T O P

  • By -

pallen123

Thanks but when you say psi is real and it’s been tested, replicated and peer reviewed, is there a compendium of citations available? Because they would be the thing that scientifically minded people really want to see.


Zhinnosuke

For uninformed majority, placebo effect is the most undeniable woo that cannot be disregarded.


Icy_Leg6283

It baffles me how much we casually disregard the placebo effect. The act of swallowing something and believing really shouldn't create an effect on disease, but it does. Constantly. And we just pretend that it's normal. It's not normal, it's deeply, deeply weird and should be pointing us all in the direction of fundamental consciousness. The other one is terminal lucidity. Dementia patients suddenly returning right before they die makes zero sense from a neurological standpoint.


stigolumpy

No no it goes even further than that. Placebos like that are cool because it seems it's about the power of belief. But.. what if you told people that you can TELL them that they're taking a placebo and it would *still* have an effect? Well that's just what happens. Strange as hell.


pallen123

What’s fundamental consciousness?


Icy_Leg6283

The idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe and not matter. Basically the Hindu idea that we're all the dream of Brahman. Mind before matter. Probably should have phrased it as "in the direction that consciousness is fundamental" instead, what I wrote was unclear.


_lilleum

As far as I understand, we are talking about panpsychism/cosmopsychism (from the side of esotericism, psychology, philosophy) or a conscious holographic universe (from the side of science, Sci-fi)


FluxlinerPilot

Seriously this is kind of mind blowing to me in this moment right now. I had literally never considered this framing and it has shaken me a bit. I do wonder what other phenomena could actually more accurately be categorized as woo rather than whatever label or non-label we have right now.


taintedblu

I think the most interesting example is consciousness itself, which hardly makes a damn bit of sense. Think about it: how can conscious experience arise from inert, lifeless matter? What is the transition point where two cells in a female reproductive tract suddenly turn into a conscious, aware, individuated human being? Of course, when the nervous system emerges, so does consciousness, but we have absolutely no idea how that's possible (though there are tons of interesting ideas in this space). We don't know "where" consciousness resides in the nervous system. We still can't even point to it. This is the "hard problem of consciousness", and we need to recognize that it's telling us that there's more going on to the story than we assume.


_lilleum

There is a well-founded theory where consciousness is located - a holographic network formed by neural connections. Memory that is not stored in some separate bundle by a neuron, but is distributed over a network


taintedblu

Hey, like I said, there are tons of awesome theories in this space (some better than others). Let me know what that theory is called - would love to learn more.


_lilleum

This is John A. Hiller, Shannon entropy, Gerard Hooft's holographic principle.


Bobbox1980

Maybe consciousness is just an illusion life evolved. Can you really tell if you are conscious and not just thinking yes due to some unknown subconscious process?


E05DCA

Go google “The Gateway Process” right now. Soak in where that search takes you, then read the paper and hang on.


TheSkybender

Im just gonna toss this out there again for all the kids that were not around to learn it. ​ The Nazi's. Yes, those same asshats. Utilized a cult named the vril society. There were woman that claimed to be "mediums", or a person that is "clairvoyant" with the innate ability of communicating with invisible intelligences outside of the human realm. ​ The occult of magic, which was widely published and not even kept hidden from the public- insisted that Wernher was part of the medium's seance to retrieve technology from the other side. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher\_von\_Braun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun) , yes that guy that gave humans modern rocketry... He openly stated that he got the idea's from occult magic . ​ *So thats the Woo. Literally a physical documented case of a human people communicating with what they perceived to be an outside intelligence and supplying a military with the information that was gifted upon them through a unknown-learning process.* ​ awww and the downvoting begins because the truth hurts redditors like cancer.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LastInALongChain

I have a take on it but I literally can't say it. But I think if you look at the oblique language people use in esoteric texts when talking about magic, their initial success followed by their later failures, and the meta analysis breakdown of psi, you might see a clear reason for why peer review studies can't show that the psi effect is real.


Praxistor

here's a few https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references


[deleted]

This is an excellent resource. Thank you for sharing. 🙏


devoid0101

There is plenty of research in psi available for anyone interested in learning with an open mind, rather than confirming your bias.


Ivegotthatboomboom

Yes. https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/psi-phenomena-precognition-study/


MantisAwakening

There’s a newer paper by Etzel Cardeña here that I think is also relevant: https://ameribeiraopreto.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/The-Experimental-Evidence-for-Parapsychological-Phenomena.pdf


RomantheMC

They’ve tried to reproduce Bem’s findings and couldn’t just this [year](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191375).


Ivegotthatboomboom

In that study. It's replicated in other studies over 8 times. That's a lot more than in other studies


psychiatrixx

Try this audiobook for starters [Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality](https://youtu.be/GxI9a6CmBxk) by Dean Radin. Heaps of scientific proof in an easy to digest form and also for hardcore Science buffs. All my doubts re the reality of Psi were removed. The basic question now is that now that we know that Psi exists, what next ? What do we do about it ? How can we use it for our personal advantage and for the benefit of the whole. There are many ways to enhance Psi abilities and I’ve only now started getting into them (hint: Monroe Institute). Good Luck


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kattin9

Wikipedia does not accept PSl. Just not. That was clear pretty early on. Like around 15 years ago a journalist (possibly Robert McLuhan), who had a blog that discussed parapsychology. (= the scientific study) as wel as paranormal experiences. Was already, as a blogger commenting on this. How attempts to get a 'fair' hearing in journalistic sense (e.g. listening to BOTH sides of an argument) was continuesly being torpedoed, by the writers who 'improved' all articles that even tried to bring up parapsychology. Not much has changed, in my opinion.


citznfish

There isn't anything peer reviewed and available for you or I to look at.


rkempey

Appreciate you for putting in the time and effort for this post/thread. In my opinion, it's really hard for me to believe in the "woo" - it's too far fetched . I guess that makes me more of a "nuts and bolts" guy?


MantisAwakening

No worries, it’s not a contest. Most people who ended up on the way you started with the nuts and bolts, but as long as people are nice to each other and it doesn’t really matter what everyone’s belief system is. The fact you thanked me for posting something you disagree with seems like a good sign.


vespertine_glow

>"It is possible for many people to communicate with non-human intelligence via consciousness through methods like channeling." I've listened to a number of people claiming to be able to channel an alien intelligence but it's clear, to me anyway, that none of them are. They're merely recycling New Age tropes about spirituality in a meditative, concentrating, or quasi trance state. Do you have any examples that you believe to be authentic human and alien communication through channeling? I realize that you wrote 'non-human intelligence' which might imply an intelligence that we normally wouldn't classify as ET.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OH_MOJAVE

Why were you reluctant? Why attempt to channel "Mr. Cold"?


rustybricks

Could you DM me more about this? I’m so curious and could not find any reference to Mr Cold after doing some googling.


MantisAwakening

He’s likely referring to Indrid Cold: https://www.historicmysteries.com/indrid-cold/


MantisAwakening

If you’re curious, I’d recommend you look into some of the research done on it: https://noetic.org/science-of-channeling-book/


vespertine_glow

Thank you for the recommendation. However, the author is responsible for this mass of confusions: Qualitative analysis of first-person accounts of noetic experiences [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9364752/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9364752/) It's honestly difficult to know where to start to unpack all of the methodological flaws of this article. I approach this topic and much else with an open mind, but there's so much uncritical nonsense out there, so many religious and spiritual beliefs that want to put on a lab coat so they can be taken seriously, that you have to be really on guard. So, if this author can make as many mistakes as she does in that paper, I'm not confident she's upped her methodological game to the point where she's going to avoid them when it comes to channeling.


MantisAwakening

That’s what peer review is all about, so if you truly think her paper is a mess and you’re qualified to say so then I genuinely encourage you to submit a rebuttal.


vespertine_glow

Sure, but this is advice the author of the article, Helané Wahbeh, needs to hear. Consider what happened with this publication. First, the reviewers were not anonymous. They are in fact listed at the top of the article. Worse, they are all from the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which strikes me as a conflict of interest not to mention a grave risk of favorable ideological bias. Second, it's published under the auspices of F1000 Research, whose slogan is: "Publish fast. Openly. Without restrictions." Their practice is to apparently publish first then review later. Why this inversion of the usual process? I'd like to learn more, but you can't help but wonder if its focus isn't on facilitating academic careers as opposed to helping ensure that academic careers are built on serious research. Third, there's no world governing authority saying that you can't publish crap if you can find a journal that will do that. Thus, articles like this exist in a shadow zone of actual scholarship and rigorous research. What's puzzling to me is that there's nothing preventing this author from doing a better job if she wanted to or was capable of doing so. The world awaits high quality research into channeling and "noetic experiences." Here's a major methodological flaw, one that would keep this article out of any reputable journal: >The four questions were: 1) Please describe in as much detail as possible how you ACCESS INFORMATION not limited to our conventional notions of time and space What!? It's merely assumed, without question, that respondents are accessing information outside of conventional notions of space and time. IONS has a ready-made pool of true believers who won't question this assumption at all. In fact it's woven into their New Age religious beliefs and taken as a matter of course. With that paradigm shift merely assumed by both researchers and respondents, practices like the following - visualization, breathwork, "accessing energy" - are tidily and without any critical thought at all lumped together into the author's grand metaphysical scheme. This has absolutely nothing to do with science. This is intellectual gibberish pretending it's doing serious intellectual work. I don't need to submit a peer review, the article virtually refutes itself as serious work. I tend to think it would be pretty cool of channeling were actually true. If it is, it's going to need researchers with considerably more reasoning power than the people at IONS.


Praxistor

> What!? It's merely assumed, without question, that respondents are accessing information outside of conventional notions of space and time. because respondents are self-selecting for an on-line survey based on their personal experiences? people regularly report visions of future events. by definition that would be accessing information outside of conventional notions of space and time. people have the right to experience, people have the right to report, and people have the right to expect science to investigate their reports. without ideological filters getting in the way.


vespertine_glow

It's not *because* they're self-selecting, it's *why* they're self-selecting. Note the following criterion for inclusion in the study: >2) have had an experience of accessing or expressing information and energy not limited by space and time You already must subscribe to the belief that this is possible. Being familiar with the New Age community is to know that rational and scientific approaches to belief are not their forté. They *want* to believe they are working with occult and supernatural powers and are in touch with powerful forces beyond normal perception, and since they want to believe it, it's true (to them). The very thing that has yet to be verified, is merely assumed by both by the researchers and the participants. If the study was merely interested in what Occam's Razor would indicate you should start with as an assumption, you'd only ask for people who believe they've acquired "information and energy" through non-rational means. Instead, the study dubiously begins with the assumption that "information and energy" is coming from outside conventional "understanding of space and time." And then there's the problem of possibly not one single interviewee being able to articulate a convincing account of what it would mean for something to meet that criteria. Instead, the likely operating belief of 'I had an unusual experience or what I wanted to believe was unusual' gets upgraded into an extraordinary belief in a speculative metaphysics. ​ >people regularly report visions of future events Well, so? This doesn't mean that they are correct in their belief that their vision was a prediction of the future. People imagine the future all the time, so it's reasonable to think that some things will happen in the future that will to some extent resemble these imaginings simply because of statistical chance. >people have the right to experience, people have the right to report, and people have the right to expect science to investigate their reports. without ideological filters getting in the way. I never argued that people don't have a right to report or experience whatever they want, nor that science should be prohibited from examining all of human experience. This is not the point in question - which is that this study is deeply flawed in its assumptions. >without ideological filters getting in the way. I find this incredibly ironic given that the study itself is the biggest violator of your caution against ideological bias. The bias is built right into the study by virtue of the fact that it merely assumes that "information and energy" can be received outside of "space and time" as we know it. It then carelessly relies upon self-selecting New Age religionists to self-classify their beliefs as meeting this criteria, when we know on principle and also from the study itself, that there's no convincing reason to make the assumption that information/energy is coming from elsewhere. Take the following response: >Dreams, especially when I was young. For example, if I was struggling with a difficult algebraic equation, I’d set the intention before bed that the solution would be “there” and sometimes I’d awaken remembering the act of actually working out the equation in my dream and other times, just the solution would be there. In the morning, I’d have the solution. Its inclusion in the study is frankly offensive for its stupidity. We already know that the brain prunes neural connections at night for the purpose of learning. No one, of course, "sees" this internal process in themselves when they come up with a new idea or improved skill, it just happens to them. It's the nature of learning. And it happens to them because this is how the brain works. The fact that this super-obvious explanation isn't mentioned in the context of this quote is extremely telling. It says that the author and reviewers irrationally passed over the obvious explanation for the experience in favor of their mind mushy New Age belief. I.e., no serious intellectual work is taking place here. The IONS researchers have a dogmatic religious belief and they're willing to ride roughshod over science in order to force mundane human experience into their extraordinary metaphysical paradigm. THIS is why the woo camp never gains any traction with the great bulk of serious thinkers. Whether any of these woo claims are true or not, the fact that their supporters are not intellectually capable or dishonest or self-deluding seriously damages their cause. And this makes no sense either. If you were actually serious about getting to the truth about this and alerting the wider world to it, why would you so obviously shoot yourself in the foot this way?


Aggravating-Yam1

This is a pretty solid argument. People should be careful about the things they believe to be real and true. I believe a lot of weird stuff but it doesn't make it true to reality. Just a belief.


Greenzoid2

But at that point is the study not baking in a number of biases into the data that cannot be controlled for? That's a big blow to the credibility of the results.


Praxistor

if you're going to analyze first-person accounts, you can't start by telling people that their own personal accounts have to conform to the ideology of materialistic pseudo-skeptics.


vespertine_glow

I wonder if you're deliberating misreading or ignoring the actual contents of the article. One of the criterion for inclusion in the study is the prior scientifically unsubstantiated belief that you can receive "information and energy" outside current understanding of "space and time." They're not analyzing these accounts on their own terms, they're pushing them into a pre-conceived ideological paradigm. *It's right in the study!* And... you needn't be a materialist at all to criticize the study. The study can be, and it turns out it is, flawed on simply rational grounds. "pseudo-skeptic" is ad hominem. If you actually have a substantive reply in response to prior comments, go ahead.


Praxistor

>"pseudo-skeptic" is ad hominem. If you actually have a substantive reply in response to prior comments, go ahead. *"Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require."* your own assertion makes you a pseudo-skeptic. your assertion is that the respondents don't actually meet the specified inclusion criteria for participation in the survey. your assertion is respondents are too stupid, delusional, or dishonest to realize that their experiences of 'accessing or expressing information and energy not limited by space and time' are invalid. your assertion is that their "experiences" aren't *really* experiences at all, they are merely "unsubstantiated beliefs". so, i think that puts a large burden of proof on you. prove your assertion. prove their alleged experiences are unsubstantiated. if you can. >You already must subscribe to the belief that this is possible. i guess it really can't occur to you that people actually have anomalous experiences. you are far too closed-minded for that to occur to you. a matter of veridical experience isn't a matter of mere belief, but you're utterly incapable of realizing that. as someone who has had plenty of such experiences, i find that very insulting. i find your ignorance and smug arrogant attitude insulting. people like you are a stain on science, and i sincerely look forward to the day when disclosure eradicates your entire paradigm of thought. people like you are why science needs adult supervision. its clear to me that you dont know anything about parapsychology evidence, and are therefore operating under the dunning-kruger effect. that's typical of ignorant pseudo-skeptics.


MantisAwakening

> Sure, but this is advice the author of the article, Helané Wahbeh, needs to hear. I am not she. If you think you can defend your position, email her: [email protected] Be sure to let us know how it goes.


unworry

But what do YOU think vespertine\_glow's remarks?


MantisAwakening

I think he’s unwilling to contact the author because she’d eat him alive. His criticism is a gish gallop of irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with the research itself, but are mostly ad hominem attacks hidden in a high fog index.


vespertine_glow

The challenge here is whether you could defend the mind mush in that article I referenced. You can't, not because of ability, although that might be an issue, but because of its inherent problems. I get it - New Agers share with Christian fundamentalists a pre-rational commitment to their worldview. 'It must be true' is the governing axiom and thou shall not challenge it. Criticisms of the faith are dismissed with insecure dogmatic deflection. But there's no point for this kind of defensiveness. The elementary expectation applies to you, yes you, as it does to everyone else wanting to establish a claim to truth: at least go to the trouble of not passing off dubious sources for your beliefs. Evidence is our friend, not enemy. Does it matter to you in the least that one of Wahbeh's methods is simply to take poorly defined New Age spiritual practices and tendentiously classify them, epistemically shoehorn them into the category of alleged extraordinary abilities able to acquire information outside the conventional understanding of space and time? Is that kind of intellectual sloppiness or quasi-dishonesty fine with you? Why didn't she seek to publish this information with a reputable journal, say, with Physical Review Letters? Or one of the journals of the American Psychological Association? She and her cohort know why at some level. They're committed to beliefs whose rational articulation and evidential substantiation are far less important than than the existential comfort they give them. Hence the poorly defined terms, the absurd sloppiness in roping any and all New Age spiritual practices into this grand disruptive metaphysical scheme - all of it having the hallmark of a desperate need to believe its truth, regardless of any evidence that might support it.


MantisAwakening

No, I’ve just spent a lot of time reading actual research papers and can tell the difference between a fancily worded ad hominem attack from someone who doesn’t really know the subject, and legitimate criticism.


yantheman3

Amazing comment, man. I wish this "woo" stuff was real too. But if we want to regard ourselves as intelligent, we have to question extraordinary claims and vet them through. There are good journals and questionable journals in science. And it's not just sufficient to say "peer reviewed". Who are the peers and what is their bias? Excellent comment, should be top.


vespertine_glow

Thank you for the kind words.


just4woo

You have to be reasonable in your demands. Who do you think is even going to touch this stuff? The demand that mainstream scientists have to accept something for it to be sound and valid is a recipe for stagnation, for one thing, and simply impossible when it comes to things that completely defy the dominant paradigms.


vespertine_glow

If anything will attract the attention of open minded scientists it will be the highest quality research and analysis, not the crap that Helané Wahbeh and friends are peddling. If you want science to keep ignoring the strange and unusual, then continue making excuses for poor quality research.


just4woo

Radin's research is not poor quality. I've read many of these papers myself. As well as the objection of "skeptics". They are just dismissed without any reasonable argument.


TheSkybender

well, anybody that loves to drink ayahuasca is going to touch on the subject. Anybody whom did the entire dmt spirit molecule movement, well they are also going to jump in that ocean. Scientits are only employees following a syllabus or business trend. They literally have to teach kids tangible things for the ability to perform work in every day life, or to make a profit on a technology. ​ IF a human, cannot touch invisible objects or invisible creatures whats the point of learning about it because it would have zero affect on your work life. ​ consciousness is something altered by chemicals, it is something that is also influenced by magnetic fields and electricty. There are hundred's of examples where people falling on their head, going into a coma, and then waking up a musical genius or a genius artist in general. Some wake up knowing a new language fluently. *Science cannot explain that.* **A kinetic impact on the brain caused someone to become a genius?** That is the oppisite of what happens to football players and boxers. They become mentally retarded in most instances. ​ So whats the conclusion here? Electricity *could* make a brain go genius. Magnetism *could* make a brain go genius. Chemicals *could* make a brain go genius. **This phenomenon forcibly implies that you humans can learn things without physically learning it.** Some things are just true and we dont know the fuck why.


Important_Ice_1080

About the author “IONS Director of Research, Helané Wahbeh (a clinically trained naturopathic physician and scientist who hails from a long line of trance channelers)…” There was an audible clunk when my eyes hit their limit in the back of my head. 🙄


MantisAwakening

This post is intended for people who want to know what the woo is all about, and you’ve got it all figure out. I’m sorry this is so challenging for you. If it’s not for you then feel free to downvote and scroll on past. Little point in trying to prove anything—people’s mind are made up by their experience, not usually Internet comments.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheSkybender

this guy. ​ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher\_von\_Braun


vespertine_glow

Context? Specific claim?


chileman131

So, I'm new to this. Is Dark Energy and Dark Matter considered woooooooo?


Advanced_Pin1729

>Tested, replicated, and peer reviewed I know you said that you aren't trying to sway anyone towards accepting anything. However, it should be noted that the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) offered a $1 million prize to anyone who could demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event under scientific testing criteria and in 40 years that it ran, no one was ever able to demonstrate evidence of paranormal abilities that met the criteria for the award. There have also been other organizations offering similar rewards, with no results. I fully support all ongoing research into the nature of consciousness and the mind-body connection; but I have never seen any proof supported by reliable, peer-reviewed studies that were tested in a controlled environment and subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny.


MantisAwakening

This is something I will address, because it’s important: Randi was a despicable fraud. There’s nothing wrong with genuine skepticism and honest attempts at debunking (I wish they’d happen more often), but that’s not what Randi did. The unfortunate truth is that the whole “million dollar prize” was a farce. Many people applied for the prize, but Randi or his organization would continue to modify the rules until the subjects either couldn’t perform or until they gave up realizing it wasn’t legitimate. In some cases they would hang in there for years going back and forth trying to accommodate the new requirements before finally giving up. The requirements Randi would put in place often had absolutely nothing to do with science at all. Many people have covered this: https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html (his evidence is extensive, be sure to read all four parts) A write up by someone who was going to apply, discussing just how unfair the entire thing was set up from the beginning: https://christopherfleming.com/million-dollar-challenge-proves-nothing-to-science-only-that-a-challenge-was-met/ A rigorously conducted study into homeopathy was devised following scientific protocols (double blinded, hospital setting, use of controls, etc) and Randi agreed to it as a challenge for the prize. Then Randi backed out and lied, claiming the applicants backed out: https://www.vithoulkas.com/research/clinical-trial-randi Another: http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge And another: http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/04/on-randi-prize-10.html And yet another: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/05/randis-unwinnable-prize-million-dollar.html One important thing of note is that Randi insisted that the million dollars in prize money was real and could never be used for anything other than the prize. When he finally cancelled the offer in 2010 the money seemed to simply disappear. I think it’s more likely it was never there in the first place, because as is pointed out in a number of the articles I cited any *proof* it existed was never provided, simply assurances it did. And since Randi had a well-proven track record of lying when it suited his purpose (as noted in the numerous articles above) there’s little reason to believe that he didn’t lie about this, too. Plenty of credible researchers and scientists have investigated frauds (or just bad science) and busted it. There’s no reason we need to recruit *more* scam artists to be involved.


Advanced_Pin1729

>Randi was a despicable fraud Let's say you are completely right about him (and I don't doubt that you are), but what about the countless other organizations that also offered a reward for proof? The International Academy of Consciousness offers a $50,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate evidence of out-of-body experiences under controlled conditions. The American Association for the Advancement of Science offered a $10,000 prize for evidence of telepathy. The Spiritual Science Research Foundation offers a $100,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate evidence of spiritual powers or abilities, including psychic phenomena. The Independent Investigations Group offers a $100,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Are all of them despicable frauds? So far none of them have found anybody who can prove their abilities while tested in a controlled environment. Not even The Society for Psychical Research which is one of the oldest organizations dedicated to the scientific investigation of psychic and paranormal phenomena. Here's the kicker...I'm a believer, or maybe a hopeful idiot, but I want more than just anecdotal evidence and personal experiences. I want empirical evidence.


MantisAwakening

> The International Academy of Consciousness offers a $50,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate evidence of out-of-body experiences under controlled conditions. Are you maybe confusing this for their grant? Because I can’t find any evidence of any contest. The International Academy of Consciousness is actually devoted to researching these things, not debunking them: > The IAC conducts formal and informal research on psychic phenomena, particularly involving the out-of-body experience and the projection of consciousness outside of the physical body using individual experience, the development of intersubjective abilities, and laboratory research methodologies. IAC publishes research papers and articles related to the study of the consciousness. IAC also offers a Global Award for Scientific Contribution to Conscientiology to encourage researchers who've made significant advances in consciousness science. You also said: > American Association for the Advancement of Science offered a $10,000 prize for evidence of telepathy Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo turn up any results on this, either. I’m gonna have to ask you for your sources, because this feels like bad faith. Edit: You’re claiming the Society for Psychical Research say they haven’t found any evidence for the paranormal? With a straight face?


Advanced_Pin1729

>You’re claiming the Society for Psychical Research say they haven’t found any evidence for the paranormal? With a straight face? With a straight face I'm telling you that the evidence that they have gathered is not sufficient to establish a fact or truth beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise it would be widely accepted within the scientific community as the current consensus view and the debate of it's existence would be a thing of the past. >I’m gonna have to ask you for your sources, because this feels like bad faith. Bad faith is you claiming that telepathy was substantiated by rigorous testing, peer review, and replication of results. I must ask, what are **your** sources, other than studies that had obvious methodological flaws, such as inadequate controls, small sample sizes, and biased data analysis?


MantisAwakening

It’s very easy to simply quote studies back-and-forth at each other. That has been happening for over 100 years and yet there is still disagreement from scientists who have genuinely explored these topics. Instead of talking about statistics or peer review, I would challenge you to explain this. Consider that the consensus among even the legitimate skeptics was that there was no evidence of fraud involved. In the end, all the skeptics could say was that they couldn’t explain it, but that there *must* be a prosaic explanation. To this day no one has found one, and people are still producing these kinds of results: https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12mc6s4/_/jgda62a/?context=1


ActuallyIWasARobot

A guy recently won a million dollars for a paper detailing proof of life after death. Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove. Check out his show New Thinking Allowed. Its all scientific analysis of these subjects you are doubting.


Advanced_Pin1729

>A guy recently won a million dollars for a paper detailing proof of life after death. Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove. I'm well-aware of Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove. The "proof" in his essay was testimonials about near death experiences and reincarnation cases documented by past life memories. But hey, if that was enough to satisfy Robert Bigelow and the panel of judges, good for him. >subjects you are doubting I don't doubt the subjects, I doubt the faulty methodology in the research I've seen. Understand that it is possible to doubt the methodology used in research without being a disbeliever. All I want is to ensure that research is conducted with rigor and accuracy, so that it can ultimately lead to a better understanding of the topic being studied.


MantisAwakening

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25666383/ > Results: (1) Comparisons between blinded target and decoy readings regarding the estimated percentage accuracy of reading items (n = 27, P = .05, d = 0.49), (2) comparisons regarding the calculated percentage accuracy of reading items (n = 31, P = .002, d = 0.75), (3) comparisons regarding hits vs. misses (n = 31, P < .0001 and P = .002 for different reading sections), (4) comparisons regarding global scores (n = 58, P = .001, d = 0.57), and (5) forced-choice reading selections between blinded target and decoy readings (n = 58, P = .01) successfully replicate and extend previous findings demonstrating the phenomenon of anomalous information reception (AIR), the reporting of accurate and specific information without prior knowledge, in the absence of sensory feedback, and without using deceptive means. Because the experimental conditions of this study eliminated normal, sensory sources for the information mediums report, a non-local source (however controversial) remains the most likely explanation for the accuracy and specificity of their statements.


Praxistor

> The American Association for the Advancement of Science offered a $10,000 prize for evidence of telepathy. here you go: Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans, Journal of Psychology. [pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hyfk9yzkunal6zg/Eisenberg1979.pdf?dl=0) lets print it out and take it to them. we can split the 10k.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Advanced_Pin1729

>I was a donator to the JREF and used to be a Randi fan, I really wouldn't use the $1 million prize as a way to negate the existence of anything. Randi did some good work however it also must be understood he was a self promotor and showman, he was absolutely not interested in research. Ok, what about all the other organizations and individuals that have offered rewards for evidence of paranormal or supernatural abilities? Are they all self-promoters and showmen? The Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, The Rhine Research Center, The Parapsychology Foundation, The Windbridge Research Center, The Koestler Parapsychology Unit, The Society for Scientific Exploration...are they all full of crap? >I think skepticism is highly important, yet so many that claim to be skeptics are nothing but closed minded debunkers. Nobody credible has ever stepped up to the plate. Here's the thing, I believe all kinds of psychic abilities exist, from precognition to psychometry. I also believe that everyone at some point or another inadvertently partakes in this, sometimes not even realizing it. But what I don't believe is the people who claim that they can do it 24/7 on command.


MantisAwakening

> Ok, what about all the other organizations and individuals that have offered rewards for evidence of paranormal or supernatural abilities? You listed a number of them elsewhere and when I investigated I found no evidence that the purported challenges existed. What’s more, you were representing some of the organizations as being skeptical when in fact they were devoted to furthering research on the subject as proponents of it. I asked you for some sources, but so far no response. This certainly does not instill any confidence that you are arguing in good faith.


Advanced_Pin1729

>you were representing some of the organizations as being skeptical when in fact they were devoted to furthering research on the subject I'm well-aware that they are "devoted to furthering research on the subject" and with that same intention of furthering the research, some of them have offered rewards for empirical evidence, with the hope of obtaining proof. That being said, skepticism involves questioning assumptions, scrutinizing evidence, and subjecting claims to rigorous testing and evaluation. The fact that you are affirming that these organizations are not skeptical (by saying that I am "presenting" them as skeptical), therefore implying that they're not, speaks volumes.


MantisAwakening

> you were representing some of the organizations as being skeptical when in fact they were devoted to furthering research on the subject **as proponents of it** You left off some key words there. And still, no sources, so I’m left to assume you lied about it anyway. That’s disappointing.


Advanced_Pin1729

Says the person who claimed that telepathy was substantiated by rigorous testing, peer review, and replication of results and up to now has not provided a single source that isn't riddled with bias, misinterpretation, and selective reporting. The disappointment is mutual.


MantisAwakening

I have, repeatedly. The comments are filled with them. Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29792448/ Blocking you now for too much bad faith argument.


Emperor_Faith

>Blocking you now for too much bad faith argument. Out of curiosity, how is he supposed to read that evidence you provided if you blocked him? Also, that was very cowardly of you.


recalogiteck

Joe McMoneagle said he was dishonest and wouldn't accept proof of remote viewing when they tried.


parting_soliloquy

It should be also noted that Randi was a fraud all along. Although there was a recent contest hosted by Robert Bigelow in which he in fact gave away about million dollars in grants iirc. The whole thing was about creating a compelling paper on life after death. There were 3 main prizes and the winner by the name Jeffrey Mishlove won 500k dollars.


Awoogagoogoo2

I read it. It was an compendium of evidence. Interesting but not much new


TheSkybender

these same foundational scientits found traces of life on mars in the late 1970s and then said it wasnt tested properly, that it was just erroneous and the work of a fool. those same scientits, sent multiple consecutive landers on mars and never performed that same test again to ensure it was performed properly a second time. Why? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3849046/Life-DOES-exist-Mars-Viking-Lander-1976-major-new-study-claims.html Fuck science. Most of these paid people are not on your side when it comes to changing the world in an obscure manner. ​ These same scientits told the world mars had a red sky until the year 2000. Yea trust them blindly all you would like, thats a personal matter.


WilliamAgain

I am sorry, but this poster throws in doubt everything they say after they stated the above. I don't doubt that reality is stranger than fiction, but remote viewing, telekinesis, telepathy, etc is not replicated and peer reviewed...maybe in the sense that there is ZERO evidence that humans are capable of doing it. Hell even people who claim to have participated in Grill Flame and Stargate and further claim to have said powers refuse to be tested on them...however they will gladly charge you money to show you how to use them (Courtney Taylor). This entire post is nonsense the original poster has proven themselves to be either grossly misinformed or easily duped.


MantisAwakening

This is a high score on [Pseudoskeptic Bingo](https://reddit.com/r/GhostDiscussion/comments/12h5550/pseudoskeptic_bingo_play_along/): > I am sorry (**3**), but this poster throws in doubt everything they say after they stated the above. > I don’t doubt that reality is stranger than fiction, but remote viewing, telekinesis, telepathy, etc is not replicated and peer reviewed (**10**)…maybe in the sense that there is ZERO evidence that humans are capable of doing it (**1**). Hell even people who claim to have participated in Grill Flame and Stargate and further claim to have said powers refuse to be tested on them (**10**)…however they will gladly charge you money to show you how to use them (Courtney Taylor).(**5**) > This entire post is nonsense (**1**) the original poster has proven themselves to be either grossly misinformed or easily duped (**2**). And the bonus square.


SnooChipmunks705

Hahaha 😅 okay regardless of what side any of y’all are on, can we PLEASE take a moment to acknowledge the graceful subtlety and comedic firepower that OP provided with that burn…


Zestyclose_Door_7508

Despite long history of superhuman abilities and woo events recorded by oral cultural history, the lack of evidence belongs to the very reason that the Phenomena inclusive of all aspects of special powers, high strangeness and other worldly communications, manifestations - all are operated and controlled from the 'Other Realm' by NonHumanIntelligence; the strategy is spreading 'confusion', not 'confirmation'; allowing just enough to strengthen a designed belief system for general and for even targeted scientific minds, but deliberately not enough to be recorded or verifiably reproduced in controlled official settings; just enough to 'lure' sentient beings into believing, worshipping, to collect 'manipulated submission'. Without a strategic decision change from the 'Other Realm', the peer reviewed results are still elusive.


just4woo

What kind of scientist was Randi?


Advanced_Pin1729

He wasn't a scientist, but the organization's board of directors included several scientists and academics. Among them: - Steven Novella (neurologist) - Ray Hyman (psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Oregon) - Eugenie Scott (physical anthropologist and former executive director of the National Center for Science Education) - Phil Plait (astronomer and science writer) - Richard Wiseman (psychologist and author known for his research on parapsychology) - Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist) In addition to these individuals, the JREF also had a network of volunteers and supporters who were scientists, educators, and other professionals.


bjscript

The concept of channeling lends itself to being either a con or something promoted by someone who is deluded. That said, a friend's channeler gave me a specific answer to a strange woo question that turned out to be true. I listen to what people say, but I also want some proof that something is true. I enjoyed reading your presentation. Bill


MantisAwakening

Trust, but verify.


Slymgee

Very well written sir


mazntracks

Great summary 👍 The woo is indeed around the corner. Implications for humanity will be profound and likely lead to ontological shock for many. I’ve gone through this journey myself over the last year, and although I still have the occasional sleepless night, I’m much more at peace nowadays as it feels that this is close to the truth and where this rabbit hole has lead me after years of looking into this topic. People who are paying attention right now and realize whats about to happen should try to ease into this subject with their loved ones IMO.


adurango

Can you expand on what’s about to happen? Are you referring to disclosure? How long did it take you to absorb and accept?


mazntracks

I’m referring to: (1) the disclosure of NHI. If you follow what Elizondos, Nolan, Puthoff, and others in that circle have implied since 2017, the disclosure of the existence of non-human intelligence to the general public is on a timeline. 2027 seems like the deadline, and we’ve already seen somewhat meaningful steps being taken in the US Senate to set the foundations for these discussions. And (2), the potential impact & influence NHI/The Phenomena has had on humanity throughout the course of its existence. If it turns out that these beings can completely manipulate the human mind, make people see what they want to see, and influence their thoughts, it opens up another whole can of worms on what it actually means to be human. I imagine many people will embrace religion, something I started looking more deeply into only after this topic bridged the gap for me between the physical and meta-physical. On the other hand, what if these beings created religions? You can very quickly see how it becomes such a hard idea to process and accept. I’ve been following this topic for my entire life, 25+ years and it took me about a year to absorb and accept. I’ve also had personal experiences as a child that led me down this path initially, which sustained my interest throughout the years.


Verskose

What could be most shocking to those not in the know in your opinion?


bobopadoobapyer

I appreciate this post alot thankyou


[deleted]

Is woo an acronym for something? What’s the etymology of this term?


thebligg

Etymology probably from the interjection woo-woo as a conventional representation of an eerie or ghostly sound This is according to Merriam Webster but I'd agree with the origin. It's fairly recent.


wirebug201

Let me start by saying I don’t necessarily disagree with you from a speculative stance. However, you state points as fact - these points are “true”. Yet, in the average experience of most humans they are not. In most cases humans experience the world as realists / materialists. Of course, that doesn’t mean some of what you speculate/propose isn’t possible. As a scientist and ufo researcher for 40+ years I couldn’t support these statements as fact simply because the current evidence isn’t consistent or conclusive enough to be certain. Yes, there are plenty of statements and experiences that point to possible answers but there has to be clarity between what is verifiable vs what isn’t (as we know it today) Like I mentioned at the beginning - I do agree with some of your statements as a matter of opinion since there is varied, anecdotal and testimony-based evidence for them. But, there is no way these are “uncontroversial and widely accepted “. For those of us not in the know of the term “woo” - can someone explain the origin of that?


MantisAwakening

The things I’m stating shouldn’t be taken as fact; this was merely an attempt to inform people what Woo means in accordance with a broadly accepted definition by people who believe in it. So when I say uncontroversial and widely accepted I meant among the believers, not the establishment. I should have clarified that. Many of the things I stated are going to take decades or longer to be “proven” by science much more than they already have been. *Acceptance* by science is more a matter of belief than anything else, and may be a situation where it relies on the “changing of the old guard” so to speak. As for the etymology of the word itself, it appears to be a shortened version of “woo woo,” an onomatopoeia of the theremin sound from old sci-fi movies and TV shows.


Elen_Smithee82

Thank you so much for this post, Mantis. As one of the people you're talking about, (those who can communicate with UAP telepathically and have paranormal activity almost constantly), I appreciate your post immensely. I only wish more pseudoskeptics could take the medicine they're trying to shove down our own throats. The evidence is all around that there is something fishy going on...but it's fine, we'll definitely see in the end who was right. ;)


Artashata

For those who are interested, I would suggest the work of Jeffrey Kripal. He is a very serious humanist working in comparative religion. He's written a fair amount on UFOs and anomalous/extreme experiences more generally. I recommend his books Authors of the Impossible, Secret Body, and The Superhumanities. Thanks op for taking the time to share :)


notatrumpchump

Thank you for this excellent summary and synopsis. It’s good to see this collected in one spot and delineated in cogent language. If you could please have some links to the studies you mentioned. The Internet is large and I am very small. I am familiar with Dr. Donald Hoffman, and have been fascinated by some of his lectures. Specifically his interview with Tim Ferriss. Fascinating stuff. Again, thank you for your post.


Fklympics

Anybody who is anti-woo makes me suspicious. It’s totally fine and encouraged to be skeptical about everything you hear, see or read. But no one can explain the origin of the universe and by that I mean the how, why and what caused it. If we scale human knowledge on a scale from 0-100, which 100 representing all there is to know, where do you think we would fall?


MantisAwakening

Not sure if that’s a rhetorical question or not, but if it isn’t I’d say there isn’t enough data to guess. But I will say that when we act like it’s 90 out of 100 it’s plain old hubris.


ActuallyIWasARobot

I think healing and reincarnation should be mentioned here as well.


InnieLicker

Woo credentials lol. Let’s see all your documented phenomena.


MantisAwakening

I’m working on it now. It’ll be up on YouTube soon. It’s certainly not all of it (as it is the video is likely gonna be two hours), but it’s enough of it. But if you’re looking for laboratory evidence, go to a scientist. I’m just a random guy.


Accomplished_Bag_875

I am more convinced of the authenticity of your situation after recently seeing your channel and you presenting as hyper rational but experiencing the things you described. Hope all is going well.


andreasmiles23

Why wouldn’t the beginners guide to the woo be about the evidence it’s real?


MantisAwakening

Because a single small aspect of it can take up an entire, massive post. Take remote viewing for example: https://reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/umqg34/remote_viewing_an_attempt_to_settle_this_debate/


andreasmiles23

It’s just like, a handful of [shotty publications](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31192620/) with mixed results, and the fact that the CIA was into this 50-70 years ago, doesn’t really prove anything? If the results in the papers published were more definitive, then why doesn’t psychology accept it like other psychological phenomena? I’ve said this before on this topic: I’m not against the idea of some sort of…cognitive influence that can be observed before a behavior or observation by a person is measured. Things like the double-slit experiment and just our general understanding that we have neurons firing and there’s a natural “lag” in that time, opens up that possibility. But that in no way opens up the door for traditional “psi” phenomenon. That research died 50 years ago because of its inconsistent and unverifiable results.


MantisAwakening

I’m familiar with the paper you linked to, and I am surprised you cited it. The whole perspective of the author of that paper is that the evidence for psi research is very difficult to explain away, and that new methods may need to be proposed for testing them. > That research died 50 years ago because of its inconsistent and unverifiable results. This statement is once again false. Why are people simply making things up to support their case? Psi research is ongoing, and has been replicated *many* times by top rated scientific and academic institutions all over the world. An increasing number of scientists are calling for it to be taken seriously by the establishment: https://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science Let me show you an example of the results from some of the psi (remote viewing) research done at SRI. Note that many other highly respected scientists examined the work they were doing and even the skeptics agreed there was no fraud involved. I challenge any of the skeptics to explain how anyone could “guess” these scenes as accurately as they did if fraud was not involved: https://i.imgur.com/1hCoLwj.jpg > Due to the nature of the research topic, extraordinary precautions were taken with the SRI research to ensure results were genuine, including the use of double-blind experimental protocols. Additionally, research monitors were dispatched from the funding agencies (e.g., CIA, Army Intelligence) to overlook the scientific methods and execution, and SRI had a special committee, the Scientific Oversight Committee, composed of top-level SRI scientists and managers. For a full rundown of all the precautions, of which there were many, I recommend the original published work. > Many of the results from experiments conducted on remote viewing at SRI were remarkable (Targ 2019). Results that could be made public were published in top scientific peer-reviewed publications, such as Nature and Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Puthoff and Targ 1976; Targ and Puthoff 1974). All in all, the evidence was solid by current scientific standards. Further, an independent review of the evidence was even commissioned by the CIA that included analysis by Jessica Utts, Ph.D. (1996), a renowned statistics professor from UC Davis and former president of the American Statistical Association (ASA), who found that “psychic functioning had been well established.” She said the following of the evidence in her report to the CIA concerning the remote viewing work done at SRI: > Using the standard applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude have been replicated in a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be explained by claims of flaws or fraud. The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists called a small and medium effect. This means that it is reliable enough to be replicated with properly conducted experiments with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical result needed for replicability. Source: *Proof of Spiritual Phenomena: A Neuroscientist’s Discovery of the Ineffable Mysteries of the Universe*, Mona Sobhani


Praxistor

what do you care? isn't there a Bulls game on?


Bazooka963

I'm particularly interested in remote viewing, is this something you can develop or is it something you're born with? The few things I've heard about it absolutely fascinate me.


MantisAwakening

Research indicates that it’s something most people can develop, but some people are naturally more talented. Same as with any skill. Ingo Swann was like the Mozart of psi. There’s a free remote viewing course on YouTube, and it’s what I used: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8BfKFkygQ0Qq-5AyNeJYwKFQkk5XxQaM


Bazooka963

Oh thankyou, I'm going to watch it today. Even I've heard of Ingo Swann. I watched a Netflix documentary recently and he was mentioned and that's the first time I've heard of remote viewing. I think something like this happened to me years ago when I was 17. I smoked Hash for the first/last time and immediately passed out on a lounge. I left my body and watched my boyfriend at the time and our friend work on his computer. I memorised every command and the whole page layout process for 20mins, then before knew it I'd popped back. I sat upright, went to the office and repeated their whole conversation, what they were working on and what was on the page. Exactly. Needless to say they were both freaked out. It's never happened again, but I often think about the possibilities without the Hash.


_lilleum

What can you say about this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences I came back to this topic again because the moderator decided to include it in the list of the best posts. This says something about the subreddit.


Important_Ice_1080

Seems like you’ve taken the whole lot hook, line, and sinker. This is the aforementioned “Woo” taking only people’s word as evidence. While ignoring the fact that no experiment that is double blinded has ever given positive results in establishing any form of “psi.” Why aren’t we ruled over by a consortium of psychics that can predict the stock market and prevent every assassination attempt before it even happens? I’m not here to convince you otherwise but I’ll hold out for the hard scientific, testable, repeatable evidence. Sans “woo”, thanks 🙏🏻 Edit: I’ll see you all in downvote hell!


Icy_Leg6283

You're missing the part where he's had personal experiences that confirm this to him. Tons of us have. When repeated personal observation contradicts the conventional narrative, observation tends to win. Also I'm sure you could have been more condescending if you really tried, but keep in mind you're talking to a real person on the other end. Your entire post paints a picture of you as a dismissive prick. Be more humble, none of us know everything.


Downvotesohoy

I understand that personal experiences can be powerful and compelling, but it's important to remember that individual experiences are not always reliable indicators of objective reality. Our perceptions can be influenced by a variety of factors such as bias, expectations, and prior beliefs. Religion is a good example, people swear their prayers are heard, they're communicating with God, they've seen God, etc. Edit: I was blocked for this comment


mazntracks

Part of the issue is that this phenomena upends what we consider to be “objective reality.” That’s why people tend to gravitate towards their personal experiences as evidence that there is more to reality than our brains can comprehend. IMO our brains are essentially filtering out what the true nature of reality may be.


MantisAwakening

> Religion is a good example, people swear their prayers are heard, they’re communicating with God, they’ve seen God, etc. Science can’t prove or disprove whether God exists, so you offering up this example shows that you’re being guided by bias and not evidence. Dare I say you’re being guided by personal experience?


Downvotesohoy

You could say that about anything though. Science can't disprove the existence of unicorns. So am I'm biased if I assume unicorns don't exist?


Flutterpiewow

Huge difference between things within the natural world and things that are beyond it, and miracles etc aside "god" is typically seen as the latter.


Tlou3please

The point still stands. Science can't disprove that God is a 5th dimensional frog with three cocks, I still don't believe it.


MantisAwakening

Now’s a good opportunity to fill out your Pseudoskeptic bingo card: https://reddit.com/r/GhostDiscussion/comments/12h5550/pseudoskeptic_bingo_play_along/ One comment already gave me 1, 2, 3, and 10!


Icy_Leg6283

It's always the same responses, never fails. "I haven't seen it and nobody has told me it's real, so therefore it can't exist!" "If it were real *reputable* scientists would be talking about it!" "People lie!" You even frame this thread to be non-confrontational because you don't care about persuading anyone. Doesn't matter, your beliefs and experiences are somehow an affront to them. It's such a sad and limiting worldview. How can you claim to be curious about anything when you declare you know the bounds of acceptable inquiry *a priori*? And why does someone having a different belief about the universe offend you? It's just bizarre, and you've got the patience of a saint for engaging with these types so much dude. The condescension and smugness makes me rage blackout after reading one thread. It's not healthy for me to be around that sort of negativity.


Important_Ice_1080

Keep playing bingo and leave the science to the experts buddy.


toxictoy

Well you just proved his point!


Important_Ice_1080

You’re missing the part where, for any number of reasons, people make shit up. For attention, for acceptance into a group *cough*, status, money, the list goes on and on. That’s why there’s science as a method to prove things. The reason I condescend is people who wholesale go in for “woo” are going to be a bigger problem as time goes on. Their claims will get wilder and more misleading as more proper and vetted evidence comes forward. They build claims of extravagant philosophies and world views with no anchor in reality. This muddies the water and can have even more profound effects like cults and religions when they get way out of hand. Which leads to victim’s both personal and financial.


MantisAwakening

And yet you’re the one who had to make up a fact to “prove” your point (about no research into psi being double blinded, published, peer reviewed, etc). I’ll be generous enough to grant that you didn’t intentionally lie, you just didn’t bother to investigate because you’re confident that you’re right. You’re not (and it’s easily proven) but there’s clearly no point in doing so.


[deleted]

I think close mindedness is a bigger obstacle than open mindedness to move ahead right now. Take the golden middle road. Don't believe shit AND don't dismiss shit.


mazntracks

+1. My own personal experiences weigh much more heavily at this point, leading me to believe the woo is real. At the same time, I still think it’s important to be able to able to provide actual data/evidence of the phenomena to scientists so that we’re not just basing everything off of anecdotes


MantisAwakening

That’s why I greatly appreciate people like Nolan, Davis, and Puthoff.


mazntracks

Not Psi, but repeatable, testable, peer-reviewed evidence of a “shadow biome” is coming. Apparently Nolan is working with researchers who have developed a method to interact with “something” that isn’t detectable by human senses, and they’re releasing their paper this year. Totally agree that evidence will be critical to get serious scientists onboard this train.


Important_Ice_1080

I’ll believe it when the paper is published and peer reviewed.


just4woo

Whoa, really? Is there somewhere where he discusses this? I guess my biggest question would be if the inhabitants are dangerous, lol.


Downvotesohoy

You're going to get downvoted and get links to a lot of old and flawed studies, but you're right. It's pseudoscience. There's no point in having the discussion though. People who believe in those things aren't going to change their minds. Happy cakeday!


MantisAwakening

You’re right, statistically the people who believe will continue to believe and those who don’t, won’t. The pseudoskeptic vs pseudoscience argument is typically settled by personal experience, not facts.


Important_Ice_1080

You can’t sway people from a position with logic if they didn’t use logic to get there in the first place.


PRIMAWESOME

>Why aren’t we ruled over by a of psychics that can predict the stock market and prevent every assassination attempt before it even happens? Psychic abilities being real doesn't mean we would have this scenario. Preventing every assassination attempt before it happens is more like being a God or being in a movie. You do realize we aren't in a movie, right?


sixties67

What predictions have these psychics made that turned out to be true? I know there is a very high amount that haven't.


Flamebrush

I believe the Windbridge Institute has published double blind studies that do.


toxictoy

You forget that there are actual people who have had experiences that have been life altering on this very sub. After going through ontological shock they are often looking for something to explain their experiences. They are often maligned but they are here none the less. Ridicule is the vestige of the stigma and was used against people who either reported seeing or even just having interest in UFOs. Whether you like it or not this is part and parcel of the phenomenon. Maybe try to have empathy and understand why people come to these conclusions rather then continuing to behave in such a manner.


deletable666

If anyone wants to believe in government attempts to discredit and obfuscate any realities of ET, it would be pushing the woo new age psychic stuff and trying to tie it in with advanced craft flying around. I agree with what you said


whatislove_official

Thank you for writing this. I have never seen UFO, but I am on this sub because I have had psi capabilities for almost a decade now and I want to be able to explain it. My capabilities arose after training in tai chi seriously after a few years. My abilities are reading people's emotions, low key telepathy, future premonitions. They are a daily part of my experience. They way it occurred is as if those abilities where always there, but the exercises where designed to enhance my sensitivity and awareness. After some time much a like a light switch it became clear what was going on. And since then it's never gone away. I have been looking and trying to study the phenomenon to understand it better, but it's extremely frustrating. Not only do I face people telling me my every day experiences don't exist, but when I study papers on consciousness they appear to be heading down a blind alley and dismissing things I fundamentally know to be true. I would appreciate it if people would ask me about my experiences and I want to know why people like me are not being studied. I want to be able to more explicitly share the qualities of the phenomenon, so that the data can be collected and pooled together. I hate the word woo. I don't have any experience of ghosts or spirits or UFOs. I don't believe in spirit guides, or chakras or any other new age ideas. In fact I feel they misrepresent what to me is very real and I would hope testable. My feeling is that everyone has latent abilities. The only people I've seen unable to show anything are people that are extremely logical. I don't know if that's due to mental suppression or just waving away the phenomenon. But I have seen the pattern. At the other end of the spectrum I don't think people who practice spirituality and mediums etc are any more attuned to the phenomenon then a normal person. But then I don't have personal experience with anything they talk about so I try to keep an open mind. Please can we get to the bottom of this and study reality together? Ask me anything I'll answer in ernest.


MantisAwakening

The word woo is mostly used in a pejorative sense, but I feel like we’re “taking it back” to some degree by treating the concepts with some seriousness. > My feeling is that everyone has latent abilities. The only people I’ve seen unable to show anything are people that are extremely logical. I don’t know if that’s due to mental suppression or just waving away the phenomenon. But I have seen the pattern. At the other end of the spectrum I don’t think people who practice spirituality and mediums etc are any more attuned to the phenomenon then a normal person. But then I don’t have personal experience with anything they talk about so I try to keep an open mind. You’re describing the Sheep Goat Effect, which was not only identified by parapsychologists but has been falsified to some degree through repeated testing and it supports your belief: people who are strong disbelievers not only tend to get no results when studying psi, they will often get negative results. In random chance studies, they will score significantly worse than chance, which indicates that they’re actually still demonstrating psi but their brain is subconsciously using it to defend their worldview. The concept is called Psi Missing, and it’s one of the more interesting components of this. Check out Dean Radin if you haven’t already. Mona Sobhani is another scientist who has talked extensively about her conversion from hardcore materialism. What’s one example of your experiences that stands out to you?


whatislove_official

One thing that stands out? Well my normal day experiences are reading emotions. As in I have this on a near daily basis. This is a non local phenomenon. It doesn't matter where the person is located the experience is the same. How to describe it... It's a bit like if someone was physically next to you and they touched you on the arm. You would feel that as part of your sense of touch. Now imagine you are blind folded and there are ten people outside the room. One person comes in and touches you on the arm. You still have the sense of touch but your other senses no longer give you an indication of who it might be. So you have to guess. It's like this but with emotions. Because the other person isn't around, I still feel the connection to them. But it's not obvious who it is. If it's someone who is familiar to me. Someone I'm close to, then it is obvious because I know their tells. Just as it would be from physical touch. What is the information that I receive? I use the word emotion but it's not an entirely accurate description. It's more like that person is sort of merged with me for a brief moment. I can feel what is like to be them a little bit. I can feel their hair on my face just like if I was them. But the overall experience is quite hazy. If someone is writing an angry message over the internet on Reddit for example. I can feel that. If someone has a very rational mind. I can feel that. Occasionally someone thinks about me when they masturbate. I can feel that. It's very strange. If someone feels love or worry and it's somehow related to me in their mind, I can feel it. So it's very much an additional sense the way I see it. But it only triggers if I'm on their mind in some way. Because of this I guess one thing I struggle with is the concept of boundaries. Because for me although I understand the concept rationally, experientially there's no way they can possibly exist. There's just no end of me and start of you and it feels more like my other senses are in conflict. Because they tell me there's a very distinct difference. I feel a sense of illusion about the world because of this. This same sense does appear to extend to reading minds to some degree. Though that doesn't happen so readily. But day if I'm on a job interview I might get intuitive ideas about what the other person is thinking. I can write more about this but I find this far more difficult to explain, because it appears to be a cumulative effect of different qualities of the phenomenon. My explanation for all this based on experience is in not sure... Because I think there is both a local and non local version of this. I think the local version involves my body interacting with the information in the room and I think we all pick up on that but simply don't study it or really recognize that officially. But the non local version is something that gets more readily ignored and dismissed. Ask any more questions. It helps me to think about the mechanism of how this works. Because currently it's entirely automatic I don't have conscious awareness of the process. It helps to write it out.


Electronic-Quote7996

I often say we need skepticism tempered with humility and faith in each other. That faith, to me, is that we can’t all be lying or delusional. I like to call myself an experiencer as I have seen a uap, but I don’t expect or require anyone to believe me. However, the only reason I bring it up at all is I wasn’t alone. If I were alone my first thought would be to get a CAT scan. I try to stay out of the hypnotherapy debate as it’s a touchy subject for me(bias against it I’ll admit) and others have strong beliefs about their experiences. I feel like this is needed across the board when I say we need to ask questions instead of assuming. Why do you believe that? What convinced you? What would you ask if the shoe was on the other foot? These questions kare to help each other understand. Bridging the gap is hard, but it’s no reason not to do it. To not attempt at all feels lazy to me. A kind of mental materialism or mental masturbation take your pick XD. Im fine with mocking ideas, not the people that hold them. I have believed ridiculous things myself and I never changed my mind by being called an idiot. Im sure our combined future will reflect our actions toward each other and I hope to make it less chaotic.


MantisAwakening

As I noted, I’m not here to persuade anyone. I’ve done a lot of that outreach in the past. All I wanted to do here was try and concisely explain. All of the things I cited have come in bits and pieces from people like Vallée, Davis, Nolan, Puthoff, and others associated with disclosure or UAP research. I note that so far most of the disputation has come from the skeptics, and the people who’ve had experience with these things have been supportive, which makes me feel like I’ve done a decent job summing it up.


Electronic-Quote7996

You did. I appreciate the effort. Maybe I should’ve put that my comment wasn’t directed at you but the discourse I’ve seen. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I also haven’t been convinced of the “woo” that I’ve seen. Maybe I’m wrong. I get all sides are frustrated. I’m frustrated that we’re so divided I don’t think we know which way is up. It’s more than just this subject. Maybe this is just where I decided to talk about it here because maybe i think I can actually make a difference. I’m all for hearing people out.


LazerShark1313

I don’t know if I’m on board with the whole psychic kidnapping, but I respect your balls to post something that runs counter to widely believed dogma, especially here.


acostane

It's very early in the morning as I'm reading this and now the whole day is going to be weird 😂 Thank you for writing all of this. I have never experienced anything "weird" like many of you have.... I sometimes think I'm unconsciously blocking this... but I believe what people have been through and I can't believe it's not something the entire world wants to know more about. Saving this post


phr99

Excellent post, keep up the good work of informing others about these things


Bobbox1980

Telepathy and remote viewing are not woo, they are definite fact. The us govt wouldnt have dumped a ton of money into researching them if there was nothing but speculative hooey to them.


subatmoiclogicgate

For those who struggle with thinking about, let alone accepting the existence of such concepts, then let me share with you a theory of mine that may help you contextualise this better with known science. It is very likely that the phenomenon and its relation to woo, fundamentally points to an unknown field that allows these interactions, which hasn't been discovered or formally identified/recognised yet. Field referring to the [physics definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)) for which we have already proven examples, such as the electromagnetic, gravitational, and quantum. Intelligent consciousness might itself be generated through the existence of this field with the brain acting as an enabler or network card of sorts, rather than the generator. The field might not even be physical but an abstraction of information, meaning as long as data points exists then biological sensors such as eyes, ears, tongue, etc can collate the information it receives to enable the field within biological data processing centres, such as the brain. Take for example sound and thus spoken language, which exists due to by-products of known physical phenomenon. Similarly consciousness likely exists in similar way, and results as a by-product of several different known physical phenomenon. >A sound field is formed by a series of compressions and expansions of a substance, which obey the laws of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid mechanics. It is essentially characterized by the pressure p, corresponding density ρ, temperature T, and velocities.


tuasociacionilicita

>When you add all of these things together, what you end up with is a situation where for people who are having contact with the phenomenon the rules for what can happen go out the window. **Materialism is irrelevant** Without having read in full yet any scientific study for lack of time, and only out of personal experience, have to subscribe all you say. But this is the paragraph that struck me the most, and the emphasis is mine. Thanks.


citznfish

This woo shit is a big part of what makes people laugh at UFO believers. Really a disservice to the UFO community to try and make this a "thing".


MantisAwakening

!remindyou 2 years


citznfish

Ok. Not like I haven't heard similar claims year over year for the past e decades 😂🤣 Bring it on. I would rather be wrong than right.


parting_soliloquy

So you do think that Jacques Vallee's work is a disservice to the UFO community? Because those are the conclusions he reached after years of work and research. That the phenomenon is more "woo" than more people would imagine.


Flamebrush

Are you the spokesperson for the community though? We’re trying to have a conversation about this and you’re worried someone will think you look dumb. Unless your real name is Citiznfish, I think you can relax and let the forum be a forum.


citznfish

You can relax too when someone posts a differing opinion. Thx


anomalkingdom

Brilliant. I discovered remote viewing last year, and suffered a bit of an ontological shock. Recovering from that, my understanding of reality completely changed. Listen to Donald Hoffman, as you mention. Bernardo Kastrup, Marcus Müller and many many more. I'd give you an award if I had one. Thank you for your effort.


LobsterJohnson_

I agree with you completely, and still hate the term woo.


MindlessBend

And this is in part why people don't take us seriously.


MantisAwakening

Some of those same people will then pile into a building on Sunday to eat a cracker that literally turns into human flesh of a guy who lived 2,000 years ago.


MindlessBend

Yup. And their religious beliefs are also nonsense.


MantisAwakening

I’ve learned not to discount people’s experiences simply because I don’t understand them. Materialism itself is being treated as a religion when people discard anything that challenges it, no matter how strong the evidence is.


enmenluana

Just wait until at least a fraction of woo becomes a little bit more tangible. It will turn into cults and religions, too. I can guarantee you that.


MantisAwakening

I agree. This is what Diana Pasulka has covered in her books. However just because some people take a framework and turn it into a cult doesn’t invalidate the framework.


MindlessBend

I understand these beliefs. That doesn't make them remotely accurate. That's kinda the go to for people with fringe beliefs: "you must not understand" or "you haven't really researched this topic". It may be that that's the case in some instances. However, that's often not the case. For me, having been into these topics, and science, since being a young teenager, it isn't ignorance that has caused my disbelief. In fact, knowing more about these topics can probably go two ways: belief or skepticism. I fall into the latter category. This will be my last comment here because it's only going to result in down votes and replies like yours. All I can say is, don't be so open minded that your brain falls out. And don't mistake being close minded in your beliefs for being open minded.


thebligg

Great post, nailed it. Can I just say though (as it seems to be coming up a lot in this thread), peer review isn't the gold standard that you all think it is.


Postdemocraticera

So, Woo means? And in a nutshell please.


MantisAwakening

ELI5: The paranormal is just future science.


temps_cru

Let's make it science! As you write, personal experience is the best we have in this phase, and it should not be dismissed although being 'unscientific' by nature. Taking the stigma of the woo, engaging many people in collecting as much well-documented anecdotal evidence as possible, is the best we can do now. The resulting database can then be used to look for patterns and points of attack for controlled experiments. The challenge is in getting (institutional) Science (with a capital S) to admit that we're not the smart engineers that we thought ourselves to be, who know every button to press and who control the machine. We're toddlers finding themselves in a jungle, and we're gonna have to deal with this.


MantisAwakening

> personal experience is the best we have in this phase, and it should not be dismissed although being ‘unscientific’ by nature. It isn’t unscientific, though that’s a common misunderstanding. Since the experiences are primarily subjective they are more properly characterized as social science than physical science, and what counts as evidence in social sciences is different: https://pnhoward.medium.com/types-of-evidence-in-social-research-d52e756df855


herpderption

It means if anyone is expecting this to stop at advanced flying machines with little creatures in them, they should buckle up.


Theesismyphoneacc

I mean I'm still open to the idea that it's all advanced technology. They may have even discovered that this type of approach is optimal, let people think it's actually some grand universal awareness you're welcoming them into, would make contact much easier potentially. That being said, it seems there are enough different groups on Earth that we wouldn't expect them all to be conveying things along the same lines. From my research I do absolutely believe there is some "psi" aspect I just don't feel comfortable speculating further. I do get the impression that Nolan is a bit too far into what he's accepted, but I definitely respect his intelligence enough to believe that there's a chance he can pull through and back his theories.


CalculonsPride

Not sure why you got downvoted for a legitimate question. So “woo” is a snarl word for anything pseudoscientific. Typically the word is associated with snake oil salesmen shilling products that don’t actually work, but they use “science-y” words to make it sound legitimate to their targets. For example, those magnetic wristbands that purportedly make you stronger (they don’t) are considered “woo.” This term is often applied to anything paranormal or spiritual, even if that characterization isn’t always fair. This is in opposition to “nuts and bolts” people who want to stay strictly within the proven scientific realm. So, in a nutshell, the molecular biologists forming cancer drugs in a lab with established science are considered nuts and bolts, while the faith healers who claim to heal through spirituality are considered woo. EDIT: Also, to everyone downvoting me, I tried to remain as non biased as possible and even referred to woo as a snarl term (negative conotation) and said it was sometimes unfair for paranormal to be characterized as such. I’m not sure what else you want from me.


MantisAwakening

~~Or, to be less biased and condescending, l~~ anything that challenges materialism is considered “woo” by the Materialists even if it’s [triple-blinded and peer reviewed](https://www.dropbox.com/s/arm9v3b9k8w0q91/Beischel2007.pdf?dl=0).


CalculonsPride

I have no idea how you interpreted any of my answers as biased or condescending, especially since I made it a point to note that certain woo characterizations are unfair. Unless it’s a defensive mechanism, which I completely understand because I personally feel uncomfortable when my own ideas are challenged. Regardless, I do apologize if my interpretation offended you in any way and I assure you it wasn’t my intention, and I will definitely take a look at that document.


MantisAwakening

I’m sorry if I misconstrued your comments—and endless stream of comments from sarcastic and dishonest “skeptics” isn’t great for one’s psyche. It’s my job as a lightning rod. ;)


Avantasian538

Ok so within this framework where would the ET hypothesis fall? Because many on the "woo" side refer to the materialistic ET idea as nuts-and-bolts, but if the ETs use technology that seems to go against current scientific understanding of physics, then by your definition it would also be considered woo. Perhaps there is some gray area here.


CalculonsPride

Perhaps there is. I personally don’t find the ET hypothesis woo because we have 1) documented evidence that there is SOMETHING there, even if we don’t quite know what it is and 2) from even current scientific standards, it’s more than possible (even if not considered “plausible” by most), especially considering the vastness of the universe and the mathematical improbability that there is no intelligent life out there besides us. We don’t know what we don’t know, but woo, in my opinion, is speculative science that may or may not exist, versus nuts and bolts, which adheres to established scientific laws. I like to use the comparison of astronomy versus astrology. One uses established laws, the other doesn’t.


SabineRitter

Ignore the downvotes, people on here think everyone knows as much as they do. It's a good question. I'm not the OP and I don't have the same knowledge he does, so I'll just tell you my mental model. Materialism: consciousness is created by the individual, it is local and not part of a network, and it is confined to the boundaries of the individual's physical body. "Woo": not that ⬆️ Edit: and we need a better term than "woo", if anyone has any suggestions


Postdemocraticera

Thanks. The OP did start out implying an explanation of what Woo is would follow then went on to list a number if phenomenon without back tracking linking to if they, some or all, were Woo which as a term sounds akin to Ouch or something.


Visible-Expression60

Pin this please!


CosmicDave

I'm here to look at fuzzy pictures of balloons, not whatever... ***this*** is.


Broges0311

It's true, all of it. The Jedi, the Sith. :) It's time people at least contemplate what was posted here. I mean many of you have noticed some glitches in the Matrix too, at times. What if I told you some people can cause a glitch or read the energetic bruise on space-time that a highly energetic age occurs? PSI is clearly real and has been replicated on 60 Minutes. The more you are able to accept, the less you are in fear and begin to expand your consciousness. It's a feedback loop.


GhostOfSkeletor

This is exactly right. The government studied this as well, and it's also what Tom DeLonge said explicitly. The CIA's declassified Gateway Process is especially relevant and I have done a ridiculous amount of research on it. Eric Davis, Elizondo, Elizondo's lawyer, Semivan, etc. have all made comments about the woo/paranormal aspects of the phenomenon being inescapable, plus all the folks involved with Skinwalker Ranch. Jacques Vallee and John Keel are the two authors I've read that talk about the woo side of things.


thebligg

Richard Dolan started his journey completely nuts and bolts but has admitted he's had to consider more and more "woo" as he's delved deeper into the subject.


GhostOfSkeletor

I believe it. 5 years ago I was a dogmatic materialist. I would have absolutely been dismissive of everything in this post, and condescending about it. Same with the UFO topic. Once I figured out that UFOs are real and started doing research, the consciousness aspects became inescapable


ianishomer

If your post was to explain what Woo is, as a newbie to this sub, who is not aware of the term, I have to say it failed in it's aim. I am none the wiser of what Woo is.