Jump to content

Telekinesis, telepathy and their impact on science [Absolutely NONE]


Eldad Eshel
 Share

Recommended Posts

It has been mentioned here how TK is not very functional for man at it's current stage. Well of course, it is just at the beginning of it's potential. Just the even possibilty of it is alot, and I believe it can be carried onward to great extent. For science even moving a single atom, non seen to the eye, with TK is alot, since it is a whole new world to explore, and has the potential to advance science. I believe TK and telepathy can both with practise and "correct living" be enhanced to science fiction terms, maybe in the future there will be "super humans" sort of like Super Man or the X-Men, and who knows maybe it will be a common thing for all, sort of like the handheld internet phones of today. You also need to take in mind the difficulty of TK. To me just moving paper takes alot of effort, and I haven't been able yet to move anything else. In evolution terms, that has been also mentioned here, I think it is something too difficult for nature to focus on. I think it is mainly for man himself to manage and not nature. I believe It is all possible already, it just takes practise and time. Then again with saying this maybe evolution has already given us the necessary tools, and we just need to use them. Anyway I will say again that super natural powers are at their beginning for man, and to me the future looks bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been mentioned here how TK is not very functional for man at it's current stage. Well of course, it is just at the beginning of it's potential.

 

You haven't established that it exists, yet. In fact, your own experiments are more consistent with their not being any such effect.

 

You have gone from apparently rational to full-on crackpot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed - those vids kinda prove that it does not exist.... the man demonstrating his attempt at it comes across as very naïve if he genuinely thinks it was him that moved the foil.

 

So - as Strange said - it doesn't exist, so to say they are just starting is daft - how are they starting? Where is the proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been mentioned here how TK is not very functional for man at it's current stage. Well of course, it is just at the beginning of it's potential.

 

How long are these "stages"? People have been claiming what you're claiming since the 19th century. When does "the beginning of its potential" end, and the evidence of its existence start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I conduct my own experiments and find the evidence to be concrete. If I hadn't I wouldn't have posted on a science forum. Call me a crackpot if you want, I am mature enough and of enough life experience to handle it. You are also providing me with more life experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I conduct my own experiments and find the evidence to be concrete. If I hadn't I wouldn't have posted on a science forum.

 

And yet you choose to ignore the advice offered, ignore the massive holes in your experiment and hypothesis, and continue to believe in your own abilities despite the evidence against them.

 

How does that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I conduct my own experiments and find the evidence to be concrete.

 

This should be a warning flag for you. No scientist calls any evidence "concrete" unless it's actually made of concrete. It's never about "proof", it's about the preponderance of evidence. No evidence you collect without being thorough and rigorous about your methods will be accepted. And even if you do all the things we've suggested, NOBODY will mention anything about the evidence being "concrete".

 

Seriously, the only reason the crackpot label has come out is because you're exhibiting all the classic signs. Only a crackpot is 100% convinced he's right. A scientist always knows there's a chance of being wrong, and works to minimize that chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE EE "...find the evidence to be concrete"

 

Really? Concrete? I must have missed that - can you post that evidence here please so we can see for our selves.... this is a long thread and nothing I've seen here has convinced me - maybe I missed it. Please up date me.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been mentioned here how TK is not very functional for man at it's current stage.

 

Meanwhile, unicorns are not widespread and yeti are "shy"

I conduct my own experiments and find the evidence to be concrete.

 

People have pointed out flaws in your experiments and you still find the evidence concrete. You aren't credible.

 

The topic is whether some of these things that go bump in the night are real. It is my contention that they apparently are in some manner but there's no room in many people's knowledge or belief sets to even entertain the possibilities.

 

Then the burden of proof is upon you to provide scientific evidence of these things. Blamethrowing (they won't entertain the possibilities) is not a valid excuse or substitute. IOW, I am not obliged to entertain the possibilities in a vacuum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I conduct my own experiments and find the evidence to be concrete. If I hadn't I wouldn't have posted on a science forum. Call me a crackpot if you want, I am mature enough and of enough life experience to handle it. You are also providing me with more life experience.

 

The main issue I see is your experiments are not controlled. It remains plausible that other mechanisms generate the observations you have recorded - given that these mechanisms (e.g. air movement in a room, heat from your hands, disruption from breathing, etc) are simpler in explanation than you being telekinetic, the application of Occam's Razor compels one to conclude that your experiments thus far do not support a conclusion that you are telekinetic.

 

In order to conduct a controlled experiment, you need to do three things:

1) Isolate the device from other forces. The glass bowl as previously suggested would suffice for a home experiment.

2) Conduct a negative control - i.e. do exactly the same things you do when you get the pinwheel to spin, but do not try to spin it using your abilities. Conduct this for the same duration as the experiment, and record the number of times it moves when you are not trying to spin it, vs when you are.

3) Replicate the experiment. You need to conduct both the experiment and the control a number of times, in order to generate a number of data points that allow one to statistically verify that the pinwheel spins only when you are using your ability.

 

If you are unwilling/unable to do the above, I'm afraid your observations are, scientifically speaking, invalid. Best of luck with your endeavors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then the burden of proof is upon you to provide scientific evidence of these things. Blamethrowing (they won't entertain the possibilities) is not a valid excuse or substitute. IOW, I am not obliged to entertain the possibilities in a vacuum

 

I'm not throwing blame and it's not "they" it's "we".

 

We see what we expect. We can't see what we don't know.

 

We see a vacuum of evidence because we see what we know. Until an experiment shows it we don't see it.

 

One person knows there's a God and another knows there isn't. Yet everyone agrees that you can add one apple and one apple and will always get two apples.

 

There is an invisible fundamental structural error in perception and meanwhile those who know telekinesis is real and those who know it isn't are talking right past one another.

 

No, of course you aren't required to consider anything in a vacuum of evidence but the reality is that if your perception were different this vacuum would evaporate. So long as we view "reality" from the perspective of what we know we'll see what we know preferentially to the reality. I'm sure that as a scientist some things require a higher level of evidence to be worthy of investigation than other. Things that don't fit theory or fly in the face of theory are necessarily going to take a back seat to things that can be investigated with current knowledge.

 

I had to chuckle when Strange suggested;

 

And if he isn't doing science, why do you consider him to be a source of scientific information?

 

 

A great deal of the "science" now days has absolutely nothing at all to do with science yet everyone eats it up like they were starving. Every day that goes by it gets a little worse and no one notices and fewer care. All you have to do is attach "ologist" to a title and suddenly everything anyone says is holy gospel. Butlet someone point out that there areflaws in our perspective or understanding and he's a scientific heretic and will be "excommunicated". How appropriate that such a word is actually in usage already. I'd have had to make that one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bowl is interfering - then put the psiwheel the other side of a curtain where you cannot see it. Put your smartphone video recording on viewing the psiwheel. Spend 10 mins (or how ever long your recording time is) taping whilst flipping a coin every 30 secs or so, everytime you toss a coin and get a head then start to try to move it & say out loud "moving now", and get a tail say "no movement", leave a good 10 seconds or so between each cointoss.

 

This will not convince anyone else as you could have pt the soundtrack in later - but I am willing to bet that given say 20 attempts to move and 20 attempts to stay still you will not achieve any notable success; that will at least mean you can spend your time on something more productive. You need to prove to yourself that this is/is not in your imagination - because at the moment you have taken it for granted that it is not in your imagination. ie Find a way that your desire for it to be true cannot overrule your rational sense of investigation - unfortunately I am pretty damn certain you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see a vacuum of evidence because we see what we know. Until an experiment shows it we don't see it.

 

That is pretty incoherent. Either we can't see it (whatever "it" is) or we can.

 

 

There is an invisible fundamental structural error in perception and meanwhile those who know telekinesis is real and those who know it isn't are talking right past one another.

 

Why aren't those who know it is real able to demonstrate it to anyone? After all you just said that we can see it when an experiment shows it.

 

 

A great deal of the "science" now days has absolutely nothing at all to do with science yet everyone eats it up like they were starving. Every day that goes by it gets a little worse and no one notices and fewer care.

 

It is easy to make idiotic claims like that. But when asked to support such claims you, and your ilk, back away. So I have to assume it isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not throwing blame and it's not "they" it's "we".

 

We see what we expect. We can't see what we don't know.

 

We see a vacuum of evidence because we see what we know. Until an experiment shows it we don't see it.

If you're relying on experiment, what do you think is going to happen? Of course you don't see it until you have an observation/experiment that shows it. That's almost a tautology!

 

"We see what we expect" is wrong anyway. We have hundreds of years of discovery that shows this to be false.

 

"Until an experiment shows it we don't see it" is wrong because science also predicts from theory.

 

 

There is an invisible fundamental structural error in perception and meanwhile those who know telekinesis is real and those who know it isn't are talking right past one another.

 

No, of course you aren't required to consider anything in a vacuum of evidence but the reality is that if your perception were different this vacuum would evaporate. So long as we view "reality" from the perspective of what we know we'll see what we know preferentially to the reality. I'm sure that as a scientist some things require a higher level of evidence to be worthy of investigation than other. Things that don't fit theory or fly in the face of theory are necessarily going to take a back seat to things that can be investigated with current knowledge.

 

Since the premise of "the perspective of what we know" is false, this is irrelevant. Step 1 would be proper evidence that the phenomenon in question is real. Only then do you need to worry about the mechanism and formulate a theory. You could go the other way around, and have a mechanism tell you what kind of experiment to do. Either way works. But proponents of these effects do neither.

 

A great deal of the "science" now days has absolutely nothing at all to do with science yet everyone eats it up like they were starving. Every day that goes by it gets a little worse and no one notices and fewer care. All you have to do is attach "ologist" to a title and suddenly everything anyone says is holy gospel. Butlet someone point out that there areflaws in our perspective or understanding and he's a scientific heretic and will be "excommunicated". How appropriate that such a word is actually in usage already. I'd have had to make that one up.

 

Hogwash. That's typical crackpot blather, often presented by those who have little clue to how science is actually done. It displays the confidence that ignorance brings to some folks.

If the bowl is interfering - then put the psiwheel the other side of a curtain where you cannot see it. Put your smartphone video recording on viewing the psiwheel. Spend 10 mins (or how ever long your recording time is) taping whilst flipping a coin every 30 secs or so, everytime you toss a coin and get a head then start to try to move it & say out loud "moving now", and get a tail say "no movement", leave a good 10 seconds or so between each cointoss.

 

This will not convince anyone else as you could have pt the soundtrack in later - but I am willing to bet that given say 20 attempts to move and 20 attempts to stay still you will not achieve any notable success; that will at least mean you can spend your time on something more productive. You need to prove to yourself that this is/is not in your imagination - because at the moment you have taken it for granted that it is not in your imagination. ie Find a way that your desire for it to be true cannot overrule your rational sense of investigation - unfortunately I am pretty damn certain you will be disappointed.

 

This points out that excuse "it only works some of the time" isn't acceptable. That's just a form of selection bias. You have to do statistically better than what chance would in order to count this as working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Gee :

Hi Gee, when I talk of the metaphysical world, I refer mainly to the realm of the soul and of powers not yet known to science. I wouldn't say it is "just" consciousness, that would seem to be more the realm of the brain. God for example is part of the metaphysical world, and other entities. You talked about emotion, and you even say you study it, that is very interesting. I think emotion is shared between the brain and the soul, making it rather a complex thing to deal with. As I mentioned before our soul is part of the metaphysical world, so emotion I think is part physical and part metaphysical. The brain could be the physical connection to the metaphysical world, that's why I think studying the brain could help alot in this whole department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brain could be the physical connection to the metaphysical world, that's why I think studying the brain could help alot in this whole department.

 

The brain is where all this imaginative thinking comes from. It's also what allows you to fool yourself into thinking you've discovered an ability nobody else can show they possess. Reason tells us if it were true, we'd see more of it. We don't, but you want this to be true so badly (who wouldn't?), you invent excuses for it (doesn't happen all the time, something blocking you, still trying to get the hang of it).

 

Cognitive bias is something science has to fight every day. When we don't have all the right data to form meaningful information about something, and we don't follow a good methodology for gathering that information, guesswork can fill the void. Unfortunately, it seems to be one of our flaws that when we guess at something, we convince ourselves we're right, usually with a "gut feeling" that you've somehow managed to hit the nail exactly on the head, 100% concrete. When you have the right information, it's easy to see where you went wrong, but cognitive bias messes us up there too. It often causes us to reject the very information we need to make a more objective judgement, because we're so convinced we're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Reason tells us if it were true, we'd see more of it.

If you look on youtube you will see alot on telekinesis (not saying this is evidence, I myself doubt most of what's going on there). And second as I have already mentioned, you need to understand that it is difficult. I am a 34 year old "spiritualist" with alot of life experience, and all I can do is get a paper wheel to spin sometimes, which is probably the easiest form of telekinesis. I will also say again and not repeating the "concrete evidence" that you so disliked, that I am an honest individual that can be trusted against fraud, I am a "wannabe scientist" if you will. I want science to advance and maybe get to see some serious space travel in my time. If I couldn't be able to spin the wheel, I would honestly not REALLY believe in telekinesis, I would "want" it to exist and from the piles of videos on youtube maybe even think it is possible, but I still would be at bay as to REALLY believing. My own experience with the wheel makes me really believe, and as a wannabe scientist I want to explore this and maybe help advance science, and also of course I want to improve my "powers" to a more reliable and "exciting" form.

Edited by Eldad Eshel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gee, when I talk of the metaphysical world, I refer mainly to the realm of the soul and of powers not yet known to science. ... God for example is part of the metaphysical world, and other entities.

 

There is no evidence for these entities. So this is a matter of faith, not science.

 

that's why I think studying the brain could help alot in this whole department.

 

You might be surprised to learn that people do study the brain. Scientifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same with Homepaths EE - they all seem like very nice people and say they are experienced... this rings alarms. If they are experienced with it then they know for a fact it doesn't work, so all that pedal it are either con men or just plain too stupid to see it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.