This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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. The opposite is true. It is the studies that are alleged to illustrate ESP that have not been conducted with proper controls in place, and which, when done so, show results that can be accounted for by chance. I've clarified the article, including examining the material in the footnoted sources provided that supposedly support the notion. Nightscream 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
You seem unbalanced to me!!
The last paragraph of "Ongoing debates about the existence of ESP" is ridiculous. ( 195.38.x.x 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC))
I've done what I can for now to balance the article -- I hope it's well done. It's at least well-referenced, I think (better than the original article, anyhow). I have commented out a section because I don't see why it's important -- the argument seemed to be that because science accepts forces such as gravity that operate outside of the realm of human perception, science justifies ESP claims, which I thought was spurious and perhaps intended to mislead. Anyway, I didn't like it but I preserved it because if there is a verifiable case being made by ESP advocates, I think it should go there, but not in the form I found it. Anyone feel like helping out? Jwrosenzweig 00:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, from the perspective of a casual visitor, this page has quite obviously been taken over by members of the Randi-worshipping cult, and offers no real or neutral information with regard to the topic at hand. In fact, the Randi-worshippers appear to have pretty much taken over Wikipedia entirely with regards to metaphysical topics.
It appears that the Randi-worshippers fail to take into account the destructiveness of having articles prepared by those who condemn the topic. Would you also like to see the articles about Jesus and Christianity prepared by Satanists? That, sadly, is the level of discussion here with regard to metaphysical topics. I doubt this matters to the Randi cult. Their only interest, apparently, is promoting their hero-icon and dismissing without fair review any concepts that he rejected.
Enjoy your flat earth.
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)
Is it possible that the sixth sense is electromagnetic field awareness? Many animals are aware of low-frequency fields (large system activities) and react accordingly. I know for me that when a TV is turned on in another room I am aware of it by feeling a high-frequency presence in my head.
A significant percentage of people believe in ESP and attribute it to senses of natural physical phenomena not possesed by the masses. This was commented out and I would like to have it restored.(Includes the instructions on restoring):
BEFORE RESTORING THIS COMMENTED SECTION, PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE
Possible scientific basis for extra-sensory perception
It is obvious to science that there is a lot going on in the universe that is not registered consciously by the human senses. The universe is a complex interaction of electromagnetic and gravitational forces that seem to manifest as particles and/or waves. Mathematicians and physicists recognize fourth and fifth dimensions, superstrings, curved time and space, etc.
In fact, the universe is so complex that the senses of any animal must filter the external input in order to interact with its environment. For example, the human sense of sight does not directly see infrared or ultraviolet light even though many other animals' sense of sight allows them to see such light. Dogs hear audio frequencies higher than that of humans.
The question then arises, are humans sensing such light, electromagnetic forces or any other forms of energy and then subconsciously ignoring it or are they simply not equipped to sense it at all? Proponents of ESP suggest that there may be some "filters" within the human
consciousness that can be shut down to allow more
sensory data into the consciousness.
END of disputed portion. --
Jondel 09:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't all of the above pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.51.199 ( talk) 19:13-14, September 26, 2005
What is the point in trying to explain the cause of something that most likely isn't real? It's kind of like trying to explain how dragons are able to breathe fire when there are no dragons. Until it's established that it's real there's no point in trying to figure how it supposedly works. -- HiEv 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
It sounds good to me. I don't know much about esp, so if i were to write the article, i would have to do a lot of research. I would be willing to do it but am very busy right now so it will take a while to complete it. If someone else wants to write a proposal for a new esp page, i bye no means want to hog all the fun! I will post a new article in the discussion board so all may scrutinize. Knightt 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Its impossible to write a decent article on many subjects in WIKI because of noisy objectors. Many articles have a bizarre and dysfunctional narrative structure, because of the need to be 'balanced.' I think a lot of us are giving up on appeasing the objectors, and just moving our content to http://www.wikinfo.org/ instead. 84.66.56.186 22:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
Lucid dreaming was listed at "perception of events in other times". The Lucid Dreaming article reads: "Scientific research in the 1950's found that ... events in dreams take place in real time rather than going by in a flash." Lucid dreaming can't be any more extra-sensory than dreaming itself (or than being conscious). I don't think dreaming is an ESP and this article doesn't suggest that either so listing lucid dreaming as an ESP was inappropriate imho. -- Zoz 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Surely if ESP is real there will be no accurate record of its discovery. If that's not what was meant please rephrase.
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.
The article should only contain a definition of the term, perhaps listing some popular theories. The information it contains can't be trusted.
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)
The test is manipulated. It clearly chooses card after I click, and it increases the chance of getting the right card over the attempts. There are also other ways to manipulate it, like "knowing" statistically what people will choose or noting where I hold the mouse cursor, and that may also be a problem here. I tested it first thinking that the computer chose randomly, but then I got 120% above chance after 100 attempts which is an extremely "improbable" score, 1:4600000 or something. Today I tried the test again, this time simply going one by one from the left to the right over 100 turns and achieved 90% above chance. So it is manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.27.1 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
The problems with linking to Gellar are (1) his site is not science-based, and (2) he has been caught cheating on more than one occasion. Surely someone can find a more credible pro-ESP source to link to than that. Doczilla 07:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the whole section about the Paranormal Challenge a bit disproportionate to the rest of the article? I mean ESP has been studied for decades. Even if it hasn't produced any results to speak of, there's barely a mention of parapsychology here. I didn't see anything about the Parapsychology Association, the various Societies for Psychical Research, etc. There's just a wealth of things that could be in this article, even if the phenomenon itself doesn't turn out to be real. A quarter of the document, however, is a back and forth debate about Randi and his challenge. There's a whole other page for that. Here it should be a paragraph or so mention of it with maybe a link off to the full page. Basically, it shouldn't dominate this article is what I'm saying. -- Nealparr 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
What is specifically NPOV about the General criticism section? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless, that is, it accurately portrays ESP as a phenomenon whose existence has not been proven. At least not to the extent that science has accepted it as a real phenomenon.
I could go further and say that tests of ESP have come very close to "proving its nonexistence" . . . but I won't. It may well exist, but we haven't found out how to verify it yet.
It is essential that -- if this article is to be consistent with the "no POV" policy of Wikipedia -- the article must make it unmistakably clear that the existence of ESP is widely debated.
Instead, most of the article takes the Point Of View that ESP exists, and that is simply not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.
The article's first sentence reads as follows:
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.
The word the is reserved for things that are known to exist. Otherwise -- as in this case -- the first sentence should read something like
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is an ability, whose existence is controversial, to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.
Another point is that this definition ignores another means of acquiring information -- introspection -- which is not one of the "five senses", but which is most definitely a human sensory ability, to detect information that is already stored in one's brain, or that results from one's brain's processing information that it has access to. For example, solving a math problem in one's head is not what almost anyone would call ESP, yet it does not involve the five senses. Daqu 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The existence of God is at least somewhat analogous to the existence of ESP, vis-á-vis how the topic should be presented in Wikipedia. So I was curious how the article on God defined its subject. Here is its first sentence:
God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality.
This is perfectly consistent with a non-POV policy, yet at the same time it is hard to see how anyone could be offended by it. The same standard must apply to an article on ESP. Daqu 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments. I'll try to respond to some of them:
1. Probably my number one concern is that the use of the word "the" in the article's definition of ESP as "the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses . . ." implies unequivocally the that ESP (as it is usually understood: telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) actually exists.
Getting right the definition of a topic -- defining what an article is about -- is of the utmost importance. It's the first thing that virtually everyone who reads any part of the article reads, and it's the lens through which the rest of the article is viewed.
There's a sharp distinction between this definition, and Martinphi's example above of defining astrology as "Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us." This definition of astrology is worded very carefully to state what astrology is, with no implications whatsoever regarding the accuracy of astrologers' claims.
Likewise, the definition of ESP should state what it is without any further implications. (Here is one example of what I would consider a fair definition: ESP is any of various abilities, believed by many to be possessed by some or all people, to acquire information by means that transcend what is possible according to science as it is currently understood.) I suspect that with more consideration, a better wording can be found that still conveys the same sense.
2. Martinphi asks why I don't improve the skeptical sections. In fact, I have no criticism of the skeptical sections as they are. But their presence in the article does not mean that it's OK for the article to state or imply, elsewhere, that ESP actually exists. (Not because I am claiming it doesn't exist -- it may very well exist! -- but solely because its existence is highly controversial.)
3. It is certainly true that introspection is a human ability for acquiring information that goes beyond the five senses. But modern psychologists acknowledge the introspective ability as yet another natural human sense (this was not my own idea). So introspection would not really be "extra-sensory" perception. (Another natural human sense is the proprioceptive ability, to know how parts of one's body are positioned with respect to each other. Yet another is balance.) Daqu 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Daqu 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the POV, because the originally offending sentence has been removed. This section could be better sourced, but none of the main claims, I think, could not be sourced. Including the first sentence.
The sentence cited as POV was: "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"
This was POV, though obviously true. There's a quote in Radin from the 1950s where a skeptic is saying, well, there isn't any other explanation. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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
<uncivil comment removed> Daqu 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wow! Fantastic additions to the article Martinphi! Great stuff! You too, Noclevername! Nice work! Now we need some pictures and graphs, then we can push this thing towards FA...! I'm impressed! Dreadlocke ☥ 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone wanting to source these things might look for sources on the parapsychology page.
Well, someday (: Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] 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 [3]. It's a term for phenomena, not something through which the phenomena occurs.
Cheers : ) -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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) User:Kushal_one
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)
ESP is pseudoscience List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Don't take the pseudoscience out again please. Lipsquid ( talk) 15:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
The last citation clearly classify it as pseduoscience. Bringing it back in the lead. Azuresky Voight ( talk) 04:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article include some mention of ESP in crime investigation? -- uKER ( talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Merge As is mentioned in this article, this is a form of ESP. Not enough here to warrent a separate article IMHO. RobP ( talk) 14:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't see a reason not to do this merge. If I don't get any push back I'm going to go ahead and do it in a few days. Not a lot of work given there is very little in the Second sight article. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Merge complete. We'll see if it takes. If it does after a few days I'll get some clean up done here. This article could use a little TLC. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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. The opposite is true. It is the studies that are alleged to illustrate ESP that have not been conducted with proper controls in place, and which, when done so, show results that can be accounted for by chance. I've clarified the article, including examining the material in the footnoted sources provided that supposedly support the notion. Nightscream 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
You seem unbalanced to me!!
The last paragraph of "Ongoing debates about the existence of ESP" is ridiculous. ( 195.38.x.x 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC))
I've done what I can for now to balance the article -- I hope it's well done. It's at least well-referenced, I think (better than the original article, anyhow). I have commented out a section because I don't see why it's important -- the argument seemed to be that because science accepts forces such as gravity that operate outside of the realm of human perception, science justifies ESP claims, which I thought was spurious and perhaps intended to mislead. Anyway, I didn't like it but I preserved it because if there is a verifiable case being made by ESP advocates, I think it should go there, but not in the form I found it. Anyone feel like helping out? Jwrosenzweig 00:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, from the perspective of a casual visitor, this page has quite obviously been taken over by members of the Randi-worshipping cult, and offers no real or neutral information with regard to the topic at hand. In fact, the Randi-worshippers appear to have pretty much taken over Wikipedia entirely with regards to metaphysical topics.
It appears that the Randi-worshippers fail to take into account the destructiveness of having articles prepared by those who condemn the topic. Would you also like to see the articles about Jesus and Christianity prepared by Satanists? That, sadly, is the level of discussion here with regard to metaphysical topics. I doubt this matters to the Randi cult. Their only interest, apparently, is promoting their hero-icon and dismissing without fair review any concepts that he rejected.
Enjoy your flat earth.
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)
Is it possible that the sixth sense is electromagnetic field awareness? Many animals are aware of low-frequency fields (large system activities) and react accordingly. I know for me that when a TV is turned on in another room I am aware of it by feeling a high-frequency presence in my head.
A significant percentage of people believe in ESP and attribute it to senses of natural physical phenomena not possesed by the masses. This was commented out and I would like to have it restored.(Includes the instructions on restoring):
BEFORE RESTORING THIS COMMENTED SECTION, PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE
Possible scientific basis for extra-sensory perception
It is obvious to science that there is a lot going on in the universe that is not registered consciously by the human senses. The universe is a complex interaction of electromagnetic and gravitational forces that seem to manifest as particles and/or waves. Mathematicians and physicists recognize fourth and fifth dimensions, superstrings, curved time and space, etc.
In fact, the universe is so complex that the senses of any animal must filter the external input in order to interact with its environment. For example, the human sense of sight does not directly see infrared or ultraviolet light even though many other animals' sense of sight allows them to see such light. Dogs hear audio frequencies higher than that of humans.
The question then arises, are humans sensing such light, electromagnetic forces or any other forms of energy and then subconsciously ignoring it or are they simply not equipped to sense it at all? Proponents of ESP suggest that there may be some "filters" within the human
consciousness that can be shut down to allow more
sensory data into the consciousness.
END of disputed portion. --
Jondel 09:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't all of the above pseudoscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.51.199 ( talk) 19:13-14, September 26, 2005
What is the point in trying to explain the cause of something that most likely isn't real? It's kind of like trying to explain how dragons are able to breathe fire when there are no dragons. Until it's established that it's real there's no point in trying to figure how it supposedly works. -- HiEv 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
It sounds good to me. I don't know much about esp, so if i were to write the article, i would have to do a lot of research. I would be willing to do it but am very busy right now so it will take a while to complete it. If someone else wants to write a proposal for a new esp page, i bye no means want to hog all the fun! I will post a new article in the discussion board so all may scrutinize. Knightt 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Its impossible to write a decent article on many subjects in WIKI because of noisy objectors. Many articles have a bizarre and dysfunctional narrative structure, because of the need to be 'balanced.' I think a lot of us are giving up on appeasing the objectors, and just moving our content to http://www.wikinfo.org/ instead. 84.66.56.186 22:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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)
Lucid dreaming was listed at "perception of events in other times". The Lucid Dreaming article reads: "Scientific research in the 1950's found that ... events in dreams take place in real time rather than going by in a flash." Lucid dreaming can't be any more extra-sensory than dreaming itself (or than being conscious). I don't think dreaming is an ESP and this article doesn't suggest that either so listing lucid dreaming as an ESP was inappropriate imho. -- Zoz 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Surely if ESP is real there will be no accurate record of its discovery. If that's not what was meant please rephrase.
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.
The article should only contain a definition of the term, perhaps listing some popular theories. The information it contains can't be trusted.
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)
The test is manipulated. It clearly chooses card after I click, and it increases the chance of getting the right card over the attempts. There are also other ways to manipulate it, like "knowing" statistically what people will choose or noting where I hold the mouse cursor, and that may also be a problem here. I tested it first thinking that the computer chose randomly, but then I got 120% above chance after 100 attempts which is an extremely "improbable" score, 1:4600000 or something. Today I tried the test again, this time simply going one by one from the left to the right over 100 turns and achieved 90% above chance. So it is manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.27.1 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
The problems with linking to Gellar are (1) his site is not science-based, and (2) he has been caught cheating on more than one occasion. Surely someone can find a more credible pro-ESP source to link to than that. Doczilla 07:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the whole section about the Paranormal Challenge a bit disproportionate to the rest of the article? I mean ESP has been studied for decades. Even if it hasn't produced any results to speak of, there's barely a mention of parapsychology here. I didn't see anything about the Parapsychology Association, the various Societies for Psychical Research, etc. There's just a wealth of things that could be in this article, even if the phenomenon itself doesn't turn out to be real. A quarter of the document, however, is a back and forth debate about Randi and his challenge. There's a whole other page for that. Here it should be a paragraph or so mention of it with maybe a link off to the full page. Basically, it shouldn't dominate this article is what I'm saying. -- Nealparr 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
What is specifically NPOV about the General criticism section? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless, that is, it accurately portrays ESP as a phenomenon whose existence has not been proven. At least not to the extent that science has accepted it as a real phenomenon.
I could go further and say that tests of ESP have come very close to "proving its nonexistence" . . . but I won't. It may well exist, but we haven't found out how to verify it yet.
It is essential that -- if this article is to be consistent with the "no POV" policy of Wikipedia -- the article must make it unmistakably clear that the existence of ESP is widely debated.
Instead, most of the article takes the Point Of View that ESP exists, and that is simply not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.
The article's first sentence reads as follows:
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.
The word the is reserved for things that are known to exist. Otherwise -- as in this case -- the first sentence should read something like
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is an ability, whose existence is controversial, to acquire information by means other than the five main senses of taste, sight, touch, smell, and hearing.
Another point is that this definition ignores another means of acquiring information -- introspection -- which is not one of the "five senses", but which is most definitely a human sensory ability, to detect information that is already stored in one's brain, or that results from one's brain's processing information that it has access to. For example, solving a math problem in one's head is not what almost anyone would call ESP, yet it does not involve the five senses. Daqu 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The existence of God is at least somewhat analogous to the existence of ESP, vis-á-vis how the topic should be presented in Wikipedia. So I was curious how the article on God defined its subject. Here is its first sentence:
God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality.
This is perfectly consistent with a non-POV policy, yet at the same time it is hard to see how anyone could be offended by it. The same standard must apply to an article on ESP. Daqu 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments. I'll try to respond to some of them:
1. Probably my number one concern is that the use of the word "the" in the article's definition of ESP as "the ability to acquire information by means other than the five main senses . . ." implies unequivocally the that ESP (as it is usually understood: telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.) actually exists.
Getting right the definition of a topic -- defining what an article is about -- is of the utmost importance. It's the first thing that virtually everyone who reads any part of the article reads, and it's the lens through which the rest of the article is viewed.
There's a sharp distinction between this definition, and Martinphi's example above of defining astrology as "Astrology is the study of stars and planets to determine their influence on us." This definition of astrology is worded very carefully to state what astrology is, with no implications whatsoever regarding the accuracy of astrologers' claims.
Likewise, the definition of ESP should state what it is without any further implications. (Here is one example of what I would consider a fair definition: ESP is any of various abilities, believed by many to be possessed by some or all people, to acquire information by means that transcend what is possible according to science as it is currently understood.) I suspect that with more consideration, a better wording can be found that still conveys the same sense.
2. Martinphi asks why I don't improve the skeptical sections. In fact, I have no criticism of the skeptical sections as they are. But their presence in the article does not mean that it's OK for the article to state or imply, elsewhere, that ESP actually exists. (Not because I am claiming it doesn't exist -- it may very well exist! -- but solely because its existence is highly controversial.)
3. It is certainly true that introspection is a human ability for acquiring information that goes beyond the five senses. But modern psychologists acknowledge the introspective ability as yet another natural human sense (this was not my own idea). So introspection would not really be "extra-sensory" perception. (Another natural human sense is the proprioceptive ability, to know how parts of one's body are positioned with respect to each other. Yet another is balance.) Daqu 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Daqu 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the POV, because the originally offending sentence has been removed. This section could be better sourced, but none of the main claims, I think, could not be sourced. Including the first sentence.
The sentence cited as POV was: "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"
This was POV, though obviously true. There's a quote in Radin from the 1950s where a skeptic is saying, well, there isn't any other explanation. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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
<uncivil comment removed> Daqu 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wow! Fantastic additions to the article Martinphi! Great stuff! You too, Noclevername! Nice work! Now we need some pictures and graphs, then we can push this thing towards FA...! I'm impressed! Dreadlocke ☥ 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone wanting to source these things might look for sources on the parapsychology page.
Well, someday (: Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] 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 [3]. It's a term for phenomena, not something through which the phenomena occurs.
Cheers : ) -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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) User:Kushal_one
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)
ESP is pseudoscience List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Don't take the pseudoscience out again please. Lipsquid ( talk) 15:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
The last citation clearly classify it as pseduoscience. Bringing it back in the lead. Azuresky Voight ( talk) 04:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article include some mention of ESP in crime investigation? -- uKER ( talk) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Merge As is mentioned in this article, this is a form of ESP. Not enough here to warrent a separate article IMHO. RobP ( talk) 14:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't see a reason not to do this merge. If I don't get any push back I'm going to go ahead and do it in a few days. Not a lot of work given there is very little in the Second sight article. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Merge complete. We'll see if it takes. If it does after a few days I'll get some clean up done here. This article could use a little TLC. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)