Strange....(my theory)

[Queen Chrysalis]

I almost feel bad about invading the thread now. Almost.

Two valid points are better than one.

[waffles]

You said the condition for moving the pen could not be more ideal. You were trying to move far too much mass. Using the evolutionary argument, we may not have evolved very strong telepathy yet. It is foolish and unscientific to start with such a large object, no matter how easily a physical body can move it.

To move the pen requires only a small breath. Nevertheless, I will redo my experiment, for both host and tulpa.

 

A test to determine whether or not tulpas can interact with the outside world:

 

Hypothesis: The crumb may move [i'm trying to avoid frontloading here].

Method: I asked the tulpa to try moving a crumb of bread. I then tried myself to move the crumb.

Result: The crumb did not move either way.

Conclusion: Given that my tulpa is well developed and the crumb did not even weigh enough for me to feel its presence on my finger when I placed it there, there couldn't have reasonably been a much better set of circumstances for this phenomenon to be shown. However, the tulpa was observed to be unable to interact with the pen at all. Likewise I, though unpracticed in telekinesis, was not able to move it. Therefore I conclude that I have basis to believe that tulpas cannot interact with the outside world, and I am not telekinetic, even if it is not thoroughly proven.

 

There. Less mass.

 

I do, and your point is very valid, and you have failed to see just how true it is. You have outlined quite clearly why complex mental abilities are a hazard to a budding species left in a natural environment to contend with nature and ultimately evolution.

 

You have outlined, quite clearly, exactly why complex mental and psychic abilities could never evolve in the wild, only in a stable artificial environment. An environment, I might add, that has only existed for a few decades. Life has not been easy for your species in the past. This generation is the most severely distanced from nature that has ever existed.

 

This is the time and opportunity for your psychic awakening.

This is a crime against evolutionary theory.

Humans are no longer evolving. Given that there is no obstacle to reproduction except unattractiveness, there is no mutation that would evolve to be prevalent. The population by now is too large for a beneficial mutation to ever become prevalent, even if there were such a thing.

 

A stable environment discourages all evolution. As I said above, when there is no longer any real threat to reproduction, there won't be beneficial evolution. Remember too that success in life - such as may be propagated by telepathy/telekinesis - does not really influence production of children and thus does not factor in to evolution.

 

Evolution also cannot take place over decades. That's just so basic it undermines my confidence in your understanding of evolutionary theory. You should know that in the time that humans have had a stable environment no proper evolution could have taken place at all, even if it were happening.

 

Besides this, telepathy or telekinesis is only beneficial to survival. Tulpas may not be, but complex ability such as these would still evolve were it possible.

 

I am not. They have not been subject to such a thing. That they have not yet had this opportunity is no accident.

It is an accident. That they have only been around in a significant way for about a year, and even then are very obscure, goes to a lack of study. The whole horror culture that grew up around the concept means that even now no respectable scientist would touch it with a ten-foot pole. It is not because it can't be reciprocated in a controlled environment, but because there is no access to such an environment.

 

I am not. But it is the most likely site about this subject on the whole internet to be taken seriously by a real scientist.

Imagine you are a respectable psychologist. You come here and see someone named 'Queen Chrysalis' with a cartoon pony avatar posting basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory with a side-dish of pretense. This place isn't respectable.

 

It absolutely does.

I gave a justification of why it doesn't, and why it doesn't matter anyway. Address that.

 

Also, may I just point out that the evolution of the brain's a bit specialised. Because it works using neurons given a loose framework in which to interconnect, the brain's evolution works merely by refining the framework and number/complexity/efficiency of the neurons. This means that any latent psychic abilities comes free with the brain as much as memories do, they only need the framework and evolution can be free simply ignore them. So in theory, yes psychic abilities could've developed in the wild, but never fully realised until civilisation gave it purpose, just like our ability for mathematical comprehension.

No, that's wrong. Regardless of underlying structure, the function of memory evolved deliberately because it was beneficial. I have already stated that telepathy would not be a side product of a beneficial function, and you have yet to address this. If telepathy were possible, then it would have had to itself evolve. Given that without ability to perform telepathy, it would not be useful, telepathy would not have evolved.

Because we are ignoring the whole biology and physics side of things and assuming that there is a possible mechanism for telepathy, yes, in theory it could have evolved in the wild. But it would not have evolved accidentally, and even if it had, its use would have been learned some time ago, being so beneficial.

[Guest Dreagar]

I'm pretty sure that we were talking about telekinesis. That's what the experiment earlier was focused on, and no-one took issue with it.

 

OP was talking about telepathy, stay on track, people.

 

Case studies: there are two, and only two

 

On Wikipedia, since you want, I'll try linking a few more. They're all good fun. Just remember, I don't strictly agree with everything cited.

 

Noetic science's stuff~

About.com shenanigans

This dude

 

Flat Earth Society exists too.

 

You're right, it does. However unlike the FES, telepathy has only been seriously studied for ~100 years, whilst planet Dirt the Earth's been proven loosely spherical for far longer. There's far more evidence against a flat Earth than there ever was on telepathy.

 

Crackpot.

 

I love you~

I would go to get tested, but I'll tell you now my ability's rudimentary at best, as stated in the forum link, I can hardly do it at close range, and people ages away are next to impossible to communicate with. It's fun rustling "clairvoyant" jimmies.

 

Evolution stuff~

 

See my earlier post, I'll hyperlink it when I can

 

sources can be unreliable.

 

That's what cross-referencing is for~ =D

[Sands]

~

~

~

~

 

Please stop. :<

[Guest Dreagar]

I'm aware that things don't just come into existence, but the point is that even basic communication is beneficial. If it were possible then it would be used. Telepathy, not being a side effect of any other mental process such as would explain its existence, would probably have had to evolve for it to be possible now. It doesn't make sense for humans to have ability now, because for it to evolve, any basic ability would be used, and thus we would be able to use our ability naturally. Let's look at another example.

The ability to hear is not ultimately necessary for survival - deaf people live, and could live in the wild - and yet it is extremely beneficial. Obviously, the basic organisms that humans evolved from could not hear, and our ears must have evolved. A rudimentary ear is useful, and thus more complex ears that hear better evolved from them. At no point did the organism have to learn how to hear.

The same would be true for telepathy. It would not have become possible, and yet need to be learned such as practically no-one can do it.

 

I think I've figured out the problem, I'm arguing telepathy from a knowledge of a sixth sense, whilst you're arguing the sixth sense itself. Which, by all means could've evolved very much through natural selection, much like our comprehension of abstract ideas.

 

However, modern mathematics is a utilisation of that, a very much quantifiable, non-evolved ability, which piggybacks that comprehension. In the same way, our "sixth sense" would've evolved at a basic level, but without great investigation, an individual would never realise its full potential.

 

And you're right, it would be supremely beneficial in nature. Well, that is, if you mastered it. You'd have to go through the comparatively useless maths before you can build a primitive catapult. Why do that when you can be having sex or hunting? Those are far more useful in the short term. Maybe given a few more thousand years we would've developed more on it, but alas. Cavemen sex.

 

Humans are no longer evolving.

 

What are you smoking? We very much still are! Just not in the usual natural selection sense, it's survival of the smartest (it's a pun, I know it's survival of the fittest in the sense that one must be fitted to their environment). That and our gene pool is far larger, and our reproduction capability has skyrocketed!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

 

---

 

Please stop. :<

 

~

 

Seriously though, that first time I did use it correctly. It's a staple of my ?lexis? that I use to indicate sarcasm, whimsicality and lingering thoughts. I love the tilde~

 

Now back to the correct thread railings!

[Sands]

It makes my penis shrink, please stop, it hurts.

[waffles]

 

On Wikipedia, since you want, I'll try linking a few more. They're all good fun. Just remember, I don't strictly agree with everything cited.

 

Noetic science's stuff~

About.com shenanigans

This dude

Controlled environment? I think not.

 

You're right, it does. However unlike the FES, telepathy has only been seriously studied for ~100 years, whilst planet Dirt the Earth's been proven loosely spherical for far longer. There's far more evidence against a flat Earth than there ever was on telepathy.

Oh boy, Yahoo answers.

You're proving my point. Given that there is so much evidence for a spherical Earth, and yet the FES is still going strong, what does that tell us about the inherent validity of institutions?

 

I would go to get tested, but I'll tell you now my ability's rudimentary at best, as stated in the forum link, I can hardly do it at close range, and people ages away are next to impossible to communicate with. It's fun rustling "clairvoyant" jimmies.

Rudimentary is testable. If you can 'hardly' do it then you can still do it.

 

See my earlier post, I'll hyperlink it when I can

This is not an answer.

 

That's what cross-referencing is for~ =D

Using that kind of syntax discredits you. Anyway, Wikipedia sources aren't necessarily cross-referenced.

 

 

I think I've figured out the problem, I'm arguing telepathy from a knowledge of a sixth sense, whilst you're arguing the sixth sense itself. Which, by all means could've evolved very much through natural selection, much like our comprehension of abstract ideas.

Nope. There's no reason to even differentiate between the two. There's also no evolutionary reason for an unusable sixth sense to evolve, while abstract comprehension is very much beneficial.

 

However, modern mathematics is a utilisation of that, a very much quantifiable, non-evolved ability, which piggybacks that comprehension. In the same way, our "sixth sense" would've evolved at a basic level, but without great investigation, an individual would never realise its full potential.

No. Mathematics springs from abstract, complex reasoning. While mathematics itself was never really useful at an evolutionary level - which explains why we're so needlessly bad at it - reasoning is. When you can reason that a sharp thing kills better, and that the blunt stone can turn into a sharp thing, then you've got yourself an advantage.

The point here is that ability of mathematics did evolve as a side effect of complex reasoning, which was both useful and used. Your sixth sense not attached to any other evolutionary benefit which might make it prevalent without its own use.

 

And you're right, it would be supremely beneficial in nature. Well, that is, if you mastered it. You'd have to go through the comparatively useless maths before you can build a primitive catapult. Why do that when you can be having sex or hunting? Those are far more useful in the short term. Maybe given a few more thousand years we would've developed more on it, but alas. Cavemen sex.

Again, the comparison to maths doesn't hold because complex reasoning - the progenitor of maths - was always useful and always usable. Besides which, maths now, being useful, is very much prevalent, as one might expect your sixth sense to be.

 

What are you smoking? We very much still are! Just not in the usual natural selection sense, it's survival of the smartest (it's a pun, I know it's survival of the fittest in the sense that one must be fitted to their environment). That and our gene pool is far larger, and our reproduction capability has skyrocketed!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

You're wrong again. As I said before, there is no 'survival of the smartest' because stupid people reproduce. Success in life no longer means the number of children you have.

While humans are still mutating, it's not happening in a way towards survival. Even if it was three thousand years ago it isn't now.

[Guest Dreagar]

Controlled environment? I think not.

 

And now we go full circle;

Telekinesis may not be proven but multiple experiments and studies lend credence to telepathy

I never said it was proven in a controlled environment, merely given credence by preliminary research.

 

Oh boy, Yahoo answers.

 

The idea was for you to read that, and research all the separate points, as the post nicely sums up ancient evidence.

 

You're proving my point. Given that there is so much evidence for a spherical Earth, and yet the FES is still going strong, what does that tell us about the inherent validity of institutions?

 

>still going strong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Peak_and_decline

http://noetic.org/about/faqs/general/#5

 

Numbers may not be the best indicator, but normally better institutes are larger.

 

Rudimentary is testable. If you can 'hardly' do it then you can still do it.

 

If you had one shot to prove something to someone, and you needed to prove it, would you give them the best you could? Or just any old piece of evidence? If I got with my suckish 75% accuracy for basic shapes, I'll just discredit everything others have worked towards. No thanks.

 

Using that kind of syntax discredits you.

 

If people wish to judge my contributions, which use an extended variation of standard English of which I use almost perfectly, then it's their loss. As stated in my sig, I don't give a f---. I don't. This is my form of entertainment; it's far more engaging then shooting NPCs on a COD clone.

 

Wikipedia sources aren't necessarily cross-referenced.

 

I apologise for not making it clearer, but I was expecting you to be the one who cross-references the information. I could do it for you, but it's better if one learns on their own, sometimes.

 

---

 

I'll argue the rest later, but for now I need to play Guns of Icarus with my friends because apparently it's "More important than that". I died laughing.

It was good debating with you, sir Waffles.

[waffles]

 

And now we go full circle;

I never said it was proven in a controlled environment, merely given credence by preliminary research.

It's not given credence because the studies aren't controlled. That's the point. If the preliminary study with the two pole explorers was done nearly 80 years ago, don't you think that's plenty of time to produce proper results?

 

The idea was for you to read that, and research all the separate points, as the post nicely sums up ancient evidence.

It's not really relevant. The point is that despite all the evidence the FES still exists.

 

>still going strong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Peak_and_decline

http://noetic.org/about/faqs/general/#5

 

Numbers may not be the best indicator, but normally better institutes are larger.

Well, that's not really true. Numbers can be down to other things than popularity, including selectivity. Nevertheless, you're right in saying that IONS is bigger because it is more credible. That still doesn't mean that any of its members are credible themselves, though. 16,000 is a small amount of people.

This forum has 1700 registered users. At any point there are twice as many guests browsing as registered users, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that the total user base is roughly three times that of registered members, or about 5200. That's already getting close to half that of the IONS, and we are growing far faster than they are. In what may only be a few months these numbers may work out to the IONS's 12000. We remain still very incredible as a source.

 

If you had one shot to prove something to someone, and you needed to prove it, would you give them the best you could? Or just any old piece of evidence? If I got with my suckish 75% accuracy for basic shapes, I'll just discredit everything others have worked towards. No thanks.

I don't think there's much to discredit. If there's any value beyond the standard margin of error then you can show it in a lab, and anything beyond that is an excuse.

 

If people wish to judge my contributions, which use an extended variation of standard English of which I use almost perfectly, then it's their loss. As stated in my sig, I don't give a f---. I don't. This is my form of entertainment; it's far more engaging then shooting NPCs on a COD clone.

No, you use your own version of English. It does discredit you, as does relying on a ridiculous point such as this. "I don't care" doesn't stand up in court, doesn't stand up under peer review, doesn't stand up here.

 

I apologise for not making it clearer, but I was expecting you to be the one who cross-references the information. I could do it for you, but it's better if one learns on their own, sometimes.

Given that we were arguing about the validity of Wikipedia due to sources, it doesn't have anything to do with me cross-referencing. It's about Wikipedia doing it, and Wikipedia can cross-reference a load of unreliable sources. Sources aren't unreliable when not cross-referenced, they're unreliable for a plethora of other reasons.

 

It was good debating with you, sir Waffles.

Why do people capitalise my name? Do you see a capital W in there? I think not.

[Guest Dreagar]

Why do people capitalise my name? Do you see a capital W in there? I think not.

 

Force of habit, but since it ruffles your jimmies...