Talk:Extrasensory perception/Archive 1

message: What ?! Am I the only one or the first to discuss this hot topic?!
I thought it would be as long as the discussion page on Linux!
.......
I wanted to add that mathematicians and physicists recognize 
fourth , fifths dimensions, etc.. Also superstrings , etc..
Couldn't these explain E.S.P.?
                ---Jondel|Talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 18 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First comment

message: This article seems really unbalanced to me.
This article, especially the beginning, strikes me as much biased in favor of ESP.  In particular, it mentions that there have been several studies that have shown statistical evidence of ESP, but not that others have shown statistically no evidence.
:Probably because the proportion of studies which find no effect are statistically insignificant.  Meta-analysis shows that the statistical evidence supports ESP strongly even with inclusion of all studies which do not by themselves show significance.  --Cortonin 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, wow, haven't heard that one before. Please point us to your information source. MaxMangel 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The section "Difficulties testing ESP" still contains this "meta-analysis" asserion without saying whether more weight is given to quality, peer-reviewed studies.
Well, in the pioneering experiments of the Rhines at Duke University, the continual complaints about just such a lack "proper controls" were put to the test, and to rest, over an over again, while their trials continued to show the same statistically mind boggling results*. this is not rocket science since the only way the studies could have been rigged would involve either flat out collusion to fix the results or incidental  trasnsfer of information from the sender to the receiver. The dilligence in eliminating any possiblity, no matter how unlikely, that some physical transfer of information from sender to reciever might be taking place, the methods of isolation were made virtually absolute, even to the point of placing the sender in a different building than the receiver was located within, and where there was no possible  means of auditory or visual exchange. 
*see http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm   D Isak 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced?

message: If i were to look up ESP in an encyclopedia, what would i be looking for? What kind of importance should we attach to each area that can be discussed. A percentage might be helpful. Would anyone care to give 2 cents?Knightt 17:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were to look up ESP in an encyclopedia for the first time, I think the first thing I would want would be a description of what ESP is supposed to be and what its properties supposedly are, followed by a description of its history and what sorts of experiments led people to conclude that those were its properties.  Then I would like to see a clear analysis of the objections to those experiments, and assessment of the validity of those objections.  Those would be the most important things to me, others might differ.   — Cortonin | Talk 16:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Percentage 

message: I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, and that Scrying is in fact another word for divination, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrying 

message: article says: "Alec Reeves, one of the pioneers of digital communications, considered ESP a perfectly reasonable proposition. He believed that many of his inventions were prompted by the dead pioneer Michael Faraday, and spent much of his earlier years trying to perfect spiritualist telecommunication devices. Some of his experiments are available as ActiveX pages on his website." Reeves died in 1971, so he set up the site from beyond the grave, He obviously kept up with technology, the internet was just getting started in 1971. What's the url? (Unless the article means Michael Faraday's website. ) Point of interest, Edison tried to create a device to communicate with the dead. The patent royalities would have been awesome. GangofOne 07:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web sites from beyond the grave -- Alec Reeves 

message: Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking expert eyes on [[Natasha Demkina]] 

message: Surely if ESP is real there will be no accurate record of its discovery. If that's not what was meant please rephrase.
:I removed that completely, because it was making no sense at all. Every culture everywhere has had its shamans and priests and whatnot, all claiming to experience something beyond the capabilities of other people, so that was really an absurd proposition. --TheOtherStephan 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was ESP discovered by a Hindu tribe? 

message: This article is missing another aspect of ESP: the subconcious. There is a recent theory that ESP is not necessarily a 'sixth sense' per se, but rather the culmination of subconciously collected data from your five primary senses that generates rules governing a statistical calculation in the 'back of your mind', or regions beyond your thought control. The resulting highest probability is then introduced to the conciousness as an emotional instinct, which most humans are incapable of resisting.
:I heared something similar on a program about a firefighter that had, subconciously, analyzed the events in a house fire and precieved that the house would combust... It was, according to the program, something about the flames having a different colour and producing an unusual sound, both evidents that the oxygen was running critically low (don't take my word on this, it was well over 5 years ago that I saw the program). Somehow, the firefighter subconciosly noticed this, analyzed it, compared it with earlier experiences, noticed that something was wrong, and sent him into a panic where he screamed for all of his colleagues to evacuate the building, and then he ran out... Not more than a couple of seconds after the last firefighter had left the house, it combusted so violently, it appeared as if it exploded... This is only out of memory, and I don't know how accurate it is, only that it was something like that. 81.224.28.22 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of what people think is ESP is this, I think. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sixth sense 

message: 202.159.116.19 blanked the talk page, leaving only this comment: "Bagaimana cara untuk dapat memiliki kemampuan Extra Sensory Perception?"
Unblanked. --GangofOne 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently "Bagaimana cara untuk dapat memiliki kemampuan" is Indonesian for "How to be able to have the capacity" - Dreadlocke 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal

message: This article seems to rely pretty heavily on just a few sources.  I've (badly) converted to "cite" and wow, can you ever see it.  It could use a real trim, is there anything that's particularly valuable that must stay? - brenneman {L}  12:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It occurs that Randi.org is represented by several links in the External links section - is there any justification for this? It reflects a bias. As good practice would look towards leaving 1 at most per external source. Any other views? Knowledge for All 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Randi's importance is often overstated, this seems to be due only to the fact that he is the most tabloid and media savvy 'sceptic', and nothing to do with unbiased science. Randi can be argued to be a valid voice in his work against charlatans and frauds, but if we are to list him as a leading voice in an ESP article, then we should also include links to Uri Geller’s site, something I’m sure most editing the article would not support. -Solar 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There seem to be some very biased and irrelevant links such as the one to "Silvia Browne is a liar".  Just a tad bit biased considering the reference is supposed to be about Silvia saying Randi's prize money is non-existent. Dreadlocke  ☥  15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Including Uri Geller was not meant as a serious suggestion, it was an attempt to underline the overuse and bias involved in including James Randi in every parapsychology related article. This man is hugely over represented in this subject area. - Solar 10:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links by Randi

message: This paragraph is far too long, and most of it does not have anything to do with the lemma. Some person who does not eat? Where's the relevance? I'll cut this down to a reasonable size. --Hob Gadling 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really! What does Kolodzey have to do with extra-sensory perception? His only connection to it is that he exchanged letters with someone who criticizes ESP. So what is the relevance of these letters? Please do not just insert them back, give a reason why they should be here! --Hob Gadling 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Million Dollar Challenge

message: What is specifically NPOV about the General criticism section? Dreadlocke  ☥  22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote my POV comments above. I will reprint them here: nadav 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a POV template to the "general criticisms" section. The section is biased towards ESP proponents. Statements such as "When skeptics claim that flaws in the analysis or cheating must account for all evidence of ESP abilities in the hundreds of studies which have been conducted over the last century, this strikes many as a very extraordinary claim indeed" are obvious attempts to ridicule skeptics. The section should honestly and accurately represent skeptics' objections without unduly harsh judgement. I'll leave it to a more knowledgable skeptic to correct this. nadav 05:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, nadav.  I didn't see your earlier comments, it's best to put new comments at the bottom of a talk page so old editors with poor vision like myself can find them... :)  I'll read through it and see what needs to be done, a criticism or skeptic's perspective section should fairly present their views without distortion.  I'm not sure I agree that the sentence you quote above "ridicules" skeptics, but it does seem a tad bit unfair - especially without a source....  Dreadlocke  ☥  04:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General criticism NPOV?

message: The definition reads: 
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is defined in parapsychology as the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing
: This definition is certainly wrong, and the reference doesn't confirm it. By this definition, e.g. proprioception would be ESP, let alone reflection (introspection). And what about reasoning? Andres 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily wrong, but it may be incomplete.  This issue was being discussed in the sections above, but no final decision was made.  If you want to change the definition, then it would have to be solidly referenced according to WP:RS, such as the Webster's definition for ESP.  How's that for a silver platter... ;)  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to the first paragraph, let me know if it addresses your concerns.  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The definition

message: I've removed the claim that the majority of college professors in the sciences believe in ESP.  If you follow the link claiming this was true, you eventually find that it came from a study from 1979.  Even if the claim was accurate then, that's no reason to think it's accurate now, almost 30 years later.  I've added a link to a more recent study which shows 96% of scientists (at least in the American Academy of Sciences) being skeptical. -- Tim314 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do scientists believe in ESP? 

message: In discussing the controversy, the article should mention in more detail the fact that scientific skepticism of ESP is largely related to the lack of a scientific theory for how ESP works.  I don't have time to add them in right now, but it wouldn't be hard to find several cites to prominent skeptics listing this as one of their chief objections to the notion of ESP.  I saw several while I was looking for that study I mention above. Hopefully someone with more time on their hands can add it in - if not, I'll try to come back to it later. -- Tim314 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is, or is going to be, part of the parapsychology discussion.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of a theory 

message: The article currently reads:
"The active agent through which the mind is believed to be able to receive ESP impressions is called psi."
I'm going to remove that. If some other source says that, it can be reinserted, but the source for it  does not reflect the above. There's good reason for that as well. Psi is not an active agent that causes phenomena or a reason for the phenomena, it is another word for the phenomena itself. In other words ESP is psi, not psi causes ESP, or psi facilitates ESP, or psi is why ESP can happen. Psi is not a model for ESP. There's numerous sources for what I'm saying, but here's a simple one . It's a term for phenomena, not something through which the phenomena occurs.
Cheers : )
--Nealparr (talk to me) 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psi is not an "active agent"

message: The Science of ESP is somewhere in the dopamine brain cells, the blocking of this neurotransmitter, and then a resting state accompanied by a increase in dopamine can enlarge the human aura of biofield. This increase can be established through the use of a creative visualization involving other people.
Skeptics have a right to be critical of ESP research because there doesn't seem to be any study of how the dopamine circuitry in the brain can create a expanding human biofield. While scientists on the other hand should not discount the presence of a external human biofields.
Parapsychologists fail because they chase after clean laboratories with statistics, perfectly normal people, meditation and haunted houses. The inability of psychologists to measure and document how dopamine afffects our perception of the real world is due a lack of technology and education. It is a concern that parapsychologists still use research techniques created in the 19th century.
 
There are nature substances that affect dopamine in the brain such as selenium(blocks), choline and alcohol(increases).
The Science of ESP is in the biochemistry of dopamine and dopamine receptors in the brain and human body. KNeuroleptic1 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Dopamine to Human Biofield

message: I think this article will have some "weasel words" no matter what. The topic is like it that it will be hard to avoid weasel words. What do you think? --69.150.163.1 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine.  I'll remove the tag and see if anyone complains. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words?  

message: The article is suffering from seriously unreliable fringe sources. I attend on re-writing some of this article with reliable sources. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This will attempted in the next few days. JuliaHunter (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible sources

message: Shouldn't this article include some mention of ESP in crime investigation? --uKER (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There a lot of people who claim to use ESP, but I doubt that there's any sort of serious uptake of it by the authorities.  I really think it's a case of grieving relatives of victims asking for it. --Dmol (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as controversial as it undoubtedly is, there's this stuff which cites a bunch of documented cases where at least they attempted it. --uKER (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in criminal investigation? 

message: The first wording in the article lead that in any way challenges ESP is the following:
"The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results ..."
This makes it sound like the scientific community is merely unable to understand the phenomenon or unable to understand it "their way". It's what an apologist would write if they had to mention it. Frankly, short wording is enough here. The scientific community rejects parapsychology as pseudoscience (I don't know where parapsychology came from anyway, but mention it like this if you must) and does not consider extrasensory perception to be a real phenomenon. Done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me! RobP (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading wording 

message: Oppose merge. This is a different concept from second sight; second sight is specifically the ability to see things present which are not susceptible to ordinary sight, while ESP is a more general concept, and the most usual case of ESP is the ability to see things that are at a distance, but could be perceived by ordinary sight to someone who was present at their location.
—Syrenka V (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Second sight]] into [[Extrasensory perception]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Taisch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Taisch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Taisch" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :ESPer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ESPer" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Anomalous cognition. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Anomalous cognition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anomalous cognition" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :ESPPP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPPP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ESPPP" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Sheep-goat effect. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Sheep-goat effect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sheep-goat effect" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Percipient. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Percipient until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Percipient" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hi, it should be said that humans can see infra-red light through a two-photon method.
Some better than others and this has in fact been documented here.
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-humans-can-see-infrared-light-02313.html#:~:text=Human%20eyes%20can%20detect%20light%20at%20wavelengths%20in,it%E2%80%99s%20possible%20for%20humans%20to%20see%20infrared%20light.
I've done some tests here and can clearly see IR light down to 760nm as a dim red glow with green spots but testing with a camera filter confirms its actually NIR thats being observed.
Also tested with a range of known wavelengths and it appears that certain IR LEDs also have off band emission at near visible light.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.156.140 (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is sensory perception. Does not seem to be connected with the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision anomalies