• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Paranormal Experiment

Migrated topic.
You need to get trained to think as a scientist then. Otherwise no other scientists will take you too seriously. Maybe my grandmother and her friends, but that is fine if that is the target group you want to convince. Try convincing your peer scientist first. They are the most difficult and critical lot.

And again, as far as the other things are concerned, the wheel has not yet been demonstrated to be a genuine effect of human mind over matter. So let's not run as to what science accepts and what not depending whether the mechanism of the phenomenon is known or not.

For instance, gravity is a phenomenon science does not yet fully understand how it works or how it is manifested. Science is just cracking into the those sub-atomical levels trying to understand how gravity (i.e. mutual attraction of masses) is working. But gravity is a well documented phenomenon, it is taken for granted.

The school of fish on the other hand is indeed a spectacular phenomenon, pretty much well documented beyond shadow of a doubt. I accept it happens. And scientist are slowly gatehring evidence as to how this thing may happen. A good amount of this research relies on electricity sensors that many fish have. This newly discovered "sense" (the sense of feeling differences in electromagnetic potentials, measured in volts) has been well characterised in sharks. This new sense is slowly emerging as a component of the somatosensory system of other fish. It could account for these almost synchronous changes of direction in those swimming fish populations.

But again, first the phenomenon is documented properly and becomes accepted, then the scientists gets interested to further investigate it and try to explain it.

The wheel is NOT a well documented phenomenon; the vast majority of "evidence" is purely empirical or anecdotal.

So you need a fair amount of work to convince scientist that the thing is truly genuine and worth of further investigation. But we're here to help should you need any advice:wink:
 
I think it would be worthwile first, to investigate whether all kind of things described as 'supernatural' could be explained by 'normal' science.
You have to realize that the scientific community has neglected all kind of 'supernatural' phenomena, because they are considered to be just a figment of human imagination.
I think that for neuroscientists and psychologists, all kind of things that would normally be dismissed as just imaginary, when seriously studied would be a potential goldmine; the placebo-effect, the human capabillity of reading another person's mind, influencing another person's mind, etc.
 
Infundibulum said:
You need to get trained to think as a scientist then. Otherwise no other scientists will take you too seriously. Maybe my grandmother and her friends, but that is fine if that is the target group you want to convince
Click to expand...

Sorry, i want to actually learn something, i'm not really worried about convincing a group of skeptics, i don't beg for things to be real, i notice them when they appear real. Truly if that is all scientists are then call me something else. Either way, i'll prove it and just have fun with it, maybe write a book about it. Not trying to be offensive, just saying the skeptics angle is not for me.
 
polytrip said:
I think it would be worthwile first, to investigate whether all kind of things described as 'supernatural' could be explained by 'normal' science.
You have to realize that the scientific community has neglected all kind of 'supernatural' phenomena, because they are considered to be just a figment of human imagination.
I think that for neuroscientists and psychologists, all kind of things that would normally be dismissed as just imaginary, when seriously studied would be a potential goldmine; the placebo-effect, the human capabillity of reading another person's mind, influencing another person's mind, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, and most people would agree, except when it comes to the science department. You have very few that are even curious about it, i think they are so skeptical they keep other scientists from looking in to it because they know unless they can get someone to perform amazingly on the spot no amount of evidence will be valid, only what they call controversial. That was proved in Stanford's research in remote viewing. They said all there work and results was controversial, did they say, well lets do it again and give new results, no. They could do it 50 times and it would still be controversial, but not because its really controversial, but because the people calling it controversial aren't the brightest stars in the universe.
 
Cheeto said:
Infundibulum said:
You need to get trained to think as a scientist then. Otherwise no other scientists will take you too seriously. Maybe my grandmother and her friends, but that is fine if that is the target group you want to convince
Click to expand...

Sorry, i want to actually learn something, i'm not really worried about convincing a group of skeptics, i don't beg for things to be real, i notice them when they appear real. Truly if that is all scientists are then call me something else. Either way, i'll prove it and just have fun with it, maybe write a book about it. Not trying to be offensive, just saying the skeptics angle is not for me.
Click to expand...

lol, then you just lose your time answering to me, or I lose time answering to you if that is your position.

But seriously now, a great deal of doing a good study is not only proving it you yourself (this is the easy part, some scizos I've met are totally convinced that the world moves around themselves, that people in the tv address them when talking etc.), but have the intellect and capacity and the balls to be able to to convince others. Otherwise it is just bullshit.

Scientists are your best go because they are very critical. As a matter of fact they are those who can give you the best positive feedback on any of your observations. And "skeptic" is not "denier". If you really wish to address your experiments or observations to a whatever audience which is going to "lick your ears" that is fine, but still fairly immature from your point of view. If you are really serious, have the dignity to aim high. Do a job and do it correctly.
 
Infundibulum said:
Cheeto said:
Infundibulum said:
You need to get trained to think as a scientist then. Otherwise no other scientists will take you too seriously. Maybe my grandmother and her friends, but that is fine if that is the target group you want to convince
Click to expand...

Sorry, i want to actually learn something, i'm not really worried about convincing a group of skeptics, i don't beg for things to be real, i notice them when they appear real. Truly if that is all scientists are then call me something else. Either way, i'll prove it and just have fun with it, maybe write a book about it. Not trying to be offensive, just saying the skeptics angle is not for me.
Click to expand...

lol, then you just lose your time answering to me, or I lose time answering to you if that is your position.

But seriously now, a great deal of doing a good study is not only proving it you yourself (this is the easy part, some scizos I've met are totally convinced that the world moves around themselves, that people in the tv address them when talking etc.), but have the intellect and capacity and the balls to be able to to convince others. Otherwise it is just bullshit.

Scientists are your best go because they are very critical. As a matter of fact they are those who can give you the best positive feedback on any of your observations. And "skeptic" is not "denier". If you really wish to address your experiments or observations to a whatever audience which is going to "lick your ears" that is fine, but still fairly immature from your point of view. If you are really serious, have the dignity to aim high. Do a job and do it correctly.
Click to expand...

I admit, i may be a little out of line as hating on skeptism, i still don't like it, though i do understand you can't just say "i have evidence" whitout actually showing the evidence, i know i have to prove it, and i really think i am up to the challenge and can pull through. When i say proof i mean having more things to show than tests results, like i said unmistakable evidence would be my goal. But when i look at things like remote viewing and SRI's work it discourages me. I'm sure with the training they claim they did they could have someone perform on the spot to prove there work was honest, but what happened? How could they spend a couple of years proving it was real and then it all ends in a controversial battle. If someone challenged my results i would ask them, well what do you want me to do to convince you? When i look at situations like this it puzzels me. Why didn't they continue there work and show people more evidence. Why does no one think its real when considering that the CIA picked up on the research. This problem i can't make logicaly fit, i'm sure they wern't working for two years on nothing then posting false results. I want wait for those answers to go after my prize, but still i can't help but to wonder, WTF happened? My main thing with this is it seems it really did work because the CIA is using it, so clearly they convinced the CIA, so why does science have a problem. It seems to me like they got what they wanted, they convinced the CIA, the science community yelled manipulation, so they just said fuck it, dosen't seem like they would just do that. I know you will laugh at this, but the way i can make this fit in the most logical way is the CIA told them to stop there research, while the science department still dosen't believe. Maybe so they could feel like they have an advantage of spying on people.
 
I personally dislike the "data manipulation" counterargument. It is effectively an ad hominem argument, basically saying "I don't believe you because the evidence you show me has been manipulated. You are a liar in the first place and I do not believe you"

I accept other people's results as honestly derived. Both in the "normal" science situations with which I deal with on daily basis as well as in the instances of "paranormal" science. It would be otherwise impossible to do science!

But people lying and manipulating results is not totally unheard of; For this reasons repetitions of the experiments by other researchers is sometimes necessary. And experiments performed by a given group are very likely to be repeated by some other group. Quite often for different purposes, not necessarily to try to see if the first group has been making false claims.

So, one can go on making false claims for just that long. Sooner or later evidence from different people will accumulate to uncover the fraud. That is why good scientists do not make false claims and that is why I take other people's results as honest.
 
Hmmm, found something else a little more interesting about the pin wheel. Also thought of something to look into. I just did two tests, i have not pratice with this thing in a while so i wasn't going for gaining control, but seeing what distance i can effect it at. I put it at the end of my narrow 12ft long hall and shut all doors. I the heat was already off, but i turned it off to make sure it didn't come on and stir up air current. I sat at the other end and waited 5 min to begin. Trying not to focus on it, but make sure it is not moving by anyother means, it sat completely still, no movement. I attempted to move it, in focus, it took about 1 min to get any activity at 12 feet. Once i got movement it was easy to keep it moving, but i was in what i call the rocking phase. It rocks back in forth, in this case it was truning about 75% one way then back the other. I got it to eventualy spin one way a few times and quit. I played with it for about 4 min. I decided to move back further. I was in the living room now, its still at the end of the narrow closed hall. The distance is now 24 feet, it is a little hard to see from here, but i can see good enough to see if its moving and what direction. I sit for 5 min trying not to focus on it to see if it moves on its own. Again it sits still with no activity. I begin but this time i have a little more confidence, i guess because i was suprized, i never did it at 12 ft. It only took about 2.5 seconds to get good activity, rocking again, only this time it would sometimes go a few complete turns one way, and the same in the other direction. This time i only gave it 2 min of playing. I dropped focus and sat to see if it continued, it sat still. I watched for about 1 min.


I want to learn more about this information that travels faster than light, or do we know anything other than its existence? I know its not the best angle, but so far i can't do anything so i'm just playing around.
 
truly i wish i could afford to test my theory out and work with a hypnotist to advance me in the area. So i would have the upmost confidence even in a room of full scientists. Even if i can't move to another object(Which i think its very possible) 100% control over the pin wheel would be amazing. Have it do what they tell me, when they tell me. I think that would be very easy to obtain with hypnosis, in fact the only reason i want say i KNOW it would work is because i haven't done it, it surely seems it would work perfect.
 
burnt said:
Why do you think hypnosis will allow you greater telekinetic abilities?
Click to expand...

Because hypnosis can help you build confidence, even though i do bilieve i'm onto something, its still hard to believe and have confidence, so i naturaly doubt myself, hypnosis can help you over come these types of problems. I feel if i didn't doubt i would have way better control, being i already have decent control. Also to see if hypnosis could help me identify exactly what i'm doing. Even though i can feel kinda what i'm doing when i'm effecting it, it seems very difficult to pinpoint exacly what is going on in me to get these results.
 
burnt said:
Ok but so far it seems that the only test you have done is your pinwheel experiment. I would not conclude that you have any sort of telekinetic abilities based on one experiment with numerous potential explanations other then TK. How about lifting the paper clip? Can you do it?
Click to expand...

Yes i see your point. But your missing the point i made earlier, Telekinetic abilities is the ability effect an object by mind. That appears to be what i'm doing being i can gain control of it. If you can gain control of an object by mind then it is called TK. It dosen't matter what object it is, if you can make requests and get it to respond to your requests then you are in fact having some kind of control.
 
^^Yes well thats a fine definition of telekinetics but if you can only control a pinwheel which can easily be effect by many different things in the room then I would hesitate to call it TK. I would not call it TK at all but rather many of the other potential effects that have already been discussed, which are all much more likely explanations then TK.

If you can't lift a paper clip or any other object or move any other object with just your mind, then I don't think your telekinetic.
 
burnt said:
^^Yes well thats a fine definition of telekinetics but if you can only control a pinwheel which can easily be effect by many different things in the room then I would hesitate to call it TK. I would not call it TK at all but rather many of the other potential effects that have already been discussed, which are all much more likely explanations then TK.

If you can't lift a paper clip or any other object or move any other object with just your mind, then I don't think your telekinetic.
Click to expand...


Well i'm not going to debate with you about the control aspect. If that dosen't interest you then o well. If you think i'm just assuming i have control, thats fine with me. But i still think i'm on to something, and maybe through my crazy theorys and ideas i will end up proving it, so you can then believe. Till then we can agree to disagree.
 
Anyway, thats all i can control now. I plan to go for better things to move, thats why i want to train with a hypnotist. Maybe one day i'll get you pencil to spinn around in the air.
 
burnt said:
^^If you can do that then there might be some reason to believe you.

Until then I won't agree to anything because its quite a claim to make.
Click to expand...



Let me ask you though burnt. Say we where in a lab, me and you. We have a room where the enviornment is controlled. There is a glass window to view in this room. We put the pin wheel on a table in this room. Now we put a camera on it and watch its activity for 24 hours makeing sure it dosen't move at all. Now we come back and pull up chairs to the glass window looking into the controlled room with the pin wheel. Now you tell me to make it spin clockwise, so i do. Then you say make it stop spinning, so i make it stop. Then you say make it spin counter clockwise, so i do. Then you say stop it, so i do. We do this all day, you make a request, i make it happen. Now at the end of the day everytime you gave a request i made it happend instantly. Would you still not be convinced? Say i got so good i could do it from another building, and we sat and watched it on camera, still showing 100% control, would you be convinced then?
 
burnt said:
If you could do the same thing with a paper ckip then I would think its worth looking into.
Click to expand...

Please tell me your not being for real. You wouldn't believe even if i showed perfect control to your request from another building just becuase of what object it is? Just what trick, say its your lab, do you suggest i would be pulling to make it happen. What explanation has science gave for controlling the wheel at a distance of 200 ft while the pin wheel is in a small controlled room. If you are for real about this then in my opinion this is to the same degree of not believing we landed on the moon. I know you will have something to come back with about evidence, but that performance would be evidence, i don't see how you could not see it that way. That is funny to me, lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom