Originally posted by WondererA big one!! 😂
Ok, so, I melted a big one today, do you guys think I'll be able to sell a video recording of where I do my cloud melting for a lot of money?
Was it a Cumulus???...........yes, I think you should post a pic next time.....yes...........Or a video clip..........
Originally posted by Wonderer
Don't you think it's possible that my energy can be transfered to a cloud ot any other object for that mattered, by a mere act of will? Have you ever felt when someone stared at you wit your back turned to them?I don't know for sure, but just maybe it's possible. Maybe some particles or waves on the subatomic level are triggered when sufficient mental concentration is generated, thereby enabling a special (yet Scientific) travelling of energy particles. What do you think?
Food for thought...
Though we tend to think of "mind over matter," will may be a more accurate way to look at this.
As I see it, "mind" is an information-processing, symbol-using agency, whose most common form in human beings is inner dialogue/inner cinema. When I lift my arm, I don't think/envision first "Arm, rise." It occurs as an act of will, a tacit/nonverbal action on my part (which may/may not be accompanied by an incidental thought--and certainly thoughts can be used to focus will).
Esoteric literature sees will controlling our bodies but not necessarily limited to our bodies; it just seems that way and behaves that way because of immediate survival advantages in the physical world. But if one is able to extend will beyond what we think of as our physical boundaries, then affecting clouds (or water 😉 or spoons) becomes more understandable (again, according to esoteric literature).
An excellent way to experience this "in simulation" is through lucid dreaming. Extending will beyond the boundaries of the dream-body is a rather doable affair.
I would also tend to interpret this extension of will more along the lines of quantum mechanics (perhaps as an awareness of quantum wavefunctions, influencing probabilities) rather than in a classical/Newtonian fashion (energy/particles flying from point A to point B). This would be more consistent with results from PK experiments done since the 1920s at Duke University, where it was demonstrated (statistically, if nothing else) that physical parameters (eg, mass, size, shape) were Not determining factors in PK success, this being more consistent with a nonclassical interpretation of what was going on (and again, putting aside for the moment statistical flukes).
Originally posted by Mindship
Food for thought...Though we tend to think of "mind over matter," will may be a more accurate way to look at this.
As I see it, "mind" is an information-processing, symbol-using agency, whose most common form in human beings is inner dialogue/inner cinema. When I lift my arm, I don't think/envision first "Arm, rise." It occurs as an act of will, a tacit/nonverbal action on my part (which may/may not be accompanied by an incidental thought--and certainly thoughts can be used to focus will).
Esoteric literature sees will controlling our bodies but not necessarily limited to our bodies; it just seems that way and behaves that way because of immediate survival advantages in the physical world. But if one is able to extend will beyond what we think of as our physical boundaries, then affecting clouds (or water 😉 or spoons) becomes more understandable (again, according to esoteric literature).
An excellent way to experience this "in simulation" is through lucid dreaming. Extending will beyond the boundaries of the dream-body is a rather doable affair.
I would also tend to interpret this extension of will more along the ....
Originally posted by Mindship
I know enough to realize that "there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in [my] philosophy." Generally, I do not discount a phenomenon on principle.On the other hand, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Neither do I accept without critical assessment.
Uncommon; not widely/readily accepted by the scientific community; not as demonstrable as going to McDonalds and ordering a cheeseberger; not without alternative explanations.
Why do you see your claim as ordinary? I mean, even you must see it as unusual, otherwise why explain...
"I know that you can do just about anything if you really want to and if you really believe in it. On the other hand, if you don't believe, doubt, or are sceptic about things that seem 'unscientific' and ilogical, then obviously you won't get the results. In short, what you believe becomes true and what you don't believe in, doesn't."
Your statement sounds almost apologetic, certainly anticipatory of those who would disagree or not accept. Implicit in your opening statement is a keen awareness that this is not "business as usual."
Originally posted by Mindship
Uncommon; not widely/readily accepted by the scientific community; not as demonstrable as going to McDonalds and ordering a cheeseberger; not without alternative explanations.Why do you see your claim as ordinary? I mean, even you must see it as unusual, otherwise why explain...
"I know that you can do just about anything if you really want to and if you really believe in it. On the other hand, if you don't believe, doubt, or are sceptic about things that seem 'unscientific' and ilogical, then obviously you won't get the results. In short, what you believe becomes true and what you don't believe in, doesn't."
Your statement sounds almost apologetic, certainly anticipatory of those who would disagree or not accept. Implicit in your opening statement is a keen awareness that this is not "business as usual."
Originally posted by Wonderer
Would you believe it if you saw it?
Or if you yourself could perform this unusual action?Not only would I be quite the happy lad ("Take that, you strict empiricists!"😉, but I wouldn't even be entirely surprised.
(p.s. I'm not sure if "Socratic" is the right term--though thanks for the thought--as the Socratic Method, at least, involved teaching by asking questions such that students draw their own--hopefully accurate--conclusions. "Thorough," perhaps. Hey, what can I say? I'm a tough sell.)
Originally posted by BlackC@
Pffft! Like telekinesis is that hard...
I guess that's why I see people running around the streets moving whatever comes into there way with the power of mind...no wait, that doesn't happen.
Let me guess, your telekinesis experiment is usually holding a pendulum and trying to move it? I am sure it's not the hand that holds it that does the moving.
imagine all these people not believing spoons can be bent with the power of the mind
i mean...just look at this video...it's quite obviously the real deal...look...see?...of course...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8846263069740731563&q=telekinesis
Originally posted by Mindship
Provided it could be demonstrated repeatedly, with other variables accounted for: u betcha.Not only would I be quite the happy lad ("Take that, you strict empiricists!"😉, but I wouldn't even be entirely surprised.
(p.s. I'm not sure if "Socratic" is the right term--though thanks for the thought--as the Socratic Method, at least, involved teaching by asking questions such that students draw their own--hopefully accurate--conclusions. "Thorough," perhaps. Hey, what can I say? I'm a tough sell.)
Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, good enough. Now, would you try bending a spoon with your mind, in order to test Telekinesis? Or would such an attempt exceed your willingness to be ridiculed by those super rational empiricists?
Easy, my friend. What super rational empiricists think is of minimal consequence to me, other than the mental exercise they provide in the course of debate and discussion (and yes, I might learn a thing or two from such discourse). Plus, you assume I have had no exposure whatsoever to these "psychic" phenomena, which is untrue (that may be my fault because of how I've worded things in responding to your prior posts). I do not actively pursue them--as you apparently do--or grant them much importance for the reason noted below. Plus, I am also wary of those who claim extraordinary abilities (I'm speaking generally now) because of the potential for wish-fulfillment at the least, taking advantage of others at the most.
(Perhaps I should also have mentioned that I have many, many years practice with both lucid dreaming and meditation, as well as studying mystical literature--Buddhist and otherwise--quantum mechanics and cosmology.)
The reason I do not actively pursue these abilities is because such pursuit is not deemed constructive. Psychic/astral "powers" (called, for example, siddhis in Yogic meditation), are to be regarded as signposts, that one is on the right path. But they are not to be pursued because one then identifies with them...and I believe you are aware that detachment is one of the key elements to successfully following The Path. If they happen, they happen. If not, then so be it. Regardless, they are not the point. I do not need to be convinced that they Can happen, only when someone says they Are happening: then I raise a critical brow and say, "Show me."
It is good that you are making these discoveries for yourself. I, personally, prefer a more critical approach, but that's me. Many colors make a rainbow, and I wish you great success in exploring, what I feel is truly, the Final Frontier.
Originally posted by MindshipYou are truly an eloquent speaker (writer?) and bring fond memories to me of the days I used to read Plato's dialogues. Generally, I do follow the rules of conduct that you mention a propos the exploration of spiritual experiences and the value you apply to them, however, I am also an experiential philosopher who employes the utility of impersonating the object or subject in question, parallel to employing rational enquiry. Thus, I would first of all rationalise and reason the logic of the proposition prior to also experiencing it, in order to have as many as possible references available towards the proposition's value.
Easy, my friend. What super rational empiricists think is of minimal consequence to me, other than the mental exercise they provide in the course of debate and discussion (and yes, I might learn a thing or two from such discourse). Plus, you assume I have had no exposure whatsoever to these "psychic" phenomena, which is untrue (that may be my fault because of how I've worded things in responding to your prior posts). I do not actively pursue them--as you apparently do--or grant them much importance for the reason noted below. Plus, I am also wary of those who claim extraordinary abilities (I'm speaking generally now) because of the potential for wish-fulfillment at the least, taking advantage of others at the most.
(Perhaps I should also have mentioned that I have many, many years practice with both lucid dreaming and meditation, as well as studying mystical literature--Buddhist and otherwise--quantum mechanics and cosmology.)The reason I do not actively pursue these abilities is because such pursuit is not deemed constructive. Psychic/astral "powers" (called, for example, siddhis in Yogic meditation), are to be regarded as signposts, that one is on the right path. .... If not, then so be it. Regardless, they are not the point. ..., "Show me."It is good that you are making these discoveries for yourself. I, personally, prefer a more critical approach, but that's me. Many colors make a rainbow, and I wish you great success in exploring, what I feel is truly, the Final Frontier.
Originally posted by Wonderer
You are truly an eloquent speaker (writer?) and bring fond memories to me of the days I used to read Plato's dialogues. Generally, I do follow the rules of conduct that you mention a propos the exploration of spiritual experiences and the value you apply to them, however, I am also an experiential philosopher who employes the utility of impersonating the object or subject in question, parallel to employing rational enquiry. Thus, I would first of all rationalise and reason the logic of the proposition prior to also experiencing it, in order to have as many as possible references available towards the proposition's value.
Once more... cheers