2 of 4
2
Psychic, Mind Readers,Remote Viewers, Past Life Reads
Posted: 09 September 2012 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

I know of no basis where one mind can actually (physically) connect with another.  However, empathically almost all people can understand and respond to subtle clues either seen, written, or heard audibly and make some pretty accurate determinations.  [Those who ‘profile’ for example, by observation.]

Connecting with past, future, or even other dimensional lives, well there is no actual physics to indicate this with accuracy though perhaps one day there might be.

I suggest looking for like-kind studies being done by different think-tank groups gravitating in this direction for guidance and participation.

Certainly your search is fairly common among human beings seeking for some kind of proof or substance beyond mortal existence throughout the ages.  The search and even inklings give comfort.

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 05:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2012-09-08

Grand Rapids, MI

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Perhaps this would be a good group to contact:  http://www.americanassociationofpsychics.com/Psychics_in_Michigan.php

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 05:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2009-08-10

http://www.randi.org/ Would be better, probably more objective at least.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 05:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2897
Joined  2005-06-15
Mr R - 10 September 2012 05:30 AM

http://www.randi.org/ Would be better, probably more objective at least.

Did you say “probably”? Sorry, I think my skepticism is showing.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 03:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2009-08-10

Well I can’t vouch for them, but I would expect the Randi Organisation to have a more objective view of things and show a willingness to test something scientifically compared to an organisation called the American Association of Psychics, who appear to already hold the opinion that psychic ability exists as indicated in the name of their organisation. I expect their test is like that in South Park, you need to pay them a subsciption fee and that confirms you as a psychic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman’s_Incredible_Gift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 03:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2897
Joined  2005-06-15
hulitoons - 09 September 2012 05:05 PM

I know of no basis where one mind can actually (physically) connect with another.  However, empathically almost all people can understand and respond to subtle clues either seen, written, or heard audibly and make some pretty accurate determinations.  [Those who ‘profile’ for example, by observation.]

Connecting with past, future, or even other dimensional lives, well there is no actual physics to indicate this with accuracy though perhaps one day there might be.

I suggest looking for like-kind studies being done by different think-tank groups gravitating in this direction for guidance and participation.

Certainly your search is fairly common among human beings seeking for some kind of proof or substance beyond mortal existence throughout the ages.  The search and even inklings give comfort.

Did you watch this Youtube video? It’s quite interesting.

Peter - 08 September 2012 08:33 PM

Interestingly I recently saw a youtube video where it was stated that with Quantum Entanglement if you could get all the atoms in 2 brains to vibrate in exactly the same way the 2 people involved could read each others minds. If I find the video again I’ll post it’s url.

However the world record for that is only 3 atoms apparently. So at this stage it seems impossible.

EDIT. Michio Kaku’s video “Telepathy is easier than you think” is here. Make of it what you will.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 04:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Well, without getting into any debate over whether or not psychic powers are real or not, it sounds like you at least want to test to make sure.

The secret is to have a test that proves it without anyone being able to influence the test. The term you want for proof is ‘Independant Double-Blind Study’. By Independant, we mean that the test is conducted by people who have no vested interest in the outcome. By Double-Blind, we mean that neither the tester nor the testee knows what the results are until all the data is collected.

Here is an example of such a test. Suppose your power is to determine if someone is thinking of a wombat.

The subject is seated at a chair at a table across from you. They know that a psychic test of some sort is being performed, but they do not know what is being tested for. Behind a small screen, out of your sight, is a small deck of cards. Each card has a picture of an animal on it (or other objects - chair, bicycle, Van Gogh’s Starry Night, etc). The person conducting the test has randomly shuffled the deck, and has no idea what order they are in. For additional obfuscation, the deck is cut, and only half of the cards are used.The subject looks at the top card in the deck, thinks about the subject for a determined amount of time, then places it in another pile. You record on a list of numbers whether or not you thought they were thinking of a wombat at that time. When the deck is depleted, the tester then examines the discards, and records which cards were drawn and in what order. This is repeated multiple times, with multiple subjects. When a sufficient number of subjects have been tested (more is better!), then the results are compared with the predictions.

Of course, this is a simplified method, but should suffice for preliminary testing.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5150
Joined  2005-01-27

Read me. You don´t know me. Never seen me. Heard me. etc.

And I can check very quickly if what you´ve found comes from the interwebz or not.

*                      *
*                      *
*                      *
*                      *
*                      *
*                      *

I´ve pressed my thumb on the screen between the stars, so you have a startingpoint.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

The only problem I have with your method Robin is that both the subject and the agent are aware a ‘test’ is being given.  A true clarivoyant would not need to know or shouldn’t even know (upon testing from the outside) that such a ‘test’ is being administered.

It IS known that there are times (I’ve even experienced this) that something ‘feels’ when entering areas of a room or walking past a building etc. (this is of course perhaps general the way I’m describing it) BUT there have been times when I know the feeling is fear, or terror, or pain or loss.  I can even, from the outside of a building I’ve never seen before or ever been inside, pinpoint the exact location.  MANY people can do this, and in their case and mine, we move either quickly from the area or are gravitated toward it.  This is commonly called ‘gut feeling’ or even ‘woman’s intuition’ (which doesn’t explain it at all I know)

When using animals in mazes, the subjects don’t ‘understand’ that a test is being given or what the test means.

The subject (human) person of any test should NOT be aware that a test is being administered or else a certain kind of lottery or poker odds game, intellectional profiling becomes part of the reaction.

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2012 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

True, Huli.. But you can’t make a solid determination without *some* sort of test. Otherwise, you lurk in the dark limbo that is favored by those who want their abilities taken on their word alone. With a proper double-blind, the subject does not know what is being tested, and the person administering the test does not know what the subject is being given until after data is collected.

If you can’t test it, then does it exist? Why would it being part of a test influence anything?

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2