Psychokinesis - discussion

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, your pointing out that I suck ass at probability because I am 'one of those psychics'. Besides, I am not a psychic. I am a scientist (or a scientific person) who practices and researches psychic phenomena. I see a difference.

• I'm not trying to point out that you "suck at probability," I'm trying to tell you to take a look at it.
  
• If you're a scientist, then use the scientific method to devise a few good, solid, well-documented experiments to test your psychic abilities, and get some outside scientists to watch you as you do it.
  

 

Any magician could do psychokinesis? Not really, any magician could do fake psychokinesis. But I get your point.

And to this point, nobody has proven that psychokinesis is anything but magic.

 

 

My point is not that you're a fraud, or that you're stupid. My point is that nobody as yet has proven, in a well-designed and executed experiment, that psychic phenomena exist. I encourage you to try to change this by devising an experimental method that would be accepted by scientists, conducting an experiment, and publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal so as to convince the world that there really is something here to investigate. Until that point, I will remain skeptical.

[Genjo]

• I'm not trying to point out that you "suck at probability," I'm trying to tell you to take a look at it.
  
• If you're a scientist, then use the scientific method to devise a few good, solid, well-documented experiments to test your psychic abilities, and get some outside scientists to watch you as you do it.
  

 

 

And to this point, nobody has proven that psychokinesis is anything but magic.

 

 

My point is not that you're a fraud, or that you're stupid. My point is that nobody as yet has proven, in a well-designed and executed experiment, that psychic phenomena exist. I encourage you to try to change this by devising an experimental method that would be accepted by scientists, conducting an experiment, and publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal so as to convince the world that there really is something here to investigate. Until that point, I will remain skeptical.

 

 

this is what we want to do. and are in the process of doing. a little faith woudln't go a miss.

[spiritnl]

• I'm not trying to point out that you "suck at probability," I'm trying to tell you to take a look at it.
  
• If you're a scientist, then use the scientific method to devise a few good, solid, well-documented experiments to test your psychic abilities, and get some outside scientists to watch you as you do it.
  

 

I will continue my practice in this amasing ability. And when I think I am ready, I well definitly set up an experiment using 'the scientific method'. Don't worry, you will hear from me. Now you'll just have to do it with some stupid Youtube videos. As I mentioned earlier, I guess, I am already experimenting with a science teacher. The next step will be the geiger counter. See if I can get that working.

 

And to this point, nobody has proven that psychokinesis is anything but magic.

 

Discussable matter.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I will continue my practice in this amasing ability. And when I think I am ready, I well definitly set up an experiment using 'the scientific method'. Don't worry, you will hear from me. Now you'll just have to do it with some stupid Youtube videos. As I mentioned earlier, I guess, I am already experimenting with a science teacher. The next step will be the geiger counter. See if I can get that working.

Excellent use of probability right here: background radiation is essentially random.

 

 

 

Discussable matter.

Provide some references then. Give me a link to a peer-reviewed article on the topic.

[spiritnl]

Excellent use of probability right here: background radiation is essentially random.

 

Don't worry, he is a science teacher.

 

'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.'

 

Provide some references then. Give me a link to a peer-reviewed article on the topic.

 

I'll try. But I was refering to psychics who showed their ability under scientific conditions, like Nina Kulagina.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Don't worry, he is a science teacher.

 

'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.'

Good, good, but background radiation is an outside factor.

 

 

I'll try. But I was refering to psychics who showed their ability under scientific conditions, like Nina Kulagina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Kulagina

[YT2095]

I`ve edited the poll also, the "No it`s total BS" wasn`t ever required, I HAVE added the 5 votes from that section to the just "No" option.

 

as you were.

[spiritnl]

Good, good, but background radiation is an outside factor.

 

True, we will find a way. And besides, the geiger counter is just one of the thousands things to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Kulagina

 

Watch out. You know wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

 

Have you ever seen the documentary on Nina Kulagina? It's quite interesting. I'll see if I can upload it for you.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Watch out. You know wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

It provides references. You don't.

[spiritnl]

It provides references. You don't.

 

Actually, my reference is that page too. Read wikipedia -> it IS a discussable matter.

 

Uploading short documentary, edit:

[Genjo]

please read this

 

- Genjo

 

http://www.uri-geller.com/uri-biography/uribiog3.htm

[Mokele]

You should really watch your words there. I am not a faker and definitly not a liar. So don’t spred it around like it is a ‘fact’. And maybe one day I will prove you wrong without a video on Youtube.

 

Please do; it would be a truly remarkable discovery. But from where I'm sitting, it's much more probable that those clips are fake than real, and I see no compelling evidence or logic to illustrate otherwise.

 

I think they were smart enough to ban that outside factor.

 

I disagree, and I'd need to see the full experimental paper before I could conclude either way.

 

See, this is why we're so keen on scientific journals; a journal article gives the whole details of the method, so that any flaw can be clearly seen. Without such a detailed account, we're left guessing and taking it on faith, which I, nor any other scientist, does.

 

http://www.psipog.net/blog/2006/06/r...e-results.html

 

I said *real* results. Those results are *not* significant, and are so poorly laid out that nothing can be concluded.

 

Some info on science: much of science involves doing the same thing over and over and over again, taking all of those measurements, and running stats on them. It also involves extensive control of outside variables, and, in this case, double-blind testing would be appropriate. None of those were followed. I also not the site casually dismisses multiple initial failures. That's shitty science right there, plain and simple. You cannot throw out data for *any* reason other than something plainly obvious like equipment malfunction.

 

But don’t dismiss something you don’t know as false.

 

Why not?

 

No, seriously, why not? Why should I give credence to a wildly improbable claim that lacks evidence, rather than dismissing it? If I'm at a used car dealer, and he tells me the car he wants to sell me gets 10000 miles per gallon, but offers no proof or evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss his claims?

 

I have the knowlegde over this material, you only have an opinion.

 

I disagree; your 'knowledge' may not be worth anything if the effect is not real. A priest has extensive knowledge of the Bible, but since none of that knowledge has any empirical or provable validity, his opinion on the existence of God is no more valid than mine.

 

Furthermore, during my gullible youth, I researched, and even believed, much of this 'psi' stuff. However, like everything that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I eventually abandoned it.

 

But healthy sceptisim. That includes; writing me off as either a liar, or a delusional, but also: maybe a kid who isn’t lying.

 

All of those possibilities do exist, but not all are of equal probabilty: you must admit it's more likely that someone is a liar or insane than a genuine telekinetic.

 

Furthermore, you ignore the next step: evidence. Since there is none, then it's much more likely that your claims are false.

 

Approaching something with an open mind does not mean being unwilling to discard impossible or highly improbable possibilities when nothing is shown to support them.

 

I get your point. This ís an extraordinary claim. But you also have to understand why it is one. Because of the image your currently have. What if it wasn’t extraordinary.

 

My mindset, by which this is extraordinary, is the default: since we do not see telekinesis regularly, or anything like it in day to day life, it is *not* ordinary, and thus must be treated as an extraordinary claim.

 

Well, that is a matter that can be discussed though.

 

It doesn't need to be: if any psychic had proven their ability, it would be considered proven by now, and would definitely have made news.

 

Only asking you to consider the fact psychokinesis might be real.

 

See, this is the problem: you're ignoring the next steps.

 

We *have* considered the possibility. In doing so, we asked for evidence. Since there is none, we say no reason to continue consideration. You can't simply ask us to keep considering a possibility in the total absence of evidence; that's faith, not science.

 

And why should I have to take a probability class.

 

On a tangent, because I believe it's essential for any educated person to understand statistics and probability. If people understood how stats worked, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do.

 

Also, if, as you claim, you are trying to prove this scientifically, you will *need* stats to do it, and the right tests. It's a vital part of experimental design. For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance.

 

And that's just scratching the surface. If you're serious about this, read up on experimental design; there are problems that can arise that you'd never notice without a good stats background, but can tank your experiment.

 

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

 

Big flaw: you're neglecting all the ideas that *don't* make it through these stages because they *are* bullshit. And there's lots of those, both grand theories and small.

 

Just because science treats something with skepticism doesn't mean it's destined to overcome. Look at creationism; 150 years and we still laugh at it's idiocy.

 

This will come as no surprise to most of the world’s population, because the majority already believes in psychic phenomena.

 

The majority of the world's population also believes in God or Gods. That doesn't make them any less silly.

 

Technically, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad numerum. Just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it true. Most people in the US believe snakes are slimy, but this is demonstrably false.

 

We wish to speed the recovery of a loved one’s illness, and somehow they get better quicker, even at a distance. Mind willing, many interesting things appear to be possible.

 

And how do you know they wouldn't have gotten better in the first place?

 

*THAT* is why you need properly conducted scientific tests - to rule out such possibilities and determine whether the effect is real or not.

 

No matter how many anecdotes you have, it's still anecdotal evidence.

 

A more elaborate answer is, psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments. There are disagreements over to how to interpret the evidence, but the fact is that virtually all scientists who have studied the evidence, including the hard-nosed skeptics, now agree that there is something interesting going on that merits serious scientific attention. "

 

Show me. Show me the evidence, the direct results, unfiltered by interpretations. I also require a complete and in-depth description of the experiment.

 

If this is real, show me the evidence. That's all I ask. Not tales of evidence, or the testimony of 'experts' but the evidence itself. If it's real, if the evidence is there, show me.

 

Any magician could do psychokinesis? Not really, any magician could do fake psychokinesis.

 

And how are we supposed to distinguish the fake from the real without proper tests and experiments?

 

According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary, and yet, not being aware of scientists proving it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds.

 

simple things as nature go against common placed laws.

 

Flat-out wrong. That's an urban legend of the 'Gators in the sewers' variety.

 

The truth behind it is that an aerodynamicist was at a dinner party, and was asked to explain how bumblebees fly, in spite of their chubby appearance. Using only simple, memorized formulae on the back on napkins, he was unable to do it. Thus the idiots concluded that science doesn't know, when in reality, we do: insects rely on turbulent vorticies to generate lift, a mechanism FAR to complex for any back-of-a-napkin explanation.

 

Furthermore, there's a HUGE difference between being unable to explain a real phenomenon and having no evidence of a possibly fake, never-observed phenomenon.

 

but like i keep saying, Pk is different completely. i challenge you to try it.

 

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not me. I have *real* science to do. I'll gladly read your results and determine if they are valid, but it's not my job nor is it my obligation to prove your beliefs. If it's real, prove it. Show me the evidence.

 

this is what we want to do. and are in the process of doing. a little faith woudln't go a miss.

 

One should NEVER, EVER start an experiment assuming the hypothesis is correct. In fact, the best way is to assume the opposite. Consider it false, and ask what it would take to convince you otherwise. Consider all possible flaws, every possible objection. Starting by assuming things are correct is precisely what went wrong with Project Alpha.

 

Don't worry, he is a science teacher.

 

That doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. Sadly, most science teachers have a degree in education and a few classes in whatever science it is. Unless he's done post-graduate research, he may not have the skills you need. Remember, there's a *reason* why the time from entering college to gaining a faculty position can be from 10 to 18 years.

 

'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.'

 

Wow. He's never done real science, has he?

 

My experiment has 3 factors, and works fine; it's called a multi-way ANOVA test.

 

This is what I mean by reading up on experimental design. that quote above is how science was done 200 years ago. Thing are much, much more sophisticated now.

 

please read this

 

- Genjo

 

http://www.uri-geller.com/uri-biography/uribiog3.htm

 

No.

 

No, no, no, this is NOT evidence. This is anecdotes and tales.

 

What we want is *raw data*. I want to see the Psychic Bob guessed 23/45 cards corrects, that the Pearson's chi value is 15, with a p of 0.0024 and I want to see a perfectly detailed account of the methods used to get those numbers.

 

Anyone can *claim* Psychic Bob was real or fake. Those numbers, the raw data, and the methods are what makes a truly convincing argument.

 

Mokele

 

If you want to design an experiment, we'll point out flaws and tell you the stats you need to know.

[Glider]

For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance.

Comparing only one nominal variable, in this case frequency of correct observations, against what would be expected at chance level would be a 'goodness of fit' Chi squared, just in case you ever need it .

[Farsight]

I'm very cynical about stuff like astrology and new-age spirituality.

 

But I voted "Yes".

 

Because there's my packet of cigarettes on the desk in front of me, and I'm going to make them move with the power of my mind. Do I say ohmmmmm... ohmmmm... and kinda stare real hard sweating and grunting? No. I just pick them up and shove them in my pocket. Simple. OK I can't move them without using my arm, but so what. I can't move my arm without moving my arm either. It's still mind over matter.

[spiritnl]

You should really watch your words there. I am not a faker and definitly not a liar. So don’t spred it around like it is a ‘fact’. And maybe one day I will prove you wrong without a video on Youtube.

 

Please do; it would be a truly remarkable discovery. But from where I'm sitting' date=' it's much more probable that those clips are fake than real, and I see no compelling evidence or logic to illustrate otherwise. [/quote']

‘Much more probable’. BUT, that doesn’t mean you should spred it like a fact. As I said earlier, it is not and will not be efidence, but to myself.

I think they were smart enough to ban that outside factor.

I disagree' date=' and I'd need to see the full experimental paper before I could conclude either way.

 

See, this is why we're so keen on scientific journals; a journal article gives the whole details of the method, so that any flaw can be clearly seen. Without such a detailed account, we're left guessing and taking it on faith, which I, nor any other scientist, does.[/quote']

Agreed.

http://www.psipog.net/blog/2006/06/r...e-results.html[/url']

I said *real* results. Those results are *not* significant' date=' and are so poorly laid out that nothing can be concluded.

 

Some info on science: much of science involves doing the same thing over and over and over again, taking all of those measurements, and running stats on them. It also involves extensive control of outside variables, and, in this case, double-blind testing would be appropriate. None of those were followed. I also not the site casually dismisses multiple initial failures. That's shitty science right there, plain and simple. You cannot throw out data for *any* reason other than something plainly obvious like equipment malfunction.[/quote']

Ok, agreed.

But don’t dismiss something you don’t know as false.

Why not?

 

No' date=' seriously, why not? Why should I give credence to a wildly improbable claim that lacks evidence, rather than dismissing it? If I'm at a used car dealer, and he tells me the car he wants to sell me gets 10000 miles per gallon, but offers no proof or evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss his claims?[/quote']

I’ve told you why not. Because you don’t know wether it’s false by looking at the history. You can only assume it.

 

I have the knowlegde over this material' date=' you only have an opinion.

[/quote'] I disagree; your 'knowledge' may not be worth anything if the effect is not real. A priest has extensive knowledge of the Bible, but since none of that knowledge has any empirical or provable validity, his opinion on the existence of God is no more valid than mine.

 

Furthermore, during my gullible youth, I researched, and even believed, much of this 'psi' stuff. However, like everything that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I eventually abandoned it.

You can disagree. But for me it remains a fact that I have the knowlegde and you have the opinion, that’s because I am not lying. I am not lying, it is easily said, but hard to prove, I know.

But healthy sceptisim. That includes; writing me off as either a liar' date=' or a delusional, but also: maybe a kid who isn’t lying.

[/quote'] All of those possibilities do exist, but not all are of equal probabilty: you must admit it's more likely that someone is a liar or insane than a genuine telekinetic.

 

Furthermore, you ignore the next step: evidence. Since there is none, then it's much more likely that your claims are false.

 

Approaching something with an open mind does not mean being unwilling to discard impossible or highly improbable possibilities when nothing is shown to support them.

Show me calculations of those probabilities. Quote:

 

I get your point. This ís an extraordinary claim. But you also have to understand why it is one. Because of the image your currently have. What if it wasn’t extraordinary.

My mindset' date=' by which this is extraordinary, is the default: since we do not see telekinesis regularly, or anything like it in day to day life, it is *not* ordinary, and thus must be treated as an extraordinary claim.[/quote']

Yes.

 

Well' date=' that is a matter that can be discussed though.

[/quote'] It doesn't need to be: if any psychic had proven their ability, it would be considered proven by now, and would definitely have made news.

No, it doesn’t need to be, but your missing the point. Psychics have shown it and have tried to prove it.

 

Only asking you to consider the fact psychokinesis might be real.

See' date=' this is the problem: you're ignoring the next steps.

 

We *have* considered the possibility. In doing so, we asked for evidence. Since there is none, we say no reason to continue consideration. You can't simply ask us to keep considering a possibility in the total absence of evidence; that's faith, not science.[/quote']

You asked for evidence, I will try to provide some. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop considering the fact it might be real untill I come with some evidence. Aren’t my words some sort of evidence to you (not suggesting scientific evidence).

And why should I have to take a probability class.

On a tangent' date=' because I believe it's essential for any educated person to understand statistics and probability. If people understood how stats worked, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do.

 

Also, if, as you claim, you are trying to prove this scientifically, you will *need* stats to do it, and the right tests. It's a vital part of experimental design. For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance.

 

And that's just scratching the surface. If you're serious about this, read up on experimental design; there are problems that can arise that you'd never notice without a good stats background, but can tank your experiment.[/quote']

My main focus is macro-psychokinesis. If at anytime probability will start playing a role, I will do my homework.

Any magician could do psychokinesis? Not really' date=' any magician could do fake psychokinesis.

[/quote'] And how are we supposed to distinguish the fake from the real without proper tests and experiments?

No need for proof, a magician DOES fake PK.

Furthermore' date=' there's a HUGE difference between being unable to explain a real phenomenon and having no evidence of a possibly fake, never-observed phenomenon.

[/quote']

Your discribing this phenomenon wrongly. ‘Never-observed’.

 

this is what we want to do. and are in the process of doing. a little faith wouldn’t go a miss.

 

One should NEVER' date=' EVER start an experiment assuming the hypothesis is correct. In fact, the best way is to assume the opposite. Consider it false, and ask what it would take to convince you otherwise. Consider all possible flaws, every possible objection. Starting by assuming things are correct is precisely what went wrong with Project Alpha.[/quote']

 

Your missing one essential point. We need that faith in order to perform psychokinesis. That does not mean we won’t look at flaws though.

 

Don't worry' date=' he is a science teacher.

[/quote'] That doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. Sadly, most science teachers have a degree in education and a few classes in whatever science it is. Unless he's done post-graduate research, he may not have the skills you need. Remember, there's a *reason* why the time from entering college to gaining a faculty position can be from 10 to 18 years.

He has some articles in official magazines. And has done research. Up to the next one:

'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.'

Wow. He's never done real science' date=' has he?

 

My experiment has 3 factors, and works fine; it's called a multi-way ANOVA test.

 

This is what I mean by reading up on experimental design. that quote above is how science was done 200 years ago. Thing are much, much more sophisticated now.[/quote']

Sorry if I confused you. That was a quote of mine. Although I am pretty sure that it contains essential and correct information.

 

I'm very cynical about stuff like astrology and new-age spirituality.

 

But I voted "Yes".

 

Because there's my packet of cigarettes on the desk in front of me' date=' and I'm going to make them move with the power of my mind. Do I say ohmmmmm... ohmmmm... and kinda stare real hard sweating and grunting? No. I just pick them up and shove them in my pocket. Simple. OK I can't move them without using my arm, but so what. I can't move my arm without moving my arm either. It's still mind over matter.[/quote']

 

Very original, you are the first!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He has some articles in official magazines. And has done research.

Appeal to authority. That doesn't make him any better than anyone else. And what is an "official" magazine, anyways? The government newsletter?

[CPL.Luke]

mokele i'm suprised that you would use evolution as absolute evidence for this.

 

If the mutation that allowed the use of psychic powers came attached to something that imited your lifespan to lets say 5 years, or made it near impossible to have children then the mutation would be very very uncommon.

 

similar to that genetic ailment that makes bruises turn into bone (forgot what its called)

 

Spirtini you mentioned that you were 16 so I'm assuming your conducting these experiments with a highschool teacher, highschool science teachers cannot be relied upon for everything. fr instance I doubt that your science teacher has any experience with a guiger counter (no offense neither did mine ) so I wouldn't expect to get perfect results with that.

 

Also this is where mokeles points about biological mechanisms come into play. NOTHING in the body could generate ionizing radiation. (escepting the ingestion of a radioactive isotope, in which case you should immediatly go to the doctor).

 

furthermore ionizing radiation in anything short of the quantities that would incinerate the person holding the guiger counter will not exert a measurable force on the macroscopic scale. So why are you looking at it as a possible source? could it be that nuclear radiation sounds cool, extreme, and fantastic?

 

something that would be far more interesting to obsere would be the microwave band and lower. but again the amount required to move almost anything would be enough to light something on fire. (although maybe it could move an empty can)

 

look up crookes radiometer.

 

 

I think its also very important for you to look up some basic physics. So that you know something about what a force is and what energy is. because on all of your posts where you referenced these things I found errors.

[Mokele]

Comparing only one nominal variable, in this case frequency of correct observations, against what would be expected at chance level would be a 'goodness of fit' Chi squared, just in case you ever need it

 

Thanks; I don't use non-parametric stats much, plus I'm learning on a new software package.

 

You asked for evidence, I will try to provide some. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop considering the fact it might be real untill I come with some evidence.

 

Yes it does. Do scientists keep considering a Geocentric universe, in case one day new evidence comes up? No, they consider it a closed case.

 

Same thing here; we considering, you could provide no evidence, so we decided against it, simple as that. Now, if you come up with new, more convincing evidence, we'll re-evaluate, but until then, why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence?

 

Aren’t my words some sort of evidence to you (not suggesting scientific evidence).

 

No. Think about it; people believe in all sorts of weird stuff, ranging from CIA mind control satellites to big men in the clouds who control everything, that doesn't make them right. I can't just take people's word for things, or I'd have to also give credence to the rantings of the local homeless guys.

 

My main focus is macro-psychokinesis. If at anytime probability will start playing a role, I will do my homework.

 

Probability is involved in *every* aspect of science. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you don't need stats.

 

For instance, one of my labmates is currently doing experiments on lizard perch choice. Simple, easily observable, but he *still* needs lots of replicate experiments and to run stats. Otherwise, how do we know their behavior isn't random?

 

Stats isn't optional; it's a MUST for *any* good experimental design.

 

Your missing one essential point. We need that faith in order to perform psychokinesis. That does not mean we won’t look at flaws though.

 

In that case, you need an unbiased outside observer, someone who's a skeptic and won't feel a subconscious desire to simply confirm his beliefs.

 

He has some articles in official magazines. And has done research

 

Read them. Crap research gets published too, hence why scientists are so skeptical.

 

If the mutation that allowed the use of psychic powers came attached to something that imited your lifespan to lets say 5 years, or made it near impossible to have children then the mutation would be very very uncommon.

 

That requires the assumption that, for some reason, there's a negative consequence. Why would there be? And why would it matter for all species? What about ants? If the worker ants, who are sterile anyway, could express a psychokinesis gene, they'd have no losses, and can you image how scary psychokinetic ants would be?

 

Mokele

[reor]

[...]

That requires the assumption that, for some reason, there's a negative consequence. Why would there be? And why would it matter for all species? What about ants? If the worker ants, who are sterile anyway, could express a psychokinesis gene, they'd have no losses, and can you image how scary psychokinetic ants would be? [...]

Cool! Psychokinetic ants! Remember my ant jokes?

Maybe it just requires a sophisticated mind like ours to even start developing it.

 

It's a waste of time trying to convince agnostics into "believing". It may be fun, but it's like trying to pour water into a solid wall. Science is all about solid proof. Get used to it.

 

I "believe" PK exists, but i have no proof whatsoever. Only some personal experiences, which are highly subjective and far from proving anything.

If you want to test your PK, use a marble and put it under a glass.

 

Besides, do you have any idea what proving your ability would get you into?

 

I'd like to hear some opinions about the following site:

http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/pktest1.htm

[spiritnl]

I "believe" PK exists, but i have no proof whatsoever. Only some personal experiences, which are highly subjective and far from proving anything.

If you want to test your PK, use a marble and put it under a glass.

 

Besides, do you have any idea what proving your ability would get you into?

 

It would be nice if you tell me a little bit more about those experiences, either here or in a PM.

 

Yes, I am aware of consequenses that proving this ability may have, and I have been thinking about that a lot.

[Glider]

I'd like to hear some opinions about the following site:

http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/pktest1.htm

Briefly (because I don't want to derail the thread) I don't think it's a valid test of PK ability where the definition of Psychokinesis is along the lines of "The influence of mind upon matter, as the use of mental 'power' to move or distort an object." (see Wikipedia).

 

The original apparatus involves an actual pinball with a board and precicely spaced pins. People are expected to influence a physical object as it falls. Here, what would people be influencing? Their monitor? Their CPU? their RAM? The flow of current through any or all of these? What would the subject focus their 'influence' on? What is there to influence? Is an electronic random number generator (which is essentially what it is) even subject to an influence that can (allegedly) move physical objects?

 

I don't believe I have any PK ability, but I can move a physical object by poking it with a stick. However, even by using that direct physical influence I couldn't influence an electronic random number generator.

[spiritnl]

You asked for evidence' date=' I will try to provide some. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop considering the fact it might be real untill I come with some evidence.[/quote']

Yes it does. Do scientists keep considering a Geocentric universe, in case one day new evidence comes up? No, they consider it a closed case.

 

Same thing here; we considering, you could provide no evidence, so we decided against it, simple as that. Now, if you come up with new, more convincing evidence, we'll re-evaluate, but until then, why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence?

Just a question: If everyone won’t believe and consider anything they don’t have evidence for, how is science suppost to develop? Why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence? Because I came to this forums to share my experiences and opinion, and because psychokinesis is truelly amasing. I will try to make people wonder via forums and start considering it until I find another medium to convince people (maybe the scientific medium one time).

 

Aren’t my words some sort of evidence to you (not suggesting scientific evidence).

No. Think about it; people believe in all sorts of weird stuff' date=' ranging from CIA mind control satellites to big men in the clouds who control everything, that doesn't make them right. I can't just take people's word for things, or I'd have to also give credence to the rantings of the local homeless guys.[/quote']

I am not asking you to take my word. Are you willing to give 15 minutes of your time? I wan’t to try something.

 

Your missing one essential point. We need that faith in order to perform psychokinesis. That does not mean we won’t look at flaws though.

In that case' date=' you need an unbiased outside observer, someone who's a skeptic and won't feel a subconscious desire to simply confirm his beliefs.[/quote']

 

Ok.

 

Regards,

 

Me

[Anjruu]

This is silly, again. Every time we get into one of these discussions, the starter screams "keep an open mind!" or "why not believe!" or "You can't prove it false!" and everyone else screams stuff about the scientific method and how they have no proof and youtube is not reliable, etc.

 

I think that you are confusing "not believing" with "not believing and not having the potential to believe ever ever Ever EVER." If people are scientists, then they will start to believe once there is proof. Furthermore, when in doubt, maintain the status quo. What is believed now has an inherent advantage over any other idea, until it is proven by multiple people during multiple tests, over the course of a long time to be false. So, when we say

"we don't believe you," we don't mean "you are wrong." We mean "you do not have sufficient proof, your theory does not explain anything not currently explained, there is not reason for it to exist, and there is significant reason for it NOT to exist, BUT give us GOOD evidence using GOOD science, and have OTHER people do the same, and we will consider it."

 

Wow, this has gone on forever. Whatever, point is, sorry, you don't get support now. But don't storm off or take it personally. Wait and give us evidence, and we'll try to pick it apart, but if we fail, then we'll believe you. Its not personal, and we're not being close-minded. But the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't proved it yet.

[spiritnl]

Not taking anything to personal over here. I respect everyone's opinions. And yes, I realise the burden of proof is right on my shoulders, because I started this discussion.

 

If someone is interested, here is some levitation of a friend:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x1MQJesgJP0

[Mokele]

Just a question: If everyone won’t believe and consider anything they don’t have evidence for, how is science suppost to develop?

 

First and foremost, observation. Many great discoveries have begun not by claiming something then proving it, but by noticing something really odd and investigating.

 

I am not asking you to take my word. Are you willing to give 15 minutes of your time? I wan’t to try something.

 

Not really, no. I've wasted too much time on this thread as it is, and I'm very busy writing up a paper at the moment.

 

If someone is interested, here is some levitation of a friend:

 

I can see the string.

 

Mokele