It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psi-Wheel Dubunked. You are not supernatural.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Where is this reasoning you refer to coming from? I accept both Telekinesis and 'Street Magic' to be true. I don't believe one is false. I've already stated, the two subjects are separate.


I’m not saying you don’t believe street magic exists I’m saying you don’t believe it is a genuine paranormal phenomenon. But there is no reason for this except that people are claiming that their telekinesis is real.


But keep on telling me how sure you all are that this is all just 'magic' and has not even a shred of validity in real life, or how there is no scientific data or research at all regarding Psychokinesis.


Where have I said any of that? Either you’re misunderstanding me or you’re trying to put words into my mouth.

I said that telekinesis and magic tricks are only different in that you accept one to be true and one to be false (see above); this is in regard to your evaluation of them not in their validity as real paranormal phenomena. I accept that experiments have been done but none that I know of are conclusive enough to come to a solid position.

I don’t see the relevance in the quoted passages; it doesn’t have a bearing on what I’m saying above. Their have also been studies in remote viewing which is also done as an admitted trick as well as being claimed as a genuine ability but if a magician said on stage that he was really psychic you probably wouldn’t believe him but you do when it is someone on youtube.


I do have a logical reason to believe these videos because I already have a belief that telekinesis is real.


That’s not logical, the David Ike supporters have that pre-existing belief in shape shifting reptilians but that doesn’t make it logical for them to believe a compression artefact is evidence of an evil alien race of geckos (I’m not talking psychological here btw).

What constitutes enough proof for you is of no relevance in this, the subject is a objective not subjective. If you have no way of knowing all the facts then you simply have no way of knowing all the facts and therefore cannot know a video is not fake, there is no room for interpretation in that. By ignoring, for example, that you don’t know that it is a real dice in that bottle all you are doing is kidding yourself.


And you can't be certain that it is not a demonstration of telekinesis.


Agreed, and I am not. I wouldn’t make that kind of judgement.

You can try to drive the argument into an area of philosophy; what is the nature of certainty, but if a rock appears to all senses and sensors to be a rock then it is a rock. There may always be an element of doubt given the extremes of possibility but I doubt that will stop you from accepting your medication as real next time you fall ill.

And my argument isn’t to do with semantics, I’m not disputing anything other than your ability to know whether a youtube video is an actual demonstration of telekinesis.


I'm saying they're real, provided my opinion for said claim, then asked you provide a rebuttal to my conclusion.


And I have pointed out the holes in your reasoning, you called me lazy and ignored them.

For example I asked how you can be sure the magnet wasn’t too weak to have an affect on the dice to which you said that the tacks were probably 5x as large as the amount of resin in the die. I then pointed out that you have no way of knowing that it is a real die. You didn’t answer. The same thing with the possibility of the video being edited, your answer was the maker says it wasn’t!?

Yours is not critical thinking, it is blind acceptance.

Take the video posted earlier of someone spinning a wheel under a glass bowl, based on what you have said you would accept this is proof of telekinetic ability yet the person who made the video explained that it was a trick. It met all you standards of proof yet it isn’t and never was to anyone except those willing to take things purely at face value.


You see, using the same intuitive judgment I watch this video and cannot accept this as real evidence.


But some people do which the OP’s video rebuts.



Btw, I think I’ll keep replying thanks but you’re free to stop if you don’t want to continue.




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I was going by your quote so took his “you” to be a general “you”. But either way it’s obvious he wants someone to believe him, whether it’s the OP or established believers. To be honest his post reads more like “hey look at me and my advanced mental powers!”

But that’s beside the point; your question was why someone should be obligated to explain the reasoning behind their expressed opinion.

As I said before I think it is common decency, or perhaps a better word would be etiquette. Without people feeling an obligation to articulate their reasoning if asked then a discussion degenerates into two or more stubborn pillars with one side saying it is and the other saying it isn’t.

To go back to what I originally said, if someone makes a thread saying “what is the more likely cause of movement in a psi wheel, convection or telekinesis?” and someone simply posts “telekinesis” but refuses to say why then that is not a discussion. Similarly if it was a discussion about the nature of spirituality you saying “I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God” is of no more worth than me saying “it’s shellfish, all of it!!”; it’s the reasoning behind it that gives it value. You may not be able to prove your point of view but you must have a reason for thinking that way.

People are entitled to their opinions of course but if they don’t back it up with something it is, in itself, worthless.


Mike, I'm sorry I missed your response yesterday. I don't know how I caught Lasheic's reply to my post but not yours. I wasn't ignoring you, promise.

On the other hand, I do think I'm about ready to bow out of this thread, because I think my course veers off into off-topicness right around this point.

My point is that there are other reasons to talk about the phenomenon experienced as telekinesis than determining whether or not it's real. That's why I don't think that someone who posts claiming the ability to turn a psi wheel with his mind has any obligation necessarily to prove that.

If they start a thread saying "I can turn the psi wheel -- proof telekinesis is real" then yes, there is an obligation to bring whatever evidence they have to the table (including their own subjective experience, which I consider to be valid evidence that just requires a little more skillful evaluation than a bunch of numbers).

If I start a thread saying "I think there's a meaningful patterning force underlying the universe, what do you think?" I don't have to prove or even provide real "evidence" for that force. I'm asking for other people's reactions to the thought, not to have the thought reality-checked. If people come along and say "why do you think there's purpose?" all I can say is "subjective feelings and judgments". I'll listen if you try to explain objective forces that could cause those subjective feelings, and if you try to explain subjective psychological mechanisms that could cause them.

To go back to the original premise of this thread, which is related believe it or not
:

You can debunk any individual act of "telekinesis". You can provide alternative mechanisms, either hoax/sleight-of-hand or physics. But that doesn't debunk telekinesis altogether.

There are areas of study where it's essential to stick with the scientifically verifiable. I would be horrified, for example, to learn that an engineer was planning on relying on the communal "hope force" of all passengers crossing a bridge to keep it from collapsing. Even if I believe in such things and thought it was possible that a bridge could be kept up through force of thought.

On the other hand, there are areas of study where ruling out experience and subjectivity as valid means of exploration seems like shooting oneself in the foot; including paranormal studies.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Don’t worry, this is more than a little off topic.

Proof and evidence don’t really come into what I was saying; in a debate about the truth of something then they do as without them there is no debate. However in general I’m referring to reasoning, that doesn’t mean having to produce a scientific paper proving everything you say as and when you say it; rather if someone questions why you hold an opinion you should be able to detail the train of thought that led you to your own personal conclusion.

In your example you agree that if someone asked you why you think there’s a purpose you can and would answer them.

[quick]You can debunk any individual act of "telekinesis". You can provide alternative mechanisms, either hoax/sleight-of-hand or physics. But that doesn't debunk telekinesis altogether.

Absolutley, I wouldn’t suggest otherwise but it does give a reason to question anything that claims to be telekinesis (as I’ve been trying to explain to Tgautier13).


On the other hand, there are areas of study where ruling out experience and subjectivity as valid means of exploration seems like shooting oneself in the foot; including paranormal studies.


I would rule it out in all areas but in something like telekinesis it’s not a valid position to say that a video looks genuine to me therefore it is.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Great OP... Serious discussions going on here...S&F

My beliefs are that these videos we are seeing are intended to make one think that there is something indeed happening and that the viewer believe in this ability. If they were not caring about whether you believe or not then they really wouldn't be making the video.

As to the video of the kid proving his setup with the hairdryer, a couple of things... The video looks to be edited and has obvious changes happen before and after the hairdryer shows up... Could be camera adjusting for the lighting conditions... then in the video you never see the kids left hand, always out of camera view. Could be planned... my camera allows me to adjust my viewfinder to I would see it on his angle and thereby know my hand was unviewable. Did you know there is fishing line available for about ten dollars that .24mm in diameter? This is just an advertised line available to everyone and I'm sure that there are others at more select shops that are even thinner.

Hold it... I'll check for the smallest I can find... 0.098mm so far... that's it... that to me is very thin for fishing line and imagine a thread of silk or nylon from a pair of nylons or pantyhose... they can pull a car... sorry, I did find out alot about fishing line and denier count of garments... ATS helps you learn something new everyday...

Ok... Is this ability possible? I think so, but I've yet to see one clear video that is not in question. Why go through all the showmanship to prove your little show is nothing to question and then have one hand completely out of the picture? Leads me to say.. If your so good then show someone your ability under better circumstances...

There is not one video linked yet that can't be easily questioned because of one element that should be looked at to accept it as factual. I won't get into the specifics of each case that I've seen presented as being evidence of abilities in the TK realm, I will though pose a little experiment to challenge my ideas should someone decide to try it.

Same experiment... this one

but both hands get shown in the video and the Field of View widens. Maybe the TK practitioner could also wear a sweater on top of another shirt. This will allow any fibers that could be attached to be removed with the removal of the sweater. The person can first get it moving then can do a circle around the table then go behind a pane of glass or plastic between the TK person and the object. Then the video would have to be put up for viewing ASAP after recording to prevent the possibility of CG or photoshop manipulation. Recording should be high quality.

Even with these simple requirements you can weed out alot of those that claim to have the ability to do this trick. I'm not saying that all are phonies but why is there always some small little thing that must be overlooked and most will overlook it so they don't look skeptical. Kind of reverse reverse psychology working here I think.

I believe we have the ability as humans and that this has been known for quite some time. John Wyndam's book The Chrysalids is a great example of science fiction that I think has some fact... All his books are great, 1920s era. Chocky another one.

If someone were to display these great powers and show it in a reasonable way that led to no questions at all, then we would have someone that would be of interest to various people as well as organizations that I'm sure are monitoring the internet for such things. The example of the requirements for a paranormal experience to be real is to have them 'decide' on the outcome of the case. I'm sure anyone meeting my simple requirements that should be done infront of various individuals and sworn affidavits to substantiate the claim provided would be enough to make any individual then worthy of the claim to TK abilities. After that evidence I would then make the tests more stringent and detailed in the ways to deny any hoax to myself as well as others. I know that some will say this leads to no proof ever being taken as true. No. What I would say is that is raised the level or burden of proof on those making the claim so that it would be like you were there and could get him to repeat hundreds of times and get him/her to take off any possible bit of clothing that could be aiding in this TK experience. No questions should arise after watching the video. That is when I will accept what I see for what they say.

If these people actually display any talent then they are being watched by somebody for their abilities... I'm sure any displaying any great powers would have been talked to or 'recruited' by some government agency. Only makes sense since their knowledge and ability would be classified as a government secret.

So, to sum it up... If these videos are showing anything that is believable then someone will pay them a visit or somehow stifle their ability in some way. Maybe that's what chemtrails are for? If they are real people with real abilities then I believe they are endangering their lives by showing they have this ability. The military could use this ability and your now a national secret.

Have we really been shown anything that can be said to be conclusive in the matter of TK/PK? Most experiments to me always seem to have some kind of question as to the way it was conducted. Many questions from the Russian TK women. That leads to those like some that are called 'skeptic' who will always find something wrong in the way the tests were conducted. Is this wrong or is this just asking for you to do the experiment over and over again until you do it exactly as we ask so there is no chance that your manipulating us with mind tricks.

Remember, David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of hundreds of people as well as tv cameras. This trick was later described in a journal about how it was done. There was a large disc platform that the audience was positioned on and cameras. When the lights went out the stage went black and the platter or disc moved a few degrees and changed everyone view. Lady Liberty disappeared. Lights go off and they return the platform to the original degrees and then your now seeing her again. Magic.

Just goes to show you the level of cost they go through to make you believe something...


I believe... But I haven't seen any proof yet that doesn't leave me with a question or three, and that shouldn't be...

Rgds



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
In your example you agree that if someone asked you why you think there’s a purpose you can and would answer them.


I would, but it would be purely subjective and illogical, along the lines of "because it seems like there should be," which is not something I'd want to build a hypothetical bridge based on.



You can debunk any individual act of "telekinesis". You can provide alternative mechanisms, either hoax/sleight-of-hand or physics. But that doesn't debunk telekinesis altogether.


Absolutley, I wouldn’t suggest otherwise but it does give a reason to question anything that claims to be telekinesis (as I’ve been trying to explain to Tgautier13).


True, if you need a reason to question everything




On the other hand, there are areas of study where ruling out experience and subjectivity as valid means of exploration seems like shooting oneself in the foot; including paranormal studies.


I would rule it out in all areas but in something like telekinesis it’s not a valid position to say that a video looks genuine to me therefore it is.


No, unless one is a video expert looking at original footage I suppose. But having a person say "I focused on spinning the wheel and it spun; I can make it stop and spin the other way" is valid evidence to take into consideration.

If the claim is being made by some anonymous YouTuber who I've never seen before, I don't put much if any weight on the testimony. When CavemanDD says it, that's someone who I've seen posting on ATS with apparent sincerity and consistency since I've been a member. He gets rather more weight, though still not tons of weight due to the internet anonymity/ difficulty of accurately reading emotion in text factors. If my best friend said it, he'd get a fair bit of weight. If my father (who absolutely does not believe in any of this nonsense) said it, I'd really have to take that seriously (unless it was April First).


[edit on 3/24/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

I would, but it would be purely subjective and illogical, along the lines of "because it seems like there should be," which is not something I'd want to build a hypothetical bridge based on.


I can’t ask that you give me something I agree with, just that you give me something.


True, if you need a reason to question everything


Why wouldn’t you question everything?



No, unless one is a video expert looking at original footage I suppose.


Even then a video analyst could only tell you that it wasn’t edited. They couldn’t tell you whether the action is just a trick; in fact no one would be able to say it wasn’t a trick because there is no way of examining all the relevant aspects through a screen.

Of course I’m not suggesting that video footage isn’t reliable evidence in any circumstance, in some areas it certainly is; but something as extraordinary as this which has no confirmed scientific evidence backing it up, can be easily faked and often is faked (magic tricks!) doesn’t fall into any of those areas.


But having a person say "I focused on spinning the wheel and it spun; I can make it stop and spin the other way" is valid evidence to take into consideration.


It can only be cause for further investigation not evidence of the phenomenon in itself.

If the goal is to confirm the existence of telekinesis it must be observed under controlled conditions and be repeatable. Science doesn’t add a new species to the list because a few people claim to have seen it, but they will act upon these claims and investigate.

Who is making the claim may influence how seriously it is taken but not to what extent it can be considered evidence. While I’m sure if your dad sincerely said he could move things with his mind you would take him seriously but would you really believe him without a demonstration? Maybe I have trust issues but I wouldn’t; there are still too many factors in play, is he tricking me, is it a well acted joke, has he gone mad? You would have to go through many much more plausible explanations before you get to real telekinesis.

At the end of the day this just isn’t a personal issue, it’s not a piece of art where it is up to you whether you think it’s good or not. It’s a supposed physical ability that must fit, somehow, into the laws of the universe.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A

True, if you need a reason to question everything


Why wouldn’t you question everything?




Absolutely
Including our understanding of the physical laws of the universe



Even then a video analyst could only tell you that it wasn’t edited. They couldn’t tell you whether the action is just a trick; in fact no one would be able to say it wasn’t a trick because there is no way of examining all the relevant aspects through a screen.


No need to belabor this point; I think we're basically in agreement about the usefulness of videos as evidence of anything.



But having a person say "I focused on spinning the wheel and it spun; I can make it stop and spin the other way" is valid evidence to take into consideration.


It can only be cause for further investigation not evidence of the phenomenon in itself.


That's where we disagree. It's not sufficient evidence to prove the phenomenon in question, but it is evidence of it.


If the goal is to confirm the existence of telekinesis it must be observed under controlled conditions and be repeatable. Science doesn’t add a new species to the list because a few people claim to have seen it, but they will act upon these claims and investigate.


If the goal is to confirm the existence of telekinesis to the scientific mindset, I think you're right.


Who is making the claim may influence how seriously it is taken but not to what extent it can be considered evidence. While I’m sure if your dad sincerely said he could move things with his mind you would take him seriously but would you really believe him without a demonstration?


What if he said he had done it accidentally and couldn't repeat it, but was sure?

I would have to take that claim seriously, because I know the man pretty well and know it's not the kind of claim he would make lightly. I would not accept it as proof of telekinesis, but I would accept it as evidence.

Like you say, science may not accept the existence of a new species based on a few eyewitness accounts but it does accept them as sufficient evident of a new species to demand further investigation. Evidence, not proof.


Maybe I have trust issues but I wouldn’t; there are still too many factors in play, is he tricking me, is it a well acted joke, has he gone mad? You would have to go through many much more plausible explanations before you get to real telekinesis.


But why can't you weigh telekinesis in with the other possibilities? They are all just that … possibilities. And once you factor in multiple reports, then that adds weight to the claims so long as they are consistent. Of course the trustworthiness of each claim has to be weighed separately, and also the impact of one claim on another (if you find they occur in groups, for example, you may be looking at either human suggestibility or a localized field of some sort that promotes telekinesis.

Essentially, it's about keeping my mind wide open to all possibilities so that I don't miss one that just happens to be further out in left field than most people are looking.


At the end of the day this just isn’t a personal issue, it’s not a piece of art where it is up to you whether you think it’s good or not. It’s a supposed physical ability that must fit, somehow, into the laws of the universe.


Or our understanding of the laws of the universe must accomodate it. Always examine the inverse.



[edit on 3/25/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

What if he said he had done it accidentally and couldn't repeat it, but was sure?


It would have to be discounted; there are too many other possibilities to come to the conclusion that it was genuine telekinesis.


That's where we disagree. It's not sufficient evidence to prove the phenomenon in question, but it is evidence of it.


But how can that be the case when there are so many other explanations and mitigating factors in play? Everything from hoaxes to delusions to wishful thinking taints testimonials to the point that they cannot be relied upon to make an inference towards a solid conclusion, save for there being something worthy of investigation happening. That in itself is not evidence towards telekinesis. You can take it as evidence that there may be something to telekinesis but not that telekinesis is real if you see what I mean.

Also, the number of people making the claim is of no real relevance to determining something’s scientific validity; if that were the case then you’d believe in every god going.

Btw I’m looking at this in a scientific context which demands evidence be both empirical and rigorously documented/confirmed. From a scientific stand point someone saying that they can move things with their mind is only really evidence that they believe they can move things with their mind.


But why can't you weigh telekinesis in with the other possibilities?


I do but it’s far down on the list due to the lack of evidence surrounding its existence compared to the other possibilities.


Essentially, it's about keeping my mind wide open to all possibilities so that I don't miss one that just happens to be further out in left field than most people are looking.


I do keep an open mind; it may be possible but without evidence then there is no reason to believe it is real. It might sound like a bit of a copout to say maybe it is maybe it isn’t but it’s probably the most truthful position to take.


Or our understanding of the laws of the universe must accomodate it. Always examine the inverse.


Ok that was badly written but I did write it at five in the morning!

But the point still stands, it isn’t something you can say “it’s real to me”, if it exists within our reality it’s either real or it’s not.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Btw I’m looking at this in a scientific context which demands evidence be both empirical and rigorously documented/confirmed. From a scientific stand point someone saying that they can move things with their mind is only really evidence that they believe they can move things with their mind.


As I said in my last post (I think), to a scientific mindset you are right. Maybe my major point is that that is not the only, and may not be the most useful, mindset in which to examine paranormal phenomena.


But how can that be the case when there are so many other explanations and mitigating factors in play? Everything from hoaxes to delusions to wishful thinking taints testimonials to the point that they cannot be relied upon to make an inference towards a solid conclusion, save for there being something worthy of investigation happening. That in itself is not evidence towards telekinesis. You can take it as evidence that there may be something to telekinesis but not that telekinesis is real if you see what I mean.


We may be just arguing semantics, at least to an extent. I mean, I think we both agree that if enough people say they can move a psi wheel with nothing but their minds, that is evidence of something worthy of investigation. And I think we both agree that no matter how many people come forward to say that, even if they all take lie detector tests and are proven to be telling the truth as they understand it, it is still not conclusive evidence that telekinesis exists.

Perhaps the difference lies in how interesting we find the gray area in between those two. And whether we call something a possibility by default or whether it has to meet some standard before consideration as a possibility.


Also, the number of people making the claim is of no real relevance to determining something’s scientific validity; if that were the case then you’d believe in every god going.


But it is certainly relevant to how interesting and significant the claim is; how worthy of study and investigation. Maybe not by physicists, but by anthropologists and metaphysicians




Essentially, it's about keeping my mind wide open to all possibilities so that I don't miss one that just happens to be further out in left field than most people are looking.


I do keep an open mind; it may be possible but without evidence then there is no reason to believe it is real. It might sound like a bit of a copout to say maybe it is maybe it isn’t but it’s probably the most truthful position to take.


And it is my position also. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. But I'm assuming it's a legitimate possibility until I find out otherwise whereas (I think) you're demanding that it prove itself to be a legitimate possibility.



Or our understanding of the laws of the universe must accomodate it. Always examine the inverse.


Ok that was badly written but I did write it at five in the morning!


Understood



But the point still stands, it isn’t something you can say “it’s real to me”, if it exists within our reality it’s either real or it’s not.


I think it's possible for something to be real to me and not real in "our reality". And when something that's not real in "our reality" is nevertheless real to a whole bunch of people, I think that's maybe the most interesting of all



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Was just about to get some sleep then and I had to check my subscribed threads list!


As I said in my last post (I think), to a scientific mindset you are right. Maybe my major point is that that is not the only, and may not be the most useful, mindset in which to examine paranormal phenomena.


How so?

If you don’t take such an approach how are you meant to arrive at a truth?

Remember science allows for wild speculation in its methodology, but this does come well before a conclusion is drawn.


We may be just arguing semantics, at least to an extent. I mean, I think we both agree that if enough people say they can move a psi wheel with nothing but their minds, that is evidence of something worthy of investigation. And I think we both agree that no matter how many people come forward to say that, even if they all take lie detector tests and are proven to be telling the truth as they understand it, it is still not conclusive evidence that telekinesis exists.


Agreed, more or less.


Perhaps the difference lies in how interesting we find the gray area in between those two. And whether we call something a possibility by default or whether it has to meet some standard before consideration as a possibility.


Oh I’ll call it a possibility, most things are.

I think that’s what most people are misunderstanding about my position in this thread; I’m not trying to debunk telekinesis just question the level of scrutiny some people given the “evidence”.


But it is certainly relevant to how interesting and significant the claim is; how worthy of study and investigation. Maybe not by physicists, but by anthropologists and metaphysicians


Ah now that is subjective.



And it is my position also. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. But I'm assuming it's a legitimate possibility until I find out otherwise whereas (I think) you're demanding that it prove itself to be a legitimate possibility.


As above. It’s a legitimate possibility but in determining the truth you must sift through a number of possibilities to find either the most likely or the definitive.


I think it's possible for something to be real to me and not real in "our reality". And when something that's not real in "our reality" is nevertheless real to a whole bunch of people, I think that's maybe the most interesting of all


Are you talking psychology or quantum mechanics?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


All right... well I am a scientist and therefore believe in actually trying this myself. If it works in a controlled experiment, then I don't see any way to debunk it using empirical evidence. There should be ways to reduce the effects of air currents, electricity, etc.

Once I try the experiment, then I will post a detailed explanation of how to do it yourself. Then, those of you who are skeptical should be able to try it yourselves. If it does not work, then okay. If the experiment is repeatable, then that's a problem for skeptics who claim to be scientists. If the skeptic does not try it him or herself, then he or she doesn't have a good case.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join