Talk:Parapsychology FAQ

Theory of psi???

In [1] I see the argument that there is no theory of psi. In fact, there is a developing theory offered by Dean Radin in his biofield work [2], Lynne McTaggart talks about it in her book, The Field [3] and there are others who have attempted to define a model based onquantum theory. It is true to say that there are many unknowns about the proposed theories. I can say the same for a lot of the physical science models. Close examination of some of the math supporting many charished theories will show that the devil is in the assumptions.

It might be better to say that theories are developing. For instance, Quantum entangelement has been shown to exist on a macro scale. That is necessary if psi is to be explained using quantum mechanics. Tom Butler 00:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression, and I could be wrong, is that any theories of psi depend on the assumption of fraud. For example, quantum theories of psi cannot account for macro effects, as far as I know, let alone NDEs. So the assumption would be that these effects are false, whereas telepathy and micro-PK might be real. Or, that there must be more than one theory of psi. Major Domino 04:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response and the long one at that.

I am not a parapsychologist and all of my references for them are from the perspective of how they have affected my life. Here, I mean academically trained doctorates and not people certified by some Internet school to hunt for ghosts.

From my experience, there is an actual and a theoretical scope of the field of study known as parapsychology. Understanding this is important in that the average person assumes that any subject involving phenomena associated with unusual human abilities and survival of personality after physical death are examined by parapsychologists. In actual practice, there really are not very many PAs and they tend to be divided as those who think field research is not particularly valid and those who think research should be done in a laboratory. They are also divided as those who are skeptical of the reality of such phenomena and seek to prove their point and those who agree that something is going on and needs to be studied.

Few PAs will associate their name with the question of survival of personality after physical death, and most who will, focus exclusively on the study of near-death experiences and reports of reincarnation. For instance, hauntings research is primarily case studies (field observation) and after death communication is studied as spontaneous and therefore anecdotal reports while ignoring or avoiding induced forms such as EVP. So I would not automatically think of a parapsychologist as being one who would study my work. That is why I started Etheric Studies.

These phenomena are unusual events reported by people. Since they fall outside of the norm, it is necessary to ask what and why, and the proposed answers are usually that they are paranormal, they are mundane events mistaken as unusual or they are not real at all. The "not real at all" would include fraud.

Depending one who is asking these questions, the first determination has been whether or not there is an unusual event, and if yes, then is it mundane mistaken as unusual, anomalous or somehow caused by the witness? If the investigator is a skeptic, then fraud is pretty quickly considered. Other than that, I have seen that human error has been a more likely first consideration.

As directors of the AA-EVP, we have only encountered a few apparent attempts to fool us. In most cases, people report what they (apparently) actually believe is phenomenal. We have been at this long enough and both of us are well enough educated in things phenomenal to know if a report is consistent with an actual experience. Yes, we can be fooled, but there are enough verifiable examples that being fooled would not change the reality of the phenomena.

Just as you have naive witnesses, you also have naive researchers. A case in point is the Scole Group. The mediums spoke at our 2006 conference. They call themselves the Bennetts. In the later years of their work, they allowed researchers to attend some of the sessions. See here. All of these reports were factual and did report the occurrence of phenomena.

A group calling themselves the Noah's Ark Society published a report that was negative toward the Scole Group. We spoke to one of the authors of that report and he admitted that he had requested permission to attend a session and was refused. (The Bennetts are very careful to manage the "energy" around them.) He told us that, based on their refusal, he concluded that they must be hiding something and wrote the report accordingly. See Keen's comment.

There has been two contesting theories designed to explain psi phenomena. Both are based on the assumption that there is something unusual occurring and that the possibility of human error and fraud have been eliminated. One is the Super-Psi model, which depends on the conservation of energy and an as yet undefined human ability to sense residual energy containing information from the past.

The second is the Quantum-Holographic model which depends on essentially the same "somehows". The apparent nonlocality of information is explained by quantum entanglement and how information is stored in a hologram. As I remember, the model also depends on conservation of energy. I should note that one of the stronger proponents of this model, Edgar Mitchell, founded IONS and he has not historically been a supporter in the concept of survival of personality. Both of these models propose a biological origin and evolution of consciousness which effectively excludes an etheric origin of consciousness. As such all hauntings events are due to residual energy according to these models.

Both of these models should be considered reasonable hypotheses to explain observed phenomena of psi functioning ... up to a point. They are not designed to explain hauntings phenomena, but my observations are that they apply to some extent there, as well. We are all working with the same observed events.

I personally think the two models should be considered, but I prefer a more inclusive model which I refer to as the Survival Hypothesis. Others use this hypothesis, but it is difficult to find easy references for them. I think they are still in the development phase and there are many opinions. This wiki has the capability of helping to bring a consolidated model to the public eye.

None of these assume fraud. I assume that what we must first do is agree that these phenomena are real but their cause is undetermined. We must also agree that some reports are of mundane events mistaken as phenomenal and some are claims of events made to deceive.

The trick skeptical editors are using on paranormal articles in Wikipedia, particularly EVP, is to say that EVP are mundane things mistaken as phenomenal or fraud. However, by definition, EVP are anomalous voices found in recording media, or these day, heard as the output of audio electronic equipment. If the sounds are not anomalous voices, then they are not EVP. The same can be said of other forms of these phenomena. They are defined as such and reports that do not meet those definitions are not reports of the phenomena. They are reports of something else. We should be very careful to make this distinction. Tom Butler 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that the positive or the negative reports of Scole were naive?

I think you are confusing a theory of psi with a story about the circumstances surrounding it. We have a theory of mechanics which explains how humans move objects, but we do not have a theory of how spirits exist or could move objects. Super-psi is not a theory, just hand waiving. Similarly, spirits are not a theory, just hand waiving. It's true that we don't really understand matter, but at least we know some of the laws it follows, and that is what constitutes a theory.

Super-psi does not assume fraud, but is not a theory. Entanglement is not really supported by theory, and it also assumes fraud because it only works for micro-phenomena. Spirits/survival does not assume fraud but is not really much of a theory: it's sort of an explanation, but is much the same as "God did it." That's because we have no idea of the method/process that they used to do it, nor any control ourselves of whatever form of matter or energy they used. And that's about the same as super-psi. So we have two non-theories and one really-not-a-theory which assumes fraud. Major Domino 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More about theory of psi

I think the paragraph: "However, even if parapsychology could find extremely compelling evidence of life after bodily death, the survival of the personality could not be proven. This is because there is no theory of psi. We don't know how psi functions, or how powerful it is. Therefore, we can't rule out that what seems to be evidence of life after death is actually only evidence that psi is very powerful. This is known as the "Super-psi hypothesis."" [4] needs to be worded differently. I encounter the same phraseology whenever someone is about to propose a theory or try to discount psi phenomena. You can probably find a reference for it (you need to), but if you read my above comments, you will see that there are emerging theories and research is being conducted to test them.

The point is an interesting one, but I recommend that the comment be removed here and an article be started to the effect of Theories to explain psi functioning. Tom Butler 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How about if we just say "proven to the standards of the physical sciences" and leave it. Then write an article as you suggest. But not theories, rather, "hypotheses." And I should only have to find a reference if you're contesting that that's actually what the super-psi hypothesis says, which I doubt you are. Major Domino 02:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ending the paragraph with ""proven to the standards of the physical sciences", avoids saying what is possibly not supportable. A new article about hypotheses would be a good one, although complex.

I think there are theories and testable models for psi and survival, but psi and psi functioning is not the same as survival of personality. The existence of psi would be predicted by survival, but psi does not predict survival. The paragraph is making an apple dependent on the validity of an orange. Both may need more proof, but in a different context. Tom Butler 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if you give psi a real strict (that's to say not strict) definition then it includes survival. I'll see if I can change it in a way you'll approve. Major Domino 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Major, I am still bothered by that last paragraph. It may help me if you will explain your perspective a little. I think we are not seeing the definition of psi or psi functioning and survival the same. For instance, Charles Tart wrights a lot about psi, such as here. virtually all of his references to psi are in the context of human potential with no reference to survival.

I see "psi" in a similar context intended by Spiritualists when they say that "A psychic is not necessarily a medium but a medium is always a psychic." It is true that mediumship is psi functioning directed at a nonphysical entity while 'ordinary" psi functioning is directed toward some physical person, thing or process, but the physical reference doe snot imply etheric in any way. For instance, reading the referenced article by Tart, it may be that he does not accept the concept of survival of personality while he definitely accepts psi.

The other point I would like help with is what you mean by "This is because there is no theory of psi." What constitutes a theory in your mind? Why does that have something to do with survival?

As a point of interest, super psi is all about information latency and access via psi functioning. The theory is no longer very popular amongst the pas I am acquainted with. The theory that seems to be more widely accepted is quantum-holographic theory of consciousness or variations on that theme. For instance, I think Dean Radin leans toward that view. Tom Butler 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the way parapsychologists try to ignore much of their data so that they can fit it into something more like scienctific mainstream. Psi just means "everything parapsychological," from survival, NDE, telepathy, precog etc.

Science fools itself into thinking it "understands" when it can predict. We basically have no theory of psi because while we might predict certain things we have no mathematical understanding, we have no mechanical or energetic understanding, and we have no idea why the X factor that we call psi behaves the way it does. Psi is hand waiving, just a word for the X factor. Not a theory, such as you have with electromagnetism and evolution and other phenomena. If Darwin had never discovered that species change by way of adaptation, but merely discovered that different species exist, and only knew about three species of jellyfish a prion and one dog- that's psi. Major Domino 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I reworded slightly. You said "I encounter the same phraseology whenever someone is about to propose a theory or try to discount psi phenomena." But that isn't what I did, so why does the phrase matter? Major Domino 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is an interesting perspective. I really have to disagree with you when you say, "Psi just means "everything parapsychological," from survival, NDE, telepathy, precog etc." From my perspective, it is specifically associated with an ability of the mind and the associated effects mind can cause. You have yet to establish a rational for linking the study of psi with the study of survival.

A brief review here shows only a reference to NDE, reincarnations and OBE. For the most part, all three of those are studied by parapsychologist (psychologists) because it is thought these are mental aberrations.

Here you will see that Psi is in reference to Telepathy, also known as mind reading, direct mental communication between two persons, Clairvoyance, also known as second sight, the specific perception of an event or object through means that do not involve the known senses, Precognition, the perceiving of future events without deducing their occurrence from existing knowledge and Psychokinesis, the use of mind’s power to effect change in external matter.

Rather than my spending a lot of time trying to make my point, lets just say that the paragraph needs to have a good reference. Virtually everything you said here sound more like an opinion. I do not disagree with you but I also do not want to start hacking up the article. Can you just find a good reference for what you are saying or delete the paragraph?

Thanks! Tom Butler 01:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these what you want? [5] The PA: PSI (Ψ) A general blanket term, proposed by B. P. Wiesner and seconded by R. H. Thouless (1942)], and used either as a noun or adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation; the two main categories of psi are psi-gamma (paranormal cognition; extrasensory perception) and psi-kappa (paranormal action; psychokinesis), although the purpose of the term “psi” is to suggest that they might simply be different aspects of a single process, rather than

distinct and essentially different processes. Strictly speaking “psi” also applies to survival of death. Some thinkers prefer to use “psi” as a purely descriptive term for anomalous outcomes, as suggested by Palmer (1986, p. l39), who defines it as “a correspondence between the cognitive or physiological activity of an organism and events in its external environment that is anomalous with respect to generally accepted basic limiting principles of nature such as those articulated by C. D. Broad.” [From the Greek, psi, twenty-third letter of the Greek alphabet; from the Greek psyche, “mind, soul”]] Major Domino 02:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have seen that definition, but I have to say that what is claimed and what is practiced are two different things. It is just like biology. Strictly speaking, biology includes the study of the operation of the human heart, but would you call a biologist or a medical doctor if you were having chest pains?

The PA claims the study of survival, but their actual practice is the study of human perception associated with reports of near-death experiences, out of body experiences and reincarnation. A very small number study mediumship, but their focus is on human perception of mediumship. Gary Schwartz gets in pretty big trouble with other parapsychologists when he extends the perception of communication to the belief in a survived personality. That is why he uses "hypothetical" communicators.

Parapsychologists might study hauntings, but there is little acceptance of field studies. That means that induced experiences are favored, or spontaneous ones that can be statistically examined such as number of near deaths verses number of reported "experiences" and common traits.

Give the PA credit. They are mostly psychologists with a specialty in parapsychology. They focus on what they know and most are not real receptive to the idea of survived personality. The study is mostly about what people think they are experiencing, not the question of where personality might survive or how, which we are forced to consider in the study of EVP. That is why I try to separate the study of survival (Etheric Studies) from the study of human potential (parapsychology or psi studies).

Wikisynergy is an excellent place to explore alternative views, and simply parroting what the PA says is missing an important opportunity. Do a search in Google for "Psi Functioning" and see how much you find about the question of what survived personality is, where it is surviving and how it does so. You will simply not find it. Parapsychology is all about the study of human potential, which is a study of the mind, consciousness and what a person can do. All of that can be done within the context of existing physical reality if you allow for an undefined subtle energy associated with consciousness and allow the application of a few quantum principles. The subject changes dramatically when you begin to talk about dead people communicating from a different aspect of reality. Everything changes and I suspect that is why parapsychology is not ready to go there.

Meanwhile, I cannot study EVP without "going there." The only way I can do so is to have help from the larger community. Most ghost hunters do not equate the ghost with survival of personality, but they are near the realization and how we talk about these things here will help them make the logical leap. If you keep saying that the PA is responsible for what I am trying to study, and the PA keeps avoiding the subject, then I get nowhere.

I don't want anyone to make this stuff up, but I do want the reference-based material here to represent reality as it is being expperienced, not reality according to the PA. Tom Butler 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No joy, dude! I did the search you suggested, and came up with the Monroe institute, you own book There Is No Death and There Are No Dead: Evidence of Survival, a pdf Survival or Super-psi?. That spectacularly failed to prove your point! That was what would have been on the first 3 pages for most (I have it set to about 50 links). Anyway, I note in the text that parapsychologists seldom study survival. How about we explain that the community which studies the survival issues is generally outside the parapsychological community? I don't know how to explain that there are few of them that do it scientifically... maybe just say that. But you'll notice that the project is "Academic parapsychology" Not parapsychology, and that's very much on purpose. There can be other projects for other stuff, but if we ever get some parapsychologists around, they have to feel comfortable with their section of the site. I would really like to do FAQs.

Also, parapsychology started out studying survival, and it might be getting back to that to some extent. And those studying NDEs are in reality studying survival, and make that perfectly clear in interviews (forget Moody, he's a weirdo). Yes, parapsychology can be study of potential, but there is really still quite a bit of survival studies in there. Don't be confused by the terms they use to avoid skeptics who want to do a "gotcha" on them if they say anything which isn't absolutely provable. Major Domino 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you just want to parrot what is said, then why waist space here. I do not know your qualifications to comment on these subjects. obviously you have not worked in the field, but I do not have time to argue the point. Write what you want. Tom Butler 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So tell me again what you want to write in a parapsychology FAQ in an academic parapsychology project? We're supposed to be reflecting the field of academic parapsychology. If you want to change it to be more in line with the facts as you see them, write some sort of adjunct to that FAQ section. But yeah, we're parroting, that's the nature of the project. How could we possibly fit what you're saying into a FAQ on academic parapsychology?. After we're done parroting, then we go on to other things. Like you say there is plenty of room to expand, just not in that article, where we're supposed to be parroting. Start a Survival studies project. No? Major Domino 01:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)