The contributions of the sciences to Religion

[Ben Dhyan]

What you called ESP is either wishful thinking or a sham, not evidences.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the differences between what is a verifiable evidence and what is personal belief, faith, wishful thinking or delusion.

Clearly you're in the later category, if you think ESP has to do with evolution. You have been watching too many sci-fi movies.

Again, I have no desire to reply to you again, in this thread as with other threads, because quite frankly, you irritate the craps out of me.

But yimmie, ESP is self evident to those who have evolved the faculty....that it is not self evident to you has already been explained...you are a young soul...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

there it is again, the bold faced "self evident" lie...

You should not accuse a member of lying unless you have proof... I am telling you that I have ESP experiences regularly...there...what do you say to that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good that you agree with my point which also undermines your esp claims.

There is nothing that could undermine my ESP claim...no more than anything could undermine my claim of experiencing religious bliss in meditation.....it is a personal experience.. That you want to close your mind and disbelieve it does not change the truth.

 

[gnostic]

But yimmie, ESP is self evident to those who have evolved the faculty....that it is not self evident to you has already been explained...you are a young soul...

When talk of evidence I am talking about what other people can verify, either by testing or finding more evidences.

What I have here with your reply, is your "claim" that you have ESP. That's not something that science or anyone can verify, so that doesn't make it "evidence", no matter how many times you may use the words "self evident" to prove your point.

What you have claimed to be "self-evident", is not self evident to anyone else...except to yourself.

You are like a child or worse, a con artist or lawyer or used car salesman, trying to play word game, trying to exploit others for some gains.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When talk of evidence I am talking about what other people can verify, either by testing or finding more evidences.

What I have here with your reply, is your "claim" that you have ESP. That's not something that science or anyone can verify, so that doesn't make it "evidence", no matter how many times you may use the words "self evident" to prove your point.

You are like a child or worse, a con artist or lawyer or used car salesman, trying to play word game, trying to exploit others for some gains.

Yimmie.....science can't prove I have experienced a bliss beyond words in meditation either....that does not make my claim false... Are you saying that if science can not verify what people claim they have experienced....these experiences are all presumed to be illusions, delusions, lies, etc.. Way to go Yimmie...keep your mind locked up and secure so no light can get in....just the written word, number, or other symbolic means of conceptually representing the world....the reality on the other side of the concepts representing the reality will forever remain veiled.....

 

[gnostic]

Yimmie.....science can't prove I have experienced a bliss beyond words in meditation either....that does not make my claim false... Are you saying that if science can not verify what people claim they have experienced....these experiences are all presumed to be illusions, delusions, lies, etc.. Way to go Yimmie...keep your mind locked up and secure so no light can get in....just the written word, number, or other symbolic means of conceptually representing the world....the reality on the other side of the concepts representing the reality will forever remain veiled.....

Again, with more word game from you...and you wonder why Mestemia and others like him, think you are not being honest with us.

Right now, you are contradicting yourself.

When this whole stupid ESP first come up...I don't remember if it was you or mystic or someone who brought it up first, but quite frankly, I don't care because that's not my point here, now...is that YOU were quite adamant that science support the ESP phenomena, AND there are "evidences" for this ability...or so you have claimed.

And then you repeatedly make claims that we mere mortals are nothing like the superior "you", not being on the same curve in evolution or human development. (Your dishonesty is not your only failing; apparently you are arrogant to boot.)

Now, I am telling you that I am not a biologist, never claim to be expert in biology, but I can spot a lie or embellishment when I see or hear ones.

No scientific research ever stated that ESP is any other parts of biology. The only ones who think ESP is the result of evolutionary changes, are writers of sci-fi books, tv shows and movies. They are very imaginative, but more in the fantasy-world than reality.

But with these claims you have repeatedly made, you repeatedly skirted any question or request for evidences or sources.

You keep making claims that you can't substantiate...AND YET, you have claim that it is on your side...except that lack evidences.

But the contradiction here is now,

Yimmie.....science can't prove I have experienced a bliss beyond words in meditation either....that does not make my claim false...

Here, you are now saying that you don't science to make your case "true". Your opinion and rationale don't make your claim, true.

You are moving goalposts and using circular reasoning.

My advice is to stop making baseless claims, especially if you are going to mix your claims with science, because these claims only exposed your dishonesty. Whenever you make pseudoscience (fake science) claims, people will always ask you to provide evidences or provide sources, and it doesn't help your cause when you can't provide any, or foolishly demanded proof when you have provide none yourself.

Your rationality isn't evidence, and it is certainly not your best weapon, because you continued to make more empty claims to justify your original claim.

 

[Shad]

There is nothing that could undermine my ESP claim...no more than anything could undermine my claim of experiencing religious bliss in meditation.....it is a personal experience.. That you want to close your mind and disbelieve it does not change the truth.

The lack of evidence for it undermines all claims about it. It is a personal experience we can test, after all you attempted to use a prediction as evidence. Now you are backpedaling. The truth of it is you still have zero evidence for ESP.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, with more word game from you...and you wonder why Mestemia and others like him, think you are not being honest with us.

Right now, you are contradicting yourself.

When this whole stupid ESP first come up...I don't remember if it was you or mystic or someone who brought it up first, but quite frankly, I don't care because that's not my point here, now...is that YOU were quite adamant that science support the ESP phenomena, AND there are "evidences" for this ability...or so you have claimed.

And then you repeatedly make claims that we mere mortals are nothing like the superior "you", not being on the same curve in evolution or human development. (Your dishonesty is not your only failing; apparently you are arrogant to boot.)

Now, I am telling you that I am not a biologist, never claim to be expert in biology, but I can spot a lie or embellishment when I see or hear ones.

No scientific research ever stated that ESP is any other parts of biology. The only ones who think ESP is the result of evolutionary changes, are writers of sci-fi books, tv shows and movies. They are very imaginative, but more in the fantasy-world than reality.

But with these claims you have repeatedly made, you repeatedly skirted any question or request for evidences or sources.

You keep making claims that you can't substantiate...AND YET, you have claim that it is on your side...except that lack evidences.

But the contradiction here is now,



Here, you are now saying that you don't science to make your case "true". Your opinion and rationale don't make your claim, true.

You are moving goalposts and using circular reasoning.

My advice is to stop making baseless claims, especially if you are going to mix your claims with science, because these claims only exposed your dishonesty. Whenever you make pseudoscience (fake science) claims, people will always ask you to provide evidences or provide sources, and it doesn't help your cause when you can't provide any, or foolishly demanded proof when you have provide none yourself.

Your rationality isn't evidence, and it is certainly not your best weapon, because you continued to make more empty claims to justify your original claim.

Yimmie...your post shows how ignorant you are about science....and how shallow and biased you are that you have not only not read peer reviewed science research papers on ESP....you didn't even know there were any.....

Telepathy & ESP

Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

Puthoff & Targ (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research

Eisenberg & Donderi (1979). Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.

Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton

Bem (1994). Response to Hyman

Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane.

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). A dog that seems to know when his owner to coming home: Videotaped experiments and observations.

Storm & Ertel (2001). Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research

Milton & Wiseman (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001)

Sheldrake & Morgana (2003). Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy.

Sheldrake & Smart (2003). Videotaped experiments on telephone telepathy.

Sherwood & Roe (2003). A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESP Programme

Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005). Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures

Hastings (2007). Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard

Radin (2007). Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?

Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology

Storm et al (2010). A Meta-Analysis With Nothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)

Tressoldi (2011). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences

Tressoldi et al (2011). Mental Connection at Distance: Useful for Solving Difficult Tasks?

Williams (2011). Revisiting the Ganzfeld ESP Debate: A Basic Review and Assessment

Rouder et al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010)

Storm et al (2013). Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013)


Precognition & Presentiment
Honorton & Ferrari (1989). “Future telling”: A meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments, 1935-1987

Spottiswoode & May (2003). Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response: Analyses, Artifacts and a Pilot Study

Radin (2004). Electrodermal presentiments of future emotions.

McCraty et al (2004). Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition: Part 1. The Surprising Role of the Heart

McCraty et al (2004). Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition: Part 2. A System-Wide Process?

Radin & Lobach (2007). Toward understanding the placebo effect: Investigating a possible retrocausal factor.

Radin & Borges (2009). Intuition through time: What does the seer see?

Bem (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect

Bem et al (2011). Must psychologists change the way they analyze their data?

Bierman (2011). Anomalous switching of the bi-stable percept of a Necker Cube

Radin et al (2011). Electrocortical activity prior to unpredictable stimuli in meditators and non-meditators.

Radin (2011). Predicting the unpredictable: 75 years of experimental evidence

Tressoldi et al (2011). Let your eyes predict : Prediction accuracy of pupillary responses to random alerting and neutral sounds

Galek et al (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi

Mossbridge et al (2012). Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Bem et al (2015). Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events

Physiological correlations at a distance

Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.


You can thank George-Ananda for these as he linked to this site earlier in the thread, and there are more resources there when you get through studying the above......http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The lack of evidence for it undermines all claims about it. It is a personal experience we can test, after all you attempted to use a prediction as evidence. Now you are backpedaling. The truth of it is you still have zero evidence for ESP.

Shad....read the papers I posted above and get back to me....there is no lack of evidence that ESP exists...there is lack of understanding as to the how it works... That you do not experience it personally is probably the reason you deny its existence....your ego does not like to think of itself as being backward...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Shad....read the papers I posted above and get back to me....there is no lack of evidence that ESP exists...there is lack of understanding as to the how it works... That you do not experience it personally is probably the reason you deny its existence....your ego does not like to think of itself as being backward...

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

You are indeed slow....it doesn't work like that...these are peer reviewed papers....they are the evidence. It is up to the one who has read a paper and disagrees....to try and refute it. Now you read one and if you disagree, you need to provide a scientific based refutation.... Until you do that, the evidence the paper establishes stands... Now get yourself to work and start reading...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are indeed slow....it doesn't work like that...these are peer reviewed papers....they are the evidence. It is up to the one who has read a paper and disagrees....to try and refute it. Now you read one and if you disagree, you need to provide a scientific based refutation.... Until you do that, the evidence the paper establishes stands... Now get yourself to work and start reading...

Have you read them?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you read them?

Not all of them of course...they were posted because gnostic and Shad (and probably you) had no idea that there even were peer reviewed science papers on ESP.... I have been reading Sheldrake's research for over twenty years...and Puthoff for about over ten years..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not all of them of course...they were posted because gnostic and Shad (and probably you) had no idea that there even were peer reviewed science papers on ESP.... I have been reading Sheldrake's research for over twenty years...and Puthoff for about over ten years..

If that's the case, can you present a single piece of evidence from them?

Also, what scientific journals have these papers been published in?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If that's the case, can you present a single piece of evidence from them?

Also, what scientific journals have these papers been published in?

They were presented for you skeptics to study, not for those who already know, and who already subjectively experience ESP... Now if you skeptics do not study them.....you have lost all credibility on this thread if you say there is no evidence for ESP...

Now this is your third post to me since I posted the links to the scientific papers on ESP, repeatedly asking stupid time wasting questions about them....and to top it off you now ask what journals were they published in? Well you time waster....if you had bothered to click on any of the papers, you would see the journal it was published in....try doing it and while you're there, you may even try reading it....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They were presented for you skeptics to study, not for those who already know, and who already subjectively experience ESP... Now if you skeptics do not study them.....you have lost all credibility on this thread if you say there is no evidence for ESP...

Now this is your third post to me since I posted the links to the scientific papers on ESP, repeatedly asking stupid time wasting questions about them....and to top it off you now ask what journals were they published in? Well you time waster....if you had bothered to click on any of the papers, you would see the journal it was published in....try doing it and while you're there, you may even try reading it....

I've clicked a few of them and found no mention of any scientific journals whatsoever. Also, just dumping a load of documents and saying "read that" is not a compelling argument - especially since you have shown absolutely zero evidence of having read them yourself or being in any way aware of their actual content. If you haven't read them, I don't know why I or anyone else should bother.

What I'm asking is not unreasonable, nor should it take you much time. I find your hostile reaction to these extremely simple questions very telling, so here's my conclusion:

You haven't read a single one of those papers.
You're presenting them as evidence for your position without having any idea of their content.
You have no idea if they have ever been submitted for peer review or accepted in any credible scientific journals.
You are incapable of formulating coherent argument for your position.

Now, all you have to do to refute those claims is answer my two simple questions:

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

What scientific journals have these papers been published in?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've clicked a few of them and found no mention of any scientific journals whatsoever. Also, just dumping a load of documents and saying "read that" is not a compelling argument - especially since you have shown absolutely zero evidence of having read them yourself or being in any way aware of their actual content. If you haven't read them, I don't know why I or anyone else should bother.

What I'm asking is not unreasonable, nor should it take you much time. I find your hostile reaction to these extremely simple questions very telling, so here's my conclusion:

You haven't read a single one of those papers.
You're presenting them as evidence for your position without having any idea of their content.
You have no idea if they have ever been submitted for peer review or accepted in any credible scientific journals.
You are incapable of formulating coherent argument for your position.

Now, all you have to do to refute those claims is answer my two simple questions:

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

What scientific journals have these papers been published in?

If you can't find the journal, you have never read a scientific journal...it is where it should be...look for it and you will find it....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you can't find the journal, you have never read a scientific journal...it is where it should be...look for it and you will find it....

YOU are the one making the claims, YOU are the one who has to support them. So, snswer my questions or admit that the following claims about you are true:

You haven't read a single one of those papers.
You're presenting them as evidence for your position without having any idea of their content.
You have no idea if they have ever been submitted for peer review or accepted in any credible scientific journals.
You are incapable of formulating coherent argument for your position.

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

What scientific journals have these papers been published in?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

YOU are the one making the claims, YOU are the one who has to support them. So, snswer my questions or admit that the following claims about you are true:

You haven't read a single one of those papers.
You're presenting them as evidence for your position without having any idea of their content.
You have no idea if they have ever been submitted for peer review or accepted in any credible scientific journals.
You are incapable of formulating coherent argument for your position.

Can you present a single piece of evidence yourself from any of the papers posted above?

What scientific journals have these papers been published in?

You are a silly boy who is out of his depth.....you can't even work out where to find the name of the journal... Ok....here is how you do it...click on the link...Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding ...,,,now look up at the top right of the page and you will see it was published in Nature... It is the same process or similar for all papers...

 

[McBell]

You should not accuse a member of lying unless you have proof... I am telling you that I have ESP experiences regularly...there...what do you say to that?

you have shown the whole "ESP is self evident" is a bold faced lie.

nice try.
But it is against to rules to call a member a liar.
Regardless of how many lies they tell.