What are you guys talking about? Talking animals? Because I did notice some talk on this site or I think its own forum section on this site about animals. Rodents and well animals. Where does that forum fit it with this site? Does it have something special to do with like humans or is it just about the foundation of all orginisms on Earth?

No. To sum it up here is what happened. some people, whose intelligence may be questionable, decided to say animals are psychic. I said that most animals can be quite dumb. someone else said something about african greys. I said that most cant read, only specially trained ones. Now i am going to say that there should be no more talk about animals intelligence. No more arguing. Keep to the topic of telekinesis now.

Sorry I have been around this past week or so, something had come up and had to take care of it.

Bosanchero this comment is erroneous, the issue, of how many scientists confirms the existence of PSI and or telekinesis has nothing to do with the validity of its existence.
The fact of the matter is, any scientist, who would review the data in question objectively would without doubt confirm the findings as accurate. Furthermore, such a request has nothing to do in relation to the question of what to you would be appropriate proof from
UM the membership given the limitations of the medium being used (internet).

Bottom line Bosanchero your response is not credible and would appreciate a response which takes into consideration the above.

Any thoughts?

(i'm not too good at explaining things to other people but i'll give it a try)Ok,what you people need to understand,telekinesis is not something that can be easily learned,something like this can take years to learn,even a few lifetimes,depending what you believe and how much will power you have.It is a big step for you mind,body,and spiritually,for you become aware of all of these,and what they are capable of.One thing you need to get rid of is the whole "i believe " concept,and start DOING,no more i believe i can do this,its "I WILL do this" whatever it may be.Another thing you should know,is that we are connected with everyone and everything,we are all ONE,we are a part of infinite intellegence that we have access to once we learn how to use the eternity surrounding us,it is our right to have access to all that was,and all that ever will be.So as i said before,if you are learning such psychic abilities,stop believing and start DOING,and remember,for some it may take years,others it may take a few lifetimes...As for the whole deal with animals,they are much smarter than us,we may have all this technology,but remember if it was all destroyed,or we lost all electricity for some reason,then we would have return to nature,in the woods and plains,and embrace it(like the good old days,i dont know why anyone would have it any other way!) Most humans would have to look to the animals to see what foods to eat and what water to drink,because most of us have lost the ability to tell such things,but anyway,good luck to all of you learning telekinesis and such things,and remember that our mind,body,spirit complex is evolving,be aware of it,there is no reason to ever stop growing.

No one can use telekineses, not humans or any other animal.

Maybe not an other animals. Humans can though.

I cannot remember exactly how the test involving steel balls falling down chutes went, but I think there were two types.
One was where people were asked to concentrate and make more steel balls fall down into chutes to the left and the other was where people were asked to just watch the steel balls fall into the chutes and that they would see more fall into those on the left than the right.
I think the results were the about the same, with more falling into those on the left in both cases.

Perhaps someone has those studies on file as I do not.

common human reaction to something different or change in which they dont understand... they fear it therefore discarding it without a second thought because they cannot fathym it being possible. wouldnt take it hard or anything, just you know what your abilities are and my guide once said "you will never have to prove what you can do" so i dont prove what i can do, as im not trying to impress anyone... as for moving larger objects... my guide says learn how to go into very deep meditations to open the ports more to allow more energy to flow. the more energy your auric field has, the stronger the gifts will be hopefully it helps you, if it doesnt, im sorry that i or my guide was no help lol

Any thoughts?

The small object is 1, and the large object is 10.

Practice on 2 through 9 some more, or keep practicing on 10. You won't see movement, but you will still be building skill.

Our brain does moves things. When thirsty, the brain telekinesis and transmits signals to look and drink water. The brain will get its water even if the water is nowhere to be seen. If the water is on the fifth floor, i'm sure the brain will get it.

Just one form of the Brain using telekinetic power by moving the body.

Telekinesis is possible just people are so in there little worlds of nothing pyschic is real they are just scared of things that they cant explain thats all. I have never preformed telekinetics but my mum's friend is a medium and i have seen her roll a pen across a table.
now all i do is wait for so person to say it was wind or it was static electricty. Because you cant do it dont make it no real or non-existent. People just dont have faith or belief.

But am not the master of things i just try them out and see if its real. What can happen really you find out that its not real of you do finds out that it works anyway

peace guys and gals

Yes. I agree, however that was not helpful in any aspect.



I'm not scared of it. I don't believe in it though.


Mediums speak to the dead, they don't do much telekinesis.

A medium "supposedly" can speak to ghosts. They are not telekinetics.

no one is limited in what they can do, and if you want me to compare it to something in what you guys have scientific fact for... when youre driving a car, you can either hit the brakes, or hit the accelorator... the way they react are totally opposite. so if someone can see and hear the dead.... what says they cant also beable to to do telekinesis.

its not rocket sience, its common sense.

No. It is fallacious reasoning. Here is why:

1) False Analogy: Your analogy is irrelevant to the topic, as the pedals of the car are discrete forces and do not actually influence each other (although they do influence the car).
2) Post hoc Fallacy: A post hoc fallacy is, simply put, the argument that because one thing follows the other it is held to cause the other. Ability to do one thing does not precipitate ability to do another. I can walk, but as this is a discrete ability from flying, I cannot therefore fly just because I can walk.

Being able to do one thing does not mean you can do everything.

Just as being able to do one thing does not mean you can't do other things.

If that is all you have to say about that comment Megalomania then it is obvious such an idea is "over your head."

Think about it and get back to me and keep in mind, that by wave aspect, I mean understanding the human form from the same context as we comonly understand
light.

Any thoughts?

More fallacious logic.

Circular Reasoning: i.e. " if A, then B, B therefore A"

I appreciate that you countered my point, but it really established very little.

It was fine logic.

Can you walk? Yes you can. By your logic, you can do nothing else but walk.

But you can walk AND talk, can't you? Well, aren't you special. That proves my logic; just because you can do something (walk), doesn't mean you can't do other things (talk).

That's just more circular reasoning.

Re-examine my wording.



And now yours:



You seem to have misinterpreted me.

In the psi vs. skeptic debate, we need binary answers: Yes or no. "Maybe"s will get us nowhere, so I suggest abandoning that particular ideal as an effective argument.

You seem to be misinterpreting me.

You guys are so dicouraging. I know this is a public site but why not go away?????? Maybe just create your own topic for skeptics? It is possible you know. Anyone can do it. Just put everything you know about the laws of physics into the back of your head. Open your mind enough and you can do it. DON'T LISTEN TO THE SKEPTICS!!!!!! They are wrong!

Most people on this site are probably at least 15 or so. I, on the other hand, am 10. I am probably more intellectual than most of you here. So if you think your bird is so smart bring him to me and prove it. Three examples, as well. My dog, my cat, and you

All of you skeptics are just plain annoying. Neither of you is wrong, nor right. It is an effective argument. "Maybe's" will keep an argument alive. Your IQ can't be more than 73 if you think you are right angrycrustacean. Therefore, if you have tried to move anything at all, you have most likely fallen on your rear-end in failure. All of you are misinterpreting the original topic, helping some guy with telekinesis. Keeping on subject to the topic, don't try to go from small to big. Try and move between the sizes, from small to a little bigger, so on and so forth. I hope that helps you blieve.

Calm down and use rational thought. Being 10 is hard. To set yourself apart from your classmates by claiming powers is going to make your school life even harder. Use your imagination but don't let it run your life.

WTH, first off, I wasnt talking to you. Second I am 16, third, to read a book on african greys, instead of being an ignofant 10 year old(why am I arguing with you, this is a waste of my time...)

"three examples my dog my cat and you"
um...
clever?

Some of the mods, vets, and admins here have families and are over 18. An a lot of people needing help come here and THEIR over 18 (Yes, OMG believe or not! Its true!). So I suggest you treat them and everybody here (including the skeptics) with respect.

I myself have been into this kind of stuff for three years and I'm (Ah, god I'm so going to alter my image) 12. I can't expect you guys to not change your view on me though this is the first time I said it over the net.


Please treat me as a equal as you have so respectively done so far.

As lon as you continue to be a reasonable human being I will respect you.

Can tk be proven?

Yes, if somebody prooves it.

Therein lies the rub.

Yes, telekinesis could be proven. Unfortunately, it has not been, so far.

There are two important things that need to be remembered. Proving that the phenomena of telekineses exists is not about showing a whole bunch of papers about how somebody can make a quarter flip more times than not, or how fast a psi-wheel will turn. When we are talking about showing the existance of a phenomena, statistical probability is not longer sufficient. We need definites. The actually phenomena should not even be in question. The theory of plate tectonics is statistically probable, but the phenomena of land movement is a fact beyond question; regardless of whether it is caused by plate tectonics, land still moves. In order to prove that telekinises exists, we have to have a phenomena that can be reliably reproduced at will, not simply something that sometimes happens when someone is trying to roll a pencil on a table.

Secondly, one does not have to show how telekinises works in order to prove it exists. We have some good ideas about how gravity works, but we do not have any really heavily supportable theories yet. Does this mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not. Gravity, as a phenomena, exists, and science recognizes it because it can be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated to exist. that we don't understand exactly how it works does not take away from it's existance.

What is needed in order for telekinises to be accepted as real is for a manner in which the phenomena can be invoked on a repeatable basis. A method must be discovered in which anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter, may summon the phenomena known as telekinises. Untill that happens, all the studies in the world will be of little use.

or one of there psychics can just DO IT FOR US
call tv station and prove it, i know som many tv stations that would pay millions to have the rights to the first ever REAL Telekinesis video

Hmm...no, not really.

Again, to prove the phenomena is real, we can't use one-shots. One single example is never going to establish the existance of a phenomena. Heck, even a hundred people doing it wouldn't be sufficient. At best, all you could say is that there is an unusual event going on, but there is little you can do to isolate it as a specific phenomena. What is needed is a manner in which anyone, anywhere, (given the proper environment), regardless of whether they consider themselves telekinetic or not, can perform as needed.

Alternatively, a specific methodology showing exactly how people who are capable of performing telekineses perform it, would also be a good start.

Listen I don't want to be a downer, but most of us already know TV Show's like ratings more then the truth.

So just video-tape it youself and give us proove.

A very intelligent post, as always. Thank you for not being stupid.

However, I don't believe a method such as the one you mentioned above can ever be found. Disbelief in one's ability to perform telekinesis, for one reason or another, seems to prevent it from happening.

That's why I included the second part:



There are certain abilities which must be learned or inherited by specific individuals. Hypnotism, for instance, is a skill that has a specific methodology to it that, when done properly, results in a phenomena known generally as hypnotism. Hypnotism, despite not being fully understood or accepted as an existing phenomena, nonetheless is considered scientifically credible, because there is a methodology that people who believe in it can follow and 'learn' the skill.

It may be true that non-believers cannot use these powers, but that is a seperate claim in and of itself, and cannot be used as a reason to avoid the prerequisites of scientific methodology. Prior to trying to explain what does and doesn't work in regards to telekineses, we must wait until the phenomena of telekinises has been shown to exist.

Understanding how to perform telekinetic acts is not as difficult as some would imply, it is a matter of understanding oneself from a different point of view. A "mind-set" exists as a result of upbringing, which needs to be altered and doing so takes about as long as learning a new language. To suggest that telekinesis has not been shown to exist, denies in every way, the historical as well as scientific president that does exist and offers such a conclusion is incorrect.

In truth and as usual the skeptical response has not changed in thousands of years and a good example of this is in relation to every technological development that has occurred in human history...or does any one here believe that before something was actually developed for practical use, it was first a theory and then verified scientifically
and after that, the means was found to disseminate it as a technology.

Any thoughts?

First off, it isn't right to say that just because someone is young that that means they are stupid or a far less intelectual being. second just to set the record straight, so no one else has to argue about the african grey, kariudo115 is correct about some african greys being able to read.

You really are a master at making arguments go in circles. Forget about it.

Everyone wants proof! Here is a proof of a telekinesis that heals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZ0dteLU4

Astral awareness, Mind Body and Spirit = power.

Hey's it's not my fault you were misinterpreting me.

How's about this. You both were misinterpreting each other.

I don't think that was the case, but ok, sure.

About that. Im 13, and u shouldnt generalize about that. Their are some adults here. And u also souldnt brag about how smart u r. I met a boy younger than u whos iq is over 170, knows algebra, geometry, and algebra 2, is studying for the SAT and is doing well in the online class including essay writing, grammar, and vocab. When ur this smart, then u have the right 2 brag.

Honestly, I don't think ice-storm is that smart. They only try to sound smart by saying "sir" a lot, which is simply annoying, not intelligent.

No offence to them, but they're probably only average or just above average intelligence.

Not that I'm better or anything, just speaking my observations.

Nice thinking. Now youre backed up by an study about this.
Unskilled and Unaware of It
Posted by Alan Bellows on March 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about any flavor of savvy where the individual has an interest. This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the "above-average effect," and it flies in the face of logic… by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average. Clearly a large number of the self-described "above average" individuals are actually below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious: The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, including their own. When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities. A few years ago, two men from the Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one misoverestimates one's own skills in relation to one's actual abilities. They made four predictions, and executed four studies.

Justin Kruger and David Dunning made the following predictions before beginning their investigation:

Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.
Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else's.
Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.
The incompetent can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes (paradoxically) by making them more competent, thus providing them the metacognitive skills necessary to be able to realize that they have performed poorly.
In each study, the men tested participants in areas where knowledge, wisdom, or savvy was crucial, specifically humor, logical reasoning, and English grammar. The participants were then asked to guess at the accuracy of their own performance so their self-assessment could be compared to the actual results.

In short, the study showed that the researchers' predictions were spot-on. Participants scoring in the bottom quartile grossly overestimated their test performance and ability, and analysis confirmed that this miscalibration was due to deficits in metacognitive skill (the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error). Those who were incompetent tended to suspect that their abilities were unequal to the tasks, but the suspicion often failed to anticipate the magnitude of their shortcomings. As predicted, training the participants on the subjects in question increased their metacognitive competence, and allowed them to better recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Also interestingly, the top performers tended to underestimate their own performance compared to their peers. The researchers found that those participants fell prey to the false-consensus effect, a phenomenon where one assumes that one's peers are performing at least as well as oneself when given no evidence to the contrary.

Were their conclusions accurate? If asked, they would probably answer in a confident affirmative. However their execution forces one to ponder whether these chaps may have overestimated their own competence. In the first study, participants were asked to rate the "funniness" of a series of jokes, and the correctness of their responses was used to measure their metacognitive competence in humor. The test's answer key, which was used to grade the participants' responses, was provided by a panel of expert comedians. The comedians were asked to rate the jokes on a scale from 1 to 11, and one comedian's responses were discarded because their answers did not correlate well with the others. One hopes the irony of these decisions was not lost on the researchers.

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote that "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." This is true whether one interprets "stupid" as foolish (short on smarts) or as ignorant (short on information). Deliberately or otherwise, his sentiment echoes that of Charles Darwin, who over one hundred years ago pointed out that "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

The Internet is a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet of such misplaced confidence. Online, individuals often speak with confident authority on a subject, yet their conclusions are flawed. It is likely that such individuals are completely ignorant of their ignorance. Cough.

Certainly the "Unskilled and Unaware of It" research backs up the idea that when a person cannot recognize his or her own poor performance, their self-assessment does not include that negative information. This results in an artificially inflated view of one's own skills, often tempered by ego. The same effect will cause the incompetent to congratulate one another as they fail to detect one another's inadequacies. One possible corollary to these conclusions is Scott Adams' Dilbert Principle, which tells us that the most ineffective workers are systematically promoted into management. Perhaps those doing the promoting are incompetent, and therefore fail to recognize the incompetence in those they reward.

Obviously not all confidence is misplaced; sometimes it is the result of strong skills and accurate self-assessment. But it seems that much of the time, confidence is the over-inflated result of some degree of ignorance. As is the case with many human flaws, perhaps the best remedy is to never stop learning, to seek out and absorb constructive criticism, and to always be prepared to admit that you may be wrong about something.

Of course, the researchers may be drawing the wrong conclusions… maybe most people really are above average.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406

Hey hey the articles on this website.

And when they see these posts about him/her, they're going to respond telling us their IQ...

Anyone else have anymore tips?

I think my post before was all the help you need. This doesn't sound like a problem, simply a matter of practice.

If conditions persist for one year, see a telekinetic professional.

Ok, here:

-Continue to get better at smaller objects, then go to larger ones.
-Try medium objects - go slowly, and work your way up.
-Practice on large ones - you see no progress, but you are building skill.

I hope this is all you need.