How many practice telekinesis?

I have had seen and experienced some things and I know obviously I can't prove it happened. I don't have a time machine where I can rewind and record exactly what happened, and not all things are easily recorded.

Here, to me, is the most interesting part.

Were this an actual practice, with reliable and repeatable feedback, would you not be able to do it again, and on demand, or at least a somewhat consistent way?

I am not asking for your past anecdotal experiences.

You should not need a time machine to rewind and record past acts.

What about present ones? Now?



Criticism as conspiracy and non-repeatable results being the two biggest issues I take with your approach.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your point, and that chart, Khaos... actually I totally agree... but! I would like to point out that science was once witchcraft (so sayeth the church, god wills it) and gravity was a pseudo-science. Hell, we've only been able to study something like 0.0000000001% of the known universe.. gravity might still be a pseudoscience, or at least an regional anomaly.

Point being, Science is effectively a belief system itself (albeit a well documented, well studied, very popular, and very easy to trust one). Hell, they named the "atom" as such because atomos means "not divisible" thinking that it was the smallest building block of the universe, and look how that turned out?

Also, when reading that chart, herbalism is brought to mind... but it's becoming a known fact that western medicine is driven by money and influence and politics, not ecological balance and health(though those are considerations, after the fact) and therefore it gets pinned as a pseudoscience by the people who get paid to only label certain things science....

With all that said, I love science. And I utilize it a LOT. And I study it a LOT. But I also recognize it's limitations and flaws. And I would no sooner go to Christianity to tell me if wicca is legitimate than I would go to science to describe telekinesis or herbalism. Because Christianity has not studied the pagan gods without bias, and science has done the same with the metaphysics and "pseudosciences". Which is not to say that some pseudo science is in fact total hogwash...

Gisteron wrote: Good grief, would you please say something new?

Yabuturtle wrote: I know some wonder why I brought magic up...

Not saying that telekinesis is the same as magic, but you weren't the first to mention the word. I have yet to see a definition of magic that excludes moving stuff about with nothing but your mind. You are the kind of expert in magic who would distinguish between the two but to us mere mortals that distinction seems completely unfounded, for the time being.

... but like with psionics, you see people become skeptical to it and say "No evidence" But these two things I believe are very real.

Can't speak for everybody else but I can assure you that I did not become skeptical to anything. That is just not how skepticism works, but I won't go into that again because I have at least twice already and for all I know you aren't the kind of person who likes things repeated too often, so I'll spare you.

I have had seen and experienced some things and I know obviously I can't prove it happened. I don't have a time machine where I can rewind and record exactly what happened, and not all things are easily recorded.

If such were the case with me I would have to doubt whether I actually experienced them to begin with. Unlike you, my senses are fallible, my memory is imperfect and my biases are too numerous to count, you see... So I don't get to just not question my experience.

I do wonder if anyone asked themselves "If psionics wasn't possible, why would there be people practicing it or attempting it"

Well, if you don't ask, you shall not ever find out... Then again, I'm not sure you have asked that yourself either, since otherwise you'd see how little that contributes to your desired conclusion. In the same way I can ask why if no magic stone on the planet can turn lead into gold, so many kept trying to find it for so long. Surely, they must have been onto something profoundly true; what else could possibly motivate a search like that? It couldn't be that gold is a valued and therefore desirable and highly limited resource or that nobody has telekinetic powers which would put anybody who achieved them at a fundamental advantage over everybody else... No, the more reasonable conclusion is that the philosopher's stone is an actually existing object out there, somewhere... over the rainbow...

After a while, wouldn't they say "You know, I'm not getting anything out of this stuff."

Some would. Others wouldn't. You'd have to ask, I guess. But that would mean posing a question, admitting you don't know something and that's scary. We understand.

That's exactly the question I asked. It didn't make sense to me for people to buy books and tools and invest so much time practicing an art that is supposed to be impossible according to many scientists.

Right, so you asked, and I assume they responded, right? Right? Also, if you could kindly provide a list of all the scientists who suppose telekinesis impossible, that would be very helpful. Not to me, admittedly, since being a man of science myself, no opinion, no matter how many hold it or how strongly they do actually has a bearing on what is evident and what isn't. You know, I'm the kind of skeptic who is actually skeptical rather than a nay-sayer who declares things false or impossible for no reason.

And I thought "Maybe they are getting something out of it and I just didn't see it.

So how does this work exactly? "Hang on, so many people believe it, I guess I should too. There is no way people could be sincerely invested into unfounded beliefs is there? So therefore they must be onto something." Argument from incredulity all over again...

I don't expect anyone to believe me here. Doesn't matter because I know the things I've experienced were real.

No, you don't. If you did, you could have made us (or at least the open-minded folks among us) know that they are, too, by now. Maybe you didn't see it until now, that's fine. Most of us think we know things we really don't actually know. But most of us don't do what you are about to do:

People saying that it's not possible isn't going to change my opinion and say "Yeah I guess it was all a crazy kooky coincidental trick that happened". And I'm fine, really.

First of all, I can't recall anybody saying telekinesis was impossible, although depending on what one means by impossible, I suppose one could say it is... However, what baffles me more is this: You are basically admitting that the entire discussion had been a complete waste for you, because there is no way you would possibly ever change your mind, and yet you dared to appeal to our open-mindedness on the same topic just the day before? For now there is nothing I have left to say beyond this point without getting explicitly hostile, so I shall cut my post here...

You're complaining that I'm not saying anything new, yet you're pretty much repeating yourself. And if you honestly can't continue without getting explicitly hostile, than why even post it in the first place. Not to mention you need better self control. It didn't even make sense to make a post saying it's not real. If you believed certain powers were real and I just butted in and said "lolz no it's not" Wouldn't that be rude of me to do that? Are you aware that you have been rather rude? Saying it's not real, acting as if you know what I was really thinking, like saying that I didn't really ask myself that question, which is a lie because I obviously did ask that question. Otherwise I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that there was some truth to this.

Honestly I don't want to talk to you. You'll keep repeating the same thing and trying to convince me it's all fantasy. If I met aliens and you tell me aliens aren't real, do you really think I'm going to believe you? If some people weren't so materialistic they would be able to see with both eyes instead of just one eye. But I don't really care if you believe and honestly have no interest in discussing it with you anymore. I said what needed to be said. Take it or leave it.

Perhaps hope is a better word then belief.

Everyone probably hopes they could do it, though it would change the world entirely if people could - so its a big thing to hope for. I mean you can either do it or you cannot.
If you can and want others to believe, show us.
If you can and want others to believe but wont show us, then explain your experience of it.
If you can and want others to believe but wont show us or explain your experience of it, then you are offering no basis for belief, in yourself or others - so people start to question 'why' you believe it. Hence my suggestion perhaps hope is a better word. You would be in effect asking for blind faith, and that is usually only given by others conditionally if ever, and is usually earned AFAIK. So people will probably automatically wonder why if you will not put your faith in the audience to show or share about why they should believe, then why would they put their faith in you to simply belief without any basis.

Belief is probably better left for things which have a likely chance of succeeding. For me, functionally speaking, belief operates as a short cut in decision making. It is a prior ascertained decision about something for the express purpose in other decision making processes, without having to get sidetracked re-analyzing that thing each time. So if its not reliable, then its going to cause problems.

So using hope on the other hand intrinsically drag's into the processing the attribute of uncertainty, with the aforementioned point of view about some decision.

Of course you can believe what ever you want, and you are welcome to talk about it what you believe and why. It's just some people will question why you believe it - not so much to judge you, but to point out why they would perhaps not believe it if you were them.

Khaos wrote:

I have had seen and experienced some things and I know obviously I can't prove it happened. I don't have a time machine where I can rewind and record exactly what happened, and not all things are easily recorded.

Here, to me, is the most interesting part.

Were this an actual practice, with reliable and repeatable feedback, would you not be able to do it again, and on demand, or at least a somewhat consistent way?

I am not asking for your past anecdotal experiences.

You should not need a time machine to rewind and record past acts.

What about present ones? Now?

Criticism as conspiracy and non-repeatable results being the two biggest issues I take with your approach.

I understand why some would ask questions but sometimes depending on the effect you want, you can't always just do it on command immediately. It doesn't often work that way. People see psionics and magic in movies and think when people see people in real life that claim they can do it, they dismiss it, thinking that the person claiming such abilities is claiming they can basically mimic the stuff in movies, and psionics and magic doesn't really work the way it's portrayed in movies. And not all things can be recorded accurately. Such as if someone cast a blessing spell on someone, a camera can record it but it's not going to record the actual action that took place. Psionics can be tricky as depending on the aura of theirs an others they can do it. But such as if someone is to perform levitation the energy field can be sensitive to outside forces and depending on how much of it there is, it can affect the levitation. Not all things can be shown but it can be experienced. As in to know that blessing spells were real, you yourself would have to be blessed.

Lots of this stuff has been shown in legends and for some reason, some people think legend automatically means fantasy. Legend isn't fantasy. Legend is legend. It's not fiction. We know things tha are fictional like characters in stories. Legends are debatable. And there is always some truth to legends. Otherwise they wouldn't be legendary in the first place.

here you go again, quoting my entire post and responding to like two words in it...

Yabuturtle wrote: You're complaining that I'm not saying anything new, yet you're pretty much repeating yourself.

Well, if you quit quoting me to carry on... twisting the contents of the quote, maybe I wouldn't have to address it.

And if you honestly can't continue without getting explicitly hostile, than why even post it in the first place.[sic]

Did I not cut my post the instant I was about to get hostile? Do you even read what you quote at all? Well, doesn't matter now, because now you've done it, so brace yourself.

Not to mention you need better self control.

And you could use some more self-awareness. Nobody's perfect, I guess.

It didn't even make sense to make a post saying it's not real.

Kindly quote the part where I did any such thing, would you?

If you believed certain powers were real and I just butted in and said "lolz no it's not" Wouldn't that be rude of me to do that?

Edgy, perhaps, but not rude, in my opinion no. However, I did not do any such thing, did I? Citation, please.

Are you aware that you have been rather rude?

No. I'll leave that to the fair judgement of our readers and moderators though. They will surely inform me if I stepped out of line and point me back to said line if needed.

Saying it's not real...

I never did. That's like the third time you pushed that blatant lie, too, and yet you expect anything other than rudeness back? Please...

... acting as if you know what I was really thinking, like saying that I didn't really ask myself that question, which is a lie because I obviously did ask that question. Otherwise I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that there was some truth to this.

The question in question really doesn't lead to the conclusion you reached. And it is an easily answered one, too. I may not have access to your mind, but in light of your other ways of argumentation and your freedom to lie to our faces and to project your own dishonesty or closed-mindedness onto others, I'd say I do have some sufficient reasons to think about you as I do. If I'm wrong, so be it. After all, I can only judge what I experience, not the real thing. And besides, by your standard it is a rude thing to tell people they are wrong about things, isn't it?

Honestly I don't want to talk to you.

Sure. Got a number of options then. Quit responding to me specifically with unfiltered lies. Alternatively, there's the door. And on top of that you are at liberty to block me as well, if necessary.

You'll keep repeating the same thing and trying to convince me it's all fantasy.

I dare assert that I did not say the same thing in every one of my posts, but again, I'll leave that up to the judgement of our readers. However, I will again ask you to kindly quote me ever saying or indeed implying that "it was all fantasy", let alone caring enough to try and convince you. In fact, I recall saying the very opposite of that just recently.

If I met aliens and you tell me aliens aren't real, do you really think I'm going to believe you?

No. But it's not my burden to show you wrong, you see.

If some people weren't so materialistic they would be able to see with both eyes instead of just one eye.

Take that up with some people. By most definitions I'm not a materialist.

But I don't really care if you believe and honestly have no interest in discussing it with you anymore.

Evidently, since you are responding, one can assume that you do. But I shan't press it. We both know this isn't going anywhere because one of us is listening and responding and the other is playing the victim and lying. Don't take this personally, I have a reputation for dealing with the likes of you, often just a tad harsher than perhaps warranted. I'd love to say I welcome more of it or that I enjoy the discussion, but I can't. My honesty gets in the way of my kindness towards those who have none.

*drops mic*

I've also seen some very religious people dismiss it which still boggles me. They believe certain spirits exist and have certain powers, believe in an afterlife and believe in a deity or deities that reshape the cosmos yet ddeny that certain abilities like telekinesis don't exist? I don't know it just boggles me.

Speaking of religions I know that there really isn't any religion that is idspleased with it nor do they favor it, but I notice the dharmic and Oriental religions tend to have more telekinetic practicioners.

Telekinesis is a lot more subtle than the movies. You're probably not going to fling things up in the air and lift entire mountains anytime soon.. Same thing with levitation. You're notgoing to fly 50 feet up in the air with it.

I do wonder when did society become this materialistic society . Where if they don't see it that therefore it doesn't exist. Never saw aliens but with all of this space in the universe and the planets we've discovered and the billions upon billions of galaxies we've seen, the idea of aliens s certainly not impossible.. Especially considering that this universe isn't just one of many universes out there. Having such a materialistic view just makes you blind in one eye. One needs to see with both eyes in order to get a better perception of the universe. And people are busy people nowadays. People who study psionics aren't going to study psionics unless they get something out of it. It's just common sense that people wouldn't take their time to study an art that isn't possible. And people have claimed to move things. Are some doing it for attention?Probably, but there probably are some legit ones. It's like I said with psychics. People are so used to seeing the scam artist psychics that they end up ignoring the psychics that actually are psychic.

Telekinesis is a lot more subtle than the movies. You're probably not going to fling things up in the air and lift entire mountains anytime soon.. Same thing with levitation. You're notgoing to fly 50 feet up in the air with it.

Explain subtle, because no one has asked for grand feats, merely something.

Is it so subtle that you cannot tell it is even happening? Because,well, what good is it then? How and what exactly are you verifying as telekinesis?

I do wonder when did society become this materialistic society . Where if they don't see it that therefore it doesn't exist.

Wanting to see some kind of tangible evidence has nothing to do with materialism.

I do wonder when people in society started thinking they could make outrageous claims and then not have to be responsible and accountable to back up there talk with some walk.

Khaos wrote:

Telekinesis is a lot more subtle than the movies. You're probably not going to fling things up in the air and lift entire mountains anytime soon.. Same thing with levitation. You're notgoing to fly 50 feet up in the air with it.

Explain subtle, because no one has asked for grand feats, merely something.

Is it so subtle that you cannot tell it is even happening? Because,well, what good is it then? How and what exactly are you verifying as telekinesis?

I do wonder when did society become this materialistic society . Where if they don't see it that therefore it doesn't exist.

Wanting to see some kind of tangible evidence has nothing to do with materialism.

I do wonder when people in society started thinking they could make outrageous claims and then not have to be responsible and accountable to back up there talk with some walk.

I'm going to assume you didn't read my posts, so I hope to make this quite clear. Please read very carefully.

As I said, the movies exaggerate. One who actually practice magic and psionics do it in a more subtle way. People are not going to be able to create fireballs out of nothing. Magic is more subtle as in spells and rituals can take place to protect or bless the individual or even bring up their luck. In their minds eye they can sometimes see nature spirits, angels ect. Kind like like when you need a lense to see germs, the minds eye allows you to see things your physical eyes can't.

Telekinesis has been recorded, but many say they were fake, and some probably are and some might not. Telekinesis involves movements and some can push or lift objects briefly. It's easier to push than to lift it up but it often depends on the person's experience and concentration. And even the most practiced individuals won't be able to lift things with the flick of a wrist. It takes great concentration even for an expert and of course depends on what they are lifting/pushing.

Yeah it has a lot to do with materialism. Materialism I think just handicaps people and prevents people from seeing other things. It's this "Give me evidence or it doesn't exist and never will exist" mentality that I don't like. If we never discovered dinosaurs, does that mean dinosaurs never existed? Of course not. That'd be absurd as dinosaurs have existed whether we discovered them or not.

And as I said before, if you want video, not all stuff is so easily recorded. Some things such as people wearing magical amulets, being blessed or protected or making contact with nature spirits, angels ect, isn't going to be recorded on camera. How could it? That doesn't make sense. do you know cameras that can record the auras? How can you record people having visions of talking to their deities? You're not going to be able to record that anytime soon. Dreams are not just mere hallucinations. There's a reason why we dream. Otherwise we wouldn't dream in the first place. This kind of art requires more experience than proof . As in you yourself need to experience it to find out that it's real. That will be your proof. And by also talking to psychics. And I mean real psychics as there are some fake ones out there.

But I have to stress again, why even bother commenting on a thread involving an art which you yourself doesn't believe that it exists? I don't even know why you would want videos of the art as you're just going to say it's fake anyway, so why ask for evidence in the first place? I could name dozens of experiences that are not explained so easily and could be associated with magic or the paranormal and you wouldn't believe me. But hey I'm just doing this for no reason right? Just for lolz and what not. And I guess some people have known what I have experienced, saying what I've experienced was all fake. If I didn't think there was a sliver of truth to this, I wouldn't be here wasting my time writing threads about it. You'll only be convinced if you yourself practice it or witness someone doing it.

cedricwinterwolf wrote: While I don't necessarily disagree with your point, and that chart, Khaos... actually I totally agree... but! I would like to point out that science was once witchcraft (so sayeth the church, god wills it) and gravity was a pseudo-science. Hell, we've only been able to study something like 0.0000000001% of the known universe.. gravity might still be a pseudoscience, or at least an regional anomaly.

Point being, Science is effectively a belief system itself (albeit a well documented, well studied, very popular, and very easy to trust one). Hell, they named the "atom" as such because atomos means "not divisible" thinking that it was the smallest building block of the universe, and look how that turned out?

Also, when reading that chart, herbalism is brought to mind... but it's becoming a known fact that western medicine is driven by money and influence and politics, not ecological balance and health(though those are considerations, after the fact) and therefore it gets pinned as a pseudoscience by the people who get paid to only label certain things science....

With all that said, I love science. And I utilize it a LOT. And I study it a LOT. But I also recognize it's limitations and flaws. And I would no sooner go to Christianity to tell me if wicca is legitimate than I would go to science to describe telekinesis or herbalism. Because Christianity has not studied the pagan gods without bias, and science has done the same with the metaphysics and "pseudosciences". Which is not to say that some pseudo science is in fact total hogwash...

Yes, science was, at one time witchcraft, and yet, the reason it persisted beyond that it because it was not witchcraft, but science. It proved a much more reliable method of understanding the world around us, and useful because of that. So, I really have no idea where your trying to go with that. Yes, Galileo had to apologize...for being right, because though it was thought of as witchcraft, it wasnt.

Gravity is not a pseudoscience in any regard, that is a statement of ignorance. Its not even a regional anomaly.

Also, you claim science has not studied, or made studies into telekinesis or herbalism without bias.....except it has.I would argue there methods are much more unbiased than those seeking only favourable results to make an argument. As such they have also been found wanting in results, of which believers in the face of contrary evidence simply argue bias, and or, ignorance of said subject instead of simply admitting they can be wrong.

Which is where these conversations always come to there impasse.

The reason this is pseudoscience is because it cannot be proven wrong. Just like most of these "systems".

The baseline of what makes science a good method is this.

It's scientific if it can be proven right OR wrong. If there is no way to prove either, it's not scientific. According to Sir Karl Popper, it must be falsifiable to be considered scientific.

The moon is made of green cheese" is a scientific statement because we can prove it to be wrong. "God is all powerful" is not a scientific statement because there is no way to prove it true or false.


Now, pseudoscience hides behind the whole "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but is in no way looking for real evidence in either case. So then it is an empty practice.

Also, as for saying we have only been able to study 0.0000000001% of the known universe, well, you have essentially made the "God of the gaps argument" Which is flawed for several reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHxftS8MI

As stated, its a receding shoreline of discovery.

So, forgive me, but you do not recognize its limitations and flaws, as you do not even know where and what they are. I doubt anyone here is qualified to say they know the limitations of science, as that is word that takes in a whole myriad of fields of study, going into areas I doubt you could even follow, and in that, you are not alone. However, the only ones that can know the limitations of flaws of the various fields of science are those actively doing them.

So please, you know its limitations? No, that is an empty statement. It is in fact, an outright lie.

The flaw, and limitation of pseudoscience, or telekinesis specifically, is that it seeks no evidence, the shoreline of discovery, has not receded even a bit, in all this time. Which means its flaw and limitation is that you cannot prove whether or not it is happening at all.

I would call that a serious limitation.