ajb Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 How does it fit in with evolution? Why would the humans with these imaginary tendencies have a selective advantage? I have no idea. But clearly we do have some ingrained fears and hopes. Part of this is for sure cultural, but I wonder how much is deeper than that.
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Exactly and there maybe another type of motion which I have coined "a type of Brownian motion" that affects larger objects than is usually dealt with by classical Brownian motion. Let's call it Robittybobitty Motion just to make it distinct from BM then. You don't have the authority to do that. If you want to call it Robbittybob motion, that's fine. But if you use an established term you need to use it correctly. So, as I said, the only reason we are still discussing Brownian motion is that you don't understand it- specifically, you think it's some thing you made up. Now we have established that you were wrong, can we drop it? On the subject of evolution, both telepathy and telekinesis would be such useful traits that, if anyone had ever possessed them, it would have been strongly selected for. By now, many generations after the subject was first discussed, those without it would be either a sub-class of slaves, or extinct. Anyone who claims that these things exist has to show why they recently arose or why they are not universal. Edited January 24, 2016 by John Cuthber
imatfaal Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 .. Anyone who claims that these things exist has to show why they recently arose or why they are not universal. Agree with all the rest - but this sentence is not, imo, correct. All anyone has to do is to objectively demonstrate (repeatedly and to the satisfaction of sceptical and experimentally trained investigators) that one of these telekinetic or telepathic phenomena exists in a way that cannot at present be explained by established science. I don't believe this will ever happen - but that is all that is required. The investigation of the new science (because that is what it would become) will almost certainly not be done by the single person who had demonstrated it - let alone the explanation of why this has only recently been able to be documented in an empirical manner, nor the highly complex matter of understanding the differential selection pressure of this phenotype. These questions would have to be answered in the fullness of time - but we value empiricism and the thus the repeated demonstration in laboratory conditions (which has never happened and I don't think ever will) is the crucial part.
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Agree with all the rest - but this sentence is not, imo, correct. All anyone has to do is to objectively demonstrate (repeatedly and to the satisfaction of sceptical and experimentally trained investigators) that one of these telekinetic or telepathic phenomena exists in a way that cannot at present be explained by established science. I don't believe this will ever happen - but that is all that is required. The investigation of the new science (because that is what it would become) will almost certainly not be done by the single person who had demonstrated it - let alone the explanation of why this has only recently been able to be documented in an empirical manner, nor the highly complex matter of understanding the differential selection pressure of this phenotype. These questions would have to be answered in the fullness of time - but we value empiricism and the thus the repeated demonstration in laboratory conditions (which has never happened and I don't think ever will) is the crucial part. OK, fair point, but at the moment nobody is making any such claim. They just say "it works some of the time" (By an odd coincidence that seems to mean it works when they are the only one watching, but fails the rest of the time). They come up with excuses like the effect won't work through glass or the "interference" from the camera stops it working or whatever. OK, any of those could be a reason why it is never actually found to work when tested scientifically. They could even claim that it's God-given and thus it obviously won't work when it's tested because the Bible says so. However, in spite of all the excuses they can invent, and then some; they still need to explain why it's not universal.
swansont Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 No claims by any mainstream scientists suggest that life contradicts the laws of physics. Quite the opposite, life as far as we know obeys the usual principles of physics. To amplify this a bit: from a more pragmatic point, nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics. If such a situation were to potentially arise, we would modify the law in question (possibly just by placing a limitation of applicability on the existing law). Which is part of the reason mainstream scientists would not suggest such a thing. They know better. Some headline writers and crackpots, however, don't.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 24, 2016 Author Posted January 24, 2016 To amplify this a bit: from a more pragmatic point, nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics. If such a situation were to potentially arise, we would modify the law in question (possibly just by placing a limitation of applicability on the existing law). Which is part of the reason mainstream scientists would not suggest such a thing. They know better. Some headline writers and crackpots, however, don't. Nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics ? What about quantum teleportation ? Where as I have read information is teleported between particles. Is that not contradicting the laws of physics ?
Mordred Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics ? What about quantum teleportation ? Where as I have read information is teleported between particles. Is that not contradicting the laws of physics ?No. Its explainable via physics and replicatable via physics. We have the ability to easily produce entangled particles. Don't take your understanding from pop media literature. There's more false hocus pocus in those write ups than reality. Edited January 24, 2016 by Mordred
Eldad Eshel Posted January 24, 2016 Author Posted January 24, 2016 Doesn't quantum teleportation break the law of the speed of light ? Anyway that's what I read. I want to comment something, and that is how young modern science is. It is only about 100 years old, it is practically an infant, both in comparison to the overall age of humanity, and not to mention the age of planet earth or the universe. It is very young but at the same time also very arrogant and boustful, sort of like a baby bully. Lets take a look at the law of the speed of light. Currently the nearest planet outside the solar system is around 40 light years away, which means that even if we achieve light speed travel, it will be not very efficient, to say the least. My personal belief is that in the future some kind of teleportation of space vessels will be invented, and man will be able to travel the universe.
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 You don't seem to understand science. "Doesn't quantum teleportation break the law of the speed of light ?" no "Anyway that's what I read." So read better things. " I want to comment something, and that is how young modern science is. It is only about 100 years old, it is practically an infant, both in comparison to the overall age of humanity, " You might want to make that comment, and you might even make it, but that doesn't make it true. It is true by tautology that new science is new. however science has been going on for a long time This guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon is widely cited as the "father of science" about 400 years ago, but there's a strong argument that the subject started hundreds or thousands of years before him.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_cultures "it is practically an infant, " What infant that you know of gave you the internet and the microwave oven and antibiotics and so on? "It is very young " Only if you ignore the old bits. Even if you take the rather odd definition you chose, it's twice as old as I am, and it has the advantage of being able to amass the knowledge of many people rather than just one. "but at the same time also very arrogant and boustful" It isn't arrogance to claim to be right when you can demonstrate that you are. (and it also gave you access to spell checking software; why not use that? "sort of like a baby bully" Who does it bully? It's an abstract concept- how does it bully? "My personal belief is that in the future ..." Reality doesn't know or care what you believe.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 24, 2016 Author Posted January 24, 2016 "Reality doesn't know or care whst you believe". Not arrogant at all. All new things start from some "belief". (I am currently on my cellphone so forgive my lazy posts).
swansont Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Doesn't quantum teleportation break the law of the speed of light ? Anyway that's what I read. No. What you read was wrong, or possibly you misunderstood it. There are no phenomena that violate the laws of physics. There are occasionally phenomena where it's not clear (for one reason or another) how they fit within the laws of physics. But invariably, when more evidence comes to light, we do achieve that understanding.
dimreepr Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Doesn't quantum teleportation break the law of the speed of light ? Anyway that's what I read. When does a synopsis fully explain the book?
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 "Reality doesn't know or care whst you believe". Not arrogant at all. All new things start from some "belief". (I am currently on my cellphone so forgive my lazy posts). It's not arrogant to assume that, for example, stellar physics will not suddenly change because you change your mind about something. On the other hand, to think that one's opinion will alter the universe is spectacularly arrogant. Lazy typing, I can forgive (as long as it's still clear what you mean). How do you blame lazy thinking on your 'phone?
Robittybob1 Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 ... On the subject of evolution, both telepathy and telekinesis would be such useful traits that, if anyone had ever possessed them, it would have been strongly selected for. By now, many generations after the subject was first discussed, those without it would be either a sub-class of slaves, or extinct. Anyone who claims that these things exist has to show why they recently arose or why they are not universal. Imagine if it happens to be you. You find you are able to do TK and TP. OK the rest of the community thinks you're nuts. How does that help you get a mate? It would be different if there was an extreme bottleneck in the human population and you happen to be the only male to survive. Then your offspring would have this trait whether or not it was an advantage. Well they seem to be extreme examples, but they have been thoughts on my mind.
imatfaal Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 OK let's not turn this into a discussion about selective pressures (they are way way more subtle than you seem to propose RobBob) We work on testing things - we can test, replicate and predict quantum teleportation (amateurs like me can get a handle on the steps, the mathematical model, and the potential of it). There is NO testable, replicatable, nor predictable telekinesis or teleportation. And please don't say we are not looking for it. There is worldwide fame and a name that will last as long as Einstein, Mozart, or Shakespeare for anybody who could actually repeatedly demonstrate it under laboratory conditions. Even being the physicist who helped conduct the tests on someone else's behalf would be accolade-laden. People go into science because they have rampant and unquenchable curiosity - and NONE of them have ever found any basis or hint for telekinesis or teleportation; it is a crucial error to hint that scientists have found no evidence because they are blinkered or stolidly unimaginative. The evidence is not found because it is not there 2
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Imagine if it happens to be you. You find you are able to do TK and TP. OK the rest of the community thinks you're nuts. How does that help you get a mate? Well, there are a number of possibilities, For a start, I can eliminate rivals for mates by telekinetically pinching their jugular veins. And, of course, I can also influence the fall of the balls in the national lottery so I would get very rich. (Or, if I wanted to be a bit subtler, I could use my telepathic ability to find out what's happening in theboard room of FTSE100 companies and make money on the stock market.) So, even without the facility to make women's pants vibrate from across the room, I think it would increase my DNA's chances. Was your question actually serious; had you just not thought it through?
Robittybob1 Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Well, there are a number of possibilities, For a start, I can eliminate rivals for mates by telekinetically pinching their jugular veins. And, of course, I can also influence the fall of the balls in the national lottery so I would get very rich. (Or, if I wanted to be a bit subtler, I could use my telepathic ability to find out what's happening in theboard room of FTSE100 companies and make money on the stock market.) So, even without the facility to make women's pants vibrate from across the room, I think it would increase my DNA's chances. Was your question actually serious; had you just not thought it through? Well that seems rather highly developed TK and TP compared to the demonstrations seen so far. A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other.
swansont Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Well that seems rather highly developed TK and TP compared to the demonstrations seen so far. A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other. Talking of mutations seems premature considering the "no credible evidence, ever" and "violates the laws of physics" bits. Kinda like arguing what color you should paint your perpetual motion machine. Besides which, it's OT
John Cuthber Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Well that seems rather highly developed TK and TP compared to the demonstrations seen so far. A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other. It' not credible that any mutation could make the difference you are on about. But, just for the record, your comment about "A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other." would apply to colour vision, sexual reproduction or, indeed, just about any significant evolutionary change. Yet they still happen. Did you think it was a valid point?
Robittybob1 Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) It' not credible that any mutation could make the difference you are on about. But, just for the record, your comment about "A mutation that allows for these (TK and TP) to happen could also mean that another trait has suffered in the process. One gain maybe more than offset by the other." would apply to colour vision, sexual reproduction or, indeed, just about any significant evolutionary change. Yet they still happen. Did you think it was a valid point? OK I'm just running these ideas in a very general way, but an area of interest has been mushrooms. Now it is very interesting that the small amounts of psychoactive molecules can result in quite extraordinary experiences. These molecules mimic ones already in our brains, so I don't see why it would be impossible for the same or similar effect be caused by a mutation. I'll have to check up as to what was the tradeoff for colour vision. An early clue was that it was spatial recognition. I'm getting the information from Talking of mutations seems premature considering the "no credible evidence, ever" and "violates the laws of physics" bits. Kinda like arguing what color you should paint your perpetual motion machine. Besides which, it's OT It is not always easy to keep the whole conversation OT. Ajb used the concept of "evolution" first and I wanted to know what advantage would have resulted in that religious imaginary trait being common. I have no idea how TK could be evolved but considering the way some animals change colour it may be possible to make an organism that was able to alter the electrical charge on their skin and to manipulate this charge consciously so a PSI wheel is rotated simply by electromagnetism. Edited January 24, 2016 by Robittybob1
swansont Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 It is not always easy to keep the whole conversation OT. Ajb used the concept of "evolution" first and I wanted to know what advantage would have resulted in that religious imaginary trait being common. I have no idea how TK could be evolved but considering the way some animals change colour it may be possible to make an organism that was able to alter the electrical charge on their skin and to manipulate this charge consciously so a PSI wheel is rotated simply by electromagnetism. So you go to the top level of the sub-forum and click "Start a new topic" You can copy-paste a quote if you need to. That's what you do when you think "I want to know more" when you're in someone else's thread and not addressing them.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 24, 2016 Author Posted January 24, 2016 Something for your reading - http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/ Seems like crucial evidence to me.
Mordred Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) Something for your reading - http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/ Seems like crucial evidence to me. Ooh boy, I got a bridge to sell you. Real cheap in Brooklyn. If I post it on Kijiji will you buy it? Point being don't believe everything on the web Edited January 25, 2016 by Mordred
Gees Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Ajb; Please consider my following thoughts: Those that have made paranormal claims usual do not submit themselves for scientific testing, for obvious reasons. This is not true. If it were true, then there would not be so many people in this thread doubting the paranormal based on "scientific testing". Obviously, a lot of testing has been done. What do you think the "obvious reasons" are? No claims by any mainstream scientists suggest that life contradicts the laws of physics. Quite the opposite, life as far as we know obeys the usual principles of physics.Sometimes anti-evolutionists and similar may make such claims. Don't count me as an anti-evolutionist. I rely heavily on the idea of evolution in my studies and suspect that consciousness also evolves. It is the suspicion that consciousness evolves that puts me in direct conflict with the "God" idea, as it seems unlikely that a conscious "God" could exist before advanced consciousness. This is the problem. So far there has been nothing like reliable scientific evidence of the 'paranormal' and in particular no evidence for telekinesis or telepathy. I don't think so. If there were only one problem, we might be able to solve it, but there are many. First, the paranormal has been linked to religion and witchcraft, so we have to sort through all of the superstitious nonsense that has been added to our understanding of the paranormal through these venues. Second, the paranormal looks like magic, so now we have all of the crackpots, shysters, and frauds that want to believe they are more than they are. Debunking them can be a full-time job. What is left is the actual paranormal. But paranormal activity is not very controllable and rarely repeatable. If you add to this the idea that everyone does not experience it equally, then you find that you have many doubters. So trying to test it is a lot like trying to catch moonbeams in a cup while blindfolded. There is reliable evidence that relates to observation, just not repeat testing. Until we have a better idea of what it is, I suspect that we will not be able to test it well. We need to understand mind, not the brain, but mind, and consciousness. How they work. Quite the opposite. To me, the general arena of the paranormal is fascinating, but not because I think that any of this is real. I think the paranormal gives us great insight into the human mind in the sense of what imagination we have and how easily our senses can trick our brain. It also shed some light on deep ingrained fears and hopes. All of which are tied to our evolution and our social constructs. Don't go all Freudian on me now. Actually psychology is leading the study of the paranormal. They are finding that some of it is imagined, some of it can be explained by deep seated emotion, but some of it is not explainable. Your reaction is exactly what it should be for an intelligent, logical person, who has not experienced the paranormal. But I am an intelligent, logical person, who has experienced some of the paranormal, so I disagree. I suspect that you "imagine" that I can not tell the difference between what I "imagine" and what is real. I am too logical a person to fall into that trap. So is your imagination dictating what is real? And how could you possibly know, if you have not experienced it? Gee Swansont; To amplify this a bit: from a more pragmatic point, nothing will ever contradict the laws of physics. If such a situation were to potentially arise, we would modify the law in question (possibly just by placing a limitation of applicability on the existing law). Which is part of the reason mainstream scientists would not suggest such a thing. They know better. Some headline writers and crackpots, however, don't. Thank you. This is the answer that I expected when I asked if life contradicted the laws of physics. As we learn more, it is quite possible that these laws will be adjusted or even new laws made, but it is my thought that they are called LAWS of physics, because they rule. I reviewed the link and it answered all of my questions. It is damned irritating to me when frauds work their magic and call it the paranormal. Gee
Eldad Eshel Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I reviewed the link and it answered all of my questions. It is damned irritating to me when frauds work their magic and call it the paranormal. I dislike frauds as well. I honestly don't really get their point, maybe it is the 15 minutes of fame that they are after. They hand the arrogant and the skeptic their daily dinner, and distract science from really finding out the truth and advancing. I would like to talk about something, that most of you will probably shrug at, but to me is a sort of explanation of the paranormal. There is something I call the Metaphysical world. This world can be seen in the head as imagery and animation, and is connected mainly to telepathy. When I talk with someone I can see him as a sort of "cartoon" image, this image is part of the metaphysical world. The metaphysical world unlike our regular world is made up of "segments", sort of like windows in the pc, it is not continuous. Our soul is also part of the metaphysical world. The metaphysical world holds certain powers that fluxuate throught out it, and can be manipulated, and can even affect the physical world. This is my explanation of telekinesis. I believe (yes again this word) that there is in the human brain some kind of segment that works with the metaphysical world. This segment is probably responsible for telepathy and telekinesis. I believe it is made up of special matter that is yet not known to science, and can definitely be a research case for brain scientists. This special matter can hold the key to the advance of science. Edited January 25, 2016 by Eldad Eshel
Recommended Posts