Thread: Pyrokinesis: Possible or impossible?

Possible.

If telekinesis is possible, there is no reason pyrokinesis wouldn't be. Of course, it'll be on a lesser scale than how the movie's depict it.
I've been on multiple telekinesis forums, I even own an mp3 file with telekinesis subliminal messages on it. (The owner of a telekinesis website created it but then it shortly disappeared, fortunately I saved it before the site went down)

Pyrokinesis is just another form of telekinesis, motion creates heat - therefore, possible.

There's no reason to think that it is possible.

Originally Posted by xei

there's no reason to think that it is possible.

Originally Posted by will1

possible.

If telekinesis is possible, there is no reason pyrokinesis wouldn't be. Of course, it'll be on a lesser scale than how the movie's depict it.
I've been on multiple telekinesis forums, i even own an mp3 file with telekinesis subliminal messages on it. (the owner of a telekinesis website created it but then it shortly disappeared, fortunately i saved it before the site went down)

pyrokinesis is just another form of telekinesis, motion creates heat - therefore, possible.

burned.

Originally Posted by TraceFleeman

burned.

Not with pyrokinesis

If you firmly believe its not possible, I would like you to study it for ohh... Around a thousand years and explore 100% of the brain you only use <10% of, then get back to us and tell us its not possible.

Asian cultures have been using pyrokinesis for hundreds of years, they use it to generate heat with what they call "Chakra" into their hands when using therapeutic back massages.

Thank you, sir.

Originally Posted by Will1

and explore 100% of the brain you only use <10% of

myth myth myth myth

seriously, not true. we kind of use all of it at different times and with different intensity.

Personally I think it is more than possible. Knowledge is infinite, which technically means anything is possible - you just require certain factors to be met previously.

The brain is still a total mystery, no question about it.

And I am relatively open to psi in general, I enjoy reading Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake about mind processes and their influence. But the 10%, for credibilities sake, should be abolished. It's just not true. The only other time I recently came across it was when the church of scientology handed me a paper with this "fact" as a basis of their "arguments".

Originally Posted by dajo

myth myth myth myth

seriously, not true. we kind of use all of it at different times and with different intensity.

Hmm, I've just researched it a bit more - and it appears there is some myth to it.

There is a "myth to the myth", if you will, we use 100% of the parts of the brain we're using.
Which activate at different times, and if we were truly using 100% of all sections of your brain - we would all be geniuses. This is obviously not the case, we all know we're not operating at full capacity - common sense can tell us that.

So there is truth to it, and on top of that - there are sections of the brain we have not activated. Plus in our DNA, scientists currently believe 90% of what we thought was "junk matter" may actually hold more to it than we have ever thought.

...no there is not truth to it. Can you even explain what "using 10% of your brain" means? How do you think somebody measured this?

Originally Posted by Will1

Not with pyrokinesis

If you firmly believe its not possible, I would like you to study it for ohh... Around a thousand years and explore 100% of the brain you only use <10% of, then get back to us and tell us its not possible.

Asian cultures have been using pyrokinesis for hundreds of years, they use it to generate heat with what they call "Chakra" into their hands when using therapeutic back massages.

Thank you, sir.

...any sources?

I wouldn't be surprised if people can consciously warm their hands up, because there is a physical link between the brain, specifically the hypothalamus, and hands. People can learn to consciously control their heart rates, also.

However, creating heat at a distance is physically impossible. No, we don't know everything about how the brain works, but we do know the physics of it. Saying that, because we don't know some things about how various neural pathways in the brain work computationally, we could find some way of making fires appear a few feet away is like saying, because you don't know the exact layout of New York, if you go to New York you might find China there.

The main thing you need to ask yourself is, as there is no evidence that this phenomenon is possible (unless you can provide some), why do you think that it is? The only possible answer is bias. Ask yourself then why you are biased. There's no evidence that there's a teapot-shaped asteroid circling the sun; presumably you don't believe in that.

Originally Posted by Xei

However, creating heat at a distance is physically impossible.

Nothing is impossible. Everything is possible. Technology and what we know, however, needs to advance first.

I'll put it this way: 1000 years back, the thought of a human flying would have been considered physically impossible, exactly the same way as what you're saying about pyrokinesis. They had insufficient technology and knowledge to assume otherwise. However, we're now sending people flying up to space. What does that tell us? It tells us that anything is possible once you find all the pieces to the puzzle. Knowledge is infinite. Possibilities are infinite. There is no end to what humans can accomplish.

Originally Posted by Xei

...no there is not truth to it. Can you even explain what "using 10% of your brain" means? How do you think somebody measured this?


...any sources?

There is truth to it, and yes I can. It means your not operating at full mental capacity - what else? There are tons of ways scientists have measured this. One of which could have been an MRI.

Lucid dreaming hasn't exactly been proven either, yet your here on this forum as if it is. So, would it matter if our answers are biased?

If we always listened to the nay-sayers, we wouldn't get anything done. The only thing I really need to say is "After you discover the vast mysteries of the universe, you may then speak to me about impossibilities". At one time, people believed the earth was flat. Perhaps your the reincarnation of one of the nay-sayers who would hang anyone who said otherwise. Just a little thought.

Originally Posted by Xei

I wouldn't be surprised if people can consciously warm their hands up, because there is a physical link between the brain, specifically the hypothalamus, and hands. People can learn to consciously control their heart rates, also.

However, creating heat at a distance is physically impossible. No, we don't know everything about how the brain works, but we do know the physics of it. Saying that, because we don't know some things about how various neural pathways in the brain work computationally, we could find some way of making fires appear a few feet away is like saying, because you don't know the exact layout of New York, if you go to New York you might find China there.

The main thing you need to ask yourself is, as there is no evidence that this phenomenon is possible (unless you can provide some), why do you think that it is? The only possible answer is bias. Ask yourself then why you are biased. There's no evidence that there's a teapot-shaped asteroid circling the sun; presumably you don't believe in that.

I didn't give a full explanation, my bad. The Chinese, who were capable of warming their hands up during therapeutic sessions, were also capable of warming things at a distance regardless of physical interaction. Is it any wonder how they had a full layout of human body Chakra sources and knew precisely where to put needles to release certain energies?

And I'm not quite sure if we know the full physics of the brain either, many things happen that we can't fully explain which would defy anything we currently have theorized on the brain. I'd like to say we know nothing unless we tried everything.

And yes as I said above, the answer is indeed biased. Yes, I agree, all beliefs are biased.
However, if we weren't to believe in anything new that we didn't already prove scientifically, we would be what is called "Spiritually blind".

-Will1

Originally Posted by LucidJuggalo

Nothing is impossible. Everything is possible. Technology and what we know, however, needs to advance first.

I'll put it this way: 1000 years back, the thought of a human flying would have been considered physically impossible, exactly the same way as what you're saying about pyrokinesis. They had insufficient technology and knowledge to assume otherwise. However, we're now sending people flying up to space. What does that tell us? It tells us that anything is possible once you find all the pieces to the puzzle. Knowledge is infinite. Possibilities are infinite. There is no end to what humans can accomplish.

Well, not infinite, but I take the point that technology allows us to broaden our capabilities. However we're talking about what humans alone can do, now.

Originally Posted by Will1

There is truth to it, and yes I can. It means your not operating at full mental capacity - what else?

Ummm... and what does "10% mental capacity" mean? This is a tautology. Do you mean 10% of neurons are lit up at any time? 10% of general brain areas are working at any time? 10% of brain areas work ever? MRI shows that at any time the majority of our brains are engaged.

Lucid dreaming hasn't exactly been proven either, yet your here on this forum as if it is. So, would it matter if our answers are biased?

No, there is good evidence for lucid dreaming actually. People in the dream state were given cues and, if conscious, responded via moving their eyes in the dream, which can be recorded in real life.

If we always listened to the nay-sayers, we wouldn't get anything done. The only thing I really need to say is "After you discover the vast mysteries of the universe, you may then speak to me about impossibilities". At one time, people believed the earth was flat. Perhaps your the reincarnation of one of the nay-sayers who would hang anyone who said otherwise. Just a little thought.

We need nay-sayers who 'say nay' when there isn't any evidence for an assertion. The flat Earth analogy is not appropriate because nobody had ever actually done any experiment that would determine if the Earth was flat or not, so it was just a dogmatic thing and there was no reason not to question it. When the Ancient Greeks actually did such experiments, they found that the Earth was round. However, when you look at psi scientifically, there is no evidence it exists, and so you shouldn't believe it does.

I didn't give a full explanation, my bad. The Chinese, who were capable of warming their hands up during therapeutic sessions, were also capable of warming things at a distance regardless of physical interaction. Is it any wonder how they had a full layout of human body Chakra sources and knew precisely where to put needles to release certain energies?

Evidence?

And I'm not quite sure if we know the full physics of the brain either, many things happen that we can't fully explain which would defy anything we currently have theorized on the brain. I'd like to say we know nothing unless we tried everything.

We understand that the brain works physically, exclusively, by sending impulses of ions called action potentials from cells called neurons along branches called axons to other branches called dendrites. Hence the brain cannot set fire to things.

And yes as I said above, the answer is indeed biased. Yes, I agree, all beliefs are biased.
However, if we weren't to believe in anything new that we didn't already prove scientifically, we would be what is called "Spiritually blind".

-Will1

There are many things that natural science cannot ascertain; non-physical things like metaphysics, or mental things like morality. Psi is, however, not one of these; it is a physical thing, that can be scientifically ascertained.

Originally Posted by Xei

Ummm... and what does "10% mental capacity" mean? This is a tautology. Do you mean 10% of neurons are lit up at any time? 10% of general brain areas are working at any time? 10% of brain areas work ever? MRI shows that at any time the majority of our brains are engaged.

I'm afraid I'm not much of a brainologist.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, there is good evidence for lucid dreaming actually. People in the dream state were given cues and, if conscious, responded via moving their eyes in the dream, which can be recorded in real life.

You believe there hasn't been proper study on PSI? You got defensive when I pointed out lucid dreaming, and that's not the most accepted belief in the scientific community today. There has been so many positive results in tests scientists have done its shocking for me to see someone in this field not believe in a 'brother' field, if you will.

Originally Posted by Xei

We need nay-sayers who 'say nay' when there isn't any evidence for an assertion. The flat Earth analogy is not appropriate because nobody had ever actually done any experiment that would determine if the Earth was flat or not, so it was just a dogmatic thing and there was no reason not to question it. When the Ancient Greeks actually did such experiments, they found that the Earth was round. However, when you look at psi scientifically, there is no evidence it exists, and so you shouldn't believe it does.

Oh dear, I thought you only meant "Pyrokininesis" not PSI as a whole. There isn't a shred of doubt PSI doesn't exist in my mind.
I'm surprised to still find nonbelievers in it, actually. There have been more tests that came up positive in PSI than in lucid dreaming, I can tell you that much. (Though, I do believe in lucid dreaming.)

Originally Posted by Xei

Evidence?

Look into it, I don't have it written on the back of my hand.

Originally Posted by Xei

We understand that the brain works physically, exclusively, by sending impulses of ions called action potentials from cells called neurons along branches called axons to other branches called dendrites. Hence the brain cannot set fire to things.

How do you know the thing that sets things on fire is in the physical plane? The personality/conscious mind/you aren't in the physical plane, I wouldn't expect your 6th sense to be either.

Originally Posted by Xei

There are many things that natural science cannot ascertain; non-physical things like metaphysics, or mental things like morality. Psi is, however, not one of these; it is a physical thing, that can be scientifically ascertained.

As I said above, nobody said it was in the physical plane. (Though I don't take away from the possibility.)

Even I, personally, have experienced telekinesis. I use to be on a forum where it was a normal thing that was discussed daily, similar to here and lucid dreaming. Perhaps you have a few beliefs about PSI that damaged your belief about it, I encourage you to investigate more into PSI with an open mind. An open mind. Nobody can tell you anything if your shooting down everything as false.

"I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." - Morpheus

10% of brain myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you believe that we only use 10% of our brains, read this and stop using it as part of your arguments. I am not trying to offend anyone, or start an argument about other aspects of why pyrokinesis does or does not make sense. I am just pointing out a fallacy in many of these arguments which should not be ignored. We cannot "unlock the potential" of 90% of our brains because we are already using close to 100% of our brains.

Comparing by (mass used)/(total mass) with the brain makes about as much sense as telling people that their computers only use 30% of their components because the rest is just casing and support. While it is technically true, there is no way for you to "unlock" the potential in the plastic casing surrounding your computer parts.

Edit:

There are many things that natural science cannot ascertain; non-physical things like metaphysics, or mental things like morality. Psi is, however, not one of these; it is a physical thing, that can be scientifically ascertained.

This is a very accurate description in my opinion: it acknowledges that science has a specific domain (the natural, observable world) and that it cannot be applied to subjects outside that domain. If something like pyrokinesis truly bridges the gap between the natural and supernatural, then it would be expected for it to be scientifically observable. One could respond by saying that the act of scientific observation makes the bridge impossible, but then it is once again entirely outside the domain of science.

Originally Posted by Will1

You believe there hasn't been proper study on PSI? You got defensive when I pointed out lucid dreaming, and that's not the most accepted belief in the scientific community today. There has been so many positive results in tests scientists have done its shocking for me to see someone in this field not believe in a 'brother' field, if you will.
...
There isn't a shred of doubt PSI doesn't exist in my mind.
I'm surprised to still find nonbelievers in it, actually. There have been more tests that came up positive in PSI than in lucid dreaming, I can tell you that much. (Though, I do believe in lucid dreaming.)

References pl0x

Originally Posted by Will1

I'm afraid I'm not much of a brainologist.

Sooo you didn't really have any reason for thinking there was truth to the 10% thing...

You believe there hasn't been proper study on PSI? You got defensive when I pointed out lucid dreaming, and that's not the most accepted belief in the scientific community today. There has been so many positive results in tests scientists have done its shocking for me to see someone in this field not believe in a 'brother' field, if you will.

There is peer reviewed researching clearly demonstrating lucid dreaming is a true phenomenon. Honestly you don't know what the scientific community thinks, you're just making assertions here. There's no research demonstrating things like telekinesis are real.

Oh dear, I thought you only meant "Pyrokininesis" not PSI as a whole. There isn't a shred of doubt PSI doesn't exist in my mind.
I'm surprised to still find nonbelievers in it, actually. There have been more tests that came up positive in PSI than in lucid dreaming, I can tell you that much. (Though, I do believe in lucid dreaming.)

You keep saying that but you're not showing it. And I have looked into it (or walked through the door or whatever other metaphor), it's not an issue of wilful ignorance.

Look into it, I don't have it written on the back of my hand.

Or even a memory of some vague details.

How do you know the thing that sets things on fire is in the physical plane? The personality/conscious mind/you aren't in the physical plane, I wouldn't expect your 6th sense to be either.

Because fire is a physical thing; a chemical phenomenon? Have you ever observed any fires not caused by heat acting on some chemicals? Has anybody ever seen such a fire?

As I said above, nobody said it was in the physical plane. (Though I don't take away from the possibility.)

No, telekinesis and the like act on physical objects and are hence subject to scientific enquiry.

Even I, personally, have experienced telekinesis. I use to be on a forum where it was a normal thing that was discussed daily, similar to here and lucid dreaming. Perhaps you have a few beliefs about PSI that damaged your belief about it, I encourage you to investigate more into PSI with an open mind. An open mind. Nobody can tell you anything if your shooting down everything as false.

Why are you saying I'm shooting down everything as false? No I don't. If there is reason for believing something I believe it. All scientists have 'open minds'. Lucid dreaming is a rather strange idea but it is accepted because there is evidence. I don't believe that psi is real because I've never been shown any evidence that it is real and nobody's ever observed anything that would even allow it to happen.

Originally Posted by AscendedSleeper

If you believe that we only use 10% of our brains, read this and stop using it as part of your arguments. I am not trying to offend anyone, or start an argument about other aspects of why pyrokinesis does or does not make sense. I am just pointing out a fallacy in many of these arguments which should not be ignored. We cannot "unlock the potential" of 90% of our brains because we are already using close to 100% of our brains.

Comparing by (mass used)/(total mass) with the brain makes about as much sense as telling people that their computers only use 30% of their components because the rest is just casing and support. While it is technically true, there is no way for you to "unlock" the potential in the plastic casing surrounding your computer parts.

You obviously didn't read my reply to the other guy who said that. But if you must, the 6th sense doesn't have to be in the brain, we just see activity there when using PSI. It could also be in our DNA, and in that case, >90% of DNA previously thought as "junk matter" lye undiscovered and scientists believe there are more than meets the eye. We still only scratched the surface on the knowledge of our body.

Originally Posted by AscendedSleeper

This is a very accurate description in my opinion: it acknowledges that science has a specific domain (the natural, observable world) and that it cannot be applied to subjects outside that domain. If something like pyrokinesis truly bridges the gap between the natural and supernatural, then it would be expected for it to be scientifically observable. One could respond by saying that the act of scientific observation makes the bridge impossible, but then it is once again entirely outside the domain of science.

Actually, I saw it a fairly inaccurate description, because nobody... Nobody said it was in the physical plane. We simply assume so, but it could just as well be in a different plane just as you are. You as in, your conscious mind. You don't have a clue where you are, and we can't simply assume its located in the physical brain. (Though, it could be.)

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

References pl0x

Look it up, its common sense pl0x. PSI is such a huge field, how couldn't you know there were more studies on it than lucid dreaming? There have been groups of scientists who have done thousands of studies on it, while in lucid dreaming there have been far less activity due to its less-popularity. For me to go out and get you sources is like feeding you information.
// And I'm lazy.

Originally Posted by Will1

It could also be in our DNA

Look it up, its common sense

I have yet to find an unbiased article giving Telekinesis any credibility.

Originally Posted by Xei

Sooo you didn't really have any reason for thinking there was truth to the 10% thing...

Lol! Oh yes, I did - common sense would tell you we're not operating at full capacity, do you have reason to believe we are?

Originally Posted by Xei

There is peer reviewed researching clearly demonstrating lucid dreaming is a true phenomenon. Honestly you don't know what the scientific community thinks, you're just making assertions here. There's no research demonstrating things like telekinesis are real.

I know you didn't.

If I could internet choke you, I would. Right now. You want sources? You don't know who I am or what I'm capable of, for you to say something like that just ticked me off.

No scientific communities doing research on the subject, eh? Apparently there is a world of information you don't know about

Code:

parapsych.org/
princeton.edu/~pear/
youtube.com/watch?v=4jgMzcRxxEE
youtube.com/watch?v=ZdEl8OlQlLc&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=FeFuc-qFKoA&feature=related

(I can't hyperlink it because I have to be a member for 7 days, sorry.)

Originally Posted by Xei

You keep saying that but you're not showing it. And I have looked into it (or walked through the door or whatever other metaphor), it's not an issue of wilful ignorance.

You sound like someone who doesn't understand the subconscious mind.

Originally Posted by Xei

Or even a memory of some vague details.

Jokes.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because fire is a physical thing; a chemical phenomenon? Have you ever observed any fires not caused by heat acting on some chemicals? Has anybody ever seen such a fire?

Just because you didn't see it doesn't take away from its possibility.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, telekinesis and the like act on physical objects and are hence subject to scientific enquiry.

And research can only be done on the objects, not telekinesis itself so that means nothing.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why are you saying I'm shooting down everything as false? No I don't. If there is reason for believing something I believe it.

You are. A man can't see his feet if his subconscious believes they aren't there.

Originally Posted by Xei

All scientists have 'open minds'.

Was that a joke? You don't know the world very well.

Originally Posted by Xei

Lucid dreaming is a rather strange idea but it is accepted because there is evidence. I don't believe that psi is real because I've never been shown any evidence that it is real and nobody's ever observed anything that would even allow it to happen.

There is evidence in the PSI field, you fail to see it - and don't assume nobody ever observed it. I've used it firsthand. Now I know you haven't done much research on it, because a little research would show you the reports number in the millions in comparison to lucid dreaming.

You'll understand what "Open Mindedness" means once you achieve it.

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

Your laughing because I said it could be in something that we only know 10% about? Smart, really smart.

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

I have yet to find an unbiased article giving Telekinesis any credibility.

I have yet to read an unbiased article from an open-minded scientists taking credibility from telekinesis, we're even.

Originally Posted by Will1

I have yet to read an unbiased article from an open-minded scientists taking credibility from telekinesis, we're even.

There's no evidence that it doesn't exist so therefore it must! Flying spaghetti monster laughs at you.

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

There's no evidence that it doesn't exist so therefore it must! Flying spaghetti monster laughs at you.

Could you stay out of the conversation? Your boring me, Xei provided much more of an argument.
Your more like troll and less like science.

Your argument hinges on the evidence of "studies" for which you can't provide references, and you think your posts are worthy of a valid argument? Bah.

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

Your argument hinges on the evidence of "studies" for which you can't provide references, and you think your posts are worthy of a valid argument? Bah.

You didn't read my previous posts?

Code:

parapsych.org/
princeton.edu/~pear/
youtube.com/watch?v=4jgMzcRxxEE
youtube.com/watch?v=ZdEl8OlQlLc&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=FeFuc-qFKoA&feature=related

More troll less science, much?