The US government has put serious money into this stuff, and the most they got out of it was "you can give somebody a mental illness by randomly drugging them." There are plenty of holes in our understanding of the human brain, but this isn't the piece we're missing.
Here's a report on said government research by a skeptic:https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.
The US government has put serious money into this stuff, and the most they got out of it was "you can give somebody a mental illness by randomly drugging them."
Actually here's the main report they issued. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf
I don't agree with your characterisation that they concluded "you can give somebody a mental illness by randomly drugging them"; they concluded "A statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated in the sense that hits occur more often than chance."
The US government has put serious money into this stuff, and the most they got out of it was "you can give somebody a mental illness by randomly drugging them." There are plenty of holes in our understanding of the human brain, but this isn't the piece we're missing.
Here's a report on said government research by a skeptic:https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
Actually here's the main report they issued. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf
I don't agree with your characterisation that they concluded "you can give somebody a mental illness by randomly drugging them"; they concluded "A statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated in the sense that hits occur more often than chance."