Thread: Psychokinesis

I am not sure whether to post this in general discussion, pseudoscience or hyopthesises, so i decided here instead since i guess most won't accept this idea.

We don't really use all our brain power, however there is an article : Telekinesis exists: scientific evidence that suggest they do however only under extreme personal stress and by deduction would be due to the fact that maybe their brain was being stimulated enough to consume more energy and oddly enough it is able to affect the surrounding.

However sadly the chances of us (in this era) utilizing this amount of power to exercise it and use it as "superpowers" may seem to be impossible due to the fact that the brain in humans are in what some other articles claim to be its peak evolution. Simply put the brain hogs 20% of the energy we use to work and without more oxygen or blood going to the brain, the brain would most likely not grow any bigger unless we can somehow induce that.

On the other hand i decided to ask one of my teacher and some friends on ways to improve ones oxygen count in the blood and blood flow to the head. Typical answers were to have your head be placed upside down and let the blood rush that area sadly which is outside the desired wishes to preserve my live to see this idea bear fruit. What my teacher said was that there are runners who run in the marathon that would train in the mountainous areas for months (2 - 3) and during the event they would go to the run after their training.

She said this is because there is a reduced amount of oxygen content in the higher up areas that since the body can't excrete hemoglobin except going to the loo, the body would try to recycle and efficiently use all the iron content to increase oxygen supply to the body muscles. However she also said that once the runners finish their bodies would later regulate to the current city oxygen requirement.

So if this was true i was wondering would it be possible to do the same thing of 2 - 3 months or mental training in mountains before coming into say an area with so much plants producing oxygen that it can become toxic for the body and do as much mental workouts and taking enough food so that the brain would not go back it is regulated self but adapt to become an even stronger brain that would consume more energy and its activeness more than most people now. If so it could prove a small step towards psychokinesis.

Thus i decided to post this here, because it sounds pretty absurd, even to myself it sounds abit of a crazy thing to do (1 year for any probably qualitative result). So what do you think? Is this in any way possible?

Just more nonsense.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Just more nonsense.

Thus pseudoscience

It's

Originally Posted by jacate

impossible

and

absurd

Psychokinesis is bunk.
And IF it were in any way possible for the brain to produce sufficient energy to move objects it would fry itself from the generated heat.

Avoid woo woo sites, they rot your mind.

Originally Posted by jacate

I am not sure whether to post this in general discussion, pseudoscience or hyopthesises, so i decided here instead since i guess most won't accept this idea

Go on.

Originally Posted by jacate

We don't really use all our brain power, however there is an article : Telekinesis exists: scientific evidence that suggest they do however only under extreme personal stress and by deduction would be due to the fact that maybe their brain was being stimulated enough to consume more energy and oddly enough it is able to affect the surrounding.

There are two problems with these statements:

1. The article does not mention that subjects used all the sections of their brain.
2. The article does not cite peer-reviewed papers.

Originally Posted by jacate

However sadly the chances of us (in this era) utilizing this amount of power to exercise it and use it as "superpowers" may seem to be impossible due to the fact that the brain in humans are in what some other articles claim to be its peak evolution. Simply put the brain hogs 20% of the energy we use to work and without more oxygen or blood going to the brain, the brain would most likely not grow any bigger unless we can somehow induce that.

There are no "peaks" in evolution.
Yet, feel free to provide the articles which mention this claim if you feel that my counterargument is invalid.

Originally Posted by jacate

On the other hand i decided to ask one of my teacher and some friends on ways to improve ones oxygen count in the blood and blood flow to the head. Typical answers were to have your head be placed upside down and let the blood rush that area sadly which is outside the desired wishes to preserve my live to see this idea bear fruit. What my teacher said was that there are runners who run in the marathon that would train in the mountainous areas for months (2 - 3) and during the event they would go to the run after their training. She said this is because there is a reduced amount of oxygen content in the higher up areas that since the body can't excrete hemoglobin except going to the loo, the body would try to recycle and efficiently use all the iron content to increase oxygen supply to the body muscles. However she also said that once the runners finish their bodies would later regulate to the current city oxygen requirement.

So if this was true i was wondering would it be possible to do the same thing of 2 - 3 months or mental training in mountains before coming into say an area with so much plants producing oxygen that it can become toxic for the body and do as much mental workouts and taking enough food so that the brain would not go back it is regulated self but adapt to become an even stronger brain that would consume more energy and its activeness more than most people now. If so it could prove a small step towards psychokinesis.

No. You could demonstrate that you have increased the O₂ flow to your brain via specialized diets and 'mental workouts',
but you cannot prove that you have undertaken small steps towards psychokinesis.

Originally Posted by jacate

Thus i decided to post this here, because it sounds pretty absurd, even to myself it sounds abit of a crazy thing to do (1 year for any probably qualitative result). So what do you think? Is this in any way possible?

Before we can discuss the possibility and the design of your experiment, you must provide two things:

1. At least one peer-reviewed article that indicates that psychokinesis exists and that this phenomenon is quantifiable, testable and moreover, falsifiable.
2. At least one peer-reviewed article that indicates that brain power is directly proportional to the oxygen flow towards your brain.

Hmmm. This is not even really pseudoscience, since there seems to be no science component to the OP or the link.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by jacate

I am not sure whether to post this in general discussion, pseudoscience or hyopthesises, so i decided here instead since i guess most won't accept this idea

Go on.

Originally Posted by jacate

We don't really use all our brain power, however there is an article : Telekinesis exists: scientific evidence that suggest they do however only under extreme personal stress and by deduction would be due to the fact that maybe their brain was being stimulated enough to consume more energy and oddly enough it is able to affect the surrounding.

There are two problems with these statements:

1. The article does not mention that subjects used all the sections of their brain.
2. The article does not cite peer-reviewed papers.

Originally Posted by jacate

However sadly the chances of us (in this era) utilizing this amount of power to exercise it and use it as "superpowers" may seem to be impossible due to the fact that the brain in humans are in what some other articles claim to be its peak evolution. Simply put the brain hogs 20% of the energy we use to work and without more oxygen or blood going to the brain, the brain would most likely not grow any bigger unless we can somehow induce that.

There are no "peaks" in evolution.
Yet, feel free to provide the articles which mention this claim if you feel that my counterargument is invalid.

Originally Posted by jacate

On the other hand i decided to ask one of my teacher and some friends on ways to improve ones oxygen count in the blood and blood flow to the head. Typical answers were to have your head be placed upside down and let the blood rush that area sadly which is outside the desired wishes to preserve my live to see this idea bear fruit. What my teacher said was that there are runners who run in the marathon that would train in the mountainous areas for months (2 - 3) and during the event they would go to the run after their training. She said this is because there is a reduced amount of oxygen content in the higher up areas that since the body can't excrete hemoglobin except going to the loo, the body would try to recycle and efficiently use all the iron content to increase oxygen supply to the body muscles. However she also said that once the runners finish their bodies would later regulate to the current city oxygen requirement.

So if this was true i was wondering would it be possible to do the same thing of 2 - 3 months or mental training in mountains before coming into say an area with so much plants producing oxygen that it can become toxic for the body and do as much mental workouts and taking enough food so that the brain would not go back it is regulated self but adapt to become an even stronger brain that would consume more energy and its activeness more than most people now. If so it could prove a small step towards psychokinesis.

No. You could demonstrate that you have increased the O₂ flow to your brain via specialized diets and 'mental workouts',
but you cannot prove that you have undertaken small steps towards psychokinesis.

Originally Posted by jacate

Thus i decided to post this here, because it sounds pretty absurd, even to myself it sounds abit of a crazy thing to do (1 year for any probably qualitative result). So what do you think? Is this in any way possible?

Before we can discuss the possibility and the design of your experiment, you must provide two things:

1. At least one peer-reviewed article that indicates that psychokinesis exists and that this phenomenon is quantifiable, testable and moreover, falsifiable.
2. At least one peer-reviewed article that indicates that brain power is directly proportional to the oxygen flow towards your brain.

Full to the brim: Scientists claim the human brain is at capacity and is too tiring to get smarter | Mail Online
There are also other articles claiming the same thing. This is one of the few that is.

Also on your last point, that is why i refused to post this on the hypothesis page because not of this can be backed by any actual evidence and proof.
Overall i am keen to finding a way to actually allow the mind to achieve psychokinesis (even if machine aided).
Though the overall implications may actually be dire if it was proven true.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Hmmm. This is not even really pseudoscience, since there seems to be no science component to the OP or the link.

There are parts of biology if you didn't read carefully. such as reference to oxygen carrying capacity of the blood cells and blood flow to the brain.

You started out assuming the old myth that we use 10% of our brains was a true statement. It's been shown to you to be a myth.

What you're doing now appears to be a stubborn and desperate attempt to save your claims.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You started out assuming the old myth that we use 10% of our brains was a true statement. It's been shown to you to be a myth.

What you're doing now appears to be a stubborn and desperate attempt to save your claims.

Sorry i fail see why you call me stubborn or desperate? I am not in anyways frustrated but keen on actually finding a way to get this done.

If it is truely impossible (which is neither backed by science as well) then overall all i can do is think what can be done on the situation.
Thus this post i am testing this idea and see how much loopholes are in it before i can try to construct a new one with better grounds, mostly around biology.

Also i don't really count the 10% of the brain to be true. I only know that at a relax state (or normal state) our brains activity would be at minimal, how much is unknown.
However during a stress/pressured state i would also assume that the opposite is true that our brains activity would be more stimulated, seen mostly from the release of adrenalin to the body during such moments.

However all of this is based assumptions, similar to how many theories are based on some assumptions. Too much then it would obviously be questionable as i have stated in my original post.

Overall i hope to have some constructive discussion on this topic even if majority of the community may not agree on it.

Was there not some guy, Geller or something, who could bend silverware and make doorknobs turn? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Was there not some guy, Geller or something, who could bend silverware and make doorknobs turn? jocular

Haven't heard of such a person to be honest. All i know is there is a skeptics community that would pay $250,000 euros to anyone who could bend a spoon but since no one can no one received the prize money.

Originally Posted by jacate

Overall i am keen to finding a way to actually allow the mind to achieve psychokinesis (even if machine aided).

There is: it's called a Zippo.

If it is truely impossible (which is neither backed by science as well)

Actually it is "backed by science" that it's impossible.

Also i don't really count the 10% of the brain to be true. I only know that at a relax state (or normal state) our brains activity would be at minimal, how much is unknown.

Then perhaps you're not aware that the brain is actually more active and consumes more oxygen while you're asleep?
So much for what you know...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

Overall i am keen to finding a way to actually allow the mind to achieve psychokinesis (even if machine aided).

There is: it's called a Zippo.

If it is truely impossible (which is neither backed by science as well)

Actually it is "backed by science" that it's impossible.

Also i don't really count the 10% of the brain to be true. I only know that at a relax state (or normal state) our brains activity would be at minimal, how much is unknown.

Then perhaps you're not aware that the brain is actually more active and consumes more oxygen while you're asleep?
So much for what you know...

I thought during dreams our brain isn't in a relaxed state?

Also backed by science part, please fill me in on it.

Originally Posted by jacate

Sorry i fail see why you call me stubborn or desperate?

Because you were shown the evidence and decided to ignore it and instead, claim that no one really knows- therefor not knowing 'validates possibility.'

Originally Posted by jacate

I am not in anyways frustrated but keen on actually finding a way to get this done.

To get what done?

Originally Posted by jacate

If it is truely impossible (which is neither backed by science as well)

It is backed by science in that the claim is in contradiction with what IS known and there is No evidence, none, that people can move objects using their "mind."

Originally Posted by jacate

Also i don't really count the 10% of the brain to be true. I only know that at a relax state (or normal state) our brains activity would be at minimal, how much is unknown.

So what? Your muscle activity is minimal in a relaxed state, too. What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by jacate

However during a stress/pressured state i would also assume that the opposite is true that our brains activity would be more stimulated, seen mostly from the release of adrenalin to the body during such moments.

Again- So What?
How does that validate telekinesis?

Originally Posted by jacate

similar to how many theories are based on some assumptions.

Wrong.
A theory is supported by testing and observation. A hypothesis is based on assumptions.

Originally Posted by jacate

Overall i hope to have some constructive discussion on this topic even if majority of the community may not agree on it.

If you want it to be constructive- stop ignoring evidence.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by jacate

Sorry i fail see why you call me stubborn or desperate?

Because you were shown the evidence and decided to ignore it and instead, claim that no one really knows- therefor not knowing 'validates possibility.'

Originally Posted by jacate

I am not in anyways frustrated but keen on actually finding a way to get this done.

To get what done?

Originally Posted by jacate

If it is truely impossible (which is neither backed by science as well)

It is backed by science in that the claim is in contradiction with what IS known and there is No evidence, none, that people can move objects using their "mind."

Originally Posted by jacate

Also i don't really count the 10% of the brain to be true. I only know that at a relax state (or normal state) our brains activity would be at minimal, how much is unknown.

So what? Your muscle activity is minimal in a relaxed state, too. What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by jacate

However during a stress/pressured state i would also assume that the opposite is true that our brains activity would be more stimulated, seen mostly from the release of adrenalin to the body during such moments.

Again- So What?
How does that validate telekinesis?

Originally Posted by jacate

similar to how many theories are based on some assumptions.

Wrong.
A theory is supported by testing and observation. A hypothesis is based on assumptions.

Originally Posted by jacate

Overall i hope to have some constructive discussion on this topic even if majority of the community may not agree on it.

If you want it to be constructive- stop ignoring evidence.

I wasn't linked to any evidence throughout the post but a zippo. The evidence i get is my link provided rots your brains and so does pyschokinesis.

Also thank you for correcting my vocabulary on hypothesis.

Also again, i don't see any evidence so far but a zippo. Also if you are trying to use the 10% theory as evidence, i don't see how it relates when brain activity is known to vary.

Also to get what done? That question would be answered with, to know how dangerous it can get. Sorry for going abstract but that is how i see it.

Originally Posted by jacate

I thought during dreams our brain isn't in a relaxed state?

Depends how you define "relaxed" doesn't it?
Given that you contrasted it with stress situations and adrenaline in the body then I'd say that when you're asleep you're pretty much relaxed by the "definition" you used...

Also backed by science part, please fill me in on it.

To ignite an object requires the application of energy - energy that supposedly comes from the brain.
Since there is no directional control of that "energy", should it even exist, (i.e. there is no directional focussing lens located anywhere inside the skull) then that "energy" must be omnidirectional.
Given that this "energy" would decrease as the inverse square law dictates (unless, of course you have any evidence whatsoever that this law no longer applies) it must be exponentially greater at the source than at the target.
Given, also, that the claim is that this "energy" causes fires to break out - ergo at least "Fahrenheit 451" at the target - how much hotter is the source (brain) going to be?
Is that steam coming out of your ears?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

I thought during dreams our brain isn't in a relaxed state?

Depends how you define "relaxed" doesn't it?
Given that you contrasted it with stress situations and adrenaline in the body then I'd say that when you're asleep you're pretty much relaxed by the "definition" you used...

Also backed by science part, please fill me in on it.

To ignite an object requires the application of energy - energy that supposedly comes from the brain.
Since there is no directional control of that "energy", should it even exist, (i.e. there is no directional focussing lens located anywhere inside the skull) then that "energy" must be omnidirectional.
Given that this "energy" would decrease as the inverse square law dictates (unless, of course you have any evidence whatsoever that this law no longer applies) it must be exponentially greater at the source than at the target.
Given, also, that the claim is that this "energy" causes fires to break out - ergo at least "Fahrenheit 451" at the target - how much hotter is the source (brain) going to be?
Is that steam coming out of your ears?

I agree, i loosely used relax. However i hope atleast we come to an understanding that brain activity is known to "fluctuate"

Thank you for the evidence too. =D That is true.
However that is assuming that we are talking that the energy being released from our brains now. I would aim for something like a future % of our brains used = 100% or more that is being used now.
Also if the brain were to increase in volume and mass, wouldn't the specific heat capacity of the brain too increase, thus making it able to withstand more energy in it. Just suggesting.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by jocular

Was there not some guy, Geller or something, who could bend silverware and make doorknobs turn? jocular

Haven't heard of such a person to be honest. All i know is there is a skeptics community that would pay $250,000 euros to anyone who could bend a spoon but since no one can no one received the prize money.

Uri Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by jocular

Was there not some guy, Geller or something, who could bend silverware and make doorknobs turn? jocular

Haven't heard of such a person to be honest. All i know is there is a skeptics community that would pay $250,000 euros to anyone who could bend a spoon but since no one can no one received the prize money.

Uri Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for the read =D

Originally Posted by jacate

I wasn't linked to any evidence throughout the post but a zippo. The evidence i get is my link provided rots your brains and so does pyschokinesis.

I was referring to the link debunking the 10% myth which you then moved tactics to, "But there's stuff we MAY not know..."

Originally Posted by jacate

Also if you are trying to use the 10% theory as evidence, i don't see how it relates when brain activity is known to vary.

What does all this talk of fluctuation or variance signify- What does it have to do with telekinesis?
Again, your muscle activity fluctuates, as well. River flow fluctuates. Fluctuation does not provide evidence for nor support telekinesis. You're going to need to do a lot better than saying it fluctuates.

Originally Posted by jacate

Also to get what done? That question would be answered with, to know how dangerous it can get. Sorry for going abstract but that is how i see it.

I don't understand what you're saying, here. You said you wanted to "get it done." I asked, "To get what done." It seems pretty straightforward to me...

Originally Posted by jacate

However that is assuming that we are talking that the energy being released from our brains now. I would aim for something like a future % of our brains used = 100% or more that is being used now.

We do use 100% of our brain - just not all at the same time ¹.
The fact that we do use 100% is a pretty good indicator that there are no hidden "psychic" capabilities.

Also if the brain were to increase in volume and mass, wouldn't the specific heat capacity of the brain too increase, thus making it able to withstand more energy in it. Just suggesting.

No.
"The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius" - that's why it's called specific.
Regardless of size the SHC remains constant.
And you're forgetting, or ignoring, that regardless of the SHC, it only requires an increase of a few degrees to cause damage to the brain - not to mention the effects of that temperature on the rest of the head and body.


1 Which is not to say that some parts of the brain aren't functioning some of the time.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by jacate

I wasn't linked to any evidence throughout the post but a zippo. The evidence i get is my link provided rots your brains and so does pyschokinesis.

I was referring to the link debunking the 10% myth which you then moved tactics to, "But there's stuff we MAY not know..."

Originally Posted by jacate

Also if you are trying to use the 10% theory as evidence, i don't see how it relates when brain activity is known to vary.

What does all this talk of fluctuation or variance signify- What does it have to do with telekinesis?
Again, your muscle activity fluctuates, as well. River flow fluctuates. Fluctuation does not provide evidence for nor support telekinesis. You're going to need to do a lot better than saying it fluctuates.

Originally Posted by jacate

Also to get what done? That question would be answered with, to know how dangerous it can get. Sorry for going abstract but that is how i see it.

I don't understand what you're saying, here. You said you wanted to "get it done." I asked, "To get what done." It seems pretty straightforward to me...

For fluctuates it like saying we can sprint but choose the walk most of the time.
For the get what is done part is abstract i said it.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

However that is assuming that we are talking that the energy being released from our brains now. I would aim for something like a future % of our brains used = 100% or more that is being used now.

We do use 100% of our brain - just not all at the same time ¹.
The fact that we do use 100% is a pretty good indicator that there are no hidden "psychic" capabilities.

Also if the brain were to increase in volume and mass, wouldn't the specific heat capacity of the brain too increase, thus making it able to withstand more energy in it. Just suggesting.

No.
"The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius" - that's why it's called specific.
Regardless of size the SHC remains constant.
And you're forgetting, or ignoring, that regardless of the SHC, it only requires an increase of a few degrees to cause damage to the brain - not to mention the effects of that temperature on the rest of the head and body.


1 Which is not to say that some parts of the brain aren't functioning some of the time.

I agree that it doesn't mean of any psychic capabilities may be present. However it can also be assumed the brain won't need it if it required too much energy to sustain. Like what you suggested on heating the object.
Also for C = Mass x Temperature change / Q. Thus i supposed for M to increase, C would also increase.However this isn't true, i mistaken it with HC

Also what you say is true that even a small degree in change can be dangerous to the body and brain.

Originally Posted by jacate

However it can also be assumed the brain won't need it if it required too much energy to sustain.

Rather, the brain wouldn't develop it in the first place.

Also for C = Mass x Temperature change / Q. Thus i supposed for M to increase, C would also increase.

But that's not specific heat capacity increasing.
That's the consequence of SHC - for a given SHC it will require more input as the mass increases to achieve the same temp rise.
Maybe you just mis-phrased your question.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

However it can also be assumed the brain won't need it if it required too much energy to sustain.

Rather, the brain wouldn't develop it in the first place.

Also for C = Mass x Temperature change / Q. Thus i supposed for M to increase, C would also increase.

But that's not specific heat capacity increasing.
That's the consequence of SHC - for a given SHC it will require more input as the mass increases to achieve the same temp rise.
Maybe you just mis-phrased your question.

I agree with what you said for both. However i hope we can "force" our brains to develop the need to consume more energy XD Just think how much more intelligent we could become. Hopefully though.

Originally Posted by jacate

However i hope we can "force" our brains to develop the need to consume more energy XD Just think how much more intelligent we could become. Hopefully though.

Huh?
Is there ANY evidence that energy use is related to intelligence?
(I'm completely ignoring the "learning to force our brains to develop..." thing).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

However i hope we can "force" our brains to develop the need to consume more energy XD Just think how much more intelligent we could become. Hopefully though.

Huh?
Is there ANY evidence that energy use is related to intelligence?
(I'm completely ignoring the "learning to force our brains to develop..." thing).

Well it really depends on what we would use that energy for. Would be weird if we considered it could turn to fat which sounds nonsensical. Overall it would be like more neural pathways and larger memory capacity(which the latter is unneeded since we pretty much won't use it all in one life time). Thus i guess neural pathways would be the only guess. If not i am basically bulling around now since i am tired and restless.

Jacate, I think you need to do some research and learn about the topic before doing all of this speculation.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Jacate, I think you need to do some research and learn about the topic before doing all of this speculation.

I did what i "think" is needed for me to know. Although that means i am quite narrow minded on this hypothesis/speculation. Thus i decided to ask and since the general consensus is no, not to mention Dywyddyr suggested an actual flaw of too much energy would just fry your brain it is indeed going back to the drawing board to do more thinking and researching.

Would be weird if we considered it could turn to fat which sounds nonsensical.

The brain is already the fattiest part of your body. About 60%.

Originally Posted by adelady

Would be weird if we considered it could turn to fat which sounds nonsensical.

The brain is already the fattiest part of your body. About 60%.

So i wasn't wrong after all =/ Weird.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by adelady

Would be weird if we considered it could turn to fat which sounds nonsensical.

The brain is already the fattiest part of your body. About 60%.

So i wasn't wrong after all =/ Weird.

Can't be wrong all the time.

Even so, research and study trumps guesswork hands down.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Jacate, I think you need to do some research and learn about the topic before doing all of this speculation.

I did what i "think" is needed for me to know. Although that means i am quite narrow minded on this hypothesis/speculation. Thus i decided to ask and since the general consensus is no, not to mention Dywyddyr suggested an actual flaw of too much energy would just fry your brain it is indeed going back to the drawing board to do more thinking and researching.

I must offer you kudos for this attitude.
Yes, you appeared with a crazy idea, but you have listened and taken on board the objections.
That's not "normal" for most that start the way you did.
(Just for that I'm not gonna pick holes in your zombies thread post).

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by adelady

Would be weird if we considered it could turn to fat which sounds nonsensical.

The brain is already the fattiest part of your body. About 60%.

So i wasn't wrong after all =/ Weird.

Can't be wrong all the time.

Even so, research and study trumps guesswork hands down.

Sometimes i wish i wasn't so committed to some many other activities though. Then more research could be done.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

There are no "peaks" in evolution.
Yet, feel free to provide the articles which mention this claim if you feel that my counterargument is invalid.

Full to the brim: Scientists claim the human brain is at capacity and is too tiring to get smarter | Mail Online
There are also other articles claiming the same thing. This is one of the few that is.

Also on your last point, that is why i refused to post this on the hypothesis page because not of this can be backed by any actual evidence and proof.
Overall i am keen to finding a way to actually allow the mind to achieve psychokinesis (even if machine aided).
Though the overall implications may actually be dire if it was proven true.

The Daily Mail is, according to some members, not known for its credibility concerning reporting science-related news.
As such, I went for a search to find the story and I found that the article is also on the websites of The Times of India and The Sunday Times (the primary source for the story). However, none of the three sources provided a link to the article. Thus I went to Google Scholar.

The result of my search is odd. Although the story was first published in July 2011,
the only relevant study was published in 2008: Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems

Is this the study you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

There are no "peaks" in evolution.
Yet, feel free to provide the articles which mention this claim if you feel that my counterargument is invalid.

Full to the brim: Scientists claim the human brain is at capacity and is too tiring to get smarter | Mail Online
There are also other articles claiming the same thing. This is one of the few that is.

Also on your last point, that is why i refused to post this on the hypothesis page because not of this can be backed by any actual evidence and proof.
Overall i am keen to finding a way to actually allow the mind to achieve psychokinesis (even if machine aided).
Though the overall implications may actually be dire if it was proven true.

The Daily Mail is, according to some members, not known for its credibility concerning reporting science-related news.
As such, I went a search for the story and I found that the article is also on the websites of The Times of India and The Sunday Times (the primary source for the story). However, none of the three sources provided a link to the article. Thus I went to Google Scholar.

The result of my search is odd. Although the story was first published in July 2011,
the only relevant study was published in 2008: Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems

Is this the study you are referring to?

It is along that line with the brain being the subject in question that is evolving. Overall in human terms of figures (wiki based) is that 20% of the energy is being used by the brain when it is only 2% of the body weight.

Originally Posted by jacate

Also what you say is true that even a small degree in change can be dangerous to the body and brain.

Especially if it is change in the serum (blood) Ph; a very small excursion away from normal, especially downwards and in a couple of minutes, zip, you are dead! jocular

Some random thoughts:

1. Part of the hostility you encountered, jacate, probably arose from the reference to the brain being under utilised. this, as others have pointed out, is probably not the case.
2. There is an interesting idea in Alastair Reynolds' science fiction wherein some humans have been genetically altered to have 'fins' on their head through which blood circulates for cooling purposes when they engage in an intense period of brain activity selectively induced by chemicals. (That's a crude paraphrase of what he describes.) Such a process might evolve, so I don't think I buy Dywyddyr's absolute declaration that this would fry the brain. It would today, but who knows about tomorrow.
3. I don't see why having more brain power would logically support the possibility of telekinesis.
4. There is a seriously flawed objection being made by the naysayers: to move an object remotely does not require that one provide the work. If NASA would allow me then I can move a large rocket simply by pressing a button. If telekinesis exists - which I rather doubt - then it might arise through enabling some other processes.

Originally Posted by John Galt

2. There is an interesting idea in Alastair Reynolds' science fiction wherein some humans have been genetically altered to have 'fins' on their head through which blood circulates for cooling purposes when they engage in an intense period of brain activity selectively induced by chemicals. (That's a crude paraphrase of what he describes.) Such a process might evolve, so I don't think I buy Dywyddyr's absolute declaration that this would fry the brain. It would today, but who knows about tomorrow.

Asimov's "Foundation" series has a 'species' of humans (Solarians) that genetically altered themselves to have lobes on their heads that transfer heat energy into work. Of course, in the storyline, this is about 20,000 years from now.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Some random thoughts:

1. Part of the hostility you encountered, jacate, probably arose from the reference to the brain being under utilised. this, as others have pointed out, is probably not the case.
2. There is an interesting idea in Alastair Reynolds' science fiction wherein some humans have been genetically altered to have 'fins' on their head through which blood circulates for cooling purposes when they engage in an intense period of brain activity selectively induced by chemicals. (That's a crude paraphrase of what he describes.) Such a process might evolve, so I don't think I buy Dywyddyr's absolute declaration that this would fry the brain. It would today, but who knows about tomorrow.
3. I don't see why having more brain power would logically support the possibility of telekinesis.
4. There is a seriously flawed objection being made by the naysayers: to move an object remotely does not require that one provide the work. If NASA would allow me then I can move a large rocket simply by pressing a button. If telekinesis exists - which I rather doubt - then it might arise through enabling some other processes.

Thank you for being a kind soul to do your best to answer my query in a non-aggressive manner =D This hostility to be honest isn't as bad as those in gaming forums that i have been so i am glad there is a rather mature community here(which should be an expected i guess =D)

Also for point 3, the reason why i associate the idea of more brain power to have possibility of telekinesis would be following that of the idea which is similar to the common activities we do everyday. Example we can do two types of each activities where one is more relaxed while to assume the other is strenuous. An example would be the relax activity of walk and the strenuous version of it being running, while jogging goes mid way. Next we have lifting of objects that are within our capacity (our phone) or lifting heavy weights that are near the boundaries of our physical capacity(100kg dumbells, i can't even lift 15kg pathetic me).

For thinking we have the normal things we think about that are not complex and the times we stress out for an exam thinking for 2 to 3 hours straight without rest, racking your brains and after that feeling exhausted from the activity. Therefore by assuming this premise should hold true for all activities, i assume that if we are able to have unexplained mental feedback which occur even during the advanced modern era, it is the relaxed state of psychokinesis, even intuition and guessing/predicting is already part of it and even then it is already strenuous to some lazy brains. Therefore the possible strenuous variant for one to be able to use their minds to exert direct real world results without having to use their limbs or other parts of their body, one would assume psychokinesis has to be true. This may also vary to even telepathic communication but not psychokinetic powers to change the physical enviroment.

However this argument which is as sound as it seem is invalid by the simple pretext that all activities should have a strenuous and relaxed variant. If this were proven true, then maybe psychokinesis maybe true, but for now this conclusion/argument is based on little grounds but as neverfly say "guesswork".

Originally, telekinesis was thought to be a paranormal phenomenon. While I believe in the possibility of the paranormal, it can't be substantiated through scientific means. So, the information you are sharing or perhaps sharing from another site, looks to be trying to fit this "phenomenon" into the science box. Unfortunately, it will always be met with skepticism barring no evidence to support it. I'm open minded, but telekinesis sounds like a side show act at a bad carnival.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally, telekinesis was thought to be a paranormal phenomenon. While I believe in the possibility of the paranormal, it can't be substantiated through scientific means. So, the information you are sharing or perhaps sharing from another site, looks to be trying to fit this "phenomenon" into the science box. Unfortunately, it will always be met with skepticism barring no evidence to support it. I'm open minded, but telekinesis sounds like a side show act at a bad carnival.

Yes i am indeed trying to fit this phenomenon into the science box sadly with little success. Hopefully once it psychokinesis can be made real (whether with the support of technology or genetic modification) it could the next grand finale

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by John Galt

Some random thoughts:1. Part of the hostility you encountered, jacate, probably arose from the reference to the brain being under utilised. this, as others have pointed out, is probably not the case.2. There is an interesting idea in Alastair Reynolds' science fiction wherein some humans have been genetically altered to have 'fins' on their head through which blood circulates for cooling purposes when they engage in an intense period of brain activity selectively induced by chemicals. (That's a crude paraphrase of what he describes.) Such a process might evolve, so I don't think I buy Dywyddyr's absolute declaration that this would fry the brain. It would today, but who knows about tomorrow.3. I don't see why having more brain power would logically support the possibility of telekinesis.4. There is a seriously flawed objection being made by the naysayers: to move an object remotely does not require that one provide the work. If NASA would allow me then I can move a large rocket simply by pressing a button. If telekinesis exists - which I rather doubt - then it might arise through enabling some other processes.

Thank you for being a kind soul to do your best to answer my query in a non-aggressive manner =D This hostility to be honest isn't as bad as those in gaming forums that i have been so i am glad there is a rather mature community here(which should be an expected i guess =D)Also for point 3, the reason why i associate the idea of more brain power to have possibility of telekinesis would be following that of the idea which is similar to the common activities we do everyday. Example we can do two types of each activities where one is more relaxed while to assume the other is strenuous. An example would be the relax activity of walk and the strenuous version of it being running, while jogging goes mid way. Next we have lifting of objects that are within our capacity (our phone) or lifting heavy weights that are near the boundaries of our physical capacity(100kg dumbells, i can't even lift 15kg pathetic me).For thinking we have the normal things we think about that are not complex and the times we stress out for an exam thinking for 2 to 3 hours straight without rest, racking your brains and after that feeling exhausted from the activity. Therefore by assuming this premise should hold true for all activities, i assume that if we are able to have unexplained mental feedback which occur even during the advanced modern era, it is the relaxed state of psychokinesis, even intuition and guessing/predicting is already part of it and even then it is already strenuous to some lazy brains. Therefore the possible strenuous variant for one to be able to use their minds to exert direct real world results without having to use their limbs or other parts of their body, one would assume psychokinesis has to be true. This may also vary to even telepathic communication but not psychokinetic powers to change the physical enviroment. However this argument which is as sound as it seem is invalid by the simple pretext that all activities should have a strenuous and relaxed variant. If this were proven true, then maybe psychokinesis maybe true, but for now this conclusion/argument is based on little grounds but as neverfly say "guesswork".

There really can't be an argument for it against something that simply isn't true.People cannot move objects through "strenuous brain function" ...there is no evidence that even convincingly demonstrates it.I'm open minded to how the subconscious mind works, but we can't change matter or move it through brain activity.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally, telekinesis was thought to be a paranormal phenomenon. While I believe in the possibility of the paranormal, it can't be substantiated through scientific means. So, the information you are sharing or perhaps sharing from another site, looks to be trying to fit this "phenomenon" into the science box. Unfortunately, it will always be met with skepticism barring no evidence to support it. I'm open minded, but telekinesis sounds like a side show act at a bad carnival.

Yes i am indeed trying to fit this phenomenon into the science box sadly with little success. Hopefully once it psychokinesis can be made real (whether with the support of technology or genetic modification) it could the next grand finale

LolI applaud your zeal but the problem you will undoubtedly run up against is with the history of telekinesis.You can't undo the fact that it is thought or was largely thought to be a paranormal "activity."Science can't explain the paranormal and many ppl don't believe in the paranormal to begin with.It is probably not a hill worth dying on. Lol :-)

Originally Posted by wegs

There really can't be an argument for it against something that simply isn't true.People cannot move objects through "strenuous brain function" ...there is no evidence that even convincingly demonstrates it.I'm open minded to how the subconscious mind works, but we can't change matter or move it through brain activity.

Didn't i state at the last part that what i presented which is an argument/conclusion is invalid as mostly based on guesswork without any evidence. So are you trying to reiterate what i just said o.O

Originally Posted by wegs

LolI applaud your zeal but the problem you will undoubtedly run up against is with the history of telekinesis.You can't undo the fact that it is thought or was largely thought to be a paranormal "activity."Science can't explain the paranormal and many ppl don't believe in the paranormal to begin with.It is probably not a hill worth dying on. Lol :-)

How would we know that it is not worth a hill dying for? I don't think true discovers look at how deep the rabbit hole goes and give up when they can't see the bottom. For all you may know is that deep down there hold the real understanding of it, and even if we can't do it mentally unaided, what is there to say that machines can't aid us in fulfilling the same task? Not to mention atleast there is a secondary goal of prize money that are up for grabs by many skeptics around the world. If we never try i guess we would never know.

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

Originally Posted by jacate

even if we can't do it mentally unaided, what is there to say that machines can't aid us in fulfilling the same task?

Well currently we do.
Want something moving?
Use a robot arm, or a wheelbarrow.
If we manage to perfect thought control and apply that to motorised wheelbarrows with a robot arm would that class as PK?
Or would we just say "Yup, technology does it again"?

those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist

Huh?
Science doesn't "prove things don't exist", it shows that particular claims don't hold up.
But what, practically speaking, is the difference between showing that each and every claim made that PK exists is wrong and showing that it doesn't exist? Especially as there is no known mechanism for such a thing?

Originally Posted by jacate

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

There is no known mechanism that could possibly account for any kind of psychokinetic phenomenon, no matter how large our brains get. It is as simple as that.

When you mean machine aided, do you mean brain implants only or do you mean the manufacture of brain implant and specific product combos? Because there are already example of the latter, but again, no known mechanism exists for the former.

Do you have questions regarding the lack of known mechanisms or do you already understand as much, and if you do, what exactly do you mean then?

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by wegs

There really can't be an argument for it against something that simply isn't true.People cannot move objects through "strenuous brain function" ...there is no evidence that even convincingly demonstrates it.I'm open minded to how the subconscious mind works, but we can't change matter or move it through brain activity.

Didn't i state at the last part that what i presented which is an argument/conclusion is invalid as mostly based on guesswork without any evidence. So are you trying to reiterate what i just said o.O

Originally Posted by wegs

LolI applaud your zeal but the problem you will undoubtedly run up against is with the history of telekinesis.You can't undo the fact that it is thought or was largely thought to be a paranormal "activity."Science can't explain the paranormal and many ppl don't believe in the paranormal to begin with.It is probably not a hill worth dying on. Lol :-)

How would we know that it is not worth a hill dying for? I don't think true discovers look at how deep the rabbit hole goes and give up when they can't see the bottom. For all you may know is that deep down there hold the real understanding of it, and even if we can't do it mentally unaided, what is there to say that machines can't aid us in fulfilling the same task? Not to mention atleast there is a secondary goal of prize money that are up for grabs by many skeptics around the world. If we never try i guess we would never know.

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I agree. If there a rabbit hole to begin with. There's no rabbit hole, here. So, there is nothing to look 'deep into.'

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.



That said, before we continue… what do you mean by that? Idon’t put words into people’s mouths during debates, I’d rather ask them outright,to clarify what they mean.



As an aside, I didn’t mean to derail your thread into adiscussion about the paranormal, but we can’t ‘logically’ discuss telekinesiswithout also discussing the paranormal, since the concept of TK is said to haveoriginated in a belief of the paranormal.

I apologize for my posts looking messed up, in format. Think it's posting from my phone that causes it.:/

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

even if we can't do it mentally unaided, what is there to say that machines can't aid us in fulfilling the same task?

Well currently we do.
Want something moving?
Use a robot arm, or a wheelbarrow.
If we manage to perfect thought control and apply that to motorised wheelbarrows with a robot arm would that class as PK?
Or would we just say "Yup, technology does it again"?

those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist

Huh?
Science doesn't "prove things don't exist", it shows that particular claims don't hold up.
But what, practically speaking, is the difference between showing that each and every claim made that PK exists is wrong and showing that it doesn't exist? Especially as there is no known mechanism for such a thing?

That would be assuming that every case presented that can't be explained or is proven wrong should mean that the concept shouldn't exist. Until certain mechanisms for it can be defined it i guess it can be said to not exist within the present time.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

There is no known mechanism that could possibly account for any kind of psychokinetic phenomenon, no matter how large our brains get. It is as simple as that.

When you mean machine aided, do you mean brain implants only or do you mean the manufacture of brain implant and specific product combos? Because there are already example of the latter, but again, no known mechanism exists for the former.

Do you have questions regarding the lack of known mechanisms or do you already understand as much, and if you do, what exactly do you mean then?

Brain implants with specific product combos are one, another would be the newest design on "neural dust" and the problem is as expected that too much heat from the chips would fry the brain(as they send signals, ultrasound if i am not wrong, to the outside of the skull to manipulate mostly technical products). However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design. Also for psychokinesis it has been established by the rest there are no known mechanics for them, unless proven otherwise, for this time being.

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.



That said, before we continue… what do you mean by that? Idon’t put words into people’s mouths during debates, I’d rather ask them outright,to clarify what they mean.



As an aside, I didn’t mean to derail your thread into adiscussion about the paranormal, but we can’t ‘logically’ discuss telekinesiswithout also discussing the paranormal, since the concept of TK is said to haveoriginated in a belief of the paranormal.

I will try to look up examples of science explaining past paranormals activities and succeeding since i can't get any at the top of my head for now. However it is fine to talk about paranormal but as long as TK or PK is inside, then the topic would still hold for me. Also when did i say you put your words in peoples mouth o.O I asked whether are you reiterating what i just said.

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

even if we can't do it mentally unaided, what is there to say that machines can't aid us in fulfilling the same task?

Well currently we do.
Want something moving?
Use a robot arm, or a wheelbarrow.
If we manage to perfect thought control and apply that to motorised wheelbarrows with a robot arm would that class as PK?
Or would we just say "Yup, technology does it again"?

those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist

Huh?
Science doesn't "prove things don't exist", it shows that particular claims don't hold up.
But what, practically speaking, is the difference between showing that each and every claim made that PK exists is wrong and showing that it doesn't exist? Especially as there is no known mechanism for such a thing?

That would be assuming that every case presented that can't be explained or is proven wrong should mean that the concept shouldn't exist. Until certain mechanisms for it can be defined it i guess it can be said to not exist within the present time.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

There is no known mechanism that could possibly account for any kind of psychokinetic phenomenon, no matter how large our brains get. It is as simple as that.

When you mean machine aided, do you mean brain implants only or do you mean the manufacture of brain implant and specific product combos? Because there are already example of the latter, but again, no known mechanism exists for the former.

Do you have questions regarding the lack of known mechanisms or do you already understand as much, and if you do, what exactly do you mean then?

Brain implants with specific product combos are one, another would be the newest design on "neural dust" and the problem is as expected that too much heat from the chips would fry the brain(as they send signals, ultrasound if i am not wrong, to the outside of the skull to manipulate mostly technical products). However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design. Also for psychokinesis it has been established by the rest there are no known mechanics for them, unless proven otherwise, for this time being.

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.



That said, before we continue… what do you mean by that? Idon’t put words into people’s mouths during debates, I’d rather ask them outright,to clarify what they mean.



As an aside, I didn’t mean to derail your thread into adiscussion about the paranormal, but we can’t ‘logically’ discuss telekinesiswithout also discussing the paranormal, since the concept of TK is said to haveoriginated in a belief of the paranormal.

I will try to look up examples of science explaining past paranormals activities and succeeding since i can't get any at the top of my head for now. However it is fine to talk about paranormal but as long as TK or PK is inside, then the topic would still hold for me. Also when did i say you put your words in peoples mouth o.O I asked whether are you reiterating what i just said.

Oh, I know...lol I'm just saying I didn't want to assume what you meant by science proving paranormal. I know of the ways that those who follow the paranormal, determine if it is indeed paranormal of which they are dealing with; but they aren't scientists. I'm open minded to the idea of the paranormal, but it just can't be proven scientifically. With respect to you talking about brain implants...as kalster states, it's a moot subject because anything that would help the brain to achieve what is being proposed in TK, wouldn't be considered TK, anymore. lol

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.

To be more precise, science has never observed it either. No point in trying to explain observations that can't even be verified to actually exist, other than to explore what was going on in the heads of those who think they saw something.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.

To be more precise, science has never observed it either. No point in trying to explain observations that can't even be verified to actually exist, other than to explore what was going on in the heads of those who think they saw something.

eggsactly...

i would like to know though what jacate meant in terms of 'scientific' evidence. I didn't want to assume he meant certain things, so I posed the question. But, I'm thinking what is meant by scientific evidence is radio frequency, and other technology devised to 'pick up' voices and paranormal movements, etc. (and has been shown to be proof amongst those who follow the paranormal) That's not science. But, before I leap to that...I hope jacate comes back to share what was meant.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Please look up the section this post belongs too before assuming that it is not in the pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.

To be more precise, science has never observed it either. No point in trying to explain observations that can't even be verified to actually exist, other than to explore what was going on in the heads of those who think they saw something.

eggsactly...

i would like to know though what jacate meant in terms of 'scientific' evidence. I didn't want to assume he meant certain things, so I posed the question. But, I'm thinking what is meant by scientific evidence is radio frequency, and other technology devised to 'pick up' voices and paranormal movements, etc. (and has been shown to be proof amongst those who follow the paranormal) That's not science. But, before I leap to that...I hope jacate comes back to share what was meant.

As to science explaining paranormals would be that of the ball lighting where much has been done to actual explain it. Well the 2007 explanation of ball lighting that shows what it could be and how this phenomenon occurs. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ghtning_2.html

Or those rocks that move unknowingly in the desert. It was explained with a video but not an actual demonstration of the rock moving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hoi...layer_embedded

Another is the scientific explanation of ghost which has be seen as coherent . http://www.hauntmastersclub.com/file...in-machine.pdf
Abstract: "In this paper we outline an as yet undocumented natural cause for some cases of ostensible haunting. Using the first author’s own experience as an example, we show how a 19hz standing air wave may under certain conditions create sensory phenomena suggestive of a ghost. The mechanics and physiology of this ‘ghost in the machine’ effect is outlined. Spontaneous case researchers are encouraged to rule out this potential natural explanation for paranormal experience in future cases of the haunting or poltergeistic type."

These are just some examples to explained paranormals using science, or basically from paranormals becoming phenomenons. I guess it will take some time for all paranormals to be a phenomenon if not they would all stay as paranormals.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Please look up the section this post belongs too before assuming that it is not in the pseudoscience.

I didn't assume anything. You'll notice I asked you a question?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Please look up the section this post belongs too before assuming that it is not in the pseudoscience.

I didn't assume anything. You'll notice I asked you a question?

Sorry i misread you post X( sorry! the reason i considered this in pseudoscience section because there is no real theory on this paranormal event. Unless someone with a science degree or a better background than me can work an idea around having the brain do mental workouts with possible effects on the body which even i have a problem explaining. However i do fear that if i didn't post this here, well the feedback would be like the other psychokinesis thread that was derailed quite badly and i would try to avoid that from happening unless someone can back me up on this hypothesis with good enough proof that it can be worth an actual experiment. I may try to post this in the bio-chem section to see if i can get responses on the feasbility but for now i have other things to attend to which includes my graded extended essay. So sorry for the misinterpretation on my side again and that i am also not very free or confident in this hypothesis.

No worries.

You won't get any more answers in other sections though. The simple answer is that there is no mechanism for something like this. Any answer more than that will have zero value, as it will necessarily have to be made up fantasy.

The best machines have been able to do is the famous suspended frog experiment, but that required VERY strong magnets. Magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by KALSTER

No worries.

You won't get any more answers in other sections though. The simple answer is that there is no mechanism for something like this. Any answer more than that will have zero value, as it will necessarily have to be made up fantasy.

The best machines have been able to do is the famous suspended frog experiment, but that required VERY strong magnets. Magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is only the brain exerting force in the real world mechanic that doesn't exist yet. But providing the body with more oxygen and blood are existing mechanisms.

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

No worries.

You won't get any more answers in other sections though. The simple answer is that there is no mechanism for something like this. Any answer more than that will have zero value, as it will necessarily have to be made up fantasy.

The best machines have been able to do is the famous suspended frog experiment, but that required VERY strong magnets. Magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is only the brain exerting force in the real world mechanic that doesn't exist yet. But providing the body with more oxygen and blood are existing mechanisms.

Yes, but the actual physics of manipulating everyday objects at a distance is the problem, it doesn't matter how powerful the brain is. You are basically ignoring the physical impossibility of it and going by a fantasy. That is fine for fiction, but in the real world there is little utility in that.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

No worries.

You won't get any more answers in other sections though. The simple answer is that there is no mechanism for something like this. Any answer more than that will have zero value, as it will necessarily have to be made up fantasy.

The best machines have been able to do is the famous suspended frog experiment, but that required VERY strong magnets. Magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is only the brain exerting force in the real world mechanic that doesn't exist yet. But providing the body with more oxygen and blood are existing mechanisms.

Yes, but the actual physics of manipulating everyday objects at a distance is the problem, it doesn't matter how powerful the brain is. You are basically ignoring the physical impossibility of it and going by a fantasy. That is fine for fiction, but in the real world there is little utility in that.

We never know how far would it branch out, as in the mechanism if it was developed. Overall we won't know how it would even be applied to reality since we can only speculate its effects but the usefulness will not be truly known. Overall it would be like saying the light bulb is only useful to replace candles and the problem was that the bulb wasn't that portable or reliable, but given time it has advanced way past that form of limited utility. Even if the brain is the limiting factor, technology that is to be developed if such a mechanism is able to be proven would be the one that pushes it beyond its technical capabilities.

Originally Posted by jacate

But providing the body with more oxygen and blood are existing mechanisms.

No they aren't.
They're not even close to being the mechanism.
At best they'd could be classed as enablers for the mechanism (should one exist).
If you seriously think that oxygen and blood flow are mechanisms please give examples of oxygen moving objects. Or blood.
And, by the way, flow of these items transporting anything (e.g. wind/ current) doesn't count.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by jacate

We never know how far would it branch out, as in the mechanism if it was developed. Overall we won't know how it would even be applied to reality since we can only speculate its effects but the usefulness will not be truly known. Overall it would be like saying the light bulb is only useful to replace candles and the problem was that the bulb wasn't that portable or reliable, but given time it has advanced way past that form of limited utility. Even if the brain is the limiting factor, technology that is to be developed if such a mechanism is able to be proven would be the one that pushes it beyond its technical capabilities.

This is a silly comparison, in the case of light builbs a known mechanism/device was improved and proved to be more versatile than originally envisaged. In the case of psychokinesis there is no mechanism to develop or even any evidence it exists. You are wasitng your time speculating about it. What is the encore? Debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or what unicorns eat?

There is no encore to be honest. I am not even fully supporting the fact that Psychokinesis can exist just that it is without proof we try to assume it can exist. Therefore my silly comparison, i couldn't think of a better one to be honest and what you wrote that it was more versatile, it is in response to Kalster that he says that i am ignoring the fact that it is not only physically impossible and saying it has little real world utility which i am addressing. Yes i am admitting we are assuming it exist but to assume psychokinesis has little real world use even before it really being a concept or mechanic that is existence is what my main concern is.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

But providing the body with more oxygen and blood are existing mechanisms.

No they aren't.
They're not even close to being the mechanism.
At best they'd could be classed as enablers for the mechanism (should one exist).
If you seriously think that oxygen and blood flow are mechanisms please give examples of oxygen moving objects. Or blood.
And, by the way, flow of these items transporting anything (e.g. wind/ current) doesn't count.

Yes when we talk about hemoglobin and increasing blood flow around the body is part of a large scheme of frame of the body, pardon my phrasing.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

There is no rational argument let alone an encore, you will get nowhere in science if "without proof we try to assume it can exist". This is not how science works. If there is no evidence it is assumed it DOES NOT exist until evidence is provided. The sort of woolly thinking you are espousing in my quote is indicative of cranks and crackpots everywhere. Don't be that guy...

I don't understand, did you read neverfly's post. I am back at the drawing board instead of defending this hypothesis. Also this is in pseudoscience section, it won't conform to all scientific methods for now because this isn't really science. I am trying to as kalster said earlier fit the science frame of mind onto something non-scientific and have admitted psychokinesis is not true and based on loosely assumed outcomes. None of this is even meant to say anything but discuss about the possibilities of psychokinesis and even Dywyddr pointed a flaw that is present that the brain would fry itself before it can even manipulate an object's temperature if we try to put things into perspective. If you are trying to prove me "wrong" i admitted to it earlier, its just i am explaining to kalster Psychokinesis if assumed useless is being narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Fine, I just think you'd be better of spending your time learning real science

Yep i have been, mostly focused on my EE topic about the different types apatites with relation to acid erosion, mostly based on tooth decay as it is my graded assignment. Overall i haven't been putting much thought into this(psychokiensis) topic as of late because studies come first followed by research in university/college.

So just to get things straight: you assume that telekinesis is possible and that increased brain activity will make it so. So you are asking how we can increase the utilisation of our brains? Because another problem would be that our brains are not just a mass of neurons, it has specialised sections that perform various functions, the total of which comes to 100%. Using all of the sections at once would be like running all the programs on your computer at once, i.e. the result on your screen is chaos. The programs won't somehow together be able to brew you a pot of coffee.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

So just to get things straight: you assume that telekinesis is possible and that increased brain activity will make it so. So you are asking how we can increase the utilisation of our brains? Because another problem would be that our brains are not just a mass of neurons, it has specialised sections that perform various functions, the total of which comes to 100%. Using all of the sections at once would be like running all the programs on your computer at once, i.e. the result on your screen is chaos. The programs won't somehow together be able to brew you a pot of coffee.

Yes that is it. Stability of the mind would be another limiting factor but i don't have the stomach to discuss about it now, it is dinner time for me soon XD. Overall the basis of this whole thread is to assume that number one and most important is that psychokinesis/telekinesis is true which is not (yet) by any proven/scientific method.

Originally Posted by jacate

Stability of the mind would be another limiting factor

That's certainly possible.
It tends to be mentally unstable people that support the idea.

Overall the basis of this whole thread is to assume that number one and most important is that psychokinesis/telekinesis is true which is not (yet) by any proven/scientific method.

To paraphrase a reply from a different thread on a different topic: what you're asking for is a scientific answer to something that already assumes science doesn't doesn't work the way it actually does.
So "viable" suggestions would be, in no particular order:
1) The mind creates invisible slave penguins that do the moving for you.
2) The power of your mind stops (or reverses the direction of) the entire universe except for the object. Thus, the object moves due to inertia, while everything else remains stationary.
3) You actually turn yourself into the Flash, run across the room so fast that no one sees you, move the object and return to your original position. Then you completely forget that it was really you that did it.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jacate

Stability of the mind would be another limiting factor

That's certainly possible.
It tends to be mentally unstable people that support the idea.

Overall the basis of this whole thread is to assume that number one and most important is that psychokinesis/telekinesis is true which is not (yet) by any proven/scientific method.

To paraphrase a reply from a different thread on a different topic: what you're asking for is a scientific answer to something that already assumes science doens't doesn't work the way it actually does.
So "viable" suggestions would be, in no particular order:
1) The mind creates invisible slave penguins that do the moving for you.
2) The power of your mind stops (or reverses the direction of) the entire universe except for the object. Thus, the object moves due to inertia, while everythinge else remains stationary.
3) You actually turn yourself into the Flash, run across the room so fast that no one sees you, move the object and return to your original position. Then you completely forget that it was really you that did it.

I think invisible slave penguins sounds more viable =D

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Please look up the section this post belongs too before assuming that it is not in the pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.

To be more precise, science has never observed it either. No point in trying to explain observations that can't even be verified to actually exist, other than to explore what was going on in the heads of those who think they saw something.

eggsactly...

i would like to know though what jacate meant in terms of 'scientific' evidence. I didn't want to assume he meant certain things, so I posed the question. But, I'm thinking what is meant by scientific evidence is radio frequency, and other technology devised to 'pick up' voices and paranormal movements, etc. (and has been shown to be proof amongst those who follow the paranormal) That's not science. But, before I leap to that...I hope jacate comes back to share what was meant.

As to science explaining paranormals would be that of the ball lighting where much has been done to actual explain it. Well the 2007 explanation of ball lighting that shows what it could be and how this phenomenon occurs. Ball Lightning Mystery Solved? Electrical Phenomenon Created in Lab

Or those rocks that move unknowingly in the desert. It was explained with a video but not an actual demonstration of the rock moving. Moving Rocks of Death Valley's Racetrack Playa - YouTube

Another is the scientific explanation of ghost which has be seen as coherent . http://www.hauntmastersclub.com/file...in-machine.pdf
Abstract: "In this paper we outline an as yet undocumented natural cause for some cases of ostensible haunting. Using the first author’s own experience as an example, we show how a 19hz standing air wave may under certain conditions create sensory phenomena suggestive of a ghost. The mechanics and physiology of this ‘ghost in the machine’ effect is outlined. Spontaneous case researchers are encouraged to rule out this potential natural explanation for paranormal experience in future cases of the haunting or poltergeistic type."

These are just some examples to explained paranormals using science, or basically from paranormals becoming phenomenons. I guess it will take some time for all paranormals to be a phenomenon if not they would all stay as paranormals.

Hi jacate—I read a good portion of the third link youprovide (masters club)…and I’m adding a link here, that argues against thenotion that being ‘in the room’ with a ‘low frequency standing wave’ does notremotely point to the paranormal. I am open minded to the paranormal, but thelink is very sketchy. It will be hard to prove the paranormal using science,but one can work to rule out all natural phenomena in order to support theexistence of a ghost, each case taken individually. The study would have itsreaders believe that all natural causes were ruled out, and they really weren’t.(thus my attached link)

It’s a very informative site, check it out when you can.

I believe it successfully explains the phenomenon of a lowfrequency standing wave. Standing Waves - The Physics Hypertextbook

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by jacate

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by jacate

However brain implants, or machines that can allow for humans to exert control on any real world object over distances would be an interesting design.

You mean normal, everyday objects? Because like I said, there is no known mechanism for that. If someone were to come up with something like that, the world would be in an uproar, but since there are no possibility for something like that given current science, then there is really no point in discussing it, no? If you wanted to discuss possibilities given known science, then this wouldn't belong in the pseudoscience section.

Please look up the section this post belongs too before assuming that it is not in the pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by wegs

Not to mention most paranormals have been explained by science while those against PK usually direct their efforts to prove PK wrong, not to prove that it doesn't exist, so we would never know yet anyways.

I'm open minded to the possibility of the paranormal, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER explained it.

To be more precise, science has never observed it either. No point in trying to explain observations that can't even be verified to actually exist, other than to explore what was going on in the heads of those who think they saw something.

eggsactly...

i would like to know though what jacate meant in terms of 'scientific' evidence. I didn't want to assume he meant certain things, so I posed the question. But, I'm thinking what is meant by scientific evidence is radio frequency, and other technology devised to 'pick up' voices and paranormal movements, etc. (and has been shown to be proof amongst those who follow the paranormal) That's not science. But, before I leap to that...I hope jacate comes back to share what was meant.

As to science explaining paranormals would be that of the ball lighting where much has been done to actual explain it. Well the 2007 explanation of ball lighting that shows what it could be and how this phenomenon occurs. Ball Lightning Mystery Solved? Electrical Phenomenon Created in Lab

Or those rocks that move unknowingly in the desert. It was explained with a video but not an actual demonstration of the rock moving. Moving Rocks of Death Valley's Racetrack Playa - YouTube

Another is the scientific explanation of ghost which has be seen as coherent . http://www.hauntmastersclub.com/file...in-machine.pdf
Abstract: "In this paper we outline an as yet undocumented natural cause for some cases of ostensible haunting. Using the first author’s own experience as an example, we show how a 19hz standing air wave may under certain conditions create sensory phenomena suggestive of a ghost. The mechanics and physiology of this ‘ghost in the machine’ effect is outlined. Spontaneous case researchers are encouraged to rule out this potential natural explanation for paranormal experience in future cases of the haunting or poltergeistic type."

These are just some examples to explained paranormals using science, or basically from paranormals becoming phenomenons. I guess it will take some time for all paranormals to be a phenomenon if not they would all stay as paranormals.

Hi jacate—I read a good portion of the third link youprovide (masters club)…and I’m adding a link here, that argues against thenotion that being ‘in the room’ with a ‘low frequency standing wave’ does notremotely point to the paranormal. I am open minded to the paranormal, but thelink is very sketchy. It will be hard to prove the paranormal using science,but one can work to rule out all natural phenomena in order to support theexistence of a ghost, each case taken individually. The study would have itsreaders believe that all natural causes were ruled out, and they really weren’t.(thus my attached link)

It’s a very informative site, check it out when you can.

I believe it successfully explains the phenomenon of a lowfrequency standing wave. Standing Waves - The Physics Hypertextbook

Will do when i have the time, thank you for the read =D

Based on the foregoing, jacate, you should focus your attention on how we can acquire slave Emperor penguins, rather than the gentoos most people seem to come equipped with. Overtime, with good breeding techniques, we shold be able to increase their size substantially and thus their efficiency at moving remote objects. Let us know how that works out.

[QUOTE=wegs;452992]

Originally Posted by jacate

It will be hard to prove the paranormal using science,but one can work to rule out all natural phenomena in order to support theexistence of a ghost, each case taken individually.

That is an similar to the "god of gaps" argument and less than great reasoning.
Ruling out natural phenomena doesn't in anyway support the existence of ghost--all it does is eliminate those natural phenomena that were checked and leave to possibility that there are some natural phenomena, perhaps not even understood, that haven't been tested yet.

Personally, from all superhuman abilities I would prefer clairvoyance and future-telling. If I would have them I would play in casinos or stock market and always win. I would be perfect in money investing. Telekinesis as ability to move small objects around is not as attractive. I do not see how would I make money on it beside making cheap tricks in circus for money. Or at least how would I make money in a legal way.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Personally, from all superhuman abilities I would prefer clairvoyance and future-telling. If I would have them I would play in casinos or stock market and always win. I would be perfect in money investing. Telekinesis as ability to move small objects around is not as attractive. I do not see how would I make money on it beside making cheap tricks in circus for money. Or at least how would I make money in a legal way.

A power as simple as this can endanger the entire world if you knew of how destructive it can be become.

Now to shed some light, Psychokinesis and psionics are indeed possible. Because of the faith in the world today, not many people believe in Psionic abilities. We all are born with all of them, some people have them more naturally than others. Your mind is an incredible instrument to be used to do amazing things. Your subconsious is very powerful, and with enough programming, you can bring your dreams to life. I know some of you are thinking: you're crazy. Maybe, but i studied and practice psionics for 3 years, 4 years coming soon. Believe within yourself you can do this because i know you can, it's difficult to get around that doubt. How it is related to science is we are affecting energy from a sub atomic level, to a level with a unaided eye. We are affecting molecules to increase or decrease temperature's, to move the wind, to change the spectrum of light, to charge and make electricity, even to affect our own genes to make ourselves superhuman. I think we were blessed with these abilities because i think we have a purpose on why we have them. That is all

Originally Posted by Superpsi

Now to shed some light, Psychokinesis and psionics are indeed possible.

No they aren't.

Originally Posted by Superpsi

I know some of you are thinking: you're crazy.

Did you know that because of your psionics?

If tele/psychokinesis was real, what would be the mechanism for transferring the kinetic energy?

Honestly? If you'd said you'd spent a couple of years, or even more, learning how to do magic (or special effects for stage or film) I'd actually be really impressed. I'd have lots and lots of questions to find out how you do certain things.

But for psychokinesis. Meh.

Originally Posted by adelady

Honestly? If you'd said you'd spent a couple of years, or even more, learning how to do magic (or special effects for stage or film) I'd actually be really impressed. I'd have lots and lots of questions to find out how you do certain things.

But for psychokinesis. Meh.

Unless you meant learning how to do Harry Potter magic, of course...

"Killing Curse! Avada Kedavra!"

"Dancing Curse! Banana Rama!"

Originally Posted by Daecon

If tele/psychokinesis was real, what would be the mechanism for transferring the kinetic energy?

Antimatter-powered neutronium pistons elves.

How do you know?

Originally Posted by Superpsi

How do you know?

Because there has never, ever, at any point in human history, been any kind of even remotely convincing demonstration of anything that could even potentially be best described as something even resembling psychokinetic powers.

Being a self-described man of science, surely you understand the need to rule out the absurd when forming hypotheses.

I simply don't have a cat picture crazy enough for this one.

"Implied facepalm cat" will have to do.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

I simply don't have a cat picture crazy enough for this one.

"Implied facepalm cat" will have to do.

That cat looks like Tommy Lee Jones with that newspaper.

That's where you're wrong. I've done some research and found out that One person, a Russian housewife name Nina Kulagina has this ability recorded.

Originally Posted by Superpsi

That's where you're wrong. I've done some research and found out that One person, a Russian housewife name Nina Kulagina has this ability recorded.

And here's a video of others moving an object with their mind....

Originally Posted by Superpsi

That's where you're wrong. I've done some research and found out that One person, a Russian housewife name Nina Kulagina has this ability recorded.

I've seen a guy named Chris Angel tear people in half with his powers. It's nothing to laugh at.

One thing I don't miss about the 1970's was all the UFO and ESP crap. Actually that's two things....a third was disco.

Speaking of the 70's, the cat's expression is akin to Archie Bunker about to ask Edith why it's taking her so long to bring him his beer.

Originally Posted by Superpsi

That's where you're wrong. I've done some research and found out that One person, a Russian housewife name Nina Kulagina has this ability recorded.

From Wikipedia:

Skeptics have argued that many of Kulagina's feats could easily be performed by one practiced in sleight of hand, through means such as cleverly concealed or disguised threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors. Also, no sleight of hand experts appear to have ever been present during experiments, and that the Cold War-era Soviet Union had an obvious motive for falsifying or exaggerating results in the potential propaganda value in appearing to win a "Psi Race" analogous to the concurrent Space Race or arms race.

(Bold mine)


I am not truly impressed by your research.

Personally, I didn't need to go any further than Soviet claims of psionic powers during the Cold War...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Personally, I didn't need to go any further than Soviet claims of psionic powers during the Cold War...

It is indeed a signal that urges us to remain skeptical.
Yet, no amount of (scientific) evidence will cause member Superpsi to challenge his/her own ideas, due to the statement here (# 238):

Originally Posted by Superpsi

I'm never giving up on psionics. Never!!!

A psi battle would settle this!

Originally Posted by Superpsi

That's where you're wrong. I've done some research and found out that One person, a Russian housewife name Nina Kulagina has this ability recorded.

Kulagina's alleged "powers" where never independently verified, or tested under controlled conditions ( contrary to what many claim ); there is not even a peer-reviewed publication about her in any scientific journal. All the sources I can find are pop-sci or pseudo journals, as well as the original articles in the Pravda ( a newspaper ! ). Interestingly enough Kulagina was a senior sergeant in tank battalion T-34, and an ideologically committed party member.

Given the context of the Cold War, it doesn't take any psychic abilities to tell just what went on there.