Telepathy half the world away

[zenmaster]

Why is that ESP and other phenomena have yet to be proven? If these things exist (which I believe they do) how come it has been so hard to provide proof of their existence? These phenomana seem to occur rather frequently, yet all the tests done on them have yet to conclusively provide evidence for them. Anyone know why?

Because anecdotal evidence is typically what is provided in lieu of scientific evidence. No one has been able to consistently demonstrate a significant ESP effect when asked to do so under controlled conditions. This is out of billions of people. So the demonstrations have not been reliable, which is a requirement for study of course. There has been no rigorous hypothesis offered which adequately explains the underlying mechanism. All tests to date have been unable to rule out cherry picking of data - that's a failure of both the experimenter's testing methods and the experimenter's understanding of the purported phenomenon.

You can believe and experience all you want, but that alone won't do crap to advance practical knowledge in the matter - which is the purpose of scientific inquiry.

[Billy]

No one has been able to consistently demonstrate a significant ESP effect when asked to do so under controlled conditions. This is out of billions of people.

This is what I don't understand. Considering how many people there are in the world and how frequently these phenomena occur, why have they failed time and time again under controlled conditions? Is it because they are very difficult to reliably measure with the equipment we have now? Do these things simply occur to erratically to be proven?

[zenmaster]

No one has been able to consistently demonstrate a significant ESP effect when asked to do so under controlled conditions. This is out of billions of people.

This is what I don't understand. Considering how many people there are in the world and how frequently these phenomena occur, why have they failed time and time again under controlled conditions?

Because they lack an understanding of it which allows intentional control. Simple.

Is it because they are very difficult to reliably measure with the equipment we have now?

Has nothing to do with equipment?

Do these things simply occur to erratically to be proven?

Yes. If you can't reliably demonstrate a particular effect, then how do you explain it let alone prove it. Explanation of mechanism is lacking. So most tests focus on providing some compelling statistical evidence above a chance occurrence. However, the tests are usually constructed in a manner which does not rule out selection bias and therefore carry little to no weight in science. So you either need a reliable, repeatable test under controlled conditions or some kind of theoretical understanding supporting some hypothesis which can be tested. Does not exist and it's not a failure of the scientific method, or close-mindedness, or some other bullshit that new-agers tend to come up with, it's a failure of the experimenter's ability to show compelling evidence for the phenomena. It's difficult to adequately demonstrate something of which understanding is severely lacking in a manner which sheds any light on it.

[Parsons]

Telepathy (or whatever you want to label it), will never be proven in our current overall society's mindset for the same reason no extradimensional / terrestrial being will just come down and let a bunch of scientists prove they are 'alien'. You can't summon up telepathic abilities at will to prove to mainstream science that they exist because that would be an infringement to free will, considering the source of the abilities.

[zenmaster]

Why not? The source of the abilities are your own and a consequence of nature. Really bizzare notion of what constitutes free will infringement. Lol @ "mainstream science" gotta love the meme.

[Spaced]

If you develop controlled telepathy through your own conscious development then there would be no breach of free will. The problem is that such development would require a foundation of knowledge that includes the how and why of telepathic communication. I believe we are all capable of telepathic communication and engage in it on an unconscious level constantly, but a lack of awareness of the inputs and cues utilized by this type of communication combined with a lack of knowledge base on the mechanics behind it keep us from developing conscious control of this ability.

[Parsons]

One component of telepathy is the metaphysical result of two or more fields of consciousness interacting with each other, the second is a physical receiver component (such as hair over 4.5 inches). Currently, mainstream science has the notion that consciousness is the result of billions of years of physical matter evolving into the human brain. What is causing such skepticism (IMO) is that since they believe consciousness is generated by the brain, it can't function independently of the brain. Of course, consciousness existed before there was physical matter.

[zenmaster]

That skepticism is a very good thing. It prevents individuals who come up with flakey, unsubstantiated theories from polluting actual knowledge on the subject with their whimsical notions which have been given little scientific thought.

[Parsons]

I was referring to a specific skepticism, not skepticism in general (which is what you seem to be referring to). I was referring to the assumption by most scientists that consciousness is a result of physical matter interacting, which is opposite of the way it actually works (Infinite consciousness created finite physical matter). How can science ever understand telepathy if they don't understand how consciousness works and interacts?

[zenmaster]

Whether or not an available theory of consciousness is sufficient to explain something has little to do with skepticism and everything to do with the state of actual, rather than make-believe, knowledge on the subject.
If we are relying on some tacit knowledge when interpreting evidence, that could be part of the problem of understanding due to possible confusion or ambiguity on what is important to consider (a well-defined domain) but again, skepticism from even materialism/reductionism has little to do with valid research interpretation.

It is up to the experimentor to bridge any knowledge gap which may exist in successfully interpreting their evidence.