DrP Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Let the system come to equilibrium under the bowl - 15 mins at least. Then try to move the foil. If it does move, then do not jump to conclusions, you will have to be very careful not to cause the thing to move through some kind of vibration that could knock it off balance. Why the precarious wheel anyway? Maybe try a feather on the table under the bowl. The feather is less likely to start moving if it is just jogged.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 And then ignored the results and started prattling on about the soul. I did not "ignore" the results. At first I was very disappointed, and afterwards came to the conclusion that the bowl just makes it harder, when it is already hsrd enough. After a while I was able to move it a little bit with the bowl, which also confirmed the latter.
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 If you look on youtube you will see alot on telekinesis (not saying this is evidence, I myself doubt most of what's going on there). And second as I have already mentioned, you need to understand that it is difficult. I am a 34 year old "spiritualist" with alot of life experience, and all I can do is get a paper wheel to spin sometimes, which is probably the easiest form of telekinesis. I will also say again and not repeating the "concrete evidence" that you so disliked, that I am an honest individual that can be trusted against fraud, I am a "wannabe scientist" if you will. I want science to advance and maybe get to see some serious space travel in my time. If I couldn't be able to spin the wheel, I would honestly not REALLY believe in telekinesis, I would "want" it to exist and from the piles of videos on youtube maybe even think it is possible, but I still would be at bay as to REALLY believing. My own experience with the wheel makes me really believe, and as a wannabe scientist I want to explore this and maybe help advance science, and also of course I want to improve my "powers" to a more reliable and "exciting" form. Do you find you need to handle the PSI wheel before it will turn? What I would like to hear is if someone is able to get it spinning even after several failed attempts without rehandling the wheel. Do you think you can do that?
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Do you find you need to handle the PSI wheel before it will turn? What I would like to hear is if someone is able to get it spinning even after several failed attempts without rehandling the wheel. Do you think you can do that? Yes I can.
DrP Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) By accidently jogging the table or through a vibration in the floor probably. Try with a small feather - The phenomina shouldn't be restricted to using a psi wheel.... any matter should work. The psi wheel seems to work because it is so unstable it spins about anyway with the slightest of vibration or jogging for sure - as I speculated much earlier in the thread. Edited January 27, 2016 by DrP
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Yes I can. So once set up you would never need to touch the wheel again for the duration of the experiment. How about daily tests for a month and never touching the wheel, and record the direction and degree of rotation. Record the results and post it on the forum. But keep the wheel under the bowl and don't touch it for a month.
swansont Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I did not "ignore" the results. At first I was very disappointed, and afterwards came to the conclusion that the bowl just makes it harder But that's not the only conclusion that fits the evidence, and therein lies the problem
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 So once set up you would never need to touch the wheel again for the duration of the experiment. How about daily tests for a month and never touching the wheel, and record the direction and degree of rotation. Record the results and post it on the forum. But keep the wheel under the bowl and don't touch it for a month. EE would you like to do the experiment please?
Arete Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I did not "ignore" the results. At first I was very disappointed, and afterwards came to the conclusion that the bowl just makes it harder, when it is already hsrd enough. After a while I was able to move it a little bit with the bowl, which also confirmed the latter. I can just see the overly honest methods post now: "When we controlled for environment, our results became non-significant. Rather than accepting the null hypothesis, we stopped controlling for environment." 1
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) EE would you like to do the experiment please?Well Robitty I mainly don't touch the wheel, but then I also place the bowl over it and remove it, and I also take the wheel and the bowl to work, so honestly it would be hard for me to conduct this experiment. Anyhow I have a suggestion for you. Make a psiwheel and try to spin it yourself, I believe anyone is capable of this. Edited January 27, 2016 by Eldad Eshel
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Of course it is being studied, it is one of the most interesting things in the universe. Also studying the brain can shed light on telekinesis and telepathy. More confirmation bias. You first claim we need to study the brain, then claim of course we study it, but obviously we're not doing enough because we haven't found anything to support your claim. Do you see how awful this situation is? It's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy. "If you studied the brain the right way (no examples given), you'd find evidence of psychokinesis." This is a horrible foundation for scientific investigation.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 More confirmation bias. You first claim we need to study the brain, then claim of course we study it, but obviously we're not doing enough because we haven't found anything to support your claim. Do you see how awful this situation is? It's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy. "If you studied the brain the right way (no examples given), you'd find evidence of psychokinesis." This is a horrible foundation for scientific investigation. My friend I never meant any such thing. You are placing words or thoughts in my mind. I am quite aware of how difficult brain study is. I have no negative thought about the science of brain research, I just look forward to the future of it, that it might shed light on my personal interests. If I was a real scientist I would probably go into brain research. Phi for all I think you are over defensive, at least in my case.
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Well Robitty I mainly don't touch the wheel, but then I also place the bowl over it and remove it, and I also take the wheel and the bowl to work, so honestly it would be hard for me to conduct this experiment. Anyhow I have a suggestion for you. Make a psiwheel and try to spin it yourself, I believe anyone is capable of this. Why not set it up just at the one place. You have developed the technique and I haven't. Why would you need the PSI wheel at work?
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Why not set it up just at the one place. You have developed the technique and I haven't. Why would you need the PSI wheel at work? Well I tend to get bored at my job so I bring the wheel and the bowl (which is a must since there are air currents there) to work. I may pass this up since the large bowl is kind of annoying to carry back and forth. So anyway Robitty my wheel at home is mostly stationary, I don't try it with the bowl that often anymore since I am trying to get good results with what I CAN do to show at the university.
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 My friend I never meant any such thing. You are placing words or thoughts in my mind. I am quite aware of how difficult brain study is. I have no negative thought about the science of brain research, Really? I think telekinesis and telepathy can introduce new concepts into science and help it evolve. Also studying the brain can shed light on telekinesis and telepathy. The brain could be the physical connection to the metaphysical world, that's why I think studying the brain could help alot in this whole department. 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 continually talk about how science really needs to study the brain, but ignore when we point out that we do study it. Most of your posts that talk about science describe how it's not doing enough, not learning about this phenomena in a way that they should. This is what leads me to believe you're really thinking science isn't doing it right because they haven't found it and YOU HAVE! You're 100%, concrete-convinced you're doing this with your mind, so science is obviously wrong if they claim otherwise. So I'm not putting words or thoughts into your brain. What do you mean when you say we should study this? We have, we found nothing, but you say we should study it because it's origins are "yet not known to science". Isn't that just saying we aren't doing it right because it conflicts with what you believe?
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Well I tend to get bored at my job so I bring the wheel and the bowl (which is a must since there are air currents there) to work. I may pass this up since the large bowl is kind of annoying to carry back and forth. So anyway Robitty my wheel at home is mostly stationary, I don't try it with the bowl that often anymore since I am trying to get good results with what I CAN do to show at the university. So why would it be "mostly stationary" at home? There seems to be a problem there.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Really? You continually talk about how science really needs to study the brain, but ignore when we point out that we do study it. Most of your posts that talk about science describe how it's not doing enough, not learning about this phenomena in a way that they should. This is what leads me to believe you're really thinking science isn't doing it right because they haven't found it and YOU HAVE! You're 100%, concrete-convinced you're doing this with your mind, so science is obviously wrong if they claim otherwise. So I'm not putting words or thoughts into your brain. What do you mean when you say we should study this? We have, we found nothing, but you say we should study it because it's origins are "yet not known to science". Isn't that just saying we aren't doing it right because it conflicts with what you believe? I never said or even thought anyone "isn't doing it right". Scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance. Those that try to study it by their own will actually end up coming up with positive results, and in my case I am only trying to help them out, and also those more skeptical, pointing out the brain as a "gold mine" for this subject. So why would it be "mostly stationary" at home? There seems to be a problem there. What I mean in "mostly stationary" is that I don't touch it or move it around, I am not referring to the paranormal spinning.
Robittybob1 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I never said or even thought anyone "isn't doing it right". Scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance. Those that try to study it by their own will actually end up coming up with positive results, and in my case I am only trying to help them out, and also those more skeptical, pointing out the brain as a "gold mine" for this subject. What I mean in "mostly stationary" is that I don't touch it or move it around, I am not referring to the paranormal spinning. Well have two wheels then one in the experiment and one you can take to work. But the one in the experiment must not be moved other than TK. Write up the result in degrees or full rotations plus degrees. So if you get no movement after an hour - record that is zero.
cladking Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 If you're relying on experiment, what do you think is going to happen? Of course you don't see it until you have an observation/experiment that shows it. That's almost a tautology! "We see what we expect" is wrong anyway. We have hundreds of years of discovery that shows this to be false. "Until an experiment shows it we don't see it" is wrong because science also predicts from theory. You did say "almost a tautology" so perhaps you can come to see my point. Reality exists independently of science and observation. It simply doesn't matter if a scientist asks the right question or even performs the right experiment. Reality always exerts itself whether that reality is seen in experimental results or is behind locked doors to the observer. Most all reality is hidden to the observer. Ancient Greeks believed an objects needed "impeti" to propel them through the air and they saw their entire world in these terms. They understood everything but only in terms of their own science and philosophy and nothing has changed today. We see the world in terms of our beliefs exactly the same way. We see what we expect. Our perception is based on our knowledge and things outside of our knowledge are invisible. We knows something falls because of gravity but we don't see that the nature of this gravity isn't really understood but is rather described and quantified by its effects. It would be almost impossible to process seeing an apple fall sideways from a tree so most couldn't describe what they had seen. In order to design an experiment to show something like "telepathy" one must first have some sort of knowledge of it. Perhaps it's real and some "rock, paper, scissors" expert will be able to design an experimrent to show it. I can even see a vague outline of the experiment which would use statistics and multiple contestents (3) at a time. Obviously, even if positive results were achieved by such an experiment we couldn't be certain exactly what phenomenon was being brought to light. We don't understand the brain well enough or communication with only the eye to ascertain the the results weren't "psychological" or "adeptness at subtle signals". Great poker players not only know when to bluff but they also know how to read other people and their hands. This is usually combined with a keen sense of statistics and calculation of odds. You can't cause the next card to be a jack of diamonds by wishing but you can calculate the odds. But reality still exists and it exists outside of scientific models. Surgeons believed it was a waste of precious time to wash their hands between patients in the 1860's and then the patients paid ultimate price through infections. In their world, in their eyes, it was far more important to stabilize the patient than to keep things clean. Surgeons weren't stupid but they couldn't see what they didn't understand. It required some individual to make an observation that was independent of the knowledge set. The difference today is people are even more confident than ever that they knpow everything and it blinds us to reality. Since the premise of "the perspective of what we know" is false, this is irrelevant. Step 1 would be proper evidence that the phenomenon in question is real. Only then do you need to worry about the mechanism and formulate a theory. You could go the other way around, and have a mechanism tell you what kind of experiment to do. Either way works. But proponents of these effects do neither. "Science" on its current trajectory is many centuries away from being able to study such things. Hogwash. That's typical crackpot blather, often presented by those who have little clue to how science is actually done. It displays the confidence that ignorance brings to some folks. I'm a metaphysician more than a scientist by your definitions. I'm strictly a scientist by mine. This points out that excuse "it only works some of the time" isn't acceptable. That's just a form of selection bias. You have to do statistically better than what chance would in order to count this as working. Reality is always the same and always the result of the same forces. Of course no two events are repeatable and you can't step into the same river twice. -1
swansont Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 You did say "almost a tautology" so perhaps you can come to see my point. Reality exists independently of science and observation. It simply doesn't matter if a scientist asks the right question or even performs the right experiment. Reality always exerts itself whether that reality is seen in experimental results or is behind locked doors to the observer. Most all reality is hidden to the observer. Ancient Greeks believed an objects needed "impeti" to propel them through the air and they saw their entire world in these terms. They understood everything but only in terms of their own science and philosophy and nothing has changed today. We see the world in terms of our beliefs exactly the same way. We see what we expect. Our perception is based on our knowledge and things outside of our knowledge are invisible. Your point is bogus. As I said before, it basically dismisses all of observational scientific discovery as never happening, because all of that is based on not seeing the world in the way you describe it. I mean, why is it that we don't have the same set of beliefs as the Greeks did, if we were constrained to see and understand according to existing beliefs? You've argued for a static system, while acknowledging that it's not a static system. IOW you have done a proof by contradiction, thus showing your proposal to be wrong. Congratulations! We knows something falls because of gravity but we don't see that the nature of this gravity isn't really understood but is rather described and quantified by its effects. It would be almost impossible to process seeing an apple fall sideways from a tree so most couldn't describe what they had seen. Sure they can. Ask people who have been an eyewitness to a hurricane or tornado and I'm sure they could process an apple moving sideways with no trouble. But your example is hypothetical with no actual data to support it. In order to design an experiment to show something like "telepathy" one must first have some sort of knowledge of it. Perhaps it's real and some "rock, paper, scissors" expert will be able to design an experimrent to show it. I can even see a vague outline of the experiment which would use statistics and multiple contestents (3) at a time. Obviously, even if positive results were achieved by such an experiment we couldn't be certain exactly what phenomenon was being brought to light. We don't understand the brain well enough or communication with only the eye to ascertain the the results weren't "psychological" or "adeptness at subtle signals". Great poker players not only know when to bluff but they also know how to read other people and their hands. This is usually combined with a keen sense of statistics and calculation of odds. You can't cause the next card to be a jack of diamonds by wishing but you can calculate the odds. Argument from incredulity, basically. Just because you can't think of a way to design an experiment does not mean that nobody else is capable. You also haven't demonstrated that an understanding of how the mind works is a requirement for such a test. But reality still exists and it exists outside of scientific models. Surgeons believed it was a waste of precious time to wash their hands between patients in the 1860's and then the patients paid ultimate price through infections. In their world, in their eyes, it was far more important to stabilize the patient than to keep things clean. Surgeons weren't stupid but they couldn't see what they didn't understand. It required some individual to make an observation that was independent of the knowledge set. Not so much. Ignaz Semmelweis was a physician. Joseph Lister was a surgeon. They came from that same knowledge set. An argument that comes close to your position is that data are interpreted in the context of the science of the day. Doctors can be excuse for initially being skeptical of germ theory because there wasn't much data to convince them otherwise. But that's not what you are arguing, because it ignores that alternative ideas always exist, giving a growth medium for alternate data interpretation, and if these ideas are better, they eventually win out. Results that clearly cannot be explained by existing theories come to light, forcing a paradigm shift. You just seem to be bashing science while apparently not being familiar with it. I'm a metaphysician more than a scientist by your definitions. I'm strictly a scientist by mine. If you're using your own definition, then it doesn't matter much. You could also be the King of Norway by your definition. That and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (I think; I don't drink coffee).
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I never said or even thought anyone "isn't doing it right". Scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance. Perhaps I misunderstand your terms. These two sentences seem to oppose each other directly. In your view, the paranormal is real, "scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance", so you imply they're wrong and more needs to be done to uncover what you think is obvious. You kept saying we need to study this as if we weren't already, then you imply it's not enough because we haven't discovered evidence to back up your belief. I'm trying to warn you how dangerous it is to think this way. You'll always take "no evidence" to mean we haven't studied it hard enough. You need a good critical reasoning mechanism that tells you eventually "no evidence" means you might be wrong.
Strange Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Reality exists independently of science and observation. It simply doesn't matter if a scientist asks the right question or even performs the right experiment. Reality always exerts itself whether that reality is seen in experimental results or is behind locked doors to the observer. So, contrary to your claims, experiment and observation will reveal reality to us. We see the world in terms of our beliefs exactly the same way. We see what we expect. Our perception is based on our knowledge and things outside of our knowledge are invisible. You say this repeatedly. And every time it is pointed out that it is false. If it were true, science would not be able to make progress. Constantly repeating something you know to be false is grossly dishonest and pretty offensive. I can even see a vague outline of the experiment which would use statistics and multiple contestents (3) at a time. Why do you think no one has done that already? "Science" on its current trajectory is many centuries away from being able to study such things. You completely fail to address the point and just repeat the same baseless claims. I'm a metaphysician more than a scientist by your definitions. I'm strictly a scientist by mine. So not a scientist then. Reality is always the same and always the result of the same forces. Of course no two events are repeatable and you can't step into the same river twice. Crackpots love these soundbites that don't mean anything.
cladking Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 An argument that comes close to your position is that data are interpreted in the context of the science of the day. Doctors can be excuse for initially being skeptical of germ theory because there wasn't much data to convince them otherwise. But that's not what you are arguing, because it ignores that alternative ideas always exist, giving a growth medium for alternate data interpretation, and if these ideas are better, they eventually win out. Results that clearly cannot be explained by existing theories come to light, forcing a paradigm shift. You just seem to be bashing science while apparently not being familiar with it. Certainly, yes. Data are interpreted in terms of current theory. Even observation and what we see is dependent on theory and training. Two different people always see two very different things. But you seem to be assuming that all possible hypotheses are always being considered and that someone will see the importance of any that have value. Nothing could be further from the truth because people all share perspective on many things. Virtually everyone will agree that the cosmos was created by natural law or a Diety but where is it written? Virtually everyone will agree that one apple plus one apple equals two apples (or even one cosmos plus one cosmos equals two cosmos ). But such things aren't real. They are mere semantics. There's no compelling reason to believe reality is beholden to laws or dieties. Everything in the cosmos (including the cosmos ) is unique and hence can't be counted or manipulated in reality. So where does this leave observation and hypothesis that is outside of scientific theory? How can people even formulate an hypothesis that is outside of both religion and science? The big difference here is I'm not prone to discount people's experience just because it appears to lie outside of anything known. Of course there's a lot of chicanery and quackery about but I see no value in discounting observation in any case and this goes many times over from my perspective. From my perspective we know nothing about anything and far far far less about how the brain functions and the mind works. Of course there is huge progress being made here but until it's possible to predict a beautiful sunset and how each observer will percieve it then we really don't know much of anything. When science can say whether you should marry Martha or Caroline then we'll be able to say that we know a lot about reality. In the meantime it simply isn't legitimate to say something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been experimentally defined and measured.
Strange Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 The big difference here is I'm not prone to discount people's experience just because it appears to lie outside of anything known. Neither am I. However, I am not stupid enough to believe their claims without evidence.
cladking Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 So, contrary to your claims, experiment and observation will reveal reality to us. By definition all reality is determined by experiment in modern science. The problem is that experiment can only reveal a small spectra of reality. Indeed, this is how experiment is designed; to exclude everything except the little bit of reality we expect to see. The bigger problem is that we extrapolate and interpolate experimental results as the be all end all of reality. We are merely uncovering bits of natural logic rather than all of reality. We mistake our interpolations as all of reality. You say this repeatedly. And every time it is pointed out that it is false. If it were true, science would not be able to make progress. Constantly repeating something you know to be false is grossly dishonest and pretty offensive. OK, then., Data are interpreted in terms of scientific theory. ...And religious people see the Virgin Mother in potato chips. Why do you think no one has done that already? I'm a very good experiment designer so my guess is no one thought of it. So not a scientist then. Tomato, tomatoe. Crackpots love these soundbites that don't mean anything. And you must believe that one plus one equals two and that the Nile River was there yesterday as well because most of what you believe is dependent on such consistencies. Neither am I. However, I am not stupid enough to believe their claims without evidence. Then we may be more in agreement than not. I'm simply of the opinion that we know such a tiny percentage of all of reality that I have far less reason to disbelieve. Your point is bogus. As I said before, it basically dismisses all of observational scientific discovery as never happening, because all of that is based on not seeing the world in the way you describe it. I mean, why is it that we don't have the same set of beliefs as the Greeks did, if we were constrained to see and understand according to existing beliefs? You've argued for a static system, while acknowledging that it's not a static system. IOW you have done a proof by contradiction, thus showing your proposal to be wrong. Congratulations! Science was invented after the Greeks. Science is not static but always progressing. We are always refining how we understand "natural law"; how we interpret reality. I'm simply saying that there's no such thing as "natural law". There is no referent for the term. There is only reality and it is composed of cause and effect and natural logic. What we believe is natural law is actually just extrapolation and interpolation of experiment. This is what we see; something that doesn't even exist!
Recommended Posts