Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 222

Thread: ESP

  1. #1 ESP 
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Before I get flamed to hell, please let me explain: I'd like to explore the physical limitations of any type of phenomena that can be described as ESP, first be exploring the claims on each branch. I know of 3 distinct traits in ESP:

    Psychokinesis: the ability to move and manipulate objects to the will of the practitioner. Someone employing this ability could, within the confines of the physical world (to my knowledge); move an object, disassemble it, rearrange it's structure and whatnot, though the basic components of the physical object will still all be there unchanged.

    Whether or not this is possible within the realm of physics is debatable, though with heavy leeway towards not. Conservation laws come into mind, especially that of momentum of a closed system. Another big question is where the force to do this comes from, assuming of course that it originates in an individual.

    Telepathy: the ability to communicate through thought alone with other individuals. Someone with this trait could inform a person or persons of whatever comes into their mind and, iirc, read their whatever is on their mind as well. In terms of physics I don't know how or through what medium this is even remotely possible. Communications would be subject to the constraints of the physical world (no communication faster than c).

    This one seems to me to be a flawed idea but I can't pinpoint explicit reasons as to how nor why it breaks laws of physics.

    Clairvoyance: the ability to see into the future. Within the confines of the physical world, this is impossible.

    Definitively bunked as of this point. Breaks causality among, I'm sure, various other laws of physics.



    I'm neither supporting nor refuting these ideas, only putting what I know out there. If someone would like to contribute, post other examples, experiments, evidence either for or against, and any other such discussion. I'd love to see where this topic goes.


    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience. I seriously doubt clairvoyance does. Even though math suggests otherwise, I do not believe any form of time travel can be achieved, other than actual aging slowing down as speed increases. Telekinesis? I'm open to the possibility, but never experienced it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Telekinesis does exist, though on small scales (that I've seen). Telepathy has been successfully shown to exist via the Ganzfeld experiments, and a few others I forget the name(s) of.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Do you have any links to articles or case studies for those 2? Clairvoyance is impossible because it incurs information traveling back in time.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: ESP 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Telepathy: the ability to communicate through thought alone with other individuals. Someone with this trait could inform a person or persons of whatever comes into their mind and, iirc, read their whatever is on their mind as well. In terms of physics I don't know how or through what medium this is even remotely possible. Communications would be subject to the constraints of the physical world (no communication faster than c).

    This one seems to me to be a flawed idea but I can't pinpoint explicit reasons as to how nor why it breaks laws of physics.
    As far as I'm aware, every experiment which has shown this is possible has not excluded the possibility of subconscious cues, or reading of facial expressions. I'd be impressed if a blind, deaf, anosmic person was able to tell what someone else is thinking, without physical contact. Otherwise I remain skeptical.

    I will also point out, that nobody can ever tell what I'm thinking, because I show very little in the way of facial expressions. I am also able to mislead people without lying (by phrasing things in interesting ways or answering with a question), but am not able to if I lie (although I very rarely do). This leads me to believe that people are able to detect a lie, but not read my thoughts.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Telekinesis does exist, though on small scales (that I've seen). Telepathy has been successfully shown to exist via the Ganzfeld experiments, and a few others I forget the name(s) of.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfel...nt#Controversy
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    her conclusions based on those observations were wrong and prejudiced. Guess who I agree with. And this is Not controversy. It's more like an excuse certain so-called "skeptics" use to handwave the entire study with what amounts to random procedural mistakes. I'm quite sure you're doing that now.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    This article, along with further criticisms of Sargent's work from Adrian Parker and Nils Wiklund remained unpublished until 1987 but were well known in parapsychological circles. Sargent wrote a rebuttal to these criticisms (also not published until 1987) [28] in which he did not deny that what Blackmore saw occurred, but her conclusions based on those observations were wrong and prejudiced. His co-workers also responded, saying that any deviation from protocol was the result of “random errors” rather than any concerted attempt at fraud.[29] Carl Sargent stopped working in parapsychology after this and did not respond "in a timely fashion" when the Council of the Parapsychological Association asked for his data and so his membership of said organization was allowed to lapse.
    Whatever the reason for those errors were, wouldn't they seriously bring the conclusions into question?

    Also, he neglected to submit his data to peer scrutiny, which is another big problem, no?

    The essence of useful science is repeatability. His experiments have not passed this test and were not even given a chance to do so by Sargent himself.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Unfortunately stuck behind a pay wall, a meta analysis of 380 studies on psychokinesis in 2006 showed a mild case of publication bias, which is a tendency within a given field of study for positive studies to be published whilst negative and ambiguous studies are abandoned. Aside from that, the results were in line with randomness.

    So psychokinesis is out too.

    The debate on the success or failure of the Ganzfeld experimental setup for telepathy seems to mostly pivot on how various meta analyses of multiple Ganzfeld studies were conducted. A good meta analysis should have blinded and randomised selection (ie only methods section is visible until selection is done) of studies for inclusion based on pre-determined criteria. It looks like there have been two extremes instead. One meta analysis included all Ganzfeld experiments to date irrespective of methodological rigour or even comparability (and came up negative) whilst another seems to have been heavily cherry picked (and came up positive). If there is something real going on there, it's not much of something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I looked into the Ganzfield meta-analyses a while back and remember noting that a major problem was there were different studies with different methodologies being combined into a meta-analysis which, quite naturally, introduces error since one is, in essence, attempting to statistically combine different statistical tables. There's also a bit of expected confirmation bias since the studies included in the meta-analysis were clearly selected only if they didn't provide a negative conclusion. Only neutral or slightly positive conclusions were accepted (none had statistically significant conclusions if memory serves correct -it's been a few years since I reviewed these).

    The bottom line is there is no good evidence for ESP, telekinesis, or telepathy. Not at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Unfortunately stuck behind a pay wall, a meta analysis of 380 studies on psychokinesis in 2006 showed a mild case of publication bias, which is a tendency within a given field of study for positive studies to be published whilst negative and ambiguous studies are abandoned. Aside from that, the results were in line with randomness.

    So psychokinesis is out too.
    The human element is often ignored. If psychokinesis is tied to the human psyche, then stress elevation will directly effect its capability. Either it will reduce the humans ability to concentrate, or directly hinder processes related to the phenomenon.

    There is also a question of how it can be used, the limitations the human concentration has on using it, and so on. None of these concerns are ever addressed, and test subjects are often used without concern for their mental state. While Meditation has received much attention over the years in an effort to ignore its religious backing, psychokinesis has been stigmatized by it. There's nothing but the word of believers that says the phenomenon is paranormal, for example, yet these are often taken at face value. Another question is about the strength of the ability; if it does exist it may be far weaker than claims of the believers. None of these hypothetical are checked as they are for practices like meditation.

    There are inherent problems with studies done on these phenomenons, and if you look at early attempts at meditation study (even current ones!) you'll find similar problems. While no conclusive evidence exists to prove Psychokinesis, the lack of evidence can be contributed to the lack of adequate testing.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I have the full text of the article Biologista linked to; if you'd like it, PM me with an email address.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Unfortunately stuck behind a pay wall, a meta analysis of 380 studies on psychokinesis in 2006 showed a mild case of publication bias, which is a tendency within a given field of study for positive studies to be published whilst negative and ambiguous studies are abandoned. Aside from that, the results were in line with randomness.

    So psychokinesis is out too.
    The human element is often ignored. If psychokinesis is tied to the human psyche, then stress elevation will directly effect its capability. Either it will reduce the humans ability to concentrate, or directly hinder processes related to the phenomenon.

    There is also a question of how it can be used, the limitations the human concentration has on using it, and so on. None of these concerns are ever addressed, and test subjects are often used without concern for their mental state. While Meditation has received much attention over the years in an effort to ignore its religious backing, psychokinesis has been stigmatized by it. There's nothing but the word of believers that says the phenomenon is paranormal, for example, yet these are often taken at face value. Another question is about the strength of the ability; if it does exist it may be far weaker than claims of the believers. None of these hypothetical are checked as they are for practices like meditation.
    I think the testing preformed to date has been quite well designed with respect to the above, though I confess myself a total novice in this subject. Genuine questions here: Assuming for the moment that all of these factors are indeed confounding the current studies, how would you go about designing a better test of psychokinesis? What would be a good hypothetical falsification of the phenomenon? That also begs a rigorous definition of the phenomenon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There are inherent problems with studies done on these phenomenons, and if you look at early attempts at meditation study (even current ones!) you'll find similar problems. While no conclusive evidence exists to prove Psychokinesis, the lack of evidence can be contributed to the lack of adequate testing.
    We can say this for things like exoplanet detection or the identification of a new kind of T cell because they are well defined and falsifiable phenomena. We know planets have a distinct range of masses and sizes, that they orbit stars within given ranges and so we could certainly say in the past that a barrier to falsification was our ability to measure, a lack of adequate tests. For a new kind of T cell we might plausibly say that a barrier here is our knowledge of a unique surface marker, but the existence is suggested by some unexplained gross white blood cell behaviour and so again the lack of good tests is suggested. But for psychokinesis I think it's difficult to make an assertion like yours above. Psychokinesis is very ill-defined in terms of its capabilities and strength. Often it seems that it is assumed that it exists and so testing is done to establish its properties rather than falsify that assertion. It is very hard to falsify something that is not defined well. It is also not a phenomenon required to uniquely explain anything currently observed in the universe, barring perhaps the hazy results of the testing designed to detect psychokinesis (which is more likely to be the effect of chance anyway). In that environment, I don't think it can be said with confidence that the lack of evidence reflects a lack of capacity to adequately test. It is more likely to reflect either the nebulous and shifting definition of the subject, or more likely its absence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience.
    Do you believe it is scientific to give credence to anecdotal data, especially when the source is oneself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I think the testing preformed to date has been quite well designed with respect to the above, though I confess myself a total novice in this subject. Genuine questions here: Assuming for the moment that all of these factors are indeed confounding the current studies, how would you go about designing a better test of psychokinesis? What would be a good hypothetical falsification of the phenomenon? That also begs a rigorous definition of the phenomenon.
    That's not difficult if we use occam's razor with the premise that it does exist, and that it does so by obeying all current laws of physics. What's most important to measure is brain activity during attempts. We can assume that, as humans, we're only capable of easily manipulating the objects we see. That in mind, the use of a "psi-wheel" of sorts is a valid test, if the subject is far enough away and his/her breathing is monitored.

    With the above, you have the most simple conditions that could prove any sort of object manipulation. It's an object the human can see, it's sensitive, only requires simple directional manipulation (left, right), etc. In a dead still exam room such a test would be quite valid, and it seems to work within the limitations of the human psyche. Using RNG's has always been bad practice, because to manipulate them you have to manipulate objects indirectly that a human can neither see nor properly comprehend. A simple object, on the other hand, is easy. Such a test also eliminates the notion of "random chance". Either it's moving, or it's not, and with scientific equipment it would be effortless to prevent ones breath from doing the moving (hell, just wear a mask).

    Also, nothing must cover the "psi-wheel", because if psychokinesis obeys current physical laws, then its effects would be dampened or eliminated entirely by the presence of an object in its way. This is why the test subject should just wear a mask instead.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    What law of physics allows for the movement of an object telekinetically?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    What law prohibits it?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Your claim. Your answer. I'm just asking for you to quantify and qualify the claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    No such claim was made, and it appears you misunderstood the context of the relevant statement. The statement was along the lines of "Along with the assumption that it works within current laws of physics". That is, it's subject to many of the same limitations as other physical phenomenon.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    No such claim was made, and it appears you misunderstood the context of the relevant statement. The statement was along the lines of "Along with the assumption that it works within current laws of physics". That is, it's subject to many of the same limitations as other physical phenomenon.
    Then allow me to revise my query: assuming that ESP (and other related speculations) work "within current laws of physics," which laws would apply and how. Without such a detailed explanation or, even at minimum, a general set of principles to frame the assumption -such an assumption remains specious.

    What good reason is there to accept the notion that speculations of ESP (etc) work "within current laws of physics?" Your reasoning appears, thus far, circular: if ESP exists, it must be within the laws of physics; the laws of physics must include ESP, therefore ESP exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Then allow me to revise my query: assuming that ESP (and other related speculations) work "within current laws of physics," which laws would apply and how. Without such a detailed explanation or, even at minimum, a general set of principles to frame the assumption -such an assumption remains specious.
    What laws exist for any substance that moves another substance? What laws exist for various types of energy? Interaction of matter? Direct simplifications of the process can border on fallacy, though, since psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics.

    What good reason is there to accept the notion that speculations of ESP (etc) work "within current laws of physics?" Your reasoning appears, thus far, circular: if ESP exists, it must be within the laws of physics; the laws of physics must include ESP, therefore ESP exists.
    Where was it stated that "The laws of physics must include ESP"? If we are to argue that psychokinesis exists, we must do so on the premise that it works within currently defined views of the universe. To do otherwise would be more an act of intellectual masturbation than actual discussion.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Then allow me to revise my query: assuming that ESP (and other related speculations) work "within current laws of physics," which laws would apply and how. Without such a detailed explanation or, even at minimum, a general set of principles to frame the assumption -such an assumption remains specious.
    What laws exist for any substance that moves another substance? What laws exist for various types of energy? Interaction of matter? Direct simplifications of the process can border on fallacy, though, since psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics.
    Biology does not somehow work outside of physics, Darius - the issue remains that same. Granted, my knowledge is by no means comprehensive of everything the human body is capable of, but I know of no mechanism by which we could consciously control energy generated within our bodies such that we can apply it to outside objects without physically touching them. The only significant form of energy humans emit is heat, and this is not a consciously controlled process. From what I understand any electricity or magnetism generated by biological processes is largely localized within the bodily structures that use them and are not emitted from the body to any significant degree. So what else is there? That's what I would want to know.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    What laws exist for any substance that moves another substance? What laws exist for various types of energy? Interaction of matter? Direct simplifications of the process can border on fallacy, though, since psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics.
    Its a question of both. What laws (biological, chemical, or physical) would allow for psychokenisis or telepathy? That's what he's asking and what you're trying to dodge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Where was it stated that "The laws of physics must include ESP"? If we are to argue that psychokinesis exists, we must do so on the premise that it works within currently defined views of the universe. To do otherwise would be more an act of intellectual masturbation than actual discussion.
    Then explain specifically which "currently defined views of the universe" support your presumption.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Biology does not somehow work outside of physics, Darius - the issue remains that same.
    Never said it did.

    Granted, my knowledge is by no means comprehensive of everything the human body is capable of, but I know of no mechanism by which we could consciously control energy generated within our bodies such that we can apply it to outside objects without physically touching them. The only significant form of energy humans emit is heat, and this is not a consciously controlled process.
    Technically it can be, in the yogic practice of "tummo". Various meditative practices can be used by masters to control next to everything in the human body. Including supposedly autonomous actions. This is a good read: http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch_intro1.htm

    From what I understand any electricity or magnetism generated by biological processes is largely localized within the bodily structures that use them and are not emitted from the body to any significant degree. So what else is there? That's what I would want to know.
    It can only be guessed at, which is why no claims were made as to the mechanism. Focus largely remains on how it should be tested in order to discover the answers to these questions. No argument is being made to invalidate or answer them, only the premise that these abilities exist on some level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    What laws exist for any substance that moves another substance? What laws exist for various types of energy? Interaction of matter? Direct simplifications of the process can border on fallacy, though, since psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics.
    Its a question of both. What laws (biological, chemical, or physical) would allow for psychokenisis or telepathy? That's what he's asking and what you're trying to dodge.
    This is unknown, which is why it was answered as it was. Hardly a "dodge". To assume knowledge would be ridiculous, as the concept isn't even properly studied yet.

    Then explain specifically which "currently defined views of the universe" support your presumption.
    The lack of any that disagree? I continue to present this as an argument, for claims of ESP are often evaluated on a "lack of evidence IS evidence against" basis.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    This is unknown, which is why it was answered as it was. Hardly a "dodge". To assume knowledge would be ridiculous, as the concept isn't even properly studied yet.
    If its unknown, then you're default position should be "I don't know" not "I think exists and since there is no evidence for or against it, I will presume that it does."

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Then explain specifically which "currently defined views of the universe" support your presumption.
    The lack of any that disagree? I continue to present this as an argument, for claims of ESP are often evaluated on a "lack of evidence IS evidence against" basis.
    You are claiming that something exists. In order for that claim to be taken seriously, you must back it up with evidence. Responding with "prove that it doesn't exist" is logically fallacious and intellectually lazy. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there's no evidence to suggest that something exists, chances are it doesn't exist.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    If its unknown, then you're default position should be "I don't know" not "I think exists and since there is no evidence for or against it, I will presume that it does."
    That was never the presented position, and any assumption to that affect is simply misguided. My personal preference for belief is due to personal practice.

    You are claiming that something exists. In order for that claim to be taken seriously, you must back it up with evidence. Responding with "prove that it doesn't exist" is logically fallacious and intellectually lazy.
    All of the questions so far relating to the nature of psychokinesis (and other ESP related phenomenon) would require scientific study prior to the ability to answer. What was presented was a basic description of how it should be studied, given the limitations of the human psyche and what humans are best at conceptualizing.

    Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there's no evidence to suggest that something exists, chances are it doesn't exist.
    That only qualifies if the claim relevant says something that should create evidence. For example, claiming the sun has vanished even though it is still (visually) present.

    In this instance is does not apply, for claiming that humans have minor psychokinesis capabilities does not, immediately, create any evidence that can be reviewed. Thus, the lack of proper scientific study for it does not indicate its implausibility.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    My personal preference for belief is due to personal practice.
    Please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    In this instance is does not apply, for claiming that humans have minor psychokinesis capabilities does not, immediately, create any evidence that can be reviewed. Thus, the lack of proper scientific study for it does not indicate its implausibility.
    Neither does it indicate its plausibility. Which is why you were asked to provide a plausible mechanism for ESP and to justify your presumption that ESP even exists. But you seem to think that you don't have to do any of this, instead demanding that we provide evidence against your claim first. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Either justify your claims or don't bother making them.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    My personal preference for belief is due to personal practice.
    Please explain.
    It would constitute solely as an anecdote, thus making explaining past that a moot point.

    Neither does it indicate its plausibility. Which is why you were asked to provide a plausible mechanism for ESP and to justify your presumption that ESP even exists. But you seem to think that you don't have to do any of this, instead demanding that we provide evidence against your claim first.
    The plausibility factor comes from the huge amount of people claiming it, which is why meditation began to be studies extensively. Anecdotal reports are generally good indicators of plausibility, as studies into meditation have proved. Demanding I provide a mechanism is like demanding evidence of a mechanism for meditation be presented before any studies are done. It's inane.

    Sorry, but that's not how it works. Either justify your claims or don't bother making them.
    Perhaps if a better job was made in understanding what was said, repetition would not be required.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The plausibility factor comes from the huge amount of people claiming it, which is why meditation began to be studies extensively. Anecdotal reports are generally good indicators of plausibility, as studies into meditation have proved. Demanding I provide a mechanism is like demanding evidence of a mechanism for meditation be presented before any studies are done. It's inane.
    There have been studies done for this though, same as meditation. IF the studies are done in such a way that they aren't exploring possible mechanisms, then they aren't really trying to find out the source of the phenomena, and aren't legitimate to the purpose at hand. Proving existence of something like this is beyond difficult if you aren't going to consider possible mechanisms, it's outright impossible
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    It would constitute solely as an anecdote, thus making explaining past that a moot point.
    So then you understand how anecdotes are subjective and unreliable because they're often clouded by personal bias, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The plausibility factor comes from the huge amount of people claiming it, which is why meditation began to be studies extensively.
    Which people? How many? How have their anecdotal stories been verified? Can their anecdotal stories be verified? I spent most of my life looking for any legitimate example of ESP or Psychokenisis and all I was able to find were frauds and the self-deluded. I probably want to believe you more than anyone else here, so please give me a reason to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Demanding I provide a mechanism is like demanding evidence of a mechanism for meditation be presented before any studies are done. It's inane.
    No, its called being rational. What we asked you for was a plausible mechanism. A hypothesis. This is required in order to test an idea. Without it, you're just saying things and expecting everyone to believe you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Perhaps if a better job was made in understanding what was said, repetition would not be required.
    If so many people are misunderstanding you, maybe you should consider expressing your arguments more clearly.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    It would constitute solely as an anecdote, thus making explaining past that a moot point.
    So then you understand how anecdotes are subjective and unreliable because they're often clouded by personal bias, right?
    It's imprudent to make personal judgment based on ignorance.

    Which people? How many? How have their anecdotal stories been verified? Can their anecdotal stories be verified?
    This is starting to sound like a Wikipedia page. There are plenty of the "in crowd" that claim psychokinesis on small levels. Most are actually quite happy to demonstrate by webcam, and fulfill any requests that make sense.

    I spent most of my life looking for any legitimate example of ESP or Psychokenisis and all I was able to find were frauds and the self-deluded. I probably want to believe you more than anyone else here, so please give me a reason to.
    That is implausible, or you already would believe. The greatest evidence, at this point, would be personal results. There are something like five billion "how to's" on psychokinesis and making a psi-wheel. Have fun with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Demanding I provide a mechanism is like demanding evidence of a mechanism for meditation be presented before any studies are done. It's inane.
    No, its called being rational.
    Try reading again, slowly, and carefully. It's inane. Nobody presents a mechanism for something prior to study, unless evidence of that mechanism already exists. In the case of Psychokinesis, meditation, etc, mechanisms for results often vary wildly from initial postulations. Therefore, presenting any theoretical mechanism(s) at this point would do nothing but cloud the potential results. The only supposed "mechanism" on the cognitive level would be "concentration", but that's a word that has wildly different meanings depending on who you ask. Personally, I'd call it "Zen concentration".

    What we asked you for was a plausible mechanism. A hypothesis. This is required in order to test an idea. Without it, you're just saying things and expecting everyone to believe you.
    The hypothesis presented so far is "Psychokinesis may exist, but due to present testing methods results can't be positive. These changes (detailed in previous posts) would cater more to the human psyche, allowing greater chances of success". A hypothesis as to how psychokinesis does what it does has not even been attempted, nor will it be, for doing so prior to studies of the brain is pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Perhaps if a better job was made in understanding what was said, repetition would not be required.
    If so many people are misunderstanding you, maybe you should consider expressing your arguments more clearly.
    It's imprudent to make personal judgment based on ignorance.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    What laws exist for any substance that moves another substance? What laws exist for various types of energy? Interaction of matter? Direct simplifications of the process can border on fallacy, though, since psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics.
    You're dodging and moving the goal post. You're claiming that ESP (etc.) exists and that there are laws of physics which support it. Now, when called upon to define these laws, you're saying its biology as if biology doesn't adhere to laws of physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Where was it stated that "The laws of physics must include ESP"? If we are to argue that psychokinesis exists, we must do so on the premise that it works within currently defined views of the universe. To do otherwise would be more an act of intellectual masturbation than actual discussion.
    I'm summarizing the argument you're implying. Moreover, we are not arguing that "psychokinesis" exists. You are. I, and perhaps other rationalists, do not see any good reason to postulate that premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Paralith
    Biology does not somehow work outside of physics, Darius - the issue remains that same.
    Never said it did.
    It sure looks like you did:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics
    In addition, you're making an unsupported confidence claim. An additional one. Not only are you dodging the question of what which laws apply that would allow ESP (etc.) to work "within current laws of physics," now you must answer which biological functions support ESP (etc.). Good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Paralith
    Granted, my knowledge is by no means comprehensive of everything the human body is capable of, but I know of no mechanism by which we could consciously control energy generated within our bodies such that we can apply it to outside objects without physically touching them. The only significant form of energy humans emit is heat, and this is not a consciously controlled process.
    Technically it can be, in the yogic practice of "tummo". Various meditative practices can be used by masters to control next to everything in the human body. Including supposedly autonomous actions. This is a good read: http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch_intro1.htm
    First, if we were to hypothetically accept that meditation can "control energy generated within our bodies" (what sort of energy is this, by the way? ATP? electrical? kinetic?), there is a HUGE leap in controlling physical objects not attached to our bodies. Second, the link you provided made no mention of "tummo" or "ESP," so It appears to be a red herring. It offers no support for your claim that ESP (etc.) exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    It can only be guessed at, which is why no claims were made as to the mechanism. Focus largely remains on how it should be tested in order to discover the answers to these questions. No argument is being made to invalidate or answer them, only the premise that these abilities exist on some level.
    And that is a flawed premise. There simply is no rational, good reason to accept that these "abilities exist" on any "level" (whatever "level" means in this context).

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    What laws (biological, chemical, or physical) would allow for psychokenisis or telepathy? That's what he's asking and what you're trying to dodge.
    This is unknown, which is why it was answered as it was. Hardly a "dodge". To assume knowledge would be ridiculous, as the concept isn't even properly studied yet.
    It's very much a dodge. And a not-too-clever-one as well. As to the claim that the concept isn't properly studied, this is bunk. There have been studies of ESP and the ones with the most stringent and rigorous adherence to double blind methods and strict scientific protocols all end up with negative results (Scott & Haskell 1973; Hyman 1985). The studies with more lax protocols tend to show signs of promise. Such a trend is consistent with confirmation bias (Hyman 1985). ESP simply does not exist in spite of very rigorous and professional efforts to test for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    claims of ESP are often evaluated on a "lack of evidence IS evidence against" basis.
    As is appropriate in this case. If my mother calls me and reminds me that I own a chartreuse sweater that I have no experience of owning (don't remember unwrapping it for Xmas, getting it in the mail, buying it off the rack) I go and look for it. If I search the house and all locations that I've ever kept sweaters or laundered them, and have no observational record of it, this becomes evidence for absence and I can assume my mother is mistaken, delusional, or lying to me. Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there for the claim to hold up. For claims of ESP to hold, there should 1) be a mechanism to support the hypothesis, and 2) testing the hypothesis should yield positive results.

    One further body of evidence must be included in any examination of psi: that obtained by gambling casinos. As Terence Hines (1988) observes, "One can consider every spin of the roulette wheel, every throw of the dice, every draw of the card in gambling casinos the world over as a single trial in a worldwide ongoing study in parapsychology."

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    All of the questions so far relating to the nature of psychokinesis (and other ESP related phenomenon) would require scientific study prior to the ability to answer. [...] the lack of proper scientific study for it does not indicate its implausibility.
    Like I said, there has been a wealth of scientific study. The most rigorous of which has yielded negative or no result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Nobody presents a mechanism for something prior to study, unless evidence of that mechanism already exists.
    Sure they would. This is done in medicine all the time. And in biology. But you seem now to be hedging your bets and retreating from the claim that ESP (etc.) exists since you're acknowledging that there's no evidence.

    But then I'm not sure what you're saying here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    "Psychokinesis may exist, but due to present testing methods results can't be positive. These changes (detailed in previous posts) would cater more to the human psyche, allowing greater chances of success". A hypothesis as to how psychokinesis does what it does has not even been attempted, nor will it be, for doing so prior to studies of the brain is pointless.
    You seem to have a desire to say you're admitting that it [i]may[i] exist (implying that it may not), but you also seem to be saying its unfalsifiable and, previous rigorous tests be damned, there's no point in testing further since they don't prove it exists.

    At least, that's what it looks like you're saying.


    References:
    Hyman, Ray (1985). "The Ganzfeld Psi Experiment: A Critical Appraisal," Journal of Parapsychology, 49, pp. 3-49.

    Scott, C. and P. Haskell (1973) "'Normal' Explanations of the Soal-Goldney Experiments in Extrasensory Perception," Nature 245(5) pp. 2-54.

    Hines, Terence (1988). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal.Buffalo: Prometheus Books, pp. 93-94.

    Regarding my meta-analysis critique in an earlier post:
    Stokes, Douglas M. (2001) "The Shrinking Filedrawer: On the Validity of Statistical Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology," Skeptical Inquirer 25(3), pp. 22-25.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You're dodging and moving the goal post. You're claiming that ESP (etc.) exists and that there are laws of physics which support it. Now, when called upon to define these laws, you're saying its biology as if biology doesn't adhere to laws of physics.
    The same laws that support it would pretty much be the same laws that govern movement, motion, conservation of energy, etc. Asking to list them seems ridiculous when psychokinesis is basically moving an object under the same pretenses as touching it, only minus the touch. It's probably best viewed as "invisible touch", ergo obeying all the same laws required for physical interaction, just not visible to the human eye.

    I've never "moved the goal post". It's obvious that the majority of unanswered questions, and the most interest, is in the realm of biology (particularly neuroscience). I have no idea where you people keep getting such twisted meanings out of what I say. Read what I write, not what you add on.

    I'm summarizing the argument you're implying. Moreover, we are not arguing that "psychokinesis" exists. You are. I, and perhaps other rationalists, do not see any good reason to postulate that premise.
    In spite of my repeated statements that your "summary" is grossly inaccurate. You may as well be arguing a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Paralith
    Biology does not somehow work outside of physics, Darius - the issue remains that same.
    Never said it did.
    It sure looks like you did:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    psychokinesis is a question of biology more than physics
    That seems remarkably different from "Biology works outside of physics". Or are you venturing the claim that physics prevents psychokinesis from being plausible?

    In addition, you're making an unsupported confidence claim. An additional one. Not only are you dodging the question of what which laws apply that would allow ESP (etc.) to work "within current laws of physics," now you must answer which biological functions support ESP (etc.). Good luck with that.
    Since the basic assumption is that psychokinesis best works with those who meditate, we can assume it's tied (neurologically) to acts of concentration. Though the medium by which movement is created cannot be proposed at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Paralith
    Granted, my knowledge is by no means comprehensive of everything the human body is capable of, but I know of no mechanism by which we could consciously control energy generated within our bodies such that we can apply it to outside objects without physically touching them. The only significant form of energy humans emit is heat, and this is not a consciously controlled process.
    Technically it can be, in the yogic practice of "tummo". Various meditative practices can be used by masters to control next to everything in the human body. Including supposedly autonomous actions. This is a good read: http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch_intro1.htm
    First, if we were to hypothetically accept that meditation can "control energy generated within our bodies" (what sort of energy is this, by the way? ATP? electrical? kinetic?), there is a HUGE leap in controlling physical objects not attached to our bodies.
    Once again, you are creating a straw man. Nowhere, and I quote my own post here, was it said that such control is exerted by a special energy within the body. That was, actually, paraliths statement.

    Second, the link you provided made no mention of "tummo" or "ESP," so It appears to be a red herring. It offers no support for your claim that ESP (etc.) exists.
    It was offered for further education as to the various studies on meditation. It was assumed that some minor effort be produced to find other relevant studies and learn. I apologize deeply for my gross and abusive assumption, for it was clearly so inaccurate as to render me a lesser man for asserting it.

    Tummo was used as an example of how humans can exert control of ordinarily autonomous functions, such as temperature control. The wiki page itself lists a few scientific studies that validate it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo#S..._investigation It's also interesting to note that my link does, in fact, contain reference to body temperature control. Then again, how dare I assume anyone read relevant material.

    It's very much a dodge. And a not-too-clever-one as well. As to the claim that the concept isn't properly studied, this is bunk. There have been studies of ESP and the ones with the most stringent and rigorous adherence to double blind methods and strict scientific protocols all end up with negative results (Scott & Haskell 1973; Hyman 1985). The studies with more lax protocols tend to show signs of promise. Such a trend is consistent with confirmation bias (Hyman 1985). ESP simply does not exist in spite of very rigorous and professional efforts to test for it.
    I apologize for, once again, assuming it would be within your personal boundaries to read the earlier posted material relevant to what was said. Again I fear I am made lesser for my baseless assertions of capacity, for they continue to be proved inaccurate.

    Repeated reference was made as to how these studies fail. Namely, they fail because they assume the human brain can properly conceptualize what is required to effect something like an RNG. Which is why it was suggested that a psi-wheel be used in a scientific setting. As an object the person can see and interact with physically, there's a higher chance of success by letting the brain do what it is used to. Not only could breath and heat be eliminated as causes for movement by (rather cheap) measurement tools (and a breathing mask), but you would not have to worry about "statistical probability". Either it moves or it does not. It is also assumed that the individual would not position his or her hands anywhere near the object so as to affect it by heat.

    Keep in mind that, while I'm sure you will find many criticisms, each one will likely be accountable. Any relating to heat, wind, etc, definitely can be, without the use of an obstructing object (which would lessen or eliminate the medium by which psychokinesis works).

    As is appropriate in this case.
    Woe unto me! I have failed yet again in my foolhardy presumptions of your person! My earlier explanations to Mr.Finger were obviously too vague and misplaced to be seen by anyone paying attention. I'll explain again for you, and I apologize from the depths of my soul for this discrepancy!

    It is not appropriate, because many anecdotal reports exist to confirm it. The studies so far have been failures, as explained above, due to their general unwillingness to consider the human psyche a factor. Or, indeed, perhaps psychokinesis just doesn't work on the level required to alter random number generations? Alternative studies should be attempted, rather than assuming it doesn't exist due to this.

    One further body of evidence must be included in any examination of psi: that obtained by gambling casinos. As Terence Hines (1988) observes, "One can consider every spin of the roulette wheel, every throw of the dice, every draw of the card in gambling casinos the world over as a single trial in a worldwide ongoing study in parapsychology."
    If psychokinesis is related to concentration, then the environment of a Casino is one of the worlds worst places to attempt it. Do you have any idea how noisy and distracting they are? That quote represents the same brand of "skepticism" that is more ideological and dogmatic than fundamentalist religion.

    Like I said, there has been a wealth of scientific study. The most rigorous of which has yielded negative or no result.
    Like I said, the lack of proper scientific study.

    Sure they would. This is done in medicine all the time. And in biology. But you seem now to be hedging your bets and retreating from the claim that ESP (etc.) exists since you're acknowledging that there's no evidence.
    unless evidence for a mechanism already exists. In medicine, and biology, I've never seen a single hypothesis assert a mechanism that did not have direct evidence for its existence. Those that do are wrong, unfailingly.

    You seem to have a desire to say you're admitting that it [i]may[i] exist (implying that it may not), but you also seem to be saying its unfalsifiable and, previous rigorous tests be damned, there's no point in testing further since they don't prove it exists.
    Forgive my unfailingly terrible grasp of the English language. Alas, my superiors and tests responsible for estimating its quality were in error whilst evaluating me as 99th percentile. I suppose I must try again!

    What you quoted is bizarrely clear: Current methodologies are unable to show positive results due to assumption (i.e. that RNG's can be affected and that humans can relax enough in a scientific study to concentrate). Testing by the same damn methods hundreds of times will of course show the same result. Rather than assuming the testing methods were unable to work with psychokinesis, it was assumed psychokinesis didn't exist.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There are something like five billion "how to's" on psychokinesis and making a psi-wheel. Have fun with that.
    I didn't think you were going to do it, but you did. You brought up psi-wheels. Hilarious. There are so many things that could make the wheel turn: heat from your hands, static electricity. Like X-ray specs, they are a toy for children and the hopelessly self-deluded.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There are something like five billion "how to's" on psychokinesis and making a psi-wheel. Have fun with that.
    I didn't think you were going to do it, but you did. You brought up psi-wheels. Hilarious. There are so many things that could make the wheel turn: heat from your hands, static electricity. Like X-ray specs, they are a toy for children and the hopelessly self-deluded.
    Perhaps, if you had been reading instead of scanning, you may have noticed how frequently I stated to compensate for such problems. In fact I'm saying so for the approximately third time now. Try not to miss such pertinent information before you try to argue something I say.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You're dodging and moving the goal post. You're claiming that ESP (etc.) exists and that there are laws of physics which support it. Now, when called upon to define these laws, you're saying its biology as if biology doesn't adhere to laws of physics.
    The same laws that support it would pretty much be the same laws that govern movement, motion, conservation of energy, etc. Asking to list them seems ridiculous when psychokinesis is basically moving an object under the same pretenses as touching it, only minus the touch. It's probably best viewed as "invisible touch", ergo obeying all the same laws required for physical interaction, just not visible to the human eye.
    Please show how any of these laws apply to so-called "esp" or "telekinesis" or any of the other apparently made-up terms of magic and paranormal "gifts" that mystery-mongers claim exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I've never "moved the goal post". It's obvious that the majority of unanswered questions, and the most interest, is in the realm of biology (particularly neuroscience). I have no idea where you people keep getting such twisted meanings out of what I say. Read what I write, not what you add on.
    You did. Quite clumsily. That you'd rather not admit it is clear. Or perhaps you don't recognize it. Either way, you're dodging the issue. You made claims then refuse to support them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I'm summarizing the argument you're implying. Moreover, we are not arguing that "psychokinesis" exists. You are. I, and perhaps other rationalists, do not see any good reason to postulate that premise.
    In spite of my repeated statements that your "summary" is grossly inaccurate. You may as well be arguing a straw man.
    I think my summary is quite accurate. I think the readers here would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    That seems remarkably different from "Biology works outside of physics". Or are you venturing the claim that physics prevents psychokinesis from being plausible?
    I would venture to say that physics couldn't give a care. Physics no more prevents the existence of ESP than it does the existence of the Easter Bunny. There is equal evidence for both (though slightly more for the latter if you're 5).

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Since the basic assumption is that psychokinesis best works with those who meditate, we can assume it's tied (neurologically) to acts of concentration. Though the medium by which movement is created cannot be proposed at this point.
    How can you state an assumption that "psychokinesis," an apparently made-up term, "best works with those who meditate" when "psychokinesis" doesn't appear to exist? You would first need to show its existence to make such a confidence claim, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    First, if we were to hypothetically accept that meditation can "control energy generated within our bodies" (what sort of energy is this, by the way? ATP? electrical? kinetic?), there is a HUGE leap in controlling physical objects not attached to our bodies.
    Once again, you are creating a straw man. Nowhere, and I quote my own post here, was it said that such control is exerted by a special energy within the body. That was, actually, paraliths statement.
    Which is why that was an aside, parenthetically stated and prefaced with "by the way." If it isn't your assumption, don't dwell on it. But please do address the major leap from meditation to magical powers (this "psychokinesis") that is implied by referring to it in your response to her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Tummo was used as an example of how humans can exert control of ordinarily autonomous functions, such as temperature control. The wiki page itself lists a few scientific studies that validate it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo#S..._investigation It's also interesting to note that my link does, in fact, contain reference to body temperature control. Then again, how dare I assume anyone read relevant material.
    Again, what is the link between physically controlling a body you are materially in contact with (your own!) and affecting disassociated objects? Why is it relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Repeated reference was made as to how these studies fail. Namely, they fail because they assume the human brain can properly conceptualize what is required to effect something like an RNG. Which is why it was suggested that a psi-wheel be used in a scientific setting. As an object the person can see and interact with physically, there's a higher chance of success by letting the brain do what it is used to. Not only could breath and heat be eliminated as causes for movement by (rather cheap) measurement tools (and a breathing mask), but you would not have to worry about "statistical probability". Either it moves or it does not. It is also assumed that the individual would not position his or her hands anywhere near the object so as to affect it by heat.
    And you truly think this was not done? How many citations would you require which include this in their methodologies and which arrive at no significant positive result? I'm curious why you feel you're the only one to think of rigorous scientific methods. Is it that the results have thus far not been positive so, therefore, a rigorous study hasn't been done? There's a reason why, when you review the literature on this topic, the dates are generally from the 1970s and 1980s: they exhausted all efforts and not even the proponents of ESP (etc.) had anything new to add in the way of controls and rigorous tests.

    As is appropriate in this case.
    It is not appropriate, because many anecdotal reports exist to confirm it.

    Complete poppycock. Anecdote is the poorest reason and hardly any sort of evidence. If it were, we should be knee-deep in big foots, lake monsters, space aliens, ghosts, goblins, fairies, gnomes, and all other delusions that have "anecdotal reports" to confirm them.

    The studies so far have been failures, as explained above, due to their general unwillingness to consider the human psyche a factor.
    Nonsense. Indeed it is quite the contrary: the studies have mostly been successful (except where gross negligence, shoddy research models, and frauds were involved) in that they demonstrated a lack of evidence for an effect that is claimed so stringently to exist -yet it disappears under the scrutiny of scientific study. Clearly it existed only in the minds of those deluded and hopeful of it. The human psyche had a part, but it clearly isn't the part you'd like it to be.

    One further body of evidence must be included in any examination of psi: that obtained by gambling casinos. As Terence Hines (1988) observes, "One can consider every spin of the roulette wheel, every throw of the dice, every draw of the card in gambling casinos the world over as a single trial in a worldwide ongoing study in parapsychology."
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    If psychokinesis is related to concentration, then the environment of a Casino is one of the worlds worst places to attempt it. Do you have any idea how noisy and distracting they are? That quote represents the same brand of "skepticism" that is more ideological and dogmatic than fundamentalist religion.
    Ahh.. so that's it, eh. Move the goal post when it gets uncomfortable. I can see that it will be futile to continue much further with dishonesty of this type. You're just making shit up now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Like I said, there has been a wealth of scientific study. The most rigorous of which has yielded negative or no result.
    Like I said, the lack of proper scientific study.
    Not that you've shown. Please, take the time to break down the methodology of the more stringent studies and show us here, citing your sources of why they weren't "proper" and what would be considered "proper." So far, you've merely "said" they're not proper. You haven't demonstrated a single improper study. What were the researchers' names? What were their methods and controls?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    What you quoted is bizarrely clear: Current methodologies are unable to show positive results due to assumption (i.e. that RNG's can be affected and that humans can relax enough in a scientific study to concentrate). Testing by the same damn methods hundreds of times will of course show the same result. Rather than assuming the testing methods were unable to work with psychokinesis, it was assumed psychokinesis didn't exist.
    What are your sources? What are their methodologies? Who were the authors?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Yeaaaah. No. I'm done. I things to do that aren't wastes of my time.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Perhaps, if you had been reading instead of scanning, you may have noticed how frequently I stated to compensate for such problems. In fact I'm saying so for the approximately third time now. Try not to miss such pertinent information before you try to argue something I say.
    Your original quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The greatest evidence, at this point, would be personal results. There are something like five billion "how to's" on psychokinesis and making a psi-wheel. Have fun with that.
    In the context of the psi-wheel, you make no clarification about proper usage or compensation for external causes. You simply present it and its widespread use as positive proof of psychokinesis. All I did was point out the fallibility of such a device and its autodeceptive nature. Your apparent frustration was both unfounded and unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Yeaaaah. No. I'm done. I things to do that aren't wastes of my time.
    Like make a piece of paper move with your mind?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    and Darius abandons the thread without once providing a source nor bit of relevant information. Congratulations. All you did was tell us to look it up. Occam's Razor, by the way, would lean towards ESP's non-existence, mind you (least amount of assumptions and all.).
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Upon review I've decided to continue this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    In the context of the psi-wheel, you make no clarification about proper usage or compensation for external causes. You simply present it and its widespread use as positive proof of psychokinesis. All I did was point out the fallibility of such a device and its autodeceptive nature. Your apparent frustration was both unfounded and unnecessary.
    Not only did you assume I'd not take such precautions, but you ignored my two direct references to both the solutions and psi-wheels in other posts, among many indirect ones. Not only that, but did so to attack my person multiple times. If no effort is made adequately understand the entirety of the arguments presented, then you should not be arguing from ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    and Darius abandons the thread without once providing a source nor bit of relevant information.
    I have, you just seem to have missed all of it. I provided a very good source on meditation, explained a correlation that obviously must exist between concentration and psychokinesis, presented a criticism of how current testing methodologies fail to cater to the human psyche, etc. I substantiate most of these by logical argument, as by their very nature scientific study has not yet been conducted (due to the fact they must be conceded as accurate criticisms before it can be done). Obviously a disagreement has been reached by Skinwalker and myself, but I will address that further down.

    Congratulations. All you did was tell us to look it up.
    I demand this sentiment be proved by a direct quote, or else it is to be considered completely irrelevant and factually inaccurate.

    Occam's Razor, by the way, would lean towards ESP's non-existence, mind you (least amount of assumptions and all.).
    I used Occam's Razor in the context of assuming Psychokinesis exists. Which, for the sake of argument, is perfectly acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Please show how any of these laws apply to so-called "esp" or "telekinesis" or any of the other apparently made-up terms of magic and paranormal "gifts" that mystery-mongers claim exist.
    How can I show that when scientific observance of the phenomenon does not yet exist? I'm quite clearly arguing on the basis of rationality, not already gained hard evidence. In short, I'm formulating a hypothesis based on an assumed premise that gains validity solely from incredibly popular anecdote. If psychokinesis does exist, it's reasonable to assume it behaves in a similar manner to other interactions generating movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Since the basic assumption is that psychokinesis best works with those who meditate, we can assume it's tied (neurologically) to acts of concentration. Though the medium by which movement is created cannot be proposed at this point.
    How can you state an assumption that "psychokinesis," an apparently made-up term, "best works with those who meditate" when "psychokinesis" doesn't appear to exist? You would first need to show its existence to make such a confidence claim, eh?
    Anecdotes of such ability are most common from those who meditate extensively. If we want to study the phenomenon, we must begin by adhering to the more sensible and consistent anecdotal reports, as that is currently what there is to go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skinwalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinwalker
    First, if we were to hypothetically accept that meditation can "control energy generated within our bodies" (what sort of energy is this, by the way? ATP? electrical? kinetic?), there is a HUGE leap in controlling physical objects not attached to our bodies.
    Once again, you are creating a straw man. Nowhere, and I quote my own post here, was it said that such control is exerted by a special energy within the body. That was, actually, paraliths statement.
    Which is why that was an aside, parenthetically stated and prefaced with "by the way." If it isn't your assumption, don't dwell on it. But please do address the major leap from meditation to magical powers (this "psychokinesis") that is implied by referring to it in your response to her.
    Quite simply, it's clear that in order to control the autonomous one needs the mental facilities to do so. This is one of the main consistencies correlated by every anecdotal report I can recall. Meditation is capable of enhancing and better directing ones concentration and focus on a singular thing, and therefore it follows that it should be responsible for cultivation of psychokinesis.

    Again, what is the link between physically controlling a body you are materially in contact with (your own!) and affecting disassociated objects? Why is it relevant?
    Answered above.

    And you truly think this was not done?
    Provide a single study where it was. I cannot find any, and I've spent a long time studying these things.

    How many citations would you require which include this in their methodologies and which arrive at no significant positive result?
    I've never encountered one, and one has not been presented thus far.

    Complete poppycock. Anecdote is the poorest reason and hardly any sort of evidence. If it were, we should be knee-deep in big foots, lake monsters, space aliens, ghosts, goblins, fairies, gnomes, and all other delusions that have "anecdotal reports" to confirm them.
    All of which, at some point, have been checked for verifiability. The important point is that most anecdotal reports for psychokinesis are consistent with one another, even when comparing different cultures discussing the same subject. As there's nothing else to go on at the present moment, it's wise to formulate testing methods based on these reports, as was done with meditation before much was known about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The studies so far have been failures [...] due to their general unwillingness to consider the human psyche a factor.
    [...] demonstrated a lack of evidence for an effect that is claimed so stringently to exist [...]
    Explain to me how the boded text in your quote, in any way, proves my claim invalid? In fact it skips over my claim altogether with more ridiculous affirmations of your dogma, the premise of which (that the studies are accurate) is currently in question.

    To repeat myself: They seem to be failing because they assume psychokinesis can influence something so vaguely comprehensible as a random number generator, or similar device. Often something that must be affected on scales smaller than humans have evolved to comprehend. By contrast, a psi-wheel is an incredibly simple object that the mind can easily grasp and attempt to manipulate. Therefore, I argue it should be used instead, as it would have greater probability of determining the validity of psychokinetic claims. If you know of a study that has already done this, please mention it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    If psychokinesis is related to concentration, then the environment of a Casino is one of the worlds worst places to attempt it. Do you have any idea how noisy and distracting they are? That quote represents the same brand of "skepticism" that is more ideological and dogmatic than fundamentalist religion.
    Ahh.. so that's it, eh. Move the goal post when it gets uncomfortable. I can see that it will be futile to continue much further with dishonesty of this type. You're just making shit up now.
    Then you reject the consistently reported premise that psychokinesis is related to concentration? If so, then we are arguing for two different things. I challenge you to provide a single quotation where I set the "goal post" for psychokinesis as something that does not require concentration aided by meditation.

    As you are unlikely to meet the challenge (because your claim of doing so is bullshit), this statement is proven false. I have never "moved the goalpost", and you continues to use such claims to avoid substantiating or defending your arguments I call bullshit on.

    Please, take the time to break down the methodology of the more stringent studies and show us here, citing your sources of why they weren't "proper" and what would be considered "proper." So far, you've merely "said" they're not proper.
    This is a blatantly inaccurate, borderline slanderous, list of claims. I've explained, at least three times now, exactly why they are inaccurate and what must be done to provide a more human-friendly study. Why must I cite sources, when by definition my criticism cannot yet have any? What's wrong with good ol' fashioned logic as a precursor to initial study? In fact, how does the demand for citation of sources even make sense when I argue that proper study has never been attempted? You're making ridiculous claims and rejecting the actual explanations presented.

    You haven't demonstrated a single improper study. What were the researchers' names? What were their methods and controls?
    Yes I have, and so far all of them that I know of are improper. That huge list of studies involving RNG's? All of them improper, and I have explained why above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Testing by the same damn methods hundreds of times will of course show the same result.
    What are your sources?
    Um. Every study that has ever existed that duplicates the methodology of a previous study, and in my experience most often shows the same results because of that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    (i.e. that RNG's can be affected and that humans can relax enough in a scientific study to concentrate).
    What are their methodologies?
    The use of the RNG is, in itself, part of the overall methodology employed by all studies seen thus far. I'm open to the citation of studies using methods more acceptable to human comprehension, such as attempts to move physical objects susceptible to weak forces (I assume telekinesis is not that powerful for scientific testing sake), such as a psi-wheel.

    Who were the authors?
    I don't remember names. Check the huge meta analysis of RNG tests provided by Paralith, for an example, if you're that anal.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    In the context of the psi-wheel, you make no clarification about proper usage or compensation for external causes. You simply present it and its widespread use as positive proof of psychokinesis. All I did was point out the fallibility of such a device and its autodeceptive nature. Your apparent frustration was both unfounded and unnecessary.
    Not only did you assume I'd not take such precautions, but you ignored my two direct references to both the solutions and psi-wheels in other posts, among many indirect ones. Not only that, but did so to attack my person multiple times. If no effort is made adequately understand the entirety of the arguments presented, then you should not be arguing from ignorance.
    I think Finger's problem, and I would echo it, is that your suggestions are not adequate controls. A psi-wheel will turn at the very slightest air current, and the only sure fire way to entirely eliminate air currents is to use an extremely well built vacuum chamber. I know that some claims have been made that psi wheels have been made turn under a bell jar, but as far as I know not a sealed and depressurised jar.

    James Randi proposed a good test using psi wheels that has not, as far as I know, been taken up. He suggested that a statistically relevant number of psi wheels (say in the dozens) be set up in controlled vacuums. Then the sender or whatever we might call him would be directed to cause a specific wheel (but not the others) to turn. Failing this, a small group of wheels (but not the others). Failing this, a larger group and so on. This sounds like a good test to me. Not very difficult to set up, but again I have never heard of it being done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I think Finger's problem, and I would echo it, is that your suggestions are not adequate controls. A psi-wheel will turn at the very slightest air current, and the only sure fire way to entirely eliminate air currents is to use an extremely well built vacuum chamber. I know that some claims have been made that psi wheels have been made turn under a bell jar, but as far as I know not a sealed and depressurised jar.
    All instances I've seen of a psi-wheel moving under an object are visibly faked. Eliminating air interference is just a question of maintaining a static room temperature. If you place a psi-wheel in a dead-still room, you'll notice it doesn't move.

    James Randi proposed a good test using psi wheels that has not, as far as I know, been taken up. He suggested that a statistically relevant number of psi wheels (say in the dozens) be set up in controlled vacuums. Then the sender or whatever we might call him would be directed to cause a specific wheel (but not the others) to turn. Failing this, a small group of wheels (but not the others). Failing this, a larger group and so on. This sounds like a good test to me. Not very difficult to set up, but again I have never heard of it being done.
    The problem is Randi assumes psychokinesis is strong enough to influence objects inside the vacuum-creating device. In my experience it doesn't even pierce thin glass, or move psi-wheels very fast. The reason I state no object must be blocking is because I'm quite convinced psychokinesis is incredibly weak.

    Another obvious determiner is the fact that a psi-wheels directional spin is controlled. If someone says "now I'm moving it right" while it's moving left, then it moves right, and reproduces this controlled capacity numerous times under scientifically observed conditions, I think we know that's not the wind. There's nothing inherently wrong with such a test, so long as obvious precautions are taken.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Then why not use a room dulled to air currents, with a wall between the subject and the wheel? The wall would have a hole that a single hand would go through and touch the base of the pinwheel, and a rubber "sheath" for the arm that would hold tight against skin. The other side of the wall would be a see through chamber for an experimenter to view, sealed off to air.

    There would be two experimenters and a camera. Experimenter 1 would never view the wheel, experimenter 2 would note down any changes to the wheel state with appropriate timing data from another room. This is to remove the ability of the experimenter to influence the subject.

    In this study there would be two chambers and two wheels. The wheels would be of identical construction, except that one would be immobile (glued). The experimenter would run the following tests, and time them, on each chamber:

    0. Ask for the state of the wheel.
    0a. Instruct subject to stop the wheel. (whether or not it is stopped, and only if they stated spinning)
    1. Make the wheel rotate to the left, tell me when the wheel is rotating left. [Record how long it took, and then delay 10 seconds for next test.]
    2. Stop the wheel, tell me when the wheel is stopped.[ Record how long it takes to stop, delay 10 seconds until next test.]
    3. Make the wheel rotate right, tell me when it is rotating. [ Record how long it takes to rotate, delay 10 seconds until next test.]
    4. 2. Stop the wheel, tell me when the wheel is stopped.[ Record how long it takes to stop, delay 10 seconds until next test.]

    The results would show:

    1. Whether or not there is an ability to detect objects psychically. If there is, then someone should be able to tell exactly what the object is doing, whether or not they are able to influence it. If you cannot detect the object, or find out what it is doing, then you are very likely unable to influence it in any way with only your mind.

    2. If psychokinesis exists. If an above average number of (experienced) users are able to control the direction of spin on command, then it would be cause for more rigorous testing.

    There should be two test populations. The first should be random subjects, with no regard to history of psychokinesis. The second should be chosen from a pool of applicants with a "history" of psychokinesis, and experience with psi wheels.

    Keep in mind, this test proves nothing. It only proves that there is reason to study the phenomena further. Subjects of further study should be those that correctly identify the wheel that cannot move, and consistently tell you that they cannot move the wheel. In addition, further study should be made on the subjects correctly able to move the wheel each time for the total duration of each test.

    My specific suggestion for a wheel would be a child's pin-wheel.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I think Finger's problem, and I would echo it, is that your suggestions are not adequate controls. A psi-wheel will turn at the very slightest air current, and the only sure fire way to entirely eliminate air currents is to use an extremely well built vacuum chamber. I know that some claims have been made that psi wheels have been made turn under a bell jar, but as far as I know not a sealed and depressurised jar.
    All instances I've seen of a psi-wheel moving under an object are visibly faked. Eliminating air interference is just a question of maintaining a static room temperature. If you place a psi-wheel in a dead-still room, you'll notice it doesn't move.
    2 things I MUST add. the presence of a person induces heat, air currents, and all manner of other possible phenomena that may indeed move the wheel aside from psychokinesis. How are you going to control for these? and saying you'll put a mask on, or have him concentrate is BS, there are no guarantees that the subject will be truly capable and any test using those restrictions are as fraudulent as you claim a bell jar is, ironically.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    Then why not use a room dulled to air currents, with a wall between the subject and the wheel? The wall would have a hole that a single hand would go through and touch the base of the pinwheel, and a rubber "sheath" for the arm that would hold tight against skin. The other side of the wall would be a see through chamber for an experimenter to view, sealed off to air.
    Well, again that makes another assumption that psychokinesis can be that finely controlled. I'd be willing to try it, sure, but I have my doubts. There's also a problem with your proposed test...

    2. If psychokinesis exists. If an above average number of [...] users are able to control the direction of spin on command
    I was unaware there was an average number of people that can control the directional spin of a psiwheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    2 things I MUST add. the presence of a person induces heat, air currents, and all manner of other possible phenomena that may indeed move the wheel aside from psychokinesis.
    If they're far enough away, and they are still, there is no chance of such a thing affecting the psiwheel. Of course such things would be taken into consideration.

    How are you going to control for these?
    How do you mean?

    and saying you'll put a mask on, or have him concentrate is BS, there are no guarantees that the subject will be truly capable and any test using those restrictions are as fraudulent as you claim a bell jar is, ironically.
    My argument about the bell jar was about the physical resistance it would provide for possible psychokinesis. For a mask to do the same relies on the premise that psychokinesis is simply breathing, which is not the premise that was presented. This definitely doesn't follow my argument or premise.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    What I was saying is that if an above average number (that's higher than half of the subjects) are capable of spinning the wheel with any degree of control, then there is cause for more rigorous study.

    I'm not saying an average number of people can do it. I'm not saying anyone can do it. I'm saying there has to be some sort of cutoff point where it becomes feasible, and in my mock study, I'm defining that as half the people.

    Of course, if even 8 out of 30 people say that they cannot spin the fixed wheel, then there may be cause for more study of those 8 subjects.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    What I was saying is that if an above average number (that's higher than half of the subjects) are capable of spinning the wheel with any degree of control, then there is cause for more rigorous study.
    And a single individual exhibiting conscious control over an object seemingly by will is not cause for further study? The entire point is to discover if it exists, so I'm still confused as to why it requires "more than half". It only takes one.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'd only argue over the method used to test. It must be ensured that no outside interference could come across the wheel that would make it move without the use of psychokinesis alone. The alone part is very important, all factors have to be controlled somehow, and if they can't then there is no reason to believe that esp is possible, as it can be easily attributed to other factors, other forces.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Whoever said such stringent protocols would not be adhered to? I only have a singular objection: that the object must not be blocked. Everything else may be as rigorously controlled as you like.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    magnetism works through glass, as does gravity. Forces work through objects, Darius, why is it that ESP won't? and the issue with an 'unblocked' object is that breathing becomes an issue, heat can create air currents in the room, and since the person in question is producing heat, there is no guarantee that you can prevent the subjects heat from causing a pressure difference in the air of the room that could put a gentle current in the room and move the wheel. Breathing, even through a mask, will do the same thing. Small currents generated at a source can have intrinsic impact on the value of the experiment. Ever hear the adage "a butterfly wing flapping in the US can generate a Tsunami in Japan"? it may seem silly, but it is, on the quantum level and the level we are discussing, something that must be considered.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    magnetism works through glass, as does gravity. Forces work through objects, Darius, why is it that ESP won't?
    Who knows, but you're clearly ignoring the sophistication of scientific tools just for the sake of disagreeing. Try coming up with something of substance.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    ooookaaaay... that was a complete non-answer. If the forces of physics (the action-at-a-distance forces) work through objects, how is illegitimate to ask why ESP won't? How am I ignoring the sophistication of scientific tools? I'm not asking this for the sake of disagreeing, though it seems you're deliberately dodging the point and pinning it on me. Honestly, Darius, how is glass different than air? both contain substance, both have matter, what's the difference? in terms of physics, they are effectively the same thing. So please, if I'm wrong, demonstrate that fact instead of claiming me to be ignoring something.

    And what sophistication of scientific tools am I ignoring?? Try to be less vague, please.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    ooookaaaay... that was a complete non-answer. If the forces of physics (the action-at-a-distance forces) work through objects, how is illegitimate to ask why ESP won't?
    If psychokinesis was gravity or magnetism, how could it move a psi-wheel? I've claimed it as neither. As psychokinesis can effect objects directly, it's entirely reasonable to assume that it can be intercepted by another object. It's like asking why you can't move the psiwheel with your finger because the glass is covering it.

    How am I ignoring the sophistication of scientific tools?
    You refuse to accept that by measurement and proper precautions all external phenomenon sans psychokinesis can be removed from an uncovered psywheel.

    Honestly, Darius, how is glass different than air? both contain substance, both have matter, what's the difference? in terms of physics, they are effectively the same thing.
    Lord give me strength. Glass is denser than air. Much like someone I know.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Lord give me strength. Glass is denser than air. Much like someone I know.
    an inch of glass versus 10 feet of air... same amount of matter... Density is irrelevant, all that matters is the quantity of 'stuff'.

    And I would like to see how you would remove all the possibilities of external influence without separation of the subject from the wheel.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    The reason the rest of the system was blocked, and that it should happen on more than one subject is that a singular occurrence is not good enough. Singular occurrences can be flukes, unexpected experimental error, twitchy fingers, etc.

    The system, in my case, is isolated, with the exception of the subject's hand touching the base of the wheel. Is it somehow unfair to ask the person to move the object without seeing it? I mean if you can affect it, and you know it is there, shouldn't you also be able to detect it with this force that you are creating to manipulate it?
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It is interesting to observe a creationist mindset in one claiming scintific credentials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It is interesting to observe a creationist mindset in one claiming scintific credentials.
    In brief, I am only asserting how studies should be conducted based on anecdote. For you to construe this as "creationist" shows your own fallacious mental framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    an inch of glass versus 10 feet of air... same amount of matter... Density is irrelevant, all that matters is the quantity of 'stuff'.
    You're off by more than a few 0's. To achieve the amount of matter from air that makes up an inch of glass you'd need well over a thousand feet. Density is of [b]utmost importance[b]; a constant small force could propel a vehicle through many miles of air that, if condensed into an area less than an inch wide, it could not possibly penetrate.

    I suppose that, as long as you make the proper scale conversions, it may be true that "density is irrelevant". For example, if the vehicle could apply the sum total force it would have applied over the course of miles of air against the condensed barrier, it would penetrate it. However, that is functionally impossible, whereas a material that is a thousand times as dense as another is not impossible. Therein lies the disconnect, and that makes density very relevant.

    And I would like to see how you would remove all the possibilities of external influence without separation of the subject from the wheel.
    Your claims of subject interference are greatly exaggerated. Body heat can be eliminated as a factor by simple positioning of 10 feet away (or less), air by a mask, room temperature by proper heating and insulation, external wind by use of a sealed room. There is not one objection mentioned thus far that does not have a simple unobstructionist solution.

    If you can think of something that's unaccountable, then mention it. Cease this repetition of already accounted issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    The reason the rest of the system was blocked, and that it should happen on more than one subject is that a singular occurrence is not good enough. Singular occurrences can be flukes, unexpected experimental error, twitchy fingers, etc.
    Which is why you test the subject over again. I have no idea how "unexpected error" and "twitchy fingers" plays any role, in any way, whatsoever. Unexpected does not mean undetectable; the other issue with "twitchy fingers" made no sense until I read below.

    The system, in my case, is isolated, with the exception of the subject's hand touching the base of the wheel.
    Um. No. That's stupid. They should be at least 5 or 10 feet away.

    Is it somehow unfair to ask the person to move the object without seeing it?
    Is it somehow unfair to ask a blind man to read?

    I mean if you can affect it, and you know it is there, shouldn't you also be able to detect it with this force that you are creating to manipulate it?
    I only ever advocated psychokinesis, never clairvoyance or the ability to "sense" things.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    No, it is perfectly fair to ask a blind man to read; he has braille.

    If our tests are so horribly unfair, why don't you propose one with real controls? Clearly we cannot, as we do not know exactly what we are testing for, and you do.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If psychokinesis is real, there should be some people possessed of it in sufficient quantities that they don't need a highly sensitive wheel to manifest it. They could move something that genuinely requires force.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience.
    Do you believe it is scientific to give credence to anecdotal data, especially when the source is oneself?
    Depends on how directly you've observed it. I've experienced clairvoyance a few times by having dreams and then seeing the imagery happen in detail. It only ever happened a few times, but the last time it happened, I positively marked the event in my memory and then waited for it to occur. It was a fairly improbable event, so I was surprised that it would actually happen. I got frustrated with it after that, because I could never prevent what I had seen from occurring, or change it in any way.

    I also found a boomerang in the dark in the middle of an open field of tall grass just by praying really intently. Then I took off running into the field, stopped, and found it in the very first place I looked. That's back when I still believed in religion. Now I prefer to believe in ESP.

    You can always come up with an alternate explanation, but in my case I think you'd really be grasping at straws. The "mind fooling itself" argument can be used, of course, but once you open that door, you've invalidated human observation as a means of scientific inquiry. If a scientist constantly has to check them self to see if they're still sane, or losing their mind, well... I think that's taking scrutiny a bit too far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    No, it is perfectly fair to ask a blind man to read; he has braille.
    Nice way to completely miss the point. You're assuming a man with no hands has the ability to read braille with his fingers.

    As for your request, I already have plenty of times, and everyone that disagrees with the proposed idea never presents a single coherent dissenting remark.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If psychokinesis is real, there should be some people possessed of it in sufficient quantities that they don't need a highly sensitive wheel to manifest it. They could move something that genuinely requires force.
    Says who! Nobody claiming psychokinesis has ever claimed to be able to move large objects. Nobody sane, that is. From this we can ascertain that the effect, if it exists, is weak.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Of course I didn't miss the point. I was being facetious because you obviously didn't consider the fact that most blind people can read, and because you didn't consider that fact, you failed to stipulate that he had no hands. Surely had you stated it, I would have told you he could read books on tape.

    Your plenty of times are apparently not in this thread because I only saw one proposed test. That proposed test is broken for 3 reasons.

    1. It only requires 1 person, and it has no controls. For a test to prove anything, it must prove that the successful occurrences are not random flukes. Those occurrences must be statistically significant.

    2. The test has no physical controls. By this, I mean that anything in the room can influence the wheel. This could be things from the researcher moving around, to someone talking, to body heat, or even something as simple as vibrations of a large truck passing by or a door slamming.

    3. It is too vague to be repeatable. You need a WELL DEFINED test with WELL DEFINED controls. Something that can be repeated in any lab at any time.

    All of these points have been raised to you, and you've summarily rejected them as impossible because they would hinder the subject's ability to affect anything.


    All I'm saying is revise your test so it is a good test and you might be able to prove something if you run it. Instead of running it and being angry at everyone for not accepting the results.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    No, it is perfectly fair to ask a blind man to read; he has braille.
    Nice way to completely miss the point. You're assuming a man with no hands has the ability to read braille with his fingers.

    As for your request, I already have plenty of times, and everyone that disagrees with the proposed idea never presents a single coherent dissenting remark.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If psychokinesis is real, there should be some people possessed of it in sufficient quantities that they don't need a highly sensitive wheel to manifest it. They could move something that genuinely requires force.
    Says who! Nobody claiming psychokinesis has ever claimed to be able to move large objects. Nobody sane, that is. From this we can ascertain that the effect, if it exists, is weak.
    If it's weak, then what use is it? I'd like to hope that, if we understood it scientifically then we could hopefully increase its strength, or something. What will we learn from these highly sensitive wheels, though?

    Maybe instead of trying to prove it exists, we should try to learn more about it by just assuming it exists, and then devising experiments to try and figure out how to manipulate it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience.
    Do you believe it is scientific to give credence to anecdotal data, especially when the source is oneself?
    That's not my attempt. I am only making a statement of fact. take it as you see fit. I don't need scientific fact. I'm convinced. Telepathy is not all I have experienced, but I don't know what to call the other two things. Some might call it clairvoyance, but it wasn't that. It also gets to a personal nature I'm not going to discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience.
    Do you believe it is scientific to give credence to anecdotal data, especially when the source is oneself?
    That's not my attempt. I am only making a statement of fact. take it as you see fit. I don't need scientific fact. I'm convinced. Telepathy is not all I have experienced, but I don't know what to call the other two things. Some might call it clairvoyance, but it wasn't that. It also gets to a personal nature I'm not going to discuss.
    But when the only source of knowledge is yourself how do you rule out coincidence, confirmation bias and simple delusion? Why do you think the scientific method was developed? Do you think scientists consider themselves immune to these phenomena, these facets of "common sense" which it turns out actually mislead us? Of course they don't. The purpose of the scientific method is to recognise and account for our failings as observers.

    Being convinced of something from self-knowledge alone does not make you wrong, of course. But but it does mean you have essentially decided not to test your assumption, which means you actually don't know the thing at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    But when the only source of knowledge is yourself how do you rule out coincidence, confirmation bias and simple delusion? Why do you think the scientific method was developed? Do you think scientists consider themselves immune to these phenomena, these facets of "common sense" which it turns out actually mislead us? Of course they don't. The purpose of the scientific method is to recognise and account for our failings as observers.

    Being convinced of something from self-knowledge alone does not make you wrong, of course. But but it does mean you have essentially decided not to test your assumption, which means you actually don't know the thing at all.
    Well, the number of times things have occurred defy statistics completely. Again, believe as you wish. I am 100% convinced that the psychic phenomena is real, as for three types of psychic experiences. Not single incidents, but repeatable occurrences, over and over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Well, I know telepathy exists. Had some interesting first had experience.
    Do you believe it is scientific to give credence to anecdotal data, especially when the source is oneself?
    That's not my attempt. I am only making a statement of fact. take it as you see fit. I don't need scientific fact. I'm convinced. Telepathy is not all I have experienced, but I don't know what to call the other two things. Some might call it clairvoyance, but it wasn't that. It also gets to a personal nature I'm not going to discuss.
    But when the only source of knowledge is yourself how do you rule out coincidence, confirmation bias and simple delusion? Why do you think the scientific method was developed? Do you think scientists consider themselves immune to these phenomena, these facets of "common sense" which it turns out actually mislead us? Of course they don't. The purpose of the scientific method is to recognise and account for our failings as observers.

    Being convinced of something from self-knowledge alone does not make you wrong, of course. But but it does mean you have essentially decided not to test your assumption, which means you actually don't know the thing at all.
    If you have strong enough control over it, then you can decide prior to its occurrence whether you're going to count the coming event as confirmation or not. Of course, my particular experience is clairvoyance. I know before hand whether a given dream or impression is clairvoyant or not, so I can test and see.

    If I ever decide to open up to it again (it's kind of traumatic), all it would take would be for me to write the information down in a notebook, exclusively designated as the place to write it, and see if it comes true. If any fail, I will have falsified the theory, and in my case, they would not be vague enough to yield false positives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you have strong enough control over it, then you can decide prior to its occurrence whether you're going to count the coming event as confirmation or not.
    Agreed. I have experienced hundreds of confirmed events, with other people witnessing also. Sorry, just not going into any details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    But when the only source of knowledge is yourself how do you rule out coincidence, confirmation bias and simple delusion? Why do you think the scientific method was developed? Do you think scientists consider themselves immune to these phenomena, these facets of "common sense" which it turns out actually mislead us? Of course they don't. The purpose of the scientific method is to recognise and account for our failings as observers.

    Being convinced of something from self-knowledge alone does not make you wrong, of course. But but it does mean you have essentially decided not to test your assumption, which means you actually don't know the thing at all.
    Well, the number of times things have occurred defy statistics completely.
    What is the basis of that assertion? What number of events would you expect to occur by chance and over what time frame? What is the basis of that expectation? How many events did occur and over what time frame? How did you measure this, how did you record it and how did you control for, false positives, delusion, confirmation bias?

    I guess the big question for both of you is why should anyone believe you?I don't mean that in a dismissive way, I genuinely want to know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I have experienced hundreds of confirmed events, with other people witnessing also. Sorry, just not going into any details.
    I've also experienced hundreds of events which I then immediately credited to some latent psychic ability. Instantly dismissing selective memory, unconscious visual ques, or plain old coincidence (and yes, contrary to what pseudo-scientists think, coincidences do happen quite often.) The moment I started testing my supposed powers honestly was the moment I started to realize that the "occurrences" were never as frequent or as precise as I had remembered them to be. The euphemism is somehting like "counting your hits, but never your misses." I said before that I probably want to believe in this kind of thing more than anyone else here, but its even more important that I believe it for the right reasons. Anecdotal stories and subjective accounts of "frequency" are meaningless even if they are my own. As much as I'd like to believe it, until someone can demonstrate and replicate ESP (or psychokinesis for that matter) reliably and effectively under properly controlled conditions, I will continue to be skeptical of it.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Applause for the last post.

    Wild Cobra, can you deliver a little self doubt and scientific scepticism? A tiny pinch?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    No because it is far too personal to tell you he dreamed he'd wear blue jeans and then did.

    This thread really is about the proponents of ESP/PK trying to find more ways to cop out of proving it. All you need to do is read pages 3 and 4 to see that they clearly refuse to provide any real test or any actual proof. They rely on anecdote, hearsay, and quite possibly youtube videos of psi-wheels.

    Of course, PK is apparently useless unless you're insane, because only insane people can move large objects.
    Nobody claiming psychokinesis has ever claimed to be able to move large objects. Nobody sane, that is.
    See? Prerequisite to testable Pk: Insanity. From this statement, we can ascertain that only sane people are weak and pathetic in the PK world. We can NOT state that PK is a weak force, we can only state that sane people have almost (or exactly) no control over an existing PK force, if one exists.

    Anyway, enough sardonic commentary from me. Have a good day!
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Applause for the last post.

    Wild Cobra, can you deliver a little self doubt and scientific scepticism? A tiny pinch?
    Doubt is part of the problem. Funny how Star Wars analogy of "The Force" is so on target to psychic abilities. Doubt just kills it.

    Sorry, I have no real doubt of the reality of our spiritual being or abilities. However, we are very limited as long as we do have doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Doubt is part of the problem. Funny how Star Wars analogy of "The Force" is so on target to psychic abilities. Doubt just kills it.

    Sorry, I have no real doubt of the reality of our spiritual being or abilities. However, we are very limited as long as we do have doubt.
    What reality is this? Because so far your only justification for your "knowledge" is your own personal experience and your own subjective assessment that these occurrence are frequent. You haven't given us any legitimate reason to believe you. You haven't even given yourself any legitimate reason to believe you. That's not knowledge, its faith. Auto-deceptive faith at that, since one of the conditions of experiencing ESP is apparently to be "without doubt."
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    What, no answer to my post Cobra? You made a claim about statistics, so give me the specifics please. What number of events would you expect to occur by chance and over what time frame? What is the basis of that expectation? How many events did occur and over what time frame? How did you measure this, how did you record it and how did you control for, false positives, delusion, confirmation bias?

    Convince us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Applause for the last post.

    Wild Cobra, can you deliver a little self doubt and scientific scepticism? A tiny pinch?
    Doubt is part of the problem. Funny how Star Wars analogy of "The Force" is so on target to psychic abilities. Doubt just kills it.
    Funny how people who claim all manner of unproven things say exactly the same thing. Or claim that testing it makes it go away. They say that about prayer and faith healing as well. But here's the thing: you don't have to doubt it. You just have to allow others to, so it can be tested. If a thing exists, it should exist whether we're looking at it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Sorry, I have no real doubt of the reality of our spiritual being or abilities. However, we are very limited as long as we do have doubt.
    Total nonsense. If you don't have doubt then what is the basis by which you choose what to accept and what to reject? If not evidence then what? Whatever sounds ok to you by common sense? Whatever you'd like to be real?

    If everyone does that then where are we? All simply holding to our own varying opinions instead of actually trying to work out reality.

    Doubt got us where we are today. It is central to the scientific method. That method, based on doubt and skepticism gave us modern medicine and technology. Name me one practical thing we ever gained from assuming something to be true without looking for evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    No because it is far too personal to tell you he dreamed he'd wear blue jeans and then did.

    This thread really is about the proponents of ESP/PK trying to find more ways to cop out of proving it. All you need to do is read pages 3 and 4 to see that they clearly refuse to provide any real test or any actual proof. They rely on anecdote, hearsay, and quite possibly youtube videos of psi-wheels.
    The only reason I've held back at all is because I don't want to make insanely long posts trying to share the whole story. And, of course, my own experience is limited. It's certainly enough to convince me, but I couldn't expect it to convince anyone else, unless they were already open to the idea.

    [quote="TheBiologista"][quote="Wild Cobra"]
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    But when the only source of knowledge is yourself how do you rule out coincidence, confirmation bias and simple delusion? Why do you think the scientific method was developed? Do you think scientists consider themselves immune to these phenomena, these facets of "common sense" which it turns out actually mislead us? Of course they don't. The purpose of the scientific method is to recognise and account for our failings as observers.
    I don't rule out personal delusion. That's why I try to talk about it online, and especially in places with a science focus, and a certain level of anonymity. I certainly don't talk about it with friends and family.

    And naturally... I'd prefer to hear genuinely thought out reasoning, rather than ridicule. (:x.... alienmindsinc...:x)



    I guess the big question for both of you is why should anyone believe you?I don't mean that in a dismissive way, I genuinely want to know.
    I'm not sure I really want people to believe me too much. I'm convinced that maybe it's more of a technology than a gift. It should be possible for anyone to for see future events if they discipline their mind to think in certain ways.

    That's why I'm always posting stuff about time travel and Schroedinger's Cat. It's not because I'm trying to convince anyone. It's because it's therapeutic for me to talk about it with people who understand that kind of stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm not sure I really want people to believe me too much.
    I'm with you there. The last thing directed at me would require going into explanations that I'm just not going to do.

    You either believe or not. I don't care to try to convince someone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Kojax, there is nothing left for me to reason.

    I attempted to give you guys (anyone arguing that PK exists) the benefit of the doubt. I suggested a test, and was told that it couldn't possibly work. I told you why I thought your tests were invalid, and asked you to design one you thought was valid and could work. Others have done the same.

    Failing to achieve anything on this route, Biologista requested more information on your (anyone arguing pk exists) experiences, specifically talking to Wild Cobra, but leaving it open for anyone else. This information is being withheld on the basis of "it's a long story" and "it's too personal." What more is there to say?

    You can't just go into a group of people and make claims without proof, people are going to consider you insane (which may help with the PK forces!), which generally speaking, makes you look less credible. My little jabs at you guys were designed to get you to realize exactly this, which, apparently, they've done. However, you still refuse to reasonably discuss anything further.

    So, I guess I'll make yet another attempt:
    How would you explain the comment that it is a technology and all that you need to see the future is training? What kind of training? How accurate is this? How far can you see? Why do you think it's technology instead of magic or innate talent/latent ability?
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Kojax, Cobra. Let me be clear on something. Coming to a science forum to tell people that something is "just so" and responding to questions and criticism with evasion followed by the claim that you never intended to convince... well, that is not what any of us is here for. This is not a toilet wall and we are not here to dumbly listen whilst you vent. Nor are we therapists here to make you feel more sane. This is a science forum, maybe it's the fringe end of a science forum but still a place for meaningful discussion.

    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    In my case, I just want to hear if there's any compelling evidence against. Lack of evidence in favor is not always the same thing. I'm just curious why I should doubt my own experiences.

    I'm happy to try and convince you if you're interested. It's only fair. And I have to admit it's reasonable for you to be upset if I try to dodge that bullet. However, I would not want to convince the scientific community as a whole, because I don't think the world would be a safer place if everybody learned how to see the future. I think it would get more dangerous, very fast. (Sort of like how some people think the Atom bomb should never have been built.)

    Partly, what I get out of this discussion is an opportunity to gauge peoples' incredulity. If everyone is adamantly determined not to believe in prognostication, then I have nothing to fear by using it to my advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    So, I guess I'll make yet another attempt:
    How would you explain the comment that it is a technology and all that you need to see the future is training? What kind of training? How accurate is this? How far can you see? Why do you think it's technology instead of magic or innate talent/latent ability?
    There's a scene from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure that pretty much captures the experience. Ted's dad has locked them in prison, and they need his keys to get out, so they very determinedly make up their minds to use their time machine to go back in time and steal his keys, then hide them under a nearby object.

    I liked that scene because it captured the emotion. I use my feelings. Every time I've done anything psychic it has felt exactly like that scene. I don't know of a more formal approach. I just know that if I feel more like the way that scene feels then I'm getting "warmer".

    It's like playing guitar by ear, as opposed to knowing what all the notes and chords are called, and being able to read sheet music. Nobody ever formally trained me, so I don't know the sheet music way.

    There are a few key rules, however. You have to go one step beyond forming the intention to do something (like steal Ted's Dad's keys), and also form the intention to follow through after you've got the keys in hand. It's kind of like the follow through on a golf swing. The ball's already in the air, but you keep the club moving anyway until it has swept out an entire arc.

    I'm sorry I'm using so many metaphors. It's just difficult to describe. If you ask me more specific questions, I might be able to refine my description a little better. Part of my problem in describing it is not knowing what it would be like to be seeing it from your perspective. I don't know what details to include, or which ones to omit (for brevity sake).

    There's another description I want to use to elaborate, but I would need to cite a story I think Hawking tells in "A Brief History of Time", and I can't find my copy right now. It'll have to wait until I can get to a library.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    Kojax, there is nothing left for me to reason.
    You could start by telling me why I should doubt it. (Indeed why anyone should doubt it.)

    I attempted to give you guys (anyone arguing that PK exists) the benefit of the doubt. I suggested a test, and was told that it couldn't possibly work. I told you why I thought your tests were invalid, and asked you to design one you thought was valid and could work. Others have done the same.
    I'm pretty sure I described one for you, but I've never actually attempted to implement it.

    Failing to achieve anything on this route, Biologista requested more information on your (anyone arguing pk exists) experiences, specifically talking to Wild Cobra, but leaving it open for anyone else. This information is being withheld on the basis of "it's a long story" and "it's too personal." What more is there to say?
    To be clear: only Wild Cobra said "it's too personal".

    My "it's a long story" argument is just that I don't know what details to include/exclude - which details are important. Why don't you take the initiative on that by asking more specific questions?

    I don't remember what life is like on the other side of the fence. I haven't been there since I was a little kid. It's a lot like trying to explain sight to a blind person. They need to ask questions more specific than "could you please explain sight to me?" I've only had a few fully citable experiences with it, but foresight is a continual part of my life. I only notice it when someone else is with me. There's also those occasions where I've devised tests. The rest of the time, it's just normal to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    You should doubt your own experiences because they are exactly that: yours. The reason most scientists use recording devices of some sort on important experiments is to make certain that their experience and emotion does not get in the way of correct memory.

    For example, believing in ESP, during the night you might dream, or not dream, and then during the day forget what you dreamed about. However, sometime during the day, you might do something that gives you a strong feeling of deja vu. Then you attribute that to a dream you don't remember because it "never happened before" when in reality, it might be something you've done before. We tend to forget mundane things, such as handing the keys to your aunt, but remember "important events" such as exactly where you were standing when you heard of the 9/11 attacks. (It's 8 years later and I still remember I was wearing a black suit coat, white button up shirt, grey pants with a little blue ink stain above the knee, and I had just turned the dial on the lock from my locker to 36 when someone grabbed my arm and dragged me into the nearest classroom to point at the TV.... I can go on, but you get the idea)

    Other than that, you don't have anything to worry about. Unless you start drawing important information from the future, like the lottery numbers, who is going to win what battles, and cures for diseases we don't currently have, nobody is going to care or believe you.

    So let's try this test. Commit yourself to seeing next week's lottery numbers in your area. Commit yourself to writing those down and remembering them. Post them here, along with the lottery, and date of draw, and buy yourself a ticket. If you get the majority of them right, I don't think there is anyone that can majorly doubt you. Then, do exactly the same thing the day after the drawing for the next week. If you get the numbers correct again, there is nobody that will doubt you. And, as a side benefit you're rich, and can now start a foundation dedicated to the study of ESP phenomena.


    Finally, no, you didn't give an example test, unless you are Darius. His test has already been torn apart more than once.

    Could you explain the committing part more thoroughly? I was given to believe that you did not control this, and now you are telling me that you can, but you need to perform two actions to see the future. I can understand some sort of commitment to view the future, but what is there to follow through with? Or are you telling us you can actually modify the future by committing to modify the vision?

    I think I'm lost on this because they have a time machine, and to my knowledge, you do not.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Kojax, Cobra. Let me be clear on something. Coming to a science forum to tell people that something is "just so" and responding to questions and criticism with evasion followed by the claim that you never intended to convince... well, that is not what any of us is here for. This is not a toilet wall and we are not here to dumbly listen whilst you vent. Nor are we therapists here to make you feel more sane. This is a science forum, maybe it's the fringe end of a science forum but still a place for meaningful discussion.

    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    Keep in mind that this is a discussion that so many people frown upon any belief of. I have a professional career that I don't need to jeopardize over this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    You should doubt your own experiences because they are exactly that: yours. The reason most scientists use recording devices of some sort on important experiments is to make certain that their experience and emotion does not get in the way of correct memory.

    For example, believing in ESP, during the night you might dream, or not dream, and then during the day forget what you dreamed about. However, sometime during the day, you might do something that gives you a strong feeling of deja vu. Then you attribute that to a dream you don't remember because it "never happened before" when in reality, it might be something you've done before. We tend to forget mundane things, such as handing the keys to your aunt, but remember "important events" such as exactly where you were standing when you heard of the 9/11 attacks. (It's 8 years later and I still remember I was wearing a black suit coat, white button up shirt, grey pants with a little blue ink stain above the knee, and I had just turned the dial on the lock from my locker to 36 when someone grabbed my arm and dragged me into the nearest classroom to point at the TV.... I can go on, but you get the idea)
    I've experienced what you're talking about too, but it's a different feeling. There are times when I just feel deja vu, and can't say for sure whether I'm just selecting something.

    Then there are others when I specifically note "this is a future event" and start waiting for it to happen. The next step I need to move toward is writing them down, so I'll have stronger evidence.

    Other than that, you don't have anything to worry about. Unless you start drawing important information from the future, like the lottery numbers, who is going to win what battles, and cures for diseases we don't currently have, nobody is going to care or believe you.

    So let's try this test. Commit yourself to seeing next week's lottery numbers in your area. Commit yourself to writing those down and remembering them. Post them here, along with the lottery, and date of draw, and buy yourself a ticket. If you get the majority of them right, I don't think there is anyone that can majorly doubt you. Then, do exactly the same thing the day after the drawing for the next week. If you get the numbers correct again, there is nobody that will doubt you. And, as a side benefit you're rich, and can now start a foundation dedicated to the study of ESP phenomena.
    This is a course of action I have actually considered. What I need to be sure of is that people will not immediately suspect me of cheating. (though technically, I am cheating if I can actually see the future) I've been playing around with the idea, buying a few tickets with computer generated numbers on them to kind of get a feel for it. I've never chosen my own numbers yet. I want the first time that I choose my own numbers to be the time that I test my theory (to rule out confirmation bias).

    The trick is, if you're buying the actual ticket, then you can only do it one time. If you win more than once, nobody anywhere is going to believe you weren't cheating or otherwise rigging the game somehow. (And I don't think the courts are going to accept the esp argument. )

    Finally, no, you didn't give an example test, unless you are Darius. His test has already been torn apart more than once.
    There are four that I really want to describe. Two involved interactions with others, and two involved intentional tests of theory on my part. Not all of them were highly improbable, though, but they're the ones that I think about most often. (There are also 2 that I already have described, but I don't mind repeating them.)

    I'm going to tell the weakest one first. I was still in high school. My parents liked to hide baskets for each of us kids on Easter morning. So, one particular Easter morning, I woke up and decided to see if I could project where the basket was going to be before I even got out of bed. My thinking was that, if I could find it in the very first place I looked, that would be evidence that I had gotten it right. And, of course, I did find it on the first try.

    Of course, this test has an obvious weakness to it: it might be possible, using mere psychology, and based on knowing my parents' personalities to deduce where they might choose to hide something. - that's why it's the weakest, but I still think about it often. There were 6 kids in my family, so they had to hide 6 baskets.

    Could you explain the committing part more thoroughly? I was given to believe that you did not control this, and now you are telling me that you can, but you need to perform two actions to see the future. I can understand some sort of commitment to view the future, but what is there to follow through with? Or are you telling us you can actually modify the future by committing to modify the vision?

    I think I'm lost on this because they have a time machine, and to my knowledge, you do not.
    I need to find a copy of the book I mentioned before I can explain that part. I don't want to do a slapdash job of it. (though I probably will anyway) It deals very well with my theory of how it works. It could be, however, that the theory is false, and merely allows me to focus my mind properly. You know: the placebo effect, like the "magic feather" in Disney's movie: Dumbo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Kojax, Cobra. Let me be clear on something. Coming to a science forum to tell people that something is "just so" and responding to questions and criticism with evasion followed by the claim that you never intended to convince... well, that is not what any of us is here for. This is not a toilet wall and we are not here to dumbly listen whilst you vent. Nor are we therapists here to make you feel more sane. This is a science forum, maybe it's the fringe end of a science forum but still a place for meaningful discussion.

    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    Keep in mind that this is a discussion that so many people frown upon any belief of. I have a professional career that I don't need to jeopardize over this topic.
    I'm not asking you to share personal anecdotes. And you are as anonymous discussing this topic with evidence as you are without. If you're not comfortable discussing the topic, don't discuss it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Kojax, Cobra. Let me be clear on something. Coming to a science forum to tell people that something is "just so" and responding to questions and criticism with evasion followed by the claim that you never intended to convince... well, that is not what any of us is here for. This is not a toilet wall and we are not here to dumbly listen whilst you vent. Nor are we therapists here to make you feel more sane. This is a science forum, maybe it's the fringe end of a science forum but still a place for meaningful discussion.

    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    Keep in mind that this is a discussion that so many people frown upon any belief of. I have a professional career that I don't need to jeopardize over this topic.
    that's is the sinlge lamest copout I have EVER seen. How can you claim that anonimity is ruined by you even telling us an intimately personal anecdote? That's BS and it's a complete dodge of the question at hand. You are either in lack of evidence, a child trying to act smart (something that seems plausible at this point), or you are paranoid beyond belief. Try to contribute to the topic instead of detracting from it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Kojax, Cobra. Let me be clear on something. Coming to a science forum to tell people that something is "just so" and responding to questions and criticism with evasion followed by the claim that you never intended to convince... well, that is not what any of us is here for. This is not a toilet wall and we are not here to dumbly listen whilst you vent. Nor are we therapists here to make you feel more sane. This is a science forum, maybe it's the fringe end of a science forum but still a place for meaningful discussion.

    Since you've now been so good as to reveal to us all that meaningful discussion is not something you're interested in, you can expect me to take a pretty dim view of future posts by both of you. If you pull this evasive, "I don't care to try to convince someone else" stunt again, I will lock your threads and toss them into the Trash until you decide to either engage with us properly or stop making posts not intended for discussion.
    Keep in mind that this is a discussion that so many people frown upon any belief of. I have a professional career that I don't need to jeopardize over this topic.
    that's is the sinlge lamest copout I have EVER seen. How can you claim that anonimity is ruined by you even telling us an intimately personal anecdote? That's BS and it's a complete dodge of the question at hand. You are either in lack of evidence, a child trying to act smart (something that seems plausible at this point), or you are paranoid beyond belief. Try to contribute to the topic instead of detracting from it.
    One thing to consider is that a person with ESP is apt to become highly paranoid. In the first place, it's harder for them to grasp the idea of information being genuinely hidden. For example: if they have telepathy, they would think the only way to keep anything secret is to not even think it.

    Also, a telepath would privy to all the hideous plots people hatch in their minds, and then never execute, which could give them a skewed view of humanity. A clairvoyant, on the other hand, knows who's going to betray them and when, which... also can tend to degrade one's perception of humanity.

    Any ESP condition forces a person into isolation, to live a kind of secret life. You have to lie about where you got information all the time, because you know people will not respond well if you tell them where you really got it. You have to make outward shows of "obtaining" it from normal channels before you can talk about it, and after a while, you can't remember which lies you've told about what. All that can..... make a person paranoid....

    This leads me to my second story: (Which will be long, because I don't know what details to leave out. )

    I was about to leave on a mission as a Mormon missionary (knocking on people's doors and annoying them for 2 years of my life). I convinced my father to let me use some of his frequent flier miles to fly a girl up to Seattle and have lunch at the Space Needle before leaving. It was necessary for the regional leader (called a stake president) carry out an ordination ritual before leaving, but after the date with the girl. (Because missionaries are not allowed to go on dates with girls). I had to leave on Tuesday morning, so the last possible day would be a Monday.

    My parents insisted that I take her there on Thursday (I think Monday and Thursday were the two options available), so as not to risk the possibility of the Stake President not having time to do the ordination on Monday when I needed (They believed it was more likely he'd have time on Sunday). I remember being really angry because I knew to a certainty that the Stake president would end up being both willing and able to do the ritual on Monday, and when I needed him to, and that it wouldn't work out as well if I tried to take her on Thursday. I didn't know the Stake President very well. I'd only spoken to him a few times in my whole life. I just knew what I knew: that Monday was the right day.

    I asked her for Thursday, and it turned out the flight was impossible to book, so I ended up looking like a Jackass, and so it had to be Monday. Then we found out on Sunday that, of course, the Stake President was fully willing to help out and ordain me on Monday afternoon. I remember my parents commenting to each other on the Tuesday afterward, that Monday had been the first sunny day they'd seen in a while. (It was June, but we're talking about the Pacific Northwest, during an exceptionally rainy year.), but I can't say that I remember that for myself. I know Monday was a very nice, sunny day, but I can't say that I'd noticed what the weather was like on the other days. I heard that it rained for almost a month straight after I left, but I can't remember what the days before that were like.

    I bring this one up, because I was extremely frustrated, and emotionally committed to the prediction. I was mad that I couldn't couldn't make my parents see what I saw, and the only politically allowable course of action was to ask her to go with me on Thursday, knowing full well it wouldn't work out as well. I didn't know Thursday would be un-bookable, however, just had a general feeling of gloom about it. It came as kind of a relief when it was unbookable, because it meant Monday was back on.

    So, it's not that it was highly improbable for me to be right. It could reasonably happen by chance (50/50 chance, almost). The reason I cite this one is because there was a lot hanging on my being right, which helps to mitigate "confirmation bias". It wasn't an everyday event, and I can't imagine I'd have felt as upset as I did if I wasn't certain of my forecast. I wasn't upset after the date at all, because it went extremely well, only before hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Do you have any links to articles or case studies for those 2? Clairvoyance is impossible because it incurs information traveling back in time.
    I do not have the time to read through the entire thread, so I apologise if I'm repeating something, but I would disagree. A variation of the double-slit experiment (correct me if I'm wrong, I read this in a book) shows that the result of the experiment can also be decided on a decision made after the experiment itself. (i.e, turning the detectors on after the experment will affect the result such that there will be no interference pattern, despite the fact that the detectors are not on while the experiment is running)

    The book is Breaking the Time Barrier by Jenny Randles. Looks to be an at least relatively old book, so it's possible that the information is outdated or some such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Kojax, I am incredulous - literally an metaphorically. If your tale is meant to be a valid example of ESP in action then I am one of the most talented individuals in the realm of clairvoyance and telepathy on the planet. There is nothing in it that doesn't happen on a daily, sometimes an hourly basis to anyone who happens to be awake and notices what is happening around them. How you can interpret that as being genuine evidence for ESP without being the victim of serious neurological damage is quite beyond me.

    Snap out of it or your delusions could spread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzhal
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Do you have any links to articles or case studies for those 2? Clairvoyance is impossible because it incurs information traveling back in time.
    I do not have the time to read through the entire thread, so I apologise if I'm repeating something, but I would disagree. A variation of the double-slit experiment (correct me if I'm wrong, I read this in a book) shows that the result of the experiment can also be decided on a decision made after the experiment itself. (i.e, turning the detectors on after the experment will affect the result such that there will be no interference pattern, despite the fact that the detectors are not on while the experiment is running)

    The book is Breaking the Time Barrier by Jenny Randles. Looks to be an at least relatively old book, so it's possible that the information is outdated or some such.
    ... Thankfully, no, it doesn't show that, and that is not the way the experiment works nor is it even an accidental result of the experiment. You can't "turn back time" through a descision, and turning on the detector does not affect a previous experiment that occured prior to the detector being turned on. Sorry, that;s not how it worked. That specific variation is BS, the delayed-choice experiment isn't really that great of a tool, as it only shows that observation of an event changes it (surprise, surprise) and that the effect on an un-observed event as opposed to an observed one is different.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzhal
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Do you have any links to articles or case studies for those 2? Clairvoyance is impossible because it incurs information traveling back in time.
    I do not have the time to read through the entire thread, so I apologise if I'm repeating something, but I would disagree. A variation of the double-slit experiment (correct me if I'm wrong, I read this in a book) shows that the result of the experiment can also be decided on a decision made after the experiment itself. (i.e, turning the detectors on after the experment will affect the result such that there will be no interference pattern, despite the fact that the detectors are not on while the experiment is running)

    The book is Breaking the Time Barrier by Jenny Randles. Looks to be an at least relatively old book, so it's possible that the information is outdated or some such.
    ... Thankfully, no, it doesn't show that, and that is not the way the experiment works nor is it even an accidental result of the experiment. You can't "turn back time" through a descision, and turning on the detector does not affect a previous experiment that occured prior to the detector being turned on. Sorry, that;s not how it worked. That specific variation is BS, the delayed-choice experiment isn't really that great of a tool, as it only shows that observation of an event changes it (surprise, surprise) and that the effect on an un-observed event as opposed to an observed one is different.
    There's a better experiment called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Kojax, I am incredulous - literally an metaphorically. If your tale is meant to be a valid example of ESP in action then I am one of the most talented individuals in the realm of clairvoyance and telepathy on the planet. There is nothing in it that doesn't happen on a daily, sometimes an hourly basis to anyone who happens to be awake and notices what is happening around them. How you can interpret that as being genuine evidence for ESP without being the victim of serious neurological damage is quite beyond me.

    Snap out of it or your delusions could spread.
    At the core, it was just a prediction of someone's behavior, but it was someone I didn't know very well, and didn't interact with. And it was only 50/50. It was probably more useful to me than you, because it gave me a clear picture of what foresight feels like when it happens, which enabled me to start filtering out "emotional noise" more effectively for later experiences.

    But it's not proof of anything. Hopefully some of my others will be more convincing to you. If not, then I might as well tell you anyway, because I might as well give you all the evidence I have and let you decide. (If you haven't already)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzhal
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Do you have any links to articles or case studies for those 2? Clairvoyance is impossible because it incurs information traveling back in time.
    I do not have the time to read through the entire thread, so I apologise if I'm repeating something, but I would disagree. A variation of the double-slit experiment (correct me if I'm wrong, I read this in a book) shows that the result of the experiment can also be decided on a decision made after the experiment itself. (i.e, turning the detectors on after the experment will affect the result such that there will be no interference pattern, despite the fact that the detectors are not on while the experiment is running)

    The book is Breaking the Time Barrier by Jenny Randles. Looks to be an at least relatively old book, so it's possible that the information is outdated or some such.
    ... Thankfully, no, it doesn't show that, and that is not the way the experiment works nor is it even an accidental result of the experiment. You can't "turn back time" through a descision, and turning on the detector does not affect a previous experiment that occured prior to the detector being turned on. Sorry, that;s not how it worked. That specific variation is BS, the delayed-choice experiment isn't really that great of a tool, as it only shows that observation of an event changes it (surprise, surprise) and that the effect on an un-observed event as opposed to an observed one is different.
    There's a better experiment called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions. NONE of those quantum experiments have any bearing on what we consider reality, so don't try to use them as a means to say 'hey, sure you can look into the future (reference to Double Slit varient) proves it!'... Get an education in QM before you decide to say that kind of thing, because it's not true, and that ODD interpretation on those experiments makes me sick to my stomache.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions. NONE of those quantum experiments have any bearing on what we consider reality, so don't try to use them as a means to say 'hey, sure you can look into the future (reference to Double Slit varient) proves it!'... Get an education in QM before you decide to say that kind of thing, because it's not true, and that ODD interpretation on those experiments makes me sick to my stomache.
    If I COULD, I would... I'm sorry, that's a sore point with me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why it is that the delayed choice experiment is invalid? There is, however, also the theory that the arrow of time will reverse itself when/if the Big Crunch occurs. That's not quite information travelling backwards in time, but nevertheless.

    I hesitate to post this video, but here goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q

    Gullible or not, I do try to keep an open mind with things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Since we're posting youtube videos, here's some food for thought on Open Mindedness.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Since we're posting youtube videos, here's some food for thought on Open Mindedness.
    I may be jumping to conclusions here, but never once did I ask Arcane to be more open-minded. (Though I did imply it, it was not the intention) I asked him to explain why it is he said so, so that I could understand what he meant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    There's a better experiment called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions.
    The idea that causality can be broken, or that the universe is capable of paradoxical actions does not follow from the idea of information going back in time, provided that the rules that govern the event don't allow for it to happen in paradoxical ways.

    From the universe's perspective, in the double slit experiment, detecting "which path" information of a photon before it reaches its destination, might be one such paradox. (Even though it doesn't make sense to us why it's a paradox.) We don't even understand what mechanism causes that to be impossible, but we know something does. If time travel is possible, then the means by which paradoxes are avoided in time travel is probably just as weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    There's a better experiment called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions.
    The idea that causality can be broken, or that the universe is capable of paradoxical actions does not follow from the idea of information going back in time, provided that the rules that govern the event don't allow for it to happen in paradoxical ways.

    From the universe's perspective, in the double slit experiment, detecting "which path" information of a photon before it reaches its destination, might be one such paradox. (Even though it doesn't make sense to us why it's a paradox.) We don't even understand what mechanism causes that to be impossible, but we know something does. If time travel is possible, then the means by which paradoxes are avoided in time travel is probably just as weird.
    If I were Clairvoyant, and could see a catastrophe happen ahead of time, I would then not be able to do ANYTHING about it. Doing something to prevent it from happening would negate it's ability to travel back in time to be seen by me in the first place. Sorry, kojax, but clairvoyance is paradoxical.

    The double slit experiment is NOT paradoxical, the reason why the light behaves differently AFTER being detected should be obvious to you - it was observed.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    There's a better experiment called the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions.
    The idea that causality can be broken, or that the universe is capable of paradoxical actions does not follow from the idea of information going back in time, provided that the rules that govern the event don't allow for it to happen in paradoxical ways.

    From the universe's perspective, in the double slit experiment, detecting "which path" information of a photon before it reaches its destination, might be one such paradox. (Even though it doesn't make sense to us why it's a paradox.) We don't even understand what mechanism causes that to be impossible, but we know something does. If time travel is possible, then the means by which paradoxes are avoided in time travel is probably just as weird.
    If I were Clairvoyant, and could see a catastrophe happen ahead of time, I would then not be able to do ANYTHING about it. Doing something to prevent it from happening would negate it's ability to travel back in time to be seen by me in the first place. Sorry, kojax, but clairvoyance is paradoxical.
    That's my point as well. If you saw it, something would prevent you from changing it, and that something would be very weird. But... that doesn't mean you wouldn't see it. It means that, if you saw it, you wouldn't be able to change it.

    If you loaned me 50 bucks, the cause of that event is the anticipation of me repaying the loan. In a world of perfect information, that would mean a future event is directly causing a past event. A lot of people seem to think time travel is a situation where the universe loans you 50 bucks and then you can cheat, as though the universe isn't aware of its own future. But, if time travel is even possible, the reason would be because the universe accounts for its own future in every decision it makes.

    That disturbs a lot of people because it implies that free will might not be absolute. But, the fact something disturbs you doesn't mean it isn't true.


    The double slit experiment is NOT paradoxical, the reason why the light behaves differently AFTER being detected should be obvious to you - it was observed.
    There is no known reason for the correlation. We know that it does so, because we've observed it, but knowing that it does is different from knowing why it does.

    Apparently, the universe considers the measurement of "which path" information of a photon destined to land in any area outside of the area of a single slit diffraction pattern to be a paradox, even if we humans don't, and resolves it by not allowing it to land outside that area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quetzhal. The Delayed Choice Thought Experiment is not invalid. It is only invalid to the concept you are linking it to. It is a very valid experiment, though a bit silly. A detector observes the photon, meaning the photon collides with the detector, terminating it's existence and causing a new photon to be created in a directional particle path, instead of a waveform path. This is not a new concept. This is not new to the ideas of physics. The double slit shows that photons behave both ways. The variants, however, don't definitively show anything.

    Causality, in anything but a predetermined universe, disallows the ability for information of any kind to time-travel. The double slit's variants' results are from this nice little thing called observation. Observing an event alters the event. Especially at the quantum level.



    Kojax. The How question is for physicists. The Why is for theologians. I don't care why observing a photon changes it. I care how it changes it, and I happen to know how. It's changed by being absorbed by the detector. It's energy is added to the detector, and the detector then fires a photon off in the same direction (directional path, particle.) as the photon it received and with the same energy. Perhaps that tells you why. Perhaps not. But that's how it happens, and that's how we get a particle pattern as opposed to an interfering waveform pattern. Understand?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzhal
    SIGH! It's the same damned thing, just at the quantum level! Please, PLEASE, quit suggesting causality can be broken and that the universe is capable of pardoxical actions. NONE of those quantum experiments have any bearing on what we consider reality, so don't try to use them as a means to say 'hey, sure you can look into the future (reference to Double Slit varient) proves it!'... Get an education in QM before you decide to say that kind of thing, because it's not true, and that ODD interpretation on those experiments makes me sick to my stomache.
    If I COULD, I would... I'm sorry, that's a sore point with me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why it is that the delayed choice experiment is invalid? There is, however, also the theory that the arrow of time will reverse itself when/if the Big Crunch occurs. That's not quite information travelling backwards in time, but nevertheless.

    I hesitate to post this video, but here goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q

    Gullible or not, I do try to keep an open mind with things.
    Gullibility, not open mindedness. That video does not display legitimate physics. Sorry, it's absolutely untrue, as you cannot break the speed of light, and a "rotating piece of space" is non-existent in the manner you wish it to exist. That video is pure Pseudoscience.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    Kojax. The How question is for physicists. The Why is for theologians. I don't care why observing a photon changes it. I care how it changes it, and I happen to know how. It's changed by being absorbed by the detector. It's energy is added to the detector, and the detector then fires a photon off in the same direction (directional path, particle.) as the photon it received and with the same energy. Perhaps that tells you why. Perhaps not. But that's how it happens, and that's how we get a particle pattern as opposed to an interfering waveform pattern. Understand?
    In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, they use pairs of entangled photons and demonstrate that observing the "which path" information of one photon causes the other one to land in the areas that would be defined by it passing through a single slit (even though it is passing through two slits.)

    This remained true even after they set the distances so that the observation of the first photon's "which path" information was occurring after the observation of the second photon's diffraction pattern.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...quantum_eraser
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    And that, my friend, is due to entanglement, a very special case in QM.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •