Developing tk/pk

Here is where I get extremely skeptical. Any practice, done over time, should become more efficient.

I practice, and teach martial arts.

I have put in thousands of hours, and as such, my training reflects that.

TK/PK claims and practices have been around for, well stretching back thousands of years, many thousands perhaps.

So, how come the method of practice, and transference is still so shotty, spotty, and based in " belief" in it.

You see, you can believe, or not believe in BJJ, but, get on the mat with me and you will know it works by the lack of air in your lungs, blood flow to the brain, and pain in the joints.

I can teach it to anybody, and by that I mean BJJ has amputees ,and such practicing and winning competitions.

For as long as these "practices" have been around, it has not become more efficient either in practice, or transference.

Now, as to the sensitivity claim, fine, in martial arts, you have people that have natural talent, in a wide variety of areas.

Still, hard work beats talent many times, hard work, should compensate. Yet all the evidence of these "practices" are still but anecdotal.

Over time, people teaching and practicing should have ironed out by now a methodology of transference, that while will have a sliding scale given sensitivity, talent, etc, would be something almost anyone could do with repeatable, tangible, measurable results.

Instead, we get the " No crap man, there I was when"

Which is as good as nothing really.

I mean, c,mon, if this stuff was even remotely measurable, you would have droves putting in the time and effort to get such abilities.

If it is only something the "special" "sensitive" or whatever other word you would like to use can do, sense, or whatever, then I cannot see how that doesnt put up some red flags for peoples B.S. detectors.

Jestor, I was specifically referring to the hypnotic state triggering through signal overflow. If a patient is ready for that, and able to concentrate on a few signals and exclude the rest that are incoming, they are not as likely to be overwhelmed as the patient who does not know this is coming or is not ready to react when it does. Resistence to hypnosis is an acquirable knowledge and skill much like hypnotizing is and the latter works better the worse the target is at the former. Nothing like this can be said of PK/TK, but the "it won't work unless you believe it really hard" is something we hear all too often from proponents of almost every other ineffectual thing.

I'm a serious skeptic when it comes to this kind of stuff. I've never seen any real evidence for telekinesis/psychokinesis. I get the feeling that a lot more people would be moving things with their mind if it were possible. Furthermore, what's the use of telekinesis? Does it help in daily life? Bending spoons is a nice parlor trick but it doesn't have any practical use. Nor does spinning a piece of paper or making a pen roll across a table. Now if you're talking about picking things up and actually moving them around then there might be a use for that. I'd never strain my back picking up something heavy again. I don't think this kind of telekinesis is possible.

I'd have to see a lot of good evidence for TK abilities before I started to believe in them.

Belief is a state of certainty, and sometimes complexity needs certainty to allow the brain to maintain the complex structure.... probably as a result of having both conscious and subconscious parts of the brain. When you build a skyscraper you don't leave the workers in the wall at each level, you trust the structure is sound and move the team up to create more structure for example.

I tend to think if something was being emitted from the body which interacted with another object it probably would have been detected by now BUT going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible - so it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist - think Plato's cave maybe, but this time science is looking at the wall!

Consider say animism, if a 'spirit' permeated all things and the world we knew was an illusion based on the plane of existence's nature, these spirits who inhabited is might be bound within the plane - all it takes is a bit of imagination to understand how our view of the world was an illusion and some other universal order existed beyond... what the term metaphysical or supernatural is used for.

But personally, I limit my belief to higher order information states like which might allow detection and prediction slightly into the future but never had any reason to think moving things with my mind was possible. The only thing I could think of to exercise TK/PK might be to meditate and visualize the orbital configuration of a particular element, and do so on it in a crystallized form where it has another level of order, and try to recruit ones brain power to imagine connecting to it's energy signature....
:silly:
Maybe the state of information inside the body can resonate with the physical matter... I'm not sure how, but if one was to believe all things were connected through a single form of energy then that might serve as a medium.

If reading this sort of stuff upsets the scientist in anyone (everyone!), then perhaps consider it a meditation rather then a claim.

Adder wrote: ... going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible...

If I may have my obligatory little nitpick, in order for something to be beyond science it must be untestable. Any claim about something actually detectable (and thus falsifiable) is technically a scientifically accessible claim. The failure to produce or reproduce a result is not a testament to either the nature of the claim or the reach of the scientific method. If anything, it is itself a result we may try and cautiously draw conclusions from, if we are so inclined.

... it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist...

Science says no such thing. Saying that we have no documented and reproducible cases of it is not the same as saying that there will not or cannot be any. Now, given the countless tests that either failed or left us to conclude fraud, does the scientific community still find it worth their time and money to keep testing when there are so many diseases still uncured? Of course not. That is a choice we make though, not a definitive conclusion we draw.

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible...

If I may have my obligatory little nitpick, in order for something to be beyond science it must be untestable.

Scientific discoveries are often stumbled upon in accidental discovery when looking for something else. So currently, yes, of course what lies within the body of knowledge defined by science.... but exploration allows that to be expanded and new things discovered, if they exist. Ruling things out because they are difficult, so difficult it might be seemingly impossible, is no reason to abandon efforts. I read the OP as about efforts more then belief. Sure it is posited that belief is a requirement, but that I also addressed.

Gisteron wrote:

... it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist...

Science says no such thing. Saying that we have no documented and reproducible cases of it is not the same as saying that there will not or cannot be any. Now, given the countless tests that either failed or left us to conclude fraud, does the scientific community still find it worth their time and money to keep testing when there are so many diseases still uncured? Of course not. That is a choice we make though, not a definitive conclusion we draw.

And? I'm not saying your saying its impossible, nor science asserts the limits are its current limits..... I'm just defending the effort to try, and how I interpreted the topic of the thread to be about that effort.

At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

RyuJin wrote: At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

Imagine telling someone about the internet back in the 1600s. You'd probably be hung or burned at the stake. :laugh:

Interesting how all the things you mentioned that werent possible at one time were also brought about through a very specific methodology which again gets more efficient over time and better at transferring that knowledge to others to again make more things possible at an exponential rate.

However, one thing does not apply simply because of that.

Again, those practices mentioned(Tk/Pk), are still not possible on any more consistent, efficient, or repeatably verifiable process of improvement in methodology, or practice.

Hell, aside from anecdotal evidence it is still, after thousands of years not even close to possible in the same vein of the other things you mentioned.

Thats a serious flaw in logic you have tried to apply here.

At most, you could make the argument that man will create a way to make TK/PK possible, but that is not the argument you made, more you say because we have done some other things then this validates "x".

Sorry, not the case at all.

Khaos wrote: Interesting how all the things you mentioned that werent possible at one time were also brought about through a very specific methodology which again gets more efficient over time and better at transferring that knowledge to others to again make more things possible at an exponential rate.

However, one thing does not apply simply because of that.

Again, those practices mentioned(Tk/Pk), are still not possible on any more consistent, efficient, or repeatably verifiable process of improvement in methodology, or practice.

Hell, aside from anecdotal evidence it is still, after thousands of years not even close to possible in the same vein of the other things you mentioned.

Thats a serious flaw in logic you have tried to apply here.

At most, you could make the argument that man will create a way to make TK/PK possible, but that is not the argument you made, more you say because we have done some other things then this validates "x".

Sorry, not the case at all.

Nah, its just a measure of difficulty.... unless assumed impossible. That is the crux of the issue probably, one view wants to discover if its possible (and may or may not believe it is) and the other has no interest (and may or may not believe it is), and sitting out there on the periphery of different view we have those who believe it is and want to find it, and those who don't believe it is and don't want to find it. This thread is about one and not the other IMO.

It's a bit like atheists telling theists Gods don't exist maybe.... but at least this particular topic does suppose some physical interaction is possible and so has some basis in the hope of being discovered - if its real. But I agree, people have been trying for thousands of years I'd guess, but only recently do we have a whole range of new learnings and tools for those who might have an interest, and/or belief.

RyuJin wrote: At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

They did? How? Any citations on that?

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

And the dead are still as dead as they ever were. What's your point?

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

I suppose anything that is possible in principle might at some point become possible in practice. Are you implying that TK/PK is one such thing? If so, citation, please.

Also, unlike the woo-woo crowd, science and engineering actually has a track record of achievements and successes. The moment their methods are brought anywhere in the vicinity of woo, it crumbles and collapses, yelling that those evil skeptics are conspired to laugh at them, meanwhile having done nothing to be taken serious in the first place. Critical thinking is a cornerstone of science and a wrecking ball to woo and the woo folks know it and discourage it for that reason.

RyuJin wrote: At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

Actually quantum particles have always has the ability to be in two places at once, in fact many places, called superposition. However I have no idea what this has to do with the collider as it is a particle accelerator/smasher and has nothing to do with bi-location. It was the rigors of science that allowed us to build things like the collider to discover what was already in operation and thus better understand our universe.

As for the human physiology, its mechanisms have also always possessed the ability to be resurrected from recent death given very specific and exacting conditions – it’s just that we did not possess the technical knowledge until recently to be well versed in those techniques. We can thank science for discovering and documenting those processes, now well defined withing the framework of natural law. However we still can’t use magic, or energy healing, or any other "psycho-whats-it" to miraculously just fix any injury or malady that results in death. Those things are outside the realm of science because they do not have any quantifiable means within the laws of physics to function as such. Instead they are composed of empty assertions and hollow promises.

By your logic we should just be able to invent or conjure up anything we dream of if we just "imagine the possibility" hard enough. We would not have to operate within the laws of nature at all. If that is the case there is nothing to say that I cant one day develop the ability to shoot green monkeys out of my butt that eat nuclear waste. Energy Crisis solved or a gross misuse of the laws of logic? The world may never know! :laugh: :silly:

Transparent aluminum was once a thing of imagination, and is now a reality...Bluetooth technology was a thing of imagination, and is now a reality...imagination is the birthplace of progress...someone imagines a concept then works towards achieving it, along the way there are countless failures and sometimes the originator of the idea never lives to see its fruition...orwell, verne, disney, all dreamers imagining amazing things...some of which now exist, some which still don't... most scientists only apply themselves to things that have a payoff within their lifetime, few do it for the love of science or out of pure curiosity...money and need drive advancement...if there isn't a practical need or a way to profit from something it's cast aside as a waste of time...

Ok, but those are just applications of technology. They have nothing to do with a naturally evolved sense or ability that uses an aspect of the laws of physics to manipulate matter. Are you saying that we may one day develop the technology to give us the ability to do PK? If this is the case I see little reason to discuss a natural ability that may or may not have evolved and even less need to explore the training of our minds to develop that ability? Instead we just need to develop the technology to artificially allow us to access that ability.

See, Ryu, I wouldn't even grant as much as Kyrin does here. First of all, thanks for just swiftly ignoring the responses to the previous argument that is invalid in structure and unsound in its premises, and just moving on to more assertions. Do not validate us for that would be after all beneath you...

But then of course let's remember that transparent aluminium wasn't imagined to be quite like the real thing. Bluetooth is a very specific patent and wireless information transmission existed long before bluetooth did.
Imagination is the birthplace of art. Progress is born out of need, and science moves forward out of curiosity. Most of what Orwell, Verne or Disney made up either never came to be or came to be in the broadest and most generous reinterpretations.
I don't know what scientists you surveyed, but I can think off the top of my head of entire fields of science that outside of motivating other fields did almost nothing to contribute to our daily lives even once, like astronomy, paleontology and history. The reason nobody wastes time on magic anymore is because they have wasted well enough time on that to understand that there is no point in wasting any more.
While we are at it, are you seriously implying that all of the most educated and brilliant minds on the planet are collectively blind to the potential profits of magic? Do you think they never heard of the countless hacks who make millions by simply lying to their audiences about it, to say nothing of the money religions make by cultivating pretty much the same kind of claims on the same kind of thinking?
"Oh, these small-minded unimaginative intellectuals who only care about their own immediate benefit, what do they really know about anything?"
No! [Censored] this!

Gisteron wrote: See, Ryu, I wouldn't even grant as much as Kyrin does here. First of all, thanks for just swiftly ignoring the responses to the previous argument that is invalid in structure and unsound in its premises, and just moving on to more assertions. Do not validate us for that would be after all beneath you...

But then of course let's remember that transparent aluminium wasn't imagined to be quite like the real thing. Bluetooth is a very specific patent and wireless information transmission existed long before bluetooth did.
Imagination is the birthplace of art. Progress is born out of need, and science moves forward out of curiosity. Most of what Orwell, Verne or Disney made up either never came to be or came to be in the broadest and most generous reinterpretations.
I don't know what scientists you surveyed, but I can think off the top of my head of entire fields of science that outside of motivating other fields did almost nothing to contribute to our daily lives even once, like astronomy, paleontology and history. The reason nobody wastes time on magic anymore is because they have wasted well enough time on that to understand that there is no point in wasting any more.
While we are at it, are you seriously implying that all of the most educated and brilliant minds on the planet are collectively blind to the potential profits of magic? Do you think they never heard of the countless hacks who make millions by simply lying to their audiences about it, to say nothing of the money religions make by cultivating pretty much the same kind of claims on the same kind of thinking?
"Oh, these small-minded unimaginative intellectuals who only care about their own immediate benefit, what do they really know about anything?"
No! [Censored] this!

Perhaps if you weren't such a troll on a regular basis? So you disagree with him, now you're going to throw a fit because he denied you the satisfaction of acknowledging your side of things? That's troll behavior simply put, and proves your weren't so much interested in having a healthy discussion/debate, over just nit picking the thread like you do so many others like a scab, because your fairly good with words and feed off of the conflict. Please get over yourself...

Zenchi wrote: ... now you're going to throw a fit because he denied you the satisfaction of acknowledging your side of things?[/colore]

Actually, no, if you'd read the post you just quoted unabridged, you'll notice how i responded to more or less every bit he said. It's not like I feel entitled to personal validation either; Ryu ignored my response just as much as he ignored Khaos' and Kyrin's. Now, I may have never formally learned how to have a healthy discussion or debate, but where I come from that usually entails a back and forth, a dialogue. If you find that this is a trollish expectation I have of discussion partners, I can well live with that. Of course nobody is actually required to oblige. I'm just pointing to the irony of implying that the other side is the closed-minded and self-centered one, while one oneself keeps preaching on as if there is nothing to be discussed, nothing to be questioned.

Which part is the troll part exactly? Why also, are well reasoned arguments considered trolling?

I mean, going off of the phrase " There is no ignorance, there is knowledge" why then is it that when people simply wont take anecdotal evidence, or poorly researched or outright bad research and claims of fantastic claims(Which should also have fantastic evidence) it is considered trolling rude, or what have you.

Is only blind acceptance considered not trolling here anymore?

Im sorry, but this place is getting a bit much on calling out butt hurt as trolling and I am a bit tired of it.

Its much easier to claim trolling and such rather than practice some sort of level of that Jedi detachment I am always hearing about and address the argument objectively rather than respond emotionally and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Its getting ridiculous now.

You cannot even have an adult, mature, conversation anymore and shouldnt contribute unless your just padding each others fragile egos, instead of peer reviewing, discussing, and debating the topics here in such a way as to actually explore and get something out of the conversation other than " One time, I had a cool experience.. and it doesnt matter if science, or anything else disagrees I know its all true, etc".

So, basically, unless we are going to agree and pad your ego, you are going to basically say what you want, and do the forum version to covering your ears and screaming "LALALALALA" if it isnt something you want to hear, or claim its trolling, rude, bullying, etc.

Khaos wrote: Which part is the troll part exactly? Why also, are well reasoned arguments considered trolling?

I mean, going off of the phrase " There is no ignorance, there is knowledge" why then is it that when people simply wont take anecdotal evidence, or poorly researched or outright bad research and claims of fantastic claims(Which should also have fantastic evidence) it is considered trolling rude, or what have you.

Is only blind acceptance considered not trolling here anymore?

Not at all, its all about presentation, should be common sense as long as you've had an account here...

Im sorry, but this place is getting a bit much on calling out butt hurt as trolling and I am a bit tired of it.

Believe I've heard that song and dance before from you Khaos...

Its much easier to claim trolling and such rather than practice some sort of level of that Jedi detachment I am always hearing about and address the argument objectively rather than respond emotionally and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Its getting ridiculous now.

You cannot even have an adult, mature, conversation anymore unless your just padding each others fragile egos.

And yet you continue to stick around, wonder why...

Gisteron wrote:

Zenchi wrote: ... now you're going to throw a fit because he denied you the satisfaction of acknowledging your side of things?[/colore]

Actually, no, if you'd read the post you just quoted unabridged, you'll notice how i responded to more or less every bit he said. It's not like I feel entitled to personal validation either; Ryu ignored my response just as much as he ignored Khaos' and Kyrin's. Now, I may have never formally learned how to have a healthy discussion or debate, but where I come from that usually entails a back and forth, a dialogue. If you find that this is a trollish expectation I have of discussion partners, I can well live with that. Of course nobody is actually required to oblige. I'm just pointing to the irony of implying that the other side is the closed-minded and self-centered one, while one oneself keeps preaching on as if there is nothing to be discussed, nothing to be questioned.

I dont necessarily disagree with the points (some of them) you've made, you make a good arguement, but there are better ways to go about proving your point without getting all emotional about it, making your side of the debate sound like an attack because you disagree. Im not asking anyone to kiss a$$...