47% success rate was obtained, with odds of 140 million to one.(4)
Similarly, in a session with undergraduates from the Juilliard school of performing arts, the students achieved a hit rate of 50%.(5)
Another study primarily with musicians had a 41% success rate.(6) (These findings are very interesting because they clearly indicate a link between creativity and psi ability.)
It is not surprising that, as the statistician Jessica Utts has stated, “using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established”.(7)
Even the prominent skeptic Ray Hyman admitted at an earlier stage in his career that the research findings on psi “do seem to indicate that something beyond odd statistical hiccups is taking place.
I also have to admit that I do not have ready explanation for these observed effects.”.(8)
So if the evidence is significant, why hasn’t it received a warm welcome by academics and scientists?
Why do so many members of the intellectual and academic community still refuse to take psi seriously?
Explaining Results Away
First of all, it’s important to point out that psi isn’t rejected by all scientists.
The evidence for psi—together the theoretical possibility of its existence — has convinced some more open-minded scientists, who weren’t so in thrall to the paradigm of materialism. (Such as Alan Turing, Marie Curie, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Eugene Wigner and JJ Thompson, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, John Stewart Bell, and many others too numerous to mention.).
Sadly though, the evidence for psi is all too often rejected out of hand.
For example, In 2011, the eminent psychologist Daryl Bem — at the present time, professor emeritus at Cornell University — published a paper called ‘Feeling the Future’ in a prestigious academic journal, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
The paper described the results of nine experiments involving more than 1000 participants, eight of which showed significant evidence for precognition. Across a variety of different procedures, Bem found that his participants seemed to be able to ‘intuit’ information before it appeared.
In a simple example, they were shown a pair of curtains on a computer screen, and asked to click on the curtain where they thought an image would be.
At that point an image was randomly generated, and equally likely to appear behind either of the curtains.
It was found that a significant number of the participants chose the correct curtain.
And since no image was actually there at the time the participants chose, this was seen as evidence of presentiment.(9)
However, prominent skeptics of psi phenomena were outraged, and ridiculed Bem’s findings.
Ray Hyman described the results as “pure craziness … an embarrassment for the entire field.”
The physicist Robert Park called it “a waste of time … it leads the public off into strange directions that will be unproductive.”
The science journalist Jim Schnabel characterized these responses as an attempt to “suppress the findings of a scientific colleague because his findings threatened his reality”.(10)
Even worse, there are cases of researchers changing the methodology of experiments as a way of nullifying positive results.
In 2005, researchers at Notre Dame University conducted a series of eight Ganzfeld experiments, which found a highly significant overall ‘hit rate’ of 32%.
The researchers admitted that, as skeptics, this result made them feel ‘uncomfortable’, since it came ‘precariously close to demonstrating that humans do have psychic powers’.(11)
Seemingly spooked by this, the researchers quickly developed a further experiment, where they matched up individuals who had ‘hits’ during the previous eight experiments.
For some strange reason, these pairs produced the highly significant negative result of a 13% hit rate (significantly lower than the 25% chance rate). Encouraged by this negative result, the researchers claimed that it invalidated the previous eight experiments, and concluded that they had found evidence that telepathy did not exist!
Similarly, there was a great deal of controversy when the skeptical psi researcher Richard Wiseman attempted to replicate an experiment by Rupert Sheldrake which appeared to show that a dog responded psychically when its owner was on the way home.
According to the methodology used by Sheldrake, Wiseman’s four experiments actually yielded a more positive result than Sheldrake’s — the dog sat by the window 78% of the time that its owner was traveling home, compared to 4% during the rest of her absence.
(In Sheldrake’s experiments, it was 55%, compared to 4% during the rest of the owner’s absence).(12)
That would seem to be a successful replication of Sheldrake’s experiments.
However, Wiseman chose to use a different criterion of success: Jaytee (the dog) had to go to sit by the window at the exact moment that her owner set off home.
If she went to the window before this, it would mean that she had failed.
And not surprisingly, by this criterion, the experiments were judged to be unsuccessful and bizarrely reported by the UK mass media as proof that Jaytee — and dogs in general — do not have psychic powers.
Cognitive Dissonance
This shows that it’s always possible to explain away evidence if you don’t like it. If you are strongly attached to a belief system, any evidence that seems to contradict it creates cognitive dissonance, which in turn generates an impulse to ‘bury’ that evidence.
Most frequently, this means performing bizarre and highly irrational cognitive contortions, such as when creationists try to explain the existence of fossils by saying that they were put there by God to test our faith (or by Satan to tempt us into unbelief) or when skeptics rejig the methodology of experiments to try to convince themselves that significant results have not occurred.
There is an interesting example of the effect of cognitive dissonance — and the powerful grip of existing beliefs in the face of strong evidence — from the psychologist Susan Blackmore, who spent several years as a psi researcher.
One day Blackmore was asked to witness an experiment on telepathy with young children.
With admirable candor, she explained her reactions when the results turned out to be positive:
“[T]he children did very well. They really seemed to be getting the right picture more often than chance would predict. I began to get excited; even frightened. Was this really ESP happening right in front of my eyes? Or was there an alternative explanation?.…Somehow I just couldn’t accept that this was psi, and I was to go on arguing about the method used in future years. Was is just perversity? A refusal to accept my own failures? A deep fear of psi? Whatever it was, it led me into constant confusion”.(13)
This is a very revealing passage.
Blackmore is describing a state of cognitive dissonance — the confusion of facing evidence that conflicts with one’s beliefs and the anxiety that arises when one’s worldview is threatened.
This is probably very close to the anxiety that church leaders felt when they were confronted with scientific evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the Solar System.
Blackmore is honest enough to analyze her cognitive dissonance and question why she was unable to accept the evidence.
(Skarekrow - Blackmore STILL has cognitive dissonance)
Another excellent description of cognitive dissonance comes from the psychiatrist Elizabeth Mayer.
Originally skeptical about psi, she began to change her attitude after a dowser managed to locate her daughter’s stolen harp.
After hearing about the significant findings of the Ganzfeld studies, she volunteered herself as a participant.
She acted as a ‘receiver,’ and describes her reaction when found she was able to pick out the images she had been sent:
“I felt the tiniest instant of overwhelming fear. It was gone in a flash but it was stunningly real. It was unlike any fear I’ve ever felt. My mind split. I realized that I knew something I was simultaneously certain that I didn’t know….The feeling was terrifying. My mind had slipped out from under me and the world felt out of control….I recovered quickly and launched in on logical explanations.”(14)
Realizing that the results couldn’t be accounted for by coincidence, Mayer began to revise her views about reality, which led to her developing her own Freudian-based theory of why skeptics are so resistant to evidence for psi.
This is a good example of the open-mindedness and flexibility which scientists should ideally possess.
Mayer’s conclusion was that skeptics have a deep unconscious fear that their beliefs may be wrong, and this is undoubtedly true.
As I mentioned earlier, belief systems have an important psychological function, which means that we are understandably reluctant to relinquish them.
But if it means anything, open-mindedness means having the courage to face and accept evidence that undermines our beliefs.
It means having the courage to accept that our beliefs may be based on assumptions rather than facts, and that our prejudices may be based on a psychological impulse to protect our beliefs.
It means having the courage to accept that the world may be stranger and more complex than we had previously thought.
My feeling is that — with the publication of papers like Cardeña’s — more open-mindedness is developing towards psi phenomena.
I think more and more scientists and academics are beginning to realize that the evidence for them is so significant that it cannot simply be explained away.
And this is to be welcomed, since it is in the true spirit of science.
When I write articles explaining why I’m open-minded about the existence of psi phenomena (i.e. parapsychological or psychic faculties or phenomena), I usually receive many positive comments from readers who have had psi experiences (e.g. precognitive dreams or telepathic experiences) and are pleased that an academic is taking the topic seriously.
However, there are also usually a few sceptical comments, with questions like “if the evidence for these phenomena is there, why don’t we know about it?
If the evidence really exists, why do most scientists still reject the possibility of psi?”
This is quite a common viewpoint.
Many people assume that science is an open, objective enterprise and that scientists will gladly update and revise their views when presented with sufficient evidence.
And I would say that in most areas, science does operate in that way.
But unfortunately, the field of psi is often an exception.
Materialism as a Belief System
There is a prevailing worldview associated with science, and with modern western secular culture in general.
This worldview (or belief system) could be described as ‘materialism’ and is based on the principle that matter is the essential reality of the world, and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of the interactions of material particles.
According to this worldview, consciousness is produced by neurological activity, and our mental activity (thoughts, memories, feelings of love or happiness etc.) is the result of brain functioning.
Psychological problems can be explained in terms of neurological problems (hence the belief that they can be corrected with psychoactive drugs).
Another tenet of materialism is that human beings are essentially genetic machines, living in separation to one another, and the survival and replication of our genes is the main motivation of our behavior.
This belief system also denies the possibility of psi phenomena.
Telepathy cannot be possible because it suggests that human beings are not separate, that our minds are not just enclosed inside our heads, so that we are able to sense each other thoughts and intentions without communicating directly.
Precognition suggests that the common sense linear view of time is not correct — in some circumstances, we may able to anticipate or sense future events.
Worldview's or belief systems are important to us.
They give us a sense of orientation, help us to make sense of our lives.
They even give us a sense of control.
Feeling that we understand the world means that we overstand it, with a sense of power.
So findings and theories which contravene a belief system are perceived as threatening.
And this applies to psi phenomena, which are often disregarded out of hand, without being properly evaluated.
The Evidence for Psi
In my view, the evidence for psi is already very convincing.
In recent years, a series of studies showing significant results from psi phenomena have been published in a whole range of major psychology journals.(1)
A number of comprehensive overviews of the evidence have also been published.(2)
Most notably, last year American Psychologist carried an article by Professor Etzel Cardeña entitled “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A Review.”
Cardeña showed clearly that the evidence for phenomena like telepathy, precognition and clairvoyance has proven so significant and consistent over a massive range of difference experiments that it cannot simply be explained away in terms of fraud, the “file drawer” effect (when researchers don’t bother to publish negative results) or poor methodology.
Cardeña also showed that there is no reason at all to take the view that these phenomena break the laws of science, science they are compatible with many of the theories and findings of quantum physics (which is why many quantum physicists have been open to their existence.)
I don’t have space to include many specific examples of evidence here, but here are a couple.
A meta-analysis of more than three thousand Ganzfeld trials that took place from 1974 to 2004 had a combined ‘hit rate’ of 32 per cent.
A seven percent higher than chance rate may not seem so impressive, but over such a large number of experiments, this equates to odds of thousands of trillions to one—and a figure far too significant to explained in terms of the file drawer effect.(3)
In addition, in Ganzfeld experiments that have been undertaken with creative people, there has been a significantly higher than normal rate of success.
In 128 Ganzfeld sessions with artistically gifted students at the University of Edinburgh, a 47% success rate was obtained, with odds of 140 million to one.(4)
Similarly, in a session with undergraduates from the Juilliard school of performing arts, the students achieved a hit rate of 50%.(5)
Another study primarily with musicians had a 41% success rate.(6) (These findings are very interesting because they clearly indicate a link between creativity and psi ability.)
It is not surprising that, as the statistician Jessica Utts has stated, “using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established”.(7)
Even the prominent skeptic Ray Hyman admitted at an earlier stage in his career that the research findings on psi “do seem to indicate that something beyond odd statistical hiccups is taking place.
I also have to admit that I do not have ready explanation for these observed effects.”.(8)
So if the evidence is significant, why hasn’t it received a warm welcome by academics and scientists?
Why do so many members of the intellectual and academic community still refuse to take psi seriously?
Explaining Results Away
First of all, it’s important to point out that psi isn’t rejected by all scientists.
The evidence for psi—together the theoretical possibility of its existence — has convinced some more open-minded scientists, who weren’t so in thrall to the paradigm of materialism. (Such as Alan Turing, Marie Curie, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Eugene Wigner and JJ Thompson, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, John Stewart Bell, and many others too numerous to mention.).
Sadly though, the evidence for psi is all too often rejected out of hand.
For example, In 2011, the eminent psychologist Daryl Bem — at the present time, professor emeritus at Cornell University — published a paper called ‘Feeling the Future’ in a prestigious academic journal, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
The paper described the results of nine experiments involving more than 1000 participants, eight of which showed significant evidence for precognition. Across a variety of different procedures, Bem found that his participants seemed to be able to ‘intuit’ information before it appeared.
In a simple example, they were shown a pair of curtains on a computer screen, and asked to click on the curtain where they thought an image would be.
At that point an image was randomly generated, and equally likely to appear behind either of the curtains.
It was found that a significant number of the participants chose the correct curtain.
And since no image was actually there at the time the participants chose, this was seen as evidence of presentiment.(9)
However, prominent skeptics of psi phenomena were outraged, and ridiculed Bem’s findings.
Ray Hyman described the results as “pure craziness … an embarrassment for the entire field.”
The physicist Robert Park called it “a waste of time … it leads the public off into strange directions that will be unproductive.”
The science journalist Jim Schnabel characterized these responses as an attempt to “suppress the findings of a scientific colleague because his findings threatened his reality”.(10)
Even worse, there are cases of researchers changing the methodology of experiments as a way of nullifying positive results.
In 2005, researchers at Notre Dame University conducted a series of eight Ganzfeld experiments, which found a highly significant overall ‘hit rate’ of 32%.
The researchers admitted that, as skeptics, this result made them feel ‘uncomfortable’, since it came ‘precariously close to demonstrating that humans do have psychic powers’.(11)
Seemingly spooked by this, the researchers quickly developed a further experiment, where they matched up individuals who had ‘hits’ during the previous eight experiments.
For some strange reason, these pairs produced the highly significant negative result of a 13% hit rate (significantly lower than the 25% chance rate). Encouraged by this negative result, the researchers claimed that it invalidated the previous eight experiments, and concluded that they had found evidence that telepathy did not exist!
Similarly, there was a great deal of controversy when the skeptical psi researcher Richard Wiseman attempted to replicate an experiment by Rupert Sheldrake which appeared to show that a dog responded psychically when its owner was on the way home.
According to the methodology used by Sheldrake, Wiseman’s four experiments actually yielded a more positive result than Sheldrake’s — the dog sat by the window 78% of the time that its owner was traveling home, compared to 4% during the rest of her absence.
(In Sheldrake’s experiments, it was 55%, compared to 4% during the rest of the owner’s absence).(12)
That would seem to be a successful replication of Sheldrake’s experiments.
However, Wiseman chose to use a different criterion of success: Jaytee (the dog) had to go to sit by the window at the exact moment that her owner set off home.
If she went to the window before this, it would mean that she had failed.
And not surprisingly, by this criterion, the experiments were judged to be unsuccessful and bizarrely reported by the UK mass media as proof that Jaytee — and dogs in general — do not have psychic powers.
Cognitive Dissonance
This shows that it’s always possible to explain away evidence if you don’t like it. If you are strongly attached to a belief system, any evidence that seems to contradict it creates cognitive dissonance, which in turn generates an impulse to ‘bury’ that evidence.
Most frequently, this means performing bizarre and highly irrational cognitive contortions, such as when creationists try to explain the existence of fossils by saying that they were put there by God to test our faith (or by Satan to tempt us into unbelief) or when skeptics rejig the methodology of experiments to try to convince themselves that significant results have not occurred.
There is an interesting example of the effect of cognitive dissonance — and the powerful grip of existing beliefs in the face of strong evidence — from the psychologist Susan Blackmore, who spent several years as a psi researcher.
One day Blackmore was asked to witness an experiment on telepathy with young children.
With admirable candor, she explained her reactions when the results turned out to be positive:
“[T]he children did very well. They really seemed to be getting the right picture more often than chance would predict. I began to get excited; even frightened. Was this really ESP happening right in front of my eyes? Or was there an alternative explanation?.…Somehow I just couldn’t accept that this was psi, and I was to go on arguing about the method used in future years. Was is just perversity? A refusal to accept my own failures? A deep fear of psi? Whatever it was, it led me into constant confusion”.(13)
This is a very revealing passage.
Blackmore is describing a state of cognitive dissonance — the confusion of facing evidence that conflicts with one’s beliefs and the anxiety that arises when one’s worldview is threatened.
This is probably very close to the anxiety that church leaders felt when they were confronted with scientific evidence that the Earth is not the centre of the Solar System.
Blackmore is honest enough to analyze her cognitive dissonance and question why she was unable to accept the evidence.
(Skarekrow - Blackmore STILL has cognitive dissonance)
Another excellent description of cognitive dissonance comes from the psychiatrist Elizabeth Mayer.
Originally skeptical about psi, she began to change her attitude after a dowser managed to locate her daughter’s stolen harp.
After hearing about the significant findings of the Ganzfeld studies, she volunteered herself as a participant.
She acted as a ‘receiver,’ and describes her reaction when found she was able to pick out the images she had been sent:
“I felt the tiniest instant of overwhelming fear. It was gone in a flash but it was stunningly real. It was unlike any fear I’ve ever felt. My mind split. I realized that I knew something I was simultaneously certain that I didn’t know….The feeling was terrifying. My mind had slipped out from under me and the world felt out of control….I recovered quickly and launched in on logical explanations.”(14)
Realizing that the results couldn’t be accounted for by coincidence, Mayer began to revise her views about reality, which led to her developing her own Freudian-based theory of why skeptics are so resistant to evidence for psi.
This is a good example of the open-mindedness and flexibility which scientists should ideally possess.
Mayer’s conclusion was that skeptics have a deep unconscious fear that their beliefs may be wrong, and this is undoubtedly true.
As I mentioned earlier, belief systems have an important psychological function, which means that we are understandably reluctant to relinquish them.
But if it means anything, open-mindedness means having the courage to face and accept evidence that undermines our beliefs.
It means having the courage to accept that our beliefs may be based on assumptions rather than facts, and that our prejudices may be based on a psychological impulse to protect our beliefs.
It means having the courage to accept that the world may be stranger and more complex than we had previously thought.
My feeling is that — with the publication of papers like Cardeña’s — more open-mindedness is developing towards psi phenomena.
I think more and more scientists and academics are beginning to realize that the evidence for them is so significant that it cannot simply be explained away.
And this is to be welcomed, since it is in the true spirit of science.
References
1) For example, Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–42; Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010a). A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 491–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019840; Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010b). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 471–485. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0019457
(2) For example, Cardeña, E., Palmer, J., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2015). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland; May, E. C., & Marwaha, S. B. (2015). Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science (Vols. 1–2). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
(3) Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds. New York: Paraview/Pocket.
(4) Dalton, K. (1997). Exploring the Links: Creativity and Psi in the Ganzfeld. Proceedings of Presented Papers. The Parapsychological Association, 40th Annual Convention, 119–134.
(5) Bem, D., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.
(6) Morris, R., Cunningham, S., McAlpine, S. & Taylor, R. (1993). Toward Replication and Extensions of Autoganzfeld Results. Proceedings of Presented Papers. The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention, Toronto, 177-191.
(7) Utts, J. M. (1996). An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3–30.
(8) Hyman, R. (1996). Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 31-58.
(9) Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.
(10) Carr, B. (2011). Heresies and Paradigm Shifts. The Network Review, Spring 2011, 2-4.
(11) Delgado-Romero, E. A. & Howard, G. S. (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures. The Humanistic Psychologist, 33, 293–303.
(12) Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (1998). Can Animals Detect When Their Owners are Returning Home? An Experimental Test of the ‘Psychic Pet’ Phenomenon. British Parapsychology, 42, 137–142; Sheldrake, R. (1999). ‘Commentary on a Paper by Wiseman, Smith, and Milton on the ‘Psychic Pet’ Phenomenon.’ Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 63 ( 857), 233-255;
(13) Blackmore, S. J. (1996). In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
(14) Mayer, E. L. (2007). Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind. New York, NY: Bantam Dell. I am grateful to the psi author Chris Carter for drawing my attention to the examples of Blackmore and Mayer.
1) For example, Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–42; Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010a). A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 491–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019840; Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010b). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 471–485. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0019457
(2) For example, Cardeña, E., Palmer, J., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2015). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland; May, E. C., & Marwaha, S. B. (2015). Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science (Vols. 1–2). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
(3) Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds. New York: Paraview/Pocket.
(4) Dalton, K. (1997). Exploring the Links: Creativity and Psi in the Ganzfeld. Proceedings of Presented Papers. The Parapsychological Association, 40th Annual Convention, 119–134.
(5) Bem, D., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.
(6) Morris, R., Cunningham, S., McAlpine, S. & Taylor, R. (1993). Toward Replication and Extensions of Autoganzfeld Results. Proceedings of Presented Papers. The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention, Toronto, 177-191.
(7) Utts, J. M. (1996). An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3–30.
(8) Hyman, R. (1996). Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 31-58.
(9) Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.
(10) Carr, B. (2011). Heresies and Paradigm Shifts. The Network Review, Spring 2011, 2-4.
(11) Delgado-Romero, E. A. & Howard, G. S. (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures. The Humanistic Psychologist, 33, 293–303.
(12) Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (1998). Can Animals Detect When Their Owners are Returning Home? An Experimental Test of the ‘Psychic Pet’ Phenomenon. British Parapsychology, 42, 137–142; Sheldrake, R. (1999). ‘Commentary on a Paper by Wiseman, Smith, and Milton on the ‘Psychic Pet’ Phenomenon.’ Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 63 ( 857), 233-255;
(13) Blackmore, S. J. (1996). In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
(14) Mayer, E. L. (2007). Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind. New York, NY: Bantam Dell. I am grateful to the psi author Chris Carter for drawing my attention to the examples of Blackmore and Mayer.
Last edited:
!!)
Foam!
I always suspected God was in the head on a beer...
A persistent cosmological puzzle has been troubling physicists since 1917: what is the universe made of?
Complicating this already-mind-boggling question is the fact that our best theories conflict with our observations of the universe.
Albert Einstein, according to scientific folklore, felt a unique responsibility for introducing this entire problem, reportedly referring to it as his "biggest blunder."
Essentially, Einstein's novel theory of general relativity didn’t hold up when used to describe the universe as a whole.
General relativity described the "geometry" of spacetime as being a trampoline-like surface; planets are heavy bowling balls that distort the surface, creating curves.
If a less heavy ball (like a marble) was placed near the bowling ball, it would roll along the surface just like the motion of planets in orbit.
Thus, orbits are explained not by a gravitational “force” but by curvature in spacetime.
This proposal worked when considering small regions of spacetime.
But when Einstein applied it to the entire universe, its predictions didn't fit.
So, Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant," a fixed value that represents a kind of anti-gravity, anti-mass, and anti-energy, counteracting gravity’s effects.
But when scientists discovered that the universe was expanding rather than static, as Einstein had believed, the cosmological constant was set to zero and more or less ignored.
After we learned that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, however, scientists could no longer conveniently cancel out Einstein’s anti-gravity suggestion.
What was previously assumed to be empty space in the universe now had to be filled with huge amounts of mysterious anti-energy in order to explain observations of the universe’s ever-quickening expansion.
Even so, observations of the universe’s expansion suggest that the energy is 60 to 120 orders of magnitude lower than what recent quantum field theory predicts.
What this means is that all of this extra energy is somehow missing when we look at the universe as a whole; either it’s effectively hidden or very different in nature to the energy we do know about.
Today, theoretical physicists are trying to reconcile these mysteries by examining the structure of so-called “spacetime” in the universe at the smallest possible scale, with surprising findings: spacetime might not be the trampoline-like plane scientists once envisioned—it might be a foamy mess of bubbles all containing mini-universes living and dying inside our own.
What is spacetime foam?
To try and solve the mystery of what fills the universe, scientists have been exploring the possibility that it's actually full of bubbles.
In 1955, influential physicist John Wheeler proposed that, at the quantum level, spacetime is not constant but "foamy," made up of ever-changing tiny bubbles.
As for what these bubbles are "made" of, recent work suggests that spacetime bubbles are essentially mini-universes briefly forming inside our own.
The spacetime foam proposal fits nicely with the intrinsic uncertainty and indeterminism of the quantum world.
Spacetime foam extends quantum uncertainty in particle position and momentum to the very fabric of the universe, so that its geometry is not stable, consistent, or fixed at a tiny scale.
Wheeler illustrated the idea of spacetime foam using an analogy with the surface of the ocean, as retold by theoretical physicist Y. Jack Ng at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in an email:
Professor Steven Carlip at University of California, Davis, published new research in September that builds on Wheeler's quantum foam theory to show that spacetime bubbles could “hide” the cosmological constant at a large scale.
“There are so many different proposals [to solve the cosmological constant problem], and a good sign for my research is that none of them is very widely accepted,” Carlip said in an interview. “I thought it was worth looking for an approach that was less ad hoc, that might come from things we knew or suspected from elsewhere.”
The idea is that in spacetime foam, every point in spacetime has the huge amount of vacuum energy—the lowest energy state equivalent to "empty space"—predicted by quantum theory, but behaves differently to other points.
For any particular way in which a point in spacetime is behaving, the exact opposite is equally as likely to occur at another point in spacetime.
This is the feature of spacetime foam which “cancels out” the extra energy and expansions at a tiny scale, resulting in the lower energy that we observe at the scale of the whole universe.
For this to work, one has to assume that at the quantum level, time has no intrinsic "direction."
In other words, there is no "arrow of time." According to Carlip, in the quantum world, this isn't such a wild suggestion.
“Most physicists would agree that we don't know at a fundamental level why there's an arrow of time at all,” he said. “The idea that it's somehow 'emergent' on larger scales has been around for a long time.”
Carlip calls spacetime foam a “complex microscopic structure." It can almost be thought of as an expanding universe formed by tiny expanding and contracting universes at every point in spacetime.
Carlip believes it’s possible that over time, the expanding areas of spacetime each replicate the complicated structure, and are themselves filled with tiny universes at every point.
Another paper published in August 2019 explores this scenario more thoroughly.
Authors Qingdi Wang and William G. Unruh at the University of British Columbia suggest that every point in spacetime cycles through expansion and contraction, like tiny versions of our universe.
Every point in spacetime, they say, is a “microcyclic universe”, endlessly moving from singularity, to a Big Bang, and finally collapse, on repeat.
Quantum foam is having something of a moment, not just as a solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem, but also to address other enigmas in physics, like black holes, quantum computers, and dark energy.
A forthcoming article by Ng suggests that spacetime foam holds the key to finally unify and explain phenomenon at both a quantum and cosmological scale, moving us towards the elusive Theory of Everything.
Such a theory would explain areas of physics which are currently independent, and at times conflicting, under one coherent framework.
Like Carlip, Ng also derives the large value for a positive cosmological constant using a model of spacetime bubbles.
But to do so, he treats the "bubbles" in quantum foam as the universe’s tiniest computers, encoding and processing information.
Remember: quantum foam contains bubbles of uncertainty in space and time.
To measure how "bubbly" spacetime is, Ng suggests a thought experiment involving clocks clustered in a spherical volume of spacetime which transmit and receive light signals and measure the time it takes for the signals to be received.
“This process of mapping the geometry is a sort of computation, in which distances are gauged by transmitting and processing information," he wrote in his paper.
Using other known relationships between energy and quantum computation, and the limit on mass inside the sphere to avoid forming a black hole, Ng argued that the uncertainty built into the quantum-scale universe that determines how accurately (or inaccurately) we can measure the geometry of spacetime also limits the maximum amount of information these bubble-computers can store and their computing power.
Extending this result for the entire universe rather than an isolated volume of spacetime, Ng shows that spacetime foam is equivalent to dark energy and dark matter, since ordinary matter would not be capable of storing and computing the maximum amount of information he derives from the measurement task.
“The existence of spacetime foam, with the aid of thermodynamic considerations, appears to imply the co-existence of a dark sector (in addition to ordinary matter),” Ng told Motherboard. “This line of research is not common within the physics community, but it makes (physical) sense to me.”
The key takeaway from Ng's work is is: not only can spacetime foam be measured and explored conceptually, but it can also explain the acceleration of the universe by connecting quantum physics, general relativity and dark energy.
Ng believes a Theory of Everything is within reach.
“Eventually what I’d like to explore and, more importantly, what I would like to encourage others to explore, is to go beyond the consideration of spacetime foam, and to see whether both quantum mechanics and gravitation are emergent phenomena, and whether thermodynamics (whose protagonist is entropy) holds the key to understand the laws of nature," he said.
Conceptually, spacetime foam reconciles and explains many of the outstanding problems between quantum physics and cosmology.
Still, both Ng and Carlip are calling for more work to be done to truly understand the nature of spacetime.
Carlip is working on a quantitative model of spacetime foam to supplement the theoretical model currently on the table.
He’s calling the model “minisuperspace," and is hopeful that physicists researching other approaches in the quantum-cosmology intersection could find examples of the model in their own work, if they know to look for it.
To start with, Carlip says he’ll be looking at some numerical simulations to support the foam model.
Going beyond a simple quantitative model will need an all hands on deck approach. “I'd love to have people who are working on various approaches to quantum gravity, string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety, etc., look for this kind of phenomenon in their work to see if a connection can be made,” Carlip said.
Ng echoed the desire for more dedicated research which spans boundaries between different areas of theoretical physics.
But his hope is even grander: for a unified theory which ties together quantum mechanics, gravity, and thermodynamics to explain the universe's mysteries.
I always suspected God was in the head on a beer...
The Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes, Scientists Say
'Spacetime foam' might just be the wildest thing in the known universe, and we're just starting to understand it.
'Spacetime foam' might just be the wildest thing in the known universe, and we're just starting to understand it.
By Carly Minsky
Oct 24 2019, 5:00am
Oct 24 2019, 5:00am
A persistent cosmological puzzle has been troubling physicists since 1917: what is the universe made of?
Complicating this already-mind-boggling question is the fact that our best theories conflict with our observations of the universe.
Albert Einstein, according to scientific folklore, felt a unique responsibility for introducing this entire problem, reportedly referring to it as his "biggest blunder."
Essentially, Einstein's novel theory of general relativity didn’t hold up when used to describe the universe as a whole.
General relativity described the "geometry" of spacetime as being a trampoline-like surface; planets are heavy bowling balls that distort the surface, creating curves.
If a less heavy ball (like a marble) was placed near the bowling ball, it would roll along the surface just like the motion of planets in orbit.
Thus, orbits are explained not by a gravitational “force” but by curvature in spacetime.
This proposal worked when considering small regions of spacetime.
But when Einstein applied it to the entire universe, its predictions didn't fit.
So, Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant," a fixed value that represents a kind of anti-gravity, anti-mass, and anti-energy, counteracting gravity’s effects.
But when scientists discovered that the universe was expanding rather than static, as Einstein had believed, the cosmological constant was set to zero and more or less ignored.
After we learned that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, however, scientists could no longer conveniently cancel out Einstein’s anti-gravity suggestion.
What was previously assumed to be empty space in the universe now had to be filled with huge amounts of mysterious anti-energy in order to explain observations of the universe’s ever-quickening expansion.
Even so, observations of the universe’s expansion suggest that the energy is 60 to 120 orders of magnitude lower than what recent quantum field theory predicts.
What this means is that all of this extra energy is somehow missing when we look at the universe as a whole; either it’s effectively hidden or very different in nature to the energy we do know about.
Today, theoretical physicists are trying to reconcile these mysteries by examining the structure of so-called “spacetime” in the universe at the smallest possible scale, with surprising findings: spacetime might not be the trampoline-like plane scientists once envisioned—it might be a foamy mess of bubbles all containing mini-universes living and dying inside our own.
What is spacetime foam?
To try and solve the mystery of what fills the universe, scientists have been exploring the possibility that it's actually full of bubbles.
In 1955, influential physicist John Wheeler proposed that, at the quantum level, spacetime is not constant but "foamy," made up of ever-changing tiny bubbles.
As for what these bubbles are "made" of, recent work suggests that spacetime bubbles are essentially mini-universes briefly forming inside our own.
The spacetime foam proposal fits nicely with the intrinsic uncertainty and indeterminism of the quantum world.
Spacetime foam extends quantum uncertainty in particle position and momentum to the very fabric of the universe, so that its geometry is not stable, consistent, or fixed at a tiny scale.
Wheeler illustrated the idea of spacetime foam using an analogy with the surface of the ocean, as retold by theoretical physicist Y. Jack Ng at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in an email:
"Imagine yourself flying a plane over an ocean.
At high altitudes the ocean appears smooth.
But as you descend, it begins to show roughness.
Close enough to the ocean surface, you see bubbles and foam.
Analogously, spacetime appears smooth on large scales; but on sufficiently small scales, it will appear rough and foamy."
At high altitudes the ocean appears smooth.
But as you descend, it begins to show roughness.
Close enough to the ocean surface, you see bubbles and foam.
Analogously, spacetime appears smooth on large scales; but on sufficiently small scales, it will appear rough and foamy."
Professor Steven Carlip at University of California, Davis, published new research in September that builds on Wheeler's quantum foam theory to show that spacetime bubbles could “hide” the cosmological constant at a large scale.
“There are so many different proposals [to solve the cosmological constant problem], and a good sign for my research is that none of them is very widely accepted,” Carlip said in an interview. “I thought it was worth looking for an approach that was less ad hoc, that might come from things we knew or suspected from elsewhere.”
The idea is that in spacetime foam, every point in spacetime has the huge amount of vacuum energy—the lowest energy state equivalent to "empty space"—predicted by quantum theory, but behaves differently to other points.
For any particular way in which a point in spacetime is behaving, the exact opposite is equally as likely to occur at another point in spacetime.
This is the feature of spacetime foam which “cancels out” the extra energy and expansions at a tiny scale, resulting in the lower energy that we observe at the scale of the whole universe.
For this to work, one has to assume that at the quantum level, time has no intrinsic "direction."
In other words, there is no "arrow of time." According to Carlip, in the quantum world, this isn't such a wild suggestion.
“Most physicists would agree that we don't know at a fundamental level why there's an arrow of time at all,” he said. “The idea that it's somehow 'emergent' on larger scales has been around for a long time.”
Carlip calls spacetime foam a “complex microscopic structure." It can almost be thought of as an expanding universe formed by tiny expanding and contracting universes at every point in spacetime.
Carlip believes it’s possible that over time, the expanding areas of spacetime each replicate the complicated structure, and are themselves filled with tiny universes at every point.
Another paper published in August 2019 explores this scenario more thoroughly.
Authors Qingdi Wang and William G. Unruh at the University of British Columbia suggest that every point in spacetime cycles through expansion and contraction, like tiny versions of our universe.
Every point in spacetime, they say, is a “microcyclic universe”, endlessly moving from singularity, to a Big Bang, and finally collapse, on repeat.
The tiniest computers in the universe and a theory of everything
Quantum foam is having something of a moment, not just as a solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem, but also to address other enigmas in physics, like black holes, quantum computers, and dark energy.
A forthcoming article by Ng suggests that spacetime foam holds the key to finally unify and explain phenomenon at both a quantum and cosmological scale, moving us towards the elusive Theory of Everything.
Such a theory would explain areas of physics which are currently independent, and at times conflicting, under one coherent framework.
Like Carlip, Ng also derives the large value for a positive cosmological constant using a model of spacetime bubbles.
But to do so, he treats the "bubbles" in quantum foam as the universe’s tiniest computers, encoding and processing information.
Remember: quantum foam contains bubbles of uncertainty in space and time.
To measure how "bubbly" spacetime is, Ng suggests a thought experiment involving clocks clustered in a spherical volume of spacetime which transmit and receive light signals and measure the time it takes for the signals to be received.
“This process of mapping the geometry is a sort of computation, in which distances are gauged by transmitting and processing information," he wrote in his paper.
Using other known relationships between energy and quantum computation, and the limit on mass inside the sphere to avoid forming a black hole, Ng argued that the uncertainty built into the quantum-scale universe that determines how accurately (or inaccurately) we can measure the geometry of spacetime also limits the maximum amount of information these bubble-computers can store and their computing power.
Extending this result for the entire universe rather than an isolated volume of spacetime, Ng shows that spacetime foam is equivalent to dark energy and dark matter, since ordinary matter would not be capable of storing and computing the maximum amount of information he derives from the measurement task.
“The existence of spacetime foam, with the aid of thermodynamic considerations, appears to imply the co-existence of a dark sector (in addition to ordinary matter),” Ng told Motherboard. “This line of research is not common within the physics community, but it makes (physical) sense to me.”
The key takeaway from Ng's work is is: not only can spacetime foam be measured and explored conceptually, but it can also explain the acceleration of the universe by connecting quantum physics, general relativity and dark energy.
Ng believes a Theory of Everything is within reach.
“Eventually what I’d like to explore and, more importantly, what I would like to encourage others to explore, is to go beyond the consideration of spacetime foam, and to see whether both quantum mechanics and gravitation are emergent phenomena, and whether thermodynamics (whose protagonist is entropy) holds the key to understand the laws of nature," he said.
The future of foam research
Conceptually, spacetime foam reconciles and explains many of the outstanding problems between quantum physics and cosmology.
Still, both Ng and Carlip are calling for more work to be done to truly understand the nature of spacetime.
Carlip is working on a quantitative model of spacetime foam to supplement the theoretical model currently on the table.
He’s calling the model “minisuperspace," and is hopeful that physicists researching other approaches in the quantum-cosmology intersection could find examples of the model in their own work, if they know to look for it.
To start with, Carlip says he’ll be looking at some numerical simulations to support the foam model.
Going beyond a simple quantitative model will need an all hands on deck approach. “I'd love to have people who are working on various approaches to quantum gravity, string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety, etc., look for this kind of phenomenon in their work to see if a connection can be made,” Carlip said.
Ng echoed the desire for more dedicated research which spans boundaries between different areas of theoretical physics.
But his hope is even grander: for a unified theory which ties together quantum mechanics, gravity, and thermodynamics to explain the universe's mysteries.
I think the same reasoning holds for spiritual experiences as well as psi. It’s harder to get the same sort of objective evidence for these as for psi, but the parallel descriptions we can find are pretty convincing. There is the same huge hill to climb against a materialistic world view however - from that perspective no evidence would be acceptable other than direct experience and even that would be explained away as an incipient mental illness probably.In case you need more convincing...
No doubt they would be a diagnosed schizophrenic!
I totally agree with what you wrote.
There are a few scientific studies that could be considered "spiritual" or even "religious" in nature.
There is a good list of healing by power of prayer or meditation...as in, others praying for someone not them praying for themselves.
It hasn't been updated for a few years now, so I'm sure there are more out there.
Healing at a Distance
Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot
Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.
Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study
Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda
Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.
Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.
Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence
Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot
Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.
Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study
Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda
Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.
Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.
Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence
I can also agree on a personal level with you having had some spiritual experiences of my own...at least I would classify them as such.
It's really near impossible to create a reasonable study of something so ineffable...where would one even begin?
Not just that, but it seems that the thing that makes it extraordinary would be lost in the data and the soul of the matter overlooked.
As you suggest it is mostly subjective and readily explained away with any number of psychological reasonings - but it's another to experience it, it becomes a bit more difficult to just dismiss as this or that.
I'm lucky that I'm been a few situations where other people besides me have witnessed things moving...sometimes violently.
As much as I've wracked my brain over the years to try and figure those out on a scientific and logical basis - there is none that currently exist in mainstream materialist science.
The data has been replicated more times now and shown that something we cannot explain is indeed happening...there are accepted theories in the textbooks that have only a fraction of the proof produced over the decades for the existence of PSI.
I don't see the conflict so many have...especially those who are religious and believe (supposedly) in the power of things like prayer, the sacrament, baptism, etc. yet there is a lot of pushback from a lot of religious institutions.
Strange.
Maybe one day everyone will have a moment of direct connection to everyone and all...and we'll all go skipping merrily down the path toward world peace!
That might make a good book plot...
John, you are as always, a light of guidance in the dark.
Much love!
You are a treasure Skare - and an absolute goldmine of on-the-mark references to follow up on a mind-boggling range of relevant topics. Thanks for theseNo doubt they would be a diagnosed schizophrenic!
I totally agree with what you wrote.
There are a few scientific studies that could be considered "spiritual" or even "religious" in nature.
There is a good list of healing by power of prayer or meditation...as in, others praying for someone not them praying for themselves.
It hasn't been updated for a few years now, so I'm sure there are more out there.
Healing at a Distance
Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
Krucoff et al (2001).Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot
Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.
Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study
Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and health: Review, meta-analysis, and research agenda
Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system.
Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.
Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence
I can also agree on a personal level with you having had some spiritual experiences of my own...at least I would classify them as such.
It's really near impossible to create a reasonable study of something so ineffable...where would one even begin?
Not just that, but it seems that the thing that makes it extraordinary would be lost in the data and the soul of the matter overlooked.
As you suggest it is mostly subjective and readily explained away with any number of psychological reasonings - but it's another to experience it, it becomes a bit more difficult to just dismiss as this or that.
I'm lucky that I'm been a few situations where other people besides me have witnessed things moving...sometimes violently.
As much as I've wracked my brain over the years to try and figure those out on a scientific and logical basis - there is none that currently exist in mainstream materialist science.
The data has been replicated more times now and shown that something we cannot explain is indeed happening...there are accepted theories in the textbooks that have only a fraction of the proof produced over the decades for the existence of PSI.
I don't see the conflict so many have...especially those who are religious and believe (supposedly) in the power of things like prayer, the sacrament, baptism, etc. yet there is a lot of pushback from a lot of religious institutions.
Strange.
Maybe one day everyone will have a moment of direct connection to everyone and all...and we'll all go skipping merrily down the path toward world peace!
That might make a good book plot...
John, you are as always, a light of guidance in the dark.
Much love!
. As an afterthought - it's always seemed weird to me to treat the material and the spiritual as separate domains of existence in some kind of duality. I have a kind of revulsion to the way this disenchants the material. They are surely just ways we label and talk about different aspects of the one reality - just a linguistic structure, not an actual fracture in the way things are. The material is saturated with a spiritual light for anyone who has eyes to see it.
You are a treasure Skare - and an absolute goldmine of on-the-mark references to follow up on a mind-boggling range of relevant topics. Thanks for these
As an afterthought - it's always seemed weird to me to treat the material and the spiritual as separate domains of existence in some kind of duality. I have a kind of revulsion to the way this disenchants the material. They are surely just ways we label and talk about different aspects of the one reality - just a linguistic structure, not an actual fracture in the way things are. The material is saturated with a spiritual light for anyone who has eyes to see it.
Thanks John...those are very uber-kind words!
I have more as always...some on ESP, psychokinesis, etc., just ask!
You've always been an intelligent and compassionate source and friend from day one.
Your words are always a pleasure to read and you have a beautiful writing style as are your thoughts.
I find you to be a very genuine person with an open mind and those are things I can always appreciate in someone!
Better to have met you!
(enough feels now...)
I also agree with your afterthought and feel similarly about it all.
Just because we cannot see something or don't understand something doesn't mean it's not happening...but that is the general consensus if you were to ask people to describe the reality around them.
It still blows my mind the amount of particles passing through us at any given moment...right in-between the particles somehow being kept together to form an incredible melange of molecules and chemicals, electric reactions take place and despite living in a soup of other particles (most of which we cannot detect) to form a coherent being capable of experiencing that soup of particles on a very narrow but amazing sliver of perceived reality.
Then, for that form of particles - somehow intelligently formed...call that God's doing, or the source, or some kind of underlying consciousness in everything...all are workable.
For it to become self-reflective?
I mean...at what point do the atoms of a thing....or even smaller yet on the quantum scale...when does the intelligence interject itself in order for certain particles to group together in just the right way to form a cloud, a rock, a flower, a cat, a person?
I'm not a proponent of intelligent design in the mostly misconstrued evangelical Christian sense of the word...but there is some kind of consciousness that seems to permeate all things...and if you ever get a chance or have moments in your life where you can feel that oneness and connectively it is so incredibly powerful.
I can say that my lifelong depression is now a good 80% - 90%+ gone after experiencing an ego dissolution and feeling connected to all things and people...I still have days where it tries to butt in, but I can reflect on the experience(s) and am able to change the way I feel.
It was always one thing reading about it and studying it...but quite another to see it and feel it.
What I got was this feeling of love and homecoming that I knew was there....intuitively I knew it...and maybe that helped stoke my depression...because it was unreachable it seemed.
Anyhow...ineffable.
Thanks as always for your kindnesses John!
Have a great day/night!
Thoughts??
I try to present all sides of the argument and this article does a good job...for the most part.
Ever have a hunch, an instinct or an intuition?
Research psychologist Dean Radin, Ph.D., claims that hunches might actually foretell the future.
The University of Oregon's Ray Hyman, Ph.D., however, isn't so sure.
Alex, a university colleague, was cleaning his double-action, six-shot revolver in preparation for a hunting trip later in the month.
In this pistol, when the trigger is pulled the hammer is cocked, the cylinder revolves, and the hammer falls on the next chamber, all in one smooth motion.
For safety's sake, Alex normally kept five bullets in the revolver, with the hammer resting on the sixth, empty chamber.
Before cleaning the gun, he removed the five bullets and set them aside.
When finished cleaning, he began to put the bullets back in the cylinder.
When he arrived at the fifth and final bullet, he suddenly got a distinct sense of dread.
It had something to do with that bullet.
Alex was bothered about the odd feeling because nothing like it had ever happened to him before.
He decided to trust his gut, so he put the bullet aside and positioned the pistol's hammer as usual over the sixth chamber.
The chamber next to it, which normally held the fifth bullet, was now also empty.
Two weeks later, Alex was at a hunting lodge with his fiancee and her parents.
That evening, unexpectedly, a violent argument broke out between the parents.
Alex tried to calm them down, but the father, in an insane rage, grabbed Alex's gun, which had been in a drawer, and pointed it at his wife.
Alex tried to intervene by jumping between the gun and the woman, but he was too late—the trigger was already being pulled.
For a horrifying split second, Alex knew that he was about to get shot at point-blank range.
But instead of a sudden, gruesome death, the pistol went "click."
The cylinder had revolved to an empty chamber—the very chamber that would have contained the fifth bullet if Alex had not set it aside two weeks earlier.
Had Alex actually predicted the future, or was this just an extraordinary coincidence?
There are several possible explanations for why such "intuitive hunches" sometimes play out.
One is that on a subconscious level, we are always thinking and coming to conclusions, but that these register only as hunches to our conscious mind. Another is that we pick up telling cues from body language, subliminal sounds or peripheral vision without being consciously aware of doing so.
A third is that for each amazing coincidence we remember, we forget all the times we had a hunch and it didn't pan out.
A fourth possibility is that we modify our memories for our own convenience, creating a connection where it may not have existed.
And so on.
These sorts of prosaic explanations probably account for many intuitive hunches.
But they don't explain them all.
As in the case of Alex's intuition, a series of carefully documented case studies raises the possibility that some intuitions are due to a genuine sixth sense. But to confirm that those stories are what they appear to be, we must turn to controlled laboratory tests.
In a pilot study and in three follow-up experiments, I have observed that many people respond unconsciously to something bad—even before it happens. Take the prototypical case of a well-known editor of a popular magazine.
When she asks the question, "Is there a sixth sense?" I don't answer directly.
I ask if she'd like to participate in an experiment that uses pictures randomly selected by computer, and she agrees.
I have her sit before a blank computer screen.
All I've told her is that she's about to see a series of digitized photographs.
Some will be calm, like a placid lake, and others will be emotional, like a big spider.
On two fingers of her left hand, I attach electrodes that measure tiny changes in her skin resistance.
On a third finger I place an electrode that monitors blood flow.
I explain that all she has to do is press the button on the mouse when she's ready to begin, and then look at the pictures.
I leave the room, she relaxes, and then she presses the button.
For five seconds, the screen remains blank, and then the computer randomly selects one picture out of a large pool of photos—some calming and some provocative.
The picture is displayed for three seconds, and then the screen goes blank for eight seconds.
Finally, a message appears announcing that she can start the next trial whenever she's ready.
She repeats this sequence 40 times.
At the end of the experiment, I analyze the data recorded by the electrodes and prepare two summary graphs.
Each graph shows average changes in her skin resistance and blood flow before, during and after she saw either calm or emotional pictures.
What she immediately notices is that after she viewed the emotional pictures, both her skin resistance and fingertip blood flow dramatically changed.
And after she viewed calm pictures, her physiology hardly changed at all.
"So I responded emotionally when I saw something emotional, and I remained calm when I saw something calm," she says. "How does that demonstrate a sixth sense?"
I direct her attention to the segment of the graph showing her responses before the computer selected the pictures.
"This bump shows that your body responded to emotional pictures before the computer selected them. And this flat line," I say, pointing to the other line, "shows that your body did not respond before calm pictures were shown. You see? Your body was responding to your future emotion before the computer randomly selected an emotional or calm picture."
As this sinks in, I add, "We can now demonstrate in the laboratory what at some level we've known all along: Many people literally get a gut feeling before something bad happens. Our viscera warn us of danger even if our conscious mind doesn't always get the message."
Our editor's body showed signs of what I call presentiment, an unconscious form of "psi" perception.
Psi is a neutral term for psychic experiences, and though it sounds like fodder for an episode of the X-Files, scientists around the world have studied the subject in the laboratory for over a century.
The scientific evidence is now stronger than ever for commonly reported experiences such as telepathy (mind-to-mind communication), clairvoyance (information received from a distant place) and precognition (information received from a distant time).
Studies suggest that we have ways of gaining information that bypass the ordinary senses.
The sixth sense and similar terms, like second sight and extrasensory perception (ESP), refer to perceptual experiences that transcend the usual boundaries of space and time.
In trying to take these findings further, I realized that we have to dig deeper than what's detectable at the conscious level.
While ESP and psi generally refer to conscious psychic experiences, I've always thought that asking people to consciously report subtle psi impressions was a shot in the dark.
What would happen if we bypassed the psychological defense mechanisms that filter our perceptions and censor our conscious awareness?
Would we find psi experiences that people weren't aware of?
A handful of colleagues have paved the way for this type of investigation.
In the mid-1960s, psychologist Charles Tart, Ph.D., of the University of California at Davis, measured skin conductance, blood volume, heart rate, and verbal reports between two people; called a sender-receiver pair.
He, as the sender, received random electrical shocks to see if remote receivers could detect those events.
Tart found that while they weren't consciously aware of anything out of the ordinary, the distant receivers' physiology registered significant reactions to the shocks he experienced.
In other, independent experiments, engineer Douglas Dean at the Newark College of Engineering; psychologist Jean Barry, Ph.D., in France; and psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson, Ph.D., at the University of Utrecht, all observed significant changes in receivers' finger blood volume when a sender, located thousands of miles away, directed emotional thoughts toward them.
The journal Science also published a study by two physiologists who reported finding significant correlations in brain waves between isolated identical twins. These sorts of studies came to be known as Distant Mental Intention on Living Systems (DMILS).
The idea for studying intuitive hunches came to me in the early 1990s, while I was a research fellow in the psychology department at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
I was investigating the "feeling of being stared at."
In the laboratory, I separated two people, placing them in rooms that were 100 feet away from each another.
Then I monitored person number 1's electrodermal activity while person number 2 stared at person number 1 over a one-way closed-circuit video system. Although the stared-at person could have no conscious idea when the "starer" was doing the looking, since the two were in different rooms and the staring occurred at random times, I did observe small changes in the skin resistance of the person being stared at over closed-circuit television.
In thinking about this result, I realized that (for relativistic reasons) this sort of "nonlocal" connection across space implied a complementary connection across time.
If we were seeing a genuine space-separated effect between people, then the same thing ought to work as a time-separated effect within one person.
I called this proposed effect "presentiment" because the term suggests a response to a future emotional event.
I soon discovered that even the staunchest skeptics, those ready to swear on a stack of scientific journals that psi was impossible, were somewhat less critical of intuitive hunches.
That's because most people have had at least one.
I myself hardly believed the results of the studies I conducted on the magazine editor and others.
But I couldn't find any mistakes in the study design or analysis of the results.
Some months later, Dick Bierman, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Amsterdam, learned of my studies and couldn't believe them either.
So he repeated the experiment in his lab and found the same results.
Since then, two students of psychologist Robert Morris, Ph.D., at the University of Edinburgh, have also repeated the study, and again found similar results. More replication attempts are now under way in several other laboratories.
Do our experiments prove without question that the sixth sense exists?
Not yet.
What we have are three independent labs reporting similar effects based on data from more than 200 participants.
The proof of the pudding will rest upon many more labs getting the same results.
Still, our studies, combined with the outcomes of many other types of tests by dozens of investigators on precognition and other classes of psi phenomena, have caused even highly skeptical scientists to ponder what was previously unthinkable—the possibility of a genuine sixth sense.
In the mid-1990s, for example, no less an arch-skeptic than the late astronomer Carl Sagan rendered his lifelong opinion that all psi effects were impossible. But in one of his last books, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he wrote, "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:
(1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers;
(2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turned out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."
If scientists eventually agree that a sixth sense exists, how might this change society?
On one hand, it may change nothing; we may learn that genuine psi abilities are rare and only weakly predictive, and thus inconsequential for most practical purposes.
On the other hand, it's possible that the study of the sixth sense will revolutionize our understanding of causality and have radically new applications.
For example, in an article co-titled 'Exploring an Outrageous Hypothesis,' psychologist William Braud, Ph.D., professor and research director at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and co-director of the Institute's William James Center for Consciousness Studies, discusses the concept of "retroactive intentional influence" as applied to healing.
He poses the idea that in cases where serious illnesses disappear virtually overnight, perhaps a healer went back in time to jumpstart the healing process.
Braud is well aware of the mind-bending nature of this hypothesis, but it is not purely fantastical.
In his article, he reviews several hundred experiments examining a wide range of retrocausal phenomena, from mental influence of random numbers generated by electronic circuits, to guessing picture targets selected in the future, to studies examining the "feeling of being stared at," to presentiment experiments.
He concludes that this sizable but not well-known body of carefully controlled research indicates that some form of retroactive intentional influence is indeed possible, and may have important consequences for healing.
A less radical application might be for early warning systems.
Imagine that on a future aircraft all the members of the flight crew are connected to an onboard computer system.
The system is designed to continuously monitor heart rate, electrical activity in the skin, and blood flow.
Before the crew comes aboard, each person is calibrated to see how he or she responds before, during and after different kinds of emotional and calm events.
Each person's idiosyncratic responses are used to create a person-unique emotional "response template," which is fed into the computer.
While the plane is in the air, the computer monitors each crew member's body to assess their emotional level.
If the computer detects that all crew members are about to have an emotional response (and the aircraft is otherwise operating normally), then the computer could alert the pilot.
Sometimes even a few seconds of advance warning in an aircraft can save the lives of everyone on board.
Very likely, some intuitive hunches do indicate the presence of a sixth sense.
But for whom?
Probably everyone, to a degree.
But just as some people have poor vision, it is also quite likely that some people are effectively "psi-blind."
I suspect that in the future, with a little assistance from specialized technologies, the same way a hearing aid can improve poor hearing, it may become possible to boost our weak sixth sense.
Where's the Science in Psi?
Dean Radin asks, "Do our experiments prove without question that the sixth sense exists?"
He then answers, "Not yet," correctly recognizing that we need further successful experiments, by independent investigators, to prove that such a sixth sense is real.
But even that's not so simple.
The independent investigators must do more than duplicate Radin's findings.
They must do so using different apparatus, measurements and randomizing procedures than he did to avoid replicating any errors he may have made inadvertently, otherwise they're just perpetuating faulty findings.
I can already spot some potential errors in his methods.
For example, Radin's claim that people in his presentiment experiments unconsciously anticipated emotional pictures—based on his observation of changes in their skin resistance—violates some basic principles of cause and effect in science.
That's because the case for presentiment rests on comparing changes in physiological states, and different methods of calculating such changes can yield wildly different results.
For example, many years ago, a student was doing research to show that blinded rats are better than sighted rats at transferring their learning to a new task. The trouble was, a previous researcher had found just the opposite effect.
The difference between the two studies?
How they measured change.
The earlier researcher had calculated the simple difference between the number of errors the rats made on the first task and the number of errors they made on the second task; the student, meanwhile, had measured the changes in terms of percentages.
This seemingly innocuous difference led to completely opposite findings!
When we used the same measuring technique on both studies, they yielded uniform results.
In addition to the potential pitfalls of choosing a measuring method, researchers must also account for the great degree of variability of physiological changes, which Radin does not do convincingly.
Skin resistance, like other physiological measures, varies greatly from person to person and over short and long periods.
It also reacts to many aspects of the test subjects' internal and external environment, which is why investigators use a number of adjustments to remove unwanted variation so they can focus only on the changes in which they are interested.
While to his credit, Radin does try to reduce some unwanted variability, his efforts seem to be indirect and arbitrary at best, especially when the process can be very tricky.
Radin measured the change in physiological states by subtracting the very first sample of skin resistance on each trial from all the remaining samples of skin resistance for that trial.
The evidence for presentiment, he says, is the fact that the averages of the change in skin resistance are larger before viewing emotional pictures than before calm pictures.
That seems to make sense.
But the first samples of skin readings taken in the trial set the baseline against which the results of all future trials will be compared and computed.
So if, for some reason, the first samples of the trials involving emotional targets happen to have a somewhat lower value of skin resistance than the first samples of the calm trials, this alone would yield, perhaps falsely, a bigger "change score" for the emotional trials.
To see this problem in action, assume that the average raw score level for both calm and emotional trials is 20.
If the baseline for the calm trials is 15, then the change score for the calm trials would be 20-15=5.
If the baseline for the emotional trials is 10, then the change score for the emotional trials would he 20-10=10.
Thus, the scoring procedure produces a bigger change in the emotional trials, all because of the differences in baselines.
As you can see, the simple choice of method can greatly influence the findings.
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
So how do we know which measure to trust when each gives a different outcome?
The solution is clear only when we have a detailed theory of the underlying process being studied.
But that's a key problem here: There is a general lack of a positive theory of ESP or psi.
What kind of a process is it?
How does it behave?
Indeed, as many parapsychologists recognize, ESP is, at present, defined negatively, in terms of what it is not; the experimenter claims she has found psi when she has eliminated all normal scientific explanations for the outcome.
(Skarekrow - the old...if you can't explain how it works, it doesn't exist fallacy)
Given this hazy state of affairs, there is no principled way to state what the correct measurement procedure should he.
This would not be too serious if different methods produced the same outcome.
But we do not know if this is the case in Radin's experiments.
If I am investigating changes in the firings of nerve impulses in the optic nerve, for example, we have both extensive theory and data to inform us of the appropriate measures to use: We know the underlying distribution of such firings and we know how to appropriately transform them so that the measures of change make sense in terms of what we know about nerves and nerve impulses, in the case of the presentiment hypothesis, however, we do not have a detailed theory and sufficient data to know what sorts of transformations and measures of change make sense.
So before we can believe that the physiological changes show that the subject is anticipating the emotional picture, we need to show, at the least, that different ways of measuring the physiological changes will yield the same outcome.
We also would need to collect the physiological measures under more varied circumstances and over longer time periods.
The history of attempts to investigate scientifically psychical phenomena goes back 150 years, and is replete with examples of psychical researchers claiming they finally proved the existence of the paranormal.
In each instance, subsequent generations of parapsychologists have had to discard as badly flawed what had seemed to the previous generation to be irrefutable proof of psi, or psychic phenomena.
A case in point is the study cited by Radin of the "significant correlations in brain waves between isolated identical twins."
This study was reported in the journal Science in 1965 by Duane and Behrendt.
These investigators took advantage of the fact that alpha brain waves can be induced by simply closing one's eyes.
The researchers put two members of a pair of twins in separate rooms and connected them to electrodes to measure their brain waves.
They instructed one of the twins to shut her eyes at predetermined times.
This produced the expected alpha rhythms in her brain waves, and supposedly caused the other twin's brain waves to show alpha rhythms at the same time.
If this is indeed what had happened, it would be evidence for ESP.
But there were many methodological problems.
First, the isolation of the twins was not very convincing since they were in adjacent rooms.
Second, the evidence for the correlation of the brain waves was based solely on subjective, visual inspection of the brain wave recordings.
As psychologists know, people are very poor at determining correlations subjectively, which is why experimenters trust only correlations tabulated by computers.
Duane and Behrendt later admitted, among other things, that because the twins were not in shielded rooms, they could conceivably have sent coded signals to one another.
"In retrospect, the biggest defect in our experimental procedure was that we did not rule out completely conventional forms of communication between the twins, and we did not perform a statistical analysis to eliminate spontaneous alpha rhythms."
While they continued to seek the "hard, quantitative data" they said would prove or refute the hypothesis, neither these authors or anyone else has succeeded, during the intervening 45 years, in replicating these results under scientific conditions.
In his book The Conscious Universe, Dean Radin remains optimistic that, correctly interpreted, the experimental outcomes of parapsychological experiment conclusively demonstrate the existence of psi or ESP.
But if the century and a half of psychical research has taught us anything, then the next generation will likely not be able to replicate Radin's presentiment results and will begin to search elsewhere for their elusive quarry.
On the other hand, if history ceases to repeat itself, future parapsychologists may very well find ways to help us develop our intuitive powers; it remains to be seen whether Radin's research will pave the way.
I try to present all sides of the argument and this article does a good job...for the most part.
Is There a Sixth Sense?
Some experts claim that hunches might actually foretell the future.
Others aren't so sure.
By Dean Radin, Colleen Rae, Ray Hyman
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200007/is-there-sixth-sense
Some experts claim that hunches might actually foretell the future.
Others aren't so sure.
By Dean Radin, Colleen Rae, Ray Hyman
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200007/is-there-sixth-sense
Ever have a hunch, an instinct or an intuition?
Research psychologist Dean Radin, Ph.D., claims that hunches might actually foretell the future.
The University of Oregon's Ray Hyman, Ph.D., however, isn't so sure.
Alex, a university colleague, was cleaning his double-action, six-shot revolver in preparation for a hunting trip later in the month.
In this pistol, when the trigger is pulled the hammer is cocked, the cylinder revolves, and the hammer falls on the next chamber, all in one smooth motion.
For safety's sake, Alex normally kept five bullets in the revolver, with the hammer resting on the sixth, empty chamber.
Before cleaning the gun, he removed the five bullets and set them aside.
When finished cleaning, he began to put the bullets back in the cylinder.
When he arrived at the fifth and final bullet, he suddenly got a distinct sense of dread.
It had something to do with that bullet.
Alex was bothered about the odd feeling because nothing like it had ever happened to him before.
He decided to trust his gut, so he put the bullet aside and positioned the pistol's hammer as usual over the sixth chamber.
The chamber next to it, which normally held the fifth bullet, was now also empty.
Two weeks later, Alex was at a hunting lodge with his fiancee and her parents.
That evening, unexpectedly, a violent argument broke out between the parents.
Alex tried to calm them down, but the father, in an insane rage, grabbed Alex's gun, which had been in a drawer, and pointed it at his wife.
Alex tried to intervene by jumping between the gun and the woman, but he was too late—the trigger was already being pulled.
For a horrifying split second, Alex knew that he was about to get shot at point-blank range.
But instead of a sudden, gruesome death, the pistol went "click."
The cylinder had revolved to an empty chamber—the very chamber that would have contained the fifth bullet if Alex had not set it aside two weeks earlier.
Had Alex actually predicted the future, or was this just an extraordinary coincidence?
There are several possible explanations for why such "intuitive hunches" sometimes play out.
One is that on a subconscious level, we are always thinking and coming to conclusions, but that these register only as hunches to our conscious mind. Another is that we pick up telling cues from body language, subliminal sounds or peripheral vision without being consciously aware of doing so.
A third is that for each amazing coincidence we remember, we forget all the times we had a hunch and it didn't pan out.
A fourth possibility is that we modify our memories for our own convenience, creating a connection where it may not have existed.
And so on.
These sorts of prosaic explanations probably account for many intuitive hunches.
But they don't explain them all.
As in the case of Alex's intuition, a series of carefully documented case studies raises the possibility that some intuitions are due to a genuine sixth sense. But to confirm that those stories are what they appear to be, we must turn to controlled laboratory tests.
In a pilot study and in three follow-up experiments, I have observed that many people respond unconsciously to something bad—even before it happens. Take the prototypical case of a well-known editor of a popular magazine.
When she asks the question, "Is there a sixth sense?" I don't answer directly.
I ask if she'd like to participate in an experiment that uses pictures randomly selected by computer, and she agrees.
I have her sit before a blank computer screen.
All I've told her is that she's about to see a series of digitized photographs.
Some will be calm, like a placid lake, and others will be emotional, like a big spider.
On two fingers of her left hand, I attach electrodes that measure tiny changes in her skin resistance.
On a third finger I place an electrode that monitors blood flow.
I explain that all she has to do is press the button on the mouse when she's ready to begin, and then look at the pictures.
I leave the room, she relaxes, and then she presses the button.
For five seconds, the screen remains blank, and then the computer randomly selects one picture out of a large pool of photos—some calming and some provocative.
The picture is displayed for three seconds, and then the screen goes blank for eight seconds.
Finally, a message appears announcing that she can start the next trial whenever she's ready.
She repeats this sequence 40 times.
At the end of the experiment, I analyze the data recorded by the electrodes and prepare two summary graphs.
Each graph shows average changes in her skin resistance and blood flow before, during and after she saw either calm or emotional pictures.
What she immediately notices is that after she viewed the emotional pictures, both her skin resistance and fingertip blood flow dramatically changed.
And after she viewed calm pictures, her physiology hardly changed at all.
"So I responded emotionally when I saw something emotional, and I remained calm when I saw something calm," she says. "How does that demonstrate a sixth sense?"
I direct her attention to the segment of the graph showing her responses before the computer selected the pictures.
"This bump shows that your body responded to emotional pictures before the computer selected them. And this flat line," I say, pointing to the other line, "shows that your body did not respond before calm pictures were shown. You see? Your body was responding to your future emotion before the computer randomly selected an emotional or calm picture."
As this sinks in, I add, "We can now demonstrate in the laboratory what at some level we've known all along: Many people literally get a gut feeling before something bad happens. Our viscera warn us of danger even if our conscious mind doesn't always get the message."
Our editor's body showed signs of what I call presentiment, an unconscious form of "psi" perception.
Psi is a neutral term for psychic experiences, and though it sounds like fodder for an episode of the X-Files, scientists around the world have studied the subject in the laboratory for over a century.
The scientific evidence is now stronger than ever for commonly reported experiences such as telepathy (mind-to-mind communication), clairvoyance (information received from a distant place) and precognition (information received from a distant time).
Studies suggest that we have ways of gaining information that bypass the ordinary senses.
The sixth sense and similar terms, like second sight and extrasensory perception (ESP), refer to perceptual experiences that transcend the usual boundaries of space and time.
In trying to take these findings further, I realized that we have to dig deeper than what's detectable at the conscious level.
While ESP and psi generally refer to conscious psychic experiences, I've always thought that asking people to consciously report subtle psi impressions was a shot in the dark.
What would happen if we bypassed the psychological defense mechanisms that filter our perceptions and censor our conscious awareness?
Would we find psi experiences that people weren't aware of?
A handful of colleagues have paved the way for this type of investigation.
In the mid-1960s, psychologist Charles Tart, Ph.D., of the University of California at Davis, measured skin conductance, blood volume, heart rate, and verbal reports between two people; called a sender-receiver pair.
He, as the sender, received random electrical shocks to see if remote receivers could detect those events.
Tart found that while they weren't consciously aware of anything out of the ordinary, the distant receivers' physiology registered significant reactions to the shocks he experienced.
In other, independent experiments, engineer Douglas Dean at the Newark College of Engineering; psychologist Jean Barry, Ph.D., in France; and psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson, Ph.D., at the University of Utrecht, all observed significant changes in receivers' finger blood volume when a sender, located thousands of miles away, directed emotional thoughts toward them.
The journal Science also published a study by two physiologists who reported finding significant correlations in brain waves between isolated identical twins. These sorts of studies came to be known as Distant Mental Intention on Living Systems (DMILS).
The idea for studying intuitive hunches came to me in the early 1990s, while I was a research fellow in the psychology department at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
I was investigating the "feeling of being stared at."
In the laboratory, I separated two people, placing them in rooms that were 100 feet away from each another.
Then I monitored person number 1's electrodermal activity while person number 2 stared at person number 1 over a one-way closed-circuit video system. Although the stared-at person could have no conscious idea when the "starer" was doing the looking, since the two were in different rooms and the staring occurred at random times, I did observe small changes in the skin resistance of the person being stared at over closed-circuit television.
In thinking about this result, I realized that (for relativistic reasons) this sort of "nonlocal" connection across space implied a complementary connection across time.
If we were seeing a genuine space-separated effect between people, then the same thing ought to work as a time-separated effect within one person.
I called this proposed effect "presentiment" because the term suggests a response to a future emotional event.
I soon discovered that even the staunchest skeptics, those ready to swear on a stack of scientific journals that psi was impossible, were somewhat less critical of intuitive hunches.
That's because most people have had at least one.
I myself hardly believed the results of the studies I conducted on the magazine editor and others.
But I couldn't find any mistakes in the study design or analysis of the results.
Some months later, Dick Bierman, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Amsterdam, learned of my studies and couldn't believe them either.
So he repeated the experiment in his lab and found the same results.
Since then, two students of psychologist Robert Morris, Ph.D., at the University of Edinburgh, have also repeated the study, and again found similar results. More replication attempts are now under way in several other laboratories.
Do our experiments prove without question that the sixth sense exists?
Not yet.
What we have are three independent labs reporting similar effects based on data from more than 200 participants.
The proof of the pudding will rest upon many more labs getting the same results.
Still, our studies, combined with the outcomes of many other types of tests by dozens of investigators on precognition and other classes of psi phenomena, have caused even highly skeptical scientists to ponder what was previously unthinkable—the possibility of a genuine sixth sense.
In the mid-1990s, for example, no less an arch-skeptic than the late astronomer Carl Sagan rendered his lifelong opinion that all psi effects were impossible. But in one of his last books, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he wrote, "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study:
(1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers;
(2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turned out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."
If scientists eventually agree that a sixth sense exists, how might this change society?
On one hand, it may change nothing; we may learn that genuine psi abilities are rare and only weakly predictive, and thus inconsequential for most practical purposes.
On the other hand, it's possible that the study of the sixth sense will revolutionize our understanding of causality and have radically new applications.
For example, in an article co-titled 'Exploring an Outrageous Hypothesis,' psychologist William Braud, Ph.D., professor and research director at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and co-director of the Institute's William James Center for Consciousness Studies, discusses the concept of "retroactive intentional influence" as applied to healing.
He poses the idea that in cases where serious illnesses disappear virtually overnight, perhaps a healer went back in time to jumpstart the healing process.
Braud is well aware of the mind-bending nature of this hypothesis, but it is not purely fantastical.
In his article, he reviews several hundred experiments examining a wide range of retrocausal phenomena, from mental influence of random numbers generated by electronic circuits, to guessing picture targets selected in the future, to studies examining the "feeling of being stared at," to presentiment experiments.
He concludes that this sizable but not well-known body of carefully controlled research indicates that some form of retroactive intentional influence is indeed possible, and may have important consequences for healing.
A less radical application might be for early warning systems.
Imagine that on a future aircraft all the members of the flight crew are connected to an onboard computer system.
The system is designed to continuously monitor heart rate, electrical activity in the skin, and blood flow.
Before the crew comes aboard, each person is calibrated to see how he or she responds before, during and after different kinds of emotional and calm events.
Each person's idiosyncratic responses are used to create a person-unique emotional "response template," which is fed into the computer.
While the plane is in the air, the computer monitors each crew member's body to assess their emotional level.
If the computer detects that all crew members are about to have an emotional response (and the aircraft is otherwise operating normally), then the computer could alert the pilot.
Sometimes even a few seconds of advance warning in an aircraft can save the lives of everyone on board.
Very likely, some intuitive hunches do indicate the presence of a sixth sense.
But for whom?
Probably everyone, to a degree.
But just as some people have poor vision, it is also quite likely that some people are effectively "psi-blind."
I suspect that in the future, with a little assistance from specialized technologies, the same way a hearing aid can improve poor hearing, it may become possible to boost our weak sixth sense.
Where's the Science in Psi?
Dean Radin asks, "Do our experiments prove without question that the sixth sense exists?"
He then answers, "Not yet," correctly recognizing that we need further successful experiments, by independent investigators, to prove that such a sixth sense is real.
But even that's not so simple.
The independent investigators must do more than duplicate Radin's findings.
They must do so using different apparatus, measurements and randomizing procedures than he did to avoid replicating any errors he may have made inadvertently, otherwise they're just perpetuating faulty findings.
I can already spot some potential errors in his methods.
For example, Radin's claim that people in his presentiment experiments unconsciously anticipated emotional pictures—based on his observation of changes in their skin resistance—violates some basic principles of cause and effect in science.
That's because the case for presentiment rests on comparing changes in physiological states, and different methods of calculating such changes can yield wildly different results.
For example, many years ago, a student was doing research to show that blinded rats are better than sighted rats at transferring their learning to a new task. The trouble was, a previous researcher had found just the opposite effect.
The difference between the two studies?
How they measured change.
The earlier researcher had calculated the simple difference between the number of errors the rats made on the first task and the number of errors they made on the second task; the student, meanwhile, had measured the changes in terms of percentages.
This seemingly innocuous difference led to completely opposite findings!
When we used the same measuring technique on both studies, they yielded uniform results.
In addition to the potential pitfalls of choosing a measuring method, researchers must also account for the great degree of variability of physiological changes, which Radin does not do convincingly.
Skin resistance, like other physiological measures, varies greatly from person to person and over short and long periods.
It also reacts to many aspects of the test subjects' internal and external environment, which is why investigators use a number of adjustments to remove unwanted variation so they can focus only on the changes in which they are interested.
While to his credit, Radin does try to reduce some unwanted variability, his efforts seem to be indirect and arbitrary at best, especially when the process can be very tricky.
Radin measured the change in physiological states by subtracting the very first sample of skin resistance on each trial from all the remaining samples of skin resistance for that trial.
The evidence for presentiment, he says, is the fact that the averages of the change in skin resistance are larger before viewing emotional pictures than before calm pictures.
That seems to make sense.
But the first samples of skin readings taken in the trial set the baseline against which the results of all future trials will be compared and computed.
So if, for some reason, the first samples of the trials involving emotional targets happen to have a somewhat lower value of skin resistance than the first samples of the calm trials, this alone would yield, perhaps falsely, a bigger "change score" for the emotional trials.
To see this problem in action, assume that the average raw score level for both calm and emotional trials is 20.
If the baseline for the calm trials is 15, then the change score for the calm trials would be 20-15=5.
If the baseline for the emotional trials is 10, then the change score for the emotional trials would he 20-10=10.
Thus, the scoring procedure produces a bigger change in the emotional trials, all because of the differences in baselines.
As you can see, the simple choice of method can greatly influence the findings.
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
So how do we know which measure to trust when each gives a different outcome?
The solution is clear only when we have a detailed theory of the underlying process being studied.
But that's a key problem here: There is a general lack of a positive theory of ESP or psi.
What kind of a process is it?
How does it behave?
Indeed, as many parapsychologists recognize, ESP is, at present, defined negatively, in terms of what it is not; the experimenter claims she has found psi when she has eliminated all normal scientific explanations for the outcome.
(Skarekrow - the old...if you can't explain how it works, it doesn't exist fallacy)
Given this hazy state of affairs, there is no principled way to state what the correct measurement procedure should he.
This would not be too serious if different methods produced the same outcome.
But we do not know if this is the case in Radin's experiments.
If I am investigating changes in the firings of nerve impulses in the optic nerve, for example, we have both extensive theory and data to inform us of the appropriate measures to use: We know the underlying distribution of such firings and we know how to appropriately transform them so that the measures of change make sense in terms of what we know about nerves and nerve impulses, in the case of the presentiment hypothesis, however, we do not have a detailed theory and sufficient data to know what sorts of transformations and measures of change make sense.
So before we can believe that the physiological changes show that the subject is anticipating the emotional picture, we need to show, at the least, that different ways of measuring the physiological changes will yield the same outcome.
We also would need to collect the physiological measures under more varied circumstances and over longer time periods.
The history of attempts to investigate scientifically psychical phenomena goes back 150 years, and is replete with examples of psychical researchers claiming they finally proved the existence of the paranormal.
In each instance, subsequent generations of parapsychologists have had to discard as badly flawed what had seemed to the previous generation to be irrefutable proof of psi, or psychic phenomena.
A case in point is the study cited by Radin of the "significant correlations in brain waves between isolated identical twins."
This study was reported in the journal Science in 1965 by Duane and Behrendt.
These investigators took advantage of the fact that alpha brain waves can be induced by simply closing one's eyes.
The researchers put two members of a pair of twins in separate rooms and connected them to electrodes to measure their brain waves.
They instructed one of the twins to shut her eyes at predetermined times.
This produced the expected alpha rhythms in her brain waves, and supposedly caused the other twin's brain waves to show alpha rhythms at the same time.
If this is indeed what had happened, it would be evidence for ESP.
But there were many methodological problems.
First, the isolation of the twins was not very convincing since they were in adjacent rooms.
Second, the evidence for the correlation of the brain waves was based solely on subjective, visual inspection of the brain wave recordings.
As psychologists know, people are very poor at determining correlations subjectively, which is why experimenters trust only correlations tabulated by computers.
Duane and Behrendt later admitted, among other things, that because the twins were not in shielded rooms, they could conceivably have sent coded signals to one another.
"In retrospect, the biggest defect in our experimental procedure was that we did not rule out completely conventional forms of communication between the twins, and we did not perform a statistical analysis to eliminate spontaneous alpha rhythms."
While they continued to seek the "hard, quantitative data" they said would prove or refute the hypothesis, neither these authors or anyone else has succeeded, during the intervening 45 years, in replicating these results under scientific conditions.
In his book The Conscious Universe, Dean Radin remains optimistic that, correctly interpreted, the experimental outcomes of parapsychological experiment conclusively demonstrate the existence of psi or ESP.
But if the century and a half of psychical research has taught us anything, then the next generation will likely not be able to replicate Radin's presentiment results and will begin to search elsewhere for their elusive quarry.
On the other hand, if history ceases to repeat itself, future parapsychologists may very well find ways to help us develop our intuitive powers; it remains to be seen whether Radin's research will pave the way.
Oh now you have me blushing too lol. Thanks Skare
Thanks John...those are very uber-kind words!
I have more as always...some on ESP, psychokinesis, etc., just ask!
You've always been an intelligent and compassionate source and friend from day one.
Your words are always a pleasure to read and you have a beautiful writing style as are your thoughts.
I find you to be a very genuine person with an open mind and those are things I can always appreciate in someone!
Better to have met you!
:3white:
(enough feels now...)
Moving rapidly on .......
I'm so glad that your spiritual experiences have changed your life for the better so dramatically. These really are life-changing events aren't they, and the memory of them is carved deeply into us - the world's ills don't go away but we see them through transformed eyes. It's not that they aren't just as bad as before, but they are put into a different context. If only it were as simple as just showing folks.
This rings true. In personal experience I yebd to pick up on others emotions before they enter my space, kibd of lije feelibg them before they come through the door. This works with messaging as well.
yes, this makes sense. However, is clarisentiment a thing? It would seem presentiment would label personal emotion, then clarisentiment might label the picking up on another's emotion? I'm thinking in terms of empathic perceptions here.
I've been saying for quite some time that if all of metaphysics could agree to one label for a particular, great strides in understanding the unconscious could evolve.
This results analysis needs to change, see above comment regarding a common term or label for what the ibdividual is experiencing.
Success with this would be absolutely awesome! I'm hopeful that if humans continue on the same fast-paced growth rate as the previous 20-years, we may just see intuition not only be explained, but implemented.
Thank you for a great read @Skarekrow ! ♡
Oh now you have me blushing too lol. Thanks Skare
Moving rapidly on .......
I'm so glad that your spiritual experiences have changed your life for the better so dramatically. These really are life-changing events aren't they, and the memory of them is carved deeply into us - the world's ills don't go away but we see them through transformed eyes. It's not that they aren't just as bad as before, but they are put into a different context. If only it were as simple as just showing folks.
It really does change your perspective in ways that one normally cannot without some serious meditative sessions and the like!
It IS that perspective change that allows me to deal with the chronic pain I have for instance...it doesn't have the same effect on my state of mind and emotional state like it used to...there has been a separation created by seeing the other perspective...and the more this is reflected on even years later, the more it continues to reveal itself to me in other aspects and manners.
I have a really great article I just read I will post up later talking about LSD "resetting" the brain into a more "harmonious" thinking pattern.
That could be soooo helpful to people....and it was until it was seen as a threat to the status quo and "the man".
lol
Anyhow...I'm glad that serious research without the taboos is being conducted.
Yes you are correct that the ills or pain does not go away...it just makes it easier to not get hung up on it mentally or emotionally or otherwise...it made it much easier to see it as a sensation separate from the ego-self - whereas though I fully grasped that concept before - it took that shift for it to click that missing gear into place where it started to turn the other gears from all the previous groundwork done ahead of time.
All in all, there are no magic pills or substances - it's still all you working through your BS - the quicker people realize that the better off they are!
Much love my friend!
I agree with all your speculations and thoughts Sandie!!
Yes, it would be quite the admission from Psychology Today if they came out and agreed that ESP is definitely real from a materialist science perspective.
Maybe in the future like you suggest...but really anyone who delves into the proof that is out there should be prepared to keep an open mind about the results...there is quite a large collection showing it's existence.
I just wanted to make sure I included that perspective for people as well as the articles that proclaim it true.
The Navy is doing "intuition" studies for the past 8 years or so now....trying to learn how a soldier in the field could know an IED would explode a split second before it does - and how to stretch that response time out...so basically presentiment/precognition possibly with the assistance of computers.
Pretty interesting!
Gotta run for now!
Hope you are hanging in there!!
Still keeping you in my meditations!!
Lots of love!
"Reset" is a good description.
Nearly similar results found in psilocybin trials.
Funny how they are both from fungus (LSD synthesized from ergot).
I wholly support the safe and therapeutic uses of such things.
I hope one day in the near future this will be available to all who need help.
Enjoy!
Ongoing neuroscience research on psychedelic drugs like LSD and psilocybin is increasingly demonstrating the healing potential of these substances.
In the case of LSD, researchers note in a recent article in Scientific Reports, this healing comes from the drug’s ability to help patients’ brains “reset” connections that cause persistent mental health issues like depression, substance use disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
For people who live with chronic mental illness, the opportunity to reset the brain could be life changing, note the authors.
“I am generally interested in novel therapeutic tools that can help with the healing of psychiatric disorders, especially healing from trauma,” said Selen Atasoy, Ph.D., the first author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Brain and Cognition at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona in an interview with PsyPost on Tuesday.
“I feel that as Western societies we generally tend to label and marginalize mental illness instead of seeing it as a rather normal reaction to extreme and abnormal circumstances.”
Atasoy and her colleagues used a technique called "connectome-harmonic decomposition"
to measure how LSD affects the ways different areas of the brain work together.
In the paper, Atasoy and her team used a unique brain imaging technique to investigate how LSD could help the human brain heal from mental illness. Recent research on the connectome — the theoretical map of all the connections in the brain — has suggested that mental illness stems from unusual patterns of connectivity, and that the healing potential of psychedelic drugs comes from their ability to alter those links.
In their study of participants on LSD, the team used a technique called “connectome-harmonic decomposition” to show the ways in which LSD alters connections among and within areas of the brain.
In the study, the authors analyzed fMRI data from 12 participants who were observed on LSD and a placebo.
Atasoy says this novel analytical technique could provide new insights into how and why psychedelics alter the way people’s brains function.
“We applied a new analysis, a harmonic decoding of fMRI data, which looks at neural activity in a new way; as a combination of harmonic waves in the brain that we call ‘connectome harmonics’,” Atasoy told PsyPost.
“The connectome harmonics we used to decode brain activity, which was first introduced in a Nature Communications publication in 2016, are universal harmonic waves, such as sound waves emerging within a musical instrument, but adapted to the anatomy of the brain, i.e. to the human connectome.”
Under the influence of LSD, subjects’ brains expressed a harmony of functional waves across various areas in a way that was not random.
They call this “repertoire expansion,” suggesting that brain areas under the influence of LSD became connected to other areas that they don’t usually work with.
Furthermore, the way in which those connections formed was not random but structured, suggesting that the brain was undergoing a reorganizational process rather than building links indiscriminately.
LSD has gained increasing acceptance as the neuroscience community continues to investigate its healing potential.
Though the reorganizational process slowed down as the LSD’s effects wore off, the researchers found that some degree of reorganization persisted in the participants’ brains, often translating to relief from distressing symptoms of mental illness.
Of course, before doctors begin to even think about prescribing LSD to treat mental illness, researchers will first have to determine what exactly the neurological reorganization that occurs during a psychedelic experience entails, how long it lasts, and, perhaps most crucially, how it alters a person’s subjective experience long after the drug’s effects subside.
Abstract: Recent studies have started to elucidate the effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on the human brain but the underlying dynamics are not yet fully understood.
Here we used ’connectome-harmonic decomposition’, a novel method to investigate the dynamical changes in brain states.
We found that LSD alters the energy and the power of individual harmonic brain states in a frequency-selective manner.
Remarkably, this leads to an expansion of the repertoire of active brain states, suggestive of a general re-organization of brain dynamics given the non-random increase in co-activation across frequencies.
Interestingly, the frequency distribution of the active repertoire of brain states under LSD closely follows power-laws indicating a re-organization of the dynamics at the edge of criticality.
Beyond the present findings, these methods open up for a better understanding of the complex brain dynamics in health and disease.
Nearly similar results found in psilocybin trials.
Funny how they are both from fungus (LSD synthesized from ergot).
I wholly support the safe and therapeutic uses of such things.
I hope one day in the near future this will be available to all who need help.
Enjoy!
LSD Study Reveals Unprecedented "Harmonic" Reorganization of Brain
The drug appears to hit a "reset" button in the brain.
The drug appears to hit a "reset" button in the brain.
Ongoing neuroscience research on psychedelic drugs like LSD and psilocybin is increasingly demonstrating the healing potential of these substances.
In the case of LSD, researchers note in a recent article in Scientific Reports, this healing comes from the drug’s ability to help patients’ brains “reset” connections that cause persistent mental health issues like depression, substance use disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
For people who live with chronic mental illness, the opportunity to reset the brain could be life changing, note the authors.
“I am generally interested in novel therapeutic tools that can help with the healing of psychiatric disorders, especially healing from trauma,” said Selen Atasoy, Ph.D., the first author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Brain and Cognition at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona in an interview with PsyPost on Tuesday.
“I feel that as Western societies we generally tend to label and marginalize mental illness instead of seeing it as a rather normal reaction to extreme and abnormal circumstances.”
Atasoy and her colleagues used a technique called "connectome-harmonic decomposition"
to measure how LSD affects the ways different areas of the brain work together.
In the paper, Atasoy and her team used a unique brain imaging technique to investigate how LSD could help the human brain heal from mental illness. Recent research on the connectome — the theoretical map of all the connections in the brain — has suggested that mental illness stems from unusual patterns of connectivity, and that the healing potential of psychedelic drugs comes from their ability to alter those links.
In their study of participants on LSD, the team used a technique called “connectome-harmonic decomposition” to show the ways in which LSD alters connections among and within areas of the brain.
In the study, the authors analyzed fMRI data from 12 participants who were observed on LSD and a placebo.
Atasoy says this novel analytical technique could provide new insights into how and why psychedelics alter the way people’s brains function.
“We applied a new analysis, a harmonic decoding of fMRI data, which looks at neural activity in a new way; as a combination of harmonic waves in the brain that we call ‘connectome harmonics’,” Atasoy told PsyPost.
“The connectome harmonics we used to decode brain activity, which was first introduced in a Nature Communications publication in 2016, are universal harmonic waves, such as sound waves emerging within a musical instrument, but adapted to the anatomy of the brain, i.e. to the human connectome.”
Under the influence of LSD, subjects’ brains expressed a harmony of functional waves across various areas in a way that was not random.
They call this “repertoire expansion,” suggesting that brain areas under the influence of LSD became connected to other areas that they don’t usually work with.
Furthermore, the way in which those connections formed was not random but structured, suggesting that the brain was undergoing a reorganizational process rather than building links indiscriminately.
LSD has gained increasing acceptance as the neuroscience community continues to investigate its healing potential.
Though the reorganizational process slowed down as the LSD’s effects wore off, the researchers found that some degree of reorganization persisted in the participants’ brains, often translating to relief from distressing symptoms of mental illness.
Of course, before doctors begin to even think about prescribing LSD to treat mental illness, researchers will first have to determine what exactly the neurological reorganization that occurs during a psychedelic experience entails, how long it lasts, and, perhaps most crucially, how it alters a person’s subjective experience long after the drug’s effects subside.
Abstract: Recent studies have started to elucidate the effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on the human brain but the underlying dynamics are not yet fully understood.
Here we used ’connectome-harmonic decomposition’, a novel method to investigate the dynamical changes in brain states.
We found that LSD alters the energy and the power of individual harmonic brain states in a frequency-selective manner.
Remarkably, this leads to an expansion of the repertoire of active brain states, suggestive of a general re-organization of brain dynamics given the non-random increase in co-activation across frequencies.
Interestingly, the frequency distribution of the active repertoire of brain states under LSD closely follows power-laws indicating a re-organization of the dynamics at the edge of criticality.
Beyond the present findings, these methods open up for a better understanding of the complex brain dynamics in health and disease.
I think this can apply to all sexes...
There is definitely a toxic masculinity culture to overcome though for many of the guys out there.
It's a good list to be mindful of.
I believe in sensitive and kind men.
I believe in the mystical men who believe in themselves.
I believe in men who seek temperance and peace inside them.
I believe in men poets, dreamers, magicians, writers, alchemists, artists, teachers, and angels.
I believe in men who like to dance and sing and make life a celebration.
I believe in men who embrace their wounded inner child, listen to him and embrace him true.
I believe in men who want to heal and help others to heal.
I believe in men who refuse to be slaves to their own wound and that despite the pain,
they clean it and heal it patiently, with love and courage.
I believe in men who come from the stars and remember the power of their wings,
the power of their hands and the power of their heart.
I believe in men who know of intuition and use it as their compass.
I believe in men who share freedom because they are free and do not know another way to live.
I believe in the men protective of women's energy, who know how to read the look of their beloved and who do not intend to change it, simply accompany it wisely on their flight.
I believe in full men who don't need anything from outside because they already know that everything has it inside.
I believe in men who make fire when they are cold, that take refuge in water when they are thirsty.
I believe in men with truthful eyes they see themselves and that's why they
love and respect every creature exists on earth.
I believe in men, perfectly imperfect, because it is in that imperfection is where they also find their beauty.
I believe in sensitive men who know how to receive and give love in balance,
who listen and who also speak, those who live and let them live.
I believe in men who live sexuality as sacred, because they know that it is a wonderful gift.
I believe in men with clear feelings, which are accessible.
I believe in men who walk barefoot and speak to the plants.
I believe in the tender and wild men at the same time.
I believe in the sacred male and in all the divinity they have stood.
By Rishima for:
Sacred Masculine
There is definitely a toxic masculinity culture to overcome though for many of the guys out there.
It's a good list to be mindful of.
I believe in sensitive and kind men.
I believe in the mystical men who believe in themselves.
I believe in men who seek temperance and peace inside them.
I believe in men poets, dreamers, magicians, writers, alchemists, artists, teachers, and angels.
I believe in men who like to dance and sing and make life a celebration.
I believe in men who embrace their wounded inner child, listen to him and embrace him true.
I believe in men who want to heal and help others to heal.
I believe in men who refuse to be slaves to their own wound and that despite the pain,
they clean it and heal it patiently, with love and courage.
I believe in men who come from the stars and remember the power of their wings,
the power of their hands and the power of their heart.
I believe in men who know of intuition and use it as their compass.
I believe in men who share freedom because they are free and do not know another way to live.
I believe in the men protective of women's energy, who know how to read the look of their beloved and who do not intend to change it, simply accompany it wisely on their flight.
I believe in full men who don't need anything from outside because they already know that everything has it inside.
I believe in men who make fire when they are cold, that take refuge in water when they are thirsty.
I believe in men with truthful eyes they see themselves and that's why they
love and respect every creature exists on earth.
I believe in men, perfectly imperfect, because it is in that imperfection is where they also find their beauty.
I believe in sensitive men who know how to receive and give love in balance,
who listen and who also speak, those who live and let them live.
I believe in men who live sexuality as sacred, because they know that it is a wonderful gift.
I believe in men with clear feelings, which are accessible.
I believe in men who walk barefoot and speak to the plants.
I believe in the tender and wild men at the same time.
I believe in the sacred male and in all the divinity they have stood.
By Rishima for:
Sacred Masculine