wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> telekinesis
        
(Message started by: srn347 on Sep 11th, 2007, 8:17pm)
Title: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 11th, 2007, 8:17pm
Some people believe it, some don't. There are also different beliefs about what abilities it includes. Let the debate begin with the next post.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 11th, 2007, 11:29pm
Wouldn't it be more prudent to begin the debate with the first post?


There is no shred of evidence for telekinesis, nor any plausible mechanism that would allow it in modern science. I can't see why people insist on taking it seriously; it's great for fantasy and sci-fi stories, but it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sameer on Sep 11th, 2007, 11:44pm
Erm... I thought we would leave this topic unanswered!! Or any of his questions in other threads!! Until he becomes legible, polite or grows up another 10 years or so!! This post will self destruct in about 12 hours!!!

Edit: The bomb squad came and diffused the self destruct sequence!!  ::)
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 12th, 2007, 2:57am
Well, Sameer, since towr had already answered, let's invade the topic, and discuss something else !!  :P

Umm, let's see, how are things in the US, any Sept 11 memorial celebrations going on ?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 12th, 2007, 3:01am

on 09/12/07 at 02:57:29, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Well, Sameer, since towr had already answered, let's invade the topic, and discuss something else !!  :P

Umm, let's see, how are things in the US, any Sept 11 memorial celebrations going on ?


Do you think they are actually celebrating or did it just come out badly? But yes, how does America remember September 11? For me, I celebrate my best friends B'day. So I guess I celebrate.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 12th, 2007, 3:05am

on 09/12/07 at 03:01:33, mikedagr8 wrote:
Do you think they are actually celebrating or did it just come out badly?


Okay, so celebration isn't exactly the best word to use. Maybe commemoration ( whatever that means ) ?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 12th, 2007, 3:07am
Yes, that means to remember. That is the word I think you were after. In Australia, we don't exactly have the 'whole shebang' but at my school we did have a one minute of silence to commemorate the tragedy.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 12th, 2007, 3:16am

on 09/12/07 at 03:07:05, mikedagr8 wrote:
In Australia, we don't exactly have the 'whole shebang' but at my school we did have a one minute of silence to commemorate the tragedy.

If 9/11 had happened in Australia (or anywhere else outside USA) do you think they would have minutes of silence in USA?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 12th, 2007, 3:24am

on 09/12/07 at 03:16:29, ThudanBlunder wrote:
If 9/11 had happened in Australia (or anywhere else outside USA) do you think they would have had minutes of silence in USA?

GOD NO!!! This is America, "All for us, and none for all". I don't believe that they honestly would if an event of similar tragedy occured outside America, they would give as much respect to those who lost their lives as other countries do.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by SMQ on Sep 12th, 2007, 5:13am

on 09/12/07 at 03:16:29, ThudanBlunder wrote:
If 9/11 had happened in Australia (or anywhere else outside USA) do you think they would have had minutes of silence in USA?

I'm only one U.S.-ian -- and one of the first to admit that many of my countrymen seem to be unreasonably insular (at best) -- but I would like to think that had an unprovoked attack on a similar scale happened in another country not normally associated with terrorist activity, that it would be commerated here.  Had Al Queda instead targeted Canary Wharf or World Square, for instance, I would like to think it would still be remembered here, yes.

--SMQ
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 12th, 2007, 6:10am
Of course, it is not a Yes/No question and more a question of degree.
I personally suspect that 6 years on there would be few silent remembrances in US.    
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sameer on Sep 12th, 2007, 9:14am
Personally I celebrate my best friend's birthday too!! However it is a general day where most of the silence or mourning happens on news!! Maybe on Ground zero there might be more things going on! Most of the people went about their daily life!!!


on 09/12/07 at 03:16:29, ThudanBlunder wrote:
If 9/11 had happened in Australia (or anywhere else outside USA) do you think they would have minutes of silence in USA?



I doubt it unless it had some drastic things. Terrorism is not new. There have been terror attacks by Al-Qaeda and other rogue terrorist groups since 80s as far as I can remember. As for e.g. how many here remember the date when around 200 people died in a bomb blast in Bali? Or Madrid Train bombing? Or Bombay Train Bombing?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by hiyathere on Sep 12th, 2007, 11:07am

on 09/12/07 at 03:24:26, mikedagr8 wrote:
GOD NO!!! This is America, "All for us, and none for all". I don't believe that they honestly would if an event of similar tragedy occured outside America, they would give a as much respect to those who lost their lives as other countries do.


it seems that Americans are pretty selfish in general... no offense to anyone though.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 12th, 2007, 12:24pm

on 09/12/07 at 11:07:59, hiyathere wrote:
it seems that Americans are pretty selfish in general...

Not really. But they ain't called US for nothing. Anyway, a journalist once asked four students (from Europe, Africa, USA, and China) a simple question: "What is your personal opinion of the international food shortage?" Not one of them could provide an answer. They replied:

European student: What is a shortage?
African student: What is food?
USA student: What is 'international'?
Chinese student: What is a personal opinion?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Sep 12th, 2007, 2:12pm

on 09/12/07 at 09:14:20, Sameer wrote:
Maybe on Ground zero there might be more things going on!

You'd think so, but they only let a few people even approach Ground Zero and those were a select group of relatives of the people who died.  I've found that people in Manhattan barely even notice the passing of 9-11 anymore.  Maybe they want to forget, but it seems a little callous to me.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 12th, 2007, 4:49pm

on 09/12/07 at 03:24:26, mikedagr8 wrote:
GOD NO!!! This is America, "All for us, and none for all". I don't believe that they honestly would if an event of similar tragedy occured outside America, they would give a as much respect to those who lost their lives as other countries do.

Hey, the schools all had a moment of silence on the aniversary of the London train bombings. Admittedly, yes, we often focus on ourselves, but a fair majority of us actually care about what happens in the rest of the world, it is just the really extreme idiots who get on TV and such. Thank you guys for your support... I know people who lost family members in the attack and I know they appreciate your respect to. Very, very sad day, and some of the bravest people I've ever seen are the NYPD and the Firefighters who went in to rescue people even when they knew the towers were going to come down at any moment. RIP.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 12th, 2007, 8:36pm

on 09/11/07 at 23:44:04, Sameer wrote:
Erm... I thought we would leave this topic unanswered!! Or any of his questions in other threads!! Until he becomes legible, polite or grows up another 10 years or so!! This post will self destruct in about 12 hours!!!

Edit: The bomb squad came and diffused the self destruct sequence!!  ::)

If this post self-destructs, I'm going to be the one to take it down. Anyway, in case you haven't found this link http://www.wingmakers.co.nz/Teleportation.html in a previously posted post, well here it is. Read it and begin the debate(about telekinesis, not 9/11).
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sameer on Sep 12th, 2007, 8:41pm
Maybe you are confused!!

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1986/ch861116.gif
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 12th, 2007, 8:46pm
ROFL!!!

Well, at least is demonstrates his powers. It is like the book, 'The Secret'. - Not 100% sure, but I think that was it.
"You ask, you beileve, then you recieve from the old pedophile down the road". - The Chaser
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 12th, 2007, 8:49pm
ROFL? Have you people read the web site link(and its links)?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 12th, 2007, 9:02pm

on 09/12/07 at 20:49:21, srn347 wrote:
ROFL? Have you people read the web site link(and its links)?

ROFL=Rolling on Floor Laughing

I looked at it, but when it said that an energy portal should look like the picture, well, shouldn't it be different for everyone? So there was no point continuing.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 13th, 2007, 12:35am
srn347, I posted some questions relating to telekinesis in another thread which you seemed to ignore, so I'll post them again...


on 09/11/07 at 00:14:01, Sir Col wrote:
Just to clarify, psychokinesis is the process of manipulating matter by the power of the mind; such as, bending spoons, teleportation, and so on. Telekinesis is one aspect of psychokinesis which involves moving matter.

srn347, I am genuinely interested in hearing a coherent response on this subject, so I would be interested in your thoughts on the following three questions relating to telekinesis...

1) Think about a game of snooker. The blue ball moved because it was struck by the cue ball. The cue ball moved because it was struck by the cue. And so on. If the result of telekinesis is moving an object, then what is its immediate antecedent?

2) If we trace back the chain of causes and effects, where did it originate? That is, what was the first occurrence of physical activity?

3) How does the mind - the thought - span this divide?


I think you queried the word "antecedent". It means the event, or cause, that occurred immediately before. You also said, "The mind is what is used, but not so much thought." Would the thoughts not be necessary to at least initiate the process, and ultimately focus the "energy"? Otherwise people's subconscious minds would be causing telekinesis haphazardly and outside of our control.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 13th, 2007, 5:22am
How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hand. Funny one I just recieved from friend.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 13th, 2007, 4:38pm
Thoughts aren't usually used, one the other hand, visualization and stuff are.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 15th, 2007, 6:33am
But where does your visualisation take place? In the mind? Is that not a thought?

How does this internal desire to move an object grow? Surely it must be conceived in your mind as you "think" about it, then where does it go to? How does this visualisation extend to interact with the target object? In other words, and back to my "chain of cause and effect" question, at what point does the visualisation first become physical so that it ultimately possess the capacity to move an object?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 15th, 2007, 12:20pm
Yes, but you only think about it! If you let your mind wander and think about lots of other stuff, it won't work.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 15th, 2007, 4:52pm
I appreciate your attempt at answering, but you're not quite understanding my questions. I'll try making things simpler for you and ask one question at a time...

If an object moves then something made it move (Newton's first law of motion).
Physical objects are moved by physical forces.
What physical force moved the object?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 16th, 2007, 9:26am
the energy from your mind.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 16th, 2007, 10:03am

on 09/16/07 at 09:26:51, srn347 wrote:
the energy from your mind.
Energy isn't a force.
It also doesn't in the slightest explain the causal mechanism behind how the mind supposedly moves an object by telekinesis; it's purely magical explanation.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 16th, 2007, 3:53pm
It is not magic! If you refuse to believe it(although you have that right), you won't be able to use it.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 16th, 2007, 5:46pm
Don't worry srn347, if you are really 13 you should be able to demonstrate mind-over-matter to everyone in less than 18 months!
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 16th, 2007, 5:54pm
Thanks. How is age involved though?...
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 16th, 2007, 6:06pm

on 09/16/07 at 17:54:19, srn347 wrote:
Thanks. How is age involved though?...

Ask Daddy.  
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 16th, 2007, 6:22pm
Hopefully you don't mean what I think you mean.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 16th, 2007, 6:46pm
While we are on the subject, at a recent teacher training interview I had to write a 500-word test essay, which ended as follows:

Does education allow us to pursue the truth? What is 'the truth'? It must necessarily remain a subjective ideal. Considering the study of history, for example, while certain facts may be indisputable, their interpretation often is not. In physics, the more we probe the nature of matter, the more it appears to this observer that mind and matter are one, in the sense that the entities we are forced to invent and describe are more mathematical abstraction than physical reality. Complemented by empirical methodologies as it is, theoretical quantum physics is subject to the limitations of the scientific method and in my opinion the search for the chimerical Theory of Everything is thus doomed to failure. Even in the idealised world of mathematical axioms there is uncertainty, since no system can prove its own logical consistency - and conversely, if a system is logically consistent it must contain some true yet unprovable statements. In other words, education leaves us better informed but none the wiser.

Comments from non-minors welcome.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by srn347 on Sep 16th, 2007, 6:59pm
The truth?! I can use paradoxes to make anything become the truth. example: if this sentence is true, the world will end in a week. If that sentence is true the world will end in a week, which is what the sentence says, so it is true, so the world will end in a week.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 16th, 2007, 10:26pm

on 09/16/07 at 18:46:42, ThudanBlunder wrote:
Comments from non-minors welcome.

Hey, there are a couple minors on here who aren't to bad, mikeda8 included...
But interesting conclusion, I would be interested in reading the rest of the paper. So far, amen... however I wonder over the choice, considering it was for a teacher training interview... educators generally like to hear that they are succeeding in shedding light upon the "ignorance" of man.  ::)
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 17th, 2007, 12:34am
So you're going to take the plunge, TanB? The closing remarks in your essay are insightful, but my experience of teacher training institutions, and the educators within, suggest that your words will fail to be fully appreciated. And those that do appreciate what you're actually saying will do their best to extinguish such challenging words.

I find that education, from an educators perspective, is so pre-occupied with how to teach that they never ask the question, "Why do we teach what we teach?" In other words, on what grounds is the curriculum determined? And to address your question of whether or not education allows us to pursue truth depends on what is being taught. Who determines this and on what basis do they decide? Where do they get their "authority" from? As we live in an age dedicated to individualism and relativism it seems that we are doomed to be everything and nothing, driven by ignorance towards an unknown destination. And who says that I am not an inspirational teacher?  ::)
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 17th, 2007, 1:33am
Any thoughts on the physics bit?

In physics, the more we probe the nature of matter, the more it appears to this observer that mind and matter are one, in the sense that the entities we are forced to invent and describe are more mathematical abstraction than physical reality. Complemented by empirical methodologies as it is, theoretical quantum physics is subject to the limitations of the scientific method and in my opinion the search for the chimerical Theory of Everything is thus doomed to failure.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 17th, 2007, 1:53am
On such matters my opinions are less well founded, but...

It seems to me that science aims to achieve understanding by two distinct processes: categorisation and determinsation (I made this word up). Categorisation is the system of classifying objects/entities according to their properties, similarities, and differences; determinisation is about modelling their behaviour through predictive systems, whether that be mathematical models or prescriptive repeatable processes.

Categorisation, which is the essential component of all sciences is "truth" because we define things that way. In other words it is as true as the meaning of any word we care to define.

Determinisation, however, is based on empirical findings and only remains true as long as it is not shown to be false. The absolute truth underlying individual realities is thus unknowable, as we would be required to know everything in order to know it. To borrow your words, "...science leaves us better informed but none the wiser."
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 17th, 2007, 1:59am

Quote:
Hey, there are a couple minors on here who aren't to bad, mikedagr8 included...


Hooray I'm tolerated by others (to an extent). ;D :D

What comments would you like? Do you want on the contention, the layout? I'm not sure so you tell me.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:16am

on 09/17/07 at 01:33:05, ThudanBlunder wrote:
In physics, the more we probe the nature of matter, the more it appears to this observer that mind and matter are one, in the sense that the entities we are forced to invent and describe are more mathematical abstraction than physical reality.

What if we had the superpower to see things at quantum scale and things beyond three dimensions? Would that statement still hold true?

The biggest hurdle in science, as i believe, is the limitations put on us by our senses. It is for this that man has to stand back and rely on what would one call insight and imagination to go beyond his limitations. I am sure, we all agree on this.

Even though gathering empirical evidence is tough, but that wont stop us from going beyond in our search. Only problem, we might lose sight of what is wrong and what is right and finally land upon several theories that seem correct in their own right complemented by the empirical evidences that we would have gathered by then. Would science see its end? No, we will continue to find all the theories that explain our empirical evidences and then each person would simply choose what he believes to be right and work on it (something which is pretty much already happening in the world of physics).

Given that our imagination has no boundaries (unless the opposite is proven), i would assume the position of an optimist and believe that a theory of everything might still be a possibility.

-- AI
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:24am

on 09/16/07 at 15:53:40, srn347 wrote:
It is not magic! If you refuse to believe it(although you have that right), you won't be able to use it.
That's a magical explanation if ever there was one. "The power of belief".
Note that I didn't say telekinesis was magic, just that your explanation of it is magical. You don't consider how it might physically work, or even if it could physically work, but just give vague handwavy explanations.
It'd be equivalent to saying that the way computers work is that gnomes inside the computer process what you type on the keyboard really fast. That's how it might work on the Discworld, but here there are no gnomes to be found when you examine the computer circuitry (but perhaps you can only see them if you believe they're there. Maybe, just maybe, you can't help but see them, once you believe they're there, ragardless of whether they objectively are. Because it's magic, after all.)

So if you please, give a non-magical account of how telekinesis can work. How is the energy of the mind put to work, which force moves the object, how can the hypothesis be tested, and why would belief factor into it? Scientific thinking is what we're after!
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:31am

on 09/17/07 at 02:24:48, towr wrote:
It'd be equivalent to saying that the way computers work is that gnomes inside the computer process what you type on the keyboard really fast.

FYI, its monkeys who are inside the computers. Gnomes are slimy creatures that live in your backyard. Pfft!
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:40am

on 09/16/07 at 18:46:42, ThudanBlunder wrote:
While we are on the subject, at a recent teacher training interview I had to write a 500-word test essay, which ended as follows:

Does education allow us to pursue the truth?
Pursue, yes; catch, no.


Quote:
Even in the idealised world of mathematical axioms there is uncertainty, since no system can prove its own logical consistency - and conversely, if a system is logically consistent it must contain some true yet unprovable statements.
Untrue. Godel's incompleteness theorem applies only to certain logical systems, ones that make arithmetic claims (or something to that effect).
Propositional logic for example is entirely decidable, every theorem is either true, or false: no true statement is unprovable.


Quote:
In other words, education leaves us better informed but none the wiser.
That would be a woefull state of education, if it only informs you. It is hard to say what wisdom is, or whether it really even exists. But certainly education should do more than merely inform a student. It should make them think, and question; and let's say 'think' first, because otherwise questions are pointless.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:47am

on 09/17/07 at 02:40:19, towr wrote:
That would be a woefull state of education, if it only informs you. It is hard to say what wisdom is, or whether it really even exists. But certainly education should do more than merely inform a student. It should make them think, and question; and let's say 'think' first, because otherwise questions are pointless.


I have multiple prime examples, it would take only a few moments to provide cases, which I am sure we all could agree would satisfy the above. ::)
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 2:49am

on 09/17/07 at 02:16:55, TenaliRaman wrote:
Given that our imagination has no boundaries (unless the opposite is proven)
If mind is matter, then imagination is limited. Because then there will be a finite number of quantum states our mind can be in. (And at most each quantum state could be one imagined entity; but likely billions upon billions form the same one)
The collective imagination of the observable universe won't be qualitatively better in that respect, it'd still have a finite number of quantum states, and so finite imagination  ;D
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 17th, 2007, 3:07am

on 09/17/07 at 02:16:55, TenaliRaman wrote:
What if we had the superpower to see things at quantum scale and things beyond three dimensions?

But it is the very nature of things that we cannot see quarks, for example.
So I don't see the point in asking, "What if nature were not like that?"


on 09/17/07 at 02:16:55, TenaliRaman wrote:
The biggest hurdle in science, as i believe, is the limitations put on us by our senses.

It is for this that man has to stand back and rely on what would one call insight and imagination to go beyond his limitations. I am sure, we all agree on this.

Again, such is the nature of light.
If insight and imagination are not verifiable then they will remain insight and imagination, even if true. Perhaps, this is not unconnected with Godel's theorem.

I think it is only fitting that we cannot work out everything with the (finite) mind, as it wouldn't be much of a Universe if we could. How can a part understand the Whole?


on 09/17/07 at 02:40:19, towr wrote:
Untrue. Godel's incompleteness theorem applies only to certain logical systems, ones that make arithmetic claims (or something to that effect).

When writing a 500-word essay in 45 minutes such riders become omittable.


on 09/17/07 at 02:40:19, towr wrote:
Pursue, yes; catch, no.

If the truth cannot be precisely defined then we cannot pursue it. We can only appear to.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 17th, 2007, 4:51am

on 09/17/07 at 02:49:59, towr wrote:
If mind is matter,

Another good reason as to why i believe in cartesian Dualism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/) ;D


on 09/17/07 at 03:07:55, ThudanBlunder wrote:
So I don't see the point in asking, "What if nature were not like that?"

I always thought that asking such questions forms the basis of inductive thinking. Isnt science more or less an inductive process of learning?


Quote:
If insight and imagination are not verifiable then they will remain insight and imagination, even if true.

I accept this point whole heartedly, but it in no way refutes the possibility that the insight will never be verified. A completely unverifiable theory is as useless as the proposal of telekinesis.


Quote:
I think it is only fitting that we cannot work out everything with the (finite) mind, as it wouldn't be much of a Universe if we could. How can a part understand the Whole?

The point of debate then would be, is mind really a part of the universe. ;)

-- AI
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Grimbal on Sep 17th, 2007, 5:34am
Did you ever utter the words "I am conscious"?  To do that your mind must have a way to affect the physical world.  And if it affects the physical world, it is physical.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sir Col on Sep 17th, 2007, 6:00am

on 09/17/07 at 03:07:55, ThudanBlunder wrote:
I think it is only fitting that we cannot work out everything with the (finite) mind, as it wouldn't be much of a Universe if we could. How can a part understand the Whole?

I believe that this is key to appreciating the limit of our understanding. Assuming that Schroedinger's cat possessed heightened consciousness and intelligence it would never be able to grasp the full measure of its reality from inside its "box". It might be able to classify the chemical in the vial as hydrocyanic acid. It might be able to determine the effects of the acid on a cat's physiology. It might be able to establish that the release of the compound is triggered by a device capable of detecting radioactive decay of a particular substance. But it would never be able to see the bigger picture, never mind the "truth" that it doesn't actually exist and is only part of a thought experiment. That is, "The cat would be left better informed but none the wiser."
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 8:48am

on 09/17/07 at 03:07:55, ThudanBlunder wrote:
But it is the very nature of things that we cannot see quarks, for example.
So I don't see the point in asking, "What if nature were not like that?"
We might see consequences of the difference.
The only time there isn't a point, if you replace it with a theory that behaves identical in every observable way. (If you have many such theories, just pick a simplest one, says Occam)
Quarks lead to observable predictions, replacing them with, say, yoghurts (*dutch language related pun pun), you'd probably get other results.


Quote:
If the truth cannot be precisely defined then we cannot pursue it. We can only appear to.
I suppose that's a variation in the meaning of "pursue". But truth is very precisely defined as that which is. That, however, doesn't help us in the slightest to find it.
We can only find what our observable universe behaves like most. But it could always be embedded in something that is fundamentally different.

Anyway, something I would have posted earlier, but  cut from my post. Truth is not the measure of success of science. How true a theory is is of little importance; in fact some philosophers of science would turn it around, the success of science is a measure of truth (and with that depart from the ideal of objective truth).
How successful science is depends on what we as society do with it, how it helps us come to terms with our 'kosmos' (our 'orderly arrangement' [of the universe], ordered by us, for us; in good aneristic tradition).
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 17th, 2007, 8:53am

on 09/17/07 at 04:51:53, TenaliRaman wrote:
The point of debate then would be, is mind really a part of the universe. ;)
If it weren't then the universe wouldn't be the universe.
One might propose there is a physical and non-physical side to the universe; but that has major problems. Not least of which is that if the non-physical can interact with the physical (e.g. you mind can cause things to happen, and your senses can influence your mind), then it becomes physical. It is something you can probe and test with physical means, i.e. an entity in the physical universe.

Hmmm, ok, seems Grimbal already said that as well

on 09/17/07 at 05:34:42, Grimbal wrote:
Did you ever utter the words "I am conscious"?  To do that your mind must have a way to affect the physical world.  And if it affects the physical world, it is physical.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 17th, 2007, 9:58am

on 09/17/07 at 05:34:42, Grimbal wrote:
Did you ever utter the words "I am conscious"?  To do that your mind must have a way to affect the physical world.  

Sorry, I don't follow that.


on 09/17/07 at 08:48:11, towr wrote:
But truth is very precisely defined as that which is.

That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. - William Jefferson Clinton     :P
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by Sameer on Sep 17th, 2007, 7:31pm

on 09/17/07 at 01:33:05, ThudanBlunder wrote:
Any thoughts on the physics bit?

in my opinion the search for the chimerical Theory of Everything is thus doomed to failure.


Why so? Can you please elaborate?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 17th, 2007, 7:45pm

on 09/17/07 at 19:31:46, Sameer wrote:
Why so? Can you please elaborate?

Because the aforementioned Scientific Method is incremental.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 17th, 2007, 11:50pm

on 09/17/07 at 08:53:44, towr wrote:
Not least of which is that if the non-physical can interact with the physical (e.g. you mind can cause things to happen, and your senses can influence your mind), then it becomes physical. It is something you can probe and test with physical means, i.e. an entity in the physical universe.

Hmmm, ok, seems Grimbal already said that as well

I still dont see a problem in treating them differently. Arent thoughts the cause of all actions which we call voluntary? If i say that brain is an interface between mind and body, wouldnt that be an acceptable idea?? And dont we already probe into how our mind works and we already see the influence of actions on our mind.

Moreover, what i dont understand in the above argument is why an interface between a physical and a non-physical need not exist?? You sure do realise that my mind doesnt affect what you do in your day-today life (not atleast directly), and vice versa. My mind is a sole controller of my body and my actions. Given this restriction, how come the argument that anything that influences a physical entity has to be physical hold?

-- AI
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 18th, 2007, 1:03am

on 09/17/07 at 23:50:57, TenaliRaman wrote:
I still dont see a problem in treating them differently.
There isn't a problem in the sense there isn't a problem treating doors and chairs different. But in a fundamental sense they are the same, they are physical; of physical substance.


Quote:
Aren't thoughts the cause of all actions which we call voluntary?
I don't know.
It might all be an illusion. I feel that in dualism it has to be, because for the mental not to be physical there cannot be interaction. Which isn't to say the physical cannot be more complicated (less law-like) than we think.


Quote:
If i say that brain is an interface between mind and body, wouldnt that be an acceptable idea??
Sure; just as you could say the computer is an interface between me and the software that runs on it (alluding to the functionalist approach, which says the mind is to the brain what software is to a computer).


Quote:
And dont we already probe into how our mind works and we already see the influence of actions on our mind.
Yes, we can scientifically examine the mind; it is in that sense no different from other phenomena. It's easier to get to than exotic particles.


Quote:
Moreover, what i dont understand in the above argument is why an interface between a physical and a non-physical need not exist??
The coherence between the physical and non-physical might simply be an illusion. (Of course strictly speaking the non-physical couldn't even observe the physical, so it wouldn't notice the coherence). But when there is interaction, I don't see how they can be separate substances (in the dualist sense).


Quote:
You sure do realise that my mind doesnt affect what you do in your day-today life (not atleast directly), and vice versa. My mind is a sole controller of my body and my actions. Given this restriction, how come the argument that anything that influences a physical entity has to be physical hold?
Does the steering wheel in a car control other cars? It is a physical object that's only directly affecting one physical object.
I can affect your mind by affecting you. I don't see how it's fundamentally different from scientist using tools to affect things they couldn't otherwise affect (like rearrange single atoms).
At the very least the mind has physical properties by virtue of interacting with the the rest of the universe. And it can't have distinguishable properties that don't affect the universe, because if they were distinguishable they could affect the world (e.g. we might talk about them, or act differently because of them).

Perhaps a bit late, but note that the biggest difference between our standpoints might simply be what we consider "physical" to mean. If you consider the physical world to be causally closed (like me); then it must consist of everything that causally affects it or is causally affected by it. You could split that whole in two, or three, or more; and call one of those smaller parts 'the physical', but obviously we then mean different things by the same name (which is often a problem in philosophical discussions; which is why one ought to clear up concepts at the start, rather than near the end say "hmm, maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say ...", as I'm doing now).
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 18th, 2007, 3:13am

on 09/18/07 at 01:03:46, towr wrote:
Perhaps a bit late, but note that the biggest difference between our standpoints might simply be what we consider "physical" to mean.

Right.


Quote:
If you consider the physical world to be causally closed (like me); then it must consist of everything that causally affects it or is causally affected by it. You could split that whole in two, or three, or more; and call one of those smaller parts 'the physical', but obviously we then mean different things by the same name (which is often a problem in philosophical discussions; which is why one ought to clear up concepts at the start, rather than near the end say "hmm, maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say ...", as I'm doing now).

The problem here is, if i assume the world to be causally closed, then mind would become very much a part of this universe and thereby might raise arguments like the one T&B made ("how can a part understand the whole?" which i believe was rhetoric).

I do believe, mind is infinite, which implies that i have to go with the opposite side. Though, "have" is a strong word to use, given that i have hardly analysed the capacity of a mind in a causally closed world (wherein there might be a possibility for a part to understand the whole, analogous to a bijection from an infinite set to one of its subset).

-- AI
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 18th, 2007, 6:57am

on 09/18/07 at 03:13:08, TenaliRaman wrote:
The problem here is, if i assume the world to be causally closed, then mind would become very much a part of this universe and thereby might raise arguments like the one T&B made ("how can a part understand the whole?" which i believe was rhetoric).
If you take the whole of everything that is causally connected, you have the same problem; it doesn't matter how you call it. Dividing it in mental and physical doesn't solve the problem.
And I don't see how the mind could understand even itself, let alone everything else as well. Partial understanding, however, is certainly possible, and worthwhile.

Complete understanding  is problematic if only because of godels incompleteness theorem. You can build a train track such that you won't know beforehand whether a train running on it (provided sufficient fuel) will reach an end or not. The only way to find out is run it, or simulate it (whcih for a traintrack will be faster). These sorts of things make it inherently difficult to have a complete understanding of things (You don't understand the track unless you at least know where the train ends up.)
On the other hand, you can understand it in a local sense, how every part behaves in itself and in interaction. (The laws of the universe may well be finite; so that gives an important local understanding.)


Quote:
I do believe, mind is infinite, which implies that i have to go with the opposite side. Though, "have" is a strong word to use, given that i have hardly analysed the capacity of a mind in a causally closed world (wherein there might be a possibility for a part to understand the whole, analogous to a bijection from an infinite set to one of its subset).
If the mind were infinite, I would hope I could remember more. It feels finite in many ways.

<out of time>
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 18th, 2007, 7:17am

on 09/18/07 at 03:13:08, TenaliRaman wrote:
I do believe, mind is infinite...

How can an infinite mind spring from a finite number of brain cells with a finite number of interconnections? Even quantum computation is finite.  
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 18th, 2007, 9:37am

on 09/18/07 at 07:17:26, ThudanBlunder wrote:
How can an infinite mind spring from a finite number of brain cells with a finite number of interconnections? Even quantum computation is finite.  
In substance dualism, the mind doesn't (necessarily) spring from the brain (or remain limited by it).
You could think of the brain as merely an interface to a mind outside the (normal) physical reality. What forces the mind can employ to have any effects is a mystery then, though. Because physics as we know it doesn't allow for it.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by ThudanBlunder on Sep 18th, 2007, 10:09am

on 09/18/07 at 09:37:26, towr wrote:
In substance dualism, the mind doesn't (necessarily) spring from the brain...

The effects of brain damage suggest that this theory is a triumph of form over substance.   :P
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by towr on Sep 18th, 2007, 10:23am

on 09/18/07 at 10:09:04, ThudanBlunder wrote:
The effects of brain damage suggest that this theory is a triumph of form over substance.   :P
Yup, I'd agree.
Behaviorally, it certainly appears that the mind is changed when the brain is changed (either by damage, but also drugs).
I suppose one might try to blame it on a damaged 'interface'. But I'm not sure how well that would pan out.
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by TenaliRaman on Sep 18th, 2007, 9:17pm

on 09/18/07 at 10:23:58, towr wrote:
I suppose one might try to blame it on a damaged 'interface'. But I'm not sure how well that would pan out.

I am not an expert on this subject, but yes that definitely would be my argument (however with a weak basis or probably even no basis at all).

I wont deny that the premises of my arguments have no strong pillars, nor the fact that my knowledge in this regard is as primitive as protozoa (little and un-updated). However, alternative reality is pretty much my interest subject, that may be the reason why i find dualism more exciting.

-- AI
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by wade32 on Apr 6th, 2012, 7:57pm
Can this really happen?
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by alien2 on Apr 14th, 2012, 5:26pm

on 09/11/07 at 20:17:16, srn347 wrote:
Some people believe it, some don't. There are also different beliefs about what abilities it includes. Let the debate begin with the next post.

I don't know if some people have telekinetic abilities (http://www.wingmakers.co.nz/Telekinesis.html), but I like The Lawnmower Man, Scanners, Dark City and Prince of Darkness.  
Title: Re: telekinesis
Post by wade32 on Apr 16th, 2012, 7:56am
Wanted to share an interesting link at Telekenesis-Unexplained Results (http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/146.html)


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board