next »

[issacweirdo]

From my personal experiences, people have thought PK was the movement of atoms. Okay, that makes sense; movement of atoms is required if you want to move something macroscopic. However, how exactly is the process of PK connected to the result? I mean, so far people just avoid this question. PK is practically the only psionic ability that can be observed  by a camera and be used as evidence to prove psi is real. Now I'm not going to argue why people have not done this. Instead, I want to know how exactly people who claim to be able to perform PK can even do so in the first place. I'm not looking into the how, so beginners of psionics/theory behind psionics are discouraged from participating in the discussion. I am striking towards one of the most essential questions of mankind: Why? Obviously some personal belief will come into the discussion. I'm okay with personal beliefs, as long as they are very basic assumptions, like the notion psi exists. Obviously the whole thread is going to be based off of this assumption, that psi is something that can be manipulated by a mind. As to defining what a mind is and the notion that psi is something physical must be very explicit, which means I can understand what you are referring to without confusion. To start  it off:
1) If psi exists, then the rest of the following axioms apply.
2) Following axiom 1, it is assumed the mind can directly influence psi
3) Psi is not physical energy

Explanation of 1: If we want to get anywhere in the discussion then the assumption that psi exists must be considered as true unless thoroughly proved otherwise. That deserves a separate thread; therefore we will not delve into that subject. However, please feel willing to provide a possible link to the counter-example that psi exists. Just comment your ideas and first-impressions in that thread/link instead of here.

Explanation of 2: Once again, for simplicity reasons we will assume the mind can directly influence psi. Whether through what medium is up for debate. Since to understand the process of PK requires understanding of the process of manipulating energy, feel free to post your ideas about the manipulation of energy.

Explanation of 3: Some people may strongly disagree with me on this point; I welcome you to voice your anger in the form of a coherent, rational post. Anyways here are my main reasons. 1) The people to officially conclude psi is an actual physical thing are scientists. To prove psi exists is to prove it is an objective truth of reality, which is to say its existence is not dependent on human observers. It must also be shown that any change is not required of human observers; effects of water, gravity, or electricity can also induce movement, just to include some examples. However, psi requires an observer in order to move, AKA programming. Without programming results in no movement. 2) If psi did exist, then most likely we would have found it by now. The current measurement tools we have at this point can detect a huge variety of material. Yet there have been no observations that show there is a link between the manipulation of physical energy in comparison to a human brain. Since it is also incredibly difficult for the human brain to even pay attention to two things at once, trying to make a macroscopic object to move requires concentration on trillions of atoms, even more than that. Even if we were not focusing on individual atoms but rather energy itself, it would have to be in the form of photons. You are trying to focus on energy, which is in the form of photons, to then direct them towards the atoms in order for them to gain energy, thus resulting in movement. Yet how would you coordinate the movement of the photons? Technically speaking, a photon exhibits wave-particle duality, so how the hell would you visualize even a single photon? The information itself seems impossible for the brain to calculate. Don't get me wrong; the brain can do actions that seem miraculous. But the magnititude I am referring to is essentially impossible for the brain to do. Our brains just can't calculate the position of so much atoms and photons, while trying to visualize something we cannot even visualize in waking life. Even *if* our brains could handle such huge amounts of information, how could we influence to movement of a mass amount of photons? Or atoms? I then claim that in order for psions to be able to attempt such feats like PK requires manipulation of non-physical energy. Actually, I am going to try to popularize Stolide's term, if I'm using it right (correct me Stolide...): Subtle energy. The term "energy" itself is misleading, since it denotes the sense of energy being physical. Not only does subtle energy solve the limit of infinite condensation into a single point, but there is even infinite energy to begin with!

Those are my main reasons as to why I chose the axioms 1, 2 and 3. Like I said, I have a feeling a lot of people are already going to argue with me on these points. To ensure there will be less confusion and pointless disagreement, I will stop for now. I want to hear others' axioms and their explanations for their proposed postulates. It can be as long as you want, just to the point you can explain all of them. I discourage short explanations; I honestly think quantity is definitely better than quality. This isn't going to be a problem that has a "miraculous and simple" solution either. We are going to need a lot of ideas. Anyways, after we go through the process of eliminating certain axioms that can be disproved, and thus not actual axioms, the next step of the plan is to go into depth about the process of PK. For the benefit of others, just explain what I practically asked for you to type. Rushing directly into your theory about PK might raise some unnecessary questions that can be self-explained if they knew what postulates you were basing your theories off of. Remember though; a theory always has at least a single example with an analysis. An analysis without evidence is just a proposed idea, nothing else. And an example without analysis is just an observation. Anyways, other than those strict guidelines it's practically a free-for-all.

Note: I know this is a longer read than usual, but please don't read the first sentences of my post and immediately start babbling off. Try to stay in context of what is being asked. Obviously in no manner are you required to post either, but I don't want to have my ideas being the only post in this thread...Like that youtube thread I tried erecting...
EDIT - Confusing post
Energy is NOT in the form of photons. It doesn't have to be. However, it CAN take the form of photons, what I was trying to say.
You can probably heat up atoms with something else other than photons too. Point being, you will STILL need to visualize something complex. Actually, nobody really knows how energy itself looks like. I'm just trying to say the whole process would be too much stress for the brain to handle for explanation of axiom 3.

[Nervous]

Late post? So sue me.

If psi did exist, then most likely we would have found it by now. The current measurement tools we have at this point can detect a huge variety of material. Yet there have been no observations that show there is a link between the manipulation of physical energy in comparison to a human brain.

Assuming you know what psi is and what it takes to detect it.
 

Since it is also incredibly difficult for the human brain to even pay attention to two things at once, trying to make a macroscopic object to move requires concentration on trillions of atoms, even more than that. Even if we were not focusing on individual atoms but rather energy itself, it would have to be in the form of photons. You are trying to focus on energy, which is in the form of photons, to then direct them towards the atoms in order for them to gain energy, thus resulting in movement.

All more assumptions of how PK works, albeit not unlikely ones, they could none the less be dis proven. We could be focusing on electromagnetic force, we could be focusing on an entirely unknown force, or just twisting the laws of physics all together.

Yet how would you coordinate the movement of the photons? Technically speaking, a photon exhibits wave-particle duality, so how the hell would you visualize even a single photon? The information itself seems impossible for the brain to calculate. Don't get me wrong; the brain can do actions that seem miraculous. But the magnititude I am referring to is essentially impossible for the brain to do. Our brains just can't calculate the position of so much atoms and photons, while trying to visualize something we cannot even visualize in waking life. Even *if* our brains could handle such huge amounts of information, how could we influence to movement of a mass amount of photons? Or atoms?

And who says the knowledge of these positions is necessary? We know where the macroscopic object is, and all that is necessary is for our brains/ minds/ souls to move it is to "do the thing that makes it move".
 

I then claim that in order for psions to be able to attempt such feats like PK requires manipulation of non-physical energy. Actually, I am going to try to popularize Stolide's term, if I'm using it right (correct me Stolide...): Subtle energy. The term "energy" itself is misleading, since it denotes the sense of energy being physical. Not only does subtle energy solve the limit of infinite condensation into a single point, but there is even infinite energy to begin with!

What you have essentially done is say that there is something "x" that causes PK, which you've named "subtle energy". However, this is sorta was psi is. Psi, which is the Greek letter for the unknown, was used by parapsychologists as a variable for whatever energy it is that causes psychic activity.

That was fun.

[issacweirdo]

Man, I remember when you used to be more active. Now you're a drifter...

Correction; energy can take the form as a photon. Photons are just a form of energy, but do not actually represent energy itself. I feel silly for making such a mistake without realizing it 

Assuming you know what psi is and what it takes to detect it.

I admit, I made an over-generalization. I was assuming we already have the tools of picking up anything we want in the universe...which might be true, but it's still uncertain. If we could then why haven't we found the graviton For now, one of the major obstacles is the amount of energy we need for new discoveries. I'm pretty sure those particle accelerators don't run on the energy it takes to power a computer for a day, ha ha ha. I also have this notion that there isn't enough funding for research in physics, since the tools it takes to measure extremely small things require lots of money. Nobody knows what psi is, nor do we know what it takes to detect it, assuming it exists as a physical energy.

All more assumptions of how PK works, albeit not unlikely ones, they could none the less be dis proven. We could be focusing on electromagnetic force, we could be focusing on an entirely unknown force, or just twisting the laws of physics all together.

1) I definitely know for a fact that we are not focusing on the EM force; it could be proven easily if it was so. I don't think there is any other force than the four forces, but I can be horribly mistaken. Here is already a possible counter-argument; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction#Beyond_the_Standard_Model Note: Wikipedia isn't a bad source of information. Sure, people can post BS but you also have to remember there are moderators with people who actually know what the subject is about, checking every corner of the site. I feel more comfortable with Wikipedia than I do with another ".com" website.
2) I don't think it's possible to twist the laws of physics. Rather, we are just utilizing another aspect of physics that makes it seem as if physics is being twisted together. It's like somebody saying, "let's conquer reality!" This is assuming psi is real (some people think I am a total psion, so sorry if you start to get annoyed if I repeat this statement a lot).

And who says the knowledge of these positions is necessary? We know where the macroscopic object is, and all that is necessary is for our brains/ minds/ souls to move it is to "do the thing that makes it move".

My questions to this statement: How are we then moving it? Obviously psi is used. But I mean in what manner does the manipulation of psi move the actual physical object itself? If someone is just "pushing" the object from one side then it should be rather easy to observe. Here is what I'm confused about: if we start from a psi wheel, and can supposedly "build upon our psi muscle", then supposedly we can then move larger things. Well, what's the difference between moving a large thing in comparison to a small thing? You could say that the difference is the amount of focus someone emphasizes on the task. That means that with enough meditation anyone can move anything; yet people state the actual experience of moving something is required. Technically if focus was the main reason why some psions can move bigger things in comparison to psions who can move small things, then experience of actual PK is not required. Here is also something I'm confused about. The majority of psions I know state that the amount of psi in this universe is infinite. Yet energy is always conserved and therefore the total amount of energy cannot grow. Doesn't this mean that if psi was a physical energy that it must be limited in the same manner in how much is available in this universe?

What you have essentially done is say that there is something "x" that causes PK, which you've named "subtle energy". However, this is sorta was psi is. Psi, which is the Greek letter for the unknown, was used by parapsychologists as a variable for whatever energy it is that causes psychic activity.

I was assuming at that point that psi is not physical energy. Usually when the term "psi" is used, people think about physical energy. In relation to PK, it can seem as if psi is a physical energy. I prefer Stolide's term, which is "subtle energy", when it comes to saying that psi is not something physical. I don't think he states in his blog that subtle energy is non-physical though; it's been a while since I went to his website.

I love arguing. I admit, there were more axioms that I had made than just three :\ I don't think my responses are too chaotic to the point it's hard to know what I'm talking about it. If you have some trouble understanding what I just typed up then just post here and I'll edit my post to something more visually pleasing, ha ha ha.

[ClueLou]

link isn't working...