I see a lot of people insulting traditionaldrummer when all he is trying to do is get you to back up your claims. You have to admit, your opening claims are very far fetched. I.e. we can "think" ouselves rich and find money, manipulate objects using our thoughts etc.

Now if I was to open a thread titled "I can fly". You would ask me to prove it right? It would not be your responsibility to prove that I cannot fly. That is what he is doing, asking you to back up your claims without turning to petty insults when his questions cannot be answered. 99% of the "evidence" I have read through in this thread is either somebody taking a physics phenomenon and then changing the reasoning behind it to match their beliefs or simply lies. It does not prove anything.

I have read through in this thread is either somebody taking a physics phenomenon and then changing the reasoning behind it to match their beliefs or simply lies. It does not prove anything.

If you can change the world around you by thinking then show us how. I dont want to see videos of people using physics experiments, which are not connected to this debate, to explain the "mind control" ability. Its like me charging myself with static electricity and then claiming to everyone I can shoot lightning bolts.

Oh and by the way, you should probably read a book called the Men who stare at goats. The US military conducted an experiment where soldiers stared at goats to try and stop their hearts. It didnt work.

First things first. My closing comment wasnt sarcasm, the US government explored mind manipulation of objects and living things and then decided to stop wasting money on it. Its a well known book.

Regarding me having to prove that the so call evidence is false; I believe traditionaldrummer has already done this. He questioned it and backed up his statements with logical thinking and facts.

When he started asking questions which could not be answered, thats when "the believers" started getting irritated and resorted to insults and avioding the questions with the stereotypical "why dont you prove me wrong".

These so called Experts in the field and "clinical studies" are no better than Uri Gellar. There was a time when he had quite a following of "believers" who were smitten by his spoon bending abilities and probably wasted way too much time at home staring at cutlery.

People like this are sensationalists, they exploit peoples desire to believe that there is something "magical" about themselves. It allows them to believe that they are special or have some sort of abilities which they dont, just to please their egos.

If there was any sort of evidence over the thousands of years of mankinds existence that he could invent money just by thinking about it or physically manipulate the world with his mind, then it would be a very well established and exciting science. Instead it has been put on the backburner with other Pseudosciences like telepathy. If I can make money by simply thinking about it then why cant I imagine other things out of thin air too.

This whole "imagine money and you will find it" experiment (as traditionaldrummer said) is just your mind linking two events. If I am thinking about finding money, then theres a good chance I will be actively looking for money as well. And there is a good chance that someone who is actively looking for money will find it a lot quicker than someone who isnt, but that does not mean that he increased the probability of finding money with the power of his mind.

Now I take it that you are a believer in mental manipulation of physical matter, but have you ever experienced it? Tell me how you have changed things with your mind, if you have. I am not saying that in order for it to exist then you must have experienced it but I would be interested to hear if you have.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by constantwonder
Perhaps all of you who like to throw around the "observer effect" and the double slit experiment should take a moment to learn what is actually meant by observer. The human mind isn't some magical "observer" and it is certainly not the only "observer"

How do you explain this...

If two identical experiments take place.
Both measure the slit the particle uses.

AFTER the experiment
The data from one experiment is deleted.

Now, looking at the back wall reveals that if the data is deleted the pattern is a wave pattern (interference) but if the data is kept the pattern is a particle pattern.

Data available = particle must use one slit
Data deleted = particle can use both slits and interfere with itself

show me this experiment. . . where is it said that taking data then deleting it would effect the system? thats backwards causality and thermodynamics (the most solid laws in the universe) says thats impossible. . . .

www.bottomlayer.com...

3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling.

Luckily for readers on the skeptical side, Mr. Braude is much less forgiving of Joey Nuzum. We're treated to a blow-by-blow takedown of Mr. Nuzum, a magician who said he also had the psychokinetic ability to move objects using just the power of his mind. Mr. Braude recounts how, in the mid-1990s, the magician repeatedly frustrated the author's attempts to test his claims. The deadpan narrative has the unintentionally comic tone of a police procedural set in Paranormalville. "I obtained a catalog called Amazing and Fascinating Devices, on page 9 of which I found an ad for a device called a 'Telekinetic Enhancer,' " Mr. Braude writes, describing how he figured out that Mr. Nuzum was probably using a magician's trick involving static electricity to perform his feat of making a dollar bill spin on a needle without being touched. The Nuzum affair ends when the magician -- whose supporters see nothing amiss in his hostility to close monitoring -- melodramatically blows off a test session, accusing Mr. Braude of destroying his concentration by trying to inspect Mr. Nuzum's props. "Joe is an unreliable subject," a dismayed Mr. Braude concludes.