Physicist Russell Targ gives talk on ESP research.

[akeena]

Laser physicist Russell Targ gives talk on his 23 year long research work on remoting viewing / ESP.   Findings published in credible academic and scientific journals.  Experiments included research related to national security cases involving CIA and other intelligence agencies.  Interesting stuff.

VIDEO: Physicist Russell Targ talk on ESP

[koti]

16 minutes ago, akeena said:

Interesting stuff.

Since TedX banned this talk, I don’t see why you’d want to waste 32 minutes of your time on it.

[John Cuthber]

58 minutes ago, akeena said:

Laser physicist Russell Targ

So, that's not "physiologist Russel Targ".  It's not " Communications specialist Russell Targ it's

"man with irrelevant qualification  stuck in to make it look "science' Russel Targ."

 

Do you understand why I'm not going to watch a man with no relevant qualifications tell me something that's intrinsically implausible?

[akeena]

John, he has a degree in physics and was a senior research physicist at SRI.  But if you don't want to watch, then that's ok. 

Koti, yes TedX banned the talk.  I wanted to hear what about it was so controversial. 

 

I'm interested in your perspective though... he mentioned various intelligence agencies and the cases/studies in he did with them.  So from your perspective, he doesn't have the qualifications of a 'scientist' so he must be making the collaboration up?   or perhaps, there are just flaws in the experiments from the get go?  Yes, yes I have read various disputes others have complained about his experiments.  I'm just interested in your thoughts about where the credibility failed.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by akeena

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

People are supposed to be able to be involved in a discussion without watching videos. 

 

[akeena]

I will give a summary to open discuss.  Thanks!

Can't seem to edit the original post so here...

Russel Targ talks about his research work about 23 years I think at Standford Research Institute.  He claims that during this program, there was evidence for remote viewing abilities in people.  He said he collaborated with various government agencies including CIA and NASA and army officers to work on cases related to national security... china atomic bomb, kidnappings, weapons factory etc.  He says he published the findings in credible science journals although I haven't seen any of these personally.   With a simple quiet mind, they were supposedly able to pick up details of randomly selected person/target at various remote locations.   He mentioned he had control person.  And did experiments in a shielded room where they produced the details of the remote target location.

So here's the question, have you come across any experiments of this nature published in science journals.  Or if you are a person that is an absolute 'no way no how' type of person regarding this subject.  On what basis did you come to this conclusion?

Edited April 21, 2018 by akeena

[koti]

3 minutes ago, akeena said:

 I will give a summary, to open discuss.  thanks!

According to wikipedia the guy is a pseudoscientist and he’s criticized for lack of rigour in his research. ESP has been researched countless times by countless people with zero evidence that it exists. I’d be happy (really) to see evidence for something which is beyond statistical error. Start with reciting the contents of my desk from left to right, if you get everything right you’ll have my attention. 

[akeena]

lol, is that a trick question.  Do you even have drawer?!  My guess is that the stack of 'organized-in-the-order-it-was-piled' papers would prevent you from finding that snickers bar. 

Yes koti,  I've already read the wikipedia page as well.  But I was hoping that someone else may have come across actual science articles on the matter first hand.  Whether he is credible or not wasn't my initial reason for posting as I have read the same summary of disputes as you have.  ESP is interesting (to me), and I came to this science community to see if anyone else has come across research work about it.  I understand that this particular person has been criticized for his experiments being flawed but claims of this nature are hard to give a definite nay.  At most, a scientist can say is that there is not enough data *at this time* to support that claim.  Lack of evidence shouldn't preclude future endeavors to understand or even just discuss a subject matter not currently accepted by mainstream science.

Edited April 21, 2018 by akeena

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, akeena said:

At most, a scientist can say is that there is not enough data *at this time* to support that claim.

Actually, that's not the most a scientist can say. The Theory of Evolution allows us to predict that ESP would be such an enormous advantage in modern humanity that it couldn't help leave evidence of its influence, increasing with each generation. Yet we still haven't found any.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, akeena said:

At most, a scientist can say is that there is not enough data *at this time* to support that claim.

Science can also point out that every time it looks at this issue the "evidence" gets worse.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, akeena said:

At most, a scientist can say is that there is not enough data *at this time* to support that claim.  Lack of evidence shouldn't preclude future endeavors to understand or even just discuss a subject matter not currently accepted by mainstream science.

Failed experiments are not merely a lack of evidence.

[akeena]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Actually, that's not the most a scientist can say. The Theory of Evolution allows us to predict that ESP would be such an enormous advantage in modern humanity that it couldn't help leave evidence of its influence, increasing with each generation. Yet we still haven't found any.

Interesting comment Phi.  Having not found any evidence doesn't imply with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.  Besides, can we assume that ESP resides in bone, fossil or anything else the survives or lasts longer in decomposition.  I'm not a neuroscientist so I don't how that is seen, say, in a 100 year old mummy.

"Enormous advantage" that's a boatload of assumption.  We have mutations and genetic variations that in no way helps us at all, some of which kills us.  Who's to say that ESP would be an enormous advantage.  Knowledge isn't inherently good or bad.  Yeah, if a person were to use ESP to find a safe location or route out, sure, that'll be an enormous advantage.  But in the wrong hand, could it not also cause harm?

It would be interesting to take your assumption and simulate that in computer model though.  Of ESP being used to help us survive disasters or something and seeing if this could lead to overpopulation or other problems.  But this would require assumption of initial parameters that may or may not be correct.

 

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Science can also point out that every time it looks at this issue the "evidence" gets worse.

John, I think this concept has a lot of merit as with each time we look at an issue, it contributes to our knowledge and understanding of it.  But when a hypothesis turns out unsatisfactory, it should be modified or discarded (or a new one formulated).  

And then there's the bias issue.  People may prefer or expect one outcome or another.  Like in the case of an ESP believer desperately wanting to prove of its existence or his opponent strongly believing this is weirdo world and wants to discredit.  They need to be careful to eliminate this bias in controlled experiments.

Edited April 21, 2018 by akeena

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, akeena said:

Having not found any evidence doesn't imply with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.

That's not the point of my example. The point is using the extremely deep predictive power of one of our best researched theories to show that, if an improved form of communication/sensory cognition was introduced into a population, the benefits it would confer on a species with an already impressive communicative capability (the best on the planet, one can argue) would be easily detectable. We've been testing for just such things, and even a small ability should be measurable by scientific standards. We still don't find anyone who seems the least bit consistent in manifesting this behavior.

24 minutes ago, akeena said:

Besides, can we assume that ESP resides in bone, fossil or anything else the survives decomposition.  What if it's chemicals or organic material brain?  I'm not a neuroscientist so I don't how that is seen say in a 100 year old mummy.

You don't need archeology. Evolution, the changes in genetic traits within a population over time, shows us that traits that give huge advantages for survival are more likely to be passed along to the next generation. I don't need to show how ESP got into our genes, I only need to look for its increasing influence from generation to generation. And I can't find it, nobody has been able to, and they've tried very hard.

33 minutes ago, akeena said:

"Enormous advantage" that's a boatload of assumption.  We have mutations and genetic variations that in no way helps us at all, some of which kills us.  Who's to say that ESP would be an enormous advantage. 

The way I've heard ESP defined, it would seem to confer some knowledge of what another person was thinking. Humans have evolved high intelligence through a variety of combined influences, and this has led to extremely sophisticated capabilities in cooperation, communication, and the use of tools. If genes that allowed a person an even higher level of ability were selected for for even a few generations, how could that NOT confer an enormous advantage? If ESP isn't going to give us an enormous advantage, why is everybody so excited about the prospects?

[John Cuthber]

52 minutes ago, akeena said:

But in the wrong hand, could it not also cause harm?

Not to the individual who possessed ESP.

And that's what makes it an advantage.

[akeena]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Not to the individual who possessed ESP.

And that's what makes it an advantage.

My statement of " But in the wrong hand, could it not also cause harm? " was given in the context of Phi's comment of " enormous advantage in modern humanity ".  In such case, my reply was not necessarily.   

Agreed, possibly a slight advantage to the person.  This will depend on the degree in which such ability could help the person.  But I do question if everything we currently have should be considered an advantage?  People with tiny holes in their ears for example.  Scientists haven't found a use for this feature (theorizing it was a remnant of gills from the good old days)  yet what 10%?? (differs from country to country) of the population still has it.  If it is not a disadvantage that will kill an individual off, then such features could still persist, could it not?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, akeena said:

Interesting comment Phi.  Having not found any evidence doesn't imply with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.   

100% certainty is not what you get in science.

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, akeena said:

My statement of " But in the wrong hand, could it not also cause harm? " was given in the context of Phi's comment of " enormous advantage in modern humanity ".  In such case, my reply was not necessarily.   

Evolution generally  acts on individuals, not society.

Essentially  you are claiming that a man (or woman) with ESP is no more likely to get  children than a man without ESP.

Now, while I agree with Swansont that "100% certainty is not what you get in science.",
you sometimes get pretty close.

It's nearly certain that ESP would help.

 

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Now, while I agree with Swansont that "100% certainty is not what you get in science.",
you sometimes get pretty close.

It's nearly certain that ESP would help.

And the degree to which proponents claim ESP is effective automatically refutes the claim. The better you can read the minds of others, the more benefit you gain from the ability, and the easier it would be to detect. The only ESP currently possible would be at a level too low to be detected by experimentation, and at that point, is it really the ESP Russell Targ is talking about?

[akeena]

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And the degree to which proponents claim ESP is effective automatically refutes the claim. The better you can read the minds of others, the more benefit you gain from the ability, and the easier it would be to detect. The only ESP currently possible would be at a level too low to be detected by experimentation, and at that point, is it really the ESP Russell Targ is talking about?

I have not read his papers or that of those belonging to his critics.  But in this talk, Targ talks about remote viewing - locating a spot with x criteria.  e.g. Finding plane crashed at y location.   Not exactly reading a persons thoughts.    ESP is pretty broad spectrum of stuff.  Some claim to be able to get impressions from an object.  So if you define esp as just that, well, I'm not sure how useful it could be.  Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving and gets knowledge about person carving it.  Not all that useful in daily survival imo. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by akeena

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, akeena said:

So if you define esp as just that,

People don't.

 

[akeena]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

People don't.

 

Yes Sir! ok.

Edited April 21, 2018 by akeena

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, akeena said:

Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving and gets knowledge about person carving it.  Not all that useful in daily survival imo. 

Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving painting purported to be from an Old Master and gets knowledge about person carving painting it.  If dude's a buyer or a curator or art critic (dude would gravitate to something like that, yes?), dude gains advantage in knowing it was painted last week in Hoboken by a person named Gopher. Very useful in daily survival imo. 

I want to point out again that you're claiming ESP may exist in a meaningful way, but not so meaningful that it can be observed. I think the evolution argument is a sound one, and you seem to be downplaying the power of the ability you claim exists in order to avoid addressing it.

Edit to add: I think I first saw the ESP vs Evolution argument from John Cuthber, so credit due. The reasoning is very persuasive. 

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, akeena said:

Yes Sir! ok.

If you define ESP as "something that's no use and too small an effect to measure" then we can't show that it doesn't exist- obviously.

 

Here's the interesting question to consider:

If there is no way- even in principle- of detecting a thing, does that thing exist?

12 hours ago, akeena said:

Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving and gets knowledge about person carving it.  Not all that useful in daily survival imo. 

ESP dude picks up rock, comments on the original owner to the guys round him about the history of the rock.

Gets worshipped as a "wise man" or chief.

Or even

"Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving and gets knowledge about person carving it.  Not all that useful in daily survival imo. "

Gets a major TV show in much the same way that Derren Brown, Uri Geller and others have done, because people think it's interesting.

Now, the fact that Derren is open about using "tricks" and Uri is known to have cheated doesn't matter- they still made a lot of money.

I have little doubt that being a good story teller has been recognised throughout human history(and pre-history)  as a valuable trait.

 

All this is, of course, a bit daft.

It's already unlikely that we have some sort of "influence" that ESP uses to transmit information.

It's even less plausible that 

• that "influence"n exists and
• it can be stored in a rock.

So, you have deliberately chosen  an example which is 

even less credible than most of ESP and also not much use (though still potentially helpful).

 

Now all you need to do is recognise that relatively small evolutionary advantages have succeeded in evolution, and you will see why the fact of evolution pretty much rules out ESP.

 

 

[Enthalpy]

On 4/21/2018 at 4:57 AM, Phi for All said:

The Theory of Evolution allows us to predict that ESP would be such an enormous advantage in modern humanity that it couldn't help leave evidence of its influence, increasing with each generation. Yet we still haven't found any.

I'm always wary about genetics. One time the experts say "Neanderthals didn't interbreed with us" and next time "they did". And so on.

Imagine that the magic feature appears in one individual only if both parents carry the rare mutation that has no consequence for them. Then, evolution will not amplify the mutation, even if it's very favourable. It's the symmetric situation from cystic fibrosis: deadly even before the patient has children, but the mutation has no effect on the parents, so there is no selection pressure against it.

On 4/21/2018 at 1:48 AM, akeena said:

He said he collaborated with various government agencies including CIA and NASA and army officers to work on cases related to national security...

I don't take that as an element to make my opinion.

• I'd prefer "Various agencies said they collaborated with him".
• "Agency" includes many people, not necessarily the best scientists. Less so in a so-called intelligence agency.
• Some people are curious and want to try, that's normal. It does not mean that they observed something.

On 4/21/2018 at 1:48 AM, akeena said:

So here's the question, have you come across any experiments of this nature published in science journals.

In a science journal, not up to now. It's nearly certain that reviewers would exclude a paper just based on the topic, whatever its hypothetical qualities about the method, the statistical strength, the possibilities to reproduce the experiment.

Big scientists investigated such topics, and this is more important to my eyes than any journal, because they know better than about any journal reviewer how to make experiments and what is science. For instance Yves Rocard investigated if and how some people detect underground water
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcier (no English version)
and put his observations and thoughts in a book.

But as Rocard had previously developed the French hydrogen bomb, he was fully surrounded by the French intelligence agencies, so all people taking part in the experiments would have fooled the scientist. Sad for the science.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

I'm always wary about genetics. One time the experts say "Neanderthals didn't interbreed with us" and next time "they did". And so on.

Imagine that the magic feature appears in one individual only if both parents carry the rare mutation that has no consequence for them. Then, evolution will not amplify the mutation, even if it's very favourable. It's the symmetric situation from cystic fibrosis: deadly even before the patient has children, but the mutation has no effect on the parents, so there is no selection pressure against it.

So your skepticism about genetics is an acceptable enough counter argument against selective forces wrt ESP? Incredulity vs theory, really? Even if it required genes from both parents, over time we'd still see measurable differences, if you define ESP in common terms and don't move the goalposts to claim ESP would have "no consequences for them".