• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PK parties

Re: Re: Re: yes...

Pragmatist said:


Forgive me for saying so, but I for one was under the impression that YOU did just that:
...
Not to mention Houck's claims about small ladies and 1/2 inch steel bars.

The definition may be vague but the context of the question was reasonably obvious.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, there is a difference between bending spoons and "transcending corporeal reality." For if people are able to bend spoons in the way Jack Houck claims, they are in effect merely accessing something that is already a part of our corporeal reality.

My statement of "normally physically capable" was an attempt at phrasing something that is awkward to phrase correctly. How does one say "physically capable of bending other than at PK parties" succinctly? Because clearly they were physically capable of bending them at the PK parties, for whatever reason.

Do you believe that this implies that there should be no limit to such an ability? I don't think anyone has suggested it is limitless.


Why do you think anyone's attacking you? Got something to defend?
Click to expand...

Please read it again--I don't think anyone is attacking me. I think he is going to try to attack me, based on my heated post.

I posted my question here with the intent of finding skeptical, but still reasonable and intelligent people to discuss it with. A quote like this

It is all bull crap and people who believe in it simply have an affinity for bull crap.
Click to expand...

does nothing to contribute to the questions that have been raised. How can someone really believe he knows it all?

You and several others (e.g., nucular) have provided reasonable responses to my questions. Sorry for the hiccup in conversation.
 
Re: Re: yes...

flyboy217 said:


Yes, and if you can bench press 150 lbs, why can't you bench press 1500 lbs?

Has anyone in this thread even hinted at "trancending [sic] corporeal reality" (whatever that random assortment of words might mean)? Has anyone here suggested that these purported abilities are not limited? Or are these just vague assertions you've made up (rather uncreatively, I might add) and attached to no particular argument? With no due respect, this is the most pseudoscientific pap I've heard yet in this thread.

As much as I'm trying hard not to flame you for your ignorant hubris, I daresay you should take this bilge elsewhere. If you are unable to follow a well-reasoned argument (from either side), your post has no place in either a skeptical or paranormal forum, let alone in this thread.

And before you try to counter with some vague attack ("those psychic-believing kooks sure get mad for nothing!"), keep in mind that my problem lies solely with your inability to reason critically, and not with your presumable disbelief of psi (which I myself, and most in this forum, have no real reason to believe).

If you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation in session, please, by all means contribute.

...

Now then, where were we?
Click to expand...

You certainly have a lot of gall. Thank god for folks like you policing this forum and keeping guys like me in line. Who better than you to decide what is appropriate to post here or not.

The whole premise here is that the spoons are being bent "paranormally" - a nonsense term if ever there was one. If it were not so there would be no point in posting it on a paranormal forum would there? In fact, there would not be much point in posting in anywhere if all we were talking about is people bending spoons with their hands.

In what way would bending spoons paranormally be analogous to bench pressing weights? Do we have pyschic muscles? Are there pyschic body builders who can bend really big spoons? Are rest of mere amateurs who can only bend little things? In as much as we in the material world are constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc. and one would have to assume that these constraints are pretty much what define the physical world as distinct from the "paranormal" it's hard to imagine in what way physical characteristics could hinder or constrain paranormal phenomena.
 
Re: Re: Re: yes...

billydkid said:

You certainly have a lot of gall. Thank god for folks like you policing this forum and keeping guys like me in line. Who better than you to decide what is appropriate to post here or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Not trying to tell you what to post or what not to, but it is a little disconcerting to find a post about reconstituting people from blenders amidst serious questions about alloys that display the noted properties.


The whole premise here is that the spoons are being bent "paranormally" - a nonsense term if ever there was one. If it were not so there would be no point in posting it on a paranormal forum would there? In fact, there would not be much point in posting in anywhere if all we were talking about is people bending spoons with their hands.
Click to expand...

Did I ever use the term "paranormal?" If I did, I apologize. In particular, I've pointed to quotes from Crichton such as the following:

Because spoon bending obviously must have some ordinary explanation, since a hundred people from all walks of life were doing it. And it was hard to feel any sort of mystery: you just rub the spoon for a while and pretty soon it gets soft, and it bends. And thats that.
...
In fact, this sense of boredom seem to me often to accompany "psychic" phenomena. At first the event appears exciting and mysterious, but very quickly it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest. This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal.
Click to expand...

However, I couldn't think of a better place to post it, as there is no "not yet well understood phenomena" category.


In what way would bending spoons paranormally be analogous to bench pressing weights? Do we have pyschic muscles? Are there pyschic body builders who can bend really big spoons? Are rest of mere amateurs who can only bend little things?
Click to expand...

My point is that there is no way to draw analogies or indeed any conclusions about this just yet. That is why it does not make sense to ask questions such as "if they can bend spoons, why can't they flatten planets?" Nobody has presented a reasonable theory about such events, let alone one that purports infinite power.


In as much as we in the material world are constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc. and one would have to assume that these constraints are pretty much what define the physical world as distinct from the "paranormal"
Click to expand...

I trust you see the problem with a statement like "constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc."? No reasonable scientist today believes that we have a complete list of that type. Unless you have a Grand Unified Theory hidden up your sleeve.

And even then, consider this example: electromagnetism is not "constrained by" mass or gravity. And still, it interacts with matter, as do mass and gravity. Yet it's not fair to say that, if lasers (which work through electromagnetic force) exist, then there should be lasers that are powerful enough to destroy planets. In principle, sure. In practice, no.

Also, are you claiming that any new addition to our physical theory that allows for the exhibited spoon bending effects must necessarily disregard all (not just some) of the rest of our understanding? Clearly this would be a faulty assumption to make.

Are you familiar with quantum tunneling? If you were to present this to a physicist 100 years ago, he might ask you why, if electrons can traverse small barriers, elephants aren't randomly tunneling to Mars. After all, if this purported quantum tunneling isn't constrained by mass or gravity (and indeed it's not), what limit is there? Later, you develop theories about the probability of several atoms tunneling simultaneously, etc., and come to the conclusion that elephants CAN teleport, but it's very very unlikely. So now what are you to do if you actually "see" (that is, measure) an electron tunneling? Are you to pretend it didn't happen because no elephants have teleported to Mars? Or because it doesn't fit your current theory? Or do you try to repeat it, get others to try it, and see if it's really as crazy as your peers are telling you?

The point I'm trying to get across is simple: let's deal with the empirical evidence now, and with the theories later. We can clearly see that the heads of spoons have been bent, and we're trying to determine which standardly available techniques could cause it. Either this is a repeatable phenomenon, or it's not. Before I can gain some ground on these questions, I'm putting all further speculation on hold.


it's hard to imagine in what way physical characteristics could hinder or constrain paranormal phenomena.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm suggesting we avoid straying into imagination just yet. Look for repeatable emprical data now, work on theories and imagination later. Does it get any more fair than that?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: yes...

flyboy217 said:
The way I see it, there is a difference between bending spoons and "transcending corporeal reality." For if people are able to bend spoons in the way Jack Houck claims, they are in effect merely accessing something that is already a part of our corporeal reality.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, just bear in mind that there is no common definition of "corporeal reality". I took that to mean the normally accepted limits of the human body. You took it for something else, and perhaps billydkid meant something different still. I would simply suggest, if in doubt, ask.

flyboy217 said:
My statement of "normally physically capable" was an attempt at phrasing something that is awkward to phrase correctly. How does one say "physically capable of bending other than at PK parties" succinctly? Because clearly they were physically capable of bending them at the PK parties, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

I understood what you meant, no problem there. I thought that was what billydkid meant too.

flyboy217 said:
Do you believe that this implies that there should be no limit to such an ability? I don't think anyone has suggested it is limitless.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. But the question was a legitimate one. Where IS the limit? Clearly, assuming this phenomenon to be anything other than some sort of trick, there is apparently an effect which in terms of its capacity to DO something, exceeds the normally accepted parameters of human muscular strength in doing the same thing "conventionally".

It's probably more instructive to look at it in a different way. Could I move 1 million tons of water using my own natural muscular strength? Not directly. But INDIRECTLY yes. I could throw a stone on to a mountain of snow and start an avalanche which would send 1 million tons of water (ice) cascading down. Therefore if one applies a similar logic and working from the (not yet justified) assumption that if however this metal is bent, does not involve DIRECT application of muscular force, then one has to ask, is there any reasonable limit to it? If a small lady can bend a 1/2 inch steel bar, then why CAN'T she also bend a steel girder or a rail? If it's not a question of muscular force that is.

I wouldn't expect anybody to have the definitive answer, but it may be an interesting point to discuss nonetheless. And if Houck has researched this as extensively as he implies then surely we could reasonably expect him to have some idea of where the limit lies?

Regardless of what YOU think it is, Houck says directly it's paranormal. Mind over matter. He goes on about psi and remote viewing, seeing into the past and the future. He advocates pendulums, dowsing rods and "psychic healing". Now, to my mind that does NOT make him a credible scientific observer. In my experience these kind of claims usually go hand in hand with some form of deception (of self, or others, or both). Therefore MY initial inclination is to look for the point of deception first (doesn't matter whether it's intentional or otherwise). By all means investigate it yourself, I think most here would agree that's a good course of action. But at the same time let's also discuss the reasonable possibility of deception/delusion as well.

flyboy217 said:
Please read it again--I don't think anyone is attacking me. I think he is going to try to attack me, based on my heated post.
Click to expand...

Yes, MY point was that I didn't understand WHY it was heated (your post). Just an observation, but barring direct attacks on people, or lying, doing harm to others by deception or something like that, my experience is that people tend to get heated when they think their belief systems are under attack. Hence my question. If your viewpoint is detached and critical as you claim then I can understand that you may disagree with a particular opinion but not why you would necessarily get heated about it...

flyboy217 said:
I posted my question here with the intent of finding skeptical, but still reasonable and intelligent people to discuss it with. A quote like this does nothing to contribute to the questions that have been raised. How can someone really believe he knows it all?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone DOES believe he knows it all. I don't believe HE thinks he knows it all. But he's just as entitled to express his opinion as you are to express yours that you disagree with it! :) Don't you think that in the first instance it might be worthwhile to ASK why he holds that opinion? His opinion may be based on tens of thousands of experiences for all you or I know. How many is YOUR comment about his intelligence based on? Just something to think about!

flyboy217 said:
You and several others (e.g., nucular) have provided reasonable responses to my questions. Sorry for the hiccup in conversation.
Click to expand...

Thank you. You're welcome. And no problem, just expressing my opinion! :)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yes...


By all means investigate it yourself, I think most here would agree that's a good course of action. But at the same time let's also discuss the reasonable possibility of deception/delusion as well.
Click to expand...

That has been the purpose of this thread. Since I can deal with deception/delusion myself at my own party, what else must I contend with? Bring my own stainless steel spoons (check), make sure nobody else touches them (check), make sure I can't buckle them beforehand (check), etc.


I don't think anyone DOES believe he knows it all. I don't believe HE thinks he knows it all. But he's just as entitled to express his opinion as you are to express yours that you disagree with it! :) Don't you think that in the first instance it might be worthwhile to ASK why he holds that opinion? His opinion may be based on tens of thousands of experiences for all you or I know. How many is YOUR comment about his intelligence based on? Just something to think about!
Click to expand...

You are correct. The tone of the post upset me, when it really shouldn't have. Apologies all around :).

Anyways, I'll try to set up an experiment on my own, using what I've learned in this thread. I'll report back on my findings later.
 
Lucian:

You're talking about "grownup skepticism" and trying to convince people of the reality of PK with anecdotal evidence.

Not saying you're wrong--just stating the situation as I see it. As you were!

- B
 
Lucianarchy said:

Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people?
Click to expand...

I don't have any opinions about either of them; my stance is neutral.

What I am saying though is that bending spoons probably isn't as difficult has people think it is, and that possilby one could get good at it. Also that without actual evidence, we really can't say what occured.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Don, are you going to put your issues to Dr Targ, or not?

I can help you with this, and it'd be good to have some direct feedback on the forum, straight from the source, rather than the opinion of an arm-chair skeptic. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...
By all means PM his contact details.

Of course there are the oustanding issues of his impartiality, his observational skills and his his critical reasoning skills but I guess I will have to address those once I have his testimony.

Another question which applies to everyone, not just Dr Targ, After several years of recounting an anecdote, how far has the anecdote strayed from reality. My family has an anecdote regarding my Father's poor grasp of the French language in an incident 20 years ago. Even though several of us were there, our erpeating of the anecdote separately has resulted in some quite different stories.


Claus,

In you opinion, is there anything I should be especially wary of when contacting Dr Targ ?
 
Psiload said:
I like you, Luci... you're silly.

Anyhoo, as far as my opinion of Targ's deceased daughter... it isn't... opinion that is. She was, in fact, a liar.

***no rapists were glamourized during the editing of this post***
Click to expand...

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do
It's up to you, yeah you
 
flyboy217 said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A year later, I mentioned to an M.I.T. professor that I had bent spoons. He frowned in silence for a while. "There's a way to bend spoons," he said, "by a trick."

"I think so," I said. "But I don't know the trick."

The professor was silent for a while longer. "You personally bent spoons?

"Yes."

Then he went through the whole thing. Where did I get the spoons? How did I know the spoons had not been previously "treated"? Did anyone help me to bend the spoons? Did anyone touch me while I was bending, or substitute a bent spoon into my hands... He went on like this for a while. I tried to explain the quality of the room that night, and how impossible it was that everyone could have been tricked.

"So you believe the spoons bent?"

"Yes."

"Did you investigate why the spoons bent?"

"No," I said.

"You mean you experienced this extraordinary phenomenon and you didn't try to explain it?"

"No," I said.

"That's very strange," he said. "I would say that your behavior is a pathological denial of what happened to you. This incredible experience occurs and you do nothing to investigate it at all?"

"I don't see why it's pathological," I said. "I don't go investigating why everything in the world happens. For example, I know that, if I bend a wire rapidly, the wire will get hot and break-but I don't really know why that happens. I don't think it's my job to rush out and find out why. In this case, spoon bending, the room was full of people doing the same thing, and it seemed very ordinary. Kind of boring."

In fact, this sense of boredom seem to me often to accompany "psychic" phenomena. At first the event appears exciting and mysterious, but very quickly it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest. This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal. We've just forgotten we can do them. The minute we do do them, we recognize them for what they are, and we think, so what? Spoon bending is like doing the laundry, or riding a bicycle. No big deal. Not really worth much conversation.
Click to expand...

I do find this very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception somehow.
 
Here's a little unpublished titbit from my previous research which some may find interesting in the PK discussion. It follows interviews with Dr Jack Sarfatti about signal non-locality and Eldon Byrd's research into PK and metallurgy:

Question: [...](Re: ) Dr Sarfatti's theoretical take on PK regarding "signal nonlocality". Would you be able to say a little on what the "new
information" is you mentioned?

Eldon Byrd: Jack and I disagree in some ways about this, although I like his basic ideas, and signal non-locality is preserved in my view, also. The discovery of the optical microtubule/centriole system in cells that control DNA and
make internal cell as well as nearby external interstitial water coherent was what I was refering to, including the ability of thewater to perform laser-like quantum communication with "hyperspace" positrons tunneling into them, annihilating electrons and creating photons that carry information into the subconscious, allowing the mind to create holographic images and
other functions in the microtrabecular lattice in cells. I know that is a mouthful. I gave a paper on the 23rd at a conference, and I will edit it for limited distribution so as to skirt the copyright. I wrote it, but share the copyright of the presentated paper per se with the organizers. However, they don't own my ideas.
 
CFLarsen said:


Then don't bring up the subject of Targ [libel edited].
Click to expand...

Claus, let me remind you, again, Elizabeth Targ has nothing to do with this discussion.

It is showing that you prefer to attack the dead than deal with the subject of PK.
 
LettristLoon said:
Lucian:

You're talking about "grownup skepticism" and trying to convince people of the reality of PK with anecdotal evidence.

Not saying you're wrong--just stating the situation as I see it. As you were!

- B
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not seeing that the evidence being discussed is far more valid than the sort of personl opinion you have on the 'commentary' section of the JREF, just for the fact that we are dealing with the organ-grinder, rather than the monkey.

BTW, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I am encouraging them to do follow the leads and do their own research.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Here's a little unpublished titbit from my previous research which some may find interesting in the PK discussion. It follows interviews with Dr Jack Sarfatti about signal non-locality and Eldon Byrd's research into PK and metallurgy:

Question: [...](Re: ) Dr Sarfatti's theoretical take on PK regarding "signal nonlocality". Would you be able to say a little on what the "new
information" is you mentioned?

Eldon Byrd: Jack and I disagree in some ways about this, although I like his basic ideas, and signal non-locality is preserved in my view, also. The discovery of the optical microtubule/centriole system in cells that control DNA and
make internal cell as well as nearby external interstitial water coherent was what I was refering to, including the ability of thewater to perform laser-like quantum communication with "hyperspace" positrons tunneling into them, annihilating electrons and creating photons that carry information into the subconscious, allowing the mind to create holographic images and
other functions in the microtrabecular lattice in cells. I know that is a mouthful. I gave a paper on the 23rd at a conference, and I will edit it for limited distribution so as to skirt the copyright. I wrote it, but share the copyright of the presentated paper per se with the organizers. However, they don't own my ideas.
Click to expand...

Can anyone tell me what this means?
 
Lucianarchy said:
Indeed, and I am sure you have read Byrd's response to the 'critique'.
Click to expand...
Seeing as we're going back to original sources, do you have contact details for Dr. Byrd please ?
 
Ratman_tf said:


I do find this very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception somehow.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Do you not think the same also applies to skeptics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom