View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Scepcop » 17 Jun 2010, 01:02

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Jun 2010, 03:07

I like this:

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."


Specifically this:

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

IMO, they need a higher standard because strides are being made to shake up their little world. So let's just raise the bar because they're getting wise to our little game.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 17 Jun 2010, 12:02

Theres the extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence gambit again :D

Why don't scientists just admit they were wrong for splitting up mind and matter
in the first place, and then refusing to allow mind to into their science. It is has
always been blatantly obvious that the mind does have power over matter.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 17 Jun 2010, 23:18

Indigo Child wrote:. It is has
always been blatantly obvious that the mind does have power over matter.

I respectfully disagree with this statement.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 17 Jun 2010, 23:45

ProfWag wrote:
Indigo Child wrote:. It is has
always been blatantly obvious that the mind does have power over matter.

I respectfully disagree with this statement.


It's quite easy to prove. The East has never had a mind-body problem, because the
East has not split up the mind and body(see Spiritual Science in Alternative science forum)
as has been done in the West, making it possible to have real mind sciences. There are two
types of knowledge we have: outer-knowledge and inner knowledge. In the outer knowledge
we are aware of the things through 5 senses, and the inner knowledge we are are aware of
mental states such as thoughts, feeling, desires etc. There is finally a third category of knowledge
and that is self-knowledge, that is knowledge of the one that knows the inner and outer. As it
is the one that knows the outer and the inner, it itself is not the inner and the outer. I know I
am not the chair I am sitting on because it is objective to me and thus I know it to be matter,
likewise I know I am not my mental states either because it is objective to me, so it too is matter.
In other words mind is just another form of matter and has an objective existence. Where is this
matter? Well, clearly it is not present in the physical dimension, it is therefore present in a a more
fundamental and non-physical dimension. We have direct access to that non-physical dimension through
our mind.

The mind has power over physical matter because it is more fundamental than it. Hence why psychosomatic
facts are possible, where simply the power of thought can cause changes of physical states. You can argue
this with me until you go blue in the face, but there is nothing you can say that will negate the perfect logical
consistency of what I have just told you.
Last edited by Indigo Child on 18 Jun 2010, 00:29, edited 1 time in total.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 00:19

Indigo Child wrote: You can argue
this with me until you can blue in the face, but there is nothing you can say that will negate the perfect logical
consistency of what I have just told you.

Perhaps it is logical to you, but it is illogical to me.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 00:30

There is little doubt to me that a person can make peace with themselves and I understand there is an inner knowledge of oneself that can be hard to find, and also a more physical outer knowledge that is more evident.
What I disagree with is that I don't believe a person can make a physical object move using nothing but the force of his/her mind.
If you want to say that you can think yourself into doing physical things, then yes, I'll agree with that. I won't agree with any kind of statement that says if I think properly, I can make that soda can move across the table without anything touching it.
That's where I'm coming from.
If, however, you have evidence that a person can make a solid object move with nothing more than thought, please share your evidence.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 18 Jun 2010, 00:35

ProfWag wrote:
Indigo Child wrote: You can argue
this with me until you can blue in the face, but there is nothing you can say that will negate the perfect logical
consistency of what I have just told you.

Perhaps it is logical to you, but it is illogical to me.


Logic is not somebodies opinion. Something is either logical or it is not.

Are these statement true or false:

I have 5 main senses which give me knowledge
of my outer world of the physical.

I have a 6th internal sense which gives me knowledge
of my inner world of the mental.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 18 Jun 2010, 01:00

What I disagree with is that I don't believe a person can make a physical object move using nothing but the force of his/her mind.


That is because you don't accept that mind actually is just more fundmental matter and exists in a non-physical dimension. However,
whether you accept it or not, does not change the fact it is the most logical conclusion. The inner is always more fundamental than the
outer.

Let me ask you a question how do you know anybody else has a mind? All you see are bodies, not minds.

That's where I'm coming from.
If, however, you have evidence that a person can make a solid object move with nothing more than thought, please share your evidence.


Read what your own skeptic friend says. Remote viewing is proven by the standards of any other science.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 01:46

Indigo Child wrote:
Are these statement true or false:

I have 5 main senses which give me knowledge
of my outer world of the physical.

I have a 6th internal sense which gives me knowledge
of my inner world of the mental.

Question #1. True, there are 5 main senses which give me knowledge of my outer world of the physical. These senses, combined, give me knowledge that makes me able to function.
Question #2. False. The 6th sense is commonly known as one's sense of balance. Some say that using the 5 main senses to their utmost can give you a "6th sense," but there is nothing there other than increased perception of the 5 main senses.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 01:56

Indigo Child wrote:
What I disagree with is that I don't believe a person can make a physical object move using nothing but the force of his/her mind.


Read what your own skeptic friend says. Remote viewing is proven by the standards of any other science.

Psychokinesis or telekinesis is the ability to make objects move with one's mind which is what we were discussing and was what I was disagreeing with you on. Remote viewing is the ability to gather information from a distant target. They are two different things.
As far as reading what Dr. Wiseman says, I did. Here is his clarification which I'm sure most people have overlooked:
“It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim.” - Dr. Richard Wiseman
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 18 Jun 2010, 02:07

If you do not have a 6th internal sense how can you know thoughts, feelings, desires, ideals, states of consciousness. These are not
empirical objects? If my 5 senses could know mental states, I could look at you and see your thoughts. This not the case, then it logically
follows that your 5 senses cannot know mental states. There is another sense for that.

“It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim.” - Dr. Richard Wiseman


There is no such thing as extraordinary and ordinary claims in science. Something is either empirically true or it is not.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Jun 2010, 02:08

So who on this earth decides "what is or isn't an EXTRAODINARY claim"? Does science have an offical "Extraordinary Claims Dept?

Awwww..... IC beat me to it!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 03:05

Indigo Child wrote:If you do not have a 6th internal sense how can you know thoughts, feelings, desires, ideals, states of consciousness. These are not
empirical objects? If my 5 senses could know mental states, I could look at you and see your thoughts. This not the case, then it logically
follows that your 5 senses cannot know mental states. There is another sense for that.


Does my dog Mojo have thoughts, feelings, desires, ideals, and states of consciousness? Oh yea. But he doesn't know what they are philosophically. He has learned through experience that he desires peanut butter and that the ideal place to sleep is on the bed rather than the garage floor. There's not a 6th sense in that.
I, personally, believe that your 5 senses can know the mental states of others, but that doesn't mean you could see their thoughts. You see the results of their thoughts. Can't you look at a person and tell when they are happy, sad, confused, etc.? You are identifying their mental state at that particular time, but, as you said, you can't see their thoughts. I also feel that your 5 senses can determine the mental state of yourself which, in more simpler terms, is emotion. Emotion does not "sense" per se', but rather is a result of your 5 senses in combination of your thoughts.
You ask if thoughts, feelings, etc. are not empirical objects. I will say no, they are not objects, but rather the result of experiences in ones life, most often stemming as a result of the 5 senses.
Ever stick your hand in a fire? Bet you only did that once if you did. Was that experience an object? No, it was your sense of touch. If you knew better than to stick your hand in the fire to begin with, I'm quite confident that was the result of your internal sense of sight combined with the visual of the external emotion of the person whom you did witness in pain.
I would very much like to add one more thing if I may Indigo Child. I've never really thought before about some of the things you've presented today, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention to give me some thought on the subject.
I still don't believe that a person can read minds or talk with dead people, but it has been interesting to think about how the 5 senses intertwine so thanks for that.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 18 Jun 2010, 04:06

What you are talking about here is primary and secondary qualities.

The 5 senses give us the primary qualities of empirical objects. The
mind give us the the secondary qualities as subjective sensations. So
for instance the nose detects particle from the rose, and then this registers
as the experience and sensation of smell. There are two different phenomena
here one is the quantity of rose particles entering the nose, and the other is
the quality of the sensation of the smell of rose. You cannot know anybodies
sensation of the smell of the rose, you can only know that the same particles
have entered their nose, but their sensation is private. Similarly, one can see
an object which emits a frequency of light, which you see as red, but another blue.

So the qualitative aspect of it which is mental is completely different to the
quantitative aspect which is physical. You cannot see anybodies elses subjective
sensations with your 5 senses. You can only know your own subjective sensations
through your 6th sense. Therefore there is a 6th sense which gives us information
about the inner mental world, which cannot be given by the 5 senses.

Are you familiar with the famous thought experiment of Mary in a black and white room?
Mary is born in a black and white room and has a teacher which teaches her all the knowledge
of physics, biology, neuroscience. She has complete knowledge of the physical word. However,
Mary does not know the colour "red" In other words there is another kind of knowledge that is
not physical, but experential, and cannot be known by any physical knowledge. This experential
inner dimension, which is our most intimate knowledge, is not a physical-stuff. We only know it
through our 6th internal sense.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Next

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest