Psychokinetic experiments with viewer participation in Livestreams: Would you watch and participate?

[Tobias Claren]

Hello.

Imagine a person livestreaming, asking all viewers to participate in experiments on micropsychokinesis.
You probably know the "PEAR" program at Princeton University from 1979 to 2007.
Discontinued on the grounds that there is now enough successful data as evidence for micropsychokinesis.

The problem:
As it seems to me, they only tested the influence of individuals on a true random number generator, dice, etc. there.
Why not many persons at the same time, in order to potentiate their almost unmeasurable (gladly denied, because very weak) influence by multiplication?

Micropsychokinesis has been proved several times.
E.g. in the chick experiments of Dr. Dr. René Peoc'h.
A chick in a cage desires the proximity of its mother, and this has influence on a True-Random-Number-Generator which controls a robot, which the chick regards as mother.
Or take the well attested case of the killer James Koedatich.
A small group of mediums, by force of their will, caused the killer James Koedatich to injure himself with his own knife. He called 911, and was arrested.

Possible experiments:

* Influence on true random number generator.
Unfortunately I can't find such software for True-RNG hardware.
The alternative would be to use Randonautica.
This app uses exactly this scientific principle.
Possibly this well-known name would also provide more coverage.
More viewers are more potential participants, and that's what matters.

* Influence on fine scale.
All viewers should collectively focus on raising or lowering the weight on a digital fine scale.
The scale would be accurate to a thousandth of a gram.

* Influence on digital thermometer.
All spectators are asked to concentrate together on raising or lowering the temperature of a probe on a sensitive thermometer (protected from the wind in a Styrofoam block).

* Influence on the running time of a Newtonian shot-put pendulum.
Two shot-put pendulums are started absolutely simultaneously by two electromagnets.
All spectators are asked to concentrate together on the fact that one of the two pendulums runs longer or stands still faster.
The second pendulum is for direct comparison.

* Influence on animal behavior.

All spectators are instructed to concentrate together on influencing the behavior of an animal in such a way that it can be clearly seen that the animal's behavior is based on the spectators' influence.
This can be a domestic animal like a dog, cat or bird, but also a beetle
Or a tardigrade or slipper animal etc. under a USB microscope.

* Influence on humans.
Now comes the gray hat.
All viewers are urged to concentrate together on the fact that the behavior of a speaker of the simultaneous evening news is influenced.
You can constantly make such spectacular successful attempts, all viewers can manage to make a ping pong ball float live in the stream, you will not be believed.
Scientists and media ignore it or accuse you of fraud.
Only if you disturb, you can force attention.
Then the media, science and possibly justice are forced to investigate it.
You repeat this "remote influencing" several times on different TV stations with different speakers.
Then also nobody can claim that the speaker supported a fraud.
If you have the speaker say the name of the channel on the streaming site or a short URL several times, the viewers of the TV station can immediately see who is responsible.
Of course, you can also have him bark and curse.

If you have clearly visible phenomena, you can also visit a well-attended public place, and stream live from there.
A floating ball of light would be very convincing.
Or if you have enough viewers, and this would be possible, levitating the host of the stream.
I have no idea how many people can have how much kinetic impact.
Possibly this is absolutely exaggerated.
But you don't know until you do experiments.
Imagine a person floating at a height of 1, 2, 3 meters.
Possibly surrounded by a glow.
Perhaps in Front of the New York Cathedral of St. John the Divine or the Cologne Cathedral.
These would be spectacular sensational and religious locations with many passersby for worldwide attention.
But of course also the Time Square or Piccadilly Circus.

I would love to see paranormal influencers (like Huff etc) do this.
Because it just depends on the number of viewers.
I see a moral responsibility there with existing creators.
These people sometimes have over 1.5 million subscribers.
They could provide a breakthrough in parapsychology, and create pressure on science and media.
Or someone with charisma, uses it as an idea for a new channel.

What is your opinion, would you watch and participate in such streams?

This should also serve as a call to inclined readers to try it themselves.
I am not the "public person", others can probably do that with better effect.

For me, it's all about the cause.
If necessary, I have to do it myself, but if someone else can get more subscribers and viewers, that's better for the cause.
Also, English is not my native language, and for livestreams it might be difficult in English....
I'm spinning now, with the topic you can theoretically get the Nobel Prize for physics or medicine.

If you manage to have that much influence with the help of many viewers, you can also influence a person's cells.
If hundreds of thousands or millions of viewers concentrate at the same time on the healing of a paraplegic or incurable cancer patient, etc., this could actually lead to healing.

With enough spectacular videos (including the creepy influencing of newscasters) this method will then spread, and be forcibly researched and accepted.
Whoever pulls this off could actually receive a nobel prize.
NOTHING speaks against it.
It would be the greatest scientific discovery in human history.
Even if one discovers nothing new, but only for the breakthrough of the acceptance provides.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Tobias Claren

[Timothy]

No one has been able to demonstrate any of this while under sceptical scrutiny.

I don’t think that a crowd sourced live stream would help in any way, other than to suck in those susceptible to it already.

Plenty of people come and go who have claimed the extraordinary, but fail when challenged.

Reality speaks against it.

So: What would you consider the best single piece of evidence or example to support telekinesis or ‘micropsychokinesis’ being a real phenomana?

[Alchopwn]

 

[Alchopwn]

4 hours ago, Timothy said:

No one has been able to demonstrate any of this while under sceptical* (sic skeptical) scrutiny.

I don’t think that a crowd sourced live stream would help in any way, other than to suck in those susceptible to it already.

Plenty of people come and go who have claimed the extraordinary, but fail when challenged.

Reality speaks against it.

So: What would you consider the best single piece of evidence or example to support telekinesis or ‘micropsychokinesis’ being a real phenomana* (sic phenomena)?

On the contrary, every time we think, and, say, visualize something, we have performed an act of psychokinesis.  The act of consciously choosing to think of something specific (for example, an elephant drinking a bottle of beer) has moved the atoms in our brain and changed the relative position of all the atoms in the universe thereby.  We have  used our minds to cause a fundamental change in the universe by an act of will.  AFAIK that fits my definitional parameters of psychokinesis.  Having proven the possibility, we now simply have to increase the scale of the effect.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Alchopwn

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

On the contrary, every time we think, and, say, visualize something, we have performed an act of psychokinesis.  The act of consciously choosing to think of something specific (for example, an elephant drinking a bottle of beer) has moved the atoms in our brain and changed the relative position of all the atoms in the universe thereby.  We have  used our minds to cause a fundamental change in the universe by an act of will.  AFAIK that fits my definitional parameters of psychokinesis.  Having proven the possibility, we now simply have to increase the scale of the effect.

But you’re not choosing to move those atoms. It’s just human physiology at work.

Yes, everything you do changes things relative to everything around you.

But for a human to be to control something with their mind is a stretch. 
It would only be possible with some kind of amplification. Live streams or remote collaboration wouldn’t facilitate this.

[papageorge1]

I'd participate.

And I believe psychokinesis has already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

[Antigonos]

12 hours ago, Timothy said:

No one has been able to demonstrate any of this while under sceptical scrutiny.

I don’t think that a crowd sourced live stream would help in any way, other than to suck in those susceptible to it already.

Plenty of people come and go who have claimed the extraordinary, but fail when challenged.

Reality speaks against it.

So: What would you consider the best single piece of evidence or example to support telekinesis or ‘micropsychokinesis’ being a real phenomana?

Exactly. Scientific experiments under strict controls conducted by both the SPR and ASPR, as well as independent researchers like Harry Price have not only never produced any genuine results of psychic phenomena, but have also exposed countless frauds, especially during the heyday of early 20th century “psychics”. 
 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Antigonos

[Alchopwn]

17 hours ago, Timothy said:

But you’re not choosing to move those atoms. It’s just human physiology at work.

Yes, everything you do changes things relative to everything around you.

But for a human to be to control something with their mind is a stretch. 
It would only be possible with some kind of amplification. Live streams or remote collaboration wouldn’t facilitate this.

Actually I AM choosing to move those atoms.  Its just how human physiology works.

[Tom1200]

On 4/4/2023 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Claren said:

Or take the well attested case of the killer James Koedatich.

A small group of mediums, by force of their will, caused the killer James Koedatich to injure himself with his own knife. He called 911, and was arrested.

?

Did anybody apart from me read this gem?  Does ANYBODY believe it?  

It's not even the usual cherry-picked after-the-event claim: this is made-up absurdity beyond measure.

21 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

On the contrary, every time we think, and, say, visualize something, we have performed an act of psychokinesis.  ...  We have  used our minds to cause a fundamental change in the universe by an act of will.

Surely the defining feature of psychokinesis is 'remote action at a distance, no physical interaction, etc.'?  When we think something and it's still in our brain = no psychokinesis.  When we then do something about that thought, e.g. open the bottle of beer, = no psychokinesis.  I don't see where your logic is heading?

20 hours ago, Timothy said:

But for a human to be to control something with their mind is a stretch. 
It would only be possible with some kind of amplification. Live streams or remote collaboration wouldn’t facilitate this.

So a machine that reads your brainwaves, then connects to a computer and/or robot that performs actions for you?  Hey presto! psychokinesis!

Isn't that more or less the same as ordering a slave to carry out your will?

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

And I believe psychokinesis has already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

It always helps to know Papa's views!  Invariably walking the opposite direction leads you towards the truth.  But good luck in your comprehensive, controlled, peer-assessed, scientific research!  Here's a simple experiment to start you off: with the power of your mind, force me to turn off my phone and do something useful inste

[Alchopwn]

9 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Surely the defining feature of psychokinesis is 'remote action at a distance, no physical interaction, etc.'?  When we think something and it's still in our brain = no psychokinesis.  When we then do something about that thought, e.g. open the bottle of beer, = no psychokinesis.  I don't see where your logic is heading?

Then you have missed the point. The idea that psychokinesis must be remote action is incorrect.  The word is "psycho" (of the mind) and "kinesis", meaning movement.   The fact is, scientifically speaking, we don't know what consciousness is, and yet it can move our bodies according to our desires.  As consciousness is the mind we actually experience, and we have precious little idea about how it operates, for it to be able to move our bodies somehow is something that troubles neuroscientists immensely. 

In terms of remote action, I should point out that the idea that there will be no physical interaction during psychokinesis would be incorrect.  Science would applaud if a known force like electromagnetism could be detected when an object moved at a distance, but would still be none the wiser as to the process of psychokinesis as it ultimately involves consciousness moving the object at a distance, and we don't understand consciousness, so what is doing the moving?  As to the idea that there is no such thing as psychokinesis, I strongly suspect that much of what is called poltergeist activity (which is invariably connected to sexual repression in a sensitive young person in the area) is actually psychokinetic, but blamed on an external force, despite the fact that the phenomenon follows the families around. 

I have personally experienced psychokinetic events of this class four times in my life now, and it fascinates me.  And yes, my first explanation was some sort of stage magic, involving some combination of jets of air or magician's thread, but there was no evidence of any of that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

As consciousness is the mind we actually experience, and we have precious little idea about how it operates, for it to be able to move our bodies somehow is something that troubles neuroscientists immensely. 

It does, why does it 'trouble' them?  Bacteria and other creatures that we don't think have consciousness move just fine and that fact doesn't seem to be troubling anyone.  Did the evolution of our consciousness 'break' something along the way so that how we move is a mystery? 

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Then you have missed the point. The idea that psychokinesis must be remote action is incorrect.  The word is "psycho" (of the mind) and "kinesis", meaning movement.

Then you should have evidence from neuroscientists who use the word 'psychokinesis' to just mean people moving their own bodies, I haven't seen that.

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Science would applaud if a known force like electromagnetism could be detected when an object moved at a distance, but would still be none the wiser as to the process of psychokinesis as it ultimately involves consciousness moving the object at a distance, and we don't understand consciousness, so what is doing the moving?

There's a difference between not understanding something and not fully understanding something, and we do understand things about consciousness.  Why doesn't this neuroscientist seem troubled by how we move?:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/07/18/how-does-the-brain-control-movement/?sh=62592def9ad8

It's very complicated, but for supposedly 'not understanding consciousness' it sure seems like we know a lot about how we move. 

Regardless our issue here is of course one step back as far as science is concerned, show first that there's a phenomenon that needs explaining such as something moving with no known cause or purportedly by telekinesis.  Science has trouble studying things that don't exist.

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

poltergeist activity (which is invariably connected to sexual repression in a sensitive young person in the area)

?  Who investigated all poltergeist activity and invariably found sexually repressed young people in the area?  Even if such an investigation was done, wouldn't one explanation be that sexually repressed young people are always in the area at all times?  By that measure I'll bet most car accidents, tornadoes, everything, can be connected to them too, since this subset of people are abundant.

[Alchopwn]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It does, why does it 'trouble' them?  Bacteria and other creatures that we don't think have consciousness move just fine and that fact doesn't seem to be troubling anyone.  Did the evolution of our consciousness 'break' something along the way so that how we move is a mystery? 

Much of the time micro-organisms are moving based on very simple mechanical principles.  We are very complicated organisms by comparison.  And yes, consciousness does change something.  Consciousness is a disconnect from instinct.  Most movement is based on instinct in animals.  It should be regarded as a surprise that our conscious minds aren't merely passengers in an instinctually operated body.  Of course sometimes we are...

6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Then you should have evidence from neuroscientists who use the word 'psychokinesis' to just mean people moving their own bodies, I haven't seen that.

So... Science can't explain how a conscious mind it can't understand can move a body, but that isn't enough for you?  What about phantom limb syndrome or body identity integrity disorder?  The fact is, we have no idea how the mind moves the body, so why not call it psychokinesis?

14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There's a difference between not understanding something and not fully understanding something, and we do understand things about consciousness.  Why doesn't this neuroscientist seem troubled by how we move?:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/07/18/how-does-the-brain-control-movement/?sh=62592def9ad8

It's very complicated, but for supposedly 'not understanding consciousness' it sure seems like we know a lot about how we move. 

The fact is, this article only describes the rudest findings on the issue.  If you then took what we know and tried to get a limb to move in a coordinated fashion using what we know, it wouldn't work, because it has been tried, and it failed.  There is  still so much to learn.  I mean we first stimulated a frog's leg using galvanic response in the 18th century and we haven't advanced that much since then.  Some people have tried to use TENS machines to stimulate movement in otherwise unresponsive limbs such as in paraplegics, but the results have not been encouraging.

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Who investigated all poltergeist activity and invariably found sexually repressed young people in the area?  Even if such an investigation was done, wouldn't one explanation be that sexually repressed young people are always in the area at all times?  By that measure I'll bet most car accidents, tornadoes, everything, can be connected to them too, since this subset of people are abundant.

Parapsychologists have been doing such research for decades now, specifically related to poltergeist phenomena.  They have found that the phenomena normally centers on a repressed young person, but always centers on a repressed person with intense feelings of sexual guilt.  The phenomenon of the poltergeist does seem to be limited to the home of the youngster, and seldom ever being known to interfere with the weather, or indeed with cars, tho you would be right in wondering why.  There is no good reason for polts not to interfere with cars, and yet they don't seem to do so.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 

 But good luck in your comprehensive, controlled, peer-assessed, scientific research!  

Luck's got nothing to do with it as I'm in pursuit of the most reasonable assessment of the evidence not trying to force an outcome.

8 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 Here's a simple experiment to start you off: with the power of your mind, force me to turn off my phone and do something useful inste

I don't personally claim any demonstrative psychokinetic abilities but fair-minded pondering on the subject is useful to our understanding of reality.

[Tom1200]

23 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

So... Science can't explain how a conscious mind it can't understand can move a body, but that isn't enough for you?  What about phantom limb syndrome or body identity integrity disorder?  The fact is, we have no idea how the mind moves the body, so why not call it psychokinesis?

But what you're describing here - how brain neurons interact and coordinate to make muscles contract - is nothing to do with the 'psychic' abilities outlined in the OP and claimed by liars, conmen and fraudsters.  (Okay, I'm biased.  Might as well declare that up front to remove any possible ambiguity.)

Our brains can control our bodies because brain connects to muscles via nerves.  It's a complex process, as shown by watching babies fail to walk or juggle chainsaws.  But the brain learns, and improves the speed and quality of its instructions which, in time, become automatic.

Our brains CANNOT control things it's not connected to.  Which is why thoughts & brain power alone will never make an object levitate, or 'influence' lottery balls or a person's behaviour or alter reality in any way.  These things don't happen, no matter who tries to convince you otherwise. 

On 4/4/2023 at 4:53 AM, Tobias Claren said:

If you manage to have that much influence with the help of many viewers, you can also influence a person's cells.
If hundreds of thousands or millions of viewers concentrate at the same time on the healing of a paraplegic or incurable cancer patient, etc., this could actually lead to healing.

How about a thousand million?  Would that be a large enough sample to convince you it don't work that way?  Because there's a billion Christians who all believe Christian stuff, and every so often pray fervently for stuff that never happens.  Like a sick Pope to get better, or peace on Earth: that sort of stuff.  If psychokinesis works - you'd think we'd have noticed something by now?

39 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm in pursuit of the most reasonable assessment of the evidence not trying to force an outcome.

I'm getting deja vu here, but I feel compelled to ask again very meekly: what evidence?

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Consciousness is a disconnect from instinct.

But there's no evidence that consciousness disconnects us from determinism.  I don't think we have a thorough explanation of how 'instinct' works either, or at least not to the level you require for humans for some reason.

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The fact is, this article only describes the rudest findings on the issue. 

Maybe you have some expertise on neurology but I'm skeptical, so I doubt that you're really in a position to evaluate how 'rude' these findings are.  Where did this neuroscientist indicate that these are only the rudest findings on how we move?  There is a lot of step-by-step detail there and is exactly the kind of answer that usually qualifies for the question 'how does something work?'.  If your objection is that it doesn't explain how the initial impetus to move is translated from our consciousness (or maybe its 'to' not 'from' our consciousness) then it seems that same question would apply to instinct also.

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If you then took what we know and tried to get a limb to move in a coordinated fashion using what we know, it wouldn't work, because it has been tried, and it failed.  There is  still so much to learn.

Of course there is much to learn, but there is a difference between knowing how something works and developing technology or medicine to take advantage of it.  Just because we understand how something works it doesn't mean that we should then expect that we can alter it.

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Some people have tried to use TENS machines to stimulate movement in otherwise unresponsive limbs such as in paraplegics, but the results have not been encouraging.

This seems encouraging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60258620

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

 

I'm getting deja vu here, but I feel compelled to ask again very meekly: what evidence?

The OP mention PEAR and I will mention that as just one piece of evidence.

Excerpt:

Experimental Research

I. Human-Machine Anomalies

The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examined anomalies arising in human/machine interactions.

In these studies human operators attempted to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produced strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

Over the laboratory's 28-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, were performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects were usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compounded to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations. These results are summarized in "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention" and "The PEAR Proposition."

Edited April 5, 2023 by papageorge1

[Alchopwn]

15 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

But what you're describing here - how brain neurons interact and coordinate to make muscles contract - is nothing to do with the 'psychic' abilities outlined in the OP and claimed by liars, conmen and fraudsters.  (Okay, I'm biased.  Might as well declare that up front to remove any possible ambiguity.)

I disagree with it not being 'psychic'.  If science can't explain it, and it means mind over matter, then what is it?  

[Tobias Claren]

Unfortunately, I didn't think to reply at the time.
I wanted to wait for further replies to these answers.
But now I want to reply and comment in great detail to each commenter.
It's already a lot, so I'll split my answers up.

 

@Timothy

"What would you consider the best single piece of evidence or example to support telekinesis or ‘micropsychokinesis’ being a real phenomana?"

OK.
Psychokinesis has been proven for over 28 years in the PEAR program at Princeton.
Currently Professor Markus Maier at the well known elite university LMU Munich (Röntgen, Einstein and 6 other Nobel Prize winners in physics, and Nobel Prizes in other fields such as chemistry etc.) is repeating these experiments and says in every interview that they have proven beyond doubt the influence of humans on a real random generator.
“Real” means that it is a hardware with a quantum random source.
This is used because the influence on electrons requires the lowest possible influencing force.
At that time, for example, the physicist Dr. Helmut Schmidt used such a random generator with strontium 90 and a Geiger-Müller counter tube as well as two mechanical counters.
Schmidt also investigated the influence of thoughts on aircraft electronics for Boeing because the possibility of psychokinesis being involved in unexplained airplane accidents could not be ruled out.
Schmidt also proved that the human will has an influence.

If you didn't know all that, OK.
But if you deny the PEAR experiments etc., that would be irrational denial of science.

It is striking when the first answer denies facts from scientific research.

No better than esoterics who believe every kind of humbug.
No better than people who deny the existence of corona and viruses in general.
The facts are there.
28 years of the PEAR program.
And the experiments of Dr. Dr. Dr. René Peoc'h.
Watch with automatic translator for English subtitles:
“René Peoch Der Geist wirkt auf die Materie CC german” on YuTube
This is 8,5min from “arte”, the French/German culture channel.
And this one:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Observation-in-an-REG-experiment-adapted-from-a-figure-from-Peoch-1995-exemplifying_fig8_46386964

Also the experiments with Uri Geller at Stanford, at Kings College in London and at the Max Planck Institute in Garching.
You can't simply accuse these elite universities of cheating, or being cheated by Geller.
No, cheating by Geller is absolutely impossible due to the highly controlled conditions.
At Stanford he only performed his “tricks” with remote viewing in an envelope or balls in small metal cylinders and spoon bending, but all with material from Stanford.
He never had access to it.

At Kings College, strain gauges were glued to metal strips.
These were hung up in a room.
Geller was led into the next room with a glass window, from where he was supposed to concentrate on bending the strips.
Which he demonstrably could.

At the Max Planck Institute in Garching, they took a piece of metal, made an X-ray crystallographic image, sealed it in glass, gave it to Uri Geller, and after his influence made a second image.
Geller had no way of cheating, but the crystal structure of the metal was damaged.
This is only possible through pressure or bending.
But that is out of the question.
He also had no way of applying a chemical substance.

Even if you give a think tank $100 million and 10 years, it's impossible to cheat in these experiments.

The CIA certainly still uses the remote viewing researched in Project Stargate today.
As recently as 2001, the CIA asked Uri Geller to help in the search for those behind 9/11.

You want to suppress scientific facts just because you fear that esoterics would then see their belief in nonsense reinforced?
You don't want psychokinesis to be recognized by the science community, but especially by society, because esotericists could feel strengthened in their belief in “quantum healing”, for example?
That is immoral and unscientific.
The esotericists believe in “quantum healing” BECAUSE of such scientific evidence.
Of course it is nonsense that a single psychokinetically untalented person can heal paraplegia, cancer etc. with e.g. 3x 50min per week.
That is fraud. But not because psychokinesis is nonsense, but because the strength is not enough.

It's just that the research has NOT “failed”.
These are not DIY “scientists” with dice, these are highly qualified scientists at elite universities.

So the FACT is, psychokinesis is PROVEN in individuals.
Even today in the 2020s in current experiments.
If we now increase the number of participants, the influence must also increase.

My guess?
You reject such trials because you know they would succeed.
Scientific experiments are carried out because you have doubts as to whether something is real.
And in this case, there are already older successful experiments at a lower level (individuals and couples).
The logical next step would be to test this with many volunteers.
Both on a real random number generator, as well as real studies on “quantum healing”.
It is striking that scientific studies on obvious humbug such as astrology and homeopathy have been initiated by skeptics (in the sectarian sense, not just skeptical people).
Because they knew that it could only be disproved.
As a non-spiritual atheist, I think that's a good thing.
But why don't they do the same with “quantum healing”?
If this is supposedly humbug, it would then be refuted in a study.
These “dogmatic skeptics” seem to know that they then risk proving it.
And if they only take individuals, because that's what the Esos do, it would be dubious. Because as I said, one person has no influence without a gift.
If you want to disprove or prove it, you have to have many people concentrate on one goal over a longer period of time.
E.g., you could get 500, 1,000, 1,500.... Indians at minimum wage (~$62/month) could concentrate on healing a person for 8 hours every day.
India would not only be cheap, it also has a culture of meditation.

Genuine meditation is considered conducive to paranormal phenomena such as telepathy, remote viewing or psychokinesis.
For 1000 people, that would be $62,000 for a month (not including rooms).
Paraplegic targets would be ideal.
+ They are considered absolutely incurable.
+ Therefore there is no parallel conventional therapy
+ They are not terminally ill and do not suffer.
+ The number of cells to be repaired is very small (two nerve endings that connect).

If there is an improvement or even a cure, and this can be repeated 1 or 2 times, this is absolute proof.
Even if there are only slight improvements during this period.
For example, slight haptic stimuli occur.
E.g. sensitivity to stitches or slight tingling.
More people or more time may be necessary for healing.
This needs to be researched.
In the beginning, they could have all these people influence a real random generator as a test.

I remember an Indian psychologist who, in a documentary, quite aggressively rejected reincarnation and his people's belief in it.
It came across clearly between the lines that he was not really rejecting reincarnation on scientific grounds.
He said that the belief in reincarnation hinders the progress of the population in terms of education etc..
Because people believe that if they are poor and humble in this life, they will be rewarded in the next life.
He seems to ignore that the problem is not reincarnation, but the belief in “karma”.
Reincarnation can be seen as proven by over 50 years of research by the University of Virginia with over 4000 Elsevier papers of case studies.
I'm sure you realize that hard lab experiments are not possible in soft science psychology. So don't demand them in your argument.

My advice to this psychologist?
You have no chance of convincing your “enemies” with your aggressive, ignorant rejection of facts. On the contrary.
If he were seriously concerned with the research, he could approach the believers and explain to them, for example, on the basis of the facts from the research, that rebirth is a voluntary, self-determined thing and that you can choose your next mother yourself.
Quite a few children told that they observed their parents beforehand and then decided in their favor.
Look up the case of James Leininger on Google, YouTube etc.
Here is the paper:
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/04/REI42-Tucker-James-LeiningerPIIS1550830716000331.pdf
 

Carl Sagan:
“The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization:
Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to heck with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.”

For the radical materialists, Carl Sagan is a kind of saint whom they like to cite as one of their own.
James Randi even praised him in a short video.
But he had criticized exactly these people like in cults like CSI or the GWUP!

 

 

One more thing, this topic was only about the opinion on a possible YouTube channel with live streams.
So far I have only read one reason why that would be "bad".
And that was not a legitimate argument.
Because it can only "play into the hands" of esotericists if it works.
And if it works, it is morally reprehensible to refrain from doing so or to suppress it.

Edited November 13 by Tobias Claren

[Ajay0]

6 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

I remember an Indian psychologist who, in a documentary, quite aggressively rejected reincarnation and his people's belief in it.
It came across clearly between the lines that he was not really rejecting reincarnation on scientific grounds.
He said that the belief in reincarnation hinders the progress of the population in terms of education etc..
Because people believe that if they are poor and humble in this life, they will be rewarded in the next life.
He seems to ignore that the problem is not reincarnation, but the belief in “karma”.
Reincarnation can be seen as proven by over 50 years of research by the University of Virginia with over 4000 Elsevier papers of case studies.

The issue is not karma but the wrong interpretation of karma.

Karma means cause and effect. Obviously laziness begets poverty while diligence and dynamism begets prosperity.

As per the ancient sage Tiruvalluvar in his epic book Thirukkural, the poverty or  prosperity of people depends on their habitual work ethics, and these tendencies are passed to future lives as well extending states of poverty or prosperity again.

Being 'poor and humble' in this life does not logically create the causal factors for prosperity in the next life, but developing intelligence and good work ethics obviously create the causal factors for prosperity in this and the next life.

[Alchopwn]

Just pointing out that psychokinesis is different to being a kinetic psycho.

[XenoFish]

11 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

The esotericists believe in “quantum healing” BECAUSE of such scientific evidence.

Which is just a placebo effect. Tack any name you want to it and it functions on the belief that it'll 'heal'. It's psychological not psychokinetic.

There has been plenty of research into the placebo effect and it's twin the nocebo effect. 

Wanna know how a curse works? It isn't magick. Just the mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death

[Rlyeh]

14 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

At the Max Planck Institute in Garching, they took a piece of metal, made an X-ray crystallographic image, sealed it in glass, gave it to Uri Geller, and after his influence made a second image.

A famous charlatan and illusionist, who couldn't bend spoons James Randi supplied.  

 

14 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

The esotericists believe in “quantum healing” BECAUSE of such scientific evidence.

Not doubt the same idiots who sell tachyonic energy crystals.

[+joc]

16 hours ago, Tobias Claren said:

Psychokinesis has been proven for over 28 years in the PEAR program at Princeton.

No, it has not!  There are 8 billion humans on Earth.  If you lined them all up...not one of  them could levitate even a small flake of dandruff with their mind.  

What is it about PROOF that you people don't understand?  It's called proof for a reason.  You only cloud the waters of an already very murky subject by regurgitating the lie that psychokinesis has been proven.  

[Ajay0]

13 hours ago, joc said:

No, it has not!  There are 8 billion humans on Earth.  If you lined them all up...not one of  them could levitate even a small flake of dandruff with their mind.  

What is it about PROOF that you people don't understand?  It's called proof for a reason.  You only cloud the waters of an already very murky subject by regurgitating the lie that psychokinesis has been proven.  

Psychokinesis in the east is real and there are case studies of enlightened sages demonstrating such psychic abilities.

Of course, you cannot invite them to a lab and tell them to demonstrate their abilities, as they are more interested in raising of consciousness rather than giving a base for scientific research and applications which can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

[openozy]

On 11/14/2024 at 8:48 AM, Tobias Claren said:

Psychokinesis has been proven for over 28 years in the PEAR program at Princeton

I don't believe that, I've seen psychokinesis in action and there is no way you could get that state of mind in a controlled environment.