Off Topic Did any ‘psychic’

or anyone!

Including any Scientific data evidence: recorded experiments, investigative reports and journals please

 

No, it’s just a user name that I thought up and used on the SMB from around 2010. If you like I can change it to nice jimmy krankie.

 

There's a fair bit of life that you can't do this with like. I mean, most folk will claim they love someone; parents, partners or kids but as far as I'm aware there is no experiment anywhere that can prove it. So using the standards of emperical peer reviewed scientific evidence, love can't be proved. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

 

i accept the possibility of the existence of ghosts (same thing init?) cannot be extinguished by Scientific method

If there were ghosts, dead people popping by when spiritualists say 'oi, can we have a chat?', poltergeist, nasty spirit people hanging about old houses, astral projection and whatever else? ...Lets use the term spiritual reality or a spiritual dimension, then with all this spiritual energy knocking about everywhere, you'd think the evidence for this would be easy to find

 

Not a particularly good example Sandy. There are other ways that love can be demonstrated, most notably through overt acts. My argument is that psychic ability relies upon one person saying something and another believing it.

 

Depends on what you accept as evidence. If you take the position that evidence can only be found under an external measuring device like a microscope or telescope, I guess not. However, plenty of folk claim to have had spiritual experiences so if you accept human conscious experience is evidence, then there are plenty of examples of it. Unless all those folk are deluded or charlatans like, and while I think some are I don't think that is the case for all of them.

 

My position on love is no different. If I tell someone that I love them it needs the person that I'm saying it to to believe me.

 

If you want to make your claim - then offer some reliable evidence to support it. I hope you have something better than Fred down the road saw a ghost this morning.

 

So you don’t hold hands, look lovingly into their eyes, kiss them, stroke their hair? All demonstrable actions. I tell my wife I love her every day and those words are backed up by overt actions. Based on what I say and what I do I can clearly show that I love my wife. My wife can believe I love her and reciprocate those same actions. Those actions can also be measured by scientists and based upon other quantifiable measurements they can say that love can be measured.

 

What kind of evidence do you accept. The kind that's found in a lab? If so, prove love exists.

 

Please don't attempt to answer a question with another question, besides I am not the one claiming it doesn't exist

Now can you please support your claim?

 

All those actions can be measured but claiming that love is the motivating factor doesn't mean it's true. I'm having to believe what you are claiming without any scientific evidence to prove it. I mean, how do you get love under a microscope to find out what it is and what it's made of?

 

Because numerous scientific experiments have been conducted to measure and quantify love that’s why. Here’s one article that talks about the science behind it. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I stopped studying once I failed my GCEs and CSEs so academia and me aren’t exactly bedfellows if you’ll excuse the pun, but I reckon that the two medical professors from Harvard might know a thing or two.

https://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harva...ute/brain-newsletter/and-brain/love-and-brain

 

I'll do what I want thanks and if I want to answer a question with a question, I will. It's not up to you to tell me how to behave in all honesty, that's being arrogant, and I'm not here to have to prove anything to anyone. If you want lab based evidence of a spiritual reality, you're not going to get it. If you accept human consciousness experience as evidence, you can find it. At that point, you either believe what the person says, or you don't. Just like when someone says 'I love you'.

 

Opportunity to make a bit of money here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

 

Only had a brief view but it suggests by measuring brain function, chemical release and subsequent interactions that proves love exists. OK, I'll run with that but I am bringing DMT to the table. This is a molecule present in extremely low amounts within the human brain but when that dose is increased, people have experiences they describe as being spiritual. Brain function, chemical release and subsequent interactions present in both instances. So if that makes love and the experience of love real, how come the same process doesn't mean that the spiritual is real?

 

Because these things are measurable and can be quantified. Data and interpretations are rigorously reviewed as processes in the Scientific method. It can be then defined as something that exists, there is such a thing as love in the world, just as there sound or mass for instance

Because it cannot stand up to the same rigour though many have tried for a very long time to prove Scientifically that it does

 

No idea mate, but like I said I’m not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. I’ll believe when you say it happens. Clearly it has been proven, but all of this love/spiritual thing is a side issue anyway. The question still remains. If you claim that you can talk to dead people, that needs to be backed up with some sort of evidence. It’s not up to me or anyone else for that matter to prove that you can’t. It’s up to you to prove that you can, and the more outlandish the claim, the more persuasive your proof has to be. Talking to the dead is a pretty big claim to make in anyones eyes, and if you can’t provide that level of proof, I have no other option but not to believe you.

 

I'm with Krankie - bunch of ****ing shysters the lot of them

 

Not true. Research into substances like DMT has been massively restricted since the 1960's although they do have a long and rich history in cultures other than ours.

David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychoparmacology at Imperial, who is overseeing the current trials, disputes the evidence for this, saying that heavily restricting the drug (and other psychedelics) has hindered research and propelled “lies” about its risks and medical potential. For him, the decision is “one of the most atrocious examples of the censorship of science and medicine in the history of the world”.

Psilocybin mushrooms have been part of religious rituals for thousands of years. The Aztecs of Mexico referred to the mushroom as teonanácatl, or “God’s flesh”, in homage to its believed sacred power. In 1957, Albert Hoffman, a Swiss chemist working for the pharmaceutical company Sandoz, isolated psilocybin from the mushroom. Fifteen years earlier, he had accidentally ingested LSD, left work feeling dizzy, and experienced its psychedelic effects when he got home. During the 1960s, Sandoz sold psilocybin and LSD for research in medical trials, but the substances were soon outlawed after they became associated with the 60s counterculture.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...sion-aztecs-psilocybin-mental-health-medicine

If you want some lab based evidence the work done by Dr Rick Strassman is a good introduction. Just depends on whether you believe that these participants had a genuine experience or not.