Developing tk/pk

Here is where I get extremely skeptical. Any practice, done over time, should become more efficient.

I practice, and teach martial arts.

I have put in thousands of hours, and as such, my training reflects that.

TK/PK claims and practices have been around for, well stretching back thousands of years, many thousands perhaps.

So, how come the method of practice, and transference is still so shotty, spotty, and based in " belief" in it.

You see, you can believe, or not believe in BJJ, but, get on the mat with me and you will know it works by the lack of air in your lungs, blood flow to the brain, and pain in the joints.

I can teach it to anybody, and by that I mean BJJ has amputees ,and such practicing and winning competitions.

For as long as these "practices" have been around, it has not become more efficient either in practice, or transference.

Now, as to the sensitivity claim, fine, in martial arts, you have people that have natural talent, in a wide variety of areas.

Still, hard work beats talent many times, hard work, should compensate. Yet all the evidence of these "practices" are still but anecdotal.

Over time, people teaching and practicing should have ironed out by now a methodology of transference, that while will have a sliding scale given sensitivity, talent, etc, would be something almost anyone could do with repeatable, tangible, measurable results.

Instead, we get the " No crap man, there I was when"

Which is as good as nothing really.

I mean, c,mon, if this stuff was even remotely measurable, you would have droves putting in the time and effort to get such abilities.

If it is only something the "special" "sensitive" or whatever other word you would like to use can do, sense, or whatever, then I cannot see how that doesnt put up some red flags for peoples B.S. detectors.

Jestor, I was specifically referring to the hypnotic state triggering through signal overflow. If a patient is ready for that, and able to concentrate on a few signals and exclude the rest that are incoming, they are not as likely to be overwhelmed as the patient who does not know this is coming or is not ready to react when it does. Resistence to hypnosis is an acquirable knowledge and skill much like hypnotizing is and the latter works better the worse the target is at the former. Nothing like this can be said of PK/TK, but the "it won't work unless you believe it really hard" is something we hear all too often from proponents of almost every other ineffectual thing.

I'm a serious skeptic when it comes to this kind of stuff. I've never seen any real evidence for telekinesis/psychokinesis. I get the feeling that a lot more people would be moving things with their mind if it were possible. Furthermore, what's the use of telekinesis? Does it help in daily life? Bending spoons is a nice parlor trick but it doesn't have any practical use. Nor does spinning a piece of paper or making a pen roll across a table. Now if you're talking about picking things up and actually moving them around then there might be a use for that. I'd never strain my back picking up something heavy again. I don't think this kind of telekinesis is possible.

I'd have to see a lot of good evidence for TK abilities before I started to believe in them.

Belief is a state of certainty, and sometimes complexity needs certainty to allow the brain to maintain the complex structure.... probably as a result of having both conscious and subconscious parts of the brain. When you build a skyscraper you don't leave the workers in the wall at each level, you trust the structure is sound and move the team up to create more structure for example.

I tend to think if something was being emitted from the body which interacted with another object it probably would have been detected by now BUT going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible - so it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist - think Plato's cave maybe, but this time science is looking at the wall!

Consider say animism, if a 'spirit' permeated all things and the world we knew was an illusion based on the plane of existence's nature, these spirits who inhabited is might be bound within the plane - all it takes is a bit of imagination to understand how our view of the world was an illusion and some other universal order existed beyond... what the term metaphysical or supernatural is used for.

But personally, I limit my belief to higher order information states like which might allow detection and prediction slightly into the future but never had any reason to think moving things with my mind was possible. The only thing I could think of to exercise TK/PK might be to meditate and visualize the orbital configuration of a particular element, and do so on it in a crystallized form where it has another level of order, and try to recruit ones brain power to imagine connecting to it's energy signature....
:silly:
Maybe the state of information inside the body can resonate with the physical matter... I'm not sure how, but if one was to believe all things were connected through a single form of energy then that might serve as a medium.

If reading this sort of stuff upsets the scientist in anyone (everyone!), then perhaps consider it a meditation rather then a claim.

Adder wrote: ... going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible...

If I may have my obligatory little nitpick, in order for something to be beyond science it must be untestable. Any claim about something actually detectable (and thus falsifiable) is technically a scientifically accessible claim. The failure to produce or reproduce a result is not a testament to either the nature of the claim or the reach of the scientific method. If anything, it is itself a result we may try and cautiously draw conclusions from, if we are so inclined.

... it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist...

Science says no such thing. Saying that we have no documented and reproducible cases of it is not the same as saying that there will not or cannot be any. Now, given the countless tests that either failed or left us to conclude fraud, does the scientific community still find it worth their time and money to keep testing when there are so many diseases still uncured? Of course not. That is a choice we make though, not a definitive conclusion we draw.

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... going into this discussion I think it can be safely assumed that it's topic is beyond science at least until someone demonstrated its possible...

If I may have my obligatory little nitpick, in order for something to be beyond science it must be untestable.

Scientific discoveries are often stumbled upon in accidental discovery when looking for something else. So currently, yes, of course what lies within the body of knowledge defined by science.... but exploration allows that to be expanded and new things discovered, if they exist. Ruling things out because they are difficult, so difficult it might be seemingly impossible, is no reason to abandon efforts. I read the OP as about efforts more then belief. Sure it is posited that belief is a requirement, but that I also addressed.

Gisteron wrote:

... it is kinda irrelevant that science says it does not exist...

Science says no such thing. Saying that we have no documented and reproducible cases of it is not the same as saying that there will not or cannot be any. Now, given the countless tests that either failed or left us to conclude fraud, does the scientific community still find it worth their time and money to keep testing when there are so many diseases still uncured? Of course not. That is a choice we make though, not a definitive conclusion we draw.

And? I'm not saying your saying its impossible, nor science asserts the limits are its current limits..... I'm just defending the effort to try, and how I interpreted the topic of the thread to be about that effort.

At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

RyuJin wrote: At one point it was "impossible" for 1 object to be in 2 places at the same time...then they achieved it with the hadron collider...

At one point it was "impossible" to bring someone back from the dead...then we developed defibrillators...

Imagine the impossibilities we'll overcome in the distant future...

Imagine telling someone about the internet back in the 1600s. You'd probably be hung or burned at the stake. :laugh:

Interesting how all the things you mentioned that werent possible at one time were also brought about through a very specific methodology which again gets more efficient over time and better at transferring that knowledge to others to again make more things possible at an exponential rate.

However, one thing does not apply simply because of that.

Again, those practices mentioned(Tk/Pk), are still not possible on any more consistent, efficient, or repeatably verifiable process of improvement in methodology, or practice.

Hell, aside from anecdotal evidence it is still, after thousands of years not even close to possible in the same vein of the other things you mentioned.

Thats a serious flaw in logic you have tried to apply here.

At most, you could make the argument that man will create a way to make TK/PK possible, but that is not the argument you made, more you say because we have done some other things then this validates "x".

Sorry, not the case at all.

Khaos wrote: Interesting how all the things you mentioned that werent possible at one time were also brought about through a very specific methodology which again gets more efficient over time and better at transferring that knowledge to others to again make more things possible at an exponential rate.

However, one thing does not apply simply because of that.

Again, those practices mentioned(Tk/Pk), are still not possible on any more consistent, efficient, or repeatably verifiable process of improvement in methodology, or practice.

Hell, aside from anecdotal evidence it is still, after thousands of years not even close to possible in the same vein of the other things you mentioned.

Thats a serious flaw in logic you have tried to apply here.

At most, you could make the argument that man will create a way to make TK/PK possible, but that is not the argument you made, more you say because we have done some other things then this validates "x".

Sorry, not the case at all.

Nah, its just a measure of difficulty.... unless assumed impossible. That is the crux of the issue probably, one view wants to discover if its possible (and may or may not believe it is) and the other has no interest (and may or may not believe it is), and sitting out there on the periphery of different view we have those who believe it is and want to find it, and those who don't believe it is and don't want to find it. This thread is about one and not the other IMO.

It's a bit like atheists telling theists Gods don't exist maybe.... but at least this particular topic does suppose some physical interaction is possible and so has some basis in the hope of being discovered - if its real. But I agree, people have been trying for thousands of years I'd guess, but only recently do we have a whole range of new learnings and tools for those who might have an interest, and/or belief.