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.

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby caniswalensis » 18 Jun 2010, 04:16

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.


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.


Hi Indigo,

I hope you gentlemen won't mind if I butt in a little here.

One point that I feel is important to remember. Richard Wiseman does not have the last word on any of this. He is not "the decider." :) I personally feel that he has misspoken here. Time will tell, I guess.

Now, Indigo, I am not trying to be difficult, but you are going to have to help me understand your statements if I am going to be able to understand & agree with them. I don't think you would readily agree with something you do not understand, would you?

Please define a few terms as you see them for me:
mind"
"fundamental"
"fundemental matter"
I would then appreciate it if you could explain the statement: “The inner is always more fundamental than the outer.” In relation to the definitions of those terms.
And then perhaps you would explain how we can know objectively that the mind actually is just more fundmental matter and exists in a non-physical dimension.

I would appreciate any help you can give me in understanding the concepts you are trying to communicate.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41






Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 18 Jun 2010, 04:19

While, it is true that we only get sensations after coming into
contact with an empirical object, the part that experiences or
the sentience has to be there in the first place to receive those
sensations. If it is not present to the sensations, you will not feel
the sensations.

By the way is mental content only just one way? That Is, does builds up as we
experience empirical objects? Nope, there are some things which are
not empirical, but which we impose on the world. Morality, mathematics,
aesthetics, logic are not empirical objects either. There is no such thing
as "integers" and "beautiful" and "ugly" in the empirical world, it is something
we impose from our mind. In other words the mind has content which is prior
to experience of a physical object.

Hence, the mind is a real substance and has its own objective reality.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 04:21

caniswalensis wrote:
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.


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.


Hi Indigo,

I hope you gentlemen won't mind if I butt in a little here.

One point that I feel is important to remember. Richard Wiseman does not have the last word on any of this. He is not "the decider." :) I personally feel that he has misspoken here. Time will tell, I guess.

Now, Indigo, I am not trying to be difficult, but you are going to have to help me understand your statements if I am going to be able to understand & agree with them. I don't think you would readily agree with something you do not understand, would you?

Please define a few terms as you see them for me:
mind"
"fundamental"
"fundemental matter"
I would then appreciate it if you could explain the statement: “The inner is always more fundamental than the outer.” In relation to the definitions of those terms.
And then perhaps you would explain how we can know objectively that the mind actually is just more fundmental matter and exists in a non-physical dimension.

I would appreciate any help you can give me in understanding the concepts you are trying to communicate.

Regards, Canis

Thanks Canis. Sometimes it's just better start over from the beginning.
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, 04:46

Dear Canis,

You are right that Richard wiseman does not have the last word on this. However, the reason why his statement was significant is that he admitted that as far as normal standards of science goes, remote viewing(a paranormal phenomena) is proven. The reason why this is significant is because a lot of paranormal phenomena has been proven by normal standards of science. However, there is still a hesitation in the scientific world to accept these things as facts. Now, regarding my point of pointing out how we can get rid of the "paranormal" as as a problematic thing by going back to basics and realising how wrong we were in the modern age to split up mind and matter and reducing the mind to just some epiphenomena of the physical. The reason science has turned up so many anomolies this century is because science was wrong about this assumption. Mind does indeed have a real, independent and objective existence.

You asked for definitions:

Mind: Mind is an umbrella term we use to describe our inner states of thoughts, feeling, desires, creativity, ideas, abstracts, states of consciousness.
Matter: Matter is what is objective and external to us, that we have a third-person access to and is the stuff that makes up our observable world. Both the 5 sense physical world and 6th sense inner world is part of our observable world. Remote viewing works in the 6th sense inner world which is matter in another dimension.

Fundamental matter: Fundamental matter is the ultimate stuff of which the world is made of. To say something is more fundamental is it to say that it is more basic than it is. For instance, atoms are more basic than molecules; energy is more basic than atoms; quantum waves are more basic than energy. Mind is the most basic of them all.
I hope this clarifies what I am arguing here. I just finished a new blog entry on this matter, you may want to check it out as well to clarify further: http://philospirit.blogspot.com/
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 05:09

Indigo Child wrote:Dear Canis,

You are right that Richard wiseman does not have the last word on this. However, the reason why his statement was significant is that he admitted that as far as normal standards of science goes, remote viewing(a paranormal phenomena) is proven. The reason why this is significant is because a lot of paranormal phenomena has been proven by normal standards of science.

Right. Except, if you remember my earlier post, that wasn't what he meant.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Nostradamus » 19 Jun 2010, 03:14

I think it is kind of funny that daz goes overboard barking about how rv is not paranormal and ic says it is.

There are more senses than the standard 5: proprioception and the kinsthetic sense come to mind.

Therefore there is a 6th sense which gives us information about the inner mental world, which cannot be given by the 5 senses.

NO. That's not a sense.

Mind does indeed have a real, independent and objective existence.

That's subjective, not objective.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 03:29

NO. That's not a sense.


Of course it is. A sense is something which detects something. The eyes detect light, the nose detects
particles in the air, ears detect sound waves etc. Similarly, mind detects thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences.This is pretty easy to prove like anybody you too get intuitions about things and see things
in your mind like memories, fantasies and thoughts.

That's subjective, not objective.
[/quote]

No its objective. It is objective because you have as much third person access to the contents of your
mind as you do to the contents of your other senses. If you think something, you see it in your mind.
If I ask you to visualise a rose, you will see the rose in your minds eyes.

Both mind and matter are objective to us. I have access to both outer and inner worlds. I feel sorry for you
that you do not realise you have this great resource called mind, which can reveal a lot to us about the inner
dimension of reality.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Scepcop » 19 Jun 2010, 05:24

Check out this clarification by Richard Wiseman that is even more favorable to parapsychology!

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... meets.html

"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."


From Jime to me:

"Hi Vinstonas,

Wiseman's concession is very important, because he's one of the few professional skeptics well-informed about the parapsychological literature. This is why I suggested to you to add Wiseman's concession to the argument 8 of your treatise. It's time to make known that some informed professional skeptics have accepted that some of the evidence for psi is technically correct (their disagreetment is purely philosophical, which makes obvious their materialistic biases).

Wiseman tried to clairfy his concession, arguing that he was slightly misquoted. But his clarification is even more favorable to parapsychology as I've shown here:

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... meets.html

Note that he said he was misquoted because he wasn't referring to remote viewing as such, but to ESP in general (hence, his concession is broader: in addition to remote viewing, other ESP claims also have met the widely and commonly accepted standard of science!). So his clarification is even more destructive for the skeptical agenda than his previous concession.

Best,
Jime"
“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 caniswalensis » 19 Jun 2010, 08:13

Hi Indigo,

I am really struggling to grasp what you are trying to get across here.

In the quote below, you seem to be describing the mind as a sensory organ for detecting "thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences."

Indigo Child wrote:Of course it is. A sense is something which detects something. The eyes detect light, the nose detects
particles in the air, ears detect sound waves etc. Similarly, mind detects thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences.This is pretty easy to prove like anybody you too get intuitions about things and see things
in your mind like memories, fantasies and thoughts.


But earlier, when I had asked you to define "mind" you had this to say:

Indigo Child wrote:Mind: Mind is an umbrella term we use to describe our inner states of thoughts, feeling, desires, creativity, ideas, abstracts, states of consciousness.

In this qoute, you seem to be saying that the mind is these things, a word used to describe the "thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences" themselves.

Can you please explain to me what you mean? To me, this seems like two completely different models of how the human mind works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I think if I am ever to really understand your viewpoint, I need to fully understand your definitions of these basic terms.

Thanks, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Postby Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 12:08

Can you please explain to me what you mean? To me, this seems like two completely different models of how the human mind works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I think if I am ever to really understand your viewpoint, I need to fully understand your definitions of these basic terms.

Thanks, Canis


I am not sure what is confusing here Canis. The mind is a sense which detects thoughts, feelings, ideas,
desires, states of consciousness etc. When we use the term "mind" however we use it as an umbrella
term to refer to all these mental states.

I think you might be confused because you think you are the mind. Nope, you are the conscious agent,
which has a mind and a body. You have third person access to both of these things. The body you know
through the senses and the mind you know through the internal mental sense. Neither the body or the
mind are what you are, because you are the one that accesses the information they give. You know for example
you are not the thought you are having at this time, because it is objective to you. Likewise, you know you are not
the thing you are seeing right now, because it is objective to you.

If you understand yourself as a conscious agent accessing the outer and inner world, your confusion will vanish and
it will all start to make sense. Then there is no problem accepting that the mind is an actual objective reality like
physical reality, it only more fundamental. On the other hand, the conscious agent is separate from both physical
reality and mental reality. It has control over both.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby victorzammit » 20 Jun 2010, 10:53

Psychologists and scientists do not professionally understand what technically constitutes admissible evidence amounting to proof. That is the work of a lawyer. Accoridngly Richard Wiseman who conceded that Remote Viewing is empirically and scientifically valid but would need more proof because the claim is 'phenomenal', is WRONG. It is the last refuge of closed minded skeptical scoundrels to be asking for more evidence when the Remote Viewers have more than proved their case. It is time these negatively entrenched psychologists and reductionist scientists bowed to the objective and repeatable evidence we have on the paranormal and the afterlife. When the plaintiff has proven his case especially by way of objective and repeatable evidence NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED for the plaintiff to do. Victor Zammit
victorzammit
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 19 Jun 2010, 12:38

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Jun 2010, 20:10

May I be the first to say... WELCOME!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby Scepcop » 20 Jun 2010, 20:50

Welcome finally Victor! Glad you had the time to finally post!

I hope to hear more about your seances and medium manifestations sometime :)
“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 prove

Postby really? » 20 Jun 2010, 22:24

victorzammit wrote:Psychologists and scientists do not professionally understand what technically constitutes admissible evidence amounting to proof. That is the work of a lawyer. Accoridngly Richard Wiseman who conceded that Remote Viewing is empirically and scientifically valid but would need more proof because the claim is 'phenomenal', is WRONG. It is the last refuge of closed minded skeptical scoundrels to be asking for more evidence when the Remote Viewers have more than proved their case. It is time these negatively entrenched psychologists and reductionist scientists bowed to the objective and repeatable evidence we have on the paranormal and the afterlife. When the plaintiff has proven his case especially by way of objective and repeatable evidence NOTHING ELSE IS REQUIRED for the plaintiff to do. Victor Zammit


Tell us all victor what do people do in the afterlife ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 20 Jun 2010, 22:30

caniswalensis wrote:Hi Indigo,

I am really struggling to grasp what you are trying to get across here.

In the quote below, you seem to be describing the mind as a sensory organ for detecting "thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences."

Indigo Child wrote:Of course it is. A sense is something which detects something. The eyes detect light, the nose detects
particles in the air, ears detect sound waves etc. Similarly, mind detects thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences.This is pretty easy to prove like anybody you too get intuitions about things and see things
in your mind like memories, fantasies and thoughts.


But earlier, when I had asked you to define "mind" you had this to say:

Indigo Child wrote:Mind: Mind is an umbrella term we use to describe our inner states of thoughts, feeling, desires, creativity, ideas, abstracts, states of consciousness.

In this qoute, you seem to be saying that the mind is these things, a word used to describe the "thoughts, desires, feelings,
experiences" themselves.

Can you please explain to me what you mean? To me, this seems like two completely different models of how the human mind works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I think if I am ever to really understand your viewpoint, I need to fully understand your definitions of these basic terms.

Thanks, Canis


IC believes the mind and brain are separate things. He or she is in disagreement that the brain creates the mind. They are mistaken that the mind is what senses the environment it is the brain that interprets those sensory inputs and creates thoughts feeling...hence mind
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron