next »

[psiman]

Is it harder to learn how to levitate objects with PK than learning to push or pull?

[issacweirdo]

Is it harder to learn how to levitate objects with PK than learning to push or pull?

I think it depends on which you find to be more difficult. Psi doesn't really work the same way than physical energy does, so you might not require more psi to levitate an object in comparison to pushing/pulling the same object, though someone can correct me on this point. I'm not that knowledgeable with PK.

[alfaalex101]

Same ****. It's all in your head.

[subzero]

Same ****. It's all in your head.

yeah from what ive heard and experienced what you think governs governs all that stuff.

[issacweirdo]

Same ****. It's all in your head.

yeah from what ive heard and experienced what you think governs governs all that stuff.

In other words you guys are idealists...

To clarify on that, I think what you guys are saying is that both of you support the philosophy of idealism, which states that everything, including material objects, is simply a manifestation of ones consciousness or beliefs. This includes actual reality, not only ones sense of reality. Correct me if I am wrong.
EDIT
Confusing post - Additional Information

[subzero]

im sorry i dnt think i relly understand what your saying lol

[issacweirdo]

Are you guys saying that whatever happens in the real world is because people wanted it to happen?

[stolide]

Are you guys saying that whatever happens in the real world is because people wanted it to happen?

Yup, all those starving children wanted to die a slow, painful death.

The law of attraction makes so much sense, doesn't it?

[subzero]

huh? lol im just saying that ur mindset has alot to do with it

[issacweirdo]

huh? lol im just saying that ur mindset has alot to do with it

Ah. Then indeed it does. I thought you meant your mindset has everything to do with it.

[surliat]

So would this mean that if I think levitating something is as easy as pushing it then it is or is this uncertain?

[issacweirdo]

So would this mean that if I think levitating something is as easy as pushing it then it is or is this uncertain?

No one really knows. It's going to be a biased experience, and seeing that there is not that much psions who can levitate things in the first place will be hard to figure if levitating is different in difficulty in comparison to pushing something. Beliefs does have a factor, but power, effort, and concentration is also needed. It's probably not going to be easier to levitate something rather than to push it, but if you don't have a sense on how to measure your concentration, effort, and psi strains then it will seem easier.

[subzero]

huh? lol im just saying that ur mindset has alot to do with it

Ah. Then indeed it does. I thought you meant your mindset has everything to do with it.

oh, i see. sorry for the confusion lol

[issacweirdo]

oh, i see. sorry for the confusion lol

No problem. I figured out after posting my response what you meant, but I decided to leave it just to make sure I was right.

[Seth]

Are you guys saying that whatever happens in the real world is because people wanted it to happen?

Yup, all those starving children wanted to die a slow, painful death.

The law of attraction makes so much sense, doesn't it?

Shows how much you understand the law of attraction. Of course they didnt want to die, what a horrible thing to think.

However, you dont create what you want, you create what you know. And if all they've known is poverty and disease.

[issacweirdo]

Shows how much you understand the law of attraction. Of course they didnt want to die, what a horrible thing to think.

However, you dont create what you want, you create what you know. And if all they've known is poverty and disease.

...And? You didn't finish your response. Pointing that bit of detail out there.

Now for my actual response:
Just to make things clear, this is what you are stating:
Law of Attraction only works if things already exist. Well, in other words there is no point to Law of Attraction. If you think about it, it's just putting a label on something that has already happened. If you know a ball exists on the sidewalk then your definition of Law of Attraction states the ball must then be on the sidewalk. However, how does this concept apply to schizophrenic people then? If they believe they are God and "know" it's true, are they then actually God? If this is not true then what we "know" must be an objective truth. Once again, in other words one is just stating "Law of Attraction" caused the object to be there in the first place...which doesn't explain squat. In fact, this doesn't prove anything; it just means Law of Attraction is trying to support itself with an obvious truth that does not even require the concept of Law of Attraction to even exist. Either way the ball will still exist on the side walk. The ball is an objective truth, right? Therefore it does not require an observer. Since the observer is the main component to the idea of Law of Attraction, the concept must then be false, assuming I got your definition of the Law of Attraction down.

Another given: The Law of Attraction is not composed of someone's wishes.

If I got at least one of the definitions wrong then please correct me so we can talk more in-depth. We *might* have to create a separate thread in the Debate Arena, assuming we can't reach a conclusive point within a couple of posts' length. Unless, of course, you state the Law of Attraction as your own personal belief. Then we can abandon this discussion about the Law of Attraction all-together.
EDIT - Typo

[meushiman]

I think you're right.  In order for your thoughts to influence anything, it has to exist first.  You cannot think a ball is there and have it be there just because you thought so.

To answer the original question, yes, what you think will be harder will be harder.  However, the fact that you asked must mean you are unsure.  Therefore, I would look at it from a scientific perspective.  What would take more energy to do if you used your hands?  Also, you could think of things from different perspectives.  Instead of pushing an object to levitate it, you could decrease the pressure above it to make it be sucked up.

[issacweirdo]

Therefore, I would look at it from a scientific perspective.  What would take more energy to do if you used your hands? 

To be also scientific for the spirit in this thread, psi is not even physical energy. It can't be measured by the tools we have, which can measure a lot of things. There has been no conclusive evidence that even supports the notion psi as a physical energy is possible. No mathematical equations or scientific articles that state something unknown is at effect from direct consequence of the human brain. That "unknown" has also not been shown to have the ability to be "programmed", to make itself perceivable by the human brain, or to have the ability to accumulate, then condense, into a single point with high density. This is starting to sound more like a skeptic's rant against the belief of psi, so I'll stop there. I'm just saying though, you can't *really* view psi from a scientist perspective...since there's not really any aspect of science that supports the belief in the first place. Psi is defined to be something perceivable beyond the five senses. Science only addresses the five senses, while addressing material that can exist without an observer. Psi requires an observer to even be moved, since the concept of moving has to be programmed first. Atoms as hell can move without someone asking them to move. Now I'm REALLY going to stop here, since I have a feeling I'm starting to tread on real thin ice. Point being, rather than say "scientific perspective" use "personal perspective".

Now, assuming what my whole paragraph was about is true, what causes PK? I am going to make a different thread on that in the debate arena.

[Seth]

Shows how much you understand the law of attraction. Of course they didnt want to die, what a horrible thing to think.

However, you dont create what you want, you create what you know. And if all they've known is poverty and disease.

...And? You didn't finish your response. Pointing that bit of detail out there.

Now for my actual response:
Just to make things clear, this is what you are stating:
Law of Attraction only works if things already exist. Well, in other words there is no point to Law of Attraction. If you think about it, it's just putting a label on something that has already happened. If you know a ball exists on the sidewalk then your definition of Law of Attraction states the ball must then be on the sidewalk. However, how does this concept apply to schizophrenic people then? If they believe they are God and "know" it's true, are they then actually God? If this is not true then what we "know" must be an objective truth. Once again, in other words one is just stating "Law of Attraction" caused the object to be there in the first place...which doesn't explain squat. In fact, this doesn't prove anything; it just means Law of Attraction is trying to support itself with an obvious truth that does not even require the concept of Law of Attraction to even exist. Either way the ball will still exist on the side walk. The ball is an objective truth, right? Therefore it does not require an observer. Since the observer is the main component to the idea of Law of Attraction, the concept must then be false, assuming I got your definition of the Law of Attraction down.

Another given: The Law of Attraction is not composed of someone's wishes.

If I got at least one of the definitions wrong then please correct me so we can talk more in-depth. We *might* have to create a separate thread in the Debate Arena, assuming we can't reach a conclusive point within a couple of posts' length. Unless, of course, you state the Law of Attraction as your own personal belief. Then we can abandon this discussion about the Law of Attraction all-together.
EDIT - Typo

I did finish my response. Stolide suggested that the law of attraction was based apon what a person wishes to happen.

In my understanding of the process (which im not saying i completely believe in) the law of attraction works based off of memories, expectations and emotional state. You create that which you know, not what you wish.

You're very correct. Assuming we live in an objective reality of course.

[issacweirdo]

I did finish my response. Stolide suggested that the law of attraction was based apon what a person wishes to happen.

Shows how much you understand the law of attraction. Of course they didnt want to die, what a horrible thing to think.

However, you dont create what you want, you create what you know. And if all they've known is poverty and disease.

That last sentence was made in a manner that suggested you were going to elaborate on "And if all they've known is poverty and disease"...Yeah? The part that was confusing was the "And" part. I was pointing that detail out.

In my understanding of the process (which im not saying i completely believe in) the law of attraction works based off of memories, expectations and emotional state. You create that which you know, not what you wish.

Well, here's another counter-example. Hobos definitely know what money looks like. They must have possessed it at least once in their life. They expect to get money if they try hard, which some actually do. Therefore they should then get money, since Law of Attraction works in their favor? I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous to state whoever has knowledge on what they want can get it. Everyone knows what money is, what it feels like to have it, and what their expectations are of money. Yet there are still people who have no money. If everyone got what they wanted then the value of currency would decrease, production of material would decrease since the producers have less money than what they need, while people with specialized skills that can benefit science would diminish, since all jobs would offer equal amount of money. In other words, a lot of cranky people are going to come out in the end, while what they need as daily necessities would no longer be produced since nobody would want to produce them in the first place.
Here's a MAJOR counter-example to your definition of the Law of Attraction as well. If somebody really wants someone dead, knows how it feels like to have someone dead, while visualize the person being dead to the point it becomes a memory (it's possible, look it up), will the person then become dead? Now let's compare this to the individual that wants to live. They love the prospect of being alive; it's the only feeling they have ever grown to experience 24/7. They know what it feels like to live, they have memories of them living, while they are deeply enthusiastic and joyful about the idea of getting to live for another day. Now both individuals can supposedly use the Law of Attraction. Yet a contradiction arises; you can't be dead and alive at the same time! Or rather, what happens when both individuals' thoughts collide?

You're very correct. Assuming we live in an objective reality of course.

That's true; it is an assumption. However please don't play epistemology games. It ruins a good argument and nobody prospers from the result. It only muddles up things even further. Let's just consider that what we experience, if we have no brain problems, is a clear reflection of objective reality. Let's make that into an axiom and avoid the topic all-together. We can only prove that as individuals we exist; "I think, therefore I am[alive]" (Rene Descartes). The explanation is long, so make another thread in the debate arena. We can't prove things outside of us exist, so let's not go into that area either; make another thread.

Let's try to steer this thread's direction back to the OP's intent; I realized I am not helping the situation...