Telekinesis, telepathy and their impact on science [Absolutely NONE]

[StringJunky]

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.

Devil's Advocate: What if the mutation for this ability was quite relatively recent and hadn't had time to propagate to a globally populous state, OR required specific multiple combinations of genotypes/alleles to combine in order form the ability to manifest itself, which may not be reproducible everytime...rather like mules?

Edited January 25, 2016 by StringJunky

[Robittybob1]

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.

That is exactly what I was wanting. If one ability is countered by a loss in another vital function there may not be any point in making it universal. For example what if psychic abilities were countered by a lessening in the ability to remember, would that give one a selective advantage?

[Strange]

TK as it is being demonstrated does not seem to have any practical uses as far as I can see.

 

Except it hasn't been demonstrated.

 

And all you have is excuses: "it is real but undetectable".

[cladking]

 

If they can't be measured, how do you know they exist?

 

 

 

 

I don't know they exist. As I said, they can't even be defined. But there are many things that can't be defined that most agree exist. Beauty, for instance, is percieved by most individuals yet every attempt at definition falls short from some perspectives.

 

I believe beauty exists and I know intuition exists. This certainly doesn't mean that beauty can be measured or quantified any more than other such concepts like "intelligence" or "foreknowledge".

 

How do you distinguish between coincidence and whatever magic it is that you are claiming?

 

 

Magic is defined and controlled. "Coincidence" is universal and ongoing. It is not controlled or predictable (by definition).

 

 

Sometimes, maybe. Sometimes it is just hard work. But how is that relevant to the topic?

 

 

Of course science can be done linearly and of course those who have better knowledge and observational skills are more likely to invent viable hypotheses or relevant experiment. Such individuals often worked harder to get where they are.

 

There's never anything at all wrong with knowledge and hard work unless it blinds you to reality.

 

The topic is whether some of these things that go bump in the night are real. It is my contention that they apparently are in some manner but there's no room in many people's knowledge or belief sets to even entertain the possibilities.

 

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?

 

 

Some people are more willing to admit such things than others.

 

If I couldn't "sleep on things" I'd be years behind where I believe I am. Since a very young age I've programmed a question every night.

 

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?

 

 

Yes, I claim otherwise, but that isn't relevant to the thread. What is relevant is that we don't know how the mind/ brain/ body works so ascribing any characteristics at all to "mind" is wholly speculative.

 

If you go back and read what I said again you'd see I said "hunches and predictions". How are our minds supposed to be able to predict something so ephemeral as a ghost in a beautiful sunset? How do we predict a cloud that looks like a 1950's era computer or a 2050's era rocket engine? It's OK to see the world in terms of the concrete but one should remember that reality is always oozing out the sides of our comprehension. Experiment is insufficient to explain all of reality and this will always be true to a greater or lesser extent. Understanding that stones fall is insufficient for understanding the entire nature of a mountain or the entire reality of what a mountain is. Even if you add understanding of tectonics, bouyancy, and inertia you still aren't even scratching the surface of what a mountain is. Reality is far too complex even if "mountain" could be defined or there were two identical mountains or even one mountain that didn't change in even the briefest time period.

 

Everyone wants to speculate about what's real and what's not but science doesn't work this way and we forget because extrapolate scientific knowledge far outside of its metaphysics.

[Robittybob1]

 

Except it hasn't been demonstrated.

 

And all you have is excuses: "it is real but undetectable".

like you have viewed all of Darryl Sloan's videos on Telekinesis?

I have never said "it is real but undetectable". Did you really mean to attribute that quote to me?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

like you have viewed all of Darryl Sloan's videos on Telekinesis?

 

Is he as amusing as Penn and Teller?

[Robittybob1]

 

Is he as amusing as Penn and Teller?

Did that answer my question? I don't think it did. As far as genuine I'd say he is 100% genuine in trying to find the reason for TK.

No, he is not as amusing as Penn and Teller.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Did that answer my question? I don't think it did. As far as genuine I'd say he is 100% genuine in trying to find the reason for TK.

 

There is no point trying to find the reason for something unless you have some evidence that it exists.

 

And, the answer to your question is that it is rarely worth watching videos. And it is certainly a complete and utter waste of time in a context like this. However, if you can provide a reference to his copious peer-reviewed papers showing the measurements of "TK" then there may be something to discuss. As you can't, all you are doing is demonstrating how gullible you are.

 

I would prefer to watch professional stage magicians. At least they know (and admit) that they are lying.

[Robittybob1]

 

There is no point trying to find the reason for something unless you have some evidence that it exists.

 

And, the answer to your question is that it is rarely worth watching videos. And it is certainly a complete and utter waste of time in a context like this. However, if you can provide a reference to his copious peer-reviewed papers showing the measurements of "TK" then there may be something to discuss. As you can't, all you are doing is demonstrating how gullible you are.

 

I would prefer to watch professional stage magicians. At least they know (and admit) that they are lying.

In the context of our discussion here there has never been any need to write a paper on the subject.

[John Cuthber]

Devil's Advocate: What if the mutation for this ability was quite relatively recent and hadn't had time to propagate to a globally populous state, OR required specific multiple combinations of genotypes/alleles to combine in order form the ability to manifest itself, which may not be reproducible everytime...rather like mules?

I already considered that when I first put the case that they needed to explain why it was recent or rare. I didn't realise I needed to keep repeating myself.

Of course, the antiquity of the claims tends to speak against this "excuse"

In the context of our discussion here there has never been any need to write a paper on the subject.

The context is that the discussion is on a science website. A paper is always a good thing in science.

However, the point isn't the lack of a published peer reviewed paper.

The problem is that there's no real evidence at all.

Edited January 26, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

In the context of our discussion here there has never been any need to write a paper on the subject.

 

So you agree it isn't science, just entertainment.

[ajb]

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.

That is part of the umbrella of 'paranormal'. I doubt there is a very good definition here anyway.

 

 

Since the paranormal is not very controllable...

 

This is why I stated that repeatable lab tests do not work, but there can be evidence found in observation.

You have recited the main objections that 'practitioners of the paranormal' give to scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, in my opinion this is not good enough.

 

 

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.

There are few people who work in this field professionally and they tend to publish in their own specialist journals. Typically the scientific community, including those who study experimental psychology and sociology, see fault in the analysis of the experiments they preform. Most of the scientific literature on the subject is not on par, and it seems that most of the researchers believe in the paranormal and no null results will change their minds. They invent reasons as you have done.

 

To me, what can not be properly explained seems to align with aspects of consciousness that are also not properly explained.

That seems a separate scientific question. People can and do study consciousness and so on without invoking the paranormal.

 

 

 

Agreed. But philosophy studies what is real, and I am by nature and habit a philosopher.

Part of philosophy is metaphysics which deals with questions like what is real...

 

... but last time I checked this did not change historical events.

You miss the point. How can we be sure of any historical event if is is based just on recollections of individuals? Even more so when a lot of time has passed from the event to the time of recollection.

 

The usual thing would be to find as many 'independent witnesses' as possible and compare their accounts. Interestingly, we do get some very similar stories about seeing angels and aliens. However, this is based on cultural influences and easily explained.

 

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.

You would have to be bang on with your predictions and record them carefully.

 

People have claimed such things, but generally the predictions are lose enough to fit some event.

 

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.

Yet we have the whole field of medical science and pharmacology that, in part, conducts medical tries all the time.

 

Funny how people who claim to have paranormal powers always fall back on the same old lines.

[Robittybob1]

 

So you agree it isn't science, just entertainment.

No I haven't said that.

[Strange]

 

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.

 

This is similar to many anti-science arguments (such as "you can't create the big bang in the lab, therefore it isn't science").

 

You don't need to make predictions on demand in order for this to be testable. But you do need to make clear and specific predictions that can be tested. These may occur randomly and intermittently, that doesn't matter.

 

The predictions should also include an indication of when and where the event will take place. For example, I can predict that "there will be a large earthquake in a remote area that will kill thousands." Sooner or later that "prediction" will be true.

 

Say you write down each of your predictions. Then we check how many of them occur. If they all do, and are surprisingly accurate, then maybe you have the ability to see the future. (Or have an army of evil henchmen arranging to make them come true. )

 

However, what if only half, or 1 in 10, or 1 in 1,000 come true. Do you then say, "well, I'm never sure whether they are real predictions or not so I write them all down."

 

In that case, how can we tell they are predictions and not just guesses that happen to come true? Well, we can test that hypothesis as well. We compare your success rate with people who do not claim to be prescient by getting them to make up predictions. We compare your success rate with theirs.

 

If your predictions are no better than their inventions you might say, "ah, but they really are predicting the future sometimes, they just don't know it".

 

In which case we replace them with a computer that makes up random guesses and compare your success rate to that. If you are still no more successful than random, do you make a new excuse or admit there is nothing to it.

 

If the former, then this ceases to be science because you are making the hypothesis unfalsifiable.

No I haven't said that.

 

Then why isn't the scientific approach relevant?

[Robittybob1]

 

....

Then why isn't the scientific approach relevant?

I am not the TK researcher, so you are asking the wrong person to produce a scientific paper. I have become rather curious regarding the issue so one never knows what might happen in the future.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

I am not the TK researcher, so you are asking the wrong person to produce a scientific paper.

 

I was not asking you to. You were referencing some dumb videos as "evidence". I was asking why the entertainer/stage magician/conman/gullible idiot/whatever isn't doing science.

 

And if he isn't doing science, why do you consider him to be a source of scientific information?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Strange

[Robittybob1]

 

I was not asking you to. You were referencing some dumb videos as "evidence". I was asking why the entertainer/stage magician/conman/gullible idiot/whatever isn't doing science.

 

And if he isn't doing science, why do you consider him to be a source of scientific information?

So you are wanting to define what is a source of scientific information. Look if I saw an UFO flying past and a grab my video camera and take a video and upload it to YT do you not consider that scientific information?

It is an observation.

[Gees]

Eldad Eshel;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

Something for your reading - http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/

 

Seems like crucial evidence to me.

 

It is not likely that people in this forum are going to find the above to be "crucial evidence". First because it has not been peer reviewed and accepted by mainstream science, which takes a very long time and a lot of different testing by different people. Second because it has the word "spirit" in the title and comes from a site that supports paranormal investigations, so it will be summarily dismissed.

 

But I found it very interesting, especially the part about testing Global Consciousness. I think that I have heard about this testing, but that was before I started to focus my studies on emotion. Most, if not all, of the paranormal works through emotion, but I did not see how this was relative to telekinesis. The Global Consciousness test was getting rather mundane results until there was a worldwide emotional reaction to something, then the results took a rather spectacular turn. This implies that strong emotion also affects telekinesis. So I thank you for the link.

 

We know that emotion is tied to the chemistry in our brains and/or bodies. Science accepts this and will acknowledge that chemistry can affect emotion and emotion can affect chemistry, so it is circular. Emotion = chemistry = emotion. What people fail to realize is how very relevant emotion is, and often dismiss it as just a byproduct of the brain. I think this is a huge mistake.

 

We know that emotion affects thought and can create memories that never happened, or delete memories. It also affects mind, and probably sets the parameters of mind, which is why we use chemistry to try to control things like schizophrenia. Emotion also affects the body. All of these are within the body, but emotion also creates bonds between people, is at the source of the paranormal, and is what we call spiritual. So emotion is very busy within and between our lives.

 

I suspect that people, who have psychic abilities, have them because of the chemical make up of their brain, and there is some support and evidence for this idea. The aura reader that I discussed earlier in this thread told me that she has seen auras since she was four years old, which is her earliest memory of them. But as a teen, she got into some drug use and stopped seeing auras. She thought she had lost the ability, but it returned after she grew up and cleaned up. She also never sees auras in her third trimester of pregnancy. These things would affect her chemical/hormonal make up.

 

I had premonitions during a pregnancy, while I was also on an asthma medication that I suspect was a steroid. I never experienced premonitions before or after that time, even though that was not my only pregnancy. Years ago, I read an article that stated that if a person was going to have a premonition, it would most likely be while pregnant. Then they gave some Madonna-like explanation that women were reaching out to their unborn child, which I did not buy. I think that it is chemical. So did my unique chemical make up along with the hormones related to pregnancy along with the medication cause premonitions? Probably.

 

I am not the first person to link chemistry with the paranormal as is evidenced by the extensive testing done in the 70's using things like LSD. The tests failed to achieve anything that would be worthwhile and results were not very controllable. The testers failed to understand the complexities involved in playing with the mind through chemicals. I do not recommend using chemicals to try to enhance the paranormal. The results could be devastating, but using emotion might have some effect.

 

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.

 

Agreed.

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.

 

Metaphysics is something that is usually studied by philosophy. Although science does touch on metaphysics, they do it from the standpoint of the physical or from math. If you go to Wikipedia and type in metaphysics, you can become more familiar with the way other people use this word.

 

I would probably call your "Metaphysical world" consciousness. That is what I study -- consciousness.

 

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.

 

Philosophy also studies this and compares ideas about the tree in your mind with the tree that you see, and throws around lots of ideas about which is more real. It can drive a person crazy. (chuckle)

 

The metaphysical world unlike our regular world is made up of "segments", sort of like windows in the pc, it is not continuous.

 

This is interesting, and I have not seen it explained in this way before, but this does seem to be the way it works. The few times that I felt that I got information from telepathy/ESP, what I got was just a picture or idea or feeling. Nothing in context, nothing that tells me how it applies or when it applies, just a simple singular idea -- it was definitely not continuous. Or what did Cladking call it? Snippets? I think so, and this is how information from the paranormal works.

 

So people have to try to interpret this little segment or snippet, to try to make some sense of it.

 

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 would use the word mind, rather than the word "soul" because saying soul irritates science people -- even though mind and soul are the same thing. The only power in the metaphysical world that I understand would be emotion, which is fluid.

 

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.

 

Well, I don't think that there is any actual segment or special matter and suspect that it is chemistry and hormones that guide consciousness; although, the brain does work consciousness, so maybe one could call the brain special matter.

 

Let me know what you think about the above.

 

Gee

 

 

 

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider:

 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Anyone claiming that some people have this ability need to explain why not everyone has it.

 

But everyone does have it.

 

We are allowing terminology to make a mockery of us.

 

Do you have a self? Whether it is called mind or soul, it is still the self.

 

Can you put your arm in the air and bring it back down? Then you have just demonstrated mind over matter. Yes, there are nerves, muscles, tendons and the brain, but it started with mind.

 

Have you ever had a hunch, or feeling about something, that worked out? Premonition.

 

Do you have good instincts or intuition? ESP or telepathy.

 

What is telekinesis? Well that would be the ability to animate or move matter. You have just described life. That is what life is, a mental awareness that animates matter until it is dead.

 

Everyone has psychic ability, or at least everyone who is alive has it. We just have it in different degrees and with different awareness of what is happening. Just like some people can lift 200 pounds, but I can't. Or like some people can write beautiful music or make great art. They have no special powers, just an awareness of their strong abilities.

 

We have allowed religions, superstitions, imaginings, and parlor tricks, to convince us that psychic ability is POWER, but that is nonsense. Or maybe too many of the members have been watching too much television with walking cadavers, Xmen, and mutants. (chuckle)

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

[Strange]

So you are wanting to define what is a source of scientific information. Look if I saw an UFO flying past and a grab my video camera and take a video and upload it to YT do you not consider that scientific information?

 

No.

 

 

It is an observation.

 

It might be. But how do I know that. There are countless videos of UFOs on yootoob. Some deliberate hoaxes, some are just someone mistaking a bird for a UFO, some are genuinely unknown, some are fakes. As a source of information it has, by itself, zero credibility.

Everyone has psychic ability, or at least everyone who is alive has it.

 

And yet all attempts to detect or quantify this ability show results no better than chance.

 

 

Can you put your arm in the air and bring it back down? Then you have just demonstrated mind over matter. Yes, there are nerves, muscles, tendons and the brain, but it started with mind.

 

That is obviously totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

[Robittybob1]

 

No.

 

 

It might be. But how do I know that. There are countless videos of UFOs on yootoob. Some deliberate hoaxes, some are just someone mistaking a bird for a UFO, some are genuinely unknown, some are fakes. As a source of information it has, by itself, zero credibility.

 

And yet all attempts to detect or quantify this ability show results no better than chance.

 

 

That is obviously totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Fair enough, the footage can be scrutinized checked to see if there is any sign of hoax or whatever. If it all ties together it could become in that genuinely unknown category. The uploaded video is just the start.

 

This is what I have noted on the Darryl Sloan videos he seems to take all criticism seriously and tries to eliminate any possible causes. Maybe he has now found the truth and given up with TK, for most of the videos are 5 years plus, yet he hasn't taken the old videos off his channel yet so I presume he has never debunked the idea entirely.

I can't see how his investigation would be any better if it was written up in a paper.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

I can't see how his investigation would be any better if it was written up in a paper.

 

A peer-reviewed scientific paper has more credibility than some clown's video on yootoob. If you can't see that, there isn't much hope for you.

[Robittybob1]

 

A peer-reviewed scientific paper has more credibility than some clown's video on yootoob. If you can't see that, there isn't much hope for you.

OK, it's not just producing a scientific paper but also having it peer reviewed. Is that the important difference? How does that process work? How do you know if something is peer reviewed?

[ajb]

How do you know if something is peer reviewed?

The paper should appear in a recognised peer review journal.

 

However, peer review is not infallible and is only an indication that the work is of a reasonable standard. Also note that in regards to paranormal research, there are a few specialist journals that are peer review, but generally these journals are not considered to be of high value. A paper in mainstream or general psychology journal would, in my opinion, be the things to hunt down.

[Robittybob1]

The paper should appear in a recognised peer review journal.

 

However, peer review is not infallible and is only an indication that the work is of a reasonable standard. Also note that in regards to paranormal research, there are a few specialist journals that are peer review, but generally these journals are not considered to be of high value. A paper in mainstream or general psychology journal would, in my opinion, be the things to hunt down.

So the paper is peer reviewed before it is published then is it? Like is it read and the measurements are accepted by the editor or committee running the journal before it is included?

Thanks

Edited January 26, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

So the paper is peer reviewed before it is published then is it? Like is it read and the measurements are accepted by the editor or committee running the journal before it is included?

Thanks

 

I assumed people had an idea of how this works (maybe someone should write a sticky post about it).

 

When a paper is submitted to a (reputable) journal it is sent out to experts in the field (the author's peers) who will look at things like whether the methodology was good, the type and quality of the data collected, the statistical analysis of that data and whether the conclusions of the paper are supported by the data.

 

So, for example, something based on the OP's experiments would be rejected as not being a rigorous test. A version where his glass bowl was used would be better (but would have to be evidence against any effect). A version with "blind" tests would be even better. The paper would have to show, in detail, all the measures that had been taken to eliminate all possible alternative explanations. They might want to use a stage magician to help with this as many scientists have been fooled in the past. Finally, they would have to analyse the results to see if they are better than chance by a significant amount.

 

In every case when this sort of rigorous approach has been taken there is no detectable effect. Which is when we get the "oh, but it doesn't work in the lab" or "its not a measurable effect" excuses. Interestingly, these are never made at the time of the testing. Participants will be convinced they have demonstrated their ability. They only make excuses when it is shown to be bogus.