Telekinesis

[anarchyisbliss]

Why or why not?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think that it is possible but very implausible that people would have some type of telekinesis. I think it is much more likely that people who claim to have that power are lying, and that demonstrations of it are scams. So I voted for it being a scam.

Before coming to a conclusion about the truth or likelihood of different theories and propositions, I think we need to agree on a system for rating the believability of theories and propositions. For example, how do we distinguish between untrue, implausible, possible, plausible, and true? How much evidence is required to believe something? How much evidence is required to know something?

[Daniel Owen]

Well there's no proof of it, no reason to believe in it, and no likelihood we'll develop it.

[anarchyisbliss]

Well there's no proof of it, no reason to believe in it, and no likelihood we'll develop it.

Where is your proof that it inst real. Right now you are just staking claims without factual support of logical conclusions please add some to make your argument more compelling. And why would you think we could never develop it? Our brains our pretty powerful and we have enough electrical energy in our body to shoot a bolt of lighting three feet in front of use if harnessed into one area. That is a lot of power telekinesis doesn't seem that far off.

[pjkeeley]

Where is your proof that it inst real. Right now you are just staking claims without factual support of logical conclusions please add some to make your argument more compelling.

Disbelief does not require us to disprove telekinesis. If you believe it exists and want to make your argument 'compelling' I suggest it is YOU who should find 'factual support' to show it. Where is *your* evidence?

As far as I'm concerned he is right, there is no proof. I have never seen anyone demonstrate the power to move anything with their mind. And even if I saw such a display, that would not be proof enough. A so-called practitioner of telekinesis would have to demonstrate this ability in a clinical condition wherein all possible variables are accounted for, so that the phenomenon could be proved to have had no cause other than a person's mind. To my knowledge, such a test has never been done. If you know of one, please let me know.

As it stands, I will continue not believing in telekinesis because there is no reason to.

[anarchyisbliss]

http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina_Kulagina2.htm

this link will lead you to information about a Russian psychic named Nina Kulagina. She was a spy for the Soviet Union and part of a top secret project. Basically, after mediating for a few hours she could move small objects across a table and in one instance could break a pair of handcuffs, after the collapse of the Soviet Union she was set free and told her story to the Russian people. However, her story did not really hit the United Sates, I'm assuming through acts of disinformation. Imagine what would happen if we found out the Soviet Union had telekinetic spies. Even if this story is false, I am just trying to say that there are forces in the world beyond our physical understanding and powers in the human mind that we have yet to discover the possibilities are endless.

[Think Tank]

Just joined and I realise that this so called telecanises is something people talk about, the sort of thing that Matilda in the Rold Darhl book of the same name. It seems that a confirmed trixter who was proved a fraud years ago is still working on a sales channel and talking about the power of diamonds. In the link above the russian lady, Kulagina, I am no majician but I can see through her tricks and as said "Cold war properganda".

[Abiathar]

Well, when one looks into history, the mention of Telekenesis (though by other names) is fairly common. Also, when we look into history, we see a pattern of psionic abilities manifest in varied individuals via Legends or records. We also know that we use less than 3% of our brains on any given day. In this we discover a great mystery that science has yet to explain, such as the reason we actually have a segment of our brain that keeps track of time... very tiny, and all it does is Tick, but its there, much to our surprise. Namely this was the first proof that Time was not an invention of man, and that Time itself is recorded even by animals in their own personal little 'ticker'.

Also in history we find the shunting of anything that has not been accepted practice for a few decades or more. I remember, at one time, my grandfather telling me that Cellphones wouldn't go anywhere, and that the Internet would never work. He truly believed it, and you can imagine the shock he had before he died, so truly it -is- possible that it is simply ignored by most of society when it is real, because to be honest people will ignore anything that the television tells them is not real.

With these two combined I do have to admit the possibility of the existance of Telekinesis. I will even go so far as to assist Anarchy in this with a logical debate for the existance.

Let us now all remember that we release concentrated Alpha and Beta waves from the center of the forehead. This is a simple medical fact. In this we also must remember that due to current science it is nearly accepted that all matter exists only due to Vibrations along 'strings' that fill an almost liquid energy inwhich we call 'space'. This 'liquid' energy fills the space even between atoms, and between stars. It was previously called Dark Matter, but thanks to Stephen Hawking it is now widely accepted, and becomming more so, as Aether space. This was a theory inwhich originated some few hundred years ago and is now gaining scientific approval, namely because it explains what science couldnt before.

In this, all one needs to do is 'adjust' one or more of these strings using their willpower, even if they do not see it as this. These 'strings' are formed of energy, as are Alpha and Beta wave patterns. In this it is assumable, that like light, one beam can move another beam if angled correctly. In this, if you 'lift' the string, the matter 'lifts'. Hence, Telekinesis.

[rainchild]

Anything is possible. One can easily imagine a world in which telekinesis exists.

But decades of concerted research by parapsychologists have failed to yield any repeatable observations of telekinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance, or other paranormal powers.

If repeatable observations occur, I will believe. Until then, I will be skeptical.

Rainchild

P.S. It's silly to think that disproof of telekinesis is required of skeptics. I have no proof that 1,000 teacups aren't orbiting Andromeda galaxy, but the reasons to consider this highly unlikely are so numerous, and the evidence so lacking, that it would silly not to adopt a skeptical position in that case. Claims can be worthy of disbelief on methodological grounds.

My disbelief in telekinesis is grounded on two considerations that mean nothing by themselves, but mean a great deal together.

Consideration #1: Lack of evidence that X does obtain. This means little by itself. There is no evidence that one of my 17th century ancestors was addicted to dice games. However, it would be foolish to dismiss such the possibility out of hand, since we all know that people get addicted to dice games.

Consideration #2: Lack of a theory of how X can happen. This also means little by itself. The ancient Greeks had no theory of electricity; no real account of why straw could be attracted to amber. But there were plenty of repeatable observations of straw doing its static cling number of amber, so the lack of a theory was moot.

However, when there is (#1) no evidence that X happens, and (#2) no theory of how X could happen, then belief in X is unwarranted.

[anarchyisbliss]

But decades of concerted research by parapsychologists have failed to yield any repeatable observations of telekinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance, or other paranormal powers.

It is true that parapsychology doesn't have repeatable results in the field of telekinesis. However, this is probably because not everyone has telekinesis. A chemist can repeat an experiment one million times and get the same results because the atoms and the catalysts will always behave the same. But we, humans, don't have the same exact brains so we don't always behave similarly. Parapsychology has witnessed a few people throughout its history who have revealed telekinetic abilities. When I say telekinesis I don't mean X-Men super powers levitating entire buildings or pulling a human being apart atom by atom a la Jean Grey. I mean the ability to mentally influence physical events and objects
( moving a marble for instance ).

Also, if you've ever done the experiment with the string and the washer you too will see that you have telekinetic abilities. Just tie a metal washer ( the experiment has nothing to do with the metal itself, you could use plastic or grass even). If you push the string in the direction you want it to go without actually moving your hand it will swing back an forth. This is from the electric current in your body, which you control subconsciously with your mind. However, if you want you can make it a conscious effort and push your electrical energy back and forth through the washer. Try it. There might be some people who have a more mature control of their electric current than others, giving them the ability to push marbles.

I have no proof that 1,000 teacups aren't orbiting Andromeda galaxy, but the reasons to consider this highly unlikely are so numerous, and the evidence so lacking, that it would silly not to adopt a skeptical position in that case.

That may be true ( the tea cups ) but what if you were to drop the skepticism, fly out to Andromeda, and look at the 1,000 tea cups in orbit. This is a metaphor by the way. Skepticism hinders discovery. If you were to take an objective look at telekinesis you might realize that your skepticism was blinding you the entire time...

[anarchyisbliss]

With these two combined I do have to admit the possibility of the existance of Telekinesis. I will even go so far as to assist Anarchy in this with a logical debate for the existance.

[Abiathar]

Consideration #1: Lack of evidence that X does obtain. This means little by itself. There is no evidence that one of my 17th century ancestors was addicted to dice games. However, it would be foolish to dismiss such the possibility out of hand, since we all know that people get addicted to dice games.

My reponse is very simple. Please, using Wikipedia, Google, or some other such search engine, take a glance at a Fish that we thought had been extinct for 65,000,000 years, and have now found living in the Gulf of Mexico and thriving. Science shows what it shows, and doesn't show anything it has yet to see.

Consideration #2: Lack of a theory of how X can happen. This also means little by itself. The ancient Greeks had no theory of electricity; no real account of why straw could be attracted to amber. But there were plenty of repeatable observations of straw doing its static cling number of amber, so the lack of a theory was moot.

A: read my previous post, it answers this.

Then let me propose a theory for both of your considerations. Science thought for over 11,500 years that the earth was the center of the universe based on every bit of scientific data that they could amass over a 10,000 year span until less than about 1000 years ago. Granted, two thinkers had other ideas, but it wasn't really accepted, simply because there was no 'repeatable research', no 'empyrical evidence', and no 'proof'.

In this let me simply say that Science tells us absolutely nothing that we do not already know, and as it has proven in itself many times over it is more often wrong than correct. So wrong, infact, that it is an accepted scientific principle to accept that all assumptions and data is wrong, which is why it is constantly disproven later.

In this I will ask a question:
If there is no empyrical evidence to back telekinesis, yet quite alot of mythos and historical example... and there is plenty of emyrical evidence that 99% of the time Science is wrong, and historical evidence vastly supports that Science is, invariably, wrong... therefore?

[rainchild]

My reponse is very simple. Please, using Wikipedia, Google, or some other such search engine, take a glance at a Fish that we thought had been extinct for 65,000,000 years, and have now found living in the Gulf of Mexico and thriving. Science shows what it shows, and doesn't show anything it has yet to see.

The sciences don't claim the omniscience that you seem to expect from them. Consider an everyday example:

If you thought that your favorite pop was no longer made, but you later found some in a country store, this would not make you a generally unreliable observer.

Similarly, the fact that scientists once found a fish nowhere except in the fossil records, but later found that the fish is still alive, does not make scientific observations generally unreliable.

The idea that your reference to the Coelacanth somehow discredits all biology is garbage.

Then let me propose a theory for both of your considerations. Science thought for over 11,500 years that the earth was the center of the universe based on every bit of scientific data that they could amass over a 10,000 year span until less than about 1000 years ago. Granted, two thinkers had other ideas, but it wasn't really accepted, simply because there was no 'repeatable research', no 'empyrical evidence', and no 'proof'.

a) It's "empirical," not "empyrical."

b) The idea that science is anywhere near 11,500 years old is garbage. Science is arguably as old as the ancient Greeks, but experimental methods for physics were pioneered by Galileo.

c) You seem to confuse a willingness to change one's mind in the fact of new evidence on one hand with total unreliability on the other.

The geocentric model was indeed credible in former times, given the evidence that the ancients had. New evidence came in, thanks to scientists like Galileo & Copernicus. Science changed accordingly. That doesn't make the sciences totally unreliable; it makes it self-correcting.

BTW, since did art, mythos, religion, intuition, or any supposedly supernatural insight do anything to replace the antiquated geocentric model with the modern view of the universe. To my knowledge, NEVER.
Witness the Church's opposition to the heliocentric model, and Galileo's consequent house arrest.

In this let me simply say that Science tells us absolutely nothing that we do not already know, and as it has proven in itself many times over it is more often wrong than correct. So wrong, in fact, that it is an accepted scientific principle to accept that all assumptions and data is wrong, which is why it is constantly disproven later.

The idea that "science doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know" is garbage. Were this not the case, we would never have learned to make lasers, semiconductor chips, DNA identification, and too many other technologies to name, all of which depend on current scientific explanations of the world that embody things that we didn't used to know.

The idea that science is more often wrong than correct is a distortion. *Historically* there may be more outmoded scientific theories than there are current ones. But *current* science makes predictions about evidence and phenomena that are more often right than wrong. That is why sciences continues to be funded, and what makes new technologies possible.

In this I will ask a question: If there is no empyrical evidence to back telekinesis, yet quite alot of mythos and historical example... and there is plenty of emyrical evidence that 99% of the time Science is wrong, and historical evidence vastly supports that Science is, invariably, wrong... therefore?

a) The 99% statistic was pulled straight out of your hat. Also remember that science's capacity for self-correction, and the consequent accumulation of outmoded scientific theories, does not make current science wrong 99% of the time. If it were wrong 99% of the time, no one would fund it.

b) There is no historical evidence that science is invariably wrong. You also pulled that one out of your hat. By the way, "invariably wrong" and "wrong 99% of the time" are different statistics.

c) Yes, there are historical accounts of levitation and telekinesis. In Heroditus, we can also find a historical account of giant ants.

History gives us an account of what people record and, by scholarly study and inference, how people have behaved. History is neither designed nor intended to investigate whether Nature permits such things as giant ants or telekinesis.

========================================

IN SUM: There are legitimate criticisms to make of the ideas that some scientists espouse. For example, The idea that science accounts for all reality is not itself subject to empirical testing! The idea that God can be ruled out by empirical studies is also highly questionable.

But your post doesn't stand among such legitimate criticisms. The science you criticize in your post is a straw man of your own invention--you really are clueless about the real thing.

What is more, your response didn't indicate that you understood my post either.

Goodbye,

Rainchild

[anarchyisbliss]

Witness the Church's opposition to the heliocentric model, and Galileo's consequent house arrest.

Yes, but it now accepts that the Earth revolves around the Sun; it is just as self correcting as science.

Also remember that science's capacity for self-correction, and the consequent accumulation of outmoded scientific theories, does not make current science wrong 99% of the time. If it were wrong 99% of the time, no one would fund it.

Bush's Iraqi invasion plan is easily and arguably considered wrong, but it got most of the funding for the 2002 fiscal year. Your assertion that just because something is wrong it won't be funded is not necessarily true. Remember that funds come from humans who are inherently imperfect.

[rainchild]

Rainchild: Witness the Church's opposition to the heliocentric model, and Galileo's consequent house arrest.

Anarchyisbliss: "Yes, but it now accepts that the Earth revolves around the Sun; it is just as self correcting as science."

The Church didn't make that correction itself: the Church relied on the scientific findings when they became uncontroversial. So too with the Church's acknowledgment of biological evolution.

Rainchild: Also remember that science's capacity for self-correction, and the consequent accumulation of outmoded scientific theories, does not make current science wrong 99% of the time. If it were wrong 99% of the time, no one would fund it.

Anarchyisbliss: Bush's Iraqi invasion plan is easily and arguably considered wrong, but it got most of the funding for the 2002 fiscal year. Your assertion that just because something is wrong it won't be funded is not necessarily true. Remember that funds come from humans who are inherently imperfect.

a) The Bush war is a moral transgression, not an example of scientific inaccuracy.

b) My argument was not that anything that is well-funded must be scientifically accurate. My argument was that if sciences produced no reliable results, they would not be funded.

Consider the CIA's remote viewing program. After years of producing no reliable results, the CIA's remote viewing program, and related experiments with telekinesis, was shut down. No results, no funding.

Physics, on the other hand, survives because it produces results.

The *reason* that science is funded is because it does produce reliable results more often than not, and self-corrects its wrong results. That's how medicines get developed and missiles get built.

Goodbye,

Rainchild