I think what Bio is trying to tell you Zero is your discussion to begin with was about him, being a pseudo-skeptic which is off topic and the subject being Tk!

blieve states...


A question that comes to mind is what; given the inherent restriction of the internet can a person actually prove about himself or herself?? Think about it can a person really prove
anything? Say for example a member at UM states his name is Sam Smith, so how exactly can he provide evidence to that effect? Any imagery (pics) such as a that of a birth certificate, passport, drivers license, voters registration card (and so on....),can be dismissed as fakes (and pics of oneself are of course meaningless). Literally, a person, in order to prove his or her identity would have to subject themselves willingly to identity theft, actually providing credit card numbers and Social security numbers, so that other members could purchase goods in his name (then again maybe he is actually an identity thief who stole Sam Smiths private data . Even telling us to access the local phone company listing (taking into consideration that Sam is listed in the phone book as Sam Smith) is still not real proof of who he actually is. Perhaps he is giving you the information of Sam Smith despite the fact he is in actuality someone else. :rofl

Reasonably speaking, when you walk into an establishment and are required to produce identification, this in reality, does not constitute absolute proof of who you are. The only absolute proof that exist would of course be a DNA test., and even then, it can be claimed that perhaps, the person was switched at birth or, that the company who ran the DNA test was either biased, or did not run the test correctly (who knows right??) or, that this person who claims to be Sam Smith is actually testing technology, which allows him to fake his identity.

Ultimate, it can be claimed that Sam Smiths assertion that he is in actuality Sam Smith, is absurd and while he may want to be Sam Smith he is in fact deluded, his behavior, the result of an inverse reaction to who he really is

A common pseudo-skeptical technique is in relation to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and in the case of what some of the skeptics in this forum are
insisting believers provide (proof), the least they can do, is state, what to them would be proof that would be realistic given the medium (internet).

Otherwise they are in fact pseudo-skeptics.......

See link

Any thoughts?

Why does every one bring the laws of physics in to this? Nothing in the laws of physics say energy can’t be generated and dispelled if any thing it says it can it never says how its suppose to be made or how it can’t be made or even where it can’t be made. The laws actually say that physical energy is projected in every aspect of life whether its gravity or a moving wheel. The main point the laws where made was to explain the order of physics.

Are we STILL bickering back and forth about unsubstantiated theories?

Thanks...at least someone is paying attention here...



I am pretty sure that all the "miracles" you refer to are a subject of belief from cultural lore and carry no substantial weight in this argument.



The journal and its reviewers only support the science but that does not give any significance to the results. The discussion of this research is conjecture and personal opinion. I am pretty sure none won a Nobel for this paper yes? (shows in fact how significant it is too )



The document had legitimate references. You can either debate impact factors for journals or accept the fact that not everything is as "significant" as you think...



I already covered this point. The proof needs to be submitted to the appropriate authorities ie a research institute of some kind for consideration and possible verification. In the meantime, if you have a theory yourself as to why you think its possible, then post it here by all means. Just make sure you dont make it sound like the latest final fantasy game...



Quite frankly a lot of people are getting media coverage and they have no scientific backup whatsoever. They even persist when they are wrong (Sylvia Brown anyone)? Again you are looking to argue on a philosophical level about this suggestion when in reality you are aware of the option but intimidated by the prospects. All I ask is that someone performs a psychic feat (consistently) under controlled conditions that we can actually acknowledge. I believe any logical individual will know what I mean by this.



I still like the chewbacca argument on Southpark better than yours....it also makes more sense



Well providing proof is not a "technique" but the foundation of our scientific progress. If you have grievances with the way the world operates, then perhaps buy a deserted island and live on it.



Because its how we understand the mechanics of the world. Its a context used to satisfy our perceptional and mental capabilities. A reference point if you like

Knightmeir states....


Yes the unsubstantiated theories that telekinesis is not valid

Bio-Mage states....


Why would they not carry substantive weight in this discussion each of these prophets definitively was described as having telekinetic ability ??



The research is valid in respect to the methodology, protocols and strict adherence to the scientific method. Any discussion in respect to valid experiments (such as this one) is in reality conjecture, but the fact remains the experiment worked. In other words the phenomenon exists it can be quantitatively observed and it involved action at a distance.



A member of CSICOP and another believed to be a PEAR staff member does not make for a critical or even a credible response. Bio you need to do better than this did you not look at the link I attached in relation to the "Mars effect"? Hyman was involved in that research and if any thing you just lost some points with respect to presenting objective analysis



Sure let talk logic...logic dictates that in any discussion certain things have to be taken for granted. In this forum we know one thing for certain; each of us are individuals, who have access to a computer and also the internet. So what else can we agree upon and in relation to what would constitute proof is the question??? Controlled conditions that we can actually acknowledge apparently in your opinion do not include (despite your earlier contentions) experimental evidence presented in a mainstream scientific journal (albeit edited by Nobel laureates). So what exactly does constitute evidence from your perspective??? God Almighty opening the doors to hell and sending those who do not accept Kazuma’s claim?? Seriously Bio-Mage this has all become so unrealistic it is apparent Pseudo skepticism is actually definitive of what some skeptics (including you) really are.



Please present proof of you claim to be......



Bio-mage this is a discussion forum and in relation to that, if the actual "world," operated with the same restrictions, an internet forum operated on, nothing would actually get done (that is your only real function is it not )

This response of yours is definitive of a pathology one which interferes with your ability to discuss reality in a consistent way. If evidence is what you want get of your laurels and you will find it.....In general Bio-Mage, it is what you did not respond to that is much more interesting than what you did and your biggest mistake, was in citing CSICOP's. Take the time to read about the Mars effect and you will understand what I mean.

As always......

Any thoughts?

Because pigs fly in stories...



The experiment shows a deviation from "expected" random patterns. Still it was nothing spectacular nor does it prove telekinesis in any way. I still find this to be a case of interference rather than anything else.



So you want to tell me that people who actually WORKED for parapsychology departments and the experiment itself are not valid sources? I swear you went to a great deal of trouble on that earlier post explaining how "eminent" PEAR people are...



Its a wasted effort to explain since your mind is made up. To prove something besides the point does not prove the point. They have shown random numbers changing (still not sure if its down to the subjects however) but not anyone lifting cars with their mind. If that point escapes you (and evidently it does) I see no need to further this argument at all.



Watch some southpark man and chill out. Its the episode about Elton John I think called Chef Aid if memory serves. Watch it and then read your reply



Your efforts to make use of your psychology degree show that you have no understanding of human behaviour past the literature syndromes. . Perhaps if you took the time to look at yourself once in while, you may find out what that means. Everyone makes mistake Triad...even you

Ok -
I actually have a cup of coffee and read through all of this.

Theory is fine - but theories do not make facts or realities. They just make for great dialog, which is fine, hey I love a great dialog as much as the next guy!

But on the topic of TK.

It is funny that with the people that I have had tell me "I can move a pencil!", "I can move a paper napkin!" etc - it is NEVER reproduced except w/these exceptions.

a.) The table was not level to begin with and the pencil ALWAYS rolled the same direction - guess which way?

b.) Could not be done with the card table I brought - HAD to be done with their table?

c.) With the table that they were moving their foot slightly - (told not away they did that, nervious habit) - whick ok, I accepted, I do that too at times, but the motion with a table not level - well you get it.

d.) Their friends as witness - can NEVER look me in the eye, not each other for that matter when they tell me, "ya so-and-so, did move .." (stated object).

e.) The room that was used had a small/slight draft and guess which way the object light enough to be moved by the draft moved?

I'm not a 'de-bunker' - as I have stated on other threads, I have witnessed valid Psi abilitie. I have just found through the past 20 years that there are few claims that are Objective Reality. (I hate the term psychic, so will not use it, except with fruads like SB, JE and Miss C. They've earned and deserve the title.)

Baiscally as I have begun to see - a lot of supposed Psi claims are very very subjective and not even close to Objective - what I mean:

I call it Subjective Reality -vs- Objective Reality:

SUBJECTIVE:
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

OBJECTIVE:
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
b. Something that actually exists.

REAL:
1. Having verifiable existence:
concrete, objective, substantial, substantive, tangible.
See real. -vs- Imaginary.

Thoughts?

J -

Bio Mage states....



So you’re suggesting that every effort presented in relation to the rather unique capabilities of 3 individuals (Buddha. Jesus Christ and Mohamed) are the result of overactive imaginations?



The Meta analysis establishes that beyond doubt the chance that it is a result of interference in 1 in 10 to the power of 35. Are you suggesting that statistics in an
invalid form of mathematics, certainly if that is the case your in the wrong place in
relation to discussing what you really want to discuss. My point is simple you insisted upon valid data from a mainstream scientific journal that includes overriding a chance of influence by chance and or interference that has been provided and your response is inadequate. Bio-Mage lets get something strait I really am what I claim to be
cut the baloney friend it is not getting you anywhere.



The fact the term beleived exist in the comment indicates doubt over the idea it is a fact. If this individual actually worked for PEAR he would have pay stubs, which in fact would have resolved any doubt. What I said was that Foundations of Physics Journal is eminent and under no circumstances would the Radin meta-analysis (1989) be presented in that Journal unless there was no doubt as to its validity.



You wanted an argument, guess what, you have one and pound for pound (in respect to education), you and I are pretty much equals. I think you have me confused with someone else, facts are facts, the internet is not an environment where proof of claims, related to personal experiences, can be authenticated. Personally, I think you need to chill out and would cite our initial conversations.



Bio-mage at 44 years old I am well past literature syndromes, as an example, I currently define psychosis from the context of what society required; prior to industrialization, bipolar disorder today, as defined, fulfilled social needs, in respect, to people capable of working 18hrs a day (life expectancy was below 50 in those days a common onset for the depressive phase of Bipolar disorder today is about 37 years old). Sociopaths who are not as numerous, the result, of a time in history, when killing without regard, was considered a positive trait (Romans and so on).

True perfection cannot exist without the imperfect, as without it, perfection, cannot be defined as real. The most recent mistake, as it was suggested, I was making, Bio-mage, is one you would fear .....lets stick to the topic (unless you are prepared to begin a new one).

By the way, heard today that an airplane, had been hijacked in Greece by a person who had problems with what the Pope said recently about Mohamed. The plane, was on its way to Italy, but after the initial comment nothing was heard. Do you no anything more about such an event????????

Jjbreen it sounds like you should try to look carefully, at the real psi events you have observed objectively and get past the idea, that fraud, is simply relegated to the vocation in question.

Any thoughts?


PS: Bio-Mage, take into consideration, that as of yet, you have failed to respond
to the question made clear… what to you, would be considered proof of the paranormal given the inherent restrictions in the internet???? Bio-Mage, beyond this response, things get much, much, more complicated (for you).....

Correct.... an over-zealous interpretation of events with the addition of elements that gave those stories more of an impact value.




The probability you mention only takes into account the known technical problems and limitations with the setup. Since this venture probes a rather unknown type of influence (ie telekinesis) isn't it possible that there is another source of such influence that is mistaken for a pattern? Since hardware random generators operate on microscopic phenomena that are largely unpredictable (at current knowledge levels), is it not safe to say that we cannot be certain about the deviations being part of the random events?

For the sake of the argument however, I was only pointing out passive interference from the subject themselves as biological entities and not conscious sources of input (psychic).



The validity of the results or rather the methodology that is used to produce them, may not be in question, however for me their interpretation is. Extrapolation is an opinion of sorts but not a fact.



Trust me I am chilled to the core here. I agree about the internet inadequacy in providing a proving ground for such theories. Which is why time and again I will suggest tangible means of this proof to be forwarded (same as common footage submited is for analysis for more mundane investigations) to appropriate authorities. So lets progress from out intial conversations and further the discussion with what we can do on the internet.



Your adherence to statistics is admirable but hardly my point. Age is not a factor for the offset of a inquisitive mind looking for answers. But coming close to the conclusion of someone's bilogical expiry date does put things in perspective. That in itself is a strong denominator for the way we look for answers and how willing we are to take a leap of faith. The human mind is conditioned proportionaly to the potential life span it experiences and as such time is relative to your ability to structure your view of the world and subject to change the longer you do live.



Agreed. The concept of light in meaningless without darkness. Contrasts are necessary to perception and I for once find the topic more interesting than unrelated issues that come into reference. So lets stick to the point indeed



I think the plane was flying from Albania to Instabul and the guy tried to divert it to Italy to protest about the Pope. Something about on of his speeches offending Muslims. I am not sure how Greece was involved but the reporters back home must have lost no time making a big deal out of this...they just love stuff like that Thanks for the tip though, its always good to hear from back home being away from it for so long...



Something really paranormal:P...a consistent feat that implies no trickery or foul play. A demonstration of mind over matter like someone floating or setting fire on an object? A conscious influence that is apparent in other words. Here on internet however I only expect people to present a possible (and plausible) mechanism for such events.

Bio-Mage states....


As luck would have it my life experiences include an education independent of my western upbringing, it includes references to the individuals in question. They differ in several ways to the common accounts but with respect to the special powers, described in the common accounts, it is quite clear that they did exist and the powers presented in the accounts of there lives were in fact very real. Personally I do not think of them from the same context as most do, my impression is that in there case (and in all probability others) what was observed were examples of punctuated equilibrium in respect to human evolution. Literally a DNA analysis would have produced clear differences between either of these three individuals and common homo-sapiens.



Are you suggesting that some unconscious or perhaps "collective unconscious" (Jung) input is a factor? Or are you more inclined towards the idea the human body generated some type of interference (Electro-magnetic) in a general type of way, which subsequently affected the random event generator? Unconscious reactions to stimuli usually result in hormonal changes and for the most part, are the result of emotionally charged issues (positive or negative).



Ultimately Bio-mage, the idea that humans are developing the ability to become aware of themselves, from the context of "matter wave dynamics" is something that as a whole is at present, difficult to extrapolate, the fact of the matter is, that it is the direction man is headed in.



Ok and I can assure you that as far as "x-men" type responses and or "propheteering," my stand on such is much the same as yours. While I will always act as an advocate for free expression of those, who sincerely have an interest (or concern) in relation to paranormal ability. Supporting those who feel this forum is some kind of stepping stone to them realizing themselves or expecting those here to accept them as superior?



With regards to the Radin Meta Analysis and its statistical conclusions it is offered in response to our discussions as having met criteria in respect to our discussions. As far
as my experiences throughout my life (age 4 to present) this is the cause for my steadfastness in relation to the validity of the paranormal.



The report was very breif and the person making the statement in the news said that they would say more when they get more information, but that was the last I heard of it.

Sounds like the issue worked itself out without incident and perhaps the result of confusion on the part of the alleged perpetrator (which is good news).



Actually (though not with respect to telekinesis) accurate and specific predictions of events in the future can acts as evidence in long distance conversations. The problem being (a reasonable one) that of trust in respect to telekinetic feats. Literally it would have to be something so complicated, setting it up would go well beyond the expense applied to our normal interaction. Then again, perhaps in respect to Tiggs effort to set up online experiments at UM we could come up with a way that goes beyond just making use of random number generators.

Any thoughts?

Ok you know what over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence. Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.

Questions...

Very well said Silentom

Any thoughts?

I am including this link because of the information it provides but let me be clear in no way should it be construed that the reasons for this link being posted (by me) is an endorsement of the money the site requests in any way

http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/Wingmakers/Telekinesis.html

Any thoughts?

Use your hands or arms to move the objects. Here are some reasons why:

1) It's efficient
2) It's faster
3) Requires no concentration
4) Doesn't get you ridiculed
5) It's the reason we have arms

i acidentilly quoted that.

Well man u said u cant move larger objects and some people tried to suggest things to do u wasn't buying it all i can say is if oyu knew what you were doing ud start off with a psi wheel but not moving your hands too close about 3-4 inches from it and as u go use heavier paper like construction paper duhh. so why are you calling people retarted try researching for a change and if u get no where with that then buy a book no luck with that then you are just outa luck. look at videos of people moving the psi wheel then u repeat it helps.

my opinion try some concentration exercises,i got some if u want to try,i havent had the time to practice these exersises but i think they would work heres the link:

http://www.learn-telekinesis-training.com/

go to the bottom, you wiil find them there

ok I am sick of this. Lizards have 1 brain and dogs have 2 separate brains one is the lizard the other is called the dog and humans have 3 brains. The humans 3 and top portion of the brain is the part that allows telekinesis. Also humans have a right and left hemisphere which also have functions all you have to do is go look up nerurology and the 3 separate brains of a human and it will explain to you each ones function. Basically the 3rd brain also the human ones allows us to speak, and decide and understand and choose etc... etc... its where the subconscious is located as well. You also have a mind that has many psychic functions including using the other 96% that has a veil over it at this point it is connected to the 3rd eye which is located directly behind your nose.

Are you sayin you're third eye is located behind you're nose? Where exactly are you getting this from? Of all the things I've read, and personal experience, you're third eye, is between and right above you're real eyes...

your 3rd eye is behind your nose google it! I think your talking about like cartoons and startrek stuff lol

You're kidding me right? Thats why alot of Indian Women, wear those dots on their forehead, right above and between their two eyes...It symbolizes the third eye...Thats why all the meditation excercises, that you have to be in a certain position, and hum, the ones for the third eye are designed to stimulate the area in bewteen you're two eyes...Thats why, one of the most common telepathy methods, is to imagine a beam coming out of you're forhead, right above you're eyes, and imagine what you want to say goin into the other persons forehead...It's called the THIRD EYE...Not the second nose!

Interesting, I personally practice Elemental TK, I've developed my own techniques and systems of mind power.

E-mail me if your interested in learning some REAL Telekinesis.

I have a story of magical essence. While practicing telekensis I decided to use a penny and stick it up and then stare and make it fall well I got tired and left it and went to sleep. Well I woke up and it fell well that could of been natural like wind in my room lol or vibrations. Well thats not the suspense part I left the penny there on its side and came back a few hrs later and it vanished. Completely vanished and no 1 was around it's gone. I felt instantly why that happened it happened to show me that I am connecting and its attuning me.

in theary it is possible to move things with youre mind, if youre mind can have enougph energy to move youre hands than that same energy could be yoused to move things without them. sence any tipe of energy can be converted into any other type of energy it would seem possible.

and what makes you think that animals think were all the smartest lving things in the world
they dont so plz stop talking
ps i do beleive VERY much in TK




------------------------------
I never said you had to BELEIVE i said you had to ACCEPT my oppinion.

[font="Arial Black"][/font]could some1 talk 1 on 1 with me about how i can b better at telekinesis plz?

meditate on your third eye and soon the telekinesis ability will follow.

No it will not. Mediate and you might feel better. Calm, centered. No POWERS.

If you can't even master the English language, what makes you think you can master a force so deep and mysterious that science has yet to explain it?

Stay in school kids.