inconspicuouscolon
down to talk :p
Scientific evidence is through experiments using the scientific method, which tries to eliminate bias. The wikipedia article provides both adequate and inadequate experiments. You are biased and you’re “testing” in uncontrolled environments. You could hardly call it evidence.
Can you take a moment and imagine some possibilities of taking input directly from someone’s mind and applying it without needing to use your body? I know moving a mouse doesn’t seem impressive, but it demonstrates success at a technological concept that still seems impossible. I can’t speak for the ethics because I don’t know how voluntary the subjects are for the research, but this is very exciting for me, because it will inevitably become more sophisticated.
I have a question. Do you truly think it’s more likely that something extraordinary is occurring, rather than concluding humans aren’t built perfect? Or is it more exciting to believe that something cool and magical is happening, and you perhaps choose to pursue that possibility?
And I think it’s a result of our evolutionary trait of being very sensitive to people looking at us. If we see someone out of the corner of our eye looking at us it alerts us. And if we truly can’t see them, we can’t tell at all, but checking to see if they’re looking at you makes them feel stared at, so they’ll look at you back. Is that confusing?
Wikipedia sums it up well. In proper scientific tests, it’s fruitless.