What makes a psychic ability "real"?

For me, it's all about results and confirmation. If my 'psychic vibe' is personal to me, then the events that unfold should match and what I was picking up on should become apparent. When giving readings for others, it is when I run into someone later and they are able to confirm for me what I said that came true for them by giving me details or sharing their excitement at what has happened.

It is those kind of experiences that I have had in the past that confirm for me that my psychic abilities are real.

Others might see it as confirmation bias but for me, a good guess, good advice and an accurate psychic message are three different things. An accurate psychic message feels different and it doesn't come from the same place as my normal everyday interactions and communications. Also, because I have had the the opportunity to read for a large amount of strangers, I have been able to see just how accurate I am because I had nothing to go off of, except the cards and my abilities.

I'm not one to say that I am over-the-top psychic, but I definitely have instincts. I have dreams that are deja-vu like and I get these split second visions that I don't think mean anything at the time, but a week later, that vision will mean something. I'll think to myself - ...wait a second here.. this was in a dream I had.. this is all too real...- and occasionally I can predict lottery numbers. If I am sitting there watching the drawing, I'll spew a number out and that number will come out. That aside- I am a very spiritual gal. I don't mean religious, I mean spiritual in the sense that I believe that all things around us have an entity. That 'God' is everywhere. That being said, I use crystals and rocks in order to highlight my intuitions and 'psychic' abilities. Different stones will work different for you, but if you research the different rocks, you will find certain ones are known for opening up alternate worlds and helping bring out those intuitive abilities (aka using a third eye).

First of all I would like to tell you that I find this to be one of the most intelligently worded questions in this forum, thank you for that.

I would say that for myself personally, I do not need to have all of the facts on paper for this to be believable to me. It is a matter of faith that we are not alone in this realm and that life does not end six feet down in a box. I have seen some things that would make just about any skeptic a believer, but even before I was able to see them I believed in them. Perhaps that is why I have been able to see, I don't know for sure, all I do know is that I wouldn't trade my faith, feelings or experiences for anything. All I wish I could do now is convince the non-believing portion of society to stop judging us so harshly and remember that even if you don't believe, I have never called you crazy for not believing what I see right in front of you.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion. Blessed Be

For me I think some practical application would be necessary.

It first occurred to me as a youngster ( a long time ago). If a psychic says they can do something(pick an ability). Why aren't they applying that talent in a more useful way? Even if we accept it doesn't work that way for them. Why not someone else then?

I hate to go at one group but Astral Projectors/Remote Viewers are a prime example. To hear it from them, right here on Yahoo. They can leave their bodies and travel the Universe at will. They'll tell us of their adventures and advise others how to do it.

With all that talent. Why has no one opened a business or doing rescue work.

What people are unable to do with these abilities. Strikes me as more telling then what they say they can do.

You know, when it came to UFOs and aliens it was not only my own personal experiences but the shared experience with so many other people. And with psychic abilities it was the same. Telepathic experiences involve more than one person and I've developed some very strong friendships because of psychic experiences with people. Also, when something happens more than once and what occurs is statistically very unlikely it's another part of what makes it "real".

I do appreciate the scientific work going on but with people like Sheldrake and his morphic fields it was more confirmation for what I already had figured out (not only from experience but from ancient and occult texts).

Richard Hoagland's hyperdimensional physics and torsion fields model has also been very helpful for my "left brain" when it comes to understanding my experiencs and the whole paranormal issue in general.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

This is a great question.

None of your examples would do it for me, though. And that's not just because it's psychic ability you're talking about. Anything that seems unlikely to me and which has little to no support in science research to date would come under the same scrutiny. Global warming is an example of a theory that used to fall into this camp for me, but at some point the evidence accumulated enough that it seemed much more likely to be true than not.

Regarding your examples, seeing with my own eyes isn't quite enough, as I've been fooled by what I've seen before. The amazing feats of magicians is a good reason to reject the criterion of simply seeing what you believe. A single study by a scientist, famous or not, would be good but would not be quite enough. It would certainly pique my interest, but I'd need to see the research duplicated and confirmed by other independent research groups and peer-reviewed by peers in the mainstream literature before it seems reasonable to tentatively accept the claim. For me personally, a revelatory experience would probably be the least convincing.

When can someone who enjoys painting truly call her/himself an artist? Is it when someone acknowledges that their painting is a work of art? My mother in law thinks she is an artist because she paints. Her level of skill is, in my eyes atrocious.

When someone starts predicting something and hits more than misses, according to feedback, when then can they feel comfortable labelling themselves psychic? When does an amateur become an expert?

When someone starts writing and produces a piece of literature, when can they truly call themselves a writer? Is it when their material is published?

I believe that we have all in our own way, be it a small way or prolific way, have come across moments when we have known what will happen to people, when it is that someone we are thinking about is about to call, have seen odd things, have experienced cold vibes, have had colourful visions or have felt like we have flown to another part of the world, all in various degrees.

Some of us will not label ourselves psychic because who are we to say that we are or we aren't. I have always had the problem of calling myself psychic even though I have a lot of hits (in every way)... so just like the artist, writer and psychic in the making I think it is what we believe we are that eventually allows us to label ourselves as that, not external proof. Does this make sense?

There is no possible way of proving it, it just is. The technical way to prove it would be in a lab experiencing it but that isn't possible because it can not just be called on.

To me, I think someone would have to tell me what is going to happen before it does to prove it or lift something with there mind or tell me exactly what someone was thinking and have the person write it down before it is said, but I already know it is real. I can read people's thoughts and have visions already, my brother has the ability to read thoughts too. So I need no proof. Hope this helps

The same as anything in science, there has to be proof that is self evident. In other words, there can be no other factors involved, and a scientist should be able to reproduce the results. If it is not reproducible and it does not exclude other possible causative factors, then it is not science, it is belief.

I was personally convinced by the extensive scientific evidence that met (often exceeded) the criteria for evidence for any other area of science outside of parapsychology.

I have had some psi experiences but those did not convince me of anything other than people experience such phenomena (which is thus a real experience and deserves to be studied) but at least one of my experiences ended up having a very normal explanation that I accept.

On a related note I recently read that

"When facts challenge our favored conclusions, we scrutinize them more carefully and subject them to more rigorous analysis" (Daniel Gilbert ,Ph.D. pg.169).

Which to me relates to what skeptics are doing when they reject the standards of evidence for science in favor of extraordinary evidence.

The other quote is

"We ask whether facts allow us to believe our favored conclusions and whether they compel us to believe our disfavored conclusions" (Daniel Gilbert, Ph.D,, pg. 170).

In relation to parapsychology I would say I feel that the evidence for at least some phenomena allows it to be reasonable for some people to believe based on the evidence and possibly their experiences.

While skeptics often say there is no compelling evidence (and keep in mind that this both a higher and personal standard of evidence not the standards of science) I would argue that they are correct and it is reasonable that the evidence doesn't compel their belief and it even allows them to continue not to believe as long we acknowledge that is a subjective choice and not the practice of science (though it is a normal human practice).

I think it unfortunate that some people that call themselves psi skeptics still can't admit that it is reasonable for some to allow themselves to believe when both their personal experiences and the standards of evidence for science (which skeptics reject while claiming to be representing science to the public) supports their conclusions.

Psiexploration