Developing tk/pk

I didn't ignore anyone's posts. I simply pointed out perspectives that were contrary to some...

I'm not against science, nor am I for blindly accepting the fantastic...I am open to both...some seem completely closed off to the idea that the fantastic MAY be possible...I am not...it may or may not be possible...however i'm not going to belittle nor diminish someone else's perspective as some seem intent on doing...if someone else believes in it and are not causing harm with that belief then what is the problem?...as I said in the op, I know some believe in the possiblility and some don't...and I don't recall ever mentioning magic?.....

RyuJin wrote: I didn't ignore anyone's posts. I simply pointed out perspectives that were contrary to some...

I'm not against science, nor am I for blindly accepting the fantastic...I am open to both...some seem completely closed off to the idea that the fantastic MAY be possible...I am not...it may or may not be possible...however i'm not going to belittle nor diminish someone else's perspective as some seem intent on doing...if someone else believes in it and are not causing harm with that belief then what is the problem?...as I said in the op, I know some believe in the possiblility and some don't...and I don't recall ever mentioning magic?.....

On the contrary, its not that some are saying they don't or wont believe. Instead I and others are taking the default position of not accepting a claim without evidence to support that claim. And in this case the claim that PK may be possible is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary proof. If I said my sister was in the garage you may take me at my word, however is I said I had an invisible pink unicorn in the garage you would most likely demand extraordinary evidence be provided to support my claim.

And yet to date, after a myriad of studies and tests and experiments and scientific investigation of such claims as the existence of invisible pink unicorns or PK, no substantial proof or evidence has ever been found to support the existence of either. James Randy has has even had a million bucks on the line for quite a few years and, even though many have tried, none have been able to claim it. And yes I know that a default stance is typically that the "sensitives" don't do what they do for the money, but just think of the charities they could help, not only with their gift but also the money they could get from proving PK exists. Needless to say I don't buy these bogus positions either.

As for bringing up the subject of magic, I would respectfully disagree with you. I think you brought it up when you first mentioned PK.

I just reread all my posts in this thread and none mention magic...a post made by jestor mentions magic (or magician), but not a post by me...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

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.

Don't 'particles' exist only because we try to measure them, and when said to exist only do so in clouds of probabilities? Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science... if someone can do TK/PK I'd really want them to apply try to apply science to it! New discoveries would be one of the main sources of expanding the frontiers of science, by allowing new tools to be created to look deeper/further/beyond what was previously considered to be the limits.

RyuJin wrote: I just reread all my posts in this thread and none mention magic...a post made by jestor mentions magic (or magician), but not a post by me...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

When I say magic I mean any power of apparently influencing or forecasting events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. TK/PK falls under that.

Adder wrote: Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science...

It does, but nothing discussed here is strictly beyond science. The domain of science is the set of all theoretically observable things and the things that can be deduced from observations. These limits were never narrower in the past than they are today and can by definition never grow broader either. We are not differentiating between claims that were unfalsified at some point and those that were, we are differentiating between claims that are in principle falsifiable and those that are in principle not. It is not a matter of time until the latter become scientific.

And on that note, let us please pick either one or the other and stick with it. TK/PK cannot be simultaneously something one can experience or perform and beyond experience and performance at the same time. Nothing we agree to consider real is this internally inconsistent. If magic powers do manifest in reality in detectable (i.e. identifiable) ways, we'd expect to have an instance of that at hand. If they don't, that's all that needs be said. Which is it?

What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

But maybe that is not what is being said Off course we have all had that weird feeling in our stomach knowing that something is wrong , i blame that on a lot of shit being wrong in the world , but knowing exactly what is going to happen next is another thing , there is more between heaven and earth , and mostly its our imagination. But why get so upset over anything like TK ? Its not that we are going to knive anyone from a distance are we , i mean i have only seen someone move a piece of paper loll ? Or is it the fear of the unknown ? Or are we trying indeed to comfort ourselves with the idea there is more ? Is there more? Its scary shit really.....yeah thats what it is

RyuJin wrote: I just reread all my posts in this thread and none mention magic...a post made by jestor mentions magic (or magician), but not a post by me...

It was a joke of sorts. I was implying that Pk is magic. In its purest sense that's what it equates to. I could claim to have magical powers and I would have just as much basis for that claim as you have for claiming you have some sort of PK ability. So when you say PK, I hear magic.

Adder wrote: Don't 'particles' exist only because we try to measure them, and when said to exist only do so in clouds of probabilities? Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science... if someone can do TK/PK I'd really want them to apply try to apply science to it! New discoveries would be one of the main sources of expanding the frontiers of science, by allowing new tools to be created to look deeper/further/beyond what was previously considered to be the limits.

What is this thing that exists beyond science that is not anti-science? How can a thing exist beyond something and yet be a part of it? That makes no sense. Either a thing is an object of the set or it is not. It cant be both, that defies the laws of logic. Either we believe in Science the provable, repeatable, falsifiable aspect of our reality that is based in unchangeable laws of Physics or we believe in magic where no aspect of our reality can be accepted as valid because we might not have existed a few seconds ago or the the laws of physics could be changed at will, thus rendering our entire perception of reality a lie and we as a species irrelevant.

In any case, as I have said before, there have been many many attempts to put science to PK and every single one in every single instance has failed. There is no medium nor mechanism that has ever been discovered within the electromagnetic spectrum that has ever been shown to have the ability to defy the force of gravity as a component of the natural evolution of an organic organism. Nor has there even been presented the slightest evidence that our brains have the capacity to somehow function at a quantum level and thus directly manipulate the particles of condensed matter in such a way as to remotely move objects, or communicate among minds etc.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

RyuJin wrote: I just reread all my posts in this thread and none mention magic...a post made by jestor mentions magic (or magician), but not a post by me...

It was a joke of sorts. I was implying that Pk is magic. In its purest sense that's what it equates to. I could claim to have magical powers and I would have just as much basis for that claim as you have for claiming you have some sort of PK ability. So when you say PK, I hear magic.

Assumptions assumptions.... :lol:

What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

Yet, you would have no problem stating it IS there because you cannot measure it?

:huh:

As for love, while I suppose you cannot measure it, yet, you can express it in a measurable way.

However, that does not apply in any real consistent or measurable way for TK/PK

Now, if you say it cannot be measured and yet claim it can be demonstrated, then you are saying it can be measured in some way in an observable sense( Moving things with your mind should be a measurable instance, not unlike hugging, for love, or a kiss), not unlike love.

Yet, this is not the case, and it hasnt gotten any better at making it so

Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science... if someone can do TK/PK I'd really want them to apply try to apply science to it! New discoveries would be one of the main sources of expanding the frontiers of science, by allowing new tools to be created to look deeper/further/beyond what was previously considered to be the limits.

Yet, there is nothing to measure for science, or to create tools for.

You know, because those that actually CAN do it in a big way wont, for a myriad of excuses, money, fame, or science, which is strange no matter how you slice it.

Seriously, you can state how something can be beyond science, but in this case, there is nothing to measure past hearsay in he first place.

New frontiers? Show that there is such a frontier.

Even were there not tools to measure it, a display, a consistant repeatable display would be enough for any scientist to put thousands of hours in trying to find ways to measure, and develop it, or ways to develop it.

A drove of real scientists would.

You say its possible, I say "Ok show it to me"

Aaaaannnd you cant.

I do so wonder what people coming into my BJJ class say to such a sales pitch.

"Show me it works"

"Sorry, I cant, and its beyond perception, but you will certainly be able to defend yourself with it."

No....That dont metal.

MartaLina wrote: What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

Yes it is there and yes we can actually measure it. Being in love floods the brain with chemicals and hormones that produce feelings of pleasure, obsession and attachment. Neuroscientists divide love into three phases: lust, attraction and attachment. During the lust phase, hormones flood the body with feelings of intense desire. Adrenaline and norepinephrine make the heart race and the palms sweat, while the brain chemical dopamine creates feelings of euphoria. The brain releases dopamine in response to other pleasurable stimuli too, including drugs, which explains the so-called lovers' high. Even before people fall in love, seeing an attractive face activates the same part of the brain as do painkillers such as morphine: the opioid system. This part of the brain is responsible for feelings of "liking."

Being in love increases blood flow to the brain's pleasure center, the nucleus accumbens. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans show this region lights up when people are in love. The surge in blood flow usually happens during the attraction phase, when partners become fixated on each other. Love lowers levels of the brain chemical serotonin, a common attribute of obsessive-compulsive disorders. The serotonin drop could explain why lovers display such single-minded concentration on the object of their affection. These feelings can also cause lovers to be blind to their partner's undesirable traits in the early stages of a relationship, choosing to focus only on their partner's good qualities. After people have been in love for some time, the body develops a tolerance to the pleasurable chemicals. The attraction phase gives way to the attachment phase, when the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin permeate the brain and create feelings of well-being and security.

So not only love but the various stages and incarnations of love can be measured. What do we get when we try to measure PK...Flatline baby!

:dry: Triple post, :laugh:

Temple is no friend to mobile devices, double post, please moderate, etc etc ad nauseum...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

MartaLina wrote: What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

Yes it is there and yes we can actually measure it. Being in love floods the brain with chemicals and hormones that produce feelings of pleasure, obsession and attachment. Neuroscientists divide love into three phases: lust, attraction and attachment. During the lust phase, hormones flood the body with feelings of intense desire. Adrenaline and norepinephrine make the heart race and the palms sweat, while the brain chemical dopamine creates feelings of euphoria. The brain releases dopamine in response to other pleasurable stimuli too, including drugs, which explains the so-called lovers' high. Even before people fall in love, seeing an attractive face activates the same part of the brain as do painkillers such as morphine: the opioid system. This part of the brain is responsible for feelings of "liking."

Being in love increases blood flow to the brain's pleasure center, the nucleus accumbens. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans show this region lights up when people are in love. The surge in blood flow usually happens during the attraction phase, when partners become fixated on each other. Love lowers levels of the brain chemical serotonin, a common attribute of obsessive-compulsive disorders. The serotonin drop could explain why lovers display such single-minded concentration on the object of their affection. These feelings can also cause lovers to be blind to their partner's undesirable traits in the early stages of a relationship, choosing to focus only on their partner's good qualities. After people have been in love for some time, the body develops a tolerance to the pleasurable chemicals. The attraction phase gives way to the attachment phase, when the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin permeate the brain and create feelings of well-being and security.

So not only love but the various stages and incarnations of love can be measured. What do we get when we try to measure PK...Flatline baby!

Might want to include sources the next time you cut n paste...


http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrTHRDBk9RXulEA.idXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZTBoaTR2BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE5MTBfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1473578050/RO=10/RU=http://www.livescience.com/43395-ways-love-affects-the-brain.html/RK=0/RS=1JoCqNHchq4fPYrILQn3gsdlu_8-

Khaos wrote:

What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

Yet, you would have no problem stating it IS there because you cannot measure it?

:huh:

As for love, while I suppose you cannot measure it, yet, you can express it in a measurable way.

However, that does not apply in any real consistent or measurable way for TK/PK

Now, if you say it cannot be measured and yet claim it can be demonstrated, then you are saying it can be measured in some way in an observable sense( Moving things with your mind should be a measurable instance, not unlike hugging, for love, or a kiss), not unlike love.

Yet, this is not the case, and it hasnt gotten any better at making it so

Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science... if someone can do TK/PK I'd really want them to apply try to apply science to it! New discoveries would be one of the main sources of expanding the frontiers of science, by allowing new tools to be created to look deeper/further/beyond what was previously considered to be the limits.

Yet, there is nothing to measure for science, or to create tools for.

You know, because those that actually CAN do it in a big way wont, for a myriad of excuses, money, fame, or science, which is strange no matter how you slice it.

Seriously, you can state how something can be beyond science, but in this case, there is nothing to measure past hearsay in he first place.

New frontiers? Show that there is such a frontier.

Even were there not tools to measure it, a display, a consistant repeatable display would be enough for any scientist to put thousands of hours in trying to find ways to measure, and develop it, or ways to develop it.

A drove of real scientists would.

You say its possible, I say "Ok show it to me"

Aaaaannnd you cant.

I do so wonder what people coming into my BJJ class say to such a sales pitch.

"Show me it works"

"Sorry, I cant, and its beyond perception, but you will certainly be able to defend yourself with it."

No....That dont metal.

Always a perception/conflict of science vs intuition. There is none. The difference is only the beliefs that you hang onto too tight. It's all about learning and understanding. Use what works for you but don't limit yourself. Be flexible and open minded

Khaos wrote:

Just because something might be said to exist beyond science doesn't mean it is anti-science... if someone can do TK/PK I'd really want them to apply try to apply science to it! New discoveries would be one of the main sources of expanding the frontiers of science, by allowing new tools to be created to look deeper/further/beyond what was previously considered to be the limits.

Yet, there is nothing to measure for science, or to create tools for.

You know, because those that actually CAN do it in a big way wont, for a myriad of excuses, money, fame, or science, which is strange no matter how you slice it.

Seriously, you can state how something can be beyond science, but in this case, there is nothing to measure past hearsay in he first place.

New frontiers? Show that there is such a frontier.

That's easy.... I'm not asserting its existence, just the right for people to discuss trying to discover it in this forum without people asserting its non-existence to the point that it derails the threads topic.

Your belief is not required for others belief, as I said earlier, if it upsets you when other people discuss it - perhaps consider it as a meditation rather then an effort to quantify or discover something otherwise unknown. Is anyone here saying they have proof? If not, then your assertions of failure seem misplaced and well... offtopic.

What i have trouble with is stating that something is not there because you cannot measure it , you cannot measure my love but it is still there ?

Yet, you would have no problem stating it IS there because you cannot measure it?

:huh:

As for love, while I suppose you cannot measure it, yet, you can express it in a measurable way.

However, that does not apply in any real consistent or measurable way for TK/PK

Now, if you say it cannot be measured and yet claim it can be demonstrated, then you are saying it can be measured in some way in an observable sense( Moving things with your mind should be a measurable instance, not unlike hugging, for love, or a kiss), not unlike love.

Yet, this is not the case, and it hasnt gotten any better at making it so

Hmm i actually had to sleep on this one , you have some good points here , however i see now where we differ , i see love as taking responsibililty for another beings happiness or if thats out of reach a part of their well being , putting them in front of myself , therefore its almost impossible to measure my love for them , esp when i have to keep that love hidden. I assume that you measure love in hugs and kisses? That would be great actually , the world would be so wonderfull if we could all show love in that manner

And thanks for pointing out one of my thinking flaws , i do indeed have no trouble at all stating that i have seen angels and stuff like that , i cannot prove their existense even if many more have seen them , its not measurable indeed. I love sience by the way , and empirical evidence is very important where saving lives are concerned def !! But i cannot help but dream there is more to life than just empirical evidence , and having said that , i agree with you that i should be more carefull with stating experience as evidence.

Adder wrote: That's easy.... I'm not asserting its existence, just the right for people to discuss trying to discover it in this forum without people asserting its non-existence to the point that it derails the threads topic.

The topic is TK/PK (and arguably any of the other items in the second article) and since the OP posed no specific question, I'd say pretty much anything that vaguely touches upon that topic goes. To respond to what other people say on the topic without going completely unrelated directions also doesn't seem like much of a derailment, but feel free to correct me if I misunderstand. If anything, I'd argue that the first actual derailment came through RyuJin in post #256264, when he first brought science into the mix for no reason and that would not be the last derailment. Indeed, the post I am right now responding to doesn't seem very on topic itself, is it?
At any rate, I would much appreciate if you could refer to the post where anyone asserted or implied that someone did not have a right to discuss the topic at hand or was even discouraged from doing so.

Your belief is not required for others belief [sic], as I said earlier, if it upsets you when other people discuss it - perhaps consider it as a meditation rather then an effort to quantify or discover something otherwise unknown. Is anyone here saying they have proof? If not, then your assertions of failure seem misplaced and well... offtopic.

It seems like the only ones upset are those who would rather one side shut up. Now, since Khaos is here, I'll leave it to him to explain how he feels about it, if he so pleases, but I wouldn't learn much from a discussion like that and I always felt like this was supposed to be a place of growth and learning.
Nobody needs to say they have proof. But there comes a burden of justification with any positive claim, and uninterrupted, millennia-long failure to meet it is itself quite something to consider when evaluating the veracity of the claim which is surely a meta-question to be settled before we go on discussing the implications of something that until then might very well not even be a thing.
Now, of course everybody is welcome to believe anything and everything for good and bad reasons and without reason, too, and in an effort to learn and improve, I am for one eager to hear what they believe and what their reasons are and meditation cannot answer that as well as the people I ask and challenge, to my own benefit as much as to theirs. We are then having a discussion. Does that upset someone?

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: That's easy.... I'm not asserting its existence, just the right for people to discuss trying to discover it in this forum without people asserting its non-existence to the point that it derails the threads topic.

The topic is TK/PK (and arguably any of the other items in the second article) and since the OP posed no specific question, I'd say pretty much anything that vaguely touches upon that topic goes.

First of all, the topic is "developing tk/pk," and that's the title for those who can't read. Second, doesn't really matter what "you say" as you're not a moderator.

This most certainly is a place of growth and learning, thirdly you're also not a teacher, and it doesn't seem you or Khaos are here to "grow & learn" but Instead hack away at anyone's theories which aren't locktight as both of you are excellent debaters, fully know it and feed from the conflict.

People are becoming hesitant to express their views here for fear of being ridiculed by the two of you. Enjoy it while it lasts, because this too shall pass boys...

Smh, science wasn't brought in for no reason...you and a couple of others sought to discuss/debate the subject as skeptics...i'm not an idiot, I know skeptics and debaters demand empirical evidence...and the only way to obtain that is through the application of science..

Just because one cannot read between the lines does not mean there isn't anything written there...

One day perhaps I will become a masterdebater, but for now I have no interest in it(I get the impression it causes chafing)...

This has gone a long way from my intent...I was merely providing information for folks that were interested in a topic and instead I wound up in a swarm of mynocks...oh well...