MyTelekinesis – I’m converted
It turns out that I can do telekinesis. Who’d have thought. Inspired by an example by correspondent Viktor, I’ve discovered my inner chi.
Viktor said:
Its intended as a demonstration of psychic ability, not an illusion.
Its about the same thing I’d do if put on the spot.http://www.mytelekinesis.com/chi-pull-bumpcjmixmaster.html
I realize its not scientific proof, but still food for thought.
So, here’s my breakthrough performance, except that I’ve upped the degree of difficulty: by turning the folds towards me instead of away, and de-cluttering the desk so you can see there are not wires or levers. Also, I’m not much good at sucking, although many my recent correspondents would think I suck bigtime. In addition, I’ve filmed in high def, and made sure to have some nice solid background shapes to enable the viewed to detect any relative movements in the scene. I think that’s as scientific as it gets.
Anyway, sit back and enjoy the mystical stylings of the amazing TheRationalbrain:
Over the coming months I will be honing my skills and attempting more brazen feats of telekinesis, so stay tuned.
And I’ll be emailing Randi my bank account details later today.
rationalbrain 
May 23, 2012 at 5:59 am
Nice try, but I’ve watched both videos, the one linked by ‘Viktor’ shows the paper fall on the side where there is the fold. Furthermore the hand on the video didn’t move as much as yours, hence no significant difference in air pressure was formed, and no wind could have been created.
If you want to ridiculise the video at least try to do it correctly.
Re-post a video where the paper falls on the side the folding is, and don’t move your hands as much. 😉
May 23, 2012 at 7:15 am
Actually, the illusion had absolutely nothing to do with my hand movement nor air pressure changes of any sort.
Mystery!
And no, I’m not going to bother playing your game, there are a million illusionists out there who could do it better. Mine took exactly 5 mins to set up and film, just to prove a point that these silly videos prove NOTHING.
May 23, 2012 at 6:41 am
Here, mr.brain, please watch these and tell me your critiques; I would like to get your opinion on them.
May 23, 2012 at 7:19 am
Only watched the 2nd one – first wouldn’t play.
What a joke.
How do I know the stuff wouldn’t have smoked and caught fire without his hands nearby?
There’s any number of substances I could use to replicate this – like potassium metal sprinkled on the material. Once out of storage under oil, just smokes and catches fire.
You obviously didn’t pay attention in chemistry class.
Amateur.
May 23, 2012 at 7:30 am
-.-
No insults please, I was just asking for your opinion… so the 1st one didn’t load but the 2nd one did?
I call bull-faeces.
The 1st link is intact since I can watch it, and since the 2nd one works for you, so should the 1st video.
Nevermind that, what kind of proof do you want?
Please tell me every little detail of what your idea of a perfect proof is.
Maybe I can find a video to prove you wrong. 😀
May 23, 2012 at 11:00 am
I take offence at your insinuation that I somehow intentionally didn’t look at the first one.
Not that I need to give you an excuse, but there are country differences sometimes, and since some of us have full time jobs to go to, I didn’t have time to debug the video, so went onto the second one.
As for the proof issue, here’s the thing. NO VIDEO is going to convince me. Why? Because of the state of technology these days it is too easy to fake videos. I have seen really impressive videos of people travelling to the stars, and aliens, and so on – just beautiful, but I know they are fiction. Therefore, I would need to be present.
The main problem is lack of controls. With your second video, if I had been present, I would have asked him to sit patiently and not do anything after he put the material into the lid. This would make sure there is no spontaneous combustion happening because of the nature of the materials. Fair enough?
Now there is another circumstance I would accept, which does not require me to be present, and that is, that someone I trust is present. That can take the form of a serious researcher doing a properly controlled study, or, someone like a Randi, who can spot fakes a mile away.
The thing you need to understand is that IF this guy can do what the video implies, it would overturn everything we know about every physical science. And if you’re going to do something so momentous, is requires more than just a 2 minute video as proof. You need major investigation and confirmation by independent sources.
There are so many psi researchers out, who have been battling for decades to demonstrate a real effect. Currently all that they cling to is minuscule effects in predicting pictures on cards above chance, and telepathic dogs. If they were to see something like this guy in the lab, do you not think they would be trumpeting it all around the world? It does not make any sense, right?
The other issue is, that there are often good scientific explanations for what people do, but which people without a science background wouldn’t know about. I gave you one for the second video, so I could easily replicate the video. I could also do one where I make water boil with my hands, and where I crush a large tin container without touching it – all with high-school science.
So I appreciate your effort to convince me, but videos won’t do it.
And no insult was intended personally – more directed at the bullshit artists making the videos who think people are stupid enough to believe their lame efforts.
May 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm
I’ve just watched the first video now, and sorry, it’s even lamer than the second one.
I would simply have my assistant off camera with an air compressor pointing at the fan. Another way to do it would be a secondary power cable disappearing off through the table, and my assistant activating another power switch. I’m sure I could think of more.
As I said, these videos prove nothing other than the gullibility of those watching.
May 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm
How about this one, demonstrated in the presence of a group of scientists from National Geographic, in laboratory conditions:
May 23, 2012 at 8:12 pm
As I said, I won’t be convinced by a video. But I should respond, since you are so keen to convert me!
Firstly that’s one tough dude, no doubt. But the baseball bat thing is pure theatre. Who hasn’t done the punch in the solar plexus? My kids used to be most impressed by their super-dad when we did it years ago. And of course the guy hitting was a willing accomplice, and clearly pulled the hit, and bounced it off very quickly. Sorry, but it looked really lame.
The spear thing is another parlor trick really. He wasn’t pushing into the point, but sideways, hence the bow in the spear. And what was the point of hitting him over the back with a thin stick? Was that supposed to impress? Surely you’ve seen martial arts guys do this stuff before? It’s not chi – it’s toughness and technique and theatrical.
Secondly this is a completely credulous program, assuming the existence of chi. With phrases like ‘according to chi theory’ etc. Thankfully the guy at the end spilled the beans by saying “…whether chi is a mysterious energy or constant conditioning we really don’t know”. Just because we’re impressed by someone, do we really need to invent a mysterious energy? I’m impressed by someone who can run 100m in 9.8 seconds, but it’s not mysterious. It’s hard work and talent.
Lastly, the ‘scientist’ was just window dressing. She wasn’t testing the existence of chi. She was just there to measure some speeds and forces so that the viewer can go ‘wow, that was fast’ or strong or whatever. She was in no way assessing the means by which he did what he did.
As I said in the previous post, to do proper testing you need a theory and you need controls. This little show had neither.
So in summary, sorry, light entertainment, but no evidence whatsoever or anything contrary to what we know of the world.
If you really want to convince me, you should scour relevant journals in which real science is reported.
If psi, and telekinesis and every other power is real, the just once, couldn’t someone do something really obviously against the laws of nature. Here are some examples:
1. Go out into the street and levitate while surrounded by a crowd.
2. Read minds with flash cards, but get them ALL correct.
3. Move and object from a distance, not immediately next to it.
You never see any of this, right? Why?
Because these things DO NOT exist.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But it’s reality, and reality is a real bitch sometimes.
Cheers.
May 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Fine, I give up. You win.
”Reality is for people who lack imagination.” Albert Einstein
😉
May 23, 2012 at 9:45 pm
I’m sorry you feel like that.
My aim is not to win – just stating my position.
The quote is cute, but you must know there is a time and place for imagination. It’s not a simple dichotomy. Einstein didn’t subscribe to the mystical. He used his imagination to understand the nature of reality. He didn’t use imagination instead of reality. So pls don’t use that great example of science to support your insistence on believing in something which cannot be shown to exist.
May 24, 2012 at 3:55 am
How about this quote?
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” Albert Einstein
😛
May 24, 2012 at 7:41 am
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
If your point is that one can’t be ONLY rational, then I agree with you – you would just have Mr Spock, right?
However, your intuition tells you there is magic, while my intuition tells me there is none.
That’s the difference between us.
Einstein’s intuition was about the nature of the world, and hence allowed his great insights.
Be aware that intuition is really just an evolutionary shortcut to decision making, which enabled humans to make quick decisions and hence survive in early times.
These days it’s ok to use intuition, but you can’t leave your brain at the door. You need to say, ‘ok my intuition tells me x – can I confirm that?’ That’s certainly what Einstein did.
In fact, his intuition was actually wrong about quantum mechanics. He couldn’t accept it’s probabilistic nature, hence his quote about god and dice.
He was also wrong about the gravitational constant, which he later called his ‘greatest mistake’.
So be careful quote-mining. Things aren’t always as simple as they seem.
May 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.” ~ Albert Einstein
.
We can play silly quote games all day, though I’d prefer we stay rational. I’d like to discuss your position on telekenesis; I’ll pay thorough attention to your every word, think about it and respectfully respond as best I can, and all I ask is that you do the same.
Fro-G-iraffe, I applaud your manners and demeanor, though I am genuinely (and non-condescendingly) interested to see what your definition of ‘laboratory conditions’ is. The National Geographic video link was not a good example of applying scientific methods at all.
.
.
.
.
Below are some video which you might find interesting, and I encourage you to mull it over and discuss it here; I’m interested to see what and how you think on this topic.
.
-> On the topic of supernatural abilities please have a quick look at this:
.
-> I imagine you must think Mr.Brain is quite closed minded so I am putting this link in too:
.
-> Though hardly academic this Wikipedia page has a good explanation of the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
.
.
.
.
I’d like to say to you that academics skeptics are not awful people out to sink your battleship. Science is a humanity’s best tool for obtaining knowledge and it has been designed to be impartial to human bias and opinion. As much as one may feel something is true, acknowledgement must be made of the frailties and limitations of the human mind. All the natural world would have seemed supernatural to our distant ancestors (Eg, electro-magnetic fields). Now that so many of our human hypothesis have been filtered by the harsh and impartial scientific method we now treat many of the revered supernatural forces of yesterday as simple laws of nature; the understanding of which allows us to better understand and appreciate our universe.
.
Imaging for a moment that telekenesis had been scientifically proven a decade ago; today it would not be a mystic art practiced by monks. It would just be another explainable, measurable cause-and-effect phenomenon of nature; just like gravity. Someone convinced of telekenesis or telepathy does not feel quite so passionate about gravity though for some strange reason. Emotions aside, what do you think about this?
May 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Dan,
Nice video.
Yes, it’s not unusual being called closed-minded simply because one won’t automatically swallow (or even accept as a possibility) the beliefs of others.
If the basis of those beliefs is so flawed, then in my book it’s quite acceptable to dismiss them out of hand, at least until better evidence is on offer.
And the central point of the first video is worth re-stating: if you powers can influence the natural world (which is what you claim), then that influence should be susceptible to measurement in the real world. As we have never measured anything out of the ordinary, how can we possible accept the existence of anything paranormal?
May 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Please absorb the first video’s logic before responding.
May 30, 2012 at 3:37 am
Thank you for these videos, Dan Rea. I have already grasped these concepts, the videos have further strengthened my understanding on these topics.
My mistake, Dan Rea, to me ‘laboratory conditions’ simply signifies an experiment evaluated by qualified scientists, in a controlled environment, with the necessary tools to record data. It seems my understanding of ‘laboratory conditions’ was inaccurate, I shall study the meaning of these words further.
As for your comment on science, I agree with you; Science has helped humanity developed and has replaced ignorance with understanding.
On another note, let us not forget that science is mainly based on theories and that theories are no more than just educated guesses.
Not too long ago, it was thought that atoms were the smallest possible thing (hence the name ‘atom’), until that theory was proven wrong by the discovery of subatomic particles which were then thought to be the smallest possible particles, that theory lasted until the discovery of quarks…
My point here is that even though science is mostly reliable, there are some times where concepts are simply wrong and have to be corrected.
Science is based on observations, and humanity has only yet observed a very minute portion of the universe, therefore we are bound to have a very small understanding of it. Which means that there will be things we do not yet understand, and there will be things we have the wrong understanding of.
As for telekinesis and telepathy, and gravity, I really do not see the correlation between the force of gravity and the possibility of communication between two minds purely by thoughts. Moreover, I never stated any belief or disbelief in telepathy nor telekinesis.
What I fear is happening with the scientific community is that they are discarding the possibility of such phenomena simply because religion approves of them.
I’ll finish with a quote because I just love awesome quotes. ;P
”True perfection seems imperfect, yet it is perfectly itself. True fullness seems empty, yet it is fully present.”–Tao Teh Ching
May 30, 2012 at 3:42 am
As matter of fact, I do think Mr.Brain is rather closed minded, not because he demands proof but because he seems to be persuaded that things such as telekinesis do not exist.
In my opinion, being open minded is neither fully accepting nor rejecting new concepts until proof for or against them is obtained.
By assuming that telekinesis is impossible, he is rejecting the concept, and since the mind, nor human body has fully been observed and explained, he has no reason to reject telekinesis as of yet.
May 30, 2012 at 7:42 am
Nor do I have any reason to accept it.
It’s silly to invent a phenomenon for something we see but can’t yet explain.
It’s plain crazy to invent a phenomenon for something we can’t even see or measure in any way. That’s what telekinesis is. You may as well call me closed minded for not believing in fairies. They have the same status as telekinesis.
An invented name for an invented effect.
Simple.
If that’s closed minded, guilty your honour.
I prefer to call it common sense.
May 30, 2012 at 8:18 am
I don’t think you understand what being close minded means, it works both ways…
”It’s plain crazy to invent a phenomenon for something we can’t even see or measure in any way. That’s what telekinesis is.”
What makes you think these were ‘invented’? Do you have any proof that it was ‘invented’?
That’s a form of close mindedness.
(As for phenomena we cannot explain, there are a ton of them in astrophysics alone.)
May 30, 2012 at 10:07 am
As I’ve said before, the challenge is for you to prove tk exists, not for me to disprove.
In the absence of ANY information to the contrary, I can only conclude that someone made it up – wishful thinking. How do I conclude this? After decades of research there is not even one confirmed effect or demonstration. Not one. So what are you asking me to believe in, or even disprove? Are you asking me to disprove what people claim they can do in private but not in controlled conditions? Are you asking me to explain how the videos are done – I can do that. So what’s left to disprove?
Thanks for touching on astrophysics. Yes, there are billions of things we don’t know, not just in astrophysics, but every discipline. Now listen closely.
When we don’t know, we investigate. We make observations.
When we have enough observations, we construct a hypothesis, which we test. Over and over again.
And we refine it. If it fails, we discard it, or modify it.
Eventually, the hypothesis may become a theory. And we keep testing – just like the theory of relativity, and gravity, and germ theory etc.
Yes, we don’t know if parallel universes exist, or how the big bang happened, but, instead of just being lazy and saying ‘god did it’ for example, we construct a hypothesis and test it, even if it’s only thought experiments – at least we are proposing something and comparing that to our experience.
The difference with tk is that there are no observations. I ask you a simple question: what prompted man to hypothesise tk as a phenomenon?
Did they observe things moving with no explanation? If so, tell me when this happened and who identified it.
If not, IT WAS JUST INVENTED, because is sounds fun and romantic.
You can play around with words like closed-minded all you like – call me whatever you like. What you call closed-minded is that I can’t believe something for which there is not even a phenomenon which can be explored. And that’s just boring.
May 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm
[…] article, and the followups (here, here and here), are easily the most commented on articles, so passions have certainly been aroused. The […]
May 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm
You misunderstood once again, it seems you only take in what suits you from what I write.
Here is what I wrote:
”As matter of fact, I do think Mr.Brain is rather closed minded, not because he demands proof but because he seems to be persuaded that things such as telekinesis do not exist.”
AND:
”In my opinion, being open minded is neither fully accepting nor rejecting new concepts until proof for or against them is obtained.”
Here is what you understood:
”What you call closed-minded is that I can’t believe something for which there is not even a phenomenon which can be explored.”
It seems my words fall upon blind eyes, so let’s take a different approach.
Can you provide me with evidence that something such as telekinesis doesn’t exist/isn’t possible?
May 31, 2012 at 7:46 am
No I didn’t misunderstand. Don’t tell me what I understand – that’s very rude. I try to address your arguments, but they are just rehashing the same old story.
I’ve already said numerous times that the onus is on YOU to prove that it exists; not me to prove that it doesn’t. Simple.
No one can provide negative evidence – I can’t prove that fairies don’t exist either. But I have a good feeling that they don’t.
That’s your logical fallacy. Anything man can imagine could be subject to the same argument – fairies, tk, mind reading, ghosts, you name it. It doesn’t mean they exist, and it doesn’t even mean they’re likely to exist. It just means someone thought of them. End of story – no more can be said.
The only things that can be said about it (tk) are:
a. it is totally inconsistent with anything in human experience, and,
b. there is absolutely no sign that it exists – and by sign I mean any tangible effects which someone can demonstrate.
And the only way forward with is that one or both of those points must be addressed somehow. Right?
You tell me: if it doesn’t agree with the laws of the universe, and, we can’t demonstrate it – should anyone believe it?
That’s the question you need to deal with, otherwise we are at an impasse and the discussion cannot move forward.
May 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Lets play nice kids. It will be more interesting if we do.
@Fro-G-irraffe:
Science has discovered many things that humans never knew existed, and have never perceived; such as quarks. It is strange that it has not been used to prove telekinesis. If telekinesis does exist, then it can be scientifically proven to exist. The fact that it has not been proven when it should be so easy to makes the hypothesis that it does exist seem very unlikely. Also, the fact that so many frauds have been busted pretending they are telekinetic makes it even more unlikely in my mind. If this was the first I had ever heard of telekinesis I think it would not be fair of me to dismiss it without further checking of scholarly sources for proof of this phenomenon’s existence. This is not the case, and so I think it’s unfair to consider me closed minded on this issue.
I am as sure as rationally possible that faster-than-light travel is not possible. This has not interfered with my open-mined research of ‘quantum entanglement’. This phenomenon is where two particles have a correlation in their spins. This effectively means instantaneous changes to a remote particle can be made by affecting it’s twin. Pretty fantastic stuff, yet quantum mechanics can back it up; it is a proven concept. Telling someone that they can send a single (binary) bit of information to the other side of the planet (or possibly the other side of the universe) is just as fantastic a claim as telling someone that you have telekinetic abilities. It is incredibly easier to prove the existence of someone’s telekinetic ability, yet it has not been done. Dubious methinks.
There are things science can never explain. The question of why the universe exists as opposed to the universe not existing is an example. Science only investigates a relationships between causes and effects. Exactly *what* gravity is ultimately a mystery, as is every other form and energy in existence. This is not a satisfactory justification or proof of an individual’s assertion that they have superhuman powers. If they do then their powers can be measured in lab conditions; a controlled environment using a control experiment along-side the actual experiment, with as much data being recorded as appropriate. In this case the results should be timed and checked against seismographic readings of that area. If you would like Mr.Brain to take you seriously I encourage you to venture into the world of science and prove the existence of telekinesis yourself. It should be quite easy; conducting this experiment does not necessarily require you to be a qualified scientist but you must record your methods thoroughly. You can increase your credibility if you get supervised by some qualified physicists (I suggest free beer and pizza). If you are right I think you almost certainly win a Nobel Prize.
Educated guesses are all we have. All else is speculation. Science is a set of theories that beg scientists to disprove and improve them. The educated guesses become increasingly educated. Saying that telekinesis may well be possible because it cannot be disproved will just get interpreted as a cop-out by people who trust in rational thinking.
The onus of proof is upon the person who makes the claim. I can tell you I have a magical cloak of invisibility that cannot be perceived by any lifeforms, nor any type of technology. I may well be right, though if you take me seriously I think you’ll be needing your head examined (perhaps me too).
Everything I’ve said also applies to telepathy.
You are correct; humanity has only ever experienced (and *will* only ever experience) a fraction of ‘everything’. In the mathematical world we have proofs that are 100% certain; they can never be broken. In reality all we have are theories deduced inductive knowledge using the most reliable methods we know of. Yes, anything is possible; it pays to keep an open mind provided you have a robust bullshit-filter mechanism in place. I may begin levitating any moment now, although I very much doubt it. Very very very much.
…WHhhHHOAAA! Holy Crap! I’m Levitating!
Prove me wrong! ;-P
…don’t cheat by using telepathy.
I don’t mean to be offensive; just being humorous 🙂
May 31, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Yes, well said Dan.
I suspect however your message will not satisfy Fro.
Seems that no matter how many ways one says the same thing, some people believe that which they wish to be true.
Those same people also refuse to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the claimant.
And true enough, how much more interesting is the reality of the quantum world in comparison to fantasy like telekinesis? Unfortunately the wonder of the real universe is too easily eschewed for the cheap thrills on offer from charlatans and the deluded.
May 31, 2012 at 8:45 pm
@rationalbrain
Keep in mind my posts have not been just for Fro-G-irrafe or yourself though.
Yes, what a great point you make! The invigorating awe I feel at the wonders proven to exist would exceed that which is speculated though yet unproven (eg, telepathy). Our Sun having 330,000 times the mass of our planet. Black holes containing 4.1 million of our suns! I think the truth of it all is that it is the fact that it is unexplained that makes it so alluring; the imagination has free reign and the topic earns a kind of reverence. Scrutinising it then, is considered narrow minded and irreverent of the hallowed topic; “Who do you think you are? You don’t no everything Mr.Rational-pants!”.
I honestly think that if telepathy was a scientifically proven concept then it would be taken for granted along with things like our incredible pattern recognition, our (still near-magical) healing ability, the functioning of our nervous system or the mystery of the flame when matter burns. This last example is deliberate…
People have idolised our sun and fire since the dawn of time. As time goes on and as we become more familiar with the phenomenon the human race came to see fire as merely a force of nature. In the 17th century the best science we had thought the flame produced when burning something was a substance being released called ‘phlogiston’. Later when contradicting evidence was unearthed (eg, magnesium gains weight when burned) the theory must be altered/improved or scrapped. In this case it was binned, and now we have a bit more of a clue about how this magical force works.
—> You won’t find many websites dedicated to fire worship though.
Why do they choose to be amazed by make-believe and maybe-trues when reality is so bloody amazing? Exactly how fantastic would reality have to be in order to satisfy us all? I’ll never be able to grasp this; not my loss though is it? Ha!
Anyway, sorry to ramble so much. I’m deliberately using you to procrastinate; back to work with me.
June 4, 2012 at 12:34 pm
[…] from my triumph over telekinesis, I’ve now decided to go into selling my own brand of miracle cure, which I’m calling […]