Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
blieve

Telekinesis

274 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Skeptic Eric Raven

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kariudo115

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 :lol:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeJay352
Most people on this site are probably at least 15 or so. I, on the other hand, am 10.

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. ;)

Edited by DeJay352

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kariudo115

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyclonus J

Can tk be proven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeJay352

Yes, if somebody prooves it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bosanchero

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeJay352

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

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:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtual Particle

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. :yes:

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blieve

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
angrycrustacean

You seem to be misinterpreting me. :hmm:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3rd rock resident alien

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

Astral awareness, Mind Body and Spirit = power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blieve

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who?

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 :lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who?

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. :D

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blieve

Anyone else have anymore tips?

Edited by blieve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ness of Psionix

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. :D

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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.