PsychoKinesis - Spooky or what ?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 14

PsychoKinesis - Spooky or what ?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

May 31, 2002

Comments:

So I was doing some reading about PK. Apparently you can move things at a distance by using the power of your mind. Uri Gellar uses the same technique to bend spoons. So in the spirit of scientific investigation, I attempted my own experiment.

More diaries by dmg

	I just love those crazy Brits.
	My life is one long vacation
	Where to drink in London ?
	A law that is ignored is not a good law.
	So what are you saying, my Art is not good enough ?
	The Politics of Envy
	Modern Literary Masterpiece
	Rock and Roll !
	Adequacy. Can we make it even better ?
	What do you think of adequacy ?
	Liberalist morons strike again.
	I miss Linux Zealot (tm)
	The don't make 'em like they used to.
	Is this the kind of leader the USA supports ?
	What makes Australian women so hot?
	Worried about all the trolls on K5 ?
	The Litigious States of America.
	The Wankometer
	Attention! Slashdot retards and K5 wankers read this now!
	British lack of self-control. Why are they so arrogant ?
	What will the lunix apologists make of this ?
	Citizen Corps and TIPS - do they go far enough ?
	America's public image
	Where are they now ?
	Which firearm are you ?
	Surprising obscure facts.
	Trolling - A thing of the past ?
	The War on Terror - is it winnable ?
	Interesting people.
	How can we take Blair seriously ?
	I am now a 31337 h4x0r !!!

So there's this small halogen light bulb at the side of my bed. Before I went to sleep, I concentrated really hard on it, visualizing it flying off the bedside table. I really really concentrated hard on this, using the visualization techniques described on various websites. And guess what. The bulb stayed put.

But there's a twist in the tale...

The next morning, when I woke up, I am surprised to find the bulb on the floor, about three feet from the table.

So the question is, was it PK ? Did I move it in my sleep ? or did it simply fall off the table as a mere coincidence (which is what I would LIKE to believe) ? I don't believe in any of this PK stuff, and when I tried my experiment again it didn't work.

Anyone got any ideas ?

	So` (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 06:14:30 PM PST

	Must you begin so many sentences with that word?

	what word? (none / 0) (#2)
	by PotatoError on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 06:44:50 PM PST

	The? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	I suggest wearing shoes to bed (none / 0) (#3)
	by zikzak on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 06:48:25 PM PST

	If you accidentally step on a lightbulb in a morning daze you're likely to slice up your foot pretty badly.

	Project Faustus (none / 0) (#4)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 07:03:33 PM PST

	Sir, as a fellow researcher into the paranormal, I recommend you read up on Project Faustus. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Actually (1.00 / 1) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 10:11:02 PM PST

	The dictionary states Psychokineses as the ability to control the movement of physical objects by the force of the mind alone, without the use of any known physical energy. Summery-making someone your personal puppet on a string Indy^_^

	I always thought... (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 10:36:57 PM PST

	that James Randi (or whatever his name is) debunked Geller, and if I remember correctly, did a damn good job about it too. Anyone disagree?

	I disagree (none / 0) (#7)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 11:05:41 PM PST

	You see, like most scientific attacks on the paranormal, Randi "disproved" Geller's ability in a laboratory situation. This is akin to the way casinos demand that you play according to their rules, with their equipment. Even if they aren't deliberately cheating you through the use of trick decks and loaded dice, the game is still biased towards the dealer. The same goes for science. Science can never measure paranormal phenomena, because the paranormal takes place outside the fairly narrow constraints of the scientific world. Claiming that science has debunked Geller is like claiming that science has debunked homeopathy or Creationism. Science simply isn't capable of measuring these things, so it claims that they don't exist. In reality, all they are doing is contravening laws that were invented (not discovered) by narrow-minded scientists.

	True, Science hasn't debunked Creationism... (none / 0) (#9)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 04:19:42 AM PST

	Creationism has debunked itself by taking a very shabby attitude to The Facts. Wake up people! Either you use your magic faith powers to agree with Creationism because it is logically inconsistent and its claims about the real world are not mirrored in reality, or you damn well disagree. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron, and "Creation Scientists" are morons. In other news, medicine hasn't "disproved" my tantric oil of snake remedy. The oil is extracted from the snake's placebo bone, and it works wonders. Oh, and I was round Uri's pad in Sonning yesterday (only 10 minutes cycle along the Thames path from where I live), and he confided in me that spoons thing is all a sham. I promised not to tell MJ, though, 'cos he really believes it. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	it's worth noting (none / 0) (#12)
	by nathan on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 12:34:16 PM PST

	That there are tons of people who accept scientistic philosophy uncritically based on the claims of others. How are they any better than the admittedly confused folks buying the Ken Hovind videos? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Cause. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 01:15:40 PM PST

	Cause they're rational. And they're logical. And they're balanced, critically minded, educated. They believe in progress, universal humanism, the future of humankind and a viscous, infinitely compressible aether. -- Peace and much love...

	Are they any better? (none / 0) (#15)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 06:38:52 PM PST

	If you're going to accept something uncritically then you're either an idiot or you don't actually care. I don't think it matters what side of an argument such people are on, because they'd all be making fallacious arguments from authority. PS: Scientific philosophy? You are joking, right? adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I am not joking (none / 0) (#16)
	by nathan on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 06:51:44 PM PST

	Science is absolutely a philosophy. Damn, man, if you don't believe me, ask Francis Bacon (the jurist, not the painter.) Scientistic philosophy is the enemy. It is BAD. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I'm just scratching my head (none / 0) (#17)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 07:05:20 PM PST

	at how they replicate the philosophical experiments in the lab. "So the initial mass of the sodium sample is 12.013 grams, and after bombardment it reduces to 11.953 grams, as predicted, therefore the hypothesis that God is a bearded white male that tallies the fall of every swallow is proven correct.". And I thought Bacon was a playwright. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	duh! (none / 0) (#21)
	by nathan on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 11:50:45 AM PST

	Are you claiming that science does not need philosophical underpinnings and assumptions? For heaven's sake, empiricism didn't just happen by itself, and it is hardly a base or normal state for humankind. As for Bacon, maybe you should learn about the history of induction (not the kind with sparky coils.) Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Actually, (none / 0) (#22)
	by tkatchev on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 11:59:02 AM PST

	For most people the word "science" denotes the banal skill of making "shiny things". In other words, when somebody like Mr. Isnt says "science" he actually means mechanical or electrical engineering. -- Peace and much love...

	Interesting thesis. (none / 0) (#23)
	by because it isnt on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 12:34:22 PM PST

	Where does inorganic chemistry and mass spectrometery come into "making shiny things"? I find your hypotheses intriguing and wish to subscribe to your journal. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I don't know. (none / 0) (#24)
	by tkatchev on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 12:55:55 PM PST

	You tell me. -- Peace and much love...

	pop quiz (none / 0) (#25)
	by nathan on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 01:28:36 PM PST

	What kind of engineering was Newton best at? Or was he more of an inorganic chemist than an engineer?* Bonus question: was Leonardo DaVinci a scientist? Explain. Bonus question 2: why am I making such a big deal of out this, anyway? `* Hint: the correct answer is 'b.'` Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Questions, questions... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by because it isnt on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 02:45:14 PM PST

	What kind of engineering was Newton best at? Judging from how he successfully stole the credit for calculus, I'd say social engineering. Bonus answer: I'll watch Hudson Hawk and get back to you. Bonus answer 2: Tell me about your father... adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I'm only fooling (none / 0) (#26)
	by because it isnt on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 01:58:14 PM PST

	with the idea of philosophy being conducted by the scientific method. I am aware that science is the bastard child of philosophy and mathematics -- the scientific method, ethics, objectivity through subjectivity, paradigms, formal logic, etc etc. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	You scientists are such hypocrites (none / 0) (#18)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 10:08:21 PM PST

	You accept so much on faith, yet you claim to be completely logical and scientific. Tell me, how can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't. But you believe it will, don't you? Can you prove that you're heart won't stop in a matter of seconds? Isn't everything you do in your life based on the naive belief that you aren't going to be suddenly struck dead somehow? Why doesn't science have an explanation for love? That love exists is undeniably true, yet it does so without the blessing of science. It's time you realised that faith has a greater meaning in your life than you admit. Pretending that the world is completely explained by your logic is a product of denial and fear. An explanatory parable: A group of primitive scientists hunker in a cave. Upon the wall they see shadows dancing. With the limited tools at their disposal, they are able to measure and document the shadows with incredible insight and accuracy. Unfortunately, documenting them does no lead to understanding, it merely allows the scientists to claim to have fully understood the shadows to the greatest extent possible. With the books in their hands, they have proof that nobody has understood the shadows more completely than they. Suddenly, a young girl rushes into the cave to tell them that the face of God is passing over the land, casting it's bright rays down from heaven. When they ask her for proof of this utterly absurd phenomenon, she points to the shadows on the wall. The scientists erupt with laughter! Those shadows proof of God? The very idea! No one understands those shadows as well as we do, scoff the scientists.

	I read it on the Internet, it must be true. (none / 0) (#19)
	by because it isnt on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 10:26:24 AM PST

	You accept so much on faith, yet you claim to be completely logical and scientific. Come off it Reggie, that's blatant misrepresentation. Most scientists are perfectly normal people, and only act logically and scientifically when they're doing their scientific work. At other times, they're just nonces like the rest of us. Tell me, how can you prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? For fuck's sake, does the fact that Galileo suffered torture for your enlightenment mean anything to you? The sun does not 'rise', it remains where it is in comparison to the Earth. Even His Holiness the Pope knows the Earth revolves around the Sun, but I suppose that's not good enough for you, is it? What does it take to break you out of your dogmatic geocentricity? adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Galileo. (none / 0) (#20)
	by tkatchev on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 10:41:56 AM PST

	I'm not at all qualified to comment on Galileo, but people like Copernicus, for example, were not persecuted for doing "scientific research", they were punished for "astrology". "Astrology" as in "let's worship the Devil, eat toadstools, paint ourselves blue and howl at the moon". I don't believe that punishing people for howling at the moon is the correct political stance; however, the whitewashing of people like Copernicus by the liberalist community is also repugnant. Everything must be viewed in context. -- Peace and much love...

	When was Galileo tortured? (none / 0) (#29)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 04:17:23 PM PST

	All I'm saying: (none / 0) (#32)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:46:54 AM PST

	when you've got an institution like the Roman Catholic Church, who "didn't know" institutionalised paedophillia was rife, you can hardly expect them to log "beat the shit out of that ponce Galileo today" in their journals. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Ah, I see (none / 0) (#34)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 04:22:09 PM PST

	So you're basing your statement on the lack of evidence for torture. How post-modern. Still, you would expect him to have mentioned it in a letter to his daughter at some point.

	Perhaps, (none / 0) (#35)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 04:45:39 PM PST

	the Romans were buggering poor Galileo as torture, and he could not tell anyone because he was secretly ashamed that he enjoyed it. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Unlikely (none / 0) (#36)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 05:12:10 PM PST

	Romans liked them much younger, unless Galileo published his astronomical theories before the age of sixteen. From what I've been hearing from sixteen year olds who frequent this site, this isn't all that improbable. Apparently, most sixteen year olds have accomplished a huge number of truly admirable things, such as poetry writing and tattoo design, not to mention tapping out a computer program or two, and earning more than minimum wage.

	Psychokinesis is unscientific nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by iat on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 01:57:25 AM PST

	The only rational explanation for the "moving lightbulb mystery" is that your house is haunted by a poltergeist. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Update: It didn't work last night either. (none / 0) (#10)
	by dmg on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 05:58:18 AM PST

	Either I am losing my powers, or it was a one-off fluke. Either way, it was a very spooky experience. More experiments will be performed soon. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Why it won't work (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 09:43:06 AM PST

	To use Psychokineses, one must have a specially enhanced brain or a well train mind.....which proves something about you lol Indy^_^

	The scientific investigation continues... (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jun 1st, 2002 at 06:21:16 PM PST

	I am going to try it remotely today. I am about 30 miles from my apartment, so we will see if distance is a factor. It seems so far to have only worked when I am extremely tired. Perhaps I will stay up really late, and this will help the process in some way.<p> dmg, not at home today.

	Didn't work again. (none / 0) (#28)
	by dmg on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 03:29:55 PM PST

	I think I've lost my powers. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I don't think you even had powers (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jun 2nd, 2002 at 08:05:31 PM PST

	You must have knocked the lightbulb off the table in your sleep. I think no one from this website has the mental power nor the well trained mind to have psychokinetic powers; and you just proved it! Indy^_^

	And you do... (none / 0) (#31)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:27:06 AM PST

	have the mental power and the well-trained mind for PK, Mr. "Abviously"?

	No (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:56:34 AM PST

	If I did though, I would be saving the world instead of me laughing at this poor excuse of a website. Indy^_^

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.