Does this make you angry? Psychic said Amanda Berry was Dead

[TimG]

Common examples of this are found among twins. "Pure random chance" simply cannot explain this.

Computers use pseudo-random number generators. This means that, given the same seed, two independent random processes can produce identical results. The same process are likely at work in the brains of genetically identical twins.

Also, if you do enough samples improbable events are probable. For example, the chances of winning 6/49 in a single week is extremely small but the chances of someone, somewhere winning is extremely high.

So yes - pure chance can explain it.

Edited May 17, 2013 by TimG

[Guest Kenneth]

Your response is complete balderdash.

[Bonam]

The human thought consists of electro-chemical impulses passing through clusters of nerves. The physics of electricity and chemistry is well defined and there is absolutely no physical mechanism that would allow information to enter the brain without passing through the sensory organs (eyes, nose, ears, touch or taste). I consider this to be sufficient evidence that psychic abilities are impossible given our knowledge of physics.

The movement of electrical impulses between neurons produces electro-magnetic waves which can be detected at range with sufficiently precise instrumentation. This is how, for example, measurements of brain activity can be made using external/non-invasive methods. Now, of course, there is no reason to believe that psychic abilities exist and I am just as skeptical of them as you are, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent such abilities. What we know of brain structure very strongly indicates that psychic abilities do not exist within humans, but this is a result of human biology, not the laws of physics.

[Moonlight Graham]

As for me, I think they get lucky once in awhile.

Lucky, but also very smart and skilled con artists.

Remember that John Edwards guy who had his own tv show? What a phoney.

[TimG]

The movement of electrical impulses between neurons produces electro-magnetic waves which can be detected at range with sufficiently precise instrumentation.

I was thinking of receiving information from long distances away - those same probes would not detect much if they were a foot away from your head. That said, I guess your point is it is hypothetically possible for the brain to directly detect high frequency EM transmissions. But that would still require a source which broadcasts those transmissions. Edited May 17, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

I was thinking of receiving information from long distances away - those same probes would not detect much if they were a foot away from your head. That said, I guess your point is it is hypothetically possible for the brain to directly detect high frequency EM transmissions. But that would still require a source which broadcasts those transmissions.

So it isn't physics stopping psychic powers via electrical impulses from the brain, it is biology preventing this.

[kimmy]

The movement of electrical impulses between neurons produces electro-magnetic waves which can be detected at range with sufficiently precise instrumentation. This is how, for example, measurements of brain activity can be made using external/non-invasive methods. Now, of course, there is no reason to believe that psychic abilities exist and I am just as skeptical of them as you are, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent such abilities. What we know of brain structure very strongly indicates that psychic abilities do not exist within humans, but this is a result of human biology, not the laws of physics.

There are methods of treating depression that employ powerful magnetic pulses to stimulate neurons, and the human brain has been mapped out to some degree... an electroencephalogram can determine what parts of your brain are most active at a given time and a general guess as to what your brain is doing can be made. Certainly there is some interaction between your brain and electromagnetism.

However, that alone doesn't make psychic phenomena plausible. Last time this came up, I mentioned Shannon's Law-- a fundamental of communications theory-- and pointed out that the signal to noise ratio for a hypothetical psychic communication system would be immeasurably low, so the theoretical bandwidth of this communication link would be immeasurably small.

I still believe this is the correct way to analyze the likelihood of psychic phenomenon: as a communications system. Every communications system has certain components: a sender, a channel, a receiver, and a message. Take a hypothetical psychic event, identify those 4 components, and you should be able to come to a conclusion about whether it's viable or not.

So, supposing we're discussing Amanda Berry being trapped in this guy's house.

Sender: Amanda Berry, in a house in Cleveland.

Receiver: Sylvia Browne, in a television studio in New York City, 500 miles away from Cleveland.

Message: "Help, I am being held in a house against my will!"

Channel: well that's the head-scratcher, isn't it? It can't be electromagnetic, because the human brain can't transmit a message that far. The human brain is such a poor transmitter of electromagnetic signals that when we do an EEG we have to put the antennas right on the scalp. Even commercial radio stations with tens of kilowatts of transmitting power don't reliably cover 500 miles, especially with a mountain range in the way. Clearly electromagnetism is out.

And let's consider interference. Sylvia is sitting on stage in front of a crowd of people, in the middle of a metropolitan area of 20,000,000 other people, in a region that's home to around 100,000,000 people... and we're supposed to believe that she can distinguish a thought from a single mind some 500 miles away, herself in the middle of a metropolitan area of over 3,000,000 people? I think that the signal-to-noise ratio problem once again comes into play: the signal is a thought from one brain far away, and the noise is 100,000,000 much closer brains near the receiver, plus 3 million other brains close to the sender, plus who knows how many other brains in between. Once again the Shannon's Law argument comes into play: the signal to noise ratio becomes so impossibly tiny as to make the usable bandwidth of this communications channel completely non-existent.

And that's just imagining our psychic trying to receive a message from a living person. The scenario becomes even more ridiculous if you consider a typical Sylvia Browne scenario: the sender isn't a living person, it's a corpse under water somewhere. Sender? Communications medium? Message?

People can say stuff like "well the brain can receive electromagnetic signals" or "well quantum mechanics says such and such..." but when you break it down into specifics, you have to come to the conclusion that the explanations for how this could work can't involve existing science.

-k

[silver72]

On Dr Oz show, they had the Psychic, from New Jersey, and she underwent an experiment on live TV, that show their brain waves and a scan of her brain before and after she channeled her prediction and the doctor who is a expert with the brain said, that her brain changed when she communicated with the dead. He also said that he's done experiments with woman from Canada , who had the same brain pattern as the one on the show. I do believe that SOME people can, but we just don't know why. Maybe instead of evil, it could be an angel.

[segnosaur]

On Dr Oz show, they had the Psychic, from New Jersey, and she underwent an experiment on live TV, that show their brain waves and a scan of her brain before and after she channeled her prediction and the doctor who is a expert with the brain said, that her brain changed when she communicated with the dead. He also said that he's done experiments with woman from Canada , who had the same brain pattern as the one on the show. I do believe that SOME people can, but we just don't know why. Maybe instead of evil, it could be an angel.

Here's the problem...

While its all well and good to look at 'brain scans', that in itself does not demonstrate that she is using any sort of 'psychic ability'. For all we know, the parts of her brain that changed were associated with imagination, or deception.

Before people start running around trying to look for the actual biological causes of psychic ability, they should test whether such abilities actually exist. A simple double-blind study (no special high-tech equipment needed!) would be a good start.

Former magician and skeptic James Randi is experienced in designing and running such tests. In fact, he offers a $1 million prize for anyone who can actually demonstrate any sort of paranormal ability (psychic ability, dowsing, etc.) Nobody has come close to winning the award. In fact, most famous 'psychics' run away in fear over taking their tests... they avoid it because they know that once proper controls are in place, their "ability" will disappear.

[segnosaur]

Actually no psychic abilities would be consistant with the workings of time and space according to quantum mechanics, not fanciful fairy tales (like the origin and first occupancy "rights" that you Indian friends espouse). I don't claim to have a full understanding of how physics works, doesn't mean that I dismiss it - same too when it comes to psychics.

The difference is, even if someone doesn't know how some physical phenomena works, we know it exists and can study it. (For example, you may not know why the sky is blue... but, you can observe it, take measurements, and determine that yes, indeed the sky is blue.)

When it comes to psychics, we haven't even determined that psychic ability actually exists. People will point to anecdotes, or talk about how "psychic X said Y and it was true!". But that does not prove psychic ability exists... any such ability can easily be chalked up to a combination of 1) Psychics making a butt-load of predictions (the 'shotgun' approach), knowing at least a few will be correct, and 2) a human tendency to remember the "hits" and forget about the "misses".

Let psychics get their abilities tested under proper conditions... For example, let them give 10 'readings' to 10 people, and let each person pick the reading out which best matches themselves. If psychic ability truly existed, people would be able to identify their own readings.

[segnosaur]

I don't think psychics claim to know everything. Those that do are clearly quacks, no question about it. Obviously if they knew everything, they'd be buying winning lottery tickets on a daily basis.

Its not a case of 'knowing everything'. Not even the most hardcore skeptic things a psychic must be 100% accurate.

The question is, do psychics manage to make predictions which are better than just "random chance". There, the question seems to be a resounding "No!"

On the other hand, I have read about reputable psychics helping police solve crimes, and they don't do it by "knowing" whatever it is the police ask. They get feelings, visions, over the course of time using various means, that sometimes really does help. It's not as if the police go to a psychic and say "Who did it?" and the psychic thinks for a moment, and says "John Smith did it!! - and he lives at 1000 Main Street and his phone number is 555-0000."

There are a couple of issues here...

First of all, keep in mind that many of the claims of "psychics helping police" are claimed by the psychics themselves... And when you have an individual who makes their living giving psychic readings, claiming they consulted on some big criminal case is useful promotional material.

In some cases, the psychic is overestimating their influence. (They may have provided details that were totally irrelevant to the case, or the cops could have totally ignored their input.). In other cases they may be outright lying. Sylvia Browne has done that... On an episode of Larry King, she claimed to be working on a case with an officer Zantos in New Jersey. However, there was no Officer Zantos working with the New Jersey police at the time. Simply put, Sylvia lied. (It sounded good, and its not like anyone would have been able to follow up during the course of the show.) And most of the other cases that she claimed to have worked on were likewise lies.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/03/lkl.00.html

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-85365.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failure

The other thing to remember is that in many cases the cops are obligated to follow up leads. If some psychic calls a crime hot line, they may claim that they 'consulted' with police, even though their input was not requested.

Now, I cannot claim that "no policeman has ever consulted with a psychic". Since there are thousands upon thousands of officers in the U.S., and its possible that some gullible officer in some backwards town may have wasted time with psychics, but there's no evidence that they actually contribute to investigations with actual useful information. They may get vague clues "the body will be found near a body of water", but for the most part it will be completely useless.

Regarding the questions raised in the OP - I'm not inclined to feel sorry for those who use psychics; it's their choice.

Here's a question.. would you feel sorry for someone who lost their money to (for example) Bernie Maddoff?

Yes, people should be more skeptical. They should think more critically. But, that should not absolve vultures like Sylvia Browne from their part in things.

Its a good idea to lock your front door when you leave the house. But if you don't and someone walks in and takes your stuff, they're still stealing, and they should know "this is immoral" regardless of how easy it is.

I'm inclined to dismiss psychics who 'grandstand' and put on a show, but I do believe some people do have some psychic abilities that the rest of us don't have;

As I pointed out before, there are awards (for example, James Randi's $1,000,000 prize) for anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal ability under controlled observing conditions.

If some people have psychic abilities, why has not one of them claimed the prize?

however, I don't think they are reading people's futures for $50 a crack or $2.99/minute on psychic hotlines.

$50 a crack? Wow... that's cheap.

According to Sylvia Browne's web site, a psychic reading with her costs $850 for a phone reading.

Speaking of Sylvia Browne, this isn't the first time she claimed someone had died prematurely. For example:

- In 2002 she told the parents of Shaun Hornbeck that their son was kidnapped by a 'dark skin man', was dead and would be found in a wooded area. In 2007 he was found very much alive in an apartment. The kindnapper was white.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/sylvia_brownersquos_biggest_blunder/

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/01/hornbeck_browne.html

- In 2005, she claimed Bin Laden was dead. He was very much alive until the U.S. tracked him down in Pakistan.

http://blog.newsok.com/smokeandmirrors/2011/05/06/bin-laden-prediction-wrong-again-sylvia/

For more information on this remarkably scummy individual, see:

http://www.stopsylvia.com/

[Pliny]

You are not a brain. You are not a body. When young I experienced being outside my body with visio and audio perceptions.

It's an amazing phenomenon to experience. I am not able to do this at will and doubt any double blind study could determine its occurrence as there is no means to measure a seeming nothing with visio and audio perceptions.

I know that my own concept of reality and my understanding of, or lack of understanding prevents me from being able to do this at will. Can I develop the ability? I think I would have to understand a lot more about life than I do in order to accomplish that.

Of course science would attempt to explain it in its own terms of physics, chemistry and biology but it may not be explainable or measurable in those terms. Past "scientists" called air itself life as breathing whatever it was seemed essential to living. Physicists today call electro-chemical processes life as they seem essential to living. Experts in the humanities attempt to explain the phenomenon of OBE's but they are quite laughable to anyone who may have experienced one. They attempt to basically say it is not possible and it is some trick of the brain.

I can't see how the "brain" extends itself 20 feet away from the body or can have perceptions that are received at a point twenty feet away from the body and the body seems to be doing something entirely different. Upon the realization that the body is over there you are snapped back into it and look to see what was looking at it. of course there is nothing there as you are now back in the body. You can only think to yourself, "Whoa! What the heck was that all about?" You hear quite a few stories of other people having the same experience and all you can do is knowingly smile about it as science gets out its instruments to crudely measure something, anything.

Frankly, if you could operate outside your body you would probably be vilified and eventually crucified. After all, you aren't being human and isn't that what we all are. Should we let science define us now or could we have a mind of our own about it that science must admit it knows nothing of as yet.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Pliny

[The_Squid]

I am not able to do this at will and doubt any double blind study could determine its occurrence as there is no means to measure a seeming nothing with visio and audio perceptions.

Of course there is a way.... a blindfold and a question... tell me how many fingers I am holding up? If the answers are correct, well waddya know!!

Except that it never happens. The explanation is quite simple. It is called a dream... or a hallucination. Brains do that sort of thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course there is a way.... a blindfold and a question... tell me how many fingers I am holding up? If the answers are correct, well waddya know!!

Except that it never happens. The explanation is quite simple. It is called a dream... or a hallucination. Brains do that sort of thing.

That's simply you defining what "psychic ability" consist of, when perhaps it operates outside of your realm of 'understanding.'

Edited May 27, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

You are not a brain. You are not a body. When young I experienced being outside my body with visio and audio perceptions.

LSD did that to me once. Mushrooms a couple times.

[eyeball]

You are not a brain. You are not a body.

Actually that is precisely what you are.

When young I experienced being outside my body with visio and audio perceptions.

No you didn't, your experience was an internal phenomenon that was still every bit as rooted in reality as the organ the experience was located in.

It's an amazing phenomenon to experience.

That said, my knowing what I said above did nothing to diminish my own amazement at the phenomenon.

[eyeball]

LSD did that to me once. Mushrooms a couple times.

Even the choking 'game' will do it.

The act of altering our minds is an alluring thing - it's a slippery slope that probably starts in our early childhood when we twirl around and make ourselves feel funny. Another phenomenon is how broadly we approach the phenomenon. We criminalize it, revere it, fear it, doubt it, enjoy it, super-naturalize it - you name it. Every human culture that's ever existed has had something to say about it.

[Pliny]

Actually that is precisely what you are.

...and more!

No you didn't, your experience was an internal phenomenon that was still every bit as rooted in reality as the organ the experience was located in.

That said, my knowing what I said above did nothing to diminish my own amazement at the phenomenon.

I'm glad that someone explained it to you. I'm sad you accepted it.

[Pliny]

LSD did that to me once. Mushrooms a couple times.

Psychotropic Drugs can change your entire perception of the physical universe. Could an idea?

In my view, it is basically ideas people adopt that form their reality and also rejects the reality of others, such as skeptics rejecting religiosity. Skeptics live in a very rigid world and reality must be solid. The world is not as solid to the very religious, as a prime mover created it and for that reason can influence it - seemingly violating scientific knowledge and to the skeptic that means it is an impossibility.

Anyway, one's perceptions as interpreted by others are not one's perceptions. Maintaining what you have perceived as being what you have perceived is often difficult because of those interpretations. Sometimes we don't understand what we have perceived and it is then easy to be convinced by others that what you have perceived is not what you have perceived but something else or it didn't occur.

I recall the psychology experiment where three lines were drawn on a board and one of them is shorter than the other two. Ten individuals are then asked which one is shorter than the other two. Of course, nine of the individuals are told to pick the same line and it isn't the shortest. The tenth person will more often pick the same line as the nine when it is clearly not the shortest. They invalidate their own perceptions. Few individuals will stick to what they know to be what they observed.

I think skeptics would always agree with the majority in such an experiment. By skeptic I don't mean someone who disagrees with religion. I mean a skeptic in the sense of they need a scientific interpretation of everything. In other words, Science interprets reality for them and science is pretty solidly based in the idea that humanity is the result of a chance happening of electro-chemical evolutionary processes. Thus since others interpret their reality for them they will allow themselves to over-ride their own perceptions or understanding of them.

[Guest]

Psychotropic Drugs can change your entire perception of the physical universe. Could an idea?

In my view, it is basically ideas people adopt that form their reality and also rejects the reality of others, such as skeptics rejecting religiosity. Skeptics live in a very rigid world and reality must be solid. The world is not as solid to the very religious, as a prime mover created it and for that reason can influence it - seemingly violating scientific knowledge and to the skeptic that means it is an impossibility.

Anyway, one's perceptions as interpreted by others are not one's perceptions. Maintaining what you have perceived as being what you have perceived is often difficult because of those interpretations. Sometimes we don't understand what we have perceived and it is then easy to be convinced by others that what you have perceived is not what you have perceived but something else or it didn't occur.

I recall the psychology experiment where three lines were drawn on a board and one of them is shorter than the other two. Ten individuals are then asked which one is shorter than the other two. Of course, nine of the individuals are told to pick the same line and it isn't the shortest. The tenth person will more often pick the same line as the nine when it is clearly not the shortest. They invalidate their own perceptions. Few individuals will stick to what they know to be what they observed.

I think skeptics would always agree with the majority in such an experiment. By skeptic I don't mean someone who disagrees with religion. I mean a skeptic in the sense of they need a scientific interpretation of everything. In other words, Science interprets reality for them and science is pretty solidly based in the idea that humanity is the result of a chance happening of electro-chemical evolutionary processes. Thus since others interpret their reality for them they will allow themselves to over-ride their own perceptions or understanding of them.

I have to disagree with your views on religion. I think that to the very religious, the world is extremely rigid. They are bound by their tenets and doctrine, and the more religious they are, the more rigid their world becomes.

I consider myself a skeptic, and I know I would have picked the correct straw. I'm not rabid about it though. I truly am sorry that crop circles are man made, and I wish that lizard on Mars was real. See link. It sure looks real!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/space-is-there-life--including-lizards--on-mars-8636598.html

Your last sentence seems to describe the religious, not skeptics.

Edited May 30, 2013 by bcsapper

[Pliny]

Your last sentence seems to describe the religious, not skeptics.

Perhaps you are not a skeptic.

The zealot and Skeptic are both quite similar. Neither will learn anything from the other. And perhaps you are right it is more true to say they are both quite solid.

Anyway, there are other factors to consider in that experiment, it may depend upon who the nine other people are, it may depend upon if you just don't care what other people think. It depends more upon how well you trust yourself or how much your own self-determinism has been over-ridden. If you rely on Daddy to solve all your problems for you, you aren't going to have much trust in yourself or your abilities.

We are not taught to be strong individuals these days. It is better to give in to authority and experts whether they deserve the titles or not. We are all taught that we must act as one for the good of all. Don't be an individual - no one is an island. You are insignificant, really. All things that nullify the individual.

Yet it is from you that dreams are dreamt and from you that your goals are fought. I don't mean to undermine the importance of harmonious interaction and co-operation, for far loftier things can be achieved in harmony with ourselves but it should not be at the expense of the importance of the individual. The striving for equality is another means to nullify the individual for no one is equal. If we were we would have no leaders. Not because there weren't any or none had the ability but because no one would follow. Someone must determine, or society will determine for us that there are some who are more equal than others in order for there to be leaders.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Pliny

[Rue]

Finally a thread with very well expressed opinions. Kudos to the whole friggin lot of you.

I will add this 2 cents. I do think some "psychic" phenomena is in fact non verbal awareness. 80-90% of our communication is done

non verbally. Some people are very sensitive to non verbal cues from others and some can be trained to notice and use them to

manipulate responses. I think this is the kind of game cons run yes.

There is also a way to cue people into giving you the answers you want or telling you the answers you want. This is why poorly trained

hypnotists can't be trusted. The can accidently cue the answers once someone is in an auto-suggestive state and only to willing to feed them back.

That all said, there is complex research that has been done since World War Two on remote viewing by the military and it has been proven and measured by objective measurement (scientific methodology) that some people in fact are able to sense or perceive things others can not.

In some studies they light up a different section in their brain than you and I suggesting they are using a different part of the brain than we ordinarily do.

It could also be that psychotropic drugs can access those areas of the brain thus making people more sensitive to certain perceptions.

I have witnessed in studies that certain epileptics and people with other brain lesions, actual physical anomoles to their brain structure perceive phenomena before and after their seizures.

The fact is we know very little about the exact chemical make up of our brain and how even the slightest modification to certain chemical amounts can change what we perceive.

We also know that with certain illnesses such as schizophrenia, the neurotransmission system is misfiring causing perceptions that we call hallucinations or delusional thinking.

We know certain geniuses, i.e., people with extremely high i.q.'s and capable of great works of creativity whether it be music, painting, writing, sculpturing sense things you and I can not.

No one brain is structured the same way. Each is individual in characteristic like fingerprints although all have similiarities as well.

You won't get a clear answer to what is psychic phenomena. Some of it is neurological, some psychiatric, some beyond that.

I can tell you this. In certain cultures the use of psychic perception is just everyday. Taking to or perceiving what we call ghosts to people in some

cultures is no big whoopee.

I have spent time investigating paranormal phenomena and certain people we call "psychics" do feel or perceive things as to different levels of energy consciousness and no its not fake they can tell you information they could not possibly have known otherwise with clear accuracy as to who died in a house, when, where and why.

I think its a topic full of charlatans but is also at the same time being studied with utmost seriousness by the psychiatric and psychology communities and I do not think all people who claim to be psychic are phony. In fact most psychics I have met hate that word and do not call themselves anything and are very reluctant to discuss themselves or perceptions.

I think its a red flag when you see someone claiming to be a psychic but having a direct financial interest in it. The psychics I know have never made a red cent-never brag, boast or impose themselves or thoughts.

Now this woman who claimed Amanda was dead well she is a pop psychic. People should realize pop psychics are in the business to make money. They tell you what you want to hear-feel good crap. I think in this case the psychic thought she was doing the mother a favour by getting her to let go by telling her what she did. It was wrong in the sense she should have said she had no clue.

By the way police still use psychics and not all are crack-pots. Some psychics are like blood hounds. They can smell things you and I can not. Its not fake but we just don't fully understand why they can do it.

[Boges]

I wonder if Sylvia's powers could predict her own demise.

Sylvia Browne, the controversial psychic who became famous for her books and television appearances dealing with the paranormal died Wednesday. She was 77 and died at a San Jose, Calif. hospital, her website said.

Browne was known for her claims that she could communicate with the dead and bring messages to their loved ones. She published 50 books, with many of them making best-seller lists.

A frequent guest on CNN’s Larry King Live and The Montel Williams Show, Browne was most recently in the news after three kidnapped women in Cleveland were found alive. In a 2005 appearance on Williams’ show, she told the mother of then-missing Amanda Berry that her daughter was dead. The mother died about two years later, but Berry was found with two other women in May, held captive for 10 years.

Read more: Sylvia Browne, Renowned Psychic, Dies at 77 | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/11/21/psychic-sylvia-browne-dies-at-77/#ixzz2lIeHViR9

Edited November 21, 2013 by Boges

[segnosaur]

That all said, there is complex research that has been done since World War Two on remote viewing by the military and it has been proven and measured by objective measurement (scientific methodology) that some people in fact are able to sense or perceive things others can not.

Research into remote viewing done by the military? Yes.

Proven that it works? Nope.

I have spent time investigating paranormal phenomena and certain people we call "psychics" do feel or perceive things as to different levels of energy consciousness and no its not fake they can tell you information they could not possibly have known otherwise with clear accuracy as to who died in a house, when, where and why.

How do you know that? What makes you think that at least some of them didn't google information about the place before hand?

And what was their "accuracy rate"? Did they know the full name of the deceased? Or was it a case of "It was a white male with a name that started with a C or maybe a K, who died of a heart attack or maybe a massive fart"? How many of their guesses actually went wrong?

And more importantly, there are hundreds of millions of people in North America... if there are real "psychics" around, and their common enough for you to have interacted with them, how come none have been willing to have their powers tested by groups like the James Randi Educational Foundation?

I think its a red flag when you see someone claiming to be a psychic but having a direct financial interest in it. The psychics I know have never made a red cent-never brag, boast or impose themselves or thoughts.

Here's a question... why have none of these psychics ever tried to claim the "Million dollar prize"?

Ok, they claim that they aren't in it for the money... but heck, why not win the prize, and then give the money to charity? And if they really did have psychic powers, it would do so much to advance our scientific knowledge. Isn't it rather selfish of them not to do so?

And by the way, if they never brag or boast, how do you know they're actually psychic? They must have said something to SOMEONE.

By the way police still use psychics and not all are crack-pots.

No, some are merely deluded.

There has never ever been a case where a psychic has provided information to police that was critical in the arrest of the offender (at least not information that they wouldn't have known otherwise.)

Here's the problem though.. in the case of a major crime, the police often have to deal with dozens/hundreds of "tips", many of which are useless and lead nowhere. At least some of these will come from supposed psychics. I suspect most of these "police psychics" are the same... call into some tip line, cop records the information. Crime is solved (regardless of the psychic advice). Psychic claims they "helped police" despite the cops not using the information.

Now, obviously with thousands upon thousands of police officers in North American I can't definitively say that no policeman has ever consulted a psychic. But solving a crime with one? Nah, doesn't happen.

[segnosaur]

I wonder if Sylvia's powers could predict her own demise.

Actually, no....

In May 2003, Browne predicted to Larry King that she would die when she was 88. She was off by 11 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/sylvia-browne_n_4317470.html

I think James Randi said it best:

It's unfortunate that she only stopped hurting so many people by dying.