Scientific PROOF of Teleportation, telekinesis and channeling!!!

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then how do you define "magical thinking"? Because I doubt you're either an occultist or a stage magician, so your view of the phrase is bound to be peculiar.

And, as I said, that's not a claim that psi abilities don't exist. Since such abilities cannot and have never been demonstrated to exist in any sort of laboratory conditions, believing that such abilities are "magical" is justified.

My only frustration is with know-it-alls who employ logical fallacies to demonstrate their massive egos.

Great. I'll hold off and discuss the topic with those actually interested in discussing it. I don't have patience to deal with your problem with skeptics and skepticism.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And, as I said, that's not a claim that psi abilities don't exist. Since such abilities cannot and have never been demonstrated to exist in any sort of laboratory conditions, believing that such abilities are "magical" is justified.

I asked what you mean by calling it "magical." You just repeated yourself. Does that mean you're trying to make "magical" a weasel-word that "secretly" means "wrong"?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
Backpeddle much?

Belief in remote healing and mind reading is magical thinking. That is not a claim that it doesn't exist.

I am sure you heard about Edgar Cayce..many people are quite vocal about that. I have read alot of pros and cons and out of both sides, I will say the pro's have alot more going for them than the cons, which tend to use general arguments against.

The pro's point out time and time again some solid evidence, the cons eloquently state "can't be". not the best ground to stand on.

I don't believe EC was magical and his claims of angels and such may have been a delusion, or something fairly mundane, however, there was something going on there that would qualify as a form of remote healing...or remote viewing with suggestive healing methods outside of his scope anyhow...granted, not a laying hands on and ripping cancer from the body a hundred miles away, but the principle itself can be likened to a degree.

If remote viewing is possible (research to date I would call inconclusive), then that tears down one obstacle in thinking about energy or perception being locked within your being...that opens the door for other possibilities to consider.

is PSI truely a magical thing to consider, or simply an ability that is as normal as smell and sight that is underdeveloped...

Think about it from a evolutionary standpoint over a billion or two year progression...of a fish "wishing and thinking" about getting the insects near land...a genetic programming over time that literally transforms the creature through (guided?) mutations to adapt and thrive...a neck gets elongated a bit, ability to spit or shoot a toungue, etc...suddenly the beginnings of frogs/amphibions are "invented". such mental manipulation of the physical may be the oldest force in the universe actually if you stop thinking magical harry potter stuff...and could finally answer some questions that have been stumping people about evolution for quite awhile now.

open mind, don't believe anything, nor dismiss anything. PSI abilities may be just a trendy new age description on a very old and yet to be understood force that is in all life.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked what you mean by calling it "magical." You just repeated yourself. Does that mean you're trying to make "magical" a weasel-word that "secretly" means "wrong"?

Did you have a comment about the topic? Or must I continually address your assumptions?
...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then how do you define "magical thinking"? Because I doubt you're either an occultist or a stage magician, so your view of the phrase is bound to be peculiar.

And, as I said, that's not a claim that psi abilities don't exist. Since such abilities cannot and have never been demonstrated to exist in any sort of laboratory conditions, believing that such abilities are "magical" is justified.

By that definition, black holes and neutrinos are magical

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Oh, okay. You must mean "magical" as in, a wonderful, amazing idea, despite it not being proven or disproven by science. Then we agree too!


I love talking to you man. It makes me feel like I'm back in high school.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If remote viewing is possible (research to date I would call inconclusive), then that tears down one obstacle in thinking about energy or perception being locked within your being...that opens the door for other possibilities to consider.

Agreed. And when such things can be demonstrated to actually exist we can explore those new opened doors.

open mind

How open? If I claimed pixies lived in my underwear drawer, and only mine because I was Napoleon, and I can't prove or demonstrate any of it..... would this be worthy of serious investigation? Would you pride your open mind on thinking such a thing possible?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
By that definition, black holes and neutrinos are magical

We have evidence to detect and confirm black holes and neutrinos. We don't have evidence to confirm mind reading and remote healing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It makes me feel like I'm back in high school.

I'm surprised you're not still in high school since I have to define "magical" to you and explain what a positive claim is.

Anything relating to the topic yet, sir?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
How open? If I claimed pixies lived in my underwear drawer, and only mine because I was Napoleon, and I can't prove or demonstrate any of it..... would this be worthy of serious investigation?

No one is telling you what to investigate. If you wanted to investigate that, the only people troubling you would be other people such as yourself.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm surprised you're not still in high school since I have to define "magical" to you and explain what a positive claim is.

Anything relating to the topic yet, sir?

You calling the OP "magical thinking" like some clever way of calling it wrong without committing the actual fallacy is related to the OP.

So how stupid do you think I am that I can't tell why you are avoiding telling me what you mean by "magical"? More than you I guess?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So how stupid do you think I am

Do you have anything to offer relative to the topic, sir?
Thanks

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I guess that's as close as you're ever going to get to admitting all your "magical" nonsense is meaningless.

Well it was fun, but I'm taking my lunch tray up now and going back to class.

The fundamental problems with this paper are as follows: the author presumes psi abilities exist, then he also presumes that such abilities can be explained through quantum electrodynamics. Then he blinds us with science, or something that resembles it.

At some point though he needs to either produce or refer to a verified case of someone demonstrating the existence of "psi abilities". THEN we can figure out the mechanism responsible for this heretofore unseen set of abilities. Until then I don't see how this paper has any degree of legitimacy.

reply to post by Griffo


The Illuminati own the Navy...and the U.S. Army

The U.S. is a corporation, you can see it in my signature links, which shows it from one of the U.S. books.

The Illuminati own just about everything now in days and it can include some peoples minds. MK Ultra Programming for ya.

Fast forward to 3:20 and watch it for about 30 seconds.



Yeah its a movie, but its a good one.

And the Illuminati pretty much own everything, he who controls the money, controls the law, and he who controls the money controls everything the money buys....follow the money.

And regarding the whole Philadelphia project, I believe it to be real. Wikipedia can be manipulated by anyone, although it can be a good source for other things, there is just too much stuff the U.S. Corp hides from the public, say aliens..and Nikola Tesla's technology. Just to many things the Corp does to people.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

open mind

How open? If I claimed pixies lived in my underwear drawer, and only mine because I was Napoleon, and I can't prove or demonstrate any of it..... would this be worthy of serious investigation? Would you pride your open mind on thinking such a thing possible?

I would be interesting to see any supporting evidence to your claim.

Pixies would rock.

I would not dismiss the claim, I simply would not believe you until there was some evidence.

Now, about the two claims in question...

One is of course cryptozoological. mythos and folklore about such beings throughout history...no evidence supporting their claim beyond witness testimony (typically by drunken irish medieval peasents).

Only your drawer...this I could catagorically dismiss. this is a claim that would require you to see every drawer in the universe..somewhat of an impossible task really, They may be in your drawer, and some guy in guam's drawer, and some alien civilization kid may have em in his drawer also due to some strange yet to be discovered drawer/wood/em field allowing a portal, etc...point is, you cannot possibly know that (same reason why Billy Meyers claims are bunk...only he on the whole earth ever can talk to the pleadian alien babes)..not the claim of aliens themselves, or them being buxom blondes...but that only he can talk to them, period.

Former life. I don't believe (nor disbelieve actually) in such talk, however, with that said, even the subject of reincarnation has many different variables...is it a "soul" moving from body to body, is it genetic memory, is it some sort of tapping into a akashic record thing as Cayce mentions and simply thinking you were, etc...more questions, none yet proveable, so its just claims that may or may be.

aka, the only issue with that sentence that truely popped up was the your drawer only...the rest is claims that I would not dismiss readily.
I would believe you to be crazy, but that is only through likelyhood verses fact.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I would not dismiss the claim, I simply would not believe you until there was some evidence.

Then my non belief in psi abilities that are unsupported by evidence should not be surprising to you or others here.

If and when such things are demonstrable, then we can try to determine the mechanism responsible for it. Until then I cannot accept the validity of a presumptuous semi-scientific paper legitimizing such as-yet-unproven stuff.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The fundamental problems with this paper are as follows: the author presumes psi abilities exist, then he also presumes that such abilities can be explained through quantum electrodynamics. Then he blinds us with science, or something that resembles it.

At some point though he needs to either produce or refer to a verified case of someone demonstrating the existence of "psi abilities". THEN we can figure out the mechanism responsible for this heretofore unseen set of abilities. Until then I don't see how this paper has any degree of legitimacy.

Agreed...its a good starting hypothesis..great, now to further this, he needs to set up experimentation to prove or disprove his hypothesis, then move onto theory, more testing, double blind studys, etc...

there is alot in initial scientific hypothesis that is set on presumption...you could go as far as to say all science starts and still rests on presumptions based on other presumptions.

Consider it...if all things were needed to be known before you could even start a hypothesis, then we would have never have gotten anywhere considering we started from no knowledge to begin with.

Read some Hawkins stuff...some consider him a fairly clever chap in regards to cosmology, however, if you read his books (lets say, a brief moment in time) you quickly realize he does the same exact thing. He starts off with presumptions and assumptions, builds off of that with even more presumptions, and then makes his points.

He backs up alot of his presumptions with likelyhoods of course, but it still is unproven and unverified foundations he builds on top of.
I think Hawkins is a pretty brilliant chap whom may lean towards truth moreso than fiction, however, he is not infallable and everything he states that the scientific community takes as gospel may indeed be one day proven false.

And people will cheer when that happens...not because hawkins is an idiot, he was brilliant, but because uncovering new and formerly considered mystical areas is the point.

Presumptions...its required in science...its what science stands on, and it is arguably why science even exists.

Originally posted by wavemaker
Nice find OP. If this paper finally passed the peer review, it's effect will be tremendous. Those psychics, clairvoyants, etc will not be ridiculed anymore. On the contrary, most would like to try what they are doing since science has already proven that it can be done.

Not only that, but if this paper does get validated, it wouldn't give the UFO debunkers many places to hide would it!

'Ufo's cannot be visiting the Earth because of the vast distances involved'..'FTL speed is impossible, you'd need all of the energy of the Universe to attain it'..etc. etc.

Didn't bank on ET simply 'thinking' themselves here did they!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

How open? If I claimed pixies lived in my underwear drawer, and only mine because I was Napoleon, and I can't prove or demonstrate any of it..... would this be worthy of serious investigation? Would you pride your open mind on thinking such a thing possible?

The difference is your analogy stands alone...many, many people have claimed at least some of these abilities.

If every other person was claiming to have pixies in their underwear drawers, then it would be worthy of investigation...one single claim, isn't.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Presumptions...its required in science...its what science stands on, and it is arguably why science even exists.

To a degree. Though in this case the author provided his presumed mechanism for.... something not yet proven to exist. This kind of cart-before-the-horse error is usually non-typical of legitimate practitioners of science. I say let's first find someone with these abilities, then perhaps we can discuss the mechanisms in play. Until then, this paper serves as disinformation; as we've seen, the OP and others look at this as scientific, or proof or otherwise legitimization of a controversial topic - by playing off the scientific illiteracy of the reader. I'd say it's rather insidious, actually.