XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: RaanOne@One.org   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:4d71d185.0409010122.5c29c0ef@posting.google.com...   
   > >Princeton did a good job in finding some proof for it.   
   >   
   > Any evidence for this, besides the say-so on the internet?   
   >   
   > >And the miltary actually learned how to use remote   
   > >viewing for spy missions.   
   >   
   > Any evidence for this, besides the say-so on the internet?   
   >   
   > >Before you jump into your simple minded conclusions,   
   > >try researching the topic a bit better. You sound very   
   > >high school. Very naive.   
   >   
   > An astute observation, worthiness of which can be judged in the light   
   > of the rest of your post.   
   >   
   > Let me put it this way. I have never seen anything that even remotely   
   > approaches an ESP ability in anyone. I have heard many people speak of   
   > it and claim to have it, but whenever (and I mean whenever, as in   
   > every-single-time) those claims were put under scrutiny, they turned   
   > out to be either frauds, or simply deluded. I do not know if there are   
   > people who indeed possess such abilities, but if there are, I have not   
   > seen any sign of them.   
   >   
   > Until I see them, I will not believe that they exist.   
   >   
   > It is that simple. We can talk about speculative quantum mechanics, or   
   > about spheres of the brain, but that has absolutely no bearing on   
   > this. We could talk about it for the next twenty years, and we would   
   > not get one inch closer to proving ESP; we could formulate endless   
   > theories on how ESP *could* work...and that won't to anything to prove   
   > it.   
   >   
   > The *only* way to prove ESP is to perform some act of it in a   
   > verifiable manner. For example, you say that remote viewing is a fact.   
   > Very well. Produce a person who has that ability, and we will perform   
   > a simple test to verify that the ability is real. I will put something   
   > in a locked container; I will provide detailed description of where   
   > the locked container is, and even provide photos of it. Then he can   
   > remote view the object in the container, and tell me what it is. If he   
   > succeeds, *that* will be proof of remote viewing.   
   >   
   > If this particular experiment is a problem (remote viewing cannot do   
   > what I propose), have the person describe what they *can* do, and we   
   > will make a test to see if they are indeed able to do it. I would just   
   > love to find such a person, and if anyone is willing to step forward,   
   > I will gladly organize the test.   
   >   
   > If you cannot find a person who can do remote viewing, perhaps you can   
   > find someone who has some other kind of ESP ability? Call them up, and   
   > let's test their claims!   
   >   
   > M.   
      
   You say that until you find proof anyone has ESP you will not believe it but   
   I contend that if you do find proof anyone has ESP you will not need to   
   believe it.  The very necessity of belief evidences the lack of proof and is   
   itself a good reason not to believe, which is of course something different   
   than believing no one has ESP.  I just though I should clarify this point.   
   --   
                  >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)