Robittybob1 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 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. You may have overstepped your knowledge here. How did you get so much insight as how TK works?
ajb Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Ajb used the concept of "evolution" first... I meant evolution quite generally, including the social evolution and development of our species. Some how the paranormal 'speaks' to some deep desire in us despite no evidence for the existence of such phenomena. Because of this I see the 'paranormal' as an interesting part of the 'global physiology of mankind'. We like the idea of monsters and things that go bump in the night. I would include religion and so in in this group. 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? There are many quite famous people who make a lot of money exploiting the public with such paranormal claims. For example, Sally Morgan has refused to undergo any controlled experiments. If she really believed in her powers then she should accept the challenge. Instead she dismisses the idea knowing full well she would fail any tests. It is in the interests of 'mediums' and so not to be tested! Not many, if any well known practitioners will agree to controlled experiments. The great days of testing the paranormal are probably over, it has largely been embarrassing for science. During the 130 years plus only frauds, hoaxes and events consistent with chance have been uncovered. Yet, still we are interested! There is reliable evidence that relates to observation, just not repeat testing. Not really, or at least not much that stands up to scientific inquiry. Of course not every blurry photo is properly explained! Anyway, do you have some exampled here in mind? 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. Okay, but please realise that science in general works by looking at open problems. Because some aspects of the paranormal as defined and studied in psychology cannot be properly explained does not nessisarily imply 'magic, ghouls and goblins'. Your reaction is exactly what it should be for an intelligent, logical person, who has not experienced the paranormal. I have not said anything about my own strange experiences here. We have all had them, just some of us are rational enough to understand how the mind plays tricks. I suspect that you "imagine" that I can not tell the difference between what I "imagine" and what is real. Time and time again we are shown how unreliable people are at knowing what is real and what is not. For example, lawyers can often, by careful choice of how they ask a question induce false recollection of an event. Test have shown that this works even for events that happened a few moments before!
ajb Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 thanks for replying Ajb. No problem. I did not mean to imply that there is necessarily some advantage in an evolutionary sense to believing in the paranormal, just that for some reason collectivity we all keep entertaining the idea and this I think must be a very old trait in mankind.
Robittybob1 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 No problem. I did not mean to imply that there is necessarily some advantage in an evolutionary sense to believing in the paranormal, just that for some reason collectivity we all keep entertaining the idea and this I think must be a very old trait in mankind. I have set up another thread to discuss this topic.
swansont Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Something for your reading - http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/ Seems like crucial evidence to me. Learning why that article does not constitute evidence would be a crucial step in understanding science.
Strange Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) There is something I call the Metaphysical world. Is there? What objective evidence do you have for this? When I talk with someone I can see him as a sort of "cartoon" image, this image is part of the metaphysical world. No, it is part of your imagination. Our soul is also part of the metaphysical world. What soul? Do you have evidence for such a thing? 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. What is it about this "special matter" that makes it special? Is it made of the same elements as all other matter? How is it that no one has found this "special matter" when looking at brains? In case you are not aware, entire brains have been cut into very thin slices, stained and photographed. The data is then used to create a 3D model. Similarly, people have done 3D scans (CAT, MRI, PET, fMRI, etc). And the two processes have been correlated to check that they are showing the same thing. No one has ever spotted any "special matter" in this process. Your beliefs are unsupported and, frankly, ludicrous. I had hopes of a rational discussion initially, but this thread has strayed further and further from science and into pure nonsense. Hoax = scam, as in not my particular case. I have no intention to fool anyone. The only person you are fooling is yourself. Edited January 25, 2016 by Strange
Gees Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Eldad Eshel; 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. I have not yet reviewed the last link that you provided, just gave it a cursory scan, and would like to do so before answering you. I also would like to take some time to think about your above post. The words that you chose to use make it difficult for me to fully understand you. It also appears that you have not properly sorted out the divisions of science and philosophy, so you are making assumptions that are not true. I think that I can understand some of what you say, and I know that I can help you understand some things, so give me a day or two to respond. Gee PS If I were you, I would not respond to Strange's post. -2
Phi for All Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 PS If I were you, I would not respond to Strange's post. ! Moderator Note This is way out of line for a discussion forum. And in this context, it's advising ignorance, and we don't like that here. Please stick to some science, and leave your personal attacks at home. I know you'll have a problem with this, so Report it instead of dwelling on it here.
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) PS If I were you, I would not respond to Strange's post. Strange request, since it shows, you either acknowledge he’s correct or you’re frightened he will expose your BS; like I say a strange thing to say (no pun intended). Edited January 25, 2016 by dimreepr
imatfaal Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 ! Moderator Note OK - Back on topic EVERYONE! Discussion of modnotes or other members from this point onwards will get hidden and earn the poster a warning point. We have a reporting system for disagreeing with modnotes and pretty strict rule about sticking to the topic and another about not making things personal
Gees Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Ajb; Please consider: Some how the paranormal 'speaks' to some deep desire in us despite no evidence for the existence of such phenomena. Because of this I see the 'paranormal' as an interesting part of the 'global physiology of mankind'. We like the idea of monsters and things that go bump in the night. I would include religion and so in in this group. This gave me a chuckle. Do you watch the Walking Dead? My kids and grandkids love that show, but I just can't see why. Maybe you are right. But that is not what I am talking about when I say paranormal, and I don't think that this thread is about vampires, ghouls, werewolves, monsters, saints and demons, or things that go bump in the night. Those things are either physically real, or they are interpretations. Imagination is involved in interpretation, but with the paranormal, it is after the communication and is an interpretation of the communication. Or an entirely different subject. Like the difference between cooking a meal and digesting a meal; all relative to eating, but very different. For the record: When I talk about the paranormal, I am talking about mental communication that has no known source, or no understandable path. I believe Eshel will agree with my understanding. There are many quite famous people who make a lot of money exploiting the public with such paranormal claims. For example, Sally Morgan has refused to undergo any controlled experiments. If she really believed in her powers then she should accept the challenge. Instead she dismisses the idea knowing full well she would fail any tests. It is in the interests of 'mediums' and so not to be tested! Not many, if any well known practitioners will agree to controlled experiments. Now I understand what you are talking about. I do not consider "famous people" who make money from the paranormal worth considering for testing. Why? Because motivations cause too many problems. If Ms. Morgan submitted to testing, she would be putting her reputation and source of income on the line. If she failed the test, she would be ruined; and she would fail the test because the testers do not know WTF they are testing for. And the testers would also be motivated to make a name for themselves, so they would work hard to make her fail. She would have to be the bloody stupidest fool on the planet to submit to that. Being psychic does not make a person stupid. Since the paranormal is not very controllable, I suspect that most "famous" people who submit to testing have a very good trick they are trying to use. Or they are pretty stupid. I think that people like Ms. Morgan have some psychic ability, a very strong intuition, and an ability to read people well. This is not unlike a really good CEO's abilities. Just trade the word psychic for hunch and the word intuition for instinct. The great days of testing the paranormal are probably over, it has largely been embarrassing for science. During the 130 years plus only frauds, hoaxes and events consistent with chance have been uncovered. Yet, still we are interested! Years ago, I read an article written by a psychic. She talked about being four or five years old and going to her Grandparent's farm for a family visit. When she arrived, she ran up to the porch where her Grandfather was, her favorite person in the whole world, he snatched her up, hugged her and spun her around. But when she looked into his face, she saw a skull. She screamed, ran away from him, and avoided him for the entire visit. A few months later he died. As an adult, she learned that this is one of the ways that her mind interprets imminent death, but she did not know that as a child. She carried the grief and trauma of that last visit with her Grandfather for many years. She hurt him badly, as she was also one of his favorite people. So it was her hope that she might be able to help someone else, who is experiencing these types of things, and has no one to teach them. So does this mean that she is a walking death detector? No. It only works with some people, mostly people that she has a relationship with, but occasionally perfect strangers. How does one test this? Not in a lab, that is for sure. The only way that I can think of would be to have her write down the names and dates when she sees a skull instead of a face, then see if things match up. It could take years for any kind of valid results. This is why I stated that repeatable lab tests do not work, but there can be evidence found in observation. Anyway, do you have some exampled here in mind? The only peer-reviewed reference that I know of, off hand, is Dr. Stevenson's work at the University of Virginia. I have been examining this more from the perspective of consciousness, than the paranormal, for the last few years. Okay, but please realise that science in general works by looking at open problems. Because some aspects of the paranormal as defined and studied in psychology cannot be properly explained does not nessisarily imply 'magic, ghouls and goblins'. To me, what can not be properly explained seems to align with aspects of consciousness that are also not properly explained. No magic, ghouls, and goblins. Time and time again we are shown how unreliable people are at knowing what is real and what is not. Agreed. But philosophy studies what is real, and I am by nature and habit a philosopher. For example, lawyers can often, by careful choice of how they ask a question induce false recollection of an event. Test have shown that this works even for events that happened a few moments before! I worked in law and knew some tricky lawyers. (chuckle) There are lots of ways to fool the mind and lots of ways to corrupt memory, but last time I checked this did not change historical events. If I had a premonition about something, and talked about this to many people, and acted on the belief that this premonition was true, then when it happened, there would be a historical record of the events. This historical record would be observable evidence. That does not mean that I could go into a lab and make predictions on demand. Gee
cladking Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 That does not mean that I could go into a lab and make predictions on demand. Even if you can see a little snippet of the future it doesn't mean you can see it in context or that your hunch/ intuition involves the capacity to turn your head in the future and look at a clock or calender. There are powerful forces in reality that can not be measured, defined, or understood scientifically at this time. One can simply consider these phenomena "coincidence" or "happenstance" but then one will see only the models generated by scientific experiment. One can dismiss the unknown but at the cost of believing everything is already known.
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 There are powerful forces in reality that can not be measured, defined, or understood scientifically at this time. One can simply consider these phenomena "coincidence" or "happenstance" but then one will see only the models generated by scientific experiment. One can dismiss the unknown but at the cost of believing everything is already known. Just because the magician is convincing, that doesn’t make it magical.
cladking Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Just because the magician is convincing, that doesn’t make it magical. Magic is merely sleight of hand; it is the art of getting the "victim" to attend to the least important parts of what you are doing. Magic is well understood by the magician. The magician knows the trick and how to keep you from seeing it. Not even the things that go bump in the night are understood by the perciever. Some can probably become quite adept at predicting or interpreting them but their nature simply isn't understood or truly under anyone's control. I find no psychics to be convincing but I don't discount anyone's hunches or predictions whether they themselves believe or not. Obviously acting on every guess is a waste of time, resources, and effort. Scientists formulate hypotheses through hunches and intuition. Few would admit it but hypothesis and experiment even come to people in their sleep or through some other sort of "vision". You can say this is related to the actions of the mind but without evidence and experiment this is mere speculation.
John Cuthber Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) 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? can I just point out that you didn't actually address my point, you went off on some irrelevant tangent about magic mushrooms. While you are about it, do you realise that even the trivial ability claimed by the OP would be helpful in getting a mate? Even if it's pretty useless, it's a clever conjuring trick. In the days before the internet,TV and even books, such a skill would be highly prized. So, why isn't it universal? Edited January 25, 2016 by John Cuthber
Robittybob1 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 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? can I just point out that you didn't actually address my point, you went off on some irrelevant tangent about magic mushrooms. While you are about it, do you realise that even the trivial ability claimed by the OP would be helpful in getting a mate? Even if it's pretty useless, it's a clever conjuring trick. In the days before the internet,TV and even books, such a skill would be highly prized. So, why isn't it universal? I did address your points. But granted I probably didn't answer the question about whether it was a valid point. Yes it was a valid point. Why isn't it universal? Not sure what you are asking here sorry, but I'll hazard a guess that no trait need to be universal. Edited January 25, 2016 by Robittybob1
Phi for All Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 I did address your points. But granted I probably didn't answer the question about whether it was a valid point. Yes it was a valid point. Why isn't it universal? Not sure what you are asking here sorry, but I'll hazard a guess that no trait need to be universal. I think John means that such a trait would be so useful it would become ubiquitous. Vision is a universal trait for humans. It's part of the overall blueprint; we're all supposed to get eyes. They're so incredibly useful that many species have some form of vision as a universal trait. Being able to bring things that are out of your reach to you, or deflecting the rocks that are tumbling down on you, or reading someone's thoughts to better know how to deal with them, these are traits that would make one VERY successful at survival and mating. Hell, if you knew what creatures were thinking and could move them away/affect them/harm them at a distance, you might never have needed eyes. TK/TP would be a real game-changer. Therefore, if TK/TP were even remotely possible, they would most certainly become extremely probable. We would see MANY people that were able to survive and pass this trait along, as well as the evidence of their difference. Especially with all the security cameras around today, if it were possible, we'd be seeing unexplainable occurrences of people able to move things without touching them just about every day.
John Cuthber Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 I think John means that such a trait would be so useful it would become ubiquitous. Vision is a universal trait for humans. It's part of the overall blueprint; we're all supposed to get eyes. They're so incredibly useful that many species have some form of vision as a universal trait. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Anyone claiming that some people have this ability need to explain why not everyone has it. Also RobbityBob's earlier comment "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?" totally misses the point. the community only thinks you are nuts if you can't actually do it; in which case you are making a delusional claim and you are (colloquially speaking) nuts. If you actually can do it, the community probably thinks you are some sort of God; at the least, they think you are "more interesting than the next bloke"
Strange Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 There are powerful forces in reality that can not be measured, defined If they can't be measured, how do you know they exist? One can simply consider these phenomena "coincidence" or "happenstance" but then one will see only the models generated by scientific experiment. How do you distinguish between coincidence and whatever magic it is that you are claiming? Scientists formulate hypotheses through hunches and intuition. Sometimes, maybe. Sometimes it is just hard work. But how is that relevant to the topic? Few would admit it but hypothesis and experiment even come to people in their sleep or through some other sort of "vision". I don't know why you think people wouldn't admit it. There are many examples of people dreaming of solutions to problems. August Kekule famously dreamed of the structure of the benzene ring. But, again, how is this relevant to the topic? You can say this is related to the actions of the mind but without evidence and experiment this is mere speculation. I would have thought it was pretty obvious that hunches and dreams are related to the actions of the mind. Do you claim otherwise? If so, what is the evidence? But, more importantly, how is this relevant to the topic of the thread?
Eldad Eshel Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 I would like to comment on the research of the paranormal in scientific terms. When it comes to the paranormal we are mostly dealing with humans and their abilities, and if we want to get scientific results we basically need to study these humans. This is the main difficulty in studying the paranormal, it is the "human factor". Most of science deals with matters or energies that are relatively easy to deal with and study, you can stare at them, poke them and mess with them all day without any complaint from their side, but when it comes to studying humans it is of course completely different. I take a look at my case. I can get a paper wheel to spin without physical contact. It happens not at all times I try, and sometimes will not happen at all in a single try (it will maybe move a little, which isn't very convincing, especially when going under testing). I want to go to the university and show them my ability, but I am also afraid they will disregard me quickly if I don't bring up results "fast". You see here is the difficulty of the "human factor", I am not a "telekinetic machine", I cannot bring up results at command. I can make the wheel spin, but I would need a researcher with patience in case it doesn't happen right away, and then again even more patience for actual scientific testing. I will go to the university eventually, it is just a matter of time.
imatfaal Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Why are we persisting on this off-shoot about inheritance and universality? I think it is agreed that explanation of why gene pool does not include more of a supposedly beneficial trait is a side-issue to the question of existence of "the ability" - it would be needed to say we understood "the ability" but not to say we know something exists. And secondly it is the work of a moment to get to a scenario that would limit spread of beneficial genes - "the ability" could be linked to a mutation on the y-chromosome. About one in three thousand men are rendered infertile by new y chromosome mutations. The mutation that causes "the ability" might be inextricably linked to infertility - there would be new men with "the ability" every generation but they would not breed. BTW - I still claim that nothing of this nature has ever been shown - and that "the ability" is make-believe. But I think we can argue against it from a logical and empirical standpoint rather than stooping to fallacy and dogma.
Strange Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 I would like to comment on the research of the paranormal in scientific terms. When it comes to the paranormal we are mostly dealing with humans and their abilities, and if we want to get scientific results we basically need to study these humans. This is the main difficulty in studying the paranormal, it is the "human factor". Most of science deals with matters or energies that are relatively easy to deal with and study, you can stare at them, poke them and mess with them all day without any complaint from their side, but when it comes to studying humans it is of course completely different. There are areas of science that deal with humans and their variability. So people are quite used to doing this (and have often used the techniques to study claims of psychic powers). I take a look at my case. I can get a paper wheel to spin without physical contact. It happens not at all times I try, and sometimes will not happen at all in a single try (it will maybe move a little, which isn't very convincing, especially when going under testing). It should be possible to determine if you can make it move more often than it would by chance. And if you can't then there is no reason to think you have any "powers".
John Cuthber Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Why are we persisting on this off-shoot about inheritance and universality? I think it is agreed that explanation of why gene pool does not include more of a supposedly beneficial trait is a side-issue to the question of existence of "the ability" - it would be needed to say we understood "the ability" but not to say we know something exists. And secondly it is the work of a moment to get to a scenario that would limit spread of beneficial genes - "the ability" could be linked to a mutation on the y-chromosome. About one in three thousand men are rendered infertile by new y chromosome mutations. The mutation that causes "the ability" might be inextricably linked to infertility - there would be new men with "the ability" every generation but they would not breed. BTW - I still claim that nothing of this nature has ever been shown - and that "the ability" is make-believe. But I think we can argue against it from a logical and empirical standpoint rather than stooping to fallacy and dogma. As I pointed out earlier, there is a reason for taking this line. For any experiment on this "magic" that you can imagine, there's always an excuse why it doesn't work. You can't refute those excuses. When the so called "mystic" says "the spirits were tired today" there's absolutely nothing you can say to refute that excuse for the experiment's failure. But evolution happens inevitably, and continuously. If the effect is real then it should be practically universal- but it isn't. So, rather than giving the mystics carte blanc to "explain away" the failure of any experiment, I'm asking them to explain away the failure of countless natural experiments done over tens of thousands of years across the whole human race. Any effect too small to see on an experiment that big is, for all practical purposes, non-existent. It's not perfect, but it's still a strong point.
Robittybob1 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Anyone claiming that some people have this ability need to explain why not everyone has it. Also RobbityBob's earlier comment "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?" totally misses the point. the community only thinks you are nuts if you can't actually do it; in which case you are making a delusional claim and you are (colloquially speaking) nuts. If you actually can do it, the community probably thinks you are some sort of God; at the least, they think you are "more interesting than the next bloke" No I totally disagree with that. Take that Darryl Sloan and his attempts to prove TK. He is sick of the negative comments. The mass of the object that is being moved would be of no use in a real life situation. TK as it is being demonstrated does not seem to have any practical uses as far as I can see. No one is doing the things you describe.
Recommended Posts