I believe that PK/TK is the influencing and manipulation of atoms by using the subconscious to manipulate the energy our body emits thereby creating movement in the molecules that is surrounding us and affecting our environment.
Many terms that i believe possible that have been coined by various people, maybe branches of PK and TK.
I thought up all of these possibilities.
Pyrokinesis - The influencing of molecules to create rigorous movement to create Heat.
Cryokinesis - The influencing of molecules to slow down and reduce the current heat of our surroundings.
Aerokinesis - The influencing of molecules to move with air.
Sonokinesis - To affect the molecules vibration with PK.
Electrokinesis - he influencing of molecules to create rigorous movement to charge the molecules.
Please read the User Guidelines [url=http://www.psionicsonline.net/about-us/user-guidelines.html]http://www.p... ... lines.html[/url]. Since this is a fluff-free forum, please do not make up your own *-kinesis words. The correct term is psychokinesis, since no matter what you are moving, you are using psychokinesis in order to move it. If you want to be specific about what you\'re moving, saying bio-PK or electro-PK etc. is acceptable.
ShadowRain is correct in posting that this is a fluff free forum. However, since appropriate -kinesis terms have not yet been discussed, I forgive this mistake. ^_^.
As a side note, I prefer using \"psychokinesis with (item here ex: fire)\" instead of \"pyrokinesis\". It prevents confusion.
lashedtwerpoi wrote:I believe that PK/TK is the influencing and manipulation of atoms by using the subconscious to manipulate the energy our body emits thereby creating movement in the molecules that is surrounding us and affecting our environment.
If you are talking about the bodies Physical energy (Which is what you seem to be implying), then this is completely wrong. The body uses up energy created from (basically) chemical reactions (I do not know my biology so I can not explain this to you properly). The body emits heat, which can not account for all of the properties that PK seems to show.
Research has shown that time and distance do not seem to matter in PK (An example would be the RPKP Experimemts, in which the numbers have been generated before you try to influence them, and the random number generator, for me, is thousands of miles away), which would just not be possible if PK caused by radiating heat from your body.
Slow down there buddy. The scientific community has not even established the existence of telekinesis to begin with. I am sure you believe a lot of things but that does not mean they are real.
Why am I posting this? For every single revolutionary scientific advancement, you are going to have a skeptic. For example, the world thought pasteur was nuts, but later we realized that things infact do NOT arise out of spontaneous generation, but rather through observable scientific phenomena.
Furthermore, why would we trust \"skepdic\" before trusting Princeton, one of the best academic institutions in the world?
Skepdic and a lot of other skeptical magazines and organisations are basically founded by James Randi, one of the prominent pseudi-skeptics who has sent \'researchers\' into research organisations, to specifically fudge data.
Whilst I agree, some of the phenomena can be replicated with conjouring, this does not mean all psychic phenomena is conjouring.
I also agree that one should be skeptical of their own results, to ensure that it is psychic in nature, rather than random chance
Hmmmm....there is a thermal theory of psychokinesis proposed by Richard Mattuck which is a further interpretation of a quantum mechanical model of psi and it does not have to do with body really emitting anything, though.
Quote:
Richard Mattuck presents an interesting variation of the QMTP based on the idea that the mind somehow utilizes the thermal energy of molecules to alter the outcome of an event. It is well known that there is an degree of uncertainty associated with any measurement with the actual measured values showing small fluctuations around a mean value. These fluctuations are partially due to the agitation of the measured system by the random thermal energies of particles in the system (Remember that an atom at a given temperature is equivalent to that atom having a certain kinetic energy in a random direction. The hotter the material, the more its atoms are \"jiggling\" about). They have been shown to be related to the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Theory. Mattuck relates a PK effect to the processing of information at a certain rate. He offers a detailed analysis of the rate of information change associated with a theoretical PK effect on various components of an example target system. ? Mattuck, R. D (1982). \"Some Possible Thermal Quantum Fluctuation Models for Psychokinetic Influence on Light\". Psychoenergetics 4: 211-225.
Why am I posting this? For every single revolutionary scientific advancement, you are going to have a skeptic. For example, the world thought pasteur was nuts, but later we realized that things infact do NOT arise out of spontaneous generation, but rather through observable scientific phenomena.
Furthermore, why would we trust \"skepdic\" before trusting Princeton, one of the best academic institutions in the world?
Of course, you could just, you know, try it.
But, is one not being equally fallacious if one uses the same logic. A psudeo skeptic can be defined as a person who rejects such things based upon a set of fallacies which include conclusions reached intuitively, a priori, instead of analysis of data, a posteri, arbitrariness and the infamous argumentum ad verecundiam.
In your response, I see arbitrariness alongside argumentum ad verecundiam. On the subject of scientific revolution, you should read Thomas Kuhn\'s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) You should then read the response to it. Especially the one at the International Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science in Bedford College. Your usage of scientific revolution does not even follow his Incommensurability thesis. This is due to the fact that you are basing quality of research and reputation over empirical data. The Incommensurability thesis basically states that new empirical data is interpreted based upon the semantic paradigms of old. The conflicts which arise from the inability to reconcile this interpretations gives rise to what he calls revolutions, but, then again, this is based upon new data, and not conflicts in belief, and, as was stated, it met heavy criticism om multiple fronts. All scientific theory has both a mathematical interpretation and a semantic interpretation in which the mathematical model is proven via deductive experimentation which leads to further deduction in which a semantic model is extracted, but that is based upon gathered data and not baseless propositions. This is why statistical models are useless in branches of natural science as anything more than inductive frameworks, for it has to be followed through with a deduction that arises from physical observation between observed correlations.
Quote:
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Henry Poincare
That being said, if using the above fallacies makes a person a psudeo skeptic, then wouldn\'t using the same fallacies make the claim psudeoscientific? In addition to reading that book by Thomas Kuhn, I suggest you read more about pragmatist maxim which is found in Charles Sanders Peirce initial sketching of pragmatism. I suggest you get a firmer basis in science and research.
Oh, and as far as your comment on pasteurization being thought to be nuts that can be countered via a simple quote by Carl Sagan:
Quote:
What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carl Sagan
In other words, whether or not something is true or is not true is not dependent on whether or not its plausible or in plausible, but what is known at that time. There are many things that are plausible, but that does not mean that they are true. There are things that are implausible. This does not make them not true. Using that as an example is a bad move, because it was not known at that and it was based upon an inductive, hypothetical, framework which was proven via deductive experimentation. Once it was known, after that, it was established. Science is counter intuitive so attempting to use a purely intuitive common sensical version of it is silly.
Quote:
A counterintuitive proposition is one that does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.
Scientifically discovered, objective truths are often called counterintuitive when intuition, emotions, and other cognitive processes outside of deductive rationality interpret them to be wrong. However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another.
Flawed understanding of a problem may lead to counter-productive behavior with undesirable outcomes. In some such cases, counterintuitive policies may then produce a more desirable outcome. For example, a policy of catching large fish and throwing back small ones may be counter-productive. In response to that policy, evolutionary pressure may select for small fish. A counterintuitive improvement may be to catch only medium sized fish, leaving the biggest free to breed, creating evolutionary pressure for fish to grow quickly through the medium size.
Quote:
* Argument from Authority
* Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Translation: \"Argument from respect/modesty\" (Latin)
* Ipse Dixit
Translation: \"He, himself, said it\" (Latin)
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Form:
Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.
I am not attacking the proposition that psychokinesis is real; I am attacking the fallacies in your counter argument.
Sephectja wrote:
If you are talking about the bodies Physical energy (Which is what you seem to be implying), then this is completely wrong. The body uses up energy created from (basically) chemical reactions (I do not know my biology so I can not explain this to you properly). The body emits heat, which can not account for all of the properties that PK seems to show.
This is a good link on entropy in biological systems:
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Please read the User Guidelines [url=http://www.psionicsonline.net/about-us/user-guidelines.html]http://www.p... ... lines.html[/url]. Since this is a fluff-free forum, please do not make up your own *-kinesis words. The correct term is psychokinesis, since no matter what you are moving, you are using psychokinesis in order to move it. If you want to be specific about what you\'re moving, saying bio-PK or electro-PK etc. is acceptable.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
ShadowRain is correct in posting that this is a fluff free forum. However, since appropriate -kinesis terms have not yet been discussed, I forgive this mistake. ^_^.
As a side note, I prefer using \"psychokinesis with (item here ex: fire)\" instead of \"pyrokinesis\". It prevents confusion.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
lashedtwerpoi wrote:I believe that PK/TK is the influencing and manipulation of atoms by using the subconscious to manipulate the energy our body emits thereby creating movement in the molecules that is surrounding us and affecting our environment.
If you are talking about the bodies Physical energy (Which is what you seem to be implying), then this is completely wrong. The body uses up energy created from (basically) chemical reactions (I do not know my biology so I can not explain this to you properly). The body emits heat, which can not account for all of the properties that PK seems to show.
Research has shown that time and distance do not seem to matter in PK (An example would be the RPKP Experimemts, in which the numbers have been generated before you try to influence them, and the random number generator, for me, is thousands of miles away), which would just not be possible if PK caused by radiating heat from your body.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Slow down there buddy. The scientific community has not even established the existence of telekinesis to begin with. I am sure you believe a lot of things but that does not mean they are real.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Yes, I am aware of that website. Here is another viewpoint on those experiments: [url=http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html]http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html[/url]
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
[url=http://www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html]http://www.psipo...
Why am I posting this? For every single revolutionary scientific advancement, you are going to have a skeptic. For example, the world thought pasteur was nuts, but later we realized that things infact do NOT arise out of spontaneous generation, but rather through observable scientific phenomena.
Furthermore, why would we trust \"skepdic\" before trusting Princeton, one of the best academic institutions in the world?
Of course, you could just, you know, try it.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Yes, I know what you are saying. I am not convinced about what he is saying about the bonds being worthless either.
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Skepdic and a lot of other skeptical magazines and organisations are basically founded by James Randi, one of the prominent pseudi-skeptics who has sent \'researchers\' into research organisations, to specifically fudge data.
Whilst I agree, some of the phenomena can be replicated with conjouring, this does not mean all psychic phenomena is conjouring.
I also agree that one should be skeptical of their own results, to ensure that it is psychic in nature, rather than random chance
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
Hmmmm....there is a thermal theory of psychokinesis proposed by Richard Mattuck which is a further interpretation of a quantum mechanical model of psi and it does not have to do with body really emitting anything, though.
Quote:
Richard Mattuck presents an interesting variation of the QMTP based on the idea that the mind somehow utilizes the thermal energy of molecules to alter the outcome of an event. It is well known that there is an degree of uncertainty associated with any measurement with the actual measured values showing small fluctuations around a mean value. These fluctuations are partially due to the agitation of the measured system by the random thermal energies of particles in the system (Remember that an atom at a given temperature is equivalent to that atom having a certain kinetic energy in a random direction. The hotter the material, the more its atoms are \"jiggling\" about). They have been shown to be related to the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Theory. Mattuck relates a PK effect to the processing of information at a certain rate. He offers a detailed analysis of the rate of information change associated with a theoretical PK effect on various components of an example target system. ? Mattuck, R. D (1982). \"Some Possible Thermal Quantum Fluctuation Models for Psychokinetic Influence on Light\". Psychoenergetics 4: 211-225.
[url=http://www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html]http://www.psipo...
Why am I posting this? For every single revolutionary scientific advancement, you are going to have a skeptic. For example, the world thought pasteur was nuts, but later we realized that things infact do NOT arise out of spontaneous generation, but rather through observable scientific phenomena.
Furthermore, why would we trust \"skepdic\" before trusting Princeton, one of the best academic institutions in the world?
Of course, you could just, you know, try it.
But, is one not being equally fallacious if one uses the same logic. A psudeo skeptic can be defined as a person who rejects such things based upon a set of fallacies which include conclusions reached intuitively, a priori, instead of analysis of data, a posteri, arbitrariness and the infamous argumentum ad verecundiam.
In your response, I see arbitrariness alongside argumentum ad verecundiam. On the subject of scientific revolution, you should read Thomas Kuhn\'s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) You should then read the response to it. Especially the one at the International Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science in Bedford College. Your usage of scientific revolution does not even follow his Incommensurability thesis. This is due to the fact that you are basing quality of research and reputation over empirical data. The Incommensurability thesis basically states that new empirical data is interpreted based upon the semantic paradigms of old. The conflicts which arise from the inability to reconcile this interpretations gives rise to what he calls revolutions, but, then again, this is based upon new data, and not conflicts in belief, and, as was stated, it met heavy criticism om multiple fronts. All scientific theory has both a mathematical interpretation and a semantic interpretation in which the mathematical model is proven via deductive experimentation which leads to further deduction in which a semantic model is extracted, but that is based upon gathered data and not baseless propositions. This is why statistical models are useless in branches of natural science as anything more than inductive frameworks, for it has to be followed through with a deduction that arises from physical observation between observed correlations.
Quote:
Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
Henry Poincare
That being said, if using the above fallacies makes a person a psudeo skeptic, then wouldn\'t using the same fallacies make the claim psudeoscientific? In addition to reading that book by Thomas Kuhn, I suggest you read more about pragmatist maxim which is found in Charles Sanders Peirce initial sketching of pragmatism. I suggest you get a firmer basis in science and research.
Oh, and as far as your comment on pasteurization being thought to be nuts that can be countered via a simple quote by Carl Sagan:
Quote:
What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carl Sagan
In other words, whether or not something is true or is not true is not dependent on whether or not its plausible or in plausible, but what is known at that time. There are many things that are plausible, but that does not mean that they are true. There are things that are implausible. This does not make them not true. Using that as an example is a bad move, because it was not known at that and it was based upon an inductive, hypothetical, framework which was proven via deductive experimentation. Once it was known, after that, it was established. Science is counter intuitive so attempting to use a purely intuitive common sensical version of it is silly.
Quote:
A counterintuitive proposition is one that does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.
Scientifically discovered, objective truths are often called counterintuitive when intuition, emotions, and other cognitive processes outside of deductive rationality interpret them to be wrong. However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another.
Flawed understanding of a problem may lead to counter-productive behavior with undesirable outcomes. In some such cases, counterintuitive policies may then produce a more desirable outcome. For example, a policy of catching large fish and throwing back small ones may be counter-productive. In response to that policy, evolutionary pressure may select for small fish. A counterintuitive improvement may be to catch only medium sized fish, leaving the biggest free to breed, creating evolutionary pressure for fish to grow quickly through the medium size.
Quote:
* Argument from Authority
* Argumentum ad Verecundiam
Translation: \"Argument from respect/modesty\" (Latin)
* Ipse Dixit
Translation: \"He, himself, said it\" (Latin)
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Form:
Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.
I am not attacking the proposition that psychokinesis is real; I am attacking the fallacies in your counter argument.
Sephectja wrote:
If you are talking about the bodies Physical energy (Which is what you seem to be implying), then this is completely wrong. The body uses up energy created from (basically) chemical reactions (I do not know my biology so I can not explain this to you properly). The body emits heat, which can not account for all of the properties that PK seems to show.
This is a good link on entropy in biological systems:
Irreversible entropy in biological systems
Re: Possibilities with PK/TK?
(removed- link spam, not relevant.)
then tell me that TK and PK does\'nt exist....
you just have to believe in your self and your intentions in learning TK/PK are not for evil purposes...
just meditate before you attempt TK/PK
Add new comment