Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[tinribmancer]

Is Telekinesis Real?

Sure, I've seen people clapping their hands in a room and then the lights go on. And when they clap their hands again, the lights go out. Amazing!

 

[pgwenthold]

Because telekinesis (really psychokinesis) is more broadly defined. It is defined as the ability of someone to influence a remote physical system using only thought. ("Remote" meaning, of course, not connected to the brain. Obviously thoughts control the physical system of the organism the thoughts arise in.)

Commonly we define psychokinesis as the ability to move things with the mind,

Yeah, sorry. I thought that, given the name teleKINESIS, it would have something to do with movement.

kinesis comes from the Greek "movement"

Sounds like a bait-and-switch by the woo crowd to me. Go back to the levitators bouncing around on mats, and calling it "levitation."

We can levitate!!!!
You are just bouncing around.
Well, levitation includes bouncing around.
No, it doesn't. That's not levitation.

 

[JayUtah]

Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago.

Employ those methods, if you think they are applicable, in this thread to demonstrate how Jahn's critics got their analysis wrong. Don't talk about the methods. Anyone with access to Google can do that. Use them, please. Otherwise your critics will probably be compelled to conclude that statistical modeling as used in the experimental sciences is just one more body of understanding you're bluffing about knowing.

You use big words...

I use the words I feel are appropriate to the discussion. You'll need to come up to speed if you find that a challenge.

Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.

No. Someone who so often accuses his critics of being ignorant and stupid -- especially when they clearly aren't -- gets no such quarter. Nor will I, as a matter of principle, allow any claimant to dictate in what way or to what extent I must formulate my responses to him. You don't get to script the debate.

The statement you find so perplexing says that you're trying to draw a false analogy between PEAR's research and double-slit experiments that reveal quantum effects. Had you bothered to read yesterday's posts through to completion -- which you admit you didn't -- you would have seen that I went into some depth about the difference between the double-slit phenomenon and other experimental methods that have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I even expressed the difference in statistics terms, which you claim to be proficient in. There is really no excuse for your lack of understanding at that point, and certainly no justification for your insinuation that I need to explain myself further, or in different terms.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You use big words, but I do not understand your statement. If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding. Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.

And you have the nerve to say this? In the end you will be asking this thread to be in Russian.

And you are indeed embarrassed, otherwise you would have listed each phrase you didn't understand for us to comment on those until you finally get them.

 

[SOdhner]

I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.

1. That's incorrect, someone helpfully posted a bunch of links to other discussions on this topic for you once you announced it would be your next thread.

2. That's not what I was saying anyway - I was saying that you clearly hadn't done the bare minimum of research on this topic and were bringing nothing new to the table.

This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism.

I did that, you quoted it, and you didn't reply. Here it is again:

Here, educate yourself:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, sorry. I thought that, given the name teleKINESIS, it would have something to do with movement.

It does. Adding heat to something, for example, means getting the molecules to move faster. Bending a spoon, which implies softening the metal artificially, I think necessitates causing movement. But for Buddha's presentation we can't limit the phenomenon to making objects slide dramatically across the table. The experiments he's citing involve a much more subtle claim.

Sounds like a bait-and-switch by the woo crowd to me. Go back to the levitators bouncing around on mats, and calling it "levitation."

I think it's bait-and-switch because you're right when you insinuate that most people think psychokinesis means the dramatic, visible movement of objects, leaving no doubt that a physical effect has occurred. And in Buddhism, psychokinesis is certainly tied to such feats as levitation, which is supposed to be evidence of having achieved a level of spiritual awareness. So when we expect dramatic -- or at least unquestionably evident -- effects, it's disappointing to see the "scientific" proof for it occur in the form of barely detectable influence over an already chaotic system. If the limit of scientifically detectable psychokinesis only appears under a statistical microscope with Vaseline on the lens, then it's still parsimonious to explain the more dramatic feats as parlour magic or doctored video. I know how Criss Angel does his street levitation trick; it's stupidly simple.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It wouldn't be a Buddha thread without his copious mentions of how accomplished he is.

Which is yet another unevidenced claim attracting a great deal of skeptism.

 

[pgwenthold]

If the limit of scientifically detectable psychokinesis only appears under a statistical microscope with Vaseline on the lens, then it's still parsimonious to explain the more dramatic feats as parlour magic or doctored video. I know how Criss Angel does his street levitation trick; it's stupidly simple.

I like the description of it as the "telekinesis of the gaps." As our tests get better and better, and there is nothing there, then what is meant telekinesis gets less and less visible.

 

[Shuca]

The Force is strong in this one!

Wonder if there are cultural reasons why it fades into and out of favour.

Well, I don't know...

It seems that when parapsychology community find some new theory which could account as an explanation of PK or some other anomalous phenomena they try to back it up by some 'new' methods and research. Anyway, I look forward seeing what results will they get.

When a large scale replication of PEAR experiment followed in several laboratories, the results were negative:

"If the claims are credible, it should be possible for other groups to replicate them. To their credit, the PEAR group did enlist two other groups, both based at German universities (Jahn et al. 2000) to engage in a triple effort at replication. These attempts failed to reproduce the claimed effects. Even the PEAR group was unable to reproduce a credible effect.", source: https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

I just wonder are random number generators truly random or are prone producing results that observers could interpret as anomaly?

 

[Shuca]

Regarding the more recent ‘PK’ experiments with ‘talented’ persons, I have found an experiment with a guy named Ariel Farias which was conducted in Argentina. There are some videos, so we can evaluate them properly.

In short, this guy was tested if he can ‘levitate’ a table without using muscles. He didn’t succeed in moving table and other smaller objects without placing hands on them. However, he somehow moved table up and down with only placing hands on the table. It seems that ‘PK’ works only when hands are touching an object.
It is interesting to note that magicians who were shown the video said it was just a friction, but researchers object to that remark by saying that the flor was slippery, and they couldn’t reproduce what the test subject did, source: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ariel-farias (the article was written by S. Braude, a PSI proponent, the original paper can be found online)

Here is video 1 with Braude comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stoi27PugKI

Here is video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWwb5L1PpM

More can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpCSqNn60nQ&list=PL9OVCxAcXTl0eBZJNGSthWFAR5gHTKCLc

I am not a professional conjurer or magician, but it seems that this guy uses a hands-on technique for moving the table.

It is also interesting to note that researchers didn’t allow skeptics to attend testing:

“The only thing that seemed to reverse the decline in Ariel’s phenomena was the occasional visit from a ‘VIP’, or at least from certain of them. Ariel could clearly anticipate how the attitude of the visitor would influence his will and temper. We had requests from professional magicians, orthodox scientists, and professed skeptics (actually psi-deniers) certain from the start either that Ariel’s phenomena were fraudulent or that his investigators had committed some kind of error which they were determined to uncover. Previous encounters with members of that latter group had been unpleasant and inhibiting for Ariel. So further requests from that group were indefinitely delayed. On the other hand, when the visitor showed respect for and knowledge of the evidence for macro-PK and arrived with an open but critical mind, Ariel considered the situation to be a positive challenge. Indeed, these occasions often yielded some of his best results in terms of intensity and duration of the phenomena.”, source: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ariel-farias

So, this is one of the best PK evidence for Braude produced in a laboratory.

I just wonder what would happen if the researchers put baby powder on hands of the test subject or a piece of paper between his hands and the table… Or if the table had four legs and not three...

 

[Darat]

That is meant to be the best?

I could and can do that if I'm allowed to touch the table with my hands and arms.

Also note he never attempts to put his hands in the middle of the table and lift all three legs off the floor.

 

[Darat]

Is that really foxing any one with any critical facilities? How could anyone be fooled by that performance?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Some people want to be fooled ..

 

[Dave Rogers]

Some people want to be fooled ..

... and they're apparently the only kind allowed to witness these phenomena.

Dave

 

[Buddha]

FYI

IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers) had published several articles written by the Princeton ESP scientists, I can give a link to at least one of their articles. Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI. B y the way, anyone can join IEEE as long as they pay its yearly fee, do there is nothing to brag about.

IEE follow the highest standards of publications on a par with the Physical Review standards, all submitted articles are subjected to peer reviews. This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?

 

[Buddha]

The right way to discuss the Princeton research is to read the articles written by its critics. Here is the link to the article written by one the most outspoken critics of the research

http://www.nap.edu/read/778/chapter/7#640

Basically, it says that the Princeton research group gave incorrect interpretation of their research results because their results are below the significance level, although the group claims the opposite.

How could this happen? The researchers used a standard version of two-sided t-test to draw the conclusion, while the critic (he is not the author of the article, but the author sited his work) transformed the results to fit, as he says, the same t-test. The newly interpreted test shows the results that are below the significance level.

The way I see it, the critic “massaged” the data to fit it into his version of truth, as Guilianni put it while defending his client, Trump. This technique might work in the world of politics, but it is not acceptable in the world of science.

This is part1 of the article, the next one deals with the randomization process used by the research group. Unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss it today (it took me more than an hour to read the article and prepare response to it; today I do not have time to respond to my opponents’ posts, but I will do it tomorrow).

I am trying to be thorough and push this discussion in the right direction rather than responding to useless personal attacks. (Personal stuff doesn’t bother me at all, but I see it as a waste of time).

 

[Darat]

Buddha many of us have been over this time and time again. I suggest you use the forum's search function for the past very long and very detailed threads. If you then have anything *new* to add I'm sure folk would be happy to discuss it. I suspect many folk are not very interested in rehashing the same old stuff again.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Look how he is ignoring tens of posts pulverizing his shenanigans, as usual.

Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI.

Your qualifications keep changing.

And Linkedin profiles match part of what you have told about yourself when you combine several people

This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?

You obviously know nothing about this forum. It's countless the "peer reviewed" garbage we have debunked here.

Besides, it's obvious your collection of fallacies includes argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

[Thermal]

FYI

IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers) had published several articles written by the Princeton ESP scientists, I can give a link to at least one of their articles. Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI. B y the way, anyone can join IEEE as long as they pay its yearly fee, do there is nothing to brag about.

IEE follow the highest standards of publications on a par with the Physical Review standards, all submitted articles are subjected to peer reviews. This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?

Just for clarity, are you citing the American Society of Electrical Engineers (ASEE), or the American institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE), or the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), or what?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The right way to discuss the Princeton research is to read the articles written by its critics.

And that's why by so far ignoring three "articles" that discuss "the Princeton research" you have acknowledged them to be right.

Here is the link to the article written by one the most outspoken critics of the research

http://www.nap.edu/read/778/chapter/7#640

Outspoken according to who? Wouldn't it better be one of the worst articles so you can try your way to say something about it?

How could this happen? The researchers used a standard version of two-sided t-test to draw the conclusion, while the critic (he is not the author of the article, but the author sited his work) transformed the results to fit, as he says, the same t-test. The newly interpreted test shows the results that are below the significance level.

If you were familiar with peer reviewed papers -they're not called articles- at least you would know it is "cited" and not "sited".

And it looks you managed to get something written for a third party so, that's not the way to discuss criticism on the subject. That is the way you're driving traffic towards marginal content about which you have replies already prepared.

I hope nobody falls in your dialectical trap.