Telekinesis

[eight bits]

It is stupid to seek something that does not exist.

That is ludicrous. Seeking has value in itself.

To pick something that you are interested in, and see if you can make it happen, is a great way to end childhood.

Succeed or fail, so effing what?

Even if the sad people, those who know only what they cannot do, turn out to be right, you still learn that it is better to be disappointed than to regret never having tried. Both hurt, but only one of them kills your soul.

And along the way, you can enjoy the spectacle of grown-ups using up their own brief respite from the grave to lecture you on why you should be just like them before your time.

And you will dance on their graves, psi-kiddies. On choreonecrokinesis you may rely.

[Atheist God]

Shouldn't one test something before dismissing it?

What if there is nothing to test.

If something does not exist how does one test it?

That is ludicrous. Seeking has value in itself.

Seeking something only has value if there is a promised pay off at the end of your quest.

To pick something that you are interested in, and see if you can make it happen, is a great way to end childhood.

Only if what you pick is possible and realistic... Super powers excluded.

Succeed or fail, so effing what?

When it comes to super powers there is no success only failure.

Even if the sad people, those who know only what they cannot do, turn out to be right, you still learn that it is better to be disappointed than to regret never having tried. Both hurt, but only one of them kills your soul.

All you learn is that you wasted your time and you will never get it back. It's not logical to attempt something that only results in failure.

And you will dance on their graves, psi-kiddies. On choreonecrokinesis you may rely.

Batshiatkinesis does not exist and so there is nothing to rely on.

[Drayno]

And, I am a little lazy. Barely, though. If you don't believe in telekinesis, or telepathy, or telephones, or....

The... Teli? Why did youj even post? & please respect other people's opinions, there's not enough love in the world...

There will always be Skeptics who will try to disprove theories or abilities. But we will respect their opinions nevertheless. The ability of Telekinesis is a debatable one, I will grant you that. To a certain extent there may be some truth to the ability to use this. However, I believe that all humans have this ability, but it can only be accessed by a powerful mental ability. In this point in time, a small majority of humanity possibly have unlocked the capability to use this mental power. But I do not think that the ability will be available to everyone for a long while...considering that the average Homo Sapien uses 0.1 to .10 percent of the brain.

You lose a sense, you gain a sense. For instance, a person with autism may have the ability to calculate high levels of math equations without being taught it.

There is no physical data to determine in tangible evidence the amount of usage the human brain has. There are as many as if not more than 100 billion brain cells. Then there is the neuronal and synaptic connections. Interestingly there has been data that has determined that people have increased there brain power however.

There is also more and more variables we are learning about the brain. Studies that suggest that even though our brain is one as a whole we evidently get production out of separate parts of the brain for different mental tasks. We have all heard of the right brain/left brain references for example.

This has led me to the belief that we have more to learn about the brain, and the ability to use Telekinesis is plausible.

[eight bits]

Seeking something only has value if there is a promised pay off at the end of your quest.

This Sunday will be the 41st anniversary of the Apollo 1 training accident. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died while seeking to travel in space. They knew there was no promised pay off at the end of their quest, yet they somehow found value in the seeking anyway.

I guess that they were fools in your estimation.

When it comes to super powers there is no success only failure... All you learn is that you wasted your time and you will never get it back. It's not logical to attempt something that only results in failure.

The child who learns meditation in order to hallucinate that his soul separates from his body learns meditation. The child who learns concentration in order to project her chi learns concentration.

There is no failure. There is only becoming more than you were, even when, or if, that is less than you can imagine.

Batshiatkinesis does not exist and so there is nothing to rely on.

For someone who invokes a medieval philosopher with such misplaced assurance and authority, I would have thought you could have "sounded out" choreonecrokinesis.

[SteveLove]

Shouldn't one test something before dismissing it?

I have tried for 7 1/2 years and so have others I know. I gave up however, as I grew up. It's interesting how the people I know wouldn't lie are the ones who make no progress.

[Atheist God]

This Sunday will be the 41st anniversary of the Apollo 1 training accident. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died while seeking to travel in space. They knew there was no promised pay off at the end of their quest, yet they somehow found value in the seeking anyway.

I guess that they were fools in your estimation.

There is no comparison here.

These people knew that going into space and reaching the moon was possible... There would have been a pay off if they didn't die, a risk they were well aware of...

Unlike astronauts and other folks who have died in similar quests for glory are not in any way comparable to psi kiddies wanting super powers.

A better comparison would be alchemists and the quest to turn led into gold, we know now that gold could not be made from led but in their quest they made other discoveries which ended up being the pretext for modern chemistry. Like the quest to turn led into gold, super powers cannot be achieved.

The child who learns meditation in order to hallucinate that his soul separates from his body learns meditation. The child who learns concentration in order to project her chi learns concentration.

There is no failure. There is only becoming more than you were, even when, or if, that is less than you can imagine.

Anyone can learn to meditate however super powers cannot be achieved. You can also never be more then what you are now, however the comment about becoming 'more' from you says something about your outlook on life.

I generally find people who seek or claim crazy powers generally have low self-esteem, although they deny this it becomes more evident in their posts as threads continue.

For someone who invokes a medieval philosopher with such misplaced assurance and authority, I would have thought you could have "sounded out" choreonecrokinesis.

Their is nothing misplaced about my views regarding super powers also I don't know what choreonecrokinesis is but it sounds like another BS super power to me.

There will always be Skeptics who will try to disprove theories or abilities. But we will respect their opinions nevertheless. The ability of Telekinesis is a debatable one, I will grant you that. To a certain extent there may be some truth to the ability to use this. However, I believe that all humans have this ability, but it can only be accessed by a powerful mental ability. In this point in time, a small majority of humanity possibly have unlocked the capability to use this mental power. But I do not think that the ability will be available to everyone for a long while...considering that the average Homo Sapien uses 0.1 to .10 percent of the brain.

Actually we use all our brains... the whole we don't is just a myth.

This has led me to the belief that we have more to learn about the brain, and the ability to use Telekinesis is plausible.

I know enough about human physiology to know that the brain and the body in general is not designed to project and focus energy in this way. It simply cannot be done, if humans were meant to move things with their minds we would be born w/o hands because we would have no use for them. We know enough about the brain to definitively say that telekineses is not a brain function.

[Kassiel]

I think that this thread is degenerating into "Powers exist!"

"No they don't!"

You both need to shut it, take it somewhere else, and stop spamming this thread.

Personally, I think that anything is possible, even if not probable.

Telekinesis is plausible. Not probable.

They didn't know that travel to the moon was possible.

We didn't know that machine powered flight was possible.

We don't know if telekinesis is possible.

No one should have anyone come a tramp around on their beliefs.

If he believes that, it's his deal, not yours, so go be moody about it on your own time.

If you have any evidence that can disprove it, then please post it on this forum.

Otherwise, merely read and watch and learn what you may.

Don't crush someone's hopes on a mere whim.

It's not nice.

-Kassiel

[eight bits]

A better comparison would be alchemists and the quest to turn led into gold, we know now that gold could not be made from led but in their quest they made other discoveries which ended up being the pretext for modern chemistry. Like the quest to turn led into gold, super powers cannot be achieved.

You're absoulutely right. Alchemy is a great comparison.

Face it, AG, Isaac Newton was a psi-kiddie. He devoted himself to alchemy.

But you're right, Isaac Newton never made any gold from lead. What a putz, right? Not smart like... well, not smart.

however the comment about becoming 'more' from you says something about your outlook on life.

Yes, I think it does. Thank you for saying so.

You can also never be more then what you are now,

At what age do you suppose children stop learning, or is their learning something other than their becoming more than what they were before?

I generally find people who seek or claim crazy powers generally have low self-esteem, although they deny this it becomes more evident in their posts as threads continue.

So, humiliating them (e.g. "Yet another kid with an IQ smaller then their shoe size") is... what? Therapy?

It simply cannot be done, if humans were meant to move things with their minds we would be born w/o hands because we would have no use for them.

Really? So of what use are my toes?

Edited January 24, 2008 by eight bits

[Atheist God]

I think that this thread is degenerating into "Powers exist!"

"No they don't!"

You both need to shut it, take it somewhere else, and stop spamming this thread.

Personally, I think that anything is possible, even if not probable.

Telekinesis is plausible. Not probable.

They didn't know that travel to the moon was possible.

We didn't know that machine powered flight was possible.

We don't know if telekinesis is possible.

No one should have anyone come a tramp around on their beliefs.

If he believes that, it's his deal, not yours, so go be moody about it on your own time.

If you have any evidence that can disprove it, then please post it on this forum.

Otherwise, merely read and watch and learn what you may.

Don't crush someone's hopes on a mere whim.

It's not nice. happy.gif

-Kassiel

First of all your new here and hardly in a position to tell any member what to post and where they can and cannot post. Second of all I don't care what people believe I just don't appreciate liars.

Last but not least in regards to evidence this is all on those who say they have super powers. Fact is no evidence is evidence of non-existence and hearsay or faith won't change this.

You will find that you attitude won't get you far here kid.

You're absoulutely right. Alchemy is a great comparison.

Face it, AG, Isaac Newton was a psi-kiddie. He devoted himself to alchemy.

But you're right, Isaac Newton never made any gold from lead. What a putz, right? Not smart like... well, not smart.

Sir Isaac Newton made some pretty huge discoveries in his time and while he practiced alchemy his discoveries more or less impacted the physics world more like the discovery of gravity for example.

At what age do you suppose children stop learning, or is their learning something other than their becoming more than what they were before?

No one ever stops learning regardless of age however it doesn't make you more of a person then what you are it just makes you more intelligent then what you were.

So, humiliating them is... what? Therapy?

If you claim to have super powers or that you will you deserve to be humiliated. Perhaps humiliation is the key to zap people back to a place i like call reality.

Really? So of what use are my toes?

I'm glad you asked.

While toes are commonly thought to have no purpose they actually serve a few purposes. Our toes provide stability and allow us to balance better, they also allow us to run and walk efficiently as well. If you were born with out toes you would adapt to not having them however if someone just chopped them all off it would take you a while to learn how to balance, walk and run again.

Just like many other animals toes are essential for efficient movement and balance...

[Kassiel]

First of all your new here and hardly in a position to tell any member what to post and where they can and cannot post.

I do believe that you have as I said before, arguing over what is real.

If you do not believe it is real, then that's your view, not his.

So quit arguing about it, and go make a skeptics website where you can rant about how nothing exists.

But this website is dedicated to the unexplained.

Just as we don't have proof that exists, you don't have proof that it doesn't.

What he may believe doesn't affect you, just as it doesn't affect me.

And to tell someone not to believe, just as you don't, is merely putting a barrier before them that they will strive to overcome.

It's human nature.

Whether I'm new or not has nothing to do with the fact that you're spamming this thread. So find something worthwhile to say to this person, or leave and argue somewhere else.

[Atheist God]

I do believe that you have as I said before, arguing over what is real.

If you do not believe it is real, then that's your view, not his.

So quit arguing about it, and go make a skeptics website where you can rant about how nothing exists.

I just want the facts and tell it the way it is, the bottom line here is if you don't like what the skeptics have say then stop coming. There are several skeptic websites already but this site discusses a wide range of topics outside super powers.

But this website is dedicated to the unexplained.

Just as we don't have proof that exists, you don't have proof that it doesn't.

What he may believe doesn't affect you, just as it doesn't affect me.

I do have proof I have stated many times that the lack of tangible solid evidence to support such abilities simply does not exist, this is proof of non-existence and the only kind possible. If there was even a shred of evidence I would likely not be so absolute in my views. If such abilities existed there would be proof but this lack of proof

Fact is I wished these abilities did exist unfortunately I am a realist and a man of science and simply cannot accept something is real on hearsay alone.

And to tell someone not to believe, just as you don't, is merely putting a barrier before them that they will strive to overcome.

It's human nature.

They will try to achieve the unachievable and fail. I never once said for people not to believe what they want I just ask where is the evidence to support such a strong belief in something to satisfy my own curiosity.

Whether I'm new or not has nothing to do with the fact that you're spamming this thread. So find something worthwhile to say to this person, or leave and argue somewhere else.

Are you a moderator? No your not

I'm not spamming anything I respond to posts point by point and make my own counter points, the correct term is debating.

Again your in no position to tell me where I can and cannot post or dictate what the contents of my posts are. You will quickly learn as I said that pushy and bossy people such as yourself who become angry over something as trivial as what someone posts in a god forbid internet forum won't last long here.

It's one thing to call out skeptics but your posts are beginning to become rather personal in nature let's hope they do not escalate further then this for your sake not mine.

To be honest I could care less what you think because it seems to me your posts are a poor attempt at flame baiting me anyway... nice try better luck next time.

[eight bits]

Sir Isaac Newton made some pretty huge discoveries in his time and while he practiced alchemy his discoveries more or less impacted the physics world more like the discovery of gravity for example.

Newton did not "discover gravity." Galileo had both discovered and quanitified gravity before Newton was born. Newton's contribution to that subject was to apply the same explanation to the motion of astronomical objects as to terrestial ones.

The technical challenge was to work out the inverse square law, which Galileo had not. The conceptual challenge was to see that a single force sufficed, "as above, so below."

By an amazing coincidence, and I know how much you admire coincidence as an explanation, "as above, so below" is a hermetic maxim, which was ancient before it showed up in the Lord's prayer.

Noticing that sort of thing is what European alchemy was about. We all know the story about the apple is apocryphal. And you know that Newton's persistent devotion to alchemy had nothing to do with his inspiration, either.

While toes are commonly thought to have no purpose they actually serve a few purposes. Our toes provide stability and allow us to balance better, they also allow us to run and walk efficiently as well.

The actual answer to my query is that toes are vestigial. Our ancestors needed them, we do not. Indeed, the rest of your paragraph agrees.

If you were born with out toes you would adapt to not having them however if someone just chopped them all off it would take you a while to learn how to balance, walk and run again.

All ambulatory human beings must learn to walk. And we will do that by adapting to what is actually there, as we must.

And as you say, if there are no toes, then we walk just fine. If we lose our toes, then we walk just fine after relearning.

To quantify "just fine," you may wish to search Elaine Zayak, an elite American figure skater of the early 1980's. She lost part of her left foot at the age of two.

Fortunately, that was just about when she was learning to walk, and so she had the neural plasticity to do it right. She was the 1981 American women's figure skating champion, and in 1982 won the world title.

We don't need toes for balance and stability. We adapt to having them, if we have them, and achieve balance and stability by learning those skills, not because toes magically provide balance and stability.

Ms. Zayak is also an example of something else. She knew there were a lot of people like you, AG. So she kept her injury secret until after she had won her titles.

The alternative would have been to listen to a bunch of blowhards explaining how science says she couldn't possibly get anywhere in figure skating, what with all those balance and stability issues.

[Atheist God]

Newton did not "discover gravity." Galileo had both discovered and quanitified gravity before Newton was born. Newton's contribution to that subject was to apply the same explanation to the motion of astronomical objects as to terrestial ones.

The technical challenge was to work out the inverse square law, which Galileo had not. The conceptual challenge was to see that a single force sufficed, "as above, so below."

By an amazing coincidence, and I know how much you admire coincidence as an explanation, "as above, so below" is a hermetic maxim, which was ancient before it showed up in the Lord's prayer.

Noticing that sort of thing is what European alchemy was about. We all know the story about the apple is apocryphal. And you know that Newton's persistent devotion to alchemy had nothing to do with his inspiration, either.

Whatever I don't claim to be a history expert... I still fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand

Regardless when I type in on google who discovered gravity the only name that pops up is Sir Isaac Newton to which the name 'gravity' can be accredited too.

The actual answer to my query is that toes are vestigial. Our ancestors needed them, we do not. Indeed, the rest of your paragraph agrees.

We do need them they increase efficiency and add balance etc.

All ambulatory human beings must learn to walk. And we will do that by adapting to what is actually there, as we must.

And as you say, if there are no toes, then we walk just fine. If we lose our toes, then we walk just fine after relearning.

While you may be able to walk w/o toes fine your balance and stability will never be where someone who has toes will be at.

To quantify "just fine," you may wish to search Elaine Zayak, an elite American figure skater of the early 1980's. She lost part of her left foot at the age of two.

Fortunately, that was just about when she was learning to walk, and so she had the neural plasticity to do it right. She was the 1981 American women's figure skating champion, and in 1982 won the world title.

Figure skating or any type of skating for that matter is not the same as say walking or running. Skates hug the ankle and the means of balance are in the ankles which are usually hugged tightly by the skates and the other means of stability is the velocity at which you move.

Such a poor example...

Ms. Zayak is also an example of something else. She knew there were a lot of people like you, AG. So she kept her injury secret until after she had won her titles.

Your point being.... I'm not quite getting you here

The alternative would have been to listen to a bunch of blowhards explaining how science says she couldn't possibly get anywhere in figure skating, what with all those balance and stability issues.

So I'm a blow hard now?

You should learn how to read more before going into a rant about Elaine Zayak then blast me with YOUR speculation etc when I can just just look up the facts anyway.

First of all her doctor actually recommended she start skating as a means of physical therapy, second she never hid her injury from 'blow hards' like me she simply never talked about it although it wasn't unknown that she did in fact have a foot injury, third she used a partial wooden mold to add stability to the injured foot.

So not only was she encouraged to skate she did it well... no surprise here.

For those interested here is the wiki page on Elain Zayak

[eight bits]

Championships are not awarded for showing up with a doctor's note.

There was what used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" in the sports press not to publicize Ms. Zayak's condition. She herself authorized ABC News to run a film of her putting on her skates "up close and personal," as their trademark was, when the need for secrecy had passed.

And yes, of course, that did include specially designed socks and filling. In competition, she always wore skates that bore no external sign of accommodation.

Her example is pertinent to the present discussion for several reasons. First, it illustrates the absurdity of your teleological argument that the existence of hands implies the non-existence of other means to manipulate objects. Toes exist, and they are vestigial.

You often write about the importance of science to you. Please check out the status of teleological argumentation in modern biology.

Second, the example illustrates that a time consuming activity undertaken for one purpose, physical therapy, can result in collateral benefits, becoming a champion.

And that is what really divides us, because I see in the "psi-kiddie's" interest in how the world works a "teachable moment," while you see only the opportunity to expound your view of their inferiority compared to you.

Finally, it is perfectly obvious why Ms. Zayak, although not in the least ashamed of her foot, kept it quiet. Part of that reason was to avoid placing skating judges in an impossible position, and part of the reason was not to hear from blowhards about the teleology of toes and how someone like her could not possibly excel in her sport.

As to the word blowhard, I cannot resist saying in the current context that if the shoe fits, wear it. However, I did not call you, nor any specific person, a blowhard in my post.

In closing, I Googled gravity. On the first non-sponsored link that came up (the wikipedia article on the topic) I found

Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th century

Galileo died shortly before Newton was born.

[Atheist God]

Championships are not awarded for showing up with a doctor's note.

There was what used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" in the sports press not to publicize Ms. Zayak's condition. She herself authorized ABC News to run a film of her putting on her skates "up close and personal," as their trademark was, when the need for secrecy had passed.

And yes, of course, that did include specially designed socks and filling. In competition, she always wore skates that bore no external sign of accommodation.

Her example is pertinent to the present discussion for several reasons. First, it illustrates the absurdity of your teleological argument that the existence of hands implies the non-existence of other means to manipulate objects. Toes exist, and they are vestigial.

You often write about the importance of science to you. Please check out the status of teleological argumentation in modern biology.

Second, the example illustrates that a time consuming activity undertaken for one purpose, physical therapy, can result in collateral benefits, becoming a champion.

And that is what really divides us, because I see in the "psi-kiddie's" interest in how the world works a "teachable moment," while you see only the opportunity to expound your view of their inferiority compared to you.

Finally, it is perfectly obvious why Ms. Zayak, although not in the least ashamed of her foot, kept it quiet. Part of that reason was to avoid placing skating judges in an impossible position, and part of the reason was not to hear from blowhards about the teleology of toes and how someone like her could not possibly excel in her sport.

As to the word blowhard, I cannot resist saying in the current context that if the shoe fits, wear it. However, I did not call you, nor any specific person, a blowhard in my post.

In closing, I Googled gravity. On the first non-sponsored link that came up (the wikipedia article on the topic) I found

Galileo died shortly before Newton was born.

Sorry but in order to compete in any professional sport the officials must be aware of any potential health issue and this would include a bum foot. Just because the public was not aware does not mean that officials were not aware... In order to compete in any pro sports competition especially the Olympics competitors are subject to a physical... Since doctors felt she could skate fine it was not an issue.

Again it is still not relevant to TK... with out the aid of a wooden mold she would never have been able to compete.

Where is the tangible evidence to support that such an ability even exists?

How come no one can provide any evidence at all?

I base my views on evidence and since none exists and all I get from people like you are poor references and the run around what are we skeptics supposed to believe.

I read the same article as you did and no where does it say he discovered gravity but merely laid the groundwork for Newtons gravitational theory. Galileo merely discovered acceleration in heavier objects was the same as lighter ones.... Galileo did not discover gravity.

==

Aside from this I never claim to be superior to anyone I am merely stating the obvious that such abilities simply don't exist no matter how much people want them to. Humanity has evolved with all the tools we need to manipulate our environment, communicate and progress without the need of said powers.

You simply buy the hearsay and claims people make and this makes you naive. Show me the empirical data that definitively says these abilities exist outside the imagination or there is no real debate here at all.

There is simply no rational basis for abilities and they do not coincide with already known universal law. The more we discover about the universe and how things work the less likely it appears that such abilities exist.

If I claimed I could shoot lasers from my eyes would you believe it? I will say not likely and such a claim is just as ridiculous as saying i can move things with my mind.

Edited January 24, 2008 by AtheistGod

[eight bits]

Just because the public was not aware does not mean that officials were not aware..

I did not say that the appropriate officials of the amateur figure skating regulatory bodies were unaware of the situation, I said that the skating judges were not placed in an impossible position.

with out the aid of a wooden mold she would never have been able to compete.

If your point is that her skates had to fit her feet, then I am happy to agree.

I base my views on evidence and since none exists and all I get from people like you are poor references and the run around what are we skeptics supposed to believe.

... You simply buy the hearsay and claims people make and this makes you naive.

You have me confused with someone else. I have never made a paranormal claim on this forum. I have not ventured the opinion that telekinesis exists.

I read the same article as you did and no where does it say he discovered gravity but merely laid the groundwork for Newtons gravitational theory. Galileo merely discovered acceleration in heavier objects was the same as lighter ones.... Galileo did not discover gravity.

The issue was what Newton's specific contribution to the theory gravity was. As you apparently learned from the article (I didn't read it, I have already read Galileo, albeit in English translation), Newton was not the first to measure gravity, and not the first to appreciate that, on the surface of the earth, its acceleration is independent of the moving mass involved.

Newton's chief specific contribution to the theory of gravity was to abstract it off the surface of the earth, using for whatever reason, the heuristic "as above, so below." What he abstracted had already been discovered. His abstraction did not involve correcting nor revising Galileo, but rather adding to what Galileo did.

So, Newton did not discover gravity. He built on the earlier work of Galileo. He was happy enough to acknowledge that, what's your problem with it?

there is no real debate here at all

Oh, but there is. You imagine that science is some corpus of established fact, which you refer to as known universal law.

Few scientists speak that way. Few philosophers of science speak that way. And I'd love for you to show me even one historian of science who speaks that way.

Putting aside the inaccuracy of the view, it is facially incomplete. Science is also an approach to inquiry. Fundamental to the approach is trying things out, to see what happens.

Some 14 year-old who has already been told, you may be sure, that there is no such thing as telekinesis decides to try it for himself or herself. That's what science looks like at birth.

Maybe it's not the greatest question, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying it out for oneself. That is the right idea, and that is a spark in the seeking child that ought to be nurtured, rather than whizzed on. That's what you and I are debating, AG.

[Kassiel]

Flame baiting...I like that.

On another note, debating about whether something exists or not is not for this thread.

Non-evidence does not equate to non-existance.

That's the kind of thought that pushes back true science year after year.

Would you have believed ten years ago that creatures were living on lobsters' lips?

It might, I repeat myself, might exist. Until solid proof that it does or doesn't exist comes around, you can't really argue about it without repeating things that have already been said more than a hundred times over.

I'm tired of the argument.

Stop telling someone not to follow their dreams, and go find the proof you so desperately want.

Go show us that there's no possible way it could exist, instead of telling us.

On that note, I'm done with this thread.

Later

-Kassiel

[Atheist God]

Oh, but there is. You imagine that science is some corpus of established fact, which you refer to as known universal law.

Few scientists speak that way. Few philosophers of science speak that way. And I'd love for you to show me even one historian of science who speaks that way.

Well I'm not a science history expert... history isn't really my thing but I am however a scientist although I now work for myself and my work as been more of a hobby... My work as a botanist isn't what's important here, but what is important is that if you went up to any self respecting scientist and claimed TK existed they would tell you the same thing I did. Such a power is useless we have been given 'physical' tools to adapt and manipulate our environment, we have been given tools to communicate and so on etc. They would als ask for you to substantiate your claim with tangible empirical evidence which right now doesn't exist.

Science itself is not fact however it does reveal them by examining the evidence. In regards to TK there is simply no evidence to examine to study the said phenomenon but there is not even any evidence to support such a phenomenon exists.

Some 14 year-old who has already been told, you may be sure, that there is no such thing as telekinesis decides to try it for himself or herself. That's what science looks like at birth.

No that is simply satisfying that persons own curiosity... No real discovery that can be shared with anyone is being made this is simply self gratification.

When I was younger I was certainly open minded to the idea of TK etc. I think most of us tried to do something nutty at one point in our lives, needless to say after about a year I gave up after no results and then decided to see what I could find etc in libraries and so on. The more I looked into the subject even at an early age the more I learned about how BS it really is.

Maybe it's not the greatest question, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying it out for oneself. That is the right idea, and that is a spark in the seeking child that ought to be nurtured, rather than whizzed on. That's what you and I are debating, AG.

I have no sympathy for those claiming they have extraordinary abilities like TK.

As for those trying it out regardless of age as I am sure those people labeled as psi kiddies are not all kids either, I am straight forward and I have no desire to simply lie to people.

To be honest I really don't care about someones hurt little feelings either just because someone doesn't want to hear they are wasting their time... It's like having a g/f that all your friends tell you to break up with cause shes poison and you ignore the advice given even though you know it's true. Then after you split you regret not taking that advice etc.

Perhaps kids these days are 'nurtured' to much when all they really need is an authority figure who will tell it like it is. You could argue with me about how much of an *sshole I am when in actuality older members here manipulate kids into thinking they can do the impossible simply because many kids are naive.

On another note, debating about whether something exists or not is not for this thread.

In order to discuss TK we first have to establish whether it's real or not, this is something that has not yet been done.

Non-evidence does not equate to non-existance.

If something exists there HAS to be evidence even if it cannot be seen.

No evidence = no existence

The fact people have scoured the globe in search of evidence and came up with nothing alone is enough to suggest non-existence while the possibility of such abilities cannot be completely ruled out, the odds are stacked so high against existence I wouldn't put my money on TK existing.

That's the kind of thought that pushes back true science year after year.

Not true

Science is actually moving forward at an ever increasing rate as we advance. We have demonstrated that Quantum computers can work, we have created the first artificial life form, mapped the genome and so on etc. If something is possible and probable then evidence can be obtained in experimentation and other forms of evidence gathering.

Would you have believed ten years ago that creatures were living on lobsters' lips?

Yeah actually I would... can you name a species that doesn't have other life forms living on it's body or lips as in the example above.

It might, I repeat myself, might exist. Until solid proof that it does or doesn't exist comes around, you can't really argue about it without repeating things that have already been said more than a hundred times over

The only way to prove the non-existence of something is the lack of evidence to support it's existence. If no evidence can be collected then it simply cannot exist, thus no evidence = no existence.

I'm tired of the argument.

You should be it's way past your bed time.

Stop telling someone not to follow their dreams, and go find the proof you so desperately want.

I have never once told someone what they can and cannot do, if you think you can accomplish TK then go right ahead. I will only tell you that I think people who do are simply wasting their time trying to accomplish something that no man can accomplish.

As for proof again it rests in the hands of those who claim they have super powers... I as a skeptic can only examine what those who make these claims present to me, which so far has been absolutely nothing.

Go show us that there's no possible way it could exist, instead of telling us.

I'm not saying there is absolutely no chance at all, the chance is just simply so small that my view is that it's pretty much impossible. Technically it is possible to phase through a wall like a ghost if you walk into it enough times just like there is a chance a hundred chimps sitting behind keyboards will eventually write a masterpiece however what are the odds of either of these things happening?

Can you show me proof that my dog can't shoot lasers out of her eyes? or can you show me proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

Of course you can't but if I made these claims I couldn't back them up because neither of these claims are true. The point here is that other then no evidence a person cannot be shown something does not exist.

[eight bits]

Well, we agree on some things, even as we disagree on others.

I wholeheartedly agree that existence questions are on-topic in this thread. In a very short OP, the poster asks

Is it possible to learn Telekinesis?

Obviously, something must exist in order for it to be learned.

Like you, I am troubled that there are (or may be) older members who claim things that are transparent BS, and who actively encourage delusional thinking in vulnerable others of whatever age (PM me, I can help... *shudder*). However, I think that is rarer here than at many other places on the web.

We disagree about what happens when there is no evidence. I hold to a more or less Bayesian view. The absence of evidence licenses whatever a priori opinion is consistent with everything else you know and believe.

In a Bayesian world, agreement between people about what possibilities are realized comes after the accumulation of evidence, if at all. With no evidence, different people believe different things, and that's just the way it is.

There simply is no widely accepted principle to the effect that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." It can be, but ironically, that usually involves an active search that has come up empty.

It is always permissible to be unpersuaded by previous failed searches. The history of the discovery of neutrinos is a good example.

Those are weird little dudes, and there were many failures year after year before success was finally obtained by an almost absurd expenditure of time, effort, and treasure. No wonder the earlier searches failed, even though it is now uncontroversial that neutrinos exist.

When I was younger I was certainly open minded to the idea of TK etc. I think most of us tried to do something nutty at one point in our lives, needless to say after about a year I gave up after no results and then decided to see what I could find etc in libraries and so on. The more I looked into the subject even at an early age the more I learned about how BS it really is.

There you go. Tell them what you found in the library. Direct them there, or to websites. The best sceptical post I have read here so far was

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=114439

which pointed to

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Uncovered%20psi%20wheel.html

That page provides a real example about how to do science at home. Its subject is psi wheels, but there must be similar material for other performance abilities, too.

And anybody who reads that, and who is not already checked out in science, is going to learn about a lot more than psi wheels.

Fourteen is mighty young to write off anybody as lost. But it's plenty old enough to resent being talked down to. Maybe the skeptics' intentions are good, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[inkblot]

What about the fact that only the most flawed of studies confirmed psychic abilities?

Edited January 25, 2008 by inkblot

[eight bits]

Hi, inkblot.

I was actually thinking of replying to the version of your post as it was before you edited it.

The only issue here, as I see it, is whether someone can in good conscience advise a child to look into the science of the subject, given that the child has already expressed an interest.

The other day, when I was researching something else, I noticed that Daryl J. Bem has done a number of recent investigations on the ganzfeld experiments and such. Bem is a very big deal in psychology, who retired from Cornell after stints at Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford.

http://dbem.ws/

If Bem thinks it's worth his time, then perhaps it would not be so awful a waste of a 14 year-old's time. And the 14 year-old is almost surely going to profit more from "collateral benefit" (other skills and knowledge acquired while researching something else) than a retired Ivy League academic superstar.

[Atheist God]

Hi, inkblot.

I was actually thinking of replying to the version of your post as it was before you edited it.

The only issue here, as I see it, is whether someone can in good conscience advise a child to look into the science of the subject, given that the child has already expressed an interest.

The other day, when I was researching something else, I noticed that Daryl J. Bem has done a number of recent investigations on the ganzfeld experiments and such. Bem is a very big deal in psychology, who retired from Cornell after stints at Carnegie-Mellon and Stanford.

http://dbem.ws/

If Bem thinks it's worth his time, then perhaps it would not be so awful a waste of a 14 year-old's time. And the 14 year-old is almost surely going to profit more from "collateral benefit" (other skills and knowledge acquired while researching something else) than a retired Ivy League academic superstar.

See the main problem I have with Bem is that he already believes the consciousness operates independently from the brain which is simply just not true at all. The conscious does indeed reside in the brain and this has been proven via the use of conscious altering substances like LSD for example. If your mind can be altered via the use of a 'physical' chemical reaction in the brain then your mind resides in the physical realm not the metaphysical one.

Fact is his website doesn't really show anything and he simply links to other websites that discuss psi etc.

There are chemicals which i have extracted from various plant species that can permanently alter consciousness direct physical evidence that the mind itself is not separate from the body.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Uncovered%20psi%20wheel.html

That page provides a real example about how to do science at home. Its subject is psi wheels, but there must be similar material for other performance abilities, too.

And anybody who reads that, and who is not already checked out in science, is going to learn about a lot more than psi wheels.

We knew about this website a long time ago here.

Fact is I posted this site last year sometime and me and another member explained how simple thermal dynamics were at work etc. They denied this was the case and continued to attempt and justify that the psi wheel was a legit means of moving an object with the mind.

[eight bits]

My point in linking to the psi wheel webpage was to give an example of a good site for encouraging discussion. I was clear that I had already seen the link posted here, and gave the UM thread where I saw it. It was not my intention to deny your priority in the find, but this was the thread where I read about it.

You disagree with Bem about the locus of consciousness. Fine with me. Bem presents his arguments, you present yours. Science, or is it philosophy?, gets done. However, since Bem is about as "establishment" as any scientist gets, his thoughts on what are appropriate research questions can safely be placed within the mainstream.

The issue here was whether a 14 year-old's time might be spent looking into a certain question without unconscionable waste. I think it is relevant that a professor emeritus from an Ivy League university, well-respected and at the end of a stellar career thinks the inquiry is a good use of his time.

The page I gave is Bem's personal page. It includes links to his papers, not just other websites (although I am unsure what would be wrong with that). The main point is that it summarizes his c.v., so that people can verify where the guy has worked, what his job titles were, what he has published on other psychological matters, etc.

In other words, that Bem is a real scientist, not a jerk.

Edited January 25, 2008 by eight bits

[Atheist God]

My point in linking to the psi wheel webpage was to give an example of a good site for encouraging discussion. I was clear that I had already seen the link posted here, and gave the UM thread where I saw it. It was not my intention to deny your priority in the find, but this was the thread where I read about it.

But it didn't encourage discussion though, the mechanics at work regarding the psi wheel were simply denied even though it's true.

You disagree with Bem about the locus of consciousness. Fine with me. Bem presents his arguments, you present yours. Science, or is it philosophy?, gets done. However, since Bem is about as "establishment" as any scientist gets, his thoughts on what are appropriate research questions can safely be placed within the mainstream.

Psychology is a great science however while it is about understanding the mind itself and the thought process etc. it doesn't study the physical mechanics at work inside the brain. The physical mechanics are done by people like me who develop drugs in cooperation with neurologists and other doctors who specialize in the physical properties of the brain and body.

It's not that I simply disagree where the consciousness resides I know for a fact it resides in the brain and does not operate independently from the body. Sorry but biochemical/electrical reactions in the brain is not enough to move an object thus the reason why we have finger and opposable thumbs etc.

We have been given all the tools we need to succeed and thus making such abilities pointless.

The issue here was whether a 14 year-old's time might be spent looking into a certain question without unconscionable waste. I think it is relevant that a professor emeritus from an Ivy League university, well-respected and at the end of a stellar career thinks the inquiry is a good use of his time.

If he has a lot of time on his hands why not study parapsychology (not a real science).

Fact is being a professor at an expensive ivy league school doesn't automatically make you an expert. He is an expert in psychology no doubt about it but just because he is and he now chooses to end his career studying psychic phenomenon doesn't mean he will find anything.

He still hasn't presented tangible evidence to the mainstream scientific community and until he does my opinion remains the same.

The page I gave is Bem's personal page. It includes links to his papers, not just other websites (although I am unsure what would be wrong with that). The main point is that it summarizes his c.v., so that people can verify where the guy has worked, what his job titles were, what he has published on other psychological matters, etc.

I don't care about where he has worked and what his job titles were... if i wanted to know i could have googled it myself, his page mostly consists of his work in psychology outside of psychic phenomenon, the guy has a real job and so parapsychology takes a back seat.

In other words, that Bem is a real scientist, not a jerk.

You don't know if he's a jerk or not, you don't know the guy personally.

Since TK for example could be something measured, and studied physically very much in the same manner that meditation can be a psychology degree simply doesn't cut it. Just because one guy with credentials wants to study something that may not exist and likely does not exist still doesn't make it any more viable of an idea then it already is.

[eight bits]

Say what?

From the site you say you gave, and which I gave again:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Uncovered%20psi%20wheel.html

Today I wanted to come up with a test that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the psi wheel moved because of heat, and heat alone...

... What I wanted was a test that you could all do at home with normal day-to-day stuff...

... So, never give up, keep looking for a solution and you will find one. The idea came to me as I was making a cup of tea. I figured that if I placed some mugs around the pw and filled them with boiling water the pw will spin, and spin fast because of the large temperature difference between the mugs and the ambient air temperature. Easy to do for all of you and no precise measurements needed, just boil a kettle! But would it work?

[Picture of six tea mugs surrounding a psi wheel]

As the photo shows, I placed three mugs each side and left a small gap front and back, just as I do with my hands. I poured boiling water into the mugs. Even before I had finished filling the mugs the psi wheel was spinning.

IT SPUN SO FAST IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO TIME IT!

You can make out the green eraser within the circle of mugs, you can't see the psi wheel because it was spinning so fast it is just a blur on the photo.

No need to take more word for it, just boil a kettle.

I appreciate that some of you may still claim that it is "my subconscious" spinning the psi wheel, but we have to try and be reasonable here. I think that we can all agree that it IS the heat making it spin.

NO TK INVOLVED AT ALL.

And your reaction is

the mechanics at work regarding the psi wheel were simply denied even though it's true.

He agrees with you. Fully, without hedge, and in capital letters.

You don't care, or can't keep straight, whether someone agrees with you or not, you trash them anyway.

We can discuss the rest some other time.