Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 19, 2013 at 5:56pm

Maybe the only thing there is to it is your heightened awareness, during which each animal interprets behavioral signals from the other.  No ESP necessary.  As for hit'n'miss, you need to look at the statistical outcomes.  If 900 soldiers die on the battle field but 100 survive, remembering all their great instincts, the statistics indicate that such instincts give a 90% failure rate, while the 10% who survived see their own survival as 100% success.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Strega on February 19, 2013 at 8:03pm

So basically the 900, on dying, think that god deserted them, and maybe he doesn't exist, but the 100 that survive think w00t! Jesus saves!

Guess who we are left with - the 100.  Good maths there, Heather (Goddess)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 19, 2013 at 8:30pm

Merci.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on February 19, 2013 at 5:29pm

@Belle Rose

Let's assume for the moment you are of the opinion that you can at certain times under stressful situations read the thoughts and emotions of people around you.

I am willing to assume that because it does indeed seem to be the case.

How would you Belle Rose explain the above assumption about someone else?  In a scientific manner of course.

If I ask you for a scientific explanation of the Space Monkey I "know" I saw last night, can you provide me with one?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Belle Rose on February 19, 2013 at 6:27pm

Hey Gregg: the answer is "I don't know" that's my point. We're talking about the question:

"Have you ever had an experience of something not known to or accepted by the scientific community?"

So I'm challenging the crowd to consider: Can we read people's minds under stressful circumstances? It's not something I'm aware that the scientific community accepts or knows about, (prove me wrong :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 19, 2013 at 6:42pm

Show me someone who claims to have this power and I'll help them get $1 million if they'll put up their claim to scrutiny by James Randi, :D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on February 19, 2013 at 7:50pm

Better hurry from what I understand they will be discontinuing that challenge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on February 19, 2013 at 8:03pm

Yes, well 50 years of actually taking the time to scrutinize bullshit claims is likely all James Randi has in him.  Perhaps, for the next 50 years, people claiming psychic abilities can, instead, offer a million dollars to anyone who will actually believe them, ha ha ha!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on February 19, 2013 at 8:17pm

@Belle Rose,

Prove me wrong about the Space Monkey.

What would prove the Space Monkey wrong?

What lack of evidence proves the Space Monkey wrong?

Who is required to prove the existence of the Space Monkey?  You or Me?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Belle Rose on February 19, 2013 at 9:51pm

Hi Gregg, you pose a good counter argument. I suppose you would have to prove the space monkey and I would have to prove that I was able to read their mind/intentions. Problem: How do you prove a subjective experience? You can't, right? I know that's where you were going so I'll beat you there ;) But there IS a scientific explanation for my experience. I just don't know what it is and so far Heather has come the closest to addressing the question. You however are dodging the question.

Anyway Kairan, there you go. Science will probably never accept such woo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on February 19, 2013 at 10:08pm

Definitely have to give you props for putting that out there. Thanks for sharing! I think critical thinkers can be interested in what appears to be woo, because debunking it can be very informative. Look what useful information about human nature Heather's hypothesis brings to light...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on February 19, 2013 at 10:34pm

@Belle Rose,

A subjective experience is by it's nature is not provable by a scientific empirical method, which requires objective evidence, which is why personal testimony will never suffice as a means of proof.

The scientific method has been used to vet the question of "mind reading" in sufficient numbers to confirm that it does not occur.  To overcome the mountains of objective testing (and confirmation of the nil) of the hypothesis (ie. mind reading), you will need some extraordinary objective evidence independently  verified by many different sources. 

If you truly would like to know why your brain "fools" you into thinking that you can or have read minds, get involved with Neuroscience, the advances in the last decade have been extraordinary.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page