Brian Josephson - Is ESP a Window on a Larger Reality?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- If ESP can claim some kind of truth, the implications would be profound.
Click here to hear more interviews on ESP bit.ly/1M05jsa
Click here to see more interviews from Brian Josephson bit.ly/1RdfCcu
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
As Dean Radin wrote (Entangled Minds, 2006): "Some day psi [ESP] research will be taught in universities with the same aplomb as today's elementary economics and biology. It will no longer be considered controversial, but just another facet of Nature one learns as a part of a well-rounded education. In that future no one will remember that psi was once considered the far fringe of science. We'll argue over new controversies not even imagined yet."
The sound is too low. :/
If only science would just study everything with an open mind. Lose the bias about what is true or fake until every possibility is repeatedly tested with the scientific method.
If you do not know there are peer reviewed journals on Remote Viewing published by Nature and IEEE.
Yep. My initial interest in this area came from an article on ESP in the IEEE Proceedings. We math/engineer/physics people have open minds and when things have happened in our lives that appear 'paranormal' it is good to look at scientific investigations. Curious that most of the opposition and ridicule comes from psychology degree people who I suspect suffer a bit of 'physics envy' and maybe their desire to ridicule makes them feel like real scientists.
You probably meant to write 'peer reviewed papers on RV ...', not 'journals on RV'. The number of such papers is pretty minimal though.
The interviewer isn't being scientific. He's discussing the field without understanding statistical significance, the amount of evidence available, the scientific method and the need to focus on specific phenomenon in order to make clear statements.
I thought that but I think he's actually playing that role for the skeptics. He's done alot of these kind of interviews and you'd think by now he's agree there's more to it
@@jasonmccann7393 Yes, I'd agree that he's playing the sceptical role. Sadly, it's not scientific scepticism but irrational dogmatic scepticism which, unfortunately, is little different from a religion.
ruclips.net/video/7SodXrXFAsc/видео.html this might be of interest
Homa-Therapy / Agnihotra-Therapy is a window to a larger reality. Please search for it. It will change the world.
Interesting.
I am brian stuck to his guns just like his dismissive opponents stick to their guns in opposition
Wonderful interview, would be fascinating if you would ask scientists the same questions about UAP's a subject which has mountains of data
All your videos are barely audible. Please fix the audio issues.
This interviewer would not know or understand if Psi, or ESP slapped him in the face, Materialism is in his nature, I forgive him for being such an ignoramus! Your forgiven!
ESP should not be an adult subject.
00:09 You "don't want to fool yourself" . . . so you just read what OTHER people think (?) Rather than exploring and finding out for yourself (?) Pfffft . . .
Wow
for someone that is so sure, there is no practical application for his supposed results. anyone that does try to apply these as a trade is exposed as a fraud regularly preying on the vulnerable. when asked about the strength of these supposed powers he speaks about statistical inference. all other fields like electromagnetic or gravitational are subject to the inverse square law of nature however, some power that is undetectable with any known equipment can have the same effect if the person is next door or around the world.
Our understanding of anything has always been temporary at best. 200 years ago we couldn't detect the alpha frequency in EEG. That's been known about now for almost 100 years. Did it exist before we could see it?
@@barleycorn3384 ah yeah the tree, does it exist if we do not see it or is a tree really a tree?
@@Mulberry2000 What are you trying to point?
It is frustrating to see a scientist lose his way so completely. Science is supposed to be about testing theories, not trusting theories. He's supposed to be looking for ways to make his theories fail, not succumbing to confidence. You can't trust anyone who says 99% about anything because a 99% believer won't go looking for things which might show their theory wrong. Why look for something that is almost impossible?
Trust the person whose confidence is close to 0 and who is honestly trying to prove the theory wrong. If there is any problem with a theory, the skeptic will be the first to find it while the believer won't see it even if its right in front of his nose. A serious scientist should never allow himself confidence in the field he is studying.
+Ansatz66 hahahahaa => everything is probability :-) never 100% !!! and a serious scientist will explore the borderline and beyond (these people are openminded but still sceptic ) !!! those who do not are the religious scientists !!! ( the ones who are scared to explore because they are scared to be expelled ) .
+Ansatz66 So how sure are you that he's wrong?
+Ansatz66 I tend to agree with you as to the value of skepticism, but I think 0% certainty doesn't give you the impetus to actually explore your theory, while 100% makes you blind to its shortcomings. A happy medium might be closer to 50%, because we have to accept some axioms in order to get going, but also its important not to take them too seriously. I would say most of the scientific community is both overly skeptical and overly dogmatic, and all we are seeing with Mr Josephson is a similar approach to certainty, with different axioms, creating a drastic conflict with the established paradigm. 0% certainty doesn't give you any means to explore the possibility a theory might be correct. I think excessive skepticism is just as bad as not enough.
Nathan Dyck "I think 0% certainty doesn't give you the impetus to actually explore your theory."
Finding mistakes in a theory is its own reward.
The world is a vast and mysterious place and there are always more ways to be wrong than right. Even theories that work very well are not going to be the real truth unless it is by some crazy luck, because we don't have access to the real truth; all we have are the few things we can see and interact with.
Despite our limited access to the world, we have an never-ending supply of people making guesses about how things work. Because these are guesses, we'd better expect that the vast majority of them will be wrong. The job of the scientist is to find a way to demonstrate how each one is wrong, and this is why scientists should have 0% certainty in theories. A scientist with a small amount of trust in theories is like a window washer with a small amount of fondness for spots on windows.
The only reason we can trust science enough to send people to the moon is because there are scientists who are actively defending us against bad ideas. The more skeptical they are, the more confident we can be; they do the doubting so we don't have to.
+Ansatz66 so do you have 0% certainty about everything you believe ie believe in nothing? Or is this just what scientists should do? If you have 0% certainty, you can't even choose one set of axioms over another, the choice becomes utterly arbitrary, and then you are guaranteed to be pursuing a pointless theory just on the basis that you have no means for discerning the certainty of one theory over another. I think to be a good skeptic, one has to be as prepared to believe something as to disbelieve it, because our dogmas keep us from entertaining beliefs as much as they constitute specific beliefs themselves.
The interviewer's body language and inadvertent facial expressions, e.g., the folded hands over the mouth, etc., demonstrate absolute contempt-it's disgusting.
My impression at the time was that he was acting being a sceptic.
@@brian.josephson Me too and I thought he was being fair, the prof is right about people needing to be a certain frame of mind do so psi. I play music and I have to be in the right state to do it. Also I some times I get intution on how to do a strum pattern, play keys on a piano or a drum pattern.
PSEUDO SCIENCE ?
Total garbage.
What an enlightening remark. Its really quite remarkable how much relevant information and constructive criticism your comment contains. Congratulations, you've won the Internet Nobel Prize in Rationality \s