Telepathy/Psychokinesis.

[The Joker]

So does anyone believe in telepathy or psychokinesis? I mean I feel as if we haven't unlocked the true potential of our brain not like the 90 % of brain myth just that there is more to our brains than meets the eye would anyone care to share any ideas as to how psychokinesis could be attained or if they even believe in it or not any input is very much appreciated thanks?

[Beware The Demopan]

I may be undecided when it comes to the paranormal, but I still sorta believe in ESP (and ghosts, and maybe cryptozoology.). I personally think it's the result of some weird rare gene or something.

[The Joker]

I kind of wish people would give this more thought instead of just classifying it as a pseudoscience, and no more worthy of investigation than claims of bigfoot.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

I have a friend (who actually identifies as a "Christian Spiritualist" and has a healthy belief in the paranormal because of it) who claims to have genuine, honest to God ESP. He can get "impressions" of what other people are thinking, and normally I'd laugh and go "yeah, sure you do" - but you know what, I think he might be right. He knows things, things he really shouldn't know, and he's ended up being the master gossip master just because he knows so many things that he shouldn't plausibly be able to know. Whether he's right or not, he makes a very good case that this is an ability he has, and he's implied an ability to perform spiritual healing as well. I don't know what to make of it, but as a whole...it MIGHT exist. Might.

[5_♦♣]

Yes. Strange things have happened in my life that can't be explained rationally/scientifically.

[The Joker]

Nina Kulagina was studied by soviet scientists for reported psychokinesis.

[lightpoint]

So does anyone believe in telepathy or psychokinesis? I mean I feel as if we haven't unlocked the true potential of our brain not like the 90 % of brain myth just that there is more to our brains than meets the eye would anyone care to share any ideas as to how psychokinesis could be attained or if they even believe in it or not any input is very much appreciated thanks?

I think that it's possible. I know a few people who are just plain amazing at 'reading' other people, for instance. I also know a few who have claimed to have seen ghosts, of the apparition and the 'things moving' variety, and been dead serious. But I also think that it mostly manifests as 'heightened awareness' as opposed to X-Men-calibre psychic powers...Or else the latter is vanishingly rare. To get a bit hippy-like *we're all connected*, and it wouldn't surprise me if it evolves into something more.

[Tabula Rasa]

Yes, I believe these things are possible. To the degree that you believe in them, you experience them.

[SorryNotSorry]

I believe it's not total BS, but I also believe there must be some nuts-and-bolts way to detect, measure, and use it via machines, and we're somehow missing the mark.

[apop]

I know a few people who are just plain amazing at 'reading' other people, for instance.

I am reminded of Poe's character Auguste Dupin (scroll down a page or so to the first conversation if you're not inclined to read the whole thing).

[runester]

"Alcatraz": Over the years, I have successfully studied 'shamanism'. Also, "The Northern Tradition", which encompasses "The Runes" and their dynamics. They assist with divination practices, and show you how worthwhile your 'aura' is, once you have 'Accurate Knowledge'. Your inquiry into the existence of telepathy or ESP, and psychokinesis, is met with a positive response from me.

I know of 'synchronicity' and 'deja vu', along with other teachings by Dr. Carl Jung, and the mythologist Joseph Campbell, who led a televised college lecture course entitled, "The Transformations of Myth Through Time."

Other than '(Psycho)Telekinesis', there is 'Psychometry', 'Clairvoyance' (or sixth sense), 'Clairsentience', 'Clairaudience' and 'Wiccan Magick' and ritual. 'Psychic Cognition' includes 'Second Sight', 'Human Intuition', 'The Third Eye', and Automatic Writing'. "Out Of Body Experiences" also include 'Faring Forth' which is visiting the realms of 'The Inner World', or 'Astral Travel/Projection' and 'Shape-Shifting'. Learning the use of 'Alchemy', 'Oracles', 'Symbols', 'Tarot Cards', 'Native-American Totem Cards', 'Ouija Boards', and 'Radiesthesia' are also taught in many schools concentrating on divination.

If you are able to begin with 'The Runes', following a good background education in theology and yogic philosophy, you will be rewarded with a fine knowledge of the type learning you seem to be seeking.

I wish you the best of true luck in your endeavors.

[JAKQ7111]

I guess I fall in the camp of "I am not ruling it out, but I am skeptical" when it comes to the supernatural/paranormal in general.

[Beer Monster]

Yes, I believe that many of such unexplainable phenomena occur at higher dimensions than the ones that we can visualise. I have a couple of mates who have performed telepathy/clairvoyance on me, and whilst I cannot prove this in scientific terms, I'm adamant that they aren't a load of codswallop.

[Amusement]

If it can't be explained scientifically, then it's probably not an actual new phenomenon but a statistical fluctuation. If the statistical deviation persists, then it probably is a new phenomenon and it has to be explained scientifically. Claiming something cannot be explained scientifically/rationally is pure nonsense. Everything can be explained scientifically, insofar as one is willing to extend upon and/or break with the established theories. The only requirement is that the new theory is self-consistent and falsifiable. And then one of course has to be open-minded about the fact that the simpler theory is always the better theory, if someone decides to challenge one's theory.

I have experienced situations in which communication seemingly took place between myself and another person, without the use of verbal, symbolic, or other traditional means of communication. But it has only happened with people who are very close to me, such as a family member or good friend, and is most likely attributable to the fact that we both subconsciously had good knowledge of each other's thought patterns.

[EricK]

Anybody who believes in psychokinesis please raise my hand.

I kind of wish people would give this more thought instead of just classifying it as a pseudoscience, and no more worthy of investigation than claims of bigfoot.

This is a strange thing to say. The existence of a large ape like creature is plausible in the sense that we have enormous amounts of evidence that such apes have existed in the past. Whereas the existence of telepathy and psychokinesis is inherently implausible. For one thing ,if it had ever evolved in humanity (or our ancestors), it would have provided such a huge help that it it would be pervasive in the species. For another, there is no suggested mechanism by which it would work which is compatible with what we do know about the how the world works. The existence of these things would not merely be a curiosity, but would overturn vast swathes of what we understand about the world - stuff which actually does allow us to make predictions and built technological devices etc.

[apop]

The existence of these things would not merely be a curiosity, but would overturn vast swathes of what we understand about the world - stuff which actually does allow us to make predictions and built technological devices etc.

Science doesn't need to fear new information. If our understanding of the world needs to change, then we will change it. Certainly, we don't expect to see things that are at odds with current scientific theories, but we shouldn't discount them just for that reason.

But your point was that cryptozoological claims are generally more plausible than paranormal ones, which sounds reasonable. We discover weird new creatures all the time, after all. People get really irrational about both subjects, though.

The fact is, all sorts of psychic phenomena have been repeatedly debunked. When they have been apparently confirmed, it has later been shown to be a hoax.

[EricK]

The existence of these things would not merely be a curiosity, but would overturn vast swathes of what we understand about the world - stuff which actually does allow us to make predictions and built technological devices etc.

Science doesn't need to fear new information. If our understanding of the world needs to change, then we will change it. Certainly, we don't expect to see things that are at odds with current scientific theories, but we shouldn't discount them just for that reason.

Einstein's theory of gravity overturned Newton's. It explained some effects that couldn't be explained under Newton's theory, and expanded the realms of scenarios in which we could predict what would happen. But for the less extreme scenarios Einstein's theory gives the same results as Newton's. We wouldn't expect a new theory of gravity to show that Newton's theory was completely wrong in those sorts of scenarios eg when predicting how fast an object falls to Earth. But these paranormal claims would overturn science in that way. eg if telekineses were true then objects would not fall to Earth at the predicted rate - the rate would depend on how many and which people were trying to alter its freefall by otherwise undetectable mental means. Which would raise other questions like how come this has never been noticed when measurements of falling bodies have been made?

[bristrek]

There's an award out for anybody able to prove that these things empirically under proper test conditions that stand up to scientific standards of rigour.

Nobody has won it yet.

So no.

[truthseeker30]

Telepathy, possibly. But remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, as Derren Brown says.

Telekinesis, no - it just seems too contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them at the moment (unless this really is the Matrix and some of them can be broken!)

[mozzette]

There's an award out for anybody able to prove that these things empirically under proper test conditions that stand up to scientific standards of rigour.

Nobody has won it yet.

So no.

I second that.

[daveb]

I'm definitely on the skeptic side of these things, and agree with mozette, bristrek, apop, EricK, and Amusement.

[apop]

But these paranormal claims would overturn science in that way. eg if telekineses were true then objects would not fall to Earth at the predicted rate - the rate would depend on how many and which people were trying to alter its freefall by otherwise undetectable mental means. Which would raise other questions like how come this has never been noticed when measurements of falling bodies have been made?

Have you ever tried to measure the speed of falling objects? There are already plenty of confounding factors, starting with air resistance and the nonuniformity of the Earth's gravitational field. Good experimental design has to mitigate the effect of such things. So what if there's one more unknown that has to be controlled? Certainly, if telekinesis were common we should have noticed it by now, but maybe there are only five people in the world who can actually do it, and we just haven't found them yet.

[EricK]

But these paranormal claims would overturn science in that way. eg if telekineses were true then objects would not fall to Earth at the predicted rate - the rate would depend on how many and which people were trying to alter its freefall by otherwise undetectable mental means. Which would raise other questions like how come this has never been noticed when measurements of falling bodies have been made?

Have you ever tried to measure the speed of falling objects? There are already plenty of confounding factors, starting with air resistance and the nonuniformity of the Earth's gravitational field. Good experimental design has to mitigate the effect of such things. So what if there's one more unknown that has to be controlled? Certainly, if telekinesis were common we should have noticed it by now, but maybe there are only five people in the world who can actually do it, and we just haven't found them yet.

I know you are only playing Devil's Advocate, but all the same, I am not trying to prove these things don't exist, I am merely pointing out why they are so very implausible.

Some people believe things simply because they would like them to be true. The actual evidence for or against them is irrelevant (although they generally don't abandon their desire for evidence altogether; but grasp onto any vague second-hand report from the other side of the world to bolster their belief). What generally happens is they start out by stating their belief, then as you point out various inconvenient facts (about lack of evidence; about what we might expect to see if these things were true etc) they start raising various caveats "Maybe only a few people have the power", "Maybe it doesn't work in the presence of sceptics", "Maybe there is a giant conspiracy of scientists across the world involved in supressing the evidence" etc. It becomes obvious that their belief is paramount and the evidence must be moulded until it fits, rather than the other way around.

[apop]

I know you are only playing Devil's Advocate, but all the same, I am not trying to prove these things don't exist, I am merely pointing out why they are so very implausible.

And I'm just trying to point out that the existence of such things wouldn't overturn science. Science is much more resilient than that. Some people also think cryptozoology could disprove evolution, but that's just crazy talk.

Some people believe things simply because they would like them to be true.

This is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

[EricK]

I know you are only playing Devil's Advocate, but all the same, I am not trying to prove these things don't exist, I am merely pointing out why they are so very implausible.

And I'm just trying to point out that the existence of such things wouldn't overturn science. Science is much more resilient than that. Some people also think cryptozoology could disprove evolution, but that's just crazy talk.

It wouldn't "overturn science" because that doesn't really mean anything. My point is that it would render absolutely false large parts of what is currently accepted as fact. And I don't think this is really appreciated by people who believe these things. i.e. they think science is just a collection of facts and this would just be another fact to add to it. Whereas actually it is a complex interlinked whole which doesn't just seek to describe what happens but to explain it.

Some people believe things simply because they would like them to be true.

This is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

But it does mean you have literally no reason to think they're right.

Another piece of evidence against telekinesis, of course, is that if telekinesis were a real phenomenon it would have been spotted at the roulette tables and crap tables in Las Vegas and Monte Carlo etc. Considering the extravagant lengths people will go to to get the slightest edge against the casinos, such a real, undetectable, method of influencing the odds would have turned up by now, one would think. Despite what many people say, absence of evidence is, often, evidence of absence.

[apop]

It wouldn't "overturn science" because that doesn't really mean anything.

Your phrasing, not mine.

My point is that it would render absolutely false large parts of what is currently accepted as fact.

I don't see that. Anyway, quantum mechanics knocked everything flat on its ass, and we managed to cope.

Another piece of evidence against telekinesis, of course, is that if telekinesis were a real phenomenon it would have been spotted at the roulette tables and crap tables in Las Vegas and Monte Carlo etc.

Yes, I was thinking about that. It's a pretty good argument against the idea that many people have some latent telekinetic ability that they can't consciously control, but might exhibit itself in small ways. But (since I'm still wearing my pointy horns) maybe actualizing one's psychic potential takes years of dedication and training, and those who manage to do it aren't interested in material gain. (A Jedi craves not these things / What a Jedi craves is more depraved / Than Jabba’s hut on Tatooine.)

There is always more than meets the eye. Isaac Newton was a thorough- going alchemist and Einetein was convinced that spiritualism deserved more investigation, so I am willing to keep an open mind---but not so open that anything might fall right in. :lol: -----

Keeping an open mind is good, but I would caution you against relying on experts when they are talking outside their field of expertise. Also, alchemy wasn't entirely unscientific (but it was based on faulty principles and so doomed to failure), and Newton lived at a time when modern chemistry was just beginning to get established.

[CDSM]

I believe that all this stuff might exist, but until there is better information available to me, I say it's "not worth thinking about".

Because I have friends whom I trust completely who have related to me experiences with this sort of thing, so I can't just call them liars, but at the same time, it's not like I can visit a dude, train with him on a mountaintop for years, come back down and all of a sudden be Psycho Mantis and tell everyone what video games they've been playing lately.

Kind of like if we were in the stone age. And some guy thought electricity was possible. I'd admit he might be right, but, I wouldn't bother with it, and if he wants to experiment with it, I say let him get electrocuted in a lab accident, and I'll start using electricity when it is safe.

Or something to that effect.

[EricK]

It wouldn't "overturn science" because that doesn't really mean anything.

Your phrasing, not mine.

Yes, I first used the phrase with a particular meaning in mind. You then used the phrase and it became clear that you had a slightly different meaning in mind. So I clarified what I meant by the phrase, and was pointing out that the meaning you thought I meant didn't really make sense.

My point is that it would render absolutely false large parts of what is currently accepted as fact.

I don't see that. Anyway, quantum mechanics knocked everything flat on its ass, and we managed to cope.

But it didn't really. Classical mechanics arose via the study of large scale objects. Scientists cam up with equations that very accurately described the behaviour of "normal" sized matter. The equations didn't actually work when applied to atomic scales. Nobody could work out exactly what an atom was like or how it stayed together as their equations predicted an atom was unstable. So they knew that a. their equations very accurately described largish objects, but were wrong, for some unknown reason, when applied to atoms. Quantum theory accurately describes the behaviour of atoms etc. But in the limit, as you bring more atoms together, the equations become the same as those of classical mechanics. i.e. Quantum mechanics enhanced classical mechanics, and gave a deeper understanding of why the equations of classical mechanics are what they are, but it didn't completely overturn it. If the large-scale limit of a particular quantum theory did not give the same results as classical mechanics, we would have known it was wrong. i.e even if it accurately describes atoms, it still can't nullify the results of all the previous experiments which were in agreement with the equations of classical mechanics.

Another piece of evidence against telekinesis, of course, is that if telekinesis were a real phenomenon it would have been spotted at the roulette tables and crap tables in Las Vegas and Monte Carlo etc.

Yes, I was thinking about that. It's a pretty good argument against the idea that many people have some latent telekinetic ability that they can't consciously control, but might exhibit itself in small ways. But (since I'm still wearing my pointy horns) maybe actualizing one's psychic potential takes years of dedication and training, and those who manage to do it aren't interested in material gain. (A Jedi craves not these things / What a Jedi craves is more depraved / Than Jabba’s hut on Tatooine.)

Indeed. But this is just another example of adding arbitrary conditions and provisos to a theory to avoid facing the facts that there is just no reliable evidence for it. Believers often start by pointing out the swathes of "evidence" (by which they vague, unattested anecdotes), and end up claiming that it is incredibly rare and the effects are too subtle to reliably notice.

[apop]

Quantum theory accurately describes the behaviour of atoms etc. But in the limit, as you bring more atoms together, the equations become the same as those of classical mechanics. i.e. Quantum mechanics enhanced classical mechanics, and gave a deeper understanding of why the equations of classical mechanics are what they are, but it didn't completely overturn it.

Under quantum mechanics, everything is probabilistic. The behavior of large-scale systems isn't strictly determined, it's only vastly more probable than anything else. I think that's a pretty big paradigm shift. Of course, statistical mechanics was already well understood, but surprise, now it applies to everything. (I failed stat mech twice. Whee! The first time I hated the professor, and the second time I dropped out of school. I did pass the third time.) Also, there are cases where quantum mechanical effects are visible on a macroscopic scale, for example superfluids.

Classical mechanics arose via the study of large scale objects. Scientists cam up with equations that very accurately described the behaviour of "normal" sized matter. The equations didn't actually work when applied to atomic scales.

This is what I'm getting at. Suppose we find someone who can legitimately exercise telekinetic abilities. Obviously, our equations don't even begin to explain the things this person can do, but they still work the rest of the time. It seems like basically the same situation to me.

But this is just another example of adding arbitrary conditions and provisos to a theory to avoid facing the facts that there is just no reliable evidence for it.

I'm not trying to advance any theory, I'm just saying that such theories can't be written off without looking at the evidence. Which, you are absolutely correct in saying, is still completely unreliable.

Kind of like if we were in the stone age. And some guy thought electricity was possible. I'd admit he might be right, but, I wouldn't bother with it, and if he wants to experiment with it, I say let him get electrocuted in a lab accident, and I'll start using electricity when it is safe.

A perfectly reasonable attitude. And yet, if it weren't for some nutcase (allegedly) flying his kite in a thunderstorm, would we ever have reached that point? (If not Ben Franklin, then some other nutcase would have eventually reproduced his work. There are plenty of nutcases around.) "All progress is made by unreasonable men." -- George Bernard Shaw

[nocturnalcommie]

I believe this will be achieved once we become cyborgs. Until then, I highly doubt it.