psychic powers

You're still essentially just naming names, you just changed it to the names of the ideas.

That's really about the best he can do, Oniw. Not one of those guys ever came up with a single shred of evidence to back up their silly woo-woo thoughts. I'd even venture a guess that one or two of them probably gave up those ideas later on. (It's rather difficult to keep believing in something which no one ever seems to be able to prove.);)
 
I don't know what anyone expects. Those who do not believe, then do not believe... simple.
For those who do, i can say that physics can and still does hypothetically account for the unknown. We do it all the time.
 
I don't know what anyone expects. Those who do not believe, then do not believe... simple.
For those who do, i can say that physics can and still does hypothetically account for the unknown. We do it all the time.

Those who do not believe only ask for one thing - proof.
 
True.

But then, we expect scientists alike to be able to answer everything. Godels Incomplete Theorem comes to mind here...
 
True.

But then, we expect scientists alike to be able to answer everything. Godels Incomplete Theorem comes to mind here...

Another false and misleading statement. Those of us with any brains at all HOPE that someday science will be able to answer more than it can today. And it's slowly but steadily doing that.

At the same time, though, very few of us with even half-functioning minds ever expect science to come up with anything on "psychic powers."
 
Another false and misleading statement. Those of us with any brains at all HOPE that someday science will be able to answer more than it can today. And it's slowly but steadily doing that.

At the same time, though, very few of us with even half-functioning minds ever expect science to come up with anything on "psychic powers."

I have absolutely no idea why you would say this.

In respect to the entire arguement, we where referring to whether science could prove psychic abillities. Some of these abillities are nearly as difficult to prove as proving a God. Of course we must expect we cannot solve all of the problems... not even in a million years time might we solve the problem of psychic abillity, or God for that matter.
 
I have absolutely no idea why you would say this.

In respect to the entire arguement, we where referring to whether science could prove psychic abillities. Some of these abillities are nearly as difficult to prove as proving a God. Of course we must expect we cannot solve all of the problems... not even in a million years time might we solve the problem of psychic abillity, or God for that matter.

No idea?????

It was clearly in response to your statement: "But then, we expect scientists alike to be able to answer everything."

So exactly WHAT is it you have no idea about, eh?
 
Some of these abillities are nearly as difficult to prove as proving a God.

Any good evidence that psychic abilities exist would be a good start.

So far, there just isn't any.

Forget "proof". That's getting way ahead of things. Before we can start investigating how and why something happens, the first step is to establish that it happens.

We're not even at square one with psychic powers.
 
you don't seem to understand that planets, galaxies and every single atom in the universe has these telekinetic powers that scientists call magnetism and gravity. what's special about humans is that we are the only ones who can gain conscious control of this power and move objects with with it.
.

The only objects that I can move with my mind are things in my kidneys and bowels1 :D
 
In response to James logical question, i would say it does indeed happen.
In physics, we are told that reality is built up on conscious expereince, and that without consciousness, there is no reality... thus, concluding this, anyone who experiences a psychic phenom, it must be real to their imaginal world.
Just as Einstein once said, ''every mind in the world is a dimension unto its own.''
 
The idea that the mind might time travel, is not new - but i feel that the theory itself hasn't been taken seriously enough. The reason why i think it must be considered with interest, is because the history of our past and the history of our future are experiences of the consciousness that exists [only in time] - never in space. Time is somehow the realm of both mind and the imaginal. Because of this, we must assume that it is very possible that the mind is not necessarily bound to the present time.
In fact, we display time in various ways. The mental projection is just as important. For instance, we can psychologically go into the past - however, the truth in physics indicates that the mind 'recreates a past' in the present. Our future exists as a time we cannot remember, but to us, it feels as though we can 'jump' into the future and write a particular path we might take. (However), because nothing in time is fixed, and physical actions/reactions have not yet transpired, we must imagine that these 'thoughts of the future' statistically play a role in any physical outcome. So we can recreate the past, and statistically influence the future. Though because the mind is bound to the here and now, how can one say the mind can exceed the barrier of present time?
One way to imagine this, is to create some new idea's about present time. Present time, (i believe) binds the mind only when awareness is present. To imagine this, is to say present time is the shadow of a particular collapse of the wave function, coupled by awareness - and quite possibly intelligence: I mention intelligence here, because it may not be enough to be simply 'aware' - since the leading contention on the collapse theory, is that intelligence must be involved.
Thus, if present time is a reality only ever real through awareness, then the logic would suggest that time travel would be possible for a 'less aware mind.' One way to imagine this, is when a person is asleep. The mind during a dream state is never fully occupied with the world around it. Whilst certain neural functions still maintain when asleep, our objective awareness is not. By lessening awareness, are we making the mind more prone to violate the present time laws?
There are ways to explore this theory - but they are delving into worlds that are very difficult to measure. The haziness of memory during sleep plays a big barrier in the experimental means of testing the theory... for instance, one could use psychics here. Certain people when asleep, claim to see visions of a time past or a time in the future. Some of these visions may accurately show a time that has yet still to happen, and as many people claim, 'they happen.' The only way to take this seriously, is to take the people who have these experiences seriously.
Instead of ''blind'' faith, perhaps we need to be looking for people who are naturally not as aware as the next person. Perhaps, people who have certain senses stripped from them, such as sight and hearing, might be perfect candidates, since the world we see, hear, touch, smell and taste are all built up on sense alone: Realty, the normal composite of three spatial dimensions, is built up on nothing more than senses; perhaps the mind can perceive reality, because it is tied up into higher dimensional plains?
Ok... Let's leave all these ''exotic dimensions'' that the mind could be inexplicably tied to, and let us see some other reasons how mind might see into the future. Firstly, we need to understand, that for anything to breach time - and by that, i mean this strange, undefined presence of here and now - time must be an illusion. What we consider as past, present and future, is all somehow the same thing - though, it isn't when a mind is present. The present time takes on real attributes, and the past and future don't seem to exist.
How wrong we are if we hold onto the belief of time. Time would all happen in an instant without mind, and the past and future would become just as real as the present time. Perhaps the mind fall's into a state of present time, but when we are not aware of it, it oscillates throughout the time barrier in a sinusoidal movement. In fact, the human brain must be quite unconscious... The more conscious we can be, the more the mind will fall into a defined state for reality. Remove the conscious state, and we might be seeing what reality after life is like. Death might just be a state of unconsciousness... a state of psyche not to far off dream state.
Here is another example of a mind not fully bound by reality. This example is found in hypno states. Some individuals, when put under deep regression hypnosis, have found themselves ''seeing'' events, either in the past and in the future. Some of these events have been tied to some type of previous life experiences. Is this the mind again, 'delving into the past or future,' because it is not fully occupied with the here and now? If so, then hypnotism is the perfect experimental way to find the mind doing some extraordinary stuff.
And, here is where my hypothesis get's even stranger... Some of these individuals have experienced 'being in the bodies' of some soul that had lived, let's say 50 to a 100 years ago... Not each of these can be false; some have to be true surely? And if they are, is past life really always the answer? It's a nice thought believing we might keep living on, as new individuals; however, can there be another answer - one just as bizarre and interesting?
In Einstien's relativity papers, the past and the future is paradoxically happening right now. To understand this, we need to take an imaginary journey in a time machine. If we moved from this day and age, let's say, 400 years into the past, we would end up in another present time. If we had moved into the future, we would have also ended up in a future present time, where hopefully people still exist. How can a present time exist in the future? Wouldn't that mean that both the past and the future where happening right now? And if the future was happening right now, which future is this?
Some physicists opt for the parallel universe interpretation here... For in this interpretation, the future you jump into, is the present time in a parallel universe. I shall give a more conservative answer here, without using parallel universes... The future we have jumped into, is the most likely, probable future. Though, understanding this shows us that time is not fixed, and that the present time is an illusion. It's just like the big bang... As the big bang occurred, a big crunch also occurred, almost simultaneously!
Now, with time not being absolute, the mind may not have difficulty leaping into the past or the future. Indeed, if this is what is happening, what is happening when a mind enters another soul’s body, in a totally different time? Is this ''us'' in another lifetime? The idea is novel; however, i am going to present another idea, using Ludvic Bass' notion that all minds are a product of one mind only. Now, if this is true, then this must also mean all minds in the past and the future - not only the minds here and now. If all minds are connected to one single mind-unit, then can one mind merge with another? Can the psyche of one person, enter the psyche of another person’s body?
As bizarre as this might sound, it may hold some key's to some pivotal questions concerning well-known phenomena throughout the whole world; such as psychic connection between twins, for instance. Twins tend to feel the same emotions and thoughts. Whereas many scientists will put this down to them being together for many years, other scientists welcome the idea that they can experience each others emotions and thoughts. Their connections are very strong, from a quantum physical view.
 
redarmy11 said:
You.. see things?
Gee. Thanks for the invite, Redarmy. — No; I meant it figuratively: viewing, as in witnessing; fantasy, as in fantastic; fantastic, as in marvelously dumbfounding. But I have "seen" things too, literally, to answer your marvelously dumbfounding skepticism.

Read-Only said:
Those who do not believe only ask for one thing - proof.
And those who witness such phenomena don't necessarily believe, either. Have you thought of that? Belief is such a cumbersome weight around one's neck, don't you think? To believe in something is to hold it in mind affirmatively, right? And then to uphold it. And to affirm something that is upheld, is to have passed judgment on it—good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. You are doing exactly the same thing you demand of others, but antithetically: you believe no one can submit to your criterion for evidence because the evidence you seek will always be proven to be bad, wrong, and false. It's like monopolizing the dinning room table—I'm permitted to eat, but not to sit there. Hence I'll never be able to prove that I ate—unless you want to follow me to the can. Lol.

James R said:
Forget "proof". That's getting way ahead of things. Before we can start investigating how and why something happens, the first step is to establish that it happens.

We're not even at square one with psychic powers.
That's what I mean. As I pointed out to Redarmy, things just happen. God, I'm not even interested in "psychic" phenomena—yet, things transpire. Now, if I were more like Reiku and Yorda, I might be inclined to study what has passed, keep a journal and stuff—but then I would have to "hold onto" and "affirm"... something I can't be bothered doing. So that leaves me perpetually at square one, I suppose—although I do remember certain things, and if I try hard enough, perhaps see patterns. But I'm not planning a career out of this, so why bother?
 
Last edited:
Any good evidence that psychic abilities exist would be a good start.

the funny thing about Reality is that it's kind of Subjective, so you only see what you are ready to see. you can only see evidence of stuff that you believe in. scientists don't believe in ghosts so they never see them, but others see them all the time.
 
Yorda said:
the funny thing about Reality is that it's kind of Subjective, so you only see what you are ready to see. you can only see evidence of stuff that you believe in. scientists don't believe in ghosts so they never see them, but others see them all the time.
I acknowledge—not the emphatic existence of, but the reality of a very possible existence. It's like being open to suggestions, I guess. Or like packing a few things for a trip you feel aren't necessarily essential but that you might need—and lo and behold, you end up using them.
 
Last edited:
That is 100% not true.

Yes... It is true. The very fact you said this, now tells me you know nothing about quantum physics. Learn about the Collapse of the Wave Function... also, in general, learn about the observer effect, and what it really means.
 
Yes... It is true. The very fact you said this, now tells me you know nothing about quantum physics. Learn about the Collapse of the Wave Function... also, in general, learn about the observer effect, and what it really means.

You are another victim of the utterly incorrect notion that a quantum observer must be sentient. The very fact that the Earth has been around long before humans should tell you this.
 
My God... Go and learn this then...
virtual particles and real particles. Superpositioning and collapse... or if you cannot be bothered looking them up and learning them, would you like me to go through each catogory and show you their implications?
 
Back
Top