There are so many different opinions on this topic, I had to bring it to a forum. Most people say no, in fact I heard there is a million dollar reward out for anyone who can prove otherwise. On the other hand a large quantity of people say it is possible. I don't know what to think here. I am a realist who usually believes only what can be proven but, when it comes to things like this I get stuck on the fence. Some say that the 'brain' and the 'mind'are two different things. If this is true then we could assume that the brain controls our body, while the mind has the ability to do? What do you guys think?
Yes, but facts usually fly in the face of those opinions.
Yes, amongst others, James Randi has posted a million dollars for a very long time and no one has ever claimed it.
Quite often, the same people believe gods, demons, angels and host of other imaginary things exist, too.
The mind is the brain and it simply cannot function as claimed by those who believe it can move objects.
Wishful thinking is exactly that, wishful.
I disagree. I have a theory that the mind and brain are two separate things, and I am currently working on an experiment that uses your actual mind, brain, and body to to prove it. I will let you know when I am finished, the experiment will be open for everyone to try in their own homes. Until then think about this, what separates our brain from other mammals? The answer is that we self aware, and this self awareness is not a part of our brain, it is actually our mind. We just have not yet learned how to fully assess it's potential yet. This is why humans are the master race on this planet. I believe that we hold all of the answers to every question within our 'minds', we just don't know how to unlock them. Just a theory, "some thoughts for the mind" as they say.
I look forward to it.
A number of things. However, intelligence is just another branch of evolution that several mammals possess.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Our self-awareness does not exist in our arms and legs, it exists in our brains.
Not really. We have just evolved differently than other animals. Master race?
No, we don't, we actually need to study the world around us to find answers. If we rely totally on our minds, we will often be wrong.
Oh jeez, you're gonna get me on a soap box again and everybody will think that it's the only thing I ever talk about, but...
I think there's some general and widespread confusion over what exactly is "logical." For something to be truly logical, it has to be demonstrable through a process of reasoning that begins with certain definitions and assumptions and then ends with the conclusion. However, there is a whole great wide divide between "logical" and "illogical." Some things are really neither, either because there isn't enough information to work from or because of ambiguous, but widely accepted, definitions. Having said this, I don't think I've ever seen anything to convince me that telekinesis is "logical" to believe. I wouldn't quite place it in the "illogical" category yet, though, because to me that would mean that someone had demonstrated "logically" that it was impossible - and THAT is something I've never been satisfactorily presented either.
However, I have to agree with some other posters here; if it were really possible, then I would really have expected more documentation and thorough investigation after so many years of opportunity.
The possibility exists but the probability doesn't.
I think that if man survives, there is about a billion and a half yrs left for natural selection and human potential to be realized.
If man can conquer the potential in human eugenics, there may come a day, in the distant future that man may evolve away from a need for a protoplasmic "mass" to do the bidding of the "mind.
In an inexplicable and eternal cosmos, it may already have happened.
I wrote a hub, 2 yrs ago, concerning this subject:
Good point, I was wondering when you were going to chime in on this one. I agree with your theory, "if" man survives we are bound to make new discoveries within our minds and bodies. I will be check out your hub and leave some feedback.
that would be plato... and it is not logical. It is however archetypal and it exists as a symbolism for how our thoughts affect our environment.
but then james seem to think it is. he knows something i don't definitely.
It is not logical but I believe the mind is
and aspect of all powerful.
Not sure if this would be classified as telekinesis, but I can get things moving around the house with a raised eyebrow.
I'm not saying it's possible but I'd think that if a person is able to do it, it's because they are functioning at a different spiritual level than ours. Therefore, that individual would not feel the need to prove anything, even less to gain something as mundane as money.
Interesting and seemingly logical argument. But don't you think at least one of these people would make it onto mainstream news by now? Based on your theory I think it would be hard for a person with these abilities to keep it a secret for long.
If such person actually existed, everyone (including the media) would dismiss their ability as another trick. They wouldn't even give it a second thought.
You don't think the media would report it and people would be all over it? I do. People love that shit even though they never see it happen. It would be like catnip for them. I'd want to see it too because I change my mind when the evidence changes, being a scientist and all.
I've been researching into it. Supposedly it's possible for ANYONE to do it with practice. Some people take two weeks, others take two years.
I'm practising whenever I get a chance because I'm a sceptic and I'm trying to open my mind up to actually believing in something. We'll see!
Interesting, keep me posted please. I have thought about checking this out for myself as well, any suggestions?
From what I can tell, learning meditation is a good start. And it's recommended you do it in at least 15 minute blocks each day with up to an hour or more being the optimum. There are some good youtube videos on it actually.
And keep using one small easy object at first, like a round pen that rolls.
Macro-telekinesis (moving large objects external to the body with mental energy alone) is a complete fantasy. The only video-taped claims I have seen for it were pretty obvious frauds using known forces like static electricity--debunkers easily reproduced the results by mundane means.
I don't know about telekinesis, but I have had proof that psychometry is real, and I am a hardened sceptic, and it takes a lot of convincing for me to believe in such claims. How this works though, I have no idea.
It is not a mental or astral projection to move objects or create an electrostatic barrier around a person. It is the ability to unite the energies around you in such a way that you move or the object moves.
It is also not a 'spiritual' thing alone -like transcendental meditation as the body must work with the electromagnetic processes -light frequencies- in the brain, and the energy called spirit/intangible to create the scenario.
Create a polarity between projective and reflective, the individual as the absorptive and one could essentially levitate, move objects --even oneself in and out of tangible-intangible. In fact, the human being is just such a creature. The body reflects, the spirit projects, the brain absorbs.
Some machines do this by positioning light, mirrors, magnets.
Just A Thought.
So you think it's definitely possible James?
I'm going to say yes it's possible, as I've actually met people that have that kind of ability in real life.
I truly believe all things are possible given the right knowledge and information. The recent discoveries in relation to quantum physics have given an indication that those who believe in ghosts, the ability to communicate with the dead, etc. may be on to something.
What is required to move an object? Force. Where does the appropriate force come from? It could come from the wind, from heat, etc. which are forms of energy. I believe the idea of telekinesis is simply a matter of the human mind being able to gather the energy necessary and transform it into the force necessary to move the object.
Is it possible at this time? Probably not for the average person, though I suppose there are those who have a natural propensity for it, without understanding the nature of their ability.
As scientific discoveries continue to be made, we will continue to find that those things not possible in the past, will suddenly become accepted into every day life.
That is also patently false. Quantum field theory makes no such indications and in fact prohibits the concept of ghosts.
And yet, the brain does not function at all like that. It can't harness the wind, heat or any other form of energy to move objects. It's simple an organ in the body.
No, they won't, in fact, the opposite is what is occurring as more and more is discovered and understood.
What you suggest is just wishful thinking.
First off, you are making a declarative sentence with no proven evidence to support your THEORY. There are many theories swirling around quantum physics and the implications of the new discoveries. At this time, there is nothing of solid proof for the final analysis, just yet. As for ghosts, no it doesn't prohibit their existence.
There are some indications that spirituality and quantum physics may be related. When we speak of spirituality, we aren't necessarily just speaking about only the existence of a God. There are many forms of spirituality, with many diverse beliefs associated with them.
I did not say the brain can harness the wind, etc. I said those forms of energy have been known to provide enough force to move an object. For example, a gust of wind comes along and blows your paper plate off the table. Enough heat applied to water causes a reaction that makes the water appear to move, ie boiling. As far as harnessing energy? Neuro-scientists have already made significant advances in how the brain functions, using electrical type impulses along pathways in the brain. They've also discovered that the old theory of repetition is what creates our auto responses to individual factors. What they've discovered is while repetition certainly has its place, there is now evidence that by altering pathways in a human brain that person can be made to respond in totally opposite ways.
I also didn't state that the brain had anything to do with it. I said I believe the idea is simply a matter of the human mind being able to gather the energy necessary. I did not say what type of energy. I don't know what type of energy could be used. Everything I said was conjecture on possibilities. I did not state anything as fact, other than there are new discoveries presenting new possibilities. What is considered possible is simply a matter of vision.
One of the biggest discoveries in relation to what I'm saying is the discovery regarding the need for an observer, in order for a reality to come into play. “Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics reveals the Universe to be a single gigantic field of energy in which matter is just a 'slowed down' form of energy. Further, Quantum Physics has discovered that matter/energy does not exist with any certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. (i.e. the 'Uncertainty Principle') Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe – a concept known as 'The Observer Effect' – implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness, (i.e. the Mind of God).”
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/sci … uantum.htm
Many who believe in a collective conciousness, where all our conscious thoughts are gathered together and act as one great organism, could also be the observer spoken of here. So if conscious thought acts as an observer, and conscious thought had a belief in say, the endurance of the spirit after physical death, then it stands to reason their belief would become their reality.
“The recent findings of Quantum Physics (especially Dr Bohm's work) about the universe being made up of an "interconnected unbroken wholeness", examples of Non-Locality phenomena (Bells Theorem) and the 'Observer Effect' implying that consciousness underlies all reality, has striking parallels with the ancient Esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of an infinite Singularity (creative principle) which I personally choose to call Source, and most others call God. However, none of this is surprising to those who have experienced the 'Oneness' associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state.” - from the same site as the link above.
My point is that all things are possible. Simply because we don't understand the science doesn't make it not so. History has repeatedly shown us the error of our ways, in that we make a discovery which seems to explain a phenomenon and then we base all other advances on that one discovery. We falsely believe it is the only way to explain the phenomenon simply because that is all the information we may have in our possession. All good scientists know that scientific fact is only fact until the next theory comes along to disprove it. It is an ever evolving field of study. Closing one's mind to any potential possibility isn't scientific at all. If all scientists did such things, we'd still believe the sun revolved around the Earth.
You really need to take a second look at your last statement. Do you really believe that no new advances in science will ever again change the way we look at our world and the universe? Do you really believe we've learned all there is to learn about the nature of that universe?
This link discusses why energy in some form is very important to both classical physics and quantum physics. http://www.theisticscience.org/talks/qps1/
And if those links aren't enough to at least make you think, perhaps you'd like to listen to what Jeffrey Satinover has to say about it. He is a former William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He is a teaching fellow in physics, Yale University, member of Yale Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics group. He researches supersymmetric many-body theory as applied to quantum computation, and is the author of five books including “The Quantum Brain.”
It's not my theory.
None of those theories supports supernatural or telekinesis claims.
Yes, they do. In fact, quantum field theory of electromagnetic radiation prohibits ghosts and other nonsensical assertions.
Sorry, but they aren't related in the least or by any stretch of the imagination.
None of the "diverse beliefs" are supported by any sciences whatsoever.
But, the brain cannot harness the wind or energy to move objects.
Yes, I know you believe that. It's pure bunk, though.
Yes, I read that and some other articles by Paterson on evolution and thermodynamics. He has no idea what he's talking about and fallaciously invokes those concepts into his nonsense.
Yes, it is their belief, most likely from ignorance.
A worthless site. Arguments for ignorance are the most common of fallacies there.
No, they aren't, you can't walk off a cliff and expect not to fall to the ground.
Please just speak for yourself, thanks.
That is patently false. Even Newtons theories on gravity are still used today despite the fact relativity is far more precise and corrects Newton.
Another fallacious tactic. Have you opened your mind to walking off that cliff and hope there is a "potential possibility" you won't fall to your death?
No, we haven't, but we have learned a great deal more than you assert and none of it supports your claims. What you refer to is wishful thinking.
Hilarious site, very funny stuff there. Pure bunk, but funny, nonetheless. Also, notice the name, "THEISTICscience" as if there ever was such a thing.
Actually, they made me laugh histerically.
Yes, and his religious convictions are shown in his book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" where he claims that "homosexuality is a changeable, non-innate condition, though not a matter of choice" as well as "Cracking the Bible Code"
Your theory, their theory, THE theory in question ...there is not enough documented evidence one way or the other to determine the truth of it. It is still only one theory about what's going on and the implications. Some of the problems with quantum theory is that nothing seems to behave or respond as would be expected. There appears to be some randomness that still needs to be explained. As I said, there's still way too much that isn't known. Otherwise, feel free to put a link to your information. I truly would love to read it. I have no objections to learning new insights.
You obviously do not retain what you read, or you choose to ignore it in support of your own agenda.
“I did not say the brain can harness the wind, etc. I said those forms of energy have been known to provide enough force to move an object. For example, a gust of wind comes along and blows your paper plate off the table...”
That's a direct quote from my preceding response.
There was nothing said about the human brain harnessing that kind of energy. Insisting on using your twisted version of the statement implies that you're grasping at straws. Let's stick to the actual statements that were made.
I'm not sure as to what you're referring with your “So what?” It's sort of like an orphan hanging out there. What's it referring to?
You make statements that ridicule the findings and/or ideas of learned men who have made the study of physics their lifetime careers. I'm more likely to place credence in the words of an "expert" than just the opinions of an avatar. Can I ask what your qualifications might be? Do YOU have a Ph.D, or even an MD in the area of physics? If not, can you give me your sources so that I might look them up for myself? I'd really like to read them. I make a point of checking out any and all information relating to a topic of interest as I am made aware of it. Please feel free. I really mean it.
In fact, why don't you write a hub about your views, and what research and education led you to your beliefs? I noticed you only have 2 after being a member for 15 months. Is that because you spend all your time putting down others' ideas? Don't you have any of your own you can write into a well thought out article? Please, I will be the very first to read it. Promise!
As for walking off a cliff, you're just being silly. You and I both know there's the factor of gravity to contend with, so I certainly do know that I will probably drop like a ton, (depending on the distance, of course). However, what I don't know is whether technology will ever find a way to design an anti-gravity suit that I can wear. That would be cool. Might take that walk, then.
Why would you even cite someone's religious convictions? You don't believe in the existence of anything of a supernatural state or power. If God doesn't exist, then there's no point in making note of someone's convictions. I'm not really sure why you equated homosexuality with religion, to begin with. What does one have to do with the other? And I gotta tell ya...I'm not homosexual so I really can't begin to enter into a discussion about it. I don't have any experience with it, don't know if it's a choice or not. But if you have some experience you feel you should share to enlighten me with, I'm all ears.
Yes, there is, plenty of evidence of how the brain works, which isn't even remotely close to being able to move objects. One would have to ignore biology completely to believe in telekinesis.
Telekinesis is not a theory, by definition.
Yes, believers in such things always use that as a cop out, however they are referring indirectly to their own ignorance.
Okay, we'll do it your way, then. Please explain exactly how the brain moves objects? By what mechanism? What physical characteristics or properties does the brain possess that it can function that way?
What? Are you joking? Physics refutes your claims, completely. One can then turn to biology to further refute your claims.
You're free to focus on me rather than forming an argument, but that's just a logical fallacy.
Funny how you agree with one physical law of nature but you appear to ignore others.
And, whether or not an anti-gravity suit will be designed some day, it will be the suit that does the work and not the brain keeping you floating in space.
But, if your claims regarding Telekinesis were true, what would you need the suit for, you could just use your brain to keep you floating in space, yes?
Simple, it is often those who have been religiously indoctrinated who believe in such things as Telekinesis. They simply have lost the capacity to think and accept irrational beliefs without question.
Ok, I'll do this one more time with you, since you seem to have trouble either understanding what you read, or retaining what you read. I did NOT say I believe telekinesis is able to be performed, at this time. I DID say that I believe the possibility exists for it to become a reality, as human beings continue to discover the world within which we exist...that includes the universe. The key word being POSSIBILITY. If you don't understand the meaning of the word, there are many online dictionaries...
I did NOT relate to the term "telekinesis" as a theory. I said the reasons you have stated for it not being BELIEVABLE is a theory. It is a theory that is LIKELY by the information and knowledge that we currently possess. However, it is a theory, nonetheless. Theories can not negate possibilities. They only reflect what knowledge and understanding is to be had at this very moment in time.
Once again, you've made an orphan statement...What the heck are you talking about? Believers resort to what?
Again, believing that just about anything is POSSIBLE given the right knowledge and know-how, is far different than believing it is a fact. Your argument about "Believers" is therefore, null and void, in relation to my statements.
One final time....what we know at this time, what we understand about our world, our physical bodies, and our environment, AT THIS TIME, would seem to refute claims of ability. There is no way to know what the future will hold, as there is no way to ascertain the future, so the possibility most certainly DOES exist.
I have repeatedly asked from where you've gotten your information. I've asked to be pointed to your sources in order for me to read it and learn it for myself. You don't seem capable of passing that information on. I would have to assume then, that you don't really have documented sources. You are working off of your own OPINION, which is far removed from documented FACT. Stop wasting our time with undocumented opinions. Simply provide your sources if you want to be convincing.
My ex-husband's father-in-law, holds a doctorate in physics. I also made a call to another scientist of my acquaintance, asking him if I was missing something in my understanding of what's been going on with quantum physics. Here's his answer:
"Anyone who claims to have an understanding of the full implications presented by discoveries in quantum theory and/or quantum mechanics, has absolutely NO understanding of the subject at all. To make solid statements about the nature of them, is a sure indication that the speaker is talking out his/her egotist butt. The very people doing the studying of quantum physics (physicists) don't understand the subject enough to make declarative statements about what can or can not take place in our world as a result of their discoveries. The only thing certain is that uncertainty abounds."
In addition, he said that physics operates more on a macro level, but quantum physics addresses the micro level. That's why Einstein absolutely hated quantum mechanics...they seemed to negate so many of the accepted theories provided through physics.
You want to speak about physics and biology. Here's a story for you then. My father died suddenly of a heart attack when I was only 9 years old. We discovered it was entirely genetic, requiring that I and my three brothers all be checked for this genetic defect. My brother, older than me by 13 months, had just undergone a surgical procedure to correct the problem found with his heart. At that time, I was 13, he was 14.
One day, right after he had returned to school, the school bully decided he wanted to pick a fight with my brother, knowing that he could not possibly put up a defense or he would risk serious injury to himself. My fear of losing another family member was so great, coupled with my anger over the actions of the bully, that I never stopped to think about consequences. I grabbed the bully by the front of his shirt, lifting him in the air, slammed him into a wall and proceeded to hold him there with his feet off the ground, while I informed him of exactly what I would do to him if he ever laid a hand on one of my family again.
I was a very tiny girl, weighing in at 98 lbs., and only 5'2" tall. Larry, the bully, was 5'11" tall, weighed 190 lbs, and was a football linebacker. I should never have been capable of doing what I did, biologically speaking. It defied logic. EXCEPT for the adrenalin factor.
My fear was so great, (emotions produced in the brain) that my brain sent signals for the release of massive amounts of adrenalin, which in turn made it possible for me to lift someone almost twice my size. I didn't think about doing it. I just reacted to the situation.
Now, while this is NOT an example of telekinesis...I'll repeat...NOT an example, it underscores what I've been saying. All things are possible given the right knowledge and environment. Are all things likely? NOPE. Are they possible......you bet your sweet ass.
You asked me if I were considering walking off a cliff. I already told you that was silly because, since I never said I was capable of telekinesis, gravity would have its way with me. Please, do try to stay focused when you are reading responses to your unfounded statements.
And finally, your last statement is so transparently opinionated that we can see right through it. Do you ever really exercise logic? The word "often" is not interchangeable with the word "always", therefore, you are only assuming that the scientists I linked to, are indoctrinated in a religious belief. I'd like to see the study that has come to such a conclusion. Are such scientists more likely to come to esoteric type conclusions? Possibly. Are all scientists who have a religious background going to do so? NOT likely.
And I doubt whether you are capable of understanding the lack of logic you are applying to your last sentence. Just because someone has a belief, that by your standards, seems out of the realm of acceptable, doe not an irrational person make. What's rational or irrational is all a matter of opinion, unless we are dealing with absolutes. Esoteric ideas can not be proven or disproven....there are no absolutes......as of yet.
So, what your claiming is that someday our brains will change dramatically and begin functioning such that it can move objects? An evolution into magic?
It would appear you really don't understand the concept of a theory.
Sure, and pigs will sprout wings and fly someday, too. That is the essence of your claim.
Sources to what? Physics 101? Are you asking I teach you several years worth of physics here on these forums?
My ex-husband's father-in-law, holds a doctorate in physics. I also made a call to another scientist of my acquaintance, asking him if I was missing something in my understanding of what's been going on with quantum physics. Here's his answer:
That's all very nice, did you learn something from it?
It doesn't defy logic at all, there are many cases of such incidents occurring due to adrenalin. How does that support telekinesis?
Nope, that is a strawman argument. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Unfounded? Yes, gravity would have it's way because that's how gravity works. Same with the brain, it functions a certain way that does not allow one to move objects with it.
Sorry, but I saw no scientists in the links you provided.
Sorry again, but the rational does not rely on opinions, it relies on hard evidence of which there is zilch for "esoteric ideas."
Yes, esoteric ideas can be shown to be false.
You know darn well that what I've “claimed” isn't anything as concrete as the block sitting between your two ears. Everything said has been in terms of possibilities and conjecture. I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. That would be you.
I doubt that our brains will change very much in the near future. However, that IS what evolution is all about. If we believe the theory of evolution as has been put forth, then, yeah, our brains will do some changing. As to their function? I don't know. But hey, you seem to believe you have powers to see the future! You tell me...Oh wait, you don't believe in that stuff, right. Gosh.....you're sort of a human oxymoron, aren't you? You ARE human, yes?
Definition of theory: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation.
The key word is propositions, which are only SUGGESTIONS to be considered for acceptance.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural
The key word here is conjectural, which means it is of a judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; GUESSWORK.
A test will be given on Monday. Please memorize these definitions if you hope to get a passing grade.
As for the pigs....well, I don't know. I suppose since evolution theory proposes that we've all come out of some puddle as a single cell, and have eventually evolved into the many different species...they might sprout wings and fly someday, maybe a million years or so from now. But I don't know how that happens. I wasn't around to watch how the birds came to be. How about you?
I referred to the many solid statements you've issued during the course of this forum, when I asked about sources. Surely, you can point us poor, unintelligent pea brains in the direction of one of them? There must be something you've read or studied that supports your beliefs? And no, I am not asking you to teach me anything. I much prefer to do my own reading, thank you very much.
But are you implying you've studied physics for several years? I mean, I did ask you for your credentials. I asked if you had a degree in physics. I was sincere in my request for you to point me to solid, scientific sources that I might read for myself. You only attempted to ridicule my request. When my children evade answering the question, it's because they don't have a valid answer. How about you? Do you dance around the issues, muddying the waters in an effort to mask your lack of educated reasoning?
You asked me if I learned anything from the father-in-law and my scientist acquaintance. The question is, did YOU learn anything. The statement I quoted simply underscored my contention that with what little is known about physics, anything is possible at this point. Something you keep refuting. Therefore, reasoning says you aren't interested in the truth. You're interested in sounding off. What an utter waste of time and energy.
Do you WANT adrenalin to support a theory of telekinesis? I don't know where you made that connection. The story was related due to the assumption on your part that the brain functions a certain way that has been proven through scientific study. You ascertain that ALL is known about the human brain and its functions. I believe we don't know all there is to know, or scientists wouldn't keep studying it. Kind of redundant, don't you think, to study something that has already given up all its mysteries????
"Although well-documented when they do occur, feats of hysterical strength -- unnatural and amazing strength tapped during high-stress situations -- are not recognized by medical science. This is largely due to the problem of gathering evidence: Instances like these come about without warning, and to reproduce these situations in a clinical setting would be unethical and dangerous." quote - Discovery Health
The above quote pretty much states that while plenty of people have seen such amazing feats, medical scientists don't recognize them as being true, for purposes of scientific documentation. Kind of like all the other things that people have claimed to see, do, etc..but aren't recognized simply because no one knows how to go about duplicating them.
Not hardly apples to oranges, considering you commented about the brain's function capabilities.
Definition of scientific logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.
Well, gee! I guess my story certainly does defy logic in the scientific sense, since there has been no ability to gather evidence to support the criteria required, scientifically speaking.
Your unfounded statement had to do with the smokescreens you habitually put up in an effort to confuse the issues. It was reference to you implying something was said, when you know full well, it wasn't. You and I both know it, as well as everyone else reading this exchange. There was never a question of gravity, as well as no claim of telekinesis.
No scientists in the links...what pray tell is Jeffrey Satinover? I believe his credentials are psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and physicist. His research in the area of physics was in quantum theory and its application to quantum information processing and computation. You made note of the fact that he has also lectured on Psychology and Religion at Harvard University, literally stating that his understanding of theology makes him less capable of being objective. Do you truly think you're more qualified to determine his abilities than those esteemed learning institutions which pay him to teach?
And you are correct in saying that there is no hard evidence by scientific standards on which to conclude that any esoteric ideas are a true phenomenon. That might be why there are now so many studies being funded for attempting to search for evidence.
Yes, as are you, with pretty much the same functioning brain as anyone else. Hence, you aren't talking about possibilities, you are talking about magic and fantasy.
No, the key words in there are "explanation" of which you nor anyone else has ever offered. All you provide is wishful thinking based on fantasy. That is not a theory.
Beliefs? Sorry, but you are the one providing fantastic and extraordinary beliefs while I'm holding on to an understanding of the world around us. Huge difference.
Focusing on me does nothing for your argument, it just shows you have little to offer.
You mean like how one would ask someone to explain exactly how telekinesis would work and all they do is evade to asking about ones credentials? Yeah, I can see that.
So, now you put words in my mouth? I never said we knew all there is to know about the brain, I just said the brain does not function to the expectations of magic and fantasy.
It applies when magic and fantasy are invoked to support an argument, which is exactly what you're doing.
You are incorrect. There are plenty of explanations regarding adrenalin, the hypothalamus and how those events can occur due to the contraction of muscles. In fact, that is exactly what happens when someone is thrown a distance due to electrical shock, which isn't due to the electrical shock but instead the contraction of muscles, and just like one can't throw themselves the same distances by any stretch, they also can't lift cars whenever they want. All this is explained with science, if you cared to find out.
Again, you focus on credentials. There are plenty of cases of physicists who have provided some great research only later to go insanely bonkers and provide pure nonsensical garbage, which has absolutely nothing to do with their credentials.
Again, qualifications and credentials seem to be your supporting argument. Satinover's book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth is widely debated and criticized due to his religious beliefs, which would put him in the category of bonkers with that one.
Does Satinover explain how quantum field theory will show how telekinesis works or is he just speculating based on his religious beliefs? It would appear to be the latter, which means he is no longer being scientific about it.
Of course there isn't, it's magic and fantasy.
Yeah, I get that. So many scientists who are trying to get funding to research non-magical and non-fantasy studies are quite upset with the wackos, cranks and crackpots who are trying to get that funding to support their ridiculous notions. The problem is that they get the funding because of folks who are in control of the purse-strings are deluded enough to believe them.
They too attempt to argue magic and fantasy dressed up as science.
1st, let's get clear on something: You and I certainly do NOT necessarily have the same type of brain functions. There are too many incidents of scientific studies ending with preliminary evidence strongly suggesting the differences in some brain structure and brain activations between any number of groups or individuals. These studies, while instigated in efforts to understand what takes place in the brains of certain groups who may exhibit behavior tendencies out of the range of normal, or those who are suffering an illness, etc, are providing a disturbing pattern of what we might consider abnormal. It appears that our idea of what's normal, may not be so normal as more and more people are diagnosed with various conditions attributed to differences in brain functionality, as we have labeled normal.
It's beginning to look like what we may consider normal or abnormal is really just a long list of differences in how the human brain may function. The question to be answered is why? Why does that happen? There is no question that it does indeed happen as there are too, too many documented cases of the differences, which, I might add, have actually been viewed via imaging equipment.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/05/02 … 25792.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -boy-brain
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/ … 7256.story
http://people.ee.duke.edu/~jshorey/MRIH … olent.html
Your supposition that the human brain always functions in the same way is null and void. While we know what individual areas of the brain control certain motor and speech skills, there are also cases where children born with deformed brains have managed to reroute what has been accepted as the normal function pathways, and learned to do things not believed conceivable with the extent of the deformations. There are documented cases of injured folks rerouting brain processes to afford them the ability to relearn speaking and walking, etc.
I must thank you for mentioning the idea of magic. I truly hadn't thought of it before, but I guess it sort of does raise a question of magic when we consider our known present limitations. Ancient and primitive peoples have always deemed that which they didn't understand as magic, as do uneducated folks. I suppose the idea of the brain evolving into anything beyond the limits of your present understanding might scare you, especially if you equate it to magic, since just the word has always evoked fear in primitives.
I also wish to thank you for referring to me as having wishful thinking based on fantasy. That's actually a great compliment. Studies have shown that such people have the imagination necessary to achieve more than their counterparts, as those with imagination and creativity are able to see a bigger picture. We're the ones who make the discoveries because we're the ones willing to believe in their possibilities. The rest of you dull folks so stuck in your ruts, tend to plod along on the same well worn path, never really moving ahead, just remaining static. I imagine it must feel much like having a permanent wedgie. That would just suck!
"Nothing limits achievement like small thinking; nothing expands possibilities like unleashed imagination." – William Arthur Ward
You say you're holding on to an understanding of the world around us. Hmmmm....... Albert Einstein once quipped, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Yes, there is much information related to adrenalin and the adrenal glands. Yes, scientific evidence has shown the process by which adrenalin affects muscles and strength. However, there is absolutely NO documented evidence on exactly what happens to afford someone the strength to lift a car or any other massive, heavy object. There has been no way to measure the amounts of adrenalin released. There is no way to measure the effects of the adrenalin on other organs of the body, no way to know if another chemical release is occurring that may serve as a protection against heart attack, etc.
The why and how of adrenalin in relation to low levels of stress, fear, and anger can not be applied to other situations simply by assumption. It's a logical assumption, but does not follow scientific criteria for validation as there is no supporting documented evidence of large objects being lifted because of large surges of adrenalin.
Because a written work is debated or criticized, doesn't mean the writer is “bonkers”. It means he has detractors for whatever reason, though not everyone is his detractor. If he managed to get the attention of his peers enough for them to read his work, debate it in public, bet he made a lot of money off of his endeavors, and he certainly gained attention and stirred people to think. Perhaps that was his goal...or do you have a personal inside track on his intentions?
About the money...you're just downright silly. Money is tight for everyone. The economy is bad. There are major businesses who don't have anything to do with science or philosophy, etc..who are having difficulty getting backers for their research projects. Those who grant money and fund research of any kind, regardless of whether it's scientific or not, do it for many reasons. You can best believe, most investors are looking at the payback to be expected. The few who fund research for altruistic reasons, are few and far between. Bottom line? If research money is tight for the so-called “non-magical and non-fantasy studies”, it certainly isn't because all the “wackos, cranks and crackpots” are getting all the money. And if they are getting all the funding, it must because the end result will produce a pile of money for the investors.
Credentials are one way to measure credibility. You can provide none, therefore, you have no credibility. Taking random words put up on a computer screen as truth, without any way to verify supposed facts in statements, to verify a sound basis for judgments made, is tantamount to accepting the fantasy that is YOU. I mean, after all, according to your personal criteria, I shouldn't believe you even exist. I have not seen you. I have not heard you. I can not touch you. There is no one credible witness to validate your existence. Therefore, you don't exist and responding to my fantastical imagination through continued dialogue would indeed be bonkers. There is no way to duplicate you, not that I would ever want to do so, but that too, would be an indication that you don't exist.
And since you don't exist, I'm going to stop talking to myself about a subject that I've already discussed with myself too many times.
LOL! wow, you really are grasping at straws, now.
So, do I possess a cerebral cortex and you don't? Do you possess neurons and synapses and I don't? Maybe, you have three hypocampus while I have one? Hilarious.
Just because our brains may have some defects due to damage or some other reason does not mean each of those things does not function as it is supposed to function.
So what? How does that support the magical fantasy of moving objects with the brain?
Yes, I can see that.
LOL! Wishful thinking based on fantasy is delusion. Using ones imagination to form ideas about reality is something completely different, but I don't suspect you would know the difference based on your response.
Yes, there is if you took the time to find out.
Again, take the time to find out before making such claims.
Take the time to find out.
Not at all, I could care less of his intentions. If his work is peered reviewed and it is agreed it is obviously nonsense based on religious beliefs, what more do you need?
Yes, I can understand if you've never been in the position of getting funding for research, you wouldn't have a clue about it.
Wow! That statement is pure ignorance. Obviously, Einstein had no credibility whatsoever when he came up with relativity while working as patent clerk. Hilarious.
All of your responses to Beelz, could be "hubs!" :
Beelz is being entertained at the expense of all who don't understand his purpose!
Beelz is an interesting person who plays the "devils advocate" to gode a responder into getting trapped in his web of verbal "guile."
Personally? I enjoy both of your "tits-for-tats" encounters!
Perform! PLS! : Encore, encore! :
Yes, I'm aware he's being entertained, as am I. I enjoy sharpening my wits with those who can keep up. It's fun. It makes people think. It really isn't about who's right or wrong. My best friend and I can't wait to read his replies. Forming my responses has really provided me with hours of fun. I really do wish he would also put some of his thoughts into some hubs. I would be one of the first to read them.
Also, I don't think people stop to examine why they believe, think, respond the way they do, often enough. These kinds of exhanges give us that opportunity. I absolutely love it! But I'm not sure there is much more to be gained on this particular forum. We'll have to come up with another topic that will bring Beelz out to play again.
Then, it would you appear you too don't understand the reason for discussion and debate. If I were playing the devils advocate, I would be disagreeing with everyone here, despite what they said.
Terri, I get filled with pride and enthusiasm whenever I see you defend yourself. It's great to read, and I love the joke about "a test being given on Monday." hilarious.
you know, I get the feeling that he's not having as much fun as I am. He seems to be getting a mite angry, what with only being able to fling words like magic and fantasy and bonkers...about as though they have anything to do with it. I probably shouldn't goad him into continuing his harangue. It can't be good for his heart. I think our little feaux-Einstein is becoming near apoplectic. Should I or shouldn't I respond? It might have to wait until tomorrow, though.
I'm so glad I can provide entertainment to you. It makes everything worthwhile!
Oh yes, so terribly angry I am falling on the floor in laughter.
That's all you seem to be offering. What else can I say when that is what I observe.
It most certainly is hilarious entertainment. I thank you, too.
No, now way, or we would know about it.
There would be experiment results and peer published articles.
To be a fact there has to be proper controls and repeatability.
(There's always a however isnt there?)
There are a lot of reports that make me wonder.
Like Nina Kulagina the Russian woman that claimed psychic powers and Felicia Parise who was allegedly inspired by Nina.
The reason I think their claims are better is because both of them said that the feats took a huge physical toll on them that could be measured.
Irregular heartbeat, rises in their blood sugar, pains in their extremities, dizziness, something was wearing them out.
And though they both did their feats under scientific guidelines, the rules weren't enforced tightly enough.
In Nina's case it was because she was in Russia, and a lot of people looked at it as Cold War propaganda.
By the way, I have read many times that James Randi's "tests" are weighted towards making the subject fail.
Scientific study should be neutral.
I think Randi wants everyone to fail because if just one person beats the test...his whole theory is shot straight to hell.
But hey, if I could flip a half ton pick-up at 100 paces with just a glance, there would be nothing he could weight to stop me right?
I would just pin him to the wall with my mind and ask him where my millions bucks was.
Then the Black Ops team would swoop in, trank me and take me to that little facility out in the desert where I would never be heard from again.
So I go back to the beginning.
Nice, some research facts and a creative scenario thrown in there. I knew you would not disappoint. I wonder if TK is possible how much of a toll it would actually take on the persons body. An ability that powerful would mentally and physically put a lot of strain on the person, just like the two women you were referring to. To lift Randi up and ask him for that money might drain you, and while your laying there in a weakened state he would be off with your reward. And then yes you would be taken to you know where but you would be heard from again, you just won't have anything to say when you return.
Sorry, but that is patently false. Randi's experiments follow the double-blind rule, which is what is required when conducting such experiments. That's about it.
People fail because they can't do what they claim to do. Simple as that.
I used the term "weighted".
I have seen several places where they used the term "rigged".
When both Dennis Rawlins and Ray Hyman of CSICOP are skeptical of his methods, it makes you wonder.
"One of the things going against the challenge is that it’s hard to apply and to get to the part where you actually have to prove something. In the review of the FAQ Prescott shows various parts of the challenge that demonstrate the nature of the prize offer, where some claims are not even considered because they are being pre-decided as being false claims."
http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/163 … lenge.html
"First of all, there is no doubt that Randi has used his alleged offer – over a period of many years – to generate enormous publicity for himself and his cult of debunkers.
Second of all, Randi’s offer sets himself up as judge and jury. And, of course, he has not the slightest interest in losing the very game that he has created. A true prize would have an independent panel of neutral judges – and these judges, not Randi, should be in control of prize money, to determine if and when it shall be released. "
http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/163 … lenge.html
"Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi's challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test ... Proof in science happens through replication." If Randi's challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn't judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn't seem likely. His "challenge" is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist."
"First of all, the challenge is meaningless by scientific standards. It’s not a study and it can’t be replicated. It’s a one off. As it is entirely controlled by one person who has no scientific experience, is known to have strong views and has published no scientific peer reviewed papers on the subject, The challenge carries no scientific weight whatsoever."
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/rand … challenge/
"CSICOP founding member Dennis Rawlins pointed out that not only does Randi act as "policeman, judge and jury" but quoted him as saying "I always have an out"! (Fate, October 1981)."
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ … index.html
It is my professional view that the existing offer by J. Randi (hereinafter called the offeror) is impossible to win. Underneath the facade of a legitimate offer no gifted psychic has a chance of being successful.
Look at my Supergirl sinking her teeth into the ones that dare to disrespect her knowledge! Go get em Sabre!
Yes, there are plenty of claims against Randi, who has dealt with each claim himself on his website. Feel free to peruse them.
Of course, it should be a very simple matter for anyone to prove they can move objects with their minds by just doing it. Either they can or they cannot. Simple, really.
Yep, like I said earlier, if you can flip a Buick over just by looking at it, you can weight the tests all you want and it won't matter.
The fact is, no one has demonstrated TK ability that cannot be copied by sleight of hand or other tricks.
Even of all thing were possible, some are so improbable as to ever have been scientifically observed despite some pretty serious efforts to do so for over a hundred years.
It is impossible to know what strain it would cause without some plausible mechanism for doing it at all.
Every para-psychologists don't take macro-telekinesis seriously. At most the go for micro setting like effecting a random number generator.
You are reinventing dualism? I hope you come up for a better explanation for it than Descartes did.
LOL, very interesting observation Psycheskinner and I love the last comment with the Descartes comment, it made me immediately smirk and chuckle. We must take all of our philosophical forefathers theories into account when questioning our existence. After all, without them we may have never had the opportunity to be in a forum like this, discussing things like this?
The brain uses chemical and electrical charge to communicate with the body. It doesn't effect 'the wind'. It's own electrical field is too tiny to effect anything of significance.
Try this at home:
1. Lay flat on your back with both arms pinned to each side and close your eyes.
2. Place your left hand on your left thigh and your right hand on your right thigh.
3. Using only your mind (not your brain) try to telepathically move your left hand off of your left thigh. Remember as you said, "The brain uses chemical and electrical charge to communicate with the body." You should not be attempting to use your brain to send a chemical or electrical signal to your hand, you should be attempting to move your hand similar to the way you would attempt to levitate from the ground.
4. After awhile you will notice that you cannot move your left hand telepathically, at this point I want you to move your left hand the way you normally would, by sending that signal from your brain to your hand.
You will notice that you cannot move your hand the way you normally would until you have fully exited the realm of your mind. In other words it will take you awhile to move your hand even though you want to. Does this not prove a separation between the mind and the brain? If so I may have just broken some new ground.
Um, you are saying that because you can only move your hand the normal way, and not telekinetically, the mind is separate from the brain.
See, you have to assume you were ever 'in the world of the mind' to gather the fact that allows you to conclude there *is* a 'world of the mind'. That is extremely bogus and proves only in unfamiliarity the rules of logic.
...who dares disturb my slumber? jeje
Descartes to Plato "Am I deceived to know three and five is eight? If so, whether awake or dreaming, my mind deceives me. Woe to me, then, for no truth exists in my thoughts for the good of it. They are futile by their very existence."
Plato to Descartes "If you are simply pleased to know, then knowing is as far as you can progress. Alas, the true nature you question is absent to the thoughts in you --conscious or subconscious. They are not as futile as you pretend to envision them, for their purpose is not to understand but to do. That is why in doing, you presume of three and five is eight. you presume the objects inferior, immovable, mute and subject to scrutiny. You cannot bend an arc with your hands, yet you can in your imagination. The object has not changed, you have."
Socrates to Plato "You indulge his reason to have him see the truth? How can one escape their thinking or dismiss their dreams in the manner you suggest? Mans power rests in his mind and he projects his thoughts as they come. Knowledge is both ration and madness, novice and supreme. My donkey continues to kick me as it does you. I know only how ignorant I am, even though I think and that thinking believes me more knowing."
Plato to Socrates: "Stop whining or I'll have him rip your robes off. You're used to that, yes?"
The mind does not project energy.
Awareness is beta. dreams are Theta-Delta. (And Alpha-Mu is great with vanilla ice cream). It is a very fast level of frequency @ about 20Hz. It is believed the human bodies electric field comes in at around 250-400Hz. The body does not react to magnetic fields, but nearly all magnetic fields react to the body --based on the water content within. Since the brain is mostly sugar-solid, the ability for a frequency to 'escape' is quite close to zero. Yet, touch another person after scrunching across a carpet and see the arc of electricity flow.
And for those would consider it: Remember, your blood is key to understanding how the circuit works-- how the energy of the spirit connects to the body, via the portal of the mind, your ears and your breath.
Twenty One Days (James),
Check out my experiment which is posted as a reply to psycheskinner above your post. Let me know what you think of it. I definitely need your opinion on this one.
Simply said: telepathy --as a general idea-- is the brains memory core making something happen, like moving your arm in the experiment. Without cognition, the body cannot be reactive. So, in essence it must become proactive. Can it? That is the root if the question. Can it be done in the mind? I would say yes. BUT! it is limited to the body itself, the individual only.
To me the mind is a simultaneous alpha to theta, aka imagination --which is why we can 'sense and feel' our dreams in some cases, even daydream. These frequencies become so powerful they effect the basic central nervous system (increased heart rate, off the chart REM, sweating, body movement --even in some cases involuntary motion (like sleep walking)).
Interesting James, I was thinking cognition also.
Although many of Freud's theories are mocked today I still think of him as one of the greatest philosophical minds of our time.
Freud: "Dreams are a window into our unconscious."
He may have been onto something here. I believe our own minds and bodies are actually the keys we need to open the doors of the "unknown." If we can learn how to fully understand and control the unconscious mind, we can probably answer many of the questions that seem to have no solution. I just wonder if our species will exist long enough for us to find out.
If the ability is gross mental telepathy, the ability to life a weight at will using the mind alone, a single occasion would in fact be the very simplest way to show you could do it. just like I could show you my ability to lift an object with me hand. I either can, or I can't.
I am not sure how dream reflecting our unconscious relates to the idea that I might be able to make an apple float across the room just by willing it to. Freud certainly never thought that.
Although he did think cocaine was a risk-free aphrodisiac so he wasn't completely infallible.
I never said that Freud believed in TK, I said that he was onto something when he said that, "Dreams are a window into our unconscious."
I was simply using his theory to help you understand mine.
REM or Paradoxical Sleep = Sleep that appears to be deep but that is characterized by a brain wave pattern similar to that of wakefulness, rapid eye movements, and heavier breathing.
I believe that the same illogical abilities that we have in our dreams can possibly be channeled into TK or some other kind of elevated mental and physical capabilities, if we can just learn how to fully understand and control the unconscious mind. Have you ever heard of mothers lifting cars to save their kids or the guys who walk over hot coals? What about the guys who break bricks with their hands or the guys who let cars roll over them and then stand up unharmed? Mind over matter, ever heard the phrase? People who accomplish these types of feats have all said that their minds gave them the ability to succeed at an otherwise impossible goal.
What lies in between our ears besides our brains? That is the question I ask. Remember now, the phrase is, "mind" over matter not "brain" over matter.
What is illogical about REM sleep? It works out bits of our brain with our motor system turned off. We don't know exactly why but it seem to have something to do with processing memory and learning and research is working away on the subject. Nothing really counter to logic there. We can study people dreaming any night of the week. But I have yet to see a lab for of people teleporting stuff around the room. What is illogical about that is that people think it is possible when there is no reliably recorded cases of it and no mechanism that would allow it to happen.
Every modern convenience we enjoy today began with a dream. Someone saw possibilities where no one else was able, and worked toward achieving that dream. My son-in-law was just laughing the other day about how absurd the Jetsons used to seem when they first aired on TV. It was considered silly and "way out there" to imagine being able to see the person you were talking to over the phone. The idea of Rosy, the robot maid, was just too funny. We can talk over the internet using our webcams to see each other. Robotics has reached a point where they are testing models of artificial legs and arms which respond to the wearer's thoughts. And we've all seen the cheesy 40's movies with space ships that no one thought could ever be a reality.
Today's impossibilities will be tomorrow's realities.
For every dream that came true there were 1000 delusions that did not. Thus accepting everything imaginable as having equal merit means you will most accept the validity of things that are and always have been nonsense.
I would much rather allow 1000 delusions than risk missing out on the one that becomes. Besides, what harm is there in allowing people their dreams? so long as their dreams cause no harm to another individual, who are we to take away their happiness? Besides, what's nonsense is determined by the viewer. I neither accept nor reject, but merely observe those things of which I don't have enough concrete information.
also, validity and possibility are two entirely different matters
"Besides...Besides..." Geez, was I just a little redundant? Thank you tHErEDpiLL. I so much prefer a world populated with people full of hope and vision, rather than misery and contempt. I've found that those with dreams are the ones most likely to "Live and let live".
"also, validity and possibility are two entirely different matters"
Excatly, I don't think she is paying attention. Either that or she's just seeing what she wants to see.
So you are just going to take the side of opposition against the correlation between dreams and reality. Most likely with out Martin Luther King Jr.'s "dream" we would have never had our first black president, no matter if he is a puppet being controlled by the people who got him into office, it is a start. Do not taking an opposing side to a theory or idea simply in order to attempt stumping another persons observations without admitting the logic in their observations.
You said: For every dream that came true there were 1000 delusions that did not. Thus accepting everything imaginable as having equal merit means you will most accept the validity of things that are and always have been nonsense.
Please tell me who said that we should accept everything imaginable? please copy and paste onto your reply and shut me up by letting me know when I said that. Otherwise stop altering peoples words to make it seem like they are not making any sense. I have witnessed you agree with me while at the same time pathetically double talking in an attempt to some how make at seem like you are not agreeing with me. Is this your ego at work? Do you have to be the one who comes up with these observations, no one else can? I respect real philosophers, not charlatans that attempt to fool the general public into thinking that they are wise by way of distraction. I may be wrong but that is what I am getting from your responses, and trust me I am really good at seeing through BS.
I personally don't mind if a person is gloomy or cheery, you just have to get your point across. Don't tell me the sky is falling all the time if you don't have hard proof, and don't tell me that the sun will come out tomorrow if you don't have any proof. You stood up for your point of view she did not. She simply tried conform replies into useful tools that could help her attempt to prove a point that has no edge.
I should have made my statement a little different...I've noticed that people who are full of hope and dreams tend to be more open to lively discussions, even if they are in opposition to specifics. You know the old saying..."Misery loves company." Have a great day!
There is a difference about dreaming that we might have a black president, and then voting for him--and dreaming that the President is actually a reptoid and expecting anyone to believe you.
If you think that not believing in telekinesis until I see it means I am devoid of dreams and miserable you have a very closed mind full of unfair stereotypes.
not said at all. I was responding to tHErEDpILL's comment about cheery or gloomy. I stand by my statement:
"I've noticed that people who are full of hope and dreams tend to be more open to lively discussions, even if they are in opposition to specifics."
It's a personal observation about tendencies. I did not specifically say anything about you or anyone else on this board. Let's face it. When people engage in fun, lively exchanges it's enjoyable. They don't have to agree. They just need to use the forums for that which they are designed...discussions.
What I have observed, without getting involved, was a tendency for naysayers, irregardless of the topic in question, to simply spout off opinions without having the good graces to point someone toward the sources of their information. If we truly wish to enlighten someone, wouldn't we be showing them where to find the supporting evidence. And if we're not interested in enlightening them, then what's the point of putting their views down, aside from being miserable?
Now, as you said, either someone can move objects with his mind or he can't. Right now, it's a great big NOT, at least as far as I've seen. I simply do not know what the future may hold, and am loathe to try to convince others that I can see into the future by making a definitive statement of which we have no proof.
Telekinesis, having been investigated by mainstream scientists, has been found to be a flight of fancy. Not so much as a sewing needle can be moved without physical interaction. Now, if you are trying to move a mountain, I know where you can pick up some good earth moving equipment.
You said: Telekinesis, having been investigated by mainstream scientists, has been found to be a flight of fancy. Not so much as a sewing needle can be moved without physical interaction.
A long time ago scientist said: "The Earth is flat."
Do you get my point? Do not say that something is a confirmed fact just because scientists said so. Once again I must give you a "confirmed fact" that "for scientists, a fact is something which is assumed to be true, at least for the purposes of whatever they are doing at the moment, but which might be refuted at some point." (about.com or you can ask a scientist yourself, I have).
If this is being said by the same people that you use to make "factual" statements then, you my friend are basically agreeing with me. It seems like TK is impossible now, until we know otherwise. This is different from saying, duh "not so much of a needle can be moved with out physical interaction." Please someone, where is the intelligence in here?
That's pretty funny. I'll repeat myself again...I never said it is something people are definitely able to do. I said I believe in the possibility of all things. Sooner or later, most of what is believed today, will be disproven tomorrow to some extent. That is the nature of continuing to learn and evolve.
What we assume, scientifically speaking, is that null hypothesis. It is easier than assuming everything conceivable jolly well might could be true even though it has never recorded and there is no known mechanism via which it could be happening. On that basis I wish to assert that I own an invisible gryphon and telepathically rule the world.
tHErEDpILL: the above was for Druid Dude. I see you and I are in agreement, once again. I really don't get why people insist on making today's knowledge the end of advancement, when the last 2 decades we've seen an explosion of technology and know-how that has literally made new discoveries obsolete within mere months.
Everyone who is taking the scientific position in this room and saying that TK is not possible because science says so, please reword your answers. Go and look up the definition of "scientific fact." this is different then any other kind of fact that you are use to. I am tired of trying to explain to people who view themselves as intelligent individuals, that scientific fact is basically a theory that has been proven many times but is not a final answer. A "logical" answer would go like this:
Science has shown us that so far up to this point TK is not possible. Until further research is confirmed to refute this "theory" we have to "assume" that it is true! Assume, not know!
Jesus Christ, here are the links, please if you have a brain click on em or look up the words yourself if you don't want to admit I am right, just please I beg of you stop talking out of your backsides. Back up your theories don't just ride the coattails of scientists because you think you're betting on a winner:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … 7tULoifs-g
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … VWcDArTe0g
I would like to think that telekinesis is possible everything has some sort of magnetic force/gravitaional field and humans just need to find a way to manipulate these forces on the surrounding atoms using there minds...but how?...no idea but its a fantastic thought isn't it gives you something to think about.
Most likely not real, notice I said most likely right? I don't know if it is fake. I was not there, and unless you took this picture yourself or were standing next to the person who did, it is logical to say that you don't either. I wonder are you a new member of the skepticism bandwagon or have you been denying things strictly on opinion for years now?
Well, I studied physics at school, I am familiar with gravitation. You simply cannot move things with your thoughts, otherwise we should have had different laws in order. It's all just fantasies and childish really. We are naive and easily brainwashed in a crowd though one on one might be sceptical but not all of us. I know you cannot believe everything you see and hear as any good illusion can trick our perseption into seeng something else. All those tricks had been proven and explained long ago but people still believe in them. Fanny or sad depends how you look at it.
Home Girl you are incorrect.
1. You do not know if "You simply cannot move things with your thoughts." This has never been proven, and most likely can not be proven right now. We do not know enough about our own brains or minds. Even the scientific 'fact' that it is not possible is simply an unconfirmed theory. Look it up if you don't believe me. All scientific facts are merely 'theories' that have supportive evidence to back them up, but they are not a final answer.
2. I don't believe anyone has ever actually done it but, it would be illogical for me to believe that it is not possible, based on the fact that science has not proved without a shadow of a doubt that it is not possible.
3. Do not be closed minded to the fact that there are many things in this world that are unexplained. You can not denounce a theory until it has been proven to be false. The only thing you can do is say if you believe it or not. When you make a statement that an unconfirmed theory is right or wrong you are doing something that science is not even able to do. Do you understand me?
Who makes today's knowledge the end of advancement? We just recognize that it is the (blurry but appreciable) line between what we know and what we merely imagine (right now).
I am current working on my second non-fic book which is in a paranormal subject. And it seems to me that those with the most overtly open minds have the least familiarity with research on the subject. So maybe they don't see the line, but it's still there.
Yes and look how many things that are predicted in fictional stories end up coming true. Just goes to show you that our imagination is something that should be taking seriously. Classic irony.
you know, I keep asking for some good resources for doing a bit more reading on some of these subjects, but no one will help me out. what's up with that? I'd really like to know what you know, what lead you to your viewpoints. There must be something phenomenal that I've missed.
BTW, the line is there, and I see it, I just choose to stand ON it for now, rather than on one side or the other.
I've seen Quantum Theory batted around here a bit.
Has anyone considered Quantum Entanglement?
Or did I miss that?
You know what? I thought I had included a link in my one post but I just checked and apparently, I did not. So yeah, it was considered just not discussed.
I'm having immense fun, I don't know about anyone else. How do you make that cheesy smiley face?
Give us some of your thoughts on the Entanglement angle???
Terri, I don't know if it's your fairy profile pic, your words, or both that have me feeling like you have brought a positive feeling into this forum. Just my opinion, but what do I know? Anyway to answer your previous question about the faces:
After you hit the reply button to reply to a post you will see a button titled 'formatting' to your right. click on that and you will see a drop down list. At the end of that list you will see information on how to make the smilies. Like this you could just copy and paste at that point.
tHErEDpILL, It might be the pic, though I hope it's the words. And thank you for making that comment. I like open, free discussions. I think we learn so much more by exchanging ideas and trading information. Makes us more rounded people, even if we don't agree.
When people with fixed ideas work so hard to be "right", it's a definite indication to me that they have issues with themselves. They work too hard to validate themselves and their views, even going to the extremes of insulting others' intelligence for the sake of feeling smart.
Getting back to the pic...I wonder if my avatar was a picture of a woman in a lab coat, holding a test tube, would I have attracted such vehemence? In other words, are preconceived notions about "fairies" causing people to have preconceived notions about my intelligence or knowledge? Oh, well...I like the pic, I like me, and I like you, so it's all good. (thanks for the smiley tips)
Your welcome, and I think your assumption about the 'preconceived notions' attached to pics is true. If my profile picture was of say, Einstein you would think I was smart right?
Okay, if everything was created in the Big Bang, that means at one point all matter was connected.
But now it's spread out everywhere, yet still connected on a quantum level.
If it is possible to entangle two particles, then theoretically, when you flip particle A, particle B should simultaneously flip.
The simplest explanation I can think of is that quantum entanglement is a (so far) mysterious connection between particles.
It's Einstein's "spooky action at a distance".
Now what if (mind you there is NO scientific research backing this) you could mentally flip a molecule just by thinking about it or looking at it (The Observer Effect).
Then, when you flip that molecule, the quantumly entangled molecules in that Buick (I keep referring to) flips as well.
Thus, by thought, you have body-slammed two tons of Detroit iron.
That is the only way I could think of that you might be able to pull off such a feat.
And I may have just invented a new super power.
So your saying that if we all came from the same matter as science predicts, then we are all connected to matter in some way. This would give us the power to control it, if we figure out how to?
Yeah, but figuring out how to do so is the trick.
BUT, the Observer Effect says that the very act of observing changes things....
Sabre, please school me on Quantum Entanglement. Or James, I am sure he knows something about it.
If the scientists say so in a peer-reviewed journal and provide the supporting data, that pretty much does make it a fact.
Show me a scientist that said that the impossiblilty of TK is a fact. If you do find that proof make sure you read through it and find the BS before I do. No self respecting scientist would ever claim that anything is absolute.
Perhaps, you're not getting it. The evidence of biology and physics shows that the brain works a certain way, these are facts. If someone comes along and makes a claim that flies in the face of those facts, they need to show that it can work the way they claim, like moving objects, for example.
If they cannot show that, why would anyone believe them?
The evidence of biology and physics MAKES A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that the brain works a certain way, these are facts.
You don't seem to get the FACT that scientific FACT is different type of FACT. It doesn't prove anything. It provides theories that have supporting evidence but not a definitive answer. I am not going to explain that again. Please go research what scientific fact and theory is. You will then realize how little sense some of your replies are making. You are not an idiot, I know that you understand what I am saying.
Scientists say that something not proven is not a fact. Therefore the claim that people possess macro-telekinesis is not factual. That's how it works.
Don't tell me that scientists say, show me proof. I can scientist say...and then plug in whatever I want to.
Was Tele real??
He was one of the greatest Greek actors of our time!
Loved him in The Dirty Dozen when he played the "chosen one"
No worries, there's this new technology called "videos" that allow one to actually watch movies in the comfort of their homes.
And, if memory serves correct, I think it was also before your time that the Leafs made the finals.
thanks for the heads up...
I heard they have a huge 'video' screen way up at the Air Canada Center...
I had intended to take a look, but I was too busy counting the Stanley Cup banners
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present...
Star Wars Science The Force Trainer!
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.js … Id=3531167
If you will excuse me I'll be in the back perfecting my enormous mental powers.
I will be a kind and just ruler.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if we were to use our brain to its fullest capacity. We are an evolving species and we haven't completely lived up to our highest potential.
Some do use their brains to their fullest capacity while others do not. It's all a matter of choice, Klara.
No one on this planet uses their brain to it's fullest capability, please don't make me prove this. We are an evolving species as said before. Our evolution is not completed.
Me to. Be sure not to play into the old 10% fallacy.
Exactly, we can look at every single part of the brain to see that it is functioning exactly as it should, no more, no less.
One of the things that needs to be identified in the discussion is the term "capacity" - are those who make the claims referring to the brains capacity to function or are they talking about a humans capacity to think?
I suspect the latter, which means they are probably just referring to themselves.
Surely there is evidence that it works, look at George Bush
I won the HubNuggets contest! Thanks to everyone who voted for me. Maybe now I can get some more respect around here.
by Alem Belton 6 years ago
After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one other possible solution. I usually only believe things that can be proven but...
by Susannah Birch 7 years ago
Much as I hate to venture into these forums without my bodyguards I'm interested on opinions about a specific subject.I've been studying into things including the power of the mind, mantras and telekinesis. I'm just curious how many people believe that prayer and the power of the mind fall into the...
by Jireh Laxamana 2 years ago
What are the possible ways in order to know your purpose in life?Because the truth is, I really don't know what to do in my life since I'm not good at anything.. And it's hard to live life knowing that you don't have any passion, nor purpose... Will anyone enlighten me? Thanks!!
by VendettaVixen 6 years ago
A child is baptised, receives first communion, and is confirmed before they even fully understand what religion is, and what consequences it will have on their life.Would it be better to wait until a person is... say sixteen or eighteen years old, then asking them which religion they'd like to be...
by CONSCIOUSNINJA 6 years ago
This is a common belief amongst Christians, but a few questions arise...what about the individuals that lived before Jesus' arrival on Earth?if Jesus died for your sins, then whats the motivation to do good deeds in life?why would God be unjust & punish (be it symbolic) ONE individual? ...a...
by marinealways24 8 years ago
Can a person be considered logical if the persons religious belief isn't logical? If a person is logical in some things, but not logical in religious belief, are they still considered logical or illogical?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|