Telepathy ( [Archive]

icerat

9th June 2009, 06:06 PM

I just wanted to hear your thoughts on telepathy and also your thoughts on how its done.

Was that intentionally as funny to read as it came out, given the context?

If you'd like to read my thoughts transcribed to screen pixels ...

(1) There's no evidence telepathy exists, so no reason to believe it exists

(2) There's no known mechanism for telepathy to work through, so even less reason to believe it exists

(3) I wish it did exist, that would be pretty cool :)

Same applies for telekenisis, clairvoyance etc. Re super strength, I'm open to the possibility of physiological explanations based on andrenaline and such, but it seems to me most so-called examples seem to also ignore the basic mechanics of things like leverage.

godless dave

9th June 2009, 06:11 PM

I see no evidence it exists.

Fnord

9th June 2009, 06:26 PM

I just wanted to hear your thoughts on telepathy and also your thoughts on how its done.
You and everyone in the CIA, FBI, IRS, NSA, as well as that beady-eyed old lady from across the street ... her and her cats ... ;)

After seeing my last thread it looks like not too many of you believe in it.
There is no compelling reason to believe.

And if you don't believe then a simple answer of no and a logical reason of why you don't believe it's possible will suffice.
No, because (1) no consistently repeatable demonstration of telepathic ability has ever been made that wasn't explained by collusion, trickery, or mere random guessing; and (2) no sufficiently supportable model explaining a telepathic mechanism has ever been put forward.

I would also like to know what exactly it is you believe possible.:relieved: Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc anything paranormal even super strength.
I believe that a lot of Preconceptual Science* has been performed in the field of "Tele-Whatever." This conclusion is based on the two "logical reasons" you requested.

However, given the aforementioned demonstrations and a sufficiently supportable model, I would believe in Telepathy - especially if you were to communicate these things directly from your mind to mine.

* Preconceptual Science is typified by:
1. Disconnecting from the established understanding of reality.
2. Reaching a conclusion before doing any research.
3. Dismissing anything contrary to the conclusion.
4. Not hearing anything to prove the conclusion wrong, mainly due to no longer listening.
5. Validating the conclusion based on the fact that no invalidating proof was ever heard.
6. Collecting evidence in favor of the conclusion, but only if someone else does the research.

(With thanks to Wiley, who writes and illustrates the "Non Sequitor" comic strip.)

Towlie

9th June 2009, 06:29 PM

I just wanted to hear your thoughts...Okay, I'm thinking them. Go ahead and listen in.

tsig

9th June 2009, 06:52 PM

Okay, I'm thinking them. Go ahead and listen in.

Keep thinking that and I'll have to report you.:)

I Ratant

9th June 2009, 07:33 PM

If mental teleputty existed (Humphrey, in the old Popeye cartoons), I'd be getting my face slapped (and some nifty dates) every day at the Mall!

HumbleMan

9th June 2009, 08:09 PM

9th June 2009, 08:16 PM

After posting my last thread:D

I just wanted to hear your thoughts on telepathy and also your thoughts on how its done. After seeing my last thread it looks like not too many of you believe in it. And if you don't believe then a simple answer of no and a logical reason of why you don't believe it's possible will suffice. I would also like to know what exactly it is you believe possible.:relieved: Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc anything paranormal even super strength.

Why don't you tell ME what I think about telepathy?

arthwollipot

9th June 2009, 08:19 PM

I would also like to know what exactly it is you believe possible.:relieved: Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc anything paranormal even super strength.Do you know what they call the paranormal that has been demonstrated to exist?

Normal.

HumbleMan

9th June 2009, 08:22 PM

Was that intentionally as funny to read as it came out, given the context?

If you'd like to read my thoughts transcribed to screen pixels ...

(1) There's no evidence telepathy exists, so no reason to believe it exists

(2) There's no known mechanism for telepathy to work through, so even less reason to believe it exists

(3) I wish it did exist, that would be pretty cool :)

Same applies for telekenisis, clairvoyance etc. Re super strength, I'm open to the possibility of physiological explanations based on andrenaline and such, but it seems to me most so-called examples seem to also ignore the basic mechanics of things like leverage.

I know I might sound crazy but arguing with your moving pixels is gonna seem more like mooning than having an actual conversation. I'm not gonna argue with you and the jref (I know mom, it's Jref:jaw-dropp) on wether or not TP exists but on your spare time consider coming over and enjoying a hot cup of coffee while I sit down and prove my paranormal claims.:relieved:

CelticRose

9th June 2009, 08:37 PM

CelticRose

9th June 2009, 08:42 PM

(1) There's no evidence telepathy exists, so no reason to believe it exists

(2) There's no known mechanism for telepathy to work through, so even less reason to believe it exists

(3) I wish it did exist, that would be pretty cool :)
Are you really sure that you want telepathy to exist? Think about it, unless you had some way of shielding your mind, your thoughts -- all of your thoughts -- would no longer be private.:scared:

HumbleMan

9th June 2009, 08:56 PM

CelticRose

9th June 2009, 09:08 PM

I saw your last post and I have a response to that. I think your forgetting what the Jref is all about. They are giving one million dollars to anyone who can prove paranormal claims. This proves one of two things.

1. Your not the smartest guy on the planet

or

2. You are but your focus is off

It's one of the two:boggled:
No, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet -- I'm a girl. Somehow I don't think there are many guys out there who would call themselves "CelticRose".

If you want the million dollars, go ahead and apply. We would love to see your proof of paranormal claims.

HumbleMan

9th June 2009, 09:33 PM

Uncle

Towlie

9th June 2009, 09:43 PM

To me, the practical definition of "paranormal" is pretty close to the definition of "impossible", which means that in essence, your question sounds like "do you believe in impossible things?" That reminds me of a passage from Through the Looking Glass:

Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'

`I can't believe that!' said Alice.

`Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'

Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Like arthwollipot says, if you believe something exists then you don't call it paranormal, you call it normal.

Hokulele

9th June 2009, 10:02 PM

Like arthwollipot says, if you believe something exists then you don't call it paranormal, you call it normal.

Unless you are looking to scam a few bucks off of someone...

The Man

9th June 2009, 10:05 PM

Telepathy (

I’m sorry a significant portion of your thought did not come through, please practice on your telepathic abilities. As to “why you don't believe it's possible will suffice” the fact that you require such a forum to express your thoughts, should suffice.

Fnord

9th June 2009, 10:06 PM

Uncle

Either we skeptics are getting better, or we're getting a less persistent class of wooist these days.

Uncayimmy

9th June 2009, 10:15 PM

Uncle

Nominated for a Language Award.

The Man

9th June 2009, 10:16 PM

Unless you are looking to scam a few bucks off of someone...

Au contraire, said scam depends on claiming the paranormal as, well, normal.

Tapio

10th June 2009, 01:44 AM

Two things

does telepathy exist why
and
do you believe in paranormal events if so state which one and why

It's a very simple question

I think icerat gave you a very simple answer. Why not reply to that answer before going any further?

Btw, IF you're wondering the sarcastic tone of some of the posters, just search "telepathy, paranormal claim, teleportation" etc. etc. You'll see just how many hundred times these people have gone through explaining this stuff...you do realize your thoughts/claims are nothing new, do you?

Anyway, if you really want to start a fruitful discussion, I suggest you answer icerat's post before anything else. If you're just :troll ing, beat it.

icerat

10th June 2009, 02:55 AM

Are you really sure that you want telepathy to exist? Think about it, unless you had some way of shielding your mind, your thoughts -- all of your thoughts -- would no longer be private.:scared:

Plenty of tinfoil in the third draw in the kitchen :)

I know I might sound crazy but arguing with your moving pixels is gonna seem more like mooning than having an actual conversation. I'm not gonna argue with you and the jref (I know mom, it's Jref:jaw-dropp) on wether or not TP exists but on your spare time consider coming over and enjoying a hot cup of coffee while I sit down and prove my paranormal claims.:relieved:

I don't like coffee, and any one to one like that would offer not proof at all. I'm no expert on the art of faking these types of things so I wouldn't know if it was real or trickery - so it's a useless exercise.

As I said, I'd love for it to be true. Please apply for the challenge. If you win, I'll even drink a coffee with you. :)

Ashles

10th June 2009, 05:28 AM

youtube.com/watch?v=9Tj5M9sxZqM

It clearly states that there is no cause for the movement of balls. You can't dismiss every clearly stated obvious case of a paranormal event. you become (dare I say it :covereyes) crazy
So why can't they do that in front of scientists/skeptics/magicians... or for the million dollar prize? (Or any one of the other similar prizes)?

Seriously - why don't they go to the nearest Independent University for thorough studying and demonstrate their ability so it can be studied and teach us amazing new things about the universe?

Why do you think they don't do those things?

Let me put it this way. If they can move those ping pong balls to specified locations... while the balls are surrounded with tiny polystyrene packing balls, I guarantee you I will consider that there something interesting worth investigating more thoroughly.

But strangely you never see footage of them performing such a feat.

In fact even if they just wore some form of mask over nose and mouth would be better. But these investigative crackpot 'universities' appear to lack the basic knowledge of controlling for obvious trickery.

Don't you think that should be controlled for? Don't you think it might be compelling to see footage where they behaved like actual skeptics or scientists rather than children being impressed by a magic show?

HansMustermann

10th June 2009, 06:14 AM

like I said before if you have any sarcasm left leave it in my last thread. I don't see why there is reason not to believe in telepathy, teleportation etc. its in the same category of withcraft, science shouldn't find anything new.

youtube.com/watch?v=9Tj5M9sxZqM

It clearly states that there is no cause for the movement of balls. You can't dismiss every clearly stated obvious case of a paranormal event. you become (dare I say it :covereyes) crazy

HumbleMan, actually there is one good reason to disbelieve it: they didn't come win Randi's million. If they can do that in controlled conditions and convince a professional conjurer that it's not a common trick, they can walk away with one million dollars.

As for what they "clearly state"... well, yes, so people lie. I know it's not a nice thought, but it's one you'd do well to learn fast and learn well. You can't take someone saying X as meaning it's the absolute truth, beyond all questioning, and that you'd have to be crazy to disbelieve. Au contraire, you'd have to be very gullible to take anything anyone said as 100% guaranteed truth.

Generally, my advice would be to watch some of Randi's videos. They're really educational.

The fact is, there are people who are very very very good at tricks and sleight of hand. E.g., you don't think David Copperfield actually teleported the statue of liberty, do you? It was a trick. You can probably see how smaller scale tricks are possible too.

E.g., magnets have been already mentioned, but here's another one: a very simple way to move pingpong balls, pencils, or turn pages, is to simply blow on them. (And, as I was saying, some Randi videos will tell and show you just that.) Better yet, since the air moves at a finite speed there, you can pretty much blow and turn your head, so everyone can see that when the object moves your mouth wasn't even in its direction. Or if you want to be even more dramatic, you can pretend to order it to move (and blow on it in the process) and turn your head, and it starts moving. Impresses the heck out of most people.

In some recorded movie on YouTube, where you have control over the camera? Heck, that becomes even easier, because you can be sure what is seen and what isn't.

Finally, don't forget that we're in the age of CGI. If we can produce a whole movie like Beowulf on a computer, surely someone can animate a movie about moving simple objects. On a grainy Flash video on YouTube, good luck telling the difference, really.

Let them come do it in front of Randi, win his million, and then I'll be convinced that it's genuine telepathy. As long as they don't trust their own act for that, well, there's not much reason for me to trust it either, now is it?

Ashles

10th June 2009, 06:18 AM

The nemesis of many telekinesis claims:

http://www.poly-fil.com/consumer/beanbaghand.jpg

Isobel

10th June 2009, 06:25 AM

I don't think telepathy exists.

I'm not sure about 'other' paranormal things. Personally I can't understand how we got here in the first place (not talking about evolution but the actual very very beginning), so I'm not sure what happens when we die.

I'm also not sure whether there are 'ghosts' or not. Things like poltergeist and evil spirits.

Also I do believe we all have a 'sixth' sense, when sometimes we get a premonition of something that's about to happen. I know I get bad feelings about things and good about others.

Isobel

10th June 2009, 06:26 AM

Oh just noticed I'm called 'new blood' :eek:

abr

10th June 2009, 06:43 AM

telepathy exist , and i can prove it ,if someone want to do the experiment with me by phone ,he will have his answer.

Ashles

10th June 2009, 06:44 AM

I don't think telepathy exists.

I'm not sure about 'other' paranormal things. Personally I can't understand how we got here in the first place (not talking about evolution but the actual very very beginning),
If you mean the actual start of life then that is called 'Abiogenesis'.

There is lots of information on Abiogenesis at Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)

so I'm not sure what happens when we die.

I'm also not sure whether there are 'ghosts' or not. Things like poltergeist and evil spirits.

Also I do believe we all have a 'sixth' sense, when sometimes we get a premonition of something that's about to happen. I know I get bad feelings about things and good about others.
Most people do.
But what people are very bad at is remembering the times they had such feelings which subsequently turned out to be incorrect, and people are very good at remembering (and usually embellishing) instances where they had such feelings that they felt were in some way indicated to be correct.

If you wanted to explore it, why not note down every time you had a feeling about something, and then see if it came true.

Of course if it is just generalised bad and good feelings, then how can anyone judge this? Bad and good things happen all the time, to us and to others. If I have a bad feeling right this moment at 13:44 on Wednesday 10th June 2009, I am sure it won't be long before something bad happens.

Ashles

10th June 2009, 06:46 AM

telepathy exist , and i can prove it ,if someone want to do the experiment with me by phone ,he will have his answer.

Why not contact your local University? Or your local newspaper?

Isobel

10th June 2009, 06:56 AM

telepathy exist , and i can prove it ,if someone want to do the experiment with me by phone ,he will have his answer.

hmmmm is it one of those expensive numbers where you're charged a fortune per minute.

My aunt went onto one of those physic phone lines to get a reading, it cost her £35 a lot of money for someone to tell her a lot of stuff that never happened.

Why not take the 1M dollar challenge if you really think you are telepathic?

Isobel

10th June 2009, 06:57 AM

If you mean the actual start of life then that is called 'Abiogenesis'.

Most people do.
But what people are very bad at is remembering the times they had such feelings which subsequently turned out to be incorrect, and people are very good at remembering (and usually embellishing) instances where they had such feelings that they felt were in some way indicated to be correct.

If you wanted to explore it, why not note down every time you had a feeling about something, and then see if it came true.

Of course if it is just generalised bad and good feelings, then how can anyone judge this? Bad and good things happen all the time, to us and to others. If I have a bad feeling right this moment at 13:44 on Wednesday 10th June 2009, I am sure it won't be long before something bad happens.

Thanks for the link I shall have a read of that.

Regarding 'premonitions' I know what you mean, and it's true you are more likely to remember the ones you had that came true and forget the others. I should keep a note and see. Thanks.

Ashles

10th June 2009, 07:06 AM

Thanks for the link I shall have a read of that.

Regarding 'premonitions' I know what you mean, and it's true you are more likely to remember the ones you had that came true and forget the others. I should keep a note and see. Thanks.

When somebody counts their hits and ignores their misses it is referred to as 'Postdiction'.

Here is a Wikipedia entry on Postdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction).

Also of relevence is 'Confirmation bias' in which we selectively filter out information that is contrary to our pre-existing biases, and accept information which confirms (or appears to confirms) our preconceptions.

Wikipedia entry on Confirmation Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

This is all part of the greater goal of improving Critical Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) skills by which we can attempt to objectively (as far as possible) discover the truth about our world rather than just looking to reinforce what we personally think or believe.

Contrary to some oft-repeated (and rather lazy) accusations, this means that skeptics and critical thinkers in general are actually more open minded than most people.
We are happy to change our minds if evidence presents itself.

Isobel

10th June 2009, 07:13 AM

Ashles, thanks once again.

My friend went to see a 'medium' (tarrot cards) at a pub recently.

She was so excited when she came into work the next day. I was listening to what she'd been told and quite honestly felt like saying give me the money and I'll do the same. The reading was so general.

First of all she said that she'd been going through a bad time recently (now most people go to physics when this happens), then she said how her life would 'pick up'.

It really was a load of nonsense but here's this young woman, with a degree in law believing this woman that goes round pubs reading cards.

But it is really a case of 'what you want to believe'. Had this tarrot reader told her she was going to have 7 years bad luck she wouldn't have believed that.

Ashles

10th June 2009, 07:19 AM

Another interesting and relevant effect is the 'Forer Effect' (this especially applies to Astrology and Medium readings).

It illustrates how people choose to apply highly generalised readings to themselves as though they were amazingly insightful.

A psychologist asked people to judge how well their astrological reading applied to them (on a scale of 1-5)... but there was a twist.

This link is short but really effective and interesting:

The Forer Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect)

Abooga

10th June 2009, 07:21 AM

BIOLOGY

The main reason I don´t believe in telepathy or any of those "powers" is because I have a fairly good understanding of evolutionary biology.

If someone ever evolved those "mind powers", they would very rapidly spread around by natural selection. They would have done that already and wouldn´t be a rare thing.

(apart form violating known physics...)

HumbleMan

10th June 2009, 07:42 AM

Ashles

10th June 2009, 07:49 AM

There is a reason why I like to show videos with scientists and university people, why, because they are credible people.
And when are you intending to show such a video?

Please don't tell me you think the video you posted was credible? They lack the most basic controls I would expect from a credible test.

Credible evidence comes in the form of peer-reviewed study and experimentation, not videos on YouTube. :rolleyes:

I have seen some of James Randi's videos and some of them seem skeptical themselves such as the missing thumb and the same color as my skin hiding magnet badge. These tricks seem a little too small and a little too obvious.
As do all 'paranormal' video demonstrations.

Don't discredit the fact that some of these people have and incredibly good name when it comes to what they do (like Ripleys) for example. These people aren't dumb and I have yet to see James Randi's television show.

metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokines is/

There was a video about a man who could knock over blocks and move a bowl of water using his mind, If someone finds it please post it.
I hate to break it to you but evidence by YouTube is really not going to get you very far here.

Do you have links to proper studies from Universities with some credibility?
Maybe studies where they have actually written things down such as controls, methodology, who the scientists involved are etc.
Like, you know, real actual scientists might do?
Let's discuss those instead. Because the video examples are useless.

Ashles

10th June 2009, 07:55 AM

metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokines is/

I can't see this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV90fvc0oA

But does it discuss the same guy?

Toke

10th June 2009, 08:00 AM

metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokines is/
Tinfoil dipped in water acid and then getting hot inside a towel?

Are you aware of what kind of resources physist have avaiable to look for new particles, energies e.t.c.? (fusion reactors, particle accelerators)
If there was any indication of this being real, as in having any measuable impact on the real world, physists would be all over it looking for new types of particles or energies.

Toke

10th June 2009, 08:03 AM

I can't see this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV90fvc0oA

But does it discuss the same guy?

Don´t think so, unless he aged alot inbetween.

HansMustermann

10th June 2009, 08:15 AM

There is a reason why I like to show videos with scientists and university people, why, because they are credible people. I have seen some of James Randi's videos and some of them seem skeptical themselves such as the missing thumb and the same color as my skin hiding magnet badge. These tricks seem a little too small and a little too obvious. Don't discredit the fact that some of these people have and incredibly good name when it comes to what they do (like Ripleys) for example. These people aren't dumb and I have yet to see James Randi's television show.

metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokines is/

There was a video about a man who could knock over blocks and move a bowl of water using his mind, If someone finds it please post it.

Well, no offense meant, but I didn't ask them or you to handwave and make rationalizations. Yes, you believe their woowoo, that much I had already understood.

All I ask is that, if they have the power, they come perform in front of James Randi and get his million. _That_ will go a long way to convince me.

Seriously, there is a one million dollar prize for anyone who can produce any supernatural effects in controlled conditions in front of Randi. Controlled conditions, might mean a metal table, a compass, and/or the styrofoam granules that were already mentioned. (If anything relies on blowing air, those granules go flying.) Nothing unusual, nothing which would block psychic woowoo waves.

Anyone who asks me to believe that they genuinely have supernatural powers, _but_ doesn't want 1,000,000$ for 5 minutes of just doing what they usually do, will trip my suspension of disbelief big time.

nathan

10th June 2009, 08:20 AM

telepathy exist , and i can prove it ,if someone want to do the experiment with me by phone ,he will have his answer.

Using the telephone is not telepathy.

Paulhoff

10th June 2009, 09:39 AM

After posting my last thread:D

I just wanted to hear your thoughts on telepathy and also your thoughts on how its done. After seeing my last thread it looks like not too many of you believe in it. And if you don't believe then a simple answer of no and a logical reason of why you don't believe it's possible will suffice. I would also like to know what exactly it is you believe possible.:relieved: Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc anything paranormal even super strength.
It is not real, and the million dollars is still in the bank for JREF.

I need a logical reason why it should be and a logical reason how it can be.

Paul

:) :) :)

theMark

10th June 2009, 09:57 AM

Using the telephone is not telepathy.

"Telephonopathy?" ;)

Bikewer

10th June 2009, 10:15 AM

I'm amazed that anyone would cite Ripley's as a reliable source. The TV show that aired for a couple of seasons was strictly "for entertainment value".

When the Mythbusters forum started up a thread on "Viral Videos", I explained that I was not interested. These videos are totally in the control of the person making them. Hardly qualifies as the "controlled conditions" we skeptics would want.

Fnord

10th June 2009, 11:11 AM

telepathy exist , and i can prove it ,if someone want to do the experiment with me by phone ,he will have his answer.

I am thinking of my phone number. Call me.

learner

10th June 2009, 11:39 AM

I am thinking of my phone number. Call me.

Im thinking of calling you. Can you tell?

Fnord

10th June 2009, 12:48 PM

Im thinking of calling you. Can you tell?

Can you tell whether or not I can tell whether or not you are thinking of calling me?

CelticRose

10th June 2009, 12:57 PM

Can you tell whether or not I can tell whether or not you are thinking of calling me?
My brain hurts after reading that sentence. :boggled:

I think it's time to put my tinfoil hat on. ;)

Towlie

10th June 2009, 02:07 PM

Uncayimmy

10th June 2009, 02:23 PM

There is a reason why I like to show videos with scientists and university people, why, because they are credible people.

Scientists and university people already have a mechanism in place for publishing their results. They are called peer reviewed journals. It takes a whole lot of effort to get published. And once it is published, other scientists look for flaws and will submit problems found back to the journal. The net effect makes the information presented credible. It's not the people that are credible but rather the methodology. Sometimes scientists lie about their data in these journals. It's rare, but it happens.

YouTube videos are not all that credible. More importantly, the methods uses in the tests are usually full of holes. If a scientist is publishing via YouTube and not peer reviewed journals, what does that tell you?

As for your quigong video, you need to think about what you're seeing. For example, if somebody says they can shift their weight from their feet to their chest, would you test this with paper stapled to frames? Not me. I'd use a scale. Anybody who has walked across thin ice knows that you can distribute your weight to avoid breaking it.

As for his heat generation, think about that. He rubbed his hands together and generated heat. You can do that. Go ahead, try it. Rub your hands together firmly. Feel the heat caused by friction?

Here's another question to ask yourself: why does this "ancient art" require aluminum foil? Did they have Reynold's Wrap in 400AD? He says he dunked it in water. Do you know it was really water? I'm no chemist, but I do know that lye and aluminum foil will chemically react to generate enough heat for his demonstration.

Look at how he handled the foil. His fingers never touched the "water" did it? And only about 1/3 of it was dunked. He then wrapped it up in such a way that the 1/3 that was dunked was covered on both sides. He then wrapped that in a paper towel. Why? Could it be that the water was really lye? If so, it would appear he was taking the proper precautions to keep the lye of his hands and off his patient.

If he could generate heat through his hands, why not just stick a thermometer in the bowl of "water" and heat that? Why does he need aluminum foil and a paper towel?

Furthermore, when did the temperature start getting really high? It was when he made the aluminium foil into a more compact shape. This means the heat generated from the chemical reaction had less surface area to dissipate. Of course the temperature went higher.

As for the other video you mentioned with the guy moving bowls and what-not, ask yourself some simple questions: Is this the simplest possible way to demonstrate a "real" effect? Who is controlling the setup - the subject or the tester? If a guy can make a bowl flip up off the table, then let's put my baseball cap on the hood of my car. Can he make it flip?

Scientists are the ones you call to explain how an effect works given experiments with repeatable results. Conjurers are the ones you call to sniff out trickery.

IXP

10th June 2009, 02:23 PM

Ashles, thanks once again.
<clip>
First of all she said that she'd been going through a bad time recently (now most people go to physics when this happens), then she said how her life would 'pick up'.
<clip>

I love this typo! A triple entendre with the intended Psychics, the scientific discipline, and especially the archaic meaning of laxitive.

IXP

Uncayimmy

10th June 2009, 02:28 PM

My brother and I used to do a mind-reading trick. I'd say "Okay, Ace. I know in my heart that you'll be able to name this card", and then he'd guess the card. My mom had a friend who was a "psychic", and we did it for her once while she was visiting. She was really impressed.

That reminds me of the kid's game we used to play. Somebody would give you a word to relay to another person. Let's say the word is Booger. I would be able to relay that word to my friend by saying whatever random sentences came to mind. Those random sentences would only have meanings to his spirit guide, who would then reveal the answer to my friend. It went something like this:

The name of the game is Black Magic.
By the time Sally got home, dinner was cold.
Ostriches smell funny.
Oodles of Noodles is my favorite food.
George Washington never told a lie.
Every rose has a thorn.
Rich people drive Mercedes.

Did you get the answer?

JohnWS

10th June 2009, 02:35 PM

Telepathy, Clairvoyance or Precognition? It's confusing! :rolleyes:

For example, if someone looks at a randomly chosen playing card, but doesn't show it to me, and I guess it, did I just guess it accidentally, or did I read the person's mind, or did I foresee the future time when the card is shown to me, or did I clairvoyantly "see through" the cardboard to the face of the card?

From:Extra-Sensory Deceptions? (https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/esp.html)

HumbleMan

10th June 2009, 03:12 PM

These videos were shown on youtube. I have yet to see any proof or recognition of James Randi's credibility.I can't prove they're credible other than the fact that they have Ph.d's in this type of stuff just like you can't prove james Randi the magician is credible. From what Ive heard the only credible source here is James Randi and his big bucks.

James Randi would be proud:blush:

I suggest you add references and consider other more credible sources.

Michio Kaku a well known theoretical physicist insists on the possibilities of telepathy and psychokines, he expresses this in one of his books titled Physics of the Impossible, He writes a whole chapter on this subject.

I think investigating people in a more active approach such as visiting people who claim to have ceratin abilities such as the boiling water man would produce more positive results rather than 350 dropouts and a total success rate of 0% percent.

icerat

10th June 2009, 03:25 PM

what has James Randi's credibility got to do with anything? He has very little to do with the testing process for the million bucks.

HumbleMan

10th June 2009, 03:33 PM

When I say James Randi I'm referring to the company as a whole.

paximperium

10th June 2009, 03:39 PM

When I say James Randi I'm referring to the company as a whole.
What company?

learner

10th June 2009, 03:40 PM

Can you tell whether or not I can tell whether or not you are thinking of calling me?

I think so.

CelticRose

10th June 2009, 03:40 PM

When I say James Randi I'm referring to the company as a whole.
Then say JREF instead of James Randi. If you actually say what you mean, we might have an easier time understanding you.

Eschew obsfucation.

paximperium

10th June 2009, 03:40 PM

Michio Kaku a well known theoretical physicist insists on the possibilities of telepathy and psychokines, he expresses this in one of his books titled Physics of the Impossible, He writes a whole chapter on this subject. Really? Please do post this direct citation of this claim.
People love to misquote him and many cranks love to misunderstand what he is saying.

Hokulele

10th June 2009, 03:46 PM

Michio Kaku a well known theoretical physicist insists on the possibilities of telepathy and psychokines, he expresses this in one of his books titled Physics of the Impossible, He writes a whole chapter on this subject.

Considering that Michio Kaku spent a great deal of the chapter on psychokinesis praising James Randi and the work he did, you win +10 points for unintended irony.

Have you read the book?

Hokulele

10th June 2009, 03:47 PM

Really? Please do post this direct citation of this claim.
People love to misquote him and many cranks love to misunderstand what he is saying.

It is actually quite a fun book (and very easy to read). Kaku is primarily talking about biofeedback devices in the chapter on psychokinesis.

Hmm, maybe this would be a good candidate for a reading challenge?

Fnord

10th June 2009, 04:17 PM

I think so.
Well then, if you think you're thinking what I think you're thinking when I think the thoughts I've thoughtfully thought about thinking, then you'll obviously think that whatever you've thought about has gone thunk down the think while you were thwimming with the thoap.

paximperium

10th June 2009, 04:20 PM

It is actually quite a fun book (and very easy to read). Kaku is primarily talking about biofeedback devices in the chapter on psychokinesis.

Hmm, maybe this would be a good candidate for a reading challenge?
I have the book but am still trying to get through Blink by Gladwell and a half dozen others...sigh.

lightfire22000

10th June 2009, 09:04 PM

Mentalists have been duplicating telepathy for years often better than supposed "telepaths." Psychology and statistics are all a person needs to get started in that con game.

learner

10th June 2009, 10:33 PM

Well then, if you think you're thinking what I think you're thinking when I think the thoughts I've thoughtfully thought about thinking, then you'll obviously think that whatever you've thought about has gone thunk down the think while you were thwimming with the thoap.

Thobvious when you put it like that then. Thanks

Keep this up and the mods will have us thwimming with the thishes

This thpellcheck is crap. :eye-poppi

Ashles

11th June 2009, 02:31 AM

I think investigating people in a more active approach such as visiting people who claim to have ceratin abilities such as the boiling water man would produce more positive results rather than 350 dropouts and a total success rate of 0% percent.
Why? Why should scientists be expected to do house visits? That is ridiclous.

People claim amazing abilities? Fine, come to a university to get tested. Don't expect the scientists to pack up all their observation equipment to come to your front room. :confused: I cannot really believe anyone could be so ignorant of scientific research as to genuinely believe this is a sensible suggestion.

I think in your heart of hearts you now exactly why these claims are all so badly researched and tested. These claimants know they couldn't really pass proper testing.

That has to be why your defence of them is so poor.

Do you really think when testing whether someone can generate massive heat from their hand, the most efficient way of testing this is... filming him make cloth smoulder?

You don't think a real test might involve, ooh I don't know, asking him to heat a thermometer?

These videos were shown on youtube. I have yet to see any proof or recognition of James Randi's credibility.I can't prove they're credible other than the fact that they have Ph.d's in this type of stuff just like you can't prove james Randi the magician is credible. From what Ive heard the only credible source here is James Randi and his big bucks.

James Randi would be proud:blush:

Let me explain something that seems to elude many paranormal apologists:
Citicising James Randi or us or skeptics in general... does not in any way add an iota of creibility or evidence to your caims or your evidence.
If there is someone you think can do amazing paranormal things - get them tested! Get them to someone who can peform systematic, well-controlled testing. It doesn't have to have anything to do with James Randi. You may be shocked to hear many amazing scientific breakthoughs have been carried out, entirely without James Randi's involvement.

But I guess it is far easier to throw slurs and innuendo than... actually do testing isn't it? :rolleyes:

Still acording to you this is the fault of scientists for not dropping everything and driving round the country to follow up every unevidenced crakpot claim. That's a great use of their time.
While you, who appears to strongly believe in this... sit at a computer and make suggestions for the scientists. Why don't you try and do testing if you know of someone ho claims to be abe to do this? Maybe some time in their company watching their claims more closely might be a bit of an eye-opener for you.

HansMustermann

11th June 2009, 03:45 AM

These videos were shown on youtube.

Again, in an age of Computer Generated Images, a grainy video on you tube doesn't prove jack squat. Unless you also believe that the dragon from Beowulf was real, or that they used actual lightsabers in Star Wars, or that they filmed actual orcs in LOTR.

Seriously, "but it's on youtube" is the silliest and weakest argument _ever_.

I have yet to see any proof or recognition of James Randi's credibility.

It's not as much about credibility, as about the fact that he has a million dollars to give to anyone who can prove genuine paranormal powers. Yes, including telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc.

The fact that these guys don't come claim that million makes me think they're just conmen.

Think about it. If anyone told you you can get a million just for showing up and proving that, say, you can read... wouldn't you go? I mean, hot damn, it's a million dollars. Why don't these guys come get a million for just 5 minutes of doing what they say they can do?

I can't prove they're credible other than the fact that they have Ph.d's in this type of stuff

No sh*t? Which serious university gives out Ph.D.'s in telepathy? Oh, you want to tell me you're gullible enough to trust someone with a diploma bought from a woowoo diploma mill.

Well, then I have a most profitable proposition for you. Give your money to my cat, because she has a Ph.D. in economics bought from such a mill ;)

From what Ive heard the only credible source here is James Randi and his big bucks.

Actually, just the big bucks. If they don't trust themselves to be genuine enough to claim it, it tells me they know they're conmen.

I suggest you add references and consider other more credible sources.

Coming from the guy who thinks a faked youtube video is a credible source, the irony is delicious.

I think investigating people in a more active approach such as visiting people who claim to have ceratin abilities such as the boiling water man would produce more positive results rather than 350 dropouts and a total success rate of 0% percent.

So let me get this straight... they can't move their butt even for 1 million dollars? They'd rather not have the money unless someone personally comes to them?

Excuse me if I think that's one of the most ridiculous excuses in ages. Do these people also starve in bed unless someone comes bring them breakfast, or what?

Almo

11th June 2009, 07:09 AM

Was that intentionally as funny to read as it came out, given the context?

If you'd like to read my thoughts transcribed to screen pixels ...

(1) There's no evidence telepathy exists, so no reason to believe it exists

(2) There's no known mechanism for telepathy to work through, so even less reason to believe it exists

(3) I wish it did exist, that would be pretty cool :)

Same applies for telekenisis, clairvoyance etc. Re super strength, I'm open to the possibility of physiological explanations based on andrenaline and such, but it seems to me most so-called examples seem to also ignore the basic mechanics of things like leverage.

I'm with (1) and (2). Telepathy might be cool IF you can control it. As in, can anyone read my thoughts at any time? If so, I don't think that would be so cool. ;)

Cuddles

11th June 2009, 09:44 AM

Scientists and university people already have a mechanism in place for publishing their results.

Yes, YouTube. Haven't you been paying attention?;)

leafman91

11th June 2009, 11:05 AM

All obviously done with magnets. You really shouldn't believe everything you see on YouTube, particularly not when the video is produced by people who don't know the difference between telekinesis and teleportation.

If you claim that you have paranormal abilities, then apply for the challenge. We're willing to be convinced -- just show us the evidence.

Yes, done with magnets,obviously. There's no other explanation right?

As a skeptic, I'm sure you could understand my demand for full proof that the balls were moving as a result of magnetic attraction or any other phenomena accepted by the scientific community today.

Ashles

11th June 2009, 11:10 AM

As a skeptic, I'm sure you could understand my demand for full proof that the balls were moving as a result of magnetic attraction or any other phenomena accepted by the scientific community today.
No. You still haven't figured this 'burden of proof' thing have you?

They are claiming paranormal abilities so it is up to them to demonstrate that they moved the ball by means hitherto unkown by science.
In the absence of such evidence the default position is that it is achieved by perfectly well understood (and previously demonstrated) means such as magnets.

Sadly it's entirely likely you still won't understand this and at that point it's hard to know how to make it any simpler without using glove puppets.

Fnord

11th June 2009, 03:48 PM

Think about it. If anyone told you you can get a million just for showing up and proving that, say, you can read...

i dun grajyated teh six graid sos i kin reed gud

werz mah muny?

HansMustermann

11th June 2009, 03:56 PM

Precisely, my eloquent friend ;)

abr

12th June 2009, 01:10 PM

i need a partner who receive and a name of university for the afidavit.
who do the experiment with by phone he will have his answer just give me his number phone and i call he

nathan

12th June 2009, 01:41 PM

i need a partner who receive and a name of university for the afidavit.
who do the experiment with by phone he will have his answer just give me his number phone and i call he

Do you understand that you kept breaking the previous protocol that people here were so kind to develop for you?

Do you see why that might deter those same people from repeating the exercise?

abr

12th June 2009, 01:44 PM

by phone i can hear your thoughts and you can hear my thoughts,who want to do this experiment with me by phone

Uncayimmy

12th June 2009, 02:11 PM

by phone i can hear your thoughts and you can hear my thoughts,who want to do this experiment with me by phone

If you want to do this, start a new thread or resurrect the old one. Let's develop a protocol.

leafman91

12th June 2009, 02:26 PM

No. You still haven't figured this 'burden of proof' thing have you?

They are claiming paranormal abilities so it is up to them to demonstrate that they moved the ball by means hitherto unkown by science.
In the absence of such evidence the default position is that it is achieved by perfectly well understood (and previously demonstrated) means such as magnets.

Sadly it's entirely likely you still won't understand this and at that point it's hard to know how to make it any simpler without using glove puppets.

Firstly, I didn't appreciate the glove puppets comment. Secondly, why is there even a default position? The whole point to open mindedness is that things like this are equally as likely be supernatural than not. Do you seriously expect that people with these sorts of abilities can just explain some whole new unknown branch of science directly explaining their power, that leading scientists haven't? Yes, perhaps 99.9% of them are hoaxers, but the focus is on the 0.1% that everyone just dismisses as hoaxers. What if you discovered some new supernatural power. Would you expect to understand it? To be able explain it on the spot to people who don't? When (if) someone with real talent comes along, and it is quite likely that several have already, then how will you know them from any of the other thousands of people claiming supernatural abilities?

I would expect at this point you to be either a) Pitiful or b) Frustrated depending on how much you can care for my opinion. So knowing that I am sticking with the telekenesis theory until proved otherwise probably won't help. There is a reason in my persistence in that I find your 'burden of proof' ridiculously unfair on people with actual powers that most likely won't have a clue on how they work.

D'rok

12th June 2009, 02:37 PM

...The whole point to open mindedness is that things like this are equally as likely be supernatural than not....Yes, perhaps 99.9% of them are hoaxers, but the focus is on the 0.1% that everyone just dismisses as hoaxers.

If 99.9% of them are hoaxers then it is not open minded to assign equal probability to supernatural powers when examining a particular claim. Open mindedness is allowing that 0.1% possibility to remain open rather than categorically denying the claim.

When (if) someone with real talent comes along, and it is quite likely that several have already, then how will you know them from any of the other thousands of people claiming supernatural abilities?If they perform their abilities in a properly controlled environment. None have so far. Most are unwilling to try.

Neutiquam Erro

12th June 2009, 02:40 PM

The whole point to open mindedness is that things like this are equally as likely be supernatural than not.

This is a novel definition of "open mindedness," which is totally unfamiliar to me. Being "open minded" means I give equal credence to all possibilities?

Ashles

12th June 2009, 03:22 PM

Firstly, I didn't appreciate the glove puppets comment. Secondly, why is there even a default position?
:rolleyes: Hence the glove puppets comment.

am telling you right now that there is a bomb ten feet under the foundations of your house. It will explode in 72 hours.

Do you intend to move house/excavate your foundations tomorrow?

No?
Why not?

The whole point to open mindedness is that things like this are equally as likely be supernatural than not.
This is EXACTLY why I made the glove puppets comment.
That is completely incorrect. Just simply wrong.
Not every imaginable possibility is equally likely. Until you understand why you just make yourself look silly.

Do you seriously expect that people with these sorts of abilities can just explain some whole new unknown branch of science directly explaining their power, that leading scientists haven't? Yes, perhaps 99.9% of them are hoaxers, but the focus is on the 0.1% that everyone just dismisses as hoaxers.
But if they actually existed the difference would be that... they could do what they claimed! It could be stuied. Replicated.
Less than 0.1% of people have amazing abilities of memory, far beyond the average person. But nobody claims they are faking because... they can actually do what is claimed.

Why can't you understand the difference?

What if you discovered some new supernatural power. Would you expect to understand it?
You don't have to understand it, just be able to do it.

The people with amazing memory probably do not understand the first thing about the mechanisms behind memory (which are not fully understood anyway). But they can do what is claimed.

To be able explain it on the spot to people who don't? When (if) someone with real talent comes along, and it is quite likely that several have already, then how will you know them from any of the other thousands of people claiming supernatural abilities?
By the very simple concept of evidence gained through controlled testing.
Controlled testing being testing that rules out known methods by which the same effect can be achieved through mundane trickery.

I would expect at this point you to be either a) Pitiful or b) Frustrated depending on how much you can care for my opinion.
There is an element of both.

So knowing that I am sticking with the telekenesis theory until proved otherwise probably won't help.
All that demonstrates is that you WANT to believe in something never demonstrated by anyone as being real.
You have no actual reason to believe it is real other than wishful thinking.

There is a reason in my persistence in that I find your 'burden of proof' ridiculously unfair on people with actual powers that most likely won't have a clue on how they work.
They do not have to understand HOW it works. Why are you under the impression they do? They only need to demonstrate that it does work.

So I ask - do you know of anyone who has such abilities? It does not matter if they have the first clue of how they work. All they have to do is perform the ability of telekinesis with the potenial for cheating removed.
Do you know of such a person?

Could they, for example, move a ping pong ball surrounded by styrofom packing balls, without moving the packing balls?

And again I must reiterate - the paranormal mechanism by which this happens is completely irrelevant. At this stage no-one cares or will even ask. That can be studied laer.

Uncayimmy

12th June 2009, 03:31 PM

Firstly, I didn't appreciate the glove puppets comment. Secondly, why is there even a default position? The whole point to open mindedness is that things like this are equally as likely be supernatural than not. Do you seriously expect that people with these sorts of abilities can just explain some whole new unknown branch of science directly explaining their power, that leading scientists haven't? Yes, perhaps 99.9% of them are hoaxers, but the focus is on the 0.1% that everyone just dismisses as hoaxers. What if you discovered some new supernatural power. Would you expect to understand it? To be able explain it on the spot to people who don't? When (if) someone with real talent comes along, and it is quite likely that several have already, then how will you know them from any of the other thousands of people claiming supernatural abilities?

If you drop a ball and it falls 100% of the time, is there an equal chance that a force other than gravity was at work 0.1% of the time?

You have a common but misguided notion of being open minded. If people walking across the highway are struck by vehicles 99.9% of the time, do you ascribe equal chances to being struck and not being struck? Of course not. You learn from experience.

In this case it's not that 99.9% of people attempting to demonstrate the supernatural have failed. It is currently running at exactly 100%. And the sample size is incredibly large. What do you learn from that?

Here's what I have learned. When I see a claim of the supernatural, I look to the mundane for an explanation: trickery, misunderstanding a real cause (ideomotor for dowser), or poor methods (to name a few). In the past every claim has been explained by non-supernatural means. Even if I fail to find such an explanation myself, I am going to bet that somebody else will.

Someday some claim might be without a natural explanation. That day will be incredibly exciting. Because it will be so extraordinary, it will require an extraordinary amount of evidence. I seriously doubt that day will come because it hasn't yet.

Some of us have seen these same claims over and over. At a glance we can tell with reasonable certainty how it was done. Show me a guy who has "ESP" but only with a deck of cards, and I'll show you a guy with sleight of hand skills. Show me a dowser who reliably finds water, and I'll show you a person with good skills at reading geography or a landscape that has water pretty much everywhere. I'll also show you a person who doesn't understand the ideomotor effect.

Do you see the picture?