Thread: if LDing is real then what about. . .

And you ignore all that I said. If we're gonna argue, please. Get to everything I say and prove it wrong. I do it to the things you say, you do it back. And I never related PK to LDing. I love to argue by the way, I'm having fun.

I think he was talking about the first post? But maybe not. Anyways, Telekinesis isn't bullshit, but I know that won't get through your thick skull. :p

Originally Posted by magicdood

I think he was talking about the first post? But maybe not. Anyways, Telekinesis isn't bullshit, but I know that won't get through your thick skull. :p

Yes it was a misapplication of "Quick reply" (which does the opposite of what you'd expect) coupled with the newness to Opera.

No comment on the latter portion of the post. Oh go on, just one: bullshit :p.

My skull is adequately thick. After all, I needn't worry about some telekinetic super hero exploding my head, because, you know that isn't possible. Did you know that?

Still on TK are we? This might as be a whether god exists or not thread...

Originally Posted by magicdood

So I might levitate a pencil in front of you, but you would just see it laying on the ground cause you can't comprehend that possibility. Sounds pretty reasonable of a theory to me.

Apologies magicdood for being lazy again, but here's my breakdown on this matter:

Propose there is one universe A in which sane person S picks up a pencil with his hand, which reasonable person R sees. He observes this event, because he can comprehend this possibility. The event is added to the universe, and since all observers S and R of the event see the same outcome, there is no contradiction. It is an objective event.

Now suppose telekinetic person T lifts the pencil with their mind, with R and S watching. The pencil is lifted in Ts universe. But in R and Ss universe, the pencil sits there, as it should, and T looks like a wally.

Now do we have two universes? Two seperate observations? Now suppose the pencil accidently stabs R in the eye, causing death. But S cannot see this, because he cannot comprehend that possibility, and the pencil is still on the table. Is R dead? Is he alive, because like S he could not comprehend the possibility of the pencil stabbing him in the eye? The two observations have become unresolvable. Aren't these worrying possibilities?

Occam would have a hissy fit. Out of interest, have you ever shown your great power to someone who has believed you - been able to comprehend this reality (which as above, shall become completely irrelevant - inaccessable even - to any outside observer, for fear of pencil-death). Did they see the object move. Or have everyone seen nothing because they "can't comprehend that possibility"?

Seems like your definition of telekinesis is too close to hallucination for your own comfort.

No, theres no seperate realities or anything. If it moves, it moves. None of that shit. And you ignored my entire post earlier.

Hehe, definitely a good break down there Identity X. You've got me thinking. However, I have done this to others and they all saw it move. Two friends, at 1 time, and a parent at a latter time.

I don't know, you make me wonder about that theory..however, it has no bearing on my views of telekinesis.

So in answer, yes, I've shown it to people who didn't originally believe...so I guess that theory is null and void?

Also, can a quick reply reply right after someone's post? or is there any way to do that? I'm pretty sure there isn't, but it would be cool, hehe.

Originally Posted by TheUniversalOne

Ps- I don't understand why it's hard to believe in telekinesis especially if you've taken physics. It's just the ablity to move energy. We are all energy bodies, why is it so impossible to be able to direct that energy at another object? On top of that "energy can't be destroyed" so what happens to us after we die? That energy doesn't just evaporate into space. It travels somewhere, and then taking into account that essentially all things are living...*mumbles into a never-ending rant*

Peace

No, we're matter bodies, not energy bodies initially. When we die what's left is matter, not energy so all the atoms break apart and float...and stuff.

Once again, matter is not energy. We are made up of matter, not energy although at some times we produce energy.

Originally Posted by magicdood

I think he was talking about the first post? But maybe not. Anyways, Telekinesis isn't bullshit, but I know that won't get through your thick skull. :p

Stop going from trying to talk sense into us into insulting us.

Originally Posted by Gumby123psi

No, theres no seperate realities or anything. If it moves, it moves. None of that shit. And you ignored my entire post earlier.

I love how you believe in Psi and that crap but don't believe in alternate universes...WHICH HAS A BASIS IN SCIENCE! Repeat with me: quantum mechanics.



Does any other psychic have stuff to add or is it all just "I believe in psychics 'cause I can do it and I don't care who believes me!"?

I won't pretend to have read this entire thread, but after reading the first page (took me long enough), I noticed how some of the people were saying they don't understand why lucid dreaming would be comparable to things like telepathy and future telling, while many others thought it made perfect sense to compare them.

I, personally, am one of the people who never once considered comparing lucid dreams to these so called psychic phenomena, and among all the people I've told about lucid dreaming, I'm pretty sure there was no one who didn't believe what I was telling them, was possible.
However, hardly any of these people were so enthusiastic about it that they were actually willing to keep a dream journal or something. This also depends on how much I explain to someone. Generally, people become more interested, the more I talk about it.

Now my cousin, who's just as much into lucid dreaming as I am, told some people too, nearly everyone he told about lucid dreaming reacted - you might have seen it coming - at least a little bit like he was crazy. This got to a point where he didn't want to tell people about it anymore.

This example, along with the different views in this thread, indicate that it greatly differs from person to person. The question is: is this because of the person who's giving the information or because of the one who's receiving it? In other words: did I just explain things differently than my cousin did, making it easier for people to believe what they were hearing? Or are the people he told relatively closed minded or something.

I think it's mostly about the way you explain the whole concept to someone. Given the fact that We've both been getting the same kind of reaction over and over with no (or in my cousin's case maybe a few) exceptions. Plus, I've talked about it to a lot of different people that I know from a lot of different perspectives (i.e. friends, family, neighbours, people I met on vacation, people online, etc.). It's hard to believe that they're all the same kind of people.

Now then, my claim here is this:
Those oneironauts (I could just say "lucid dreamers" but it's such a cool word. It deserves to be used) who would compare lucid dreams to psychic phenomena (even when they believe in the former and not in the latter) are the ones who can't get the people around them to believe their lucid dreaming tales, because they talk about it as if it were something otherworldly.
I would imagine someone like this answering the question "what is a lucid dream" by saying something like: a dream where you can control everything and fly through the sky and blow people up and have sex with your favorite celebrity.

The ones who don't see the logic in this comparison, however would give an answer to that same question, which is closer to the exact definition: a dream in which you know that you are dreaming. Think about it for a second. Doesn't that sound much easier to believe? Doesn't sound like a psychic phenomenon at all, right?

There you have it. My personal explanation on why the existence of lucid dreaming is in no way connected to whether or not future telling is real. Of course, I probably could've written it down in a post of two paragraphs, but It's not like I have anything better to do. Besides, long posts make you look smart. I'd just like to apologize to those who read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Umbrella

I won't pretend to have read this entire thread, but after reading the first page (took me long enough), I noticed how some of the people were saying they don't understand why lucid dreaming would be comparable to things like telepathy and future telling, while many others thought it made perfect sense to compare them.

I, personally, am one of the people who never once considered comparing lucid dreams to these so called psychic phenomena, and among all the people I've told about lucid dreaming, I'm pretty sure there was no one who didn't believe what I was telling them, was possible.
However, hardly any of these people were so enthusiastic about it that they were actually willing to keep a dream journal or something. This also depends on how much I explain to someone. Generally, people become more interested, the more I talk about it.

Now my cousin, who's just as much into lucid dreaming as I am, told some people too, nearly everyone he told about lucid dreaming reacted - you might have seen it coming - at least a little bit like he was crazy. This got to a point where he didn't want to tell people about it anymore.

This example, along with the different views in this thread, indicate that it greatly differs from person to person. The question is: is this because of the person who's giving the information or because of the one who's receiving it? In other words: did I just explain things differently than my cousin did, making it easier for people to believe what they were hearing? Or are the people he told relatively closed minded or something.

I think it's mostly about the way you explain the whole concept to someone. Given the fact that We've both been getting the same kind of reaction over and over with no (or in my cousin's case maybe a few) exceptions. Plus, I've talked about it to a lot of different people that I know from a lot of different perspectives (i.e. friends, family, neighbours, people I met on vacation, people online, etc.). It's hard to believe that they're all the same kind of people.

Now then, my claim here is this:
Those oneironauts (I could just say "lucid dreamers" but it's such a cool word. It deserves to be used) who would compare lucid dreams to psychic phenomena (even when they believe in the former and not in the latter) are the ones who can't get the people around them to believe their lucid dreaming tales, because they talk about it as if it were something otherworldly.
I would imagine someone like this answering the question "what is a lucid dream" by saying something like: a dream where you can control everything and fly through the sky and blow people up and have sex with your favorite celebrity.

The ones who don't see the logic in this comparison, however would give an answer to that same question, which is closer to the exact definition: a dream in which you know that you are dreaming. Think about it for a second. Doesn't that sound much easier to believe? Doesn't sound like a psychic phenomenon at all, right?

There you have it. My personal explanation on why the existence of lucid dreaming is in no way connected to whether or not future telling is real. Of course, I probably could've written it down in a post of two paragraphs, but It's not like I have anything better to do. Besides, long posts make you look smart. I'd just like to apologize to those who read the whole thing.

No apologies needed, nice post. I agree completely. It's all in the presentation. I tend to just use "a dream where you know you're dreaming" at first and expand later on.

No, we're matter bodies, not energy bodies initially. When we die what's left is matter, not energy so all the atoms break apart and float...and stuff.

Once again, matter is not energy. We are made up of matter, not energy although at some times we produce energy.

We are energy. Matter is made up of and is energy. That is believed by scientist. WE ARE ENERGY. Proven scientifically.


Stop going from trying to talk sense into us into insulting us.

Obviously it was a joke. Identity X caught it...jeez lighten up. You are too serious.


And also, WIG, just for the Record, everyone can do these things. And also, I'm being 100% honest when I say I don't mind that you do not believe me. Do you see me freaking out here? I'm not. It doesn't bother me. The fact is, I've proved it to myself. You telling me that it is not real does nothing.

Originally Posted by magicdood

No, we're matter bodies, not energy bodies initially. When we die what's left is matter, not energy so all the atoms break apart and float...and stuff.

Once again, matter is not energy. We are made up of matter, not energy although at some times we produce energy.

We are energy. Matter is made up of and is energy. That is believed by scientist. WE ARE ENERGY. Proven scientifically.


Stop going from trying to talk sense into us into insulting us.

Obviously it was a joke. Identity X caught it...jeez lighten up. You are too serious.


And also, WIG, just for the Record, everyone can do these things. And also, I'm being 100% honest when I say I don't mind that you do not believe me. Do you see me freaking out here? I'm not. It doesn't bother me. The fact is, I've proved it to myself. You telling me that it is not real does nothing.

MATTER IS NOT ENERGY. If matter was energy, why would there have been a huge fuss when it was found out a matter -> energy conversion is possible? Here:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/2-matter.htm

MATTER IS NOT ENERGY once again. Don't even go there, because this is physics and you obviously know nothing of it.

As for "it not bothering you", a few posts back you were 100% ready to prove to me you are psychic and even asked what you could do to prove it...so don't pull that.

I wasn't asking in the sense of OMG I WANNA PROVE THIS TO YOU!!!!111ONE

But more like, Gosh, nothing is gonna prove this to him. I wonder what would even do it.

See the difference?

Originally Posted by The Wig

No, we're matter bodies, not energy bodies initially. When we die what's left is matter, not energy so all the atoms break apart and float...and stuff.

Once again, matter is not energy. We are made up of matter, not energy although at some times we produce energy.



Stop going from trying to talk sense into us into insulting us.



I love how you believe in Psi and that crap but don't believe in alternate universes...WHICH HAS A BASIS IN SCIENCE! Repeat with me: quantum mechanics.



Does any other psychic have stuff to add or is it all just "I believe in psychics 'cause I can do it and I don't care who believes me!"?

We're definitely energy bodies.

*And I refuse to prove it as all the information in the world is avaliable at google.com

BAM- Couldn't agree more! We are most definitely made of energy, just like everything else.

Originally Posted by TheUniversalOne

We're definitely energy bodies.

*And I refuse to prove it as all the information in the world is avaliable at google.com

Refusing to prove something is practically equivalent to it not being true. You can't just make claims and not attempt to back it up. So prove it.

As for magicdood, don't know what you're "BAM"ing about - you just claimed matter was the same exact thing as energy. o_O

They are made up of the same things so therefore we are energy.

And no, refusing to back something up is not the same as it being false. It's the same as being fucking annoyed at people who can't do some simple research. If you did, you would understand that what THEuniversalone said is true.

Originally Posted by magicdood

They are made up of the same things so therefore we are energy.

And no, refusing to back something up is not the same as it being false. It's the same as being fucking annoyed at people who can't do some simple research. If you did, you would understand that what THEuniversalone said is true.

Wait, what? You just sent my brain through a twist. Matter and energy are not the same damn thing. Did you even read my link or are you just blindly grasping for words?

And yes, it pretty much is. Why would anyone believe anyone otherwise?

Originally Posted by magicdood

And also, I'm being 100% honest when I say I don't mind that you do not believe me. Do you see me freaking out here? I'm not. It doesn't bother me. The fact is, I've proved it to myself. You telling me that it is not real does nothing.

Originally Posted by magicdood

And no, refusing to back something up is not the same as it being false. It's the same as being fucking annoyed at people who can't do some simple research.

Well that didn't last long.

Because there is plenty of valid information that a little research could produce.

And also, no I didn't read that link, and yep, pretty much blindly grasping for words. Congrats on the analysis.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Because there is plenty of valid information that a little research could produce.

And also, no I didn't read that link, and yep, pretty much blindly grasping for words. Congrats on the analysis.

If you read the link you'd see that matter is not energy. This isn't hard to grasp, but for some...I guess it is.

Hehe, and telekinesis isn't hard to grasp, but for some, I guess it is.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Hehe, and telekinesis isn't hard to grasp, but for some, I guess it is.

The thing is, the fact that matter is not energy is proven. Telekinesis isn't and it would take many years of study and corroboration to do so. I'm perfectly justified in not believing in something that is not proven. You are not justified in disbelieving in a proven thing.

Good point TheWig.

The point remains, however, that we are made up of energy. Matter is made up of energy.