Third Eye or Inner Eye

[Klaynos]

What kind of thing could the glass be stopping? Previousely you mention magnetic fields, using a SQUID you can measure magnetic fields of a few fT...

[jeremyhfht]

I mentioned it as a possibility. Do you know what "hypothesis" means? Or "speculation"?

[Klaynos]

I mentioned it as a possibility. Do you know what "hypothesis" means? Or "speculation"?

 

Yes, and both of them should be questioned, that way if they have a simple flaw they can be dismissed early on in the process.

[jeremyhfht]

And yet you've not pointed out a flaw? The closest anyone came was throwing evolution at it.

[Klaynos]

And yet you've not pointed out a flaw? The closest anyone came was throwing evolution at it.

 

Well a flaw would be if we can control magnetic fields with our minds we'd be able to measure them...

[Edtharan]

I hope you're joking. The "third eye" is a very ancient metaphorical chakra. Not a literal thing.

Yes I was joking, but the Tuatara does actually exist and it does have a vetigal 3rd eye ( ), I think that is pretty cool.

 

In fact that is a good argument proving that evolution IS the driving cause of it. It's why we're evolving towards furthering our intelligence, which will as a result further our abilities, which will further our survival abilities.

What you have done in this paragraph is make a common logical falacy. You have assumed that as our intelligence is evolving, this is proof that psychic powers are also evolving. Yes, intelegence is evolving in humans, but just because we are intelligent does not necesarily mean that we have psychic powers. We could be intelligent without psychic powers.

 

Therefore Intelligence does not equal psychic potential.

 

You are apparently mistakenly looking at it like a separate entity. When in fact it is directly tied to our conscious minds ability to control its automatic functions.

What proof do you have of this? This is just an assumption by you on your preconcieved expectations of what you believe psychic powers are.

 

The ability to "control" ones actions is not only in Humans, Dogs can do this (they usually have to be taught it), most (if not all) the great apes have this ability, and maybe some birds and cetations too and suprisingly some Crocodiles have shown a remarkable level of intelegence to the point where they can be taught tricks like a dog.

 

Many (well neraly all) of the mental abilities that we ascribe as being essential to being Human have been show to occur in animals (either only some of them, or to a lesser degree admittedly).

 

So if, as you claim, it is only Humans that have the potential to express psychic powres, then you will have to explain why other animals will find it impossible (and it has to be an absolute impossibility as if they could have them, then why don't they show them?). As all other mental abilities occur in other animals, then, if psychic powers are a product of the brain, why can't they occur in other animals?

 

Remember that we only started to begin civilizations ten thousand years ago, we're still very young as far as cognitive evolution is concerned. It takes millions of years. It might be faster if it WERE a mutation, but as well all know mutations involving the brain aren't so nice-nice. We're evolving it the old fashioned way.

No, Humans have been evolving for 4 billion years or so. Admittedly we weren't Homo Sapiens for most of that, but for the last 1,000,000 we have been "almost" Human. Sure civilization might have only been around for 10,000 years or so, but Humans have been around much longer than just the last 10,000 years, and there is a lot of evidence that many of the species we have decended from have had some remarkable mental abilities (like the ability to control their actions as we do - what you claim is a necesity for psychic powers to develop). So I would estimate that there has been around 5,000,000 years for such powers to develop in an environment: an "intelligent" creature capable of being able to

"control its automatic functions"

.

 

Would that be enough time, you did say it would take millions of years and 5 million (or more) is a good number

 

We're just "at the beginning".

So no we are not "at the beginning". We have had millions of years of opertunity to evolve any rudimentary abilities. There was no physiological leap when we developed civilisation, it was just a series of social structures and apropreate environmental conditions being in the same place and time.

 

Also, comparing it to rabbits and immunities is a bit...um...wrong? Your brain and your immune system are two very different things. Your immune system is evolved to adapt quickly, while your brain is...much more complex.

Yes and no. Inhereted immunity and aquiered immunity are two different things. The rabbits have developed an inherited immunity to the Calisi virus. Any survivor will have an acuired immunity, but even rabbits that have never been "exposed" to the virus have an increased immunity (which means they are more likely to survive their first encounter with the virus and go on to develop a full blown aquiered immunity).

 

So, yes, they can develop an aquiered immunity, and you are right in that. But, it is the inherited resistance and immunity that I was talking about, and in that your statement is wrong.

 

Using some sort of obstruction to exclude external sources isn't scientific, because the substance responsible for "telekinetics" could be blocked by it.

Well you could try differnet materials (as it might be a variable in the outcome). Actually, if it couold be blocked by materials, could it be blocked by Air? This would of course mean that no psychic powres could be used except in a vaccum (which would mean that there would not be much use for it here on Earth and it would not have evolved, so we wouldn't have it in the first place ).

 

Now you have postulated that it might be a manipulation of magnetic fields. However, we know what materials would block magnetic fields so we can then rule out either it is caused by manipulation of magnetic fields or that the materials used blocks the effects of the psychic powers.

 

We also know what materials block all known forces (ie for gravity: none), so we can then extend the above conclusion to: Either psychic powers are caused by a new and previously unknown and undetected force that is blocked by mundane materials (and if it is a force, blocking it should allow us to detect it anyway, just not on the object that we are hopeing to target but on the object that is blocking it), or psychic powers don't exist.

 

Measuring devices now days can be extremely sensitive. We can measure displacemnts of less than an atomic width, we can weigh molecules, we can detect changes in timing down to a very small fraction of a second, and yet, in none of these has any significant effect been detected that we didn't know about (or couldn't be attributed to something we know about).

 

So, based on this, we can set an upper limit on the effectivness of any psychic power (telekinisis) as too weak to give more force than the weight of a molecule, or move something greater thana fraction of an atomic width.

 

Of what use would such an ability be? There would be no whay that such an ability could have had any effect like you are expecting.

 

If you wish to experiment, you could go down a lengthy road of attempting to move a light paper "pinwheel" (commonly seen on many "psion" websites and communities). The only way to prove it's you doing it, is to move it both ways on command rapidly.

Forget a pinwheel. How about using something much more sensitive?

 

Fire a laser through a beam splitter, then reflect each beam of a mirror and into another beam splitter (aligned so as to recombine the beams). Adjust the mirrors so that the beams interfere with each other.

 

Get the telekinetic to move one of the mirrors. Even the slightest movemnt should be picked up as a slight change in the mirror will dramaticly change the interference pattern. You should be able to detect movemnts and forces far smaller than what would be needed to move a pinwheel.

 

I wonder why people use the magic trick style of demonstration of psychic powers. As an amature magician (well, more of a hobby than doing actual performances, but I have done a couple of improptu performances), I can easily understnad why someone who wanted to fake it would choose such a format as it give plenty of oppertunity to sneak a trick in there. It also restricts acurate measuerments (an essential if you are wanting to fake it).

 

Using known and well understood scientific devices menas the "performer" would not be able to set the apperatus up as they liked (another hint that it is a fake in progress) and as these "performance prop" demonstration have many unaccounted for inputs. Those attempting to study it can not eliminate all causes and so the performer can claim that the scientist was not able to determine what the cause of the effect is. Then by using some really bad logical fallacies, claim that because they don't know what the cause was exactly, then that proves that psychic powers exist.

 

Yes, I actually got into a conversation with someone that did exactly that. They claimed that because someone could completely rule out that it might have been psychic power, then that was absolute proof that psychic powers existed.

 

Why am I saying this? Well you seem to be headding down that path.

[jeremyhfht]

You have assumed that as our intelligence is evolving, this is proof that psychic powers are also evolving. Yes, intelegence is evolving in humans, but just because we are intelligent does not necesarily mean that we have psychic powers. We could be intelligent without psychic powers.

 

Therefore Intelligence does not equal psychic potential.

 

Welcome to logical fallacies 101: Straw man. I did not say that our intelligence evolving is proof of psychic abilities. I did explain that evolution of intelligence could allow us some abilities we falsely consider metaphysical or "psychic".

 

You're completely redefining what "psychic" is. Also, "psychic power" in no way relates to what the description of those two abilities are. The word psychic is defined as:

 

1. A person apparently responsive to psychic forces.

2. See medium (sense 6).

 

adj. also psy·chi·cal (-kĭ-kəl)

 

1. Of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche; mental: psychic trauma; psychic energy.

2.

1. Capable of extraordinary mental processes, such as extrasensory perception and mental telepathy.

2. Of or relating to such mental processes.

 

In a sense you are correct. Intelligence doesn't equal psychic potential. It does tend to equal better awareness/control though. Even so, you based it on a fallacious premise (that of a straw man).

 

 

What proof do you have of this? This is just an assumption by you on your preconceived expectations of what you believe psychic powers are.

 

There is proof that those two abilities are not what I hypothesized them to be? Where is it?

 

You keep referring to them as "psychic". Can you prove this?

 

My evidence was already presented through the use of inductive reasoning. I used the premise of various bodies of science and research to support a conclusion but not confirm it. From here, you can falsify it by experimenting or learning of some factual flaw. Like how dreams might not be what I described.

 

The ability to "control" ones actions is not only in Humans, Dogs can do this, most the great apes have this ability, and maybe some birds and cetations too and suprisingly some Crocodiles have shown a remarkable level of intelegence to the point where they can be taught tricks like a dog.

 

Fallacy: Apples to Oranges. Animals do not have the ability to cognitively control their actions. An example would again be the slowing of the heart by cognitive effort.

 

 

Many of the mental abilities that we ascribe as being essential to being Human have been show to occur in animals.

 

To a very lesser degree. Humans have a higher evolved frontal lobe and cerebral cortex, after all. The frontal lobe being important because it's involved in self control.

 

The closest in size would be our relatives, but function and composition are very different. Also important is that humans have the largest frontal cortex volume .

 

So if, as you claim, it is only Humans that have the potential to express psychic powres, then you will have to explain why other animals will find it impossible. As all other mental abilities occur in other animals, then, if psychic powers are a product of the brain, why can't they occur in other animals?

 

Logical Fallacy 101: Straw Man. I did not claim that only humans have the potential for visions and telekinetics as I described/defined them. Only a sentient species with sufficient control over themselves would be sufficed.

 

Then again, the opposite could be true. Maybe there is some odd mutation that can cause it while at the same time leaving the species primal. I don't know. And neither do you.

 

You're basing this conclusion on a number of false and illogical premises. Thus the problem with your conclusion.

 

No, Humans have been evolving for 4 billion years or so. Admittedly we weren't Homo Sapiens for most of that, but for the last 1,000,000 we have been "almost" Human.

 

Factual errors 101: The closest we can say humans began evolving to their current state is from the last mass extinction 65,000,000 years ago. Then again, scientists think that the earliest human ancestor appeared 85,000,000 years ago.

 

The first stone tools are found 2,000,000 years ago "developed" by H. habilis. Homo Habilis is argued to be the first species of "Homo" to appear. They existed from 2.4-1.6 million years ago.

 

Which means the first appearance of human-like ancestors is 2.4 million years ago. It has taken us 2.4 million years to go from stone tools to our current level of technology. Most of which happened in the last 10,000 years.

 

This means we have hardly had enough time to evolve our intelligence to very high levels. Keep in mind that the AVERAGE person is still pretty stupid compared to the rest of us. Most of our advancements were from a select few brilliant people.

 

There's also a psychological element to consider. The more intelligent people generally have a better ability of self control. Excluding religiously influenced parties (Buddhist monks for example). Why? Better use of our intelligence. We're more aware of consequences and connections. Going from there I can induce that intelligence, through making us more aware, can allow us better self control.

 

The rest is hard practice. It can take years of meditation to control some autonomous functions. Since it takes a lot of time to train neural pathways that control heartbeats, breathing, and a lot of other factors. From an example of the work involved with controlling autonomous functions, I can then induce that even minor things like dream "visions" or minor telekinetics requires a lot of intelligence (first to discover a working method), then a lot of practice and training.

 

Admittedly that's a best case scenario, but again it's speculative reasoning based on various assumptions, factual premises, and so on.

 

[...] There is a lot of evidence that many of the species we have decended from have had some remarkable mental abilities (like the ability to control their actions as we do - what you claim is a necesity for psychic powers to develop). So I would estimate that there has been around 5,000,000 years for such powers to develop in an environment: an "intelligent" creature capable of being able to .

 

Logical Fallacy: Factual error. Our prior conditions would not allow for our intelligence to evolve as it has in the past 10,000 years because we were too busy dying before age 40. Prehistoric conditions were far too savage for any of what I've described. We never really had time to sit and think when we were busy hunting and gathering every hour we were awake.

 

So no we are not "at the beginning". We have had millions of years of opertunity to evolve any rudimentary abilities. There was no physiological leap when we developed civilisation, it was just a series of social structures and apropreate environmental conditions being in the same place and time.

 

Factual errors 101: As I have explained, our ability to make even basic tools has been very recent. I assume that our neural cortex volume has spent the past two million years increasing quite rapidly. As a result we inevitably became intelligent enough to make way for agriculture.

 

I do know that we have had "about" this level of intelligence for a long time. Yet as I explained, it also requires a stable environment to achieve better awareness/control. We are in the beginning in that we can barely achieve this with years of training.

 

Well you could try differnet materials (as it might be a variable in the outcome).

 

Which should only be done AFTER an experiment proves successful. Doing so beforehand is a bit...unscientific.

 

Measuring devices now days can be extremely sensitive. We can measure displacemnts of less than an atomic width, we can weigh molecules, we can detect changes in timing down to a very small fraction of a second, and yet, in none of these has any significant effect been detected that we didn't know about (or couldn't be attributed to something we know about).

 

Where's Dark Matter?

 

One of the problems with this line of reasoning is assuming enough tests have been done. I can assure you they haven't in regards to these abilities, as I've did quite a bit of study regarding what has been done. Normally it's limited to measuring brain activity or magnetic fields.

 

Something to consider is the human effect on some types of matter. Some things might not, "naturally", cause such an effect. Then when affected by other substances it isn't in lab situations, it will react differently.

 

Forget a pinwheel. How about using something much more sensitive?

 

If you have the equipment: Go for it. The problem is said equipment is also TOO sensitive. It will read a "positive" when it's not you generating movement. I advise a pinwheel because it's a practical observation solution that doesn't require scientific equipment.

 

What would require scientific equipment is when one would go "public" with their findings or somesuch. I advised it as a simple private solution.

 

Yes, I actually got into a conversation with someone that did exactly that. They claimed that because someone could completely rule out that it might have been psychic power, then that was absolute proof that psychic powers existed.

 

Why am I saying this? Well you seem to be headding down that path.

 

Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem. For your conversation partner: Negative Proof Fallacy.

[Klaynos]

There is proof that those two abilities are not what I hypothesized them to be? Where is it?

 

Alas I'm a bit busy right now, but this jumped out at me...

 

The burden of proof is on you not us. This is alas how science works

[jeremyhfht]

Alas I'm a bit busy right now, but this jumped out at me...

 

The burden of proof is on you not us. This is alas how science works

 

As I explained, I provided inductive reasoning based on various sciences and scientific evidence. Thus, I have "suffered" the burden of proof. If you disagree with my definitions, then you must take on the burden of proof and prove them incorrect.

 

If I had claimed to be able to do telekinetics, the burden of proof would be on me to prove I can. Instead, I hypothesized that telekinetics is possible. The burden of proof is on me to prove how it could be.

[Edtharan]

I did not say that our intelligence evolving is proof of psychic abilities. I did explain that evolution of intelligence could allow us some abilities we falsely consider metaphysical or "psychic".

Yes you did:

In fact that is a good argument proving that evolution IS the driving cause of it. It's why we're evolving towards furthering our intelligence...

 

I did explain that evolution of intelligence could allow us some abilities we falsely consider metaphysical or "psychic".

Sorry, that is not how it reads.

 

You're completely redefining what "psychic" is. Also, "psychic power" in no way relates to what the description of those two abilities are...

 

...You keep referring to them as "psychic". Can you prove this?

Telekinesis and Remote Viewing (the two abilities you have been talking about) are commonly refered to as "psychic powers". So 1) I am not redefining what Psychic Powers are and 2) The efects you describe are very closely related to the descriptions as they are considdered under the term psychic powers.

 

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

Have a look down near the bottom under the heading: Psychokinesis in popular culture.

It says:

Psychokinesis has a well-established existence as a psychic power

 

There is proof that those two abilities are not what I hypothesized them to be? Where is it?

You are caliming that telekinetic powers (and other "psychic powers" if they exist) are dependent on our ability to use self control. However, as there is no known proof of actual psychic powers actually existing, how can you make the claim that they are connected?

 

It is an assumption that you later use to prove that same assumption.

 

You claim that telekinetics requiers us to exert "control". Therefore, if we have the ability to control ourselves, this is therfore admisable as proof that telekinetics exists.

 

I am sorry it just does not folow.

 

That control could have come into existance for a completely different reason, therfore it is not admisable as proof of telekinetics.

 

You seem to be looking for proof that telekinetics exists but starting from the assumption that telekinetics exists.

 

Again

 

My evidence was already presented through the use of inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning requiers assuptions. Therefore all my claims that you have been making assuptions is therofre not a strawman, but based on the fact that inductive reasoning requiers assuptions.

 

I used the premise of various bodies of science and research to support a conclusion but not confirm it.

What? Magnetic fields exist -> The brain produces electromagnetic fields -> Therefore telekinesis is the brain manipulating electromagnetic fields in a way to make obejcts move.

 

Animals do not have the ability to cognitively control their actions.[/

QUOTE]

Sorry, they do.

 

Have you ever trained a Dog to stay and not eat a snack? For the Dog to resist the urge to eat the snack (which they want to do or they wouldn't eat the snack when you tell then it is ok to do so), they must exsert self control of the type you are claiming that they can't.

 

You want proof, just go down to your nearest Dog obedience school. Most obedience training of pets is to teach them to resist and control their natural responses.

 

An example would again be the slowing of the heart by cognitive effort.

If you could get them to understand the concept of slowing their heart, then yes, they could do that. Dogs (and other animals) can be trained to control other autonomous function (salavating, for example - look to Pavlov's experiments to see where this started).

 

So you have made assumptions without being in possesion of all the facts, and when these facts are presented to you, you claim: "Fallacy".

 

To a very lesser degree. Humans have a higher evolved frontal lobe and cerebral cortex, after all. The frontal lobe being important because it's involved in self control.

Physiologically there is nothing "New" in our brains that is not present in nearly all other vertabrates. So, are you claiming that we have somthing extra to our brains, or that it is just that we have more of it?

 

If it is only a case of "more of it", then there is no reason that the necesary wireing could not have appeared within another species as not all out frontal lobe would be used for telekinetic (or other) powers (or we wouldn't have the self control that we have). Therefore, the part of the frontal lobe that theortically might be responsable for telekinetic powers must only be a part of that larger structure. If it is not the whole thing, then it could appear within a smaller frontal lobe in a more "primative" animal.

 

Which is the point of my "evolution disproves psychic powers" argument. If it could have existed in another animal, why, given it's obviously major advantage to survival, is it not commonly seen in animals?

 

If you are claiming that there is someting new to our brains, then the burden of proof is on you to show what that is (and where it is) in scans of the brain (MRI, etc). The exact same technology that you are referenceing to show that it is our frontal cortext that is used in self control show absolutly no new physiological feature in our brains that could be involved in psychic powers.

 

So, either you must accept that if there is such an aspect to our frontal cortex that controls telekinetic potential is a sub feature that could occur within the brains of a less mentally developed animal, or that the scans of the brain that show the frontal coretx are wrong (which then means that it is not our frontal cortex that gives us control), or that psychic powrs are not dependant on the frontal cortex development at all (and are to do with some other aspect of our brains - but that opens all the problems that belong to both of the first options).

 

The closest in size would be our relatives, but function and composition are very different.

Funtion and composition of the brain, besides the sizes of the brain regions, are remarkably similar acros all vertabrates from Humans to Fish. Not only are the various regions of the brain included, the positioning of them relative to each other are also remarkable similar.

 

Logical Fallacy 101: Straw Man. I did not claim that only humans have the potential for visions and telekinetics as I described/defined them. Only a sentient species with sufficient control over themselves would be sufficed.

Ok. But as Humans are the only sentient species that we know of, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that you ment "Humans". Also, as you have been arguing that other animals are not capable and only Humans have the capability, it further re-enforces this conclusion.

 

So, not a strawman exactly. But a reasonable conclusion based off your statements.

 

Sure, if there is an intelligent alien species that is sentient, then sure, they might have the capacity, but as you have not brought that up, and any such speculation is just that: Speculation wihtout the posibility of proof within this context.

 

Then again, the opposite could be true. Maybe there is some odd mutation that can cause it while at the same time leaving the species primal. I don't know. And neither do you.

But that has been my point .

 

If it is possible that a mutation could allow any animal to develop these kinds of powers, then evolution would favour the spread of these and further development and refinement of them. So, if animals could get a mutation that would give them such powers, then it begs the question: Why don't we see aniamls with these powers? And it wouldn't be a subtle existance of these powers, it would definitly show up in an obvious way (responding to predators that they could not have posible detected otherwise, actually moveing obejcts - like fruit from distant branches, etc).

 

So from this we can conclude that ther eis no modification of existing brain physilogy that would allow such powers to exist and as humans, besides haivng larger brains are physiologically identical to a fish's brain, we can therefore conclude that if psychic powers are existant in other vertibrates, then it is not likely (read virtually imposible) that such powers exist for us.

 

Factual errors 101: The closest we can say humans began evolving to their current state is from the last mass extinction 65,000,000 years ago. Then again, scientists think that the earliest human ancestor appeared 85,000,000 years ago.

Factual error 102: The ancestoral species that Humans decened from did not pop into existance 65,000,000 years ago. That ancestor was decened from a species that existed before 65,000,000 years ago, and can trace it's ancestory back to the first life on Earth. Therefore we are the result of around 4,000,000,000 years of evolution, just like I said.

 

This means we have hardly had enough time to evolve our intelligence to very high levels.

Technology does not equal intelligence. Just because a species has not developed a high level of technology does not mean that it is not intelligent. Dolphins have a high intelligence and like humans have a high brain size for their body size. However, I have yet to see a Dolphin with a PDA or typing on the internet.

 

Technology is the result of Intelligence, environment (both the physical environment and the social environment) and physiology that allows tool use.

 

It could be possible for an animal (not that one exists) to have an intelligence far exceeding our own, but if it was a solitary animal that never formed a social structure, then whatever it invents would never be passed on to others and so technology would never develop. Or, if they laced apendages that could manipulate tools, then they would never invent tools and so never be able to devleop technology.

 

You have presented a non-sequiter.

 

Not only that, but intelliegnece is not necesary for tool use in the first place. Weaver ants use the silk from their lava to construct their nests. Their tool might come from a living organism (but is not a wood tool the same for us?), but it is using a tool to achieve a job.

 

There are so many exceptions to all your claims, that it amounts to your claims lacking any real substance.

 

I can then induce that even minor things like dream "visions" or minor telekinetics requires a lot of intelligence (first to discover a working method), then a lot of practice and training.

Only if you assum that telikinitics exist in the first palce. Remember the discussion is not about how one would go about using these powers, but whether the powers actually exist.

 

Our prior conditions would not allow for our intelligence to evolve as it has in the past 10,000 years because we were too busy dying before age 40. Prehistoric conditions were far too savage for any of what I've described. We never really had time to sit and think when we were busy hunting and gathering every hour we were awake.

Hunting and gathering actually take up less time than farming. The advantage of farming is that yoiu have a constant supply and can produce more than you need.

 

Have you ever collected berries yourself? I have (blackberries) and you can collect in about an hour easily enough to feed you for a day or two (they usually don't keep longer than that). This was gathering (as in hunting and gathering). So, a farmer would have to tend their fields for that two days (and still not have anything to show for it at the end of those two days), and I spent an hour. Which takes more time?

 

Actually, the average life spans of aincent times is slightly skewed by the fact that there where two main causes of death.

1) Deaths during child birth of both the mother and the infant.

2) Deaths during childhood and adolecence (in fact deaths during adolecence is still quite high compared to other ages).

 

So yes, if over half the children die before the age of 18, then even if you have the rest living to 60, the average age will still be quite low. So your reasoning is flawed. Many of the aincent populations did have a low average life expectancey, but it was not because nobody lived beyond 40, it was because there were many infant and childhood deaths.

 

Lets just think aobut it. If we use a conservative estimate (sorry consensus details are not currently available for 10,000 years ago ) of 1/3 dieing before the age of 18, then a constant die off from 18 years on and assume an average life expectancey of 40, then we can easily see that many people would have to live past 40 and for a lot longer past 40 to get that average life expectance up to 40.

 

Peopl didn't just reach their 40th birthday and just drop dead. No, that is an average life expectancy and with a high infant mortality rate, once you made it past those early years you life expectancey would be quite high (around 60 or 70 and even as high as 80).

 

Average life expectancy has sored in recent years, not because we are living decades longer, but because infant mortality rates have dramatically dropped.

 

Yet as I explained, it also requires a stable environment to achieve better awareness/control. We are in the beginning in that we can barely achieve this with years of training.

Training is just changeing the way your brain is wired. So, back to my "evolution disprove it", if it is down to "training" or the wireing of the brain, then there is no barrier for an animal having a mutation that wires their brain up the right way to achieve these powers. If this is so, then again: Why don't we see animals with these powers? And, why do you keep insisting that only Humans are capable of manifesting these powers?

 

Which should only be done AFTER an experiment proves successful. Doing so beforehand is a bit...unscientific.

No, it is being thorough. If the material used to block cheating might cause the blocking of the psychic powers, then this must be taken into account. If we just tried once and failed and then never checked again, then if the failure was down to the material used, then the whole inquirey would have been worthless (as it gave an incorrect result because we didn't take into account all the variable that might have contributed to the experimeny's failure).

 

So it would be unscientific not to test all the variables that might have effected the outcome of the experiment and what I proposed was extremely scientific by comparison.

 

One of the problems with this line of reasoning is assuming enough tests have been done. I can assure you they haven't in regards to these abilities, as I've did quite a bit of study regarding what has been done. Normally it's limited to measuring brain activity or magnetic fields.

Have you by chance heard of the Pauli effect? It was a joke superstition about Wolfgang Puli a famous physicist. It seemed that whenever he was around, experiments would "inexplicably" go wrong. It was tested and no super natural effect was found.

 

In your research you probably only looked at experiments where they were directly testing for psychic phenomina. However, in any experiment, things go wrong. When they do, they have to try and find out what caused the error.

 

It is in these that you would find the data to indicate (not an absolute proof or disproof, but supporting evidence for further experimentation). Not even through this data has there ever been any telekinetic effect been found.

 

Sorry, there just does not exist any evidence.

 

Something to consider is the human effect on some types of matter. Some things might not, "naturally", cause such an effect. Then when affected by other substances it isn't in lab situations, it will react differently.

:confused:

 

Are you claiming that matter knows that it is in a scientific laboritory and decides to "play up" and not behave the same way as in the outside world?

 

If you have the equipment: Go for it. The problem is said equipment is also TOO sensitive. It will read a "positive" when it's not you generating movement. I advise a pinwheel because it's a practical observation solution that doesn't require scientific equipment.

No statistical analysis will reveal whether or not you have "false" positives. Also such "noise" would be accounted for and you would be seeking a result above the background noise.

 

Actually, many of these measurement devices are so sensitive that the signal they are looking for is far less than the background noise anyway. So they have developed techniques that allow them to remove all the background noise and reveal any signal there. So this argument that it is "too sensitive" is just a way of avoiding the posibility of a real test of the existance of such powers, and an obvious one at that.

[jeremyhfht]

I did not say that our intelligence evolving is proof of psychic abilities. I did explain that evolution of intelligence could allow us some abilities we falsely consider metaphysical or "psychic".

 

Yes you did:

In fact that is a good argument proving that evolution IS the driving cause of it. It's why we're evolving towards furthering our intelligence...

 

I'm sorry' date=' but no I did not. That paragraph (even though taken out of context) explains that evolution is the cause abilities like telekinetics through evolving our intelligence. If you think otherwise, just realize you're disagreeing with the person that wrote it.

 

Telekinesis and Remote Viewing (the two abilities you have been talking about) are commonly referred to as "psychic powers". So 1) I am not redefining what Psychic Powers are and 2) The effects you describe are very closely related to the descriptions as they are considered under the term psychic powers.

 

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

Have a look down near the bottom under the heading: Psychokinesis in popular culture.

 

As I explained (and you ignored), under my definition they are NOT psychic powers. Under the current vague definition (ergo, belief that they aren't physical but metaphysical), then sure that applies. But I fail to see how any of it applies here when I redefined the terms first and foremost.

 

Therefore, you have to prove it incorrect based on my new definitions. As well as stop using the word "psychic" to describe them since, under the definition, they are not psychic.

 

You are caliming that telekinetic powers (and other "psychic powers" if they exist) are dependent on our ability to use self control. However, as there is no known proof of actual psychic powers actually existing, how can you make the claim that they are connected?

 

I already explained them earlier. I absolutely refuse to repeat myself. If you must refresh your memory, reread what I have written. I believe I wrote a very thorough explanation as to why possible telekinetic ability would be tied to our self control.

 

You claim that telekinetics requires us to exert "control". Therefore, if we have the ability to control ourselves, this is therefore admissible as proof that telekinetics exists.

 

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I said telekinetics, if it exists, would require us control over the autonomous function it would be a part of. Which would mean self control would be required to use whatever function it's part of. Self control itself does absolutely nothing to prove telekinetics exists. I merely used it to describe how telekinetics could be harnessed.

 

I said nothing about the "therefore" shit. I'm growing impatient with your perpetual inaccuracy.

 

Inductive reasoning requires assumptions. Therefore all my claims that you have been making assumptions is therefor not a straw man, but based on the fact that inductive reasoning requires assumptions.

 

Assumptions based on hard facts. That's the only time I used inductive reasoning. I described those facts quite clearly. Although it seems your apparent dyslexia prevents you from understanding most of what I write.

 

What? Magnetic fields exist -> The brain produces electromagnetic fields -> Therefore telekinesis is the brain manipulating electromagnetic fields in a way to make obejcts move.

 

It seems you can't grasp how much speculation I put into the magnetic fields bit. I only mentioned it once. The rest of my descriptions were shifted to more of an explanation without knowledge of what would cause it. One can't speculate the substance without first speculating the existence. It would be best that you drop it.

 

Sorry, they do.

 

Have you ever trained a Dog to stay and not eat a snack? For the Dog to resist the urge to eat the snack (which they want to do or they wouldn't eat the snack when you tell then it is ok to do so), they must exert self control of the type you are claiming that they can't.

 

I find it absurd that you are correlating basic primal control to such an advanced concept as telekinetics. My post clarified what I meant by that phrase. Animals do not have anywhere near the level of cognitive control we possess.

 

Training a dog is more of a subconscious control mechanism we instill in them through repetition. Even lab rats can learn similar tricks. As can almost any animal. This, however, does not suggest cognitive thinking in the least. Perhaps you should read up on the philosophy of cognitive thought if you want to get what I'm trying to convey.

 

If you could get them to understand the concept of slowing their heart, then yes, they could do that. Dogs (and other animals) can be trained to control other autonomous function (salivating, for example - look to Pavlov's experiments to see where this started).

 

Do you even know what cognitive means? Pavlov's experiments were the result of training the dogs primal brain to know what meant "food". There's nothing cognitive about it. The dogs did not cognitively control their salivating. Their brains were trained to turn it "on" in preparation for food.

 

We can train ourselves. The dogs cannot.

 

Physiologically there is nothing "New" in our brains that is not present in nearly all other vertebrates. So, are you claiming that we have something extra to our brains, or that it is just that we have more of it?

 

Excuse me. What? "Nearly all other vertebrates"? The human brain is only similar to its biological family. Brain composition can be similar, but its workings are very different from that of many other families.

 

Sufficed to say, homo sapiens do not need anything "novel" or "new" if it's as I described. But it should be obvious that our brains work very differently than other members of the primate family due to its volume and such. I'm not entirely clear on it, as I'm not a neurologist. It does open up a window for further study, though.

 

If it is only a case of "more of it", then there is no reason that the necesary wireing could not have appeared within another species as not all out frontal lobe would be used for telekinetic (or other) powers (or we wouldn't have the self control that we have).

 

Indeed. So why hasn't the necessary wiring appeared in other members of the primate family to construct spears, build fires, create agriculture communities, mathematics, and millions of other achievements of humans?

 

It is not only a neurological thing that would allow for telekinetics. In theory it should take years of meditation (varying depending on the individual) to control it at our current stage in evolution. It's nothing we have immediately available, and because of this it's something that requires more conscious effort than other species would be capable of. Which generally only appears in species with highly developed brains (such as ours).

 

The volume (not SIZE) of the neocortex and the frontal lobe is what allows us conscious control over our autonomous functions. We, I believe, have the largest volume versus other animals.

 

Science doesn't answer the "why" part. Philosophy does.

 

Which is the point of my "evolution disproves psychic powers" argument. If it could have existed in another animal, why, given it's obviously major advantage to survival, is it not commonly seen in animals?

 

I had explained earlier in my posts. I refuse to repeat myself.

 

If it is possible that a mutation could allow any animal to develop these kinds of powers, then evolution would favour the spread of these and further development and refinement of them.

 

I mentioned the possibility in good faith. As a possibility. According to my hypothetical explanation, it makes no sense for it to be a genetic mutation. If it was, everyone would have it. Which furthers the point that it isn't a mutation.

 

So from this we can conclude that there is no modification of existing brain physiology that would allow such powers to exist and as humans, besides having larger brains are physiologically identical to a fish's brain, we can therefore conclude that if psychic powers are existent in other vertebrates, then it is not likely (read virtually impossible) that such powers exist for us.

 

They have similar compositions (neurons and other cells), but how they are "organized" and evolved are VASTLY different. Also, only mammals tend to have a neocortex. The fact you keep getting things wrong proves your lack of study.

 

Factual error 102: The ancestoral species that Humans decened from did not pop into existance 65,000,000 years ago. That ancestor was decened from a species that existed before 65,000,000 years ago, and can trace it's ancestory back to the first life on Earth. Therefore we are the result of around 4,000,000,000 years of evolution, just like I said.

 

VERY loosely, which means it's impossible to correlate anything recent to evolution prior to around 80,000,000 years. Your originally intended point is moot. In fact the only correlation that can be made evolution wise rests with the family of primates. Anything prior to that lacks enough similarities to be considered related to us in any manner but "extremely loose".

 

So if you still have a point, I'm curious as to know what it could be.

 

Technology does not equal intelligence.

 

I meant that as a loose correlation. Immediately, no, it does not. Although I don't see an Ape community using spears against its enemies. Or even basic stone tools to make life easier. Technology is generally evidence of our intelligence capacity. Environmentally caused or not.

 

Only if you assume that telekinetics exist in the first place. Remember the discussion is not about how one would go about using these powers, but whether the powers actually exist.

 

And included in that explanation is what is required. Since you seemed convinced that we can "do it right away". At this stage in our evolution, we can't. That's why I explained what it would require. To give you a mental image of how "weak" such an ability would be.

 

Hunting and gathering actually take up less time than farming. The advantage of farming is that you have a constant supply and can produce more than you need.

 

I advise you read on the advent of agriculture. Prior to agriculture we were forced to spend all our time foraging and hunting because we never had a surplus. And if we did it would be minimal. Surviving only on hunted animals and foraged goods allows very little personal time.

 

Meanwhile, with agriculture, we had many months of free time before and after harvests. Crops did not require constant attention, and throughout history we have invented more and more things that allow us free time. It also allowed us to stop being nomads due to limitations in food supplies, which furthered our civilization achievements.

 

Training is just changeing the way your brain is wired. So, back to my "evolution disprove it", if it is down to "training" or the wireing of the brain, then there is no barrier for an animal having a mutation that wires their brain up the right way to achieve these powers. If this is so, then again: Why don't we see animals with these powers? And, why do you keep insisting that only Humans are capable of manifesting these powers?

 

Why don't we see animals with an innate ability for mathematics? Since math training is just changing the way your brain is wired, we should see it in all other animals because it's an evolutionary advantage.

 

I don't insist that only humans are capable. I insist that intelligence is a major factor in it. Something you seem to not wish to believe. I suppose a 5 year old should be doing advanced physics calculations?

 

No, it is being thorough. If the material used to block cheating might cause the blocking of the psychic powers, then this must be taken into account.

 

You need to confirm they exist before you can figure out which materials block it. Hence why it's unscientific. If conducted properly, a test where no materials blocking it could still rule out trickery.

 

If you disagree it's similar to saying "we should have figured out which materials blocked nuclear radiation before we knew it existed".

 

 

Are you claiming that matter knows that it is in a scientific laboritory and decides to "play up" and not behave the same way as in the outside world?

 

Obviously not. I'm saying that a human will interact with matter differently than most tests done in a lab. Especially if there's some type of matter a human can influence.

 

There are many many substances that influence others, of course. Such as magnets.

 

No statistical analysis will reveal whether or not you have "false" positives.

 

Were you paying attention, you'd know that the test doesn't depend on statistics analysis but visual. If you can get a pinwheel to move as I described, you do not need sensitive equipment. Just a good speed and the ability to change its direction at will. To explain it simply.

 

Anything less wouldn't be significant enough for study. Since it could be an external source rather than telekinetics. Using advanced equipment for anything prior to that is absolutely needless.

[Edtharan]

As I explained (and you ignored), under my definition they are NOT psychic powers. Under the current vague definition (ergo, belief that they aren't physical but metaphysical), then sure that applies. But I fail to see how any of it applies here when I redefined the terms first and foremost.

I was only useing the term "Psychic" as a collective Noun. As a handel to aid conversation when talking about all the different abilities that you describe. If you give me an acceptable collective Noun that I can use, then will. Untill you do so, I will just have to use the onyl one that comes close. Even though I know that it is not entirely accurate (in your point of view).

 

Besides, psychic stems from psycho, which relates to the mind. As you have described them as relating to the mind, then Psychic is a perfectally acceptable term (in lieu of one proposed by you).

 

It seems you can't grasp how much speculation I put into the magnetic fields bit.

Ok, maybe I did overestimate your speculation, but you seem to be trying to specify a mechanism for such powers. But this is the closest you have actually come to using known scientific phenomina. That is why I foccused on it.

 

If we get into speculation that does not use known scientific phenomina, then litterally anything might be possible and then there is absolutly no whay I can argue against it. And, there is also no way you could argue for it either (unless you can show that these new physics actually exist in the first place).

 

Animals do not have anywhere near the level of cognitive control we possess.

What is it about neural wireing that give us control that would give us these powers that could not be replicated by harwireing a simpler brain (ie instinct)?

 

I believe I wrote a very thorough explanation as to why possible telekinetic ability would be tied to our self control.

Yes, but this does not address my questions at all.

 

I will accept (for the sake of argument), that these abilities requier self control. Then why would the potential to access these powers developed in Humans and not other animals?

 

If all it takes is self control to access these powers, then why would other animals, which show some aspect of self control (even you have admitted that), not be abel to access these powers?

 

If you claim that it requiers a specific level of self control, then why is it only at our level of self control that we have the potential?

 

What about self control gives us access to these powers? What if the level of self control was actually beyond that of any Human? What if it was a lot lower?

 

The Anthropogenic priciple is not a good position to support your claims. The anthropogenic priciple is not an explaination.

 

Although it seems your apparent dyslexia prevents you from understanding most of what I write.

Actually I do have a slight dislexia, thanks for using it as an insult.

 

Perhaps you should read up on the philosophy of cognitive thought if you want to get what I'm trying to convey.

I am quite familiar with the concept, and there are many different oopinions on it. Some of which contradict what you are claiming. You have chosen a subset of the subject and are using it to support your theories. However, within "the philosophy of cognitive thought" there are different thoughts.

 

I subscribe to a more "Materialistic" moddel. That is there is nothing within our brains that can't be explained within the laws of science. I have experimented with Artificial Neural Network simulations and I see no ability that our brain performs that is not explainable with curreently known science. The only difficulty is one of information density. The brain is so complex that we don't currently have the computational and storage capacities to accuratly moddel it. But this does not mean that ther is anything within it that defies any known law of physics.

 

So "Concentration" and "Meditation" are just activity patterns within the complex network of Neurons that lie within our brains. There is nothing Special about them (untill shown otherwise). The neuron types that make up our brains occure in nearly all vertibrates, so there is nothing but how they are wired and the numbers of them that sperates us from any other vertibrate brain.

 

Now that wireing and numbers do count for a lot, but so far you have not explained why you think that just wireing and numbers can give us extra abilities that are impossible in other animals wihtin invoking new physics (which would have to be proved first before they can be used as an explaination for these powers).

 

Scans of the brain show that not all our brain is used when we concentrate or meditate. This means that if concentration or meditation allows us to use these powers, then it can't be all the neurons in that particular region that allows us to access them.

 

The conclusion is that it would be down to a small "clump" of neurons that would give us these powers. If a clump like that can form (and evolve) then at all points it must have had a useful function (even if co-opted from another function).

 

As it, therfore, can not be our entire brain that would give us access to these powers, it should be posible to replicate the same clupm in a smaller brain.

 

So, again, if this clump that gives us these powers can be replicated in a smaller brain, and the development of the clump gives us evolutionary advantage throught its development, why can't this clump evolve wihtin a more primative brain?

 

You claim that it is only control that gives us access to these powers. But, how did they evolve if the neural physiology had to have appeard without any intervening (and evolutionary advantgious) steps, and only in humans and no other animals?

 

They have similar compositions (neurons and other cells), but how they are "organized" and evolved are VASTLY different.

But how does this difference give us these abilities?! Why should complexity give us an ability that is not explainable with any known law of physics?

 

Science doesn't answer the "why" part. Philosophy does.

All right then: How?

 

How do these powers work?

 

Excuse me. What? "Nearly all other vertebrates"? The human brain is only similar to its biological family. Brain composition can be similar, but its workings are very different from that of many other families.

Not really. Visual cortex, Auditory, Auditory, Olfactory, etc, etc.

 

Non Mammals don't have the Neocortex, but all mammals have it. Other than size and differences in positioning, there is very little difference between any two mammal brains.

 

So, maybe we can go so far as to say that they need the Neocortex, but then it still doesn't explain why no other mammal has these abilities.

 

Indeed. So why hasn't the necessary wiring appeared in other members of the primate family to construct spears, build fires, create agriculture communities, mathematics, and millions of other achievements of humans?

Well for one it was not evolutionary advantagious to do so. We only think such abilities are useful because they are useful to us in our environment.

 

What if a species had the ability to make tools, but was a solitary animal? It could not develop technology as technology requiers collaberation.

 

What if an animal develop the mental ability to create tools, but their natural weapons (claws and fangs) prohibited them from using them?

 

There are many, many, many reasons why tool making, or any of the other things would not develop to such a high level of complexity.

 

As further examples: A lot of aniamls have a rudimentry mathematical ability. For example, in birds, such ability can be useful to avoid parasitic species, like the cockoo from gaining an advantage by adding another egg to the nest.

 

Bees have been show that they can count. The number of repeats in a wiggle dance indicate the distance to the flowers that the scout bees have found (and the number of wiggles in the dance have meaning too).

 

There are numerous examples of animals being naturally able to count and add up.

 

Humans have this too. We have a natural counting limit of around 5 (+/- 2).

 

Try it your self. Get a random number of marbles from a jar (without counting first) and then without counting determin the number of marbles you have when you take a quick look at the number. You will find that this is very difficult for any number greater than 5 and at around 7 we find it almost imposible to determine the numbers by sight.

 

Ants (leafcutter ants specifically) demonstrate agriculture. They collect leaves (which they don't eat) and mulch them up and allow a fungus to consume them. they then harvest the fungus.

 

They care for the fungus, giving it water and nutrients when needed, then remove "weeds" (invasive species), and they even transport it to new colonies. In what way is this not agriculture? Sure it is instinctual, but that just might mean that they have evolved their agriculture far beyond our own. They have been at their agriculture for millions of years, where as we have only been at ours for a few thousand.

 

I advise you read on the advent of agriculture. Prior to agriculture we were forced to spend all our time foraging and hunting because we never had a surplus. And if we did it would be minimal. Surviving only on hunted animals and foraged goods allows very little personal time.

Go read "Colapse: How societies choose to fail or survive" by Jared Diamond.

 

Hunting and Forraging take far less time than farming, but because you can't store the products for long periods (as we can do with grains), you have to keep doing it if you want to eat.

 

Farming give delayed rewards. The work you do today will not be rewarded for many months. It also produces foods that can be easliy stored (like grains), or kept until needed (animals).

 

Farming is not just chucking seeds out into a field and then collecting them back up again in a few months time. For farming to succeed you need to make sure that the field is watered, ther are no weeds, keep pests (rabits, and other vermin) away, clear rubble (branches, fallen trees, rocks, etc), and so forth. These are all daily tasks! .

 

The thing is, a farmer can produce more food for a given effort, but that effort is still needed whether they are only producing enough for themselves or for the whole group, and that technology can have a increasing effect on the amount an individual can produce (where as hunting and gathering does not get such as great a benifit from technology).

 

Although I don't see an Ape community using spears against its enemies. Or even basic stone tools to make life easier.

Tool use among apes is quite well studdied nowdays. Many use stone tools to crack nuts. Even some monkeys - Macaqus (spelling?) - have show a remarkable grasp of tool use (even going so far as to use boyancy to achieve a goal - David Attenbough did a documentry on this).

 

Chimpanzees are know to throw rocks and sticks at invading troups and even use them as clubs.

 

It is not only a neurological thing that would allow for telekinetics. In theory it should take years of meditation (varying depending on the individual) to control it at our current stage in evolution.

Meditation and Concentration are just a product of our "neurological thing". So in what way is concentration and meditation not a "neurological thing"?

 

Why don't we see animals with an innate ability for mathematics? Since math training is just changing the way your brain is wired, we should see it in all other animals because it's an evolutionary advantage.

Again, they do have it. Many animals can tell the difference between 1 and 2 and some can get as high as 3 (or more). They can tell if something has been taken away, or added, and those that have an ability for abstract thought have demonstrated that they can count (Dolphins, Grerat Apes and suprisingly African grey parrots).

 

So, as you were saying?

 

If counting and mathematical ability were evolutionary advantagious, then: it is not suprising that we actually see it evoled in other animals.

 

VERY loosely, which means it's impossible to correlate anything recent to evolution prior to around 80,000,000 years. Your originally intended point is moot. In fact the only correlation that can be made evolution wise rests with the family of primates. Anything prior to that lacks enough similarities to be considered related to us in any manner but "extremely loose".

As both you and I brought up, we have the largest brain volume to body size than any other animal. But, we can apply this to fosilised ancestors too. We can look at their brain volume as compared to their body size, and even back 4 million years, our ancestors had large brain sizes as compared to their body sizes, the largest of all the aniamls at that time (but not compared to us now). So we can conclude that compared to other animals of this time period, these ancestors of ours would have likely been mental giants as compared to the other species.

 

SO my pint is why is it only now that we might have had the potential to evolve these powers? Concentration? Well we can roughly determine when speaking evolved in human's ancestors due to the way the throat is constructed. It is not an absolute proof, but the structures would have had to exist before speaking could ever have evolved in us and there is no obvious (or remotely obvious) reason that the structures should have evolved otherwise. So it is a good bet that this is when speaking began.

 

Now, speaking requiers a lot of control. It requiers control of the vocal chords, control of intent of the communication and it requiers control over breathing. That is a lot of control. So we can safely assume that this is when humans would have had to have evolved a reasonable amount of control over their bodily functions.

 

However, these were not Humans. The species was a human ancestor, but it was not "Human" as we define it. They were about halfway between Chimps and us (just a little bit further along towards us though, but that ofcourse could be bias too).

 

And included in that explanation is what is required. Since you seemed convinced that we can "do it right away". At this stage in our evolution, we can't. That's why I explained what it would require. To give you a mental image of how "weak" such an ability would be.

No, I didn't assume that we could do it right away. I am arguing that if such an ability were possible then any access however weak would give that species a huge evolutionary advantage and so would rapidly evolve to be a lot stronger in that species.

 

Actually, if you think about it, telekinisis would suppress any tool use or development. If you could move thiings with your mind, then plucking fruit from the highest branches would be easy, if it developed to be powerful enough (which it should given time) the species could fell trees, plow land, fight off enemies by throwing objects, or just outright strangle them, etc, etc, etc, and all wothout the need to devleop any tools.

 

In the last 40,000 years, humans have evolved quite a few physiological differences (skin colour, body sizes, etc), so if such an ability were available 40,000 years ago, then any group that could even use it occasionally with concentration, would have had a massive advantage over other groups and come to dominate the human gene pool in that time.

 

40,000 years ago, there weren't all that many humans on the planet. Humans passed through an evolutionary bottle neck (several times) and nearly became extinct (we would have been classed as an endangered species by today's defintion). And yet, we have now evolved quite a lot of variety.

 

We also know that when a species has a small geen pool that any advantagious mutation will rapidly spread through the population (as they are almost inbreeding).

 

So after considdering all these factors: If We are biologically the same as Humasn 40,000 years ago, why don't we see a strong presence of these abilities?

 

And if it is only in more recent times that 40,000 years ago that we have "evolved" this ability what makes us so special now? Why now rather than in 10,000,000 years time?

 

ALso, if it is more recent than 40,000 years ago that we ahve evolved these powers, then it is likely that not all people will have such powers regardless of their ability to concentrate or meditate. In fact they should almost be classed as a seperate species as they would have abilities that go beyond that "normal humans" could achieve.

 

So if you still have a point, I'm curious as to know what it could be.

Not a point so much as a few questions:

1)What is it about our brains that allows us to gain access to these abilities that is completely impossible for any other lower animal to have evolved?

 

Just stating that it is because we can exersize self control or meditate is not an answer. Self control and meditation are just states of the brain. If this was all that was needed, then aniamls would have evolved the ability to have self control because it would allow them access to those abilities. Doing that is just dodging the question.

 

2) Why is the level of self control limited to just what we can do now (with concentration)? What physical reason allows us at our current abilities just be able to get access to these powers? What is so special about our place in the Universe that we can get access to these powrers and other aniamls can't?

 

3) How do these powers work? What is it about our brains that allows them to use telekinisis? What is the physiological structure (or a good geuess at it will do) that give us this ability that does not occur in any other animal to any extent? Complexity can be evolved if it is advantagious to do so (as having these powers would be), so complexity is not the answer.

[jeremyhfht]

Actually I do have a slight dislexia, thanks for using it as an insult.

 

This explains a lot. I am hereby ending this discussion. I no longer have the patience nor the will to persist.

[iNow]

Dislexia has to do with spellings of words, not concepts of posts nor presentations of topic. Interesting that you suggest you abandon your position due to dislexia and not because your approach is invalid...

[Klaynos]

This explains a lot. I am hereby ending this discussion. I no longer have the patience nor the will to persist.

 

This is deeply offensive.

 

And shows a complete and total lack of understanding as to what dyslexia is.

[Daecon]

I always thought dyslexia was to do with visual-spacial co-ordination, not intellectual understanding of concepts, etc.

[Phi for All]

This explains a lot. I am hereby ending this discussion. I no longer have the patience nor the will to persist.

I think you're a drawoc and an elohssa. Personal opinion only.

[Klaynos]

I always thought dyslexia was to do with visual-spacial co-ordination, not intellectual understanding of concepts, etc.

 

That sounds like you're getting confused with dyspraxia (would someone like to correct the spelling) which as the name suggests is closely linked, there's also a numbers who's name I can never remember let alone spell...

 

Good to see we're keeping nicely on topic!

[Edtharan]

That sounds like you're getting confused with dyspraxia (would someone like to correct the spelling) which as the name suggests is closely linked, there's also a numbers who's name I can never remember let alone spell...

Disnumria (I have that too - makes phone numbers hell).

 

This is deeply offensive.

Yes, especially as he used it to indicate that I didn't understand what he was saying (which I did - I just disagreed with it). WHich is an Ad-Hominin.

 

Disagreement is not misunderstanding.

 

My dislexia (which is realtivly mild) usually means that my spelling is attrotious but I can take a good shot at the word (which many take as being that I don't know much about the subject that I am writing about or that I am not smart). I can usually read words (will make a few mistakes) as I don't actually read the letters, but the shape of the word (it is a bit like how you know what the Male and Female symbols are just by looking at them and knowing that they mean Male or Female).

 

This explains a lot. I am hereby ending this discussion. I no longer have the patience nor the will to persist.

I am willing to persist if you understand that I disagree with you.

 

The most valuable people you will ever find are those that are willing to disagree with you. People who blindly agree with you will never be able to show you when you are wrong (and we are only human so we will make mistakes).

 

We learn from our mistakes. So people who can see them and help you to see them are the ones that will help you to learn and become a batter person. Therefore they are the most valuable people that you can ever find.