Reply To: They will likely never get the replication science demands, let’s move on

[DMJessup]

“The task of the parapsychologists is to stop collecting evidence and begin formulating models that can be tested via their predictive quality. If the community cannot agree on a model, then it is not ready to theorize.”
I’m not a parapsychologist and feel like I’m closer to actual hypotheses/theories than most of them that keep repeating the same experiments over and over. I’m more into using Psi to study Psi, and finding the data that crosses between physical (like EVP) and whatever the complicated systems end up being. In all cases, the skilled practitioner is a key ingredient to phenomena, and everyone is a key ingredient to blocking, filtering, or coloring phenomena. That alone tells us so much about the system we are looking at. I’m chewing on the idea of A.I. helping to peel back the bias and compile enough common repetitive data to be able to state, for A to happen, B must exist. When we have enough B items, that has to define the rules of engagement. Then, we peel back the known rules of physics, and that strips all other possibilities away, what is left has to be the complicated source systems involved in various aspects of Psi phenomena, and these don’t have to be the same cause or source, even for the same Psi phenomena. We could easily be dealing with multiple systems that only appear to be related. Like existing after death, which could include many different formats, and doesn’t have to be one-size fits all. Some folks could dissipate into nothing, other reincarnate, others move to some other plane or life, etc. I think all of us would like to assume things are one-and-done. In EVP, I can imagine you have entertained the many possible things, from some entity, to a deceased person, to some mental or telepathic event, to picking up random whatever, and likely more. Just having ratings for them shows categorization and quality measures… anyway, thanks for the conversation and feedback.