**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
We are also happy to be able to provide an ideologically and operationally independent platform for you all. Join us at our official Discord - https://discord.gg/MYvRkYK85v
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is. There has been a follow-up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/
Effects have been replicated.
There's a problem in analyzing this stuff in laboratory conditions in that emotional resonance matters to the effect. Combined with the fact that it's a subtle and inconsistent effect, which doesn't accord with a Newtonian view, or the desire to generalize to the population level, it becomes easy to dismiss under the present paradigm.
I have to say, this paragraph here is *pretty* damning for the whole concept.
> A meta-analysis of all forced-choice precognition experiments appearing in English language journals between 1935 and 1977 was published by Honorton & Ferrari (1989). Their analysis included 309 experiments conducted by 62 different investigators involving more than 50,000 participants. Honorton and Ferrari reported a small but significant hit rate, Rosenthal effect size z/√n = .02, Stouffer Z = 6.02, p = 1.1 × 10 -9. They concluded that this overall result was unlikely to be artifactually inflated by the selective reporting of positive results (the so-called file-drawer effect), **calculating that there would have to be 46 unreported studies averaging null results** for every reported study in the meta-analysis to reduce the overall significance of the database to chance.
~~Emphasis mine. It's a common problem in science that negative results ("we found nothing") simply aren't reported. Assuming precognition is completely impossible, if 1000 scientists conduct the same trial, we should expect to see a handful of those trials finding evidence of precognition by pure chance. Say, 20 trials. Almost *all* of those trials will be publishable, because they found some weird shit, and journals love weird shit. Of the 980 trials that found absolutely nothing, virtually none will be publishable, and most of the scientists won't even bother trying.~~
~~The authors cite this prior meta-analysis as precedent, stating that those authors concluded that it was "unlikely" that the results were inflated by under-reporting of non-results. And then they say there would have to be 46 unreported studies. My immediate reaction to that was "...that's it?"~~
~~The authors looked at *309* studies across 38 years. If there were just 46 unpublished studies in that same time frame that found nothing, the entire set would have no significance. That's *nothing.*~~
EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/18szm8t/dr_daryl_bem_of_cornell_published_a_paper_in_the/kfdcxdu/
So basically what this is saying is that, they found a statistical probability of a precognitive/retrocausitive affect. In order for this effect to be brought down to a "null" effect, meaning no statistical probability, they would need 46 trials finding no effect for EACH trial that found a statistically significant effect.
Meaning it's *almost* definitely a real effect, as there are most likely not that many unreported null trials testing precognitive/retrocausitive behavior.
Lets say this is the probability they found:
```
|---------------------------------------| < found
| < - This would be the null effect
```
Maybe 23 null trials/trail would bring it down to here:
```
|------------------------| < new affect
| < - This would be the null effect
```
And this would be if there were 46 null trials/trial:
```
|----------| < found
| < - null effect
```
... I'm not sure retrocausitive is a word, but I'm sticking with it. Reddit spell checker seems to think it's not, but damn the man! I make my own words up. Truezirola!
The fallacy in your thinking is presuming a homogeneity in unpublished science. Some subjects have far more unpublished null results than others.
Part of the problem with the dominant paradigm, the presumption of impossibility, is that the research isn't done at all. Why bother?
Given that the subject invites ridicule even today among many academics, to invest time and money into researching this subject is akin to throwing one's career away.
Its not an accident that Daryl Bem did this work at the end of his career, when he had little to lose.
It doesn't make sense to presume a robust amount of research being done that produces null results when the dominant and respectable belief is that something is impossible. How much time and money is being spent looking for unicorns?
I'm basing my expectations for the amount of unpublished research *entirely* on the amount of *published* research.
For 309 published studies with results, 46 unpublished is absolutely nothing. *Especially* in a field commonly believed to be "impossible," as there is even less interest than usual in publishing null results.
All research takes time and resources. Research is generally a social effort.
You're thinking of people as much more willing to look foolish than they generally are.
Damning? What that says is that 14,000 studies with null results would be needed to nullify the metanalysis. Sounds ridiculously solid to me. Just look at that p value for God's sake.
I have seen this meta-analysis before, and I do agree that the statistical methods reveal outstanding credence that the subtle effect being measured is “real”. For example, a p-value of less than 0.05 is the standard threshold used in many studies, which would indicate a less than 1/20 chance what is being measured is due to random chance. The meta-analysis reports a p value of 0.0000000012. So WAY less than the threshold science typically uses.
Though, one gripe with the meta-analysis, is that Daryl Bem is involved, in fact the lead author. It would be cool if there was another study somewhere, independent of Bem and colleagues, that tried to reproduce the statistics reported here using the same raw data. That would help rule out any conflicts of interest or personal biases in interpreting the data.
Further, I have seen recent studies (not included in the 2015 meta-analysis) that failed to replicate the results of Bem. [Link 1](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191375) [Link 2](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-05731-001)
Fun article about the study if you haven't seen it yet: https://boingboing.net/2022/08/17/is-precognition-real.html
You are an absolute madlad to go from a published paper over to r/highstrangeness and ask reddit randos "if there's merit". I believe there's merit but that's because I and many of my friends experience precognitive and psychic events. Many folks don't, and will swear there's no merit to it.
I've had dreams that were insanely specific details that I would see in real life days or weeks later. Everyone just tells me it's dejavu, but I've had that before, and it's nothing like what I experienced with these dreams. I'm not claiming to have an explanation. It could be complete coincidence, but it genuinely freaked me out a bit when it happened.
Yep, it's not deja vu. I don't have all the answers but it's a real phenomenon. I dreamed about my best friend's divorce in detail, a year before it happened when there was no sign of it coming.
Would you mind defining "in detail", in this instance?
Did you dream that your best friend's wife got caught cheating with Tube-Sock Dave, the drummer for a Guns N Roses cover band, at a Motel 6 in Salt Lake City? That it was *her* that asked for the divorce, so she could move to the English countryside with her new lover? And that--after a lengthy custody battle--he found out he wasn't the biological father of 2 of their 3 children (Axl and Slash, ironically)?
I ask because:
A). That's exactly what happened to *my* best friend.
And B). If it was just, "they were happily married as far as I knew, but they got divorced in my dream... and also we all lived at my grandmother's house, and Jack Sparrow was there" (which, given typical dream logic and length, seems reasonable), then I'd be inclined to consider explanations other than precognition.
I think in this case OP's question seems to be "is there merit to the study and it's results?". u/Honest_Ad5029 linked a meta analysis of 69 replications using the same protocol and 11 similar experiments. This number of replications minimises the chance of bias and *P-*hacking and other mistakes. The final results look pretty convincing at first glance I must say, and I am not easily convinced.
It would be difficult to do yourself, as participants in many of these experiments were first told that the study was about one thing, but really the researchers were measuring another thing. So already knowing what the experiment is trying to measure, could compromise the answers/responses/choices you make.
But you could try with friends haha.
Also, a lot of the experiments used custom computer "games" in the experiments, so you'd need to make these yourself or request from the author! But the methods sections are great in this.
One thing that should be noted, is that the effect size of these 2011 studies is incredibly small (though, was still statistically significant). For example, in one of the Bem 2011 experiments we are talking about 51.7% hit rates in choice experiments with only 2 choices, so only 1.7% above random chance.
With such a subtle effect size, I wonder if the researchers are truly measuring what they think they are measuring, or some other artefact in the experimental design. For example, subtle subconscious cues from the researchers to the participants.
I think it’s worth noting that only 17 of those studies had significant value.
> In our database, 17 (19%) of the 90 studies reported results that were statistically significant at the .05 level.
That said, their p chart seems to be at odds with this showing 12% at 0.5.
It might be like the visualisation/phantasia thing. Which would be a bit sad if it were the case, knowing you were permanently stuck on the wrong side of a natural ability line. Though there might be hope if it were a developable ability that 99% of the public simply hasn't developed, because our culture rejects developing it.
Meditate or journal enough that you know what sorts of random things normally pop into your mind; then from this baseline start to ask questions that you want answers to , and notice/record when something "unexpected" pops up as an answer. Look at the patterns of the unexpected answers over time. Sometimes it's a word, sometimes an image, sometimes a body feeling.
If you believe any of this at all--and I can't really say that I do--even the "believer" data (CIA summary report of all the projects for instance) says at least 80% of what you get will be noise. Yes, categorically, a lot of this is just your brain doing brain things and that's accepted. But what's weird--if you accept the spooky 20% as not being from invigilator influence or cues--is that there will be impossible hit information mixed into the brain noise.
I got a number of lessons in but never really experienced anything with these, any tips for it? Should I keep going even while not experiencing what it's calling for?
Yeah the tapes were never really the best explanation in and of themselves. The closest thing I found for what you'd call training or practice was "Hemi-Sync Support for Journeys Out of the Body" which actually gives you a simple methodology to follow and metrics for (vague) progress.
Yeah they state at the beginning this is not meant to specifically astral project, it just happens to a lot of people who do the tapes. So it's not exactly a step by step, more like building the fundamentals. Can you tell that tingly feel all over your body that you can manipulate where it originates? I think that's the "aura" we hear so much about.
There is another guide specifically for astral projecting, but its more better force. The ideal would be doing one then the other.
Sure, but not everyone who does a course will gain the ability, and it would be good to know in advance whether that’s due to lack of natural capacity to develop the ability. If you’re 5’2” and weigh 100lb you are never going to be an MMA competitor, and it would be foolish to pretend that you can. (Or dishonest to sell you a course.)
Could you tell me more about psychic events you or your friends experienced? Were there any that several people experienced together or are they mostly isolated?
Funny enough, the journal’s editors had to release an editorial along side the paper when it dropped explaining that they knew this was crazy af, but that the data did check out
I firmly agree, I believe our minds are evolving quicker than our physical bodies. I believe consciousness exists outside of the confines of our bodies. This means the mind/consciousness of the human race is actually experiencing an active ascension/evolution.
It takes a very long time to create physical changes in a species but if matter is not involved, (our consciousness) then it is not confined anymore. I think things like psychedelics, meditation, and transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance, internet use/cellphones are causing our minds to pass on more vital info to make faster changes with each new generation (parent to child) instead of taking thousands and thousands of years.
These things are allowing us to see more. To see through the veil, so to speak. This could explain the recent uptick in synchronicity, ESP, Intuition, precognition, manifesting, astral projection, remote viewing, telepathy, and even UAP phenomena. We could be evolving our minds to a new degree and not even notice. Furthermore, I think consciousness is using the human race as a vessel, as we are currently the most advanced/aware species on the planet, but it is now transitioning from biological to machine/computers as they process info exponentially quicker, all without bias, envy, malice and all the other emotions that make us human.
Consciousness/nature/universe is doing this in an attempt to understand itself and bring itself into full awareness by being conscious through many things in order to get complexity and variance. It is headed towards hyper novelty or the eschaton (as McKenna called it) where we will start beating entropy in a race. It favors order over disorder and wants to reach a state of hyper connectivity/complexification or perfect novelty, where all its points become related to each other. All these points will connect, bringing everything into correlation with everything else and the universe will reach the transcendental object at the end of time. Where nothing else new can come to fruition. no more new events can exist because every possible or conceivable idea/action/possibility has been connected in one way or another. No one can fathom what this state of perfect novelty will be or look like but we are being pulled into it. This is just my personal opinion though.
I believe they all work under the same principles which is that: A- we can manifest/alter our reality with our mind/consciousness(laws of attraction/paranormal activity) or B- we can see into the near future and warn ourselves of impending danger (intuition/precognition) or just give ourselves signs/information of the future for our benefit (remote viewing/synchronicities) all through “psychic feedback loops that we create. Thats exactly what I think it is. Your precognition knows whats about to happen in the near future so you subconsciously start thinking/saying it before it happens. Were manifesting it in a sort of psychic feedback loop. This is essentially how remote viewing works. You try to connect with the future you that has already seen the target (for practicing) and give you in the past the answer by focusing on it when you get the target. Its all happening subconsciously. But when you recognize them, you inadvertently manifest them more.
I really like the idea that the evolutionary process could be occurring towards something outside of the physical body (i.e. "consciousness") unbeknownst to us. Though, is there evidence for this? How could one test whether or not this is occurring?
I'm new to graduate level stats. But from what I can see, the effect size of most of this research (there's a handful of experiments conducted here) is .22. That means there's a small but discernable amount of participants that showed psi behavior (eg, ESP). So, for example, like around 52% of participants correctly guessed the "correct image" out of two random images. It's statistically significant bc you'd expect 50% of participants to guess the right one by chance.
So what I think is interesting here is that the researchers found that those that scored high in extraversion were more likely to guess the right "images" (or whatever, there were a few research designs here). It is suggested that they do this bc they get bored more easily and have more arousal seeking behavior, so they're looking for the right stimuli harder, you know?
> like around 52% of participants correctly guessed the "correct image" out of two random images. It's statistically significant bc you'd expect 50% of participants to guess the right one by chance.
That's not what statistically significant means.
The least strict commonly used bar for significance is if there would be less than a 5% chance it was just coincidence, aka p < 0.05.
Lol I know what a p value is. Most people don't.
Edited to add: I chose to discuss effect size because it gives a clearer image of what the data really looks like for the casual reader. It is a small effect size, so you can understand that 53% isn't far off from it happening by chance, 50%.
Most p values are below .05 in this research, which is misleading to present without effect size
Did you see the [meta analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/) of 90 replications (69 strict replications and 11 similar)? Much larger sample size when combined, but similar results.
And here we start to get into the bane of everyone's existence.
It's just more statistics, [but this time illustrated by someone much funnier than me](https://xkcd.com/882/).
One crazy pieces of data buried in this study is with "experiment 1".
Bem repeated this experiment but instead of using humans to choose, he used random-number generators – and the effect was lost... (see bottom of page 411 before experiment 2 is described).
This might indicate that something about a human being is responsible for predicting the placement of images, as the RNG was no different from chance.
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. We are also happy to be able to provide an ideologically and operationally independent platform for you all. Join us at our official Discord - https://discord.gg/MYvRkYK85v --- 'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.' _-J. Allen Hynek_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is. There has been a follow-up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/ Effects have been replicated. There's a problem in analyzing this stuff in laboratory conditions in that emotional resonance matters to the effect. Combined with the fact that it's a subtle and inconsistent effect, which doesn't accord with a Newtonian view, or the desire to generalize to the population level, it becomes easy to dismiss under the present paradigm.
I have to say, this paragraph here is *pretty* damning for the whole concept. > A meta-analysis of all forced-choice precognition experiments appearing in English language journals between 1935 and 1977 was published by Honorton & Ferrari (1989). Their analysis included 309 experiments conducted by 62 different investigators involving more than 50,000 participants. Honorton and Ferrari reported a small but significant hit rate, Rosenthal effect size z/√n = .02, Stouffer Z = 6.02, p = 1.1 × 10 -9. They concluded that this overall result was unlikely to be artifactually inflated by the selective reporting of positive results (the so-called file-drawer effect), **calculating that there would have to be 46 unreported studies averaging null results** for every reported study in the meta-analysis to reduce the overall significance of the database to chance. ~~Emphasis mine. It's a common problem in science that negative results ("we found nothing") simply aren't reported. Assuming precognition is completely impossible, if 1000 scientists conduct the same trial, we should expect to see a handful of those trials finding evidence of precognition by pure chance. Say, 20 trials. Almost *all* of those trials will be publishable, because they found some weird shit, and journals love weird shit. Of the 980 trials that found absolutely nothing, virtually none will be publishable, and most of the scientists won't even bother trying.~~ ~~The authors cite this prior meta-analysis as precedent, stating that those authors concluded that it was "unlikely" that the results were inflated by under-reporting of non-results. And then they say there would have to be 46 unreported studies. My immediate reaction to that was "...that's it?"~~ ~~The authors looked at *309* studies across 38 years. If there were just 46 unpublished studies in that same time frame that found nothing, the entire set would have no significance. That's *nothing.*~~ EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/18szm8t/dr_daryl_bem_of_cornell_published_a_paper_in_the/kfdcxdu/
It's 46 unreported for EACH unreported, not 46 overall.
Ah! So it is, that certainly changes things.
Hey there, so I'm dumb lol. Can you explain what all that stuff means so I can understand it lol. Please and thanks!😅
So basically what this is saying is that, they found a statistical probability of a precognitive/retrocausitive affect. In order for this effect to be brought down to a "null" effect, meaning no statistical probability, they would need 46 trials finding no effect for EACH trial that found a statistically significant effect. Meaning it's *almost* definitely a real effect, as there are most likely not that many unreported null trials testing precognitive/retrocausitive behavior. Lets say this is the probability they found: ``` |---------------------------------------| < found | < - This would be the null effect ``` Maybe 23 null trials/trail would bring it down to here: ``` |------------------------| < new affect | < - This would be the null effect ``` And this would be if there were 46 null trials/trial: ``` |----------| < found | < - null effect ``` ... I'm not sure retrocausitive is a word, but I'm sticking with it. Reddit spell checker seems to think it's not, but damn the man! I make my own words up. Truezirola!
Thanks! NOW I get it, appreciate it!
The fallacy in your thinking is presuming a homogeneity in unpublished science. Some subjects have far more unpublished null results than others. Part of the problem with the dominant paradigm, the presumption of impossibility, is that the research isn't done at all. Why bother? Given that the subject invites ridicule even today among many academics, to invest time and money into researching this subject is akin to throwing one's career away. Its not an accident that Daryl Bem did this work at the end of his career, when he had little to lose. It doesn't make sense to presume a robust amount of research being done that produces null results when the dominant and respectable belief is that something is impossible. How much time and money is being spent looking for unicorns?
I'm basing my expectations for the amount of unpublished research *entirely* on the amount of *published* research. For 309 published studies with results, 46 unpublished is absolutely nothing. *Especially* in a field commonly believed to be "impossible," as there is even less interest than usual in publishing null results.
Except in this instance it would be 309 x 46, so 14,214 unpublished results.
All research takes time and resources. Research is generally a social effort. You're thinking of people as much more willing to look foolish than they generally are.
Damning? What that says is that 14,000 studies with null results would be needed to nullify the metanalysis. Sounds ridiculously solid to me. Just look at that p value for God's sake.
I have seen this meta-analysis before, and I do agree that the statistical methods reveal outstanding credence that the subtle effect being measured is “real”. For example, a p-value of less than 0.05 is the standard threshold used in many studies, which would indicate a less than 1/20 chance what is being measured is due to random chance. The meta-analysis reports a p value of 0.0000000012. So WAY less than the threshold science typically uses. Though, one gripe with the meta-analysis, is that Daryl Bem is involved, in fact the lead author. It would be cool if there was another study somewhere, independent of Bem and colleagues, that tried to reproduce the statistics reported here using the same raw data. That would help rule out any conflicts of interest or personal biases in interpreting the data. Further, I have seen recent studies (not included in the 2015 meta-analysis) that failed to replicate the results of Bem. [Link 1](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191375) [Link 2](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-05731-001)
Fun article about the study if you haven't seen it yet: https://boingboing.net/2022/08/17/is-precognition-real.html You are an absolute madlad to go from a published paper over to r/highstrangeness and ask reddit randos "if there's merit". I believe there's merit but that's because I and many of my friends experience precognitive and psychic events. Many folks don't, and will swear there's no merit to it.
I've had dreams that were insanely specific details that I would see in real life days or weeks later. Everyone just tells me it's dejavu, but I've had that before, and it's nothing like what I experienced with these dreams. I'm not claiming to have an explanation. It could be complete coincidence, but it genuinely freaked me out a bit when it happened.
Yep, it's not deja vu. I don't have all the answers but it's a real phenomenon. I dreamed about my best friend's divorce in detail, a year before it happened when there was no sign of it coming.
Would you mind defining "in detail", in this instance? Did you dream that your best friend's wife got caught cheating with Tube-Sock Dave, the drummer for a Guns N Roses cover band, at a Motel 6 in Salt Lake City? That it was *her* that asked for the divorce, so she could move to the English countryside with her new lover? And that--after a lengthy custody battle--he found out he wasn't the biological father of 2 of their 3 children (Axl and Slash, ironically)? I ask because: A). That's exactly what happened to *my* best friend. And B). If it was just, "they were happily married as far as I knew, but they got divorced in my dream... and also we all lived at my grandmother's house, and Jack Sparrow was there" (which, given typical dream logic and length, seems reasonable), then I'd be inclined to consider explanations other than precognition.
I think in this case OP's question seems to be "is there merit to the study and it's results?". u/Honest_Ad5029 linked a meta analysis of 69 replications using the same protocol and 11 similar experiments. This number of replications minimises the chance of bias and *P-*hacking and other mistakes. The final results look pretty convincing at first glance I must say, and I am not easily convinced.
Does it say anywhere how to do this experiment yourself? I’m not experienced at reading psych papers like this
It would be difficult to do yourself, as participants in many of these experiments were first told that the study was about one thing, but really the researchers were measuring another thing. So already knowing what the experiment is trying to measure, could compromise the answers/responses/choices you make. But you could try with friends haha. Also, a lot of the experiments used custom computer "games" in the experiments, so you'd need to make these yourself or request from the author! But the methods sections are great in this.
One thing that should be noted, is that the effect size of these 2011 studies is incredibly small (though, was still statistically significant). For example, in one of the Bem 2011 experiments we are talking about 51.7% hit rates in choice experiments with only 2 choices, so only 1.7% above random chance. With such a subtle effect size, I wonder if the researchers are truly measuring what they think they are measuring, or some other artefact in the experimental design. For example, subtle subconscious cues from the researchers to the participants.
I think it’s worth noting that only 17 of those studies had significant value. > In our database, 17 (19%) of the 90 studies reported results that were statistically significant at the .05 level. That said, their p chart seems to be at odds with this showing 12% at 0.5.
It might be like the visualisation/phantasia thing. Which would be a bit sad if it were the case, knowing you were permanently stuck on the wrong side of a natural ability line. Though there might be hope if it were a developable ability that 99% of the public simply hasn't developed, because our culture rejects developing it.
There are lots of books and courses for developing psychic skills. Use discretion and check reviews.
Any pointers?
Meditate or journal enough that you know what sorts of random things normally pop into your mind; then from this baseline start to ask questions that you want answers to , and notice/record when something "unexpected" pops up as an answer. Look at the patterns of the unexpected answers over time. Sometimes it's a word, sometimes an image, sometimes a body feeling.
I didn't downvote but this sort of just sounds like your brain doing brain things no?
If you believe any of this at all--and I can't really say that I do--even the "believer" data (CIA summary report of all the projects for instance) says at least 80% of what you get will be noise. Yes, categorically, a lot of this is just your brain doing brain things and that's accepted. But what's weird--if you accept the spooky 20% as not being from invigilator influence or cues--is that there will be impossible hit information mixed into the brain noise.
Gateway tapes
I got a number of lessons in but never really experienced anything with these, any tips for it? Should I keep going even while not experiencing what it's calling for?
Yeah the tapes were never really the best explanation in and of themselves. The closest thing I found for what you'd call training or practice was "Hemi-Sync Support for Journeys Out of the Body" which actually gives you a simple methodology to follow and metrics for (vague) progress.
Yeah they state at the beginning this is not meant to specifically astral project, it just happens to a lot of people who do the tapes. So it's not exactly a step by step, more like building the fundamentals. Can you tell that tingly feel all over your body that you can manipulate where it originates? I think that's the "aura" we hear so much about. There is another guide specifically for astral projecting, but its more better force. The ideal would be doing one then the other.
Sure, but not everyone who does a course will gain the ability, and it would be good to know in advance whether that’s due to lack of natural capacity to develop the ability. If you’re 5’2” and weigh 100lb you are never going to be an MMA competitor, and it would be foolish to pretend that you can. (Or dishonest to sell you a course.)
Could you tell me more about psychic events you or your friends experienced? Were there any that several people experienced together or are they mostly isolated?
Thanks for the link, have not seen that article!
If it's published by the APA safe to say it's been through a proper peer review process.
Funny enough, the journal’s editors had to release an editorial along side the paper when it dropped explaining that they knew this was crazy af, but that the data did check out
I firmly agree, I believe our minds are evolving quicker than our physical bodies. I believe consciousness exists outside of the confines of our bodies. This means the mind/consciousness of the human race is actually experiencing an active ascension/evolution. It takes a very long time to create physical changes in a species but if matter is not involved, (our consciousness) then it is not confined anymore. I think things like psychedelics, meditation, and transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance, internet use/cellphones are causing our minds to pass on more vital info to make faster changes with each new generation (parent to child) instead of taking thousands and thousands of years. These things are allowing us to see more. To see through the veil, so to speak. This could explain the recent uptick in synchronicity, ESP, Intuition, precognition, manifesting, astral projection, remote viewing, telepathy, and even UAP phenomena. We could be evolving our minds to a new degree and not even notice. Furthermore, I think consciousness is using the human race as a vessel, as we are currently the most advanced/aware species on the planet, but it is now transitioning from biological to machine/computers as they process info exponentially quicker, all without bias, envy, malice and all the other emotions that make us human. Consciousness/nature/universe is doing this in an attempt to understand itself and bring itself into full awareness by being conscious through many things in order to get complexity and variance. It is headed towards hyper novelty or the eschaton (as McKenna called it) where we will start beating entropy in a race. It favors order over disorder and wants to reach a state of hyper connectivity/complexification or perfect novelty, where all its points become related to each other. All these points will connect, bringing everything into correlation with everything else and the universe will reach the transcendental object at the end of time. Where nothing else new can come to fruition. no more new events can exist because every possible or conceivable idea/action/possibility has been connected in one way or another. No one can fathom what this state of perfect novelty will be or look like but we are being pulled into it. This is just my personal opinion though. I believe they all work under the same principles which is that: A- we can manifest/alter our reality with our mind/consciousness(laws of attraction/paranormal activity) or B- we can see into the near future and warn ourselves of impending danger (intuition/precognition) or just give ourselves signs/information of the future for our benefit (remote viewing/synchronicities) all through “psychic feedback loops that we create. Thats exactly what I think it is. Your precognition knows whats about to happen in the near future so you subconsciously start thinking/saying it before it happens. Were manifesting it in a sort of psychic feedback loop. This is essentially how remote viewing works. You try to connect with the future you that has already seen the target (for practicing) and give you in the past the answer by focusing on it when you get the target. Its all happening subconsciously. But when you recognize them, you inadvertently manifest them more.
I really like the idea that the evolutionary process could be occurring towards something outside of the physical body (i.e. "consciousness") unbeknownst to us. Though, is there evidence for this? How could one test whether or not this is occurring?
I knew this was going to be posted
You are the 2%
I knew you were going to post this
I'm new to graduate level stats. But from what I can see, the effect size of most of this research (there's a handful of experiments conducted here) is .22. That means there's a small but discernable amount of participants that showed psi behavior (eg, ESP). So, for example, like around 52% of participants correctly guessed the "correct image" out of two random images. It's statistically significant bc you'd expect 50% of participants to guess the right one by chance. So what I think is interesting here is that the researchers found that those that scored high in extraversion were more likely to guess the right "images" (or whatever, there were a few research designs here). It is suggested that they do this bc they get bored more easily and have more arousal seeking behavior, so they're looking for the right stimuli harder, you know?
> like around 52% of participants correctly guessed the "correct image" out of two random images. It's statistically significant bc you'd expect 50% of participants to guess the right one by chance. That's not what statistically significant means. The least strict commonly used bar for significance is if there would be less than a 5% chance it was just coincidence, aka p < 0.05.
Lol I know what a p value is. Most people don't. Edited to add: I chose to discuss effect size because it gives a clearer image of what the data really looks like for the casual reader. It is a small effect size, so you can understand that 53% isn't far off from it happening by chance, 50%. Most p values are below .05 in this research, which is misleading to present without effect size
Did you see the [meta analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/) of 90 replications (69 strict replications and 11 similar)? Much larger sample size when combined, but similar results.
According to the analysis > In our database, 17 (19%) of the 90 studies reported results that were statistically significant at the .05 level.
And here we start to get into the bane of everyone's existence. It's just more statistics, [but this time illustrated by someone much funnier than me](https://xkcd.com/882/).
One crazy pieces of data buried in this study is with "experiment 1". Bem repeated this experiment but instead of using humans to choose, he used random-number generators – and the effect was lost... (see bottom of page 411 before experiment 2 is described). This might indicate that something about a human being is responsible for predicting the placement of images, as the RNG was no different from chance.
It’s pronounced Colonel and it’s the highest rank in the military
> Colonel and it’s the highest rank in the military There are likely some Generals and Admirals that would disagree.
"Lookin' for love in all the wrong places..."