I'm in the process of applying for graduate school, under a research scholarship, and would like to do a more fringe topic related to occultism.
Is there a technique that any occultists here can perform, that produces real results, that lacks a scientific explanation thus far?
All forms of yoga.
Meditation itself has neuroscience backing it.
Science has proved wearing outfits such as masks and certain postures can improve your confidence and the like.
Tummo can make your body heat up.
Certain vision practices have been shown to create controlled epilepsy.
Oh, and chemistry can thank alchemy for it's existence.
Oh and that occultist who scryed into an atom and saw many small strings, before string theory was a thing.
Oh, of course, that "rice experiment about thoughts" that is out there.
Wow, you actually bothered to reword it! I'm impressed!
That doesn't sound paranormal, that just sounds like an easily induced sensory illusion with no objective existence. If your face actually, physically distorted, that would be more in line with what I was looking for.
>Is there a technique that any occultists here can perform, that produces real results, that lacks a scientific explanation thus far?
might as well give up, you're not going to find anything.
Try looking into remote viewing, there is a lot of evidence that this works. Both our gov. and the Soviet gov. used remote viewers to learn state secrets.
I've done something similar to what you're asking about. Pull an all nighter drinking and such, then look at a mirror later with the lights off, you'll see your face distort and even some things in the background. Mostly extensions of your subconscious although I'm paranoid and think thet they can probably be manipulated. Anyways, you'll probably see people in the background depending on what your subconscious is currently processing.
Revise this experiment and have several people undergo the trial and have them write the results, judged against a background of their medical history.
>A variety of scientific studies of remote viewing have been conducted. Early experiments produced positive results but they had invalidating flaws. None of the more recent experiments have shown positive results when conducted under properly controlled conditions.[n 1][n 2] This lack of successful experiments has led the mainstream scientific community to reject remote viewing, based upon the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.
I dunno, it could be evidence toward any endeavor into the human mind and it's influences on our external sense. It would show evidence toward certain experiences and their variations based on certain groups and behaviours. It would show support for humans being able to influence their own senses, self-induced hallucinations, and exploration of the subconcious, as well as developing techniques to enhance the aformentioned areas. Might be a good side project.
Dunno what kind of research you're into, but I've been thinking about the Giants of North America recently; how there were reports of findings 100 years ago, but they stopped. Or the Duhare tribe
Yeah, sort of. It's not safe to do very often, however I try to do my part being an amateur explorer of the psyche. I should probably compile my notes and write on the subject. What academics route did you take?
From a psychiatric/psychological point of view, this.
Reading something like liber null, having a medschool/psychology background, you can't help but notice, it's pretty much a list of things you can do to get you psychotic, listing pretty much every factor or stressor that's known to trigger psychosis, or inducing psychotic symptoms directly, and encouraging the reader to implement those as daily routines.
You might want to go this route.
You won't find that magic and demons are actually real, but you'll probably find that that occultists are just crazy fucks who make themselves crazier through "occult practices".
But I might should add that imho, psychosis or psychotic symptoms can be paranormal/occult related and be more real than currently acknowledged by mainstream science, if you want a scientific academic exploration of this thought, I would point you in the direction of C.G. Jungs work, who not only explores the psyche but it's connections with religion, philosophy, occult, alchemy etc. as well as documenting his own decent into psychosis. Very interesting stuff to read, especially if you have experienced psychosis for yourself.
Your stupid troll thread is so obvious.
Grad student wants info from /x/ about the occult for research scholarship -- talk about nonsense no one can believe.
I did this once with peeled oranges.
The I hate you one partially disenegrated and the water was murky white.
The I love you one hadn't changed since day one and the water was clear.
I ate the loved orange and drank the loved water and it tasted perfect. It was like I blessed it with positivity.
Just be careful because 'illuminati' don't like it when people reveal stuff about magick. They kill those people. You have to play your cards right. Don't let anyone know at first, then when you reveal it, go super public all at once, so that if you die its too suspicious. Don't let the illuminati know you are working on it.
If the goal is to find scientific evidence of "magical" abilities, extrasensory perception is probably the easiest thing to observe.
The Ganzfeld experiment produce reliable and successful results about telepathy. The average hit rate for unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%.
Precognition is also an interesting subject, some studies show that we can perceive the future into a certain extant. For example, reacting physically to a stimulus few seconds before it is randomly generated.
Also, it seems that woman, people who regularly meditate, who have an open mind or believe in the paranormal tend to perform better on these experiments.
You could also try to evoke some spirit and record some evidences, but it is totally unreliable and nearly impossible to do this under a controlled environment. Still, some have success to find very solid evidence of the existence of spirit. Look about the Scole experiment for example.
A 7 percent difference is nowhere near enough to jump to the conclusion that ESP was involved. Considering the conditions of the experiments (which weren't really standardized and vary significantly), there are plenty of better explanations. A lack of proper randomization, for example, or cues given by the examiner,
>I'm in the process of applying for graduate school, under a research scholarship, and would like to do a more fringe topic related to occultism.
I wonder how many more days in a row you are going to post this before people realize it's part of your "prove magic is real" spamfest?
I disagree, since many experiment have been conduct, the meta-analytic effect size is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Most of theses studies use a true random number generator and the examiner didn't know the target nor interacted with the subject during the experiment.
Sure, few of them may have some flaws, but the overall result is pretty consistent. I don't see how you could obtain theses results if ESP aren't real.
The meta-analysis is meaningless if it includes flawed experiments. The fact is that after the set up was fixed to account for sensory leakage, there stopped being any statistically significant effect. You can't just throw flawed experiments in to keep pretending like there's an effect.
>The fact is that after the set up was fixed to account for sensory leakage, there stopped being any statistically significant effect.
No, that is simply not true. The result is still consistent in recent studies using proper and rigorous protocol. And the quality of the studies don't seem to alter the result.
“Because the ganzfeld procedure uses a sensory-isolation environment, the possibility of sensory leakage during the telepathic “sending” portion of the session is already significantly diminished. After the sending period, however, when the receiver is attempting to match his or her experience to the correct target, if the experimenter interacting with the receiver knows the identity of the target, he or she could inadvertently bias the receiver’s ratings. One study in the ganzfeld database contained this potentially fatal flaw, but rather than showing a wildly successful result, that study’s participants actually performed slightly below chance expectation…"
>2014, trusting wikipedia about controversial subject.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and of course, if reflect the mainstream opinion. This article, like for most of /x/related stuff, is misleading. It highlights the non-believer point of view while occulting the believer one and the source selection is biased.
Next time, use some real sources:
Yeah, why trust more NPV sources when you can go straight to the delusional woo spinners mouth?
Firstly, Dean Radin is a serious and respected scientist.
Secondly, theses articles are not even written by him, they are just stored on his website.
You can't dismiss actual scientific papers just because they contradict your belief.
Modern ESP studies still product significant results under valid protocols, it's a fact.
The effect of eventual flaws in few of theses study or the file-drawer effect in meta-analysis is to small to explain this result, it's a fact.
If you disagree, then prove me wrong.
Okay. Here's what your meta-analysis does:
1. Take a bunch of experiments that failed to produce statistically significant results.
2. Don't publish anything with negative results.
3. Combine all your experiments that failed to get statistically significant results
4. Claim to now have statistically significant results.
The fact is that there's no valid experiment demonstrating the ganzfeld effect, taking into account the previous criticisms, and dozens of failed experiments, that you disingenuously call successful by smashing them all together.
Some of theses experiment produced significant results by themselves
The meta-analysis include every studies that meet their selection criteria, including those with negative results.
The primary goal of theses study is to collect data, not to reach a statistical significant result. The point of meta-analysis is to combine theses data to provide a bigger effect size.
If I do ten coin toss and win 55% of the time, it isn't significant. If I combine thousands of coin-toss session from different independent experiment and the average result is 55%, it become significant. That is not disingenuous, that's just how statistics work.
This is all correct. To generate a statistically minuscule positive, one found in no individual experiment, these "aggregate" collectives were concocted which, when dubiously tweaked enough, still produced results that aren't distinctly relevant from noise. It's a pretty far miss from compelling evidence.
Highly improbable. You would need at least hundreds of unpublished studies with negative results to bring the overall result below the threshold of significance.
If you reject parapsychology evidence because you find meta-analysis irrelevant, you might as well reject many scientific discoveries from every field. Lots of phenomenon in physic and medicine has been reveal thanks to meta-analysis, and they are now commonly accepted by the scientific community even if the effect size is sometimes smaller than in the Ganzfeld experiment.
Where did you find this number ?
With the file-drawer formula given by Rosenthal, there would have to be no fewer than 293 unpublished articles in existence with overall nonsignificant results to reduce our significant finding to a chance result. Darlington and Hayes (2000) offered a more conservative and reliable test that determines the number of unpublished nonsignificantstudies needed to reduce a database to nonsignificance, but these may also be “highly negative”.
Using Darlington and Hayes’s tabled data,for nine studies with significant positive outcomes, we find the pooled p less than or equal to .05 if there is a total of up to 95 studies. In other words, we find a “fail-safe N” of up to 95 unpublished studies must exist in total for this category alone, and 86 of these (i.e., 95 minus 9) could all be negative (psi-missing) studies, yet our nine significant studies would still constitute a proof against the null hypothesis. The existence of such a large number of hypothesized unpublished studies
(i.e., up to 86) is unlikely.
Name a single person with paranormal abilities.
Every single tripfag on /x/ claims to be a magical wizard harry potter sylvia browne aliester crowley silver ravenwolf.... but none of them, obviously, have any real magical powers.
Great job anon...
This article is not only outdated and off-topic, he also contains crucial errors!
Despite Radin and others complaints, the journal Nature never published a full correction of Good's article. The fact that it is still considered as a valid reference on wikipedia clearly show how biased this website is about parapsychology.
"A calculation of the 'file-drawer factor' (see below) giving a result greatly different from Radin's, implying both faulty statistical analysis on the part of the latter and the possibility that the existence of a sufficiently large collection of unpublished negative results could explain away the deviations from chance found by the analysis. But investigation of this matter reveals that Good used an incorrect number in his own analysis. His negative conclusion is therefore invalid. "
If something isn't published in Nature, or any mainstream journal, it's because more than one reviewer found a blatant error in the entry, which also helps save the reputation of the idiot scientist in question.
What's your point exactly?
Positive psi experiments are published in various parapsychology journals as well as negative experiments. Either reviewers make mistakes sometimes (and that's the case with the Good's article according to many scientists) or they never make any mistake and that would mean that every positive experiments is genuine.
>What's your point exactly?
That both you and Radin are full of shit, and your "magic" isn't real. Despite the fact that you both keep lying through your teeth, a combined p value is not the sane as an actual p value, and outside replication of the modern autoganzfeld has shown its nothing.
>you keep lying through your teeth
Where did I lie?
>a combined p value is not the same as an actual p value
There is nothing wrong with combining data here. The experiment are very similar and the results are homogeneous within each category.
You seems to imply that if we consider the null hypothesis to be true, it would be easier to find a fake significant result with a meta-analytic approach than looking into individual studies. In fact, it's the total opposite and that's why a meta-analysis approach is preferable.
Furthermore, 9 of the 29 study selected by Storm et al for the Ganzfeld category are independently significant.
>The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, nor is it the probability that the alternative hypothesis is false – it is not connected to either of these.
Looks like you are the one who is full of shit anon. Trapped in your closed mind, you keep ignoring factual data while solid and consistent scientific evidence suggest psi phenomenon are real.