Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk Page Archive

I created a new subpage and it is now Archive 1 with a link at above right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new page (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/archive2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the talk pages prior to November 22, 2006 to the beginning (15 June 2003) were also using the refactoring method of talk page management. Archive 1 therefore is not a complete record of all discussions. To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. Thank you. 5Q5 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. 5Q5 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism problems

Italian PK-cloud claimant

There is a user named Martino 8 who has repeatedly inserted his material, including his email address into the article at various places. Even after I offered a solution and placed a formal link to his website in the External Links section, he still did his improper insertions in caps "The Portraits is taken for the PSYCHOKINESIS CREATION IN THE CLOUDS ,IN THE VARNISH on the cardboard...etc." (I assume portraits = pictures/photos, varnish = paint.) He previously did this using the IP (see Nov 9, 2006 in article history). He has also done this inserting in the articles of James Randi and Larry King.

So I'm removing the link I gave him. Basically, his claim is not a new one: take photographs of clouds and match them with human-made pictures or artwork and call it psychokinesis. Others claim to be able to make clouds appear and disappear. I believe in PK, but I just don't see his claims as being reasonable. Here's why: Anyone who can control the movement of zillions of atoms in the molecules that make up the water vapor in a floating, constantly moving cloud of immense size from miles away surely could place a single drop of water on one side of a line on a flat tabletop and move the drop a fraction of an inch to demonstrate his PK ability.

One of the problems here is that the gentleman's primary language is Italian, not English, so while he may be able to speak English, he has clearly demonstrated he is not proficient in writing it. So sending him Wiki warnings about vandalism and styling will do no good. We may need someone who can communicate with him in Italian. Until then, the only option is to keep reverting. 5Q5 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs etc

I definitely did a lot of editing of this page. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes. One of the things I did was to put the refs at the end of paragraphs or sentences. It was nearly impossible to edit the way it was, especially due to the use of the templates. Martinphi 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was properly formated with references citing sources for the individual items in the article according to the Wiki Style of Manual. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources. As further proof, see the Reference section for the Wiki article Astronomy, which is cited in a manner exactly like this article. Experienced editors like myself have no problem editing this page's code. I had to revert the page to an earlier version (13 December 2006) because your major edits destroyed the accuracy of the references in the article. I am the person who went to the trouble of doing the massive amount of citing sources for this article. I physically went to libraries and bookstores with notepad and pen and did the research and got the information to do the references. Close to 95% of what's in this article I wrote. It would be nice if others contributed new material instead of tweaks and deletions. 5Q5 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your other edits

It is proper to include an excerpt when linking to a main article. Otherwise, the link would just go in the See Also section. I restored the Cultural Ref excerpts, but removed the ones for The Man Who Could Work Miracles and Charmed. The others are major examples of Oscar-winning and -nominated films.

The Quotations section, which is also largely my writing, could I suppose fit better in the new List of Cultural Refs article (also my creation), so I'll move it there.

The List of skeptics prize money (also mine), I suppose could also be deleted from the article, but I intend to place it here, in case anyone wants to discuss the issue further. 5Q5 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Shortly after I added some of these prizes to a similar list at the JREF article, another editor created this new article: List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal. 5Q5 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Prize money offered for scientific proof of PK / TK

Yes, I see you're technically right about where to place the citations, it is just hard to edit (experience has nothing to do with it). But you didn't always do it right, for instance the "Belief in telekinesis" section, the citation should come after the paragraph, or at least after the punctuation.
I think anyone who wants that much detail in that section should also go the article. It's just too much, and I feel my edit is better.
The origin section belongs as part of the intro.
The "Notable claimants of psychokinesis or telekinesis" shouldn't have separate headings.
It is proper to include an excerpt when linking to a main article. I'll take your work on this (:

If you have no objection, I'll later restore the edits I've listed here, that is, abbreviation of the belief in telekinesis, the separate headings of claimants, and we really need to merge the intro with the origin section.

I was actually very impressed with this article, especially with the sources. I/we could use your help on the parapsychology page. The tone of it does seem a little technical or choppy though. I think an encyclopedia should be formal, but also flowing. Martinphi 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I went back to your 17 Dec version and I've incorporated many of the edits you mention above. I renamed "Origin'" as "Terminology" and moved the line about variations of the words to there. The dictionary definition should stay in I feel. You have to be aware that a lot of what is in the article is the result of compromises between the very pro-paranormal and very hard-line skeptical communities. The skeptics are the ones who have insisted on references for practically everything. The article seems mostly a collection of facts right now because it is awaiting a brave individual who wants to risk wasting their time writing history, current research, hypotheses/theories sections, only to see them ripped apart by debunkers. This type of article is also heavily prone to pranksters. 5Q5 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm in the process of writing a section which will be hard to debunk, mostly about the Ganzfeld experiments, and how they have been repeated, in accordance with the agreement on procedures between Honorton and Hyman. Following Radin's lead in Conscious Universe. The problem won't be the evidence, and it won't be the debunkers, because I think it can be made debunk-proof. This is because it will be in tandem with the criticism and response section of the parapsychology article, which I intend to make an article in itself. The problem I'm having, is that I don't know how to focus it so that it will cover this article, Ganzfeld article Scientific investigation of telepathy and maybe a few others. I want to be able to have a waterproof article (I mean, where you can say, "sorry, already covered in section...") which can stand as the 1) parapsychological viewpoint 2) the skeptical viewpoint and 3) the response to the skeptical viewpoint from the parapsychologists. Everything with references. Any suggestions? Martinphi 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're on your own, good luck. What do the Ganzfeld experiments have to do with PK research? Are you sure you meant to post your comment here? I do dispute this revised line of yours from the main PK article as being outdated: "is the paranormal ability of the mind to influence matter without the use of any currently known type of physical energy." The reason why I said my earlier line needed tweaking is that "matter" doesn't cover things like photons, which are massless particles, or magnetism, radio waves, etc. I think the glossary cited is quite old. If I recall correctly, isn't there is also controversy about the random number generator experiments being offered as proof of PK because some researchers argue the results could be precognition instead? Has that been settled? Some researchers might also object to PK/TK being referred to as a "paranormal" ability. And many are beginning to believe that quantum physics can explain PK/TK. Electrons teleported to or away from an object's surface suddenly could cause attraction or repulsion and that's certainly a known type of physical energy. It's the means by which that effect would happen that is currently unknown. I can't offer any suggestions as to a tweak of the line. Wiki can be a frustrating hobby, as I'm sure you already know. 5Q5 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I did mean to put it here, just looking for suggestions. Yes, I've heard some say that they pick the RNG results by precog. Whatever. I just edited more for style here, and thought that the PA is a better source that the dictionary.
Don't you think that if one says "matter," one can be taken to mean any form of energy, since they are basically the same? You're saying that you can't call a particle "matter" if it is massless? Well, I don't know the strict definition of matter. I mean, is the difference between matter and energy defined as mass? Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared..... Isn't it "influencing matter" even just to influence the "chance" quantum outcomes? Martinphi 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at Matter where this quote can be found: "Things which are not matter include light (photons) and the other gauge bosons." If someone can deflect a laser beam using their mind, what psi power would that be called if not PK/TK? Maybe you could just say "is the ability of the mind to influence the physical world outside of the body." 5Q5 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, I have no idea. We could say something like that PK effects matter and energy, and defend it, if necessary, by saying that matter is energy. But that would be just screwing with definitions to make what we want to say stick in the article. I don't know of any source which would tell us precisely that we can say PK effects energy. But, "there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter," the article says, and it almost looks like we could say that massless particles are matter. Well, don't you think matter is sufficient? Anyone can read it to include "energy" if they want. BTW, do you know of any reason to believe that PK can effect massless particles/waves? Martinphi 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The article isn't only to define real world PK, it also applies to the world of literature, film, etc.; i.e., science fiction. Magneto in the X-Men uses PK to control magnetism, and so on. This back and forth is becoming lengthy like a discussion forum, so why not just leave it as you have it and see if any other editors eventually suggest something different. 5Q5 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, or just add "energy," and see if anyone calls for a source. Martinphi 07:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

PK/TK Definitions - new discussion

As a suggestion, why not simply use the words themselves to come up with definitions. First, PK and TK would be slightly different. In both cases however we're talking about kinetic energy (kinesis), there should already be an article on kinetic energy. Now for the tele and psycho parts. Psychokinesis means that it is thought creating kinetic energy, telekinises means that is the displacement of kinetic energy. For example, Magnito uses his brain, mind or thoughts to create kinetic energy in the form of magnitism, this could be defined as PK because he created the K (kinetic energy) with his mind and TK because he teled (displaced) the K onto whatever object or into whatever position he needed to serve whatever his purposes. This kind of definition is more or less waterprof because if this doesn't fit certian uses of the terms, than they were simply used incorectly. ECH (not logged in) 0:55 UTC Febuary 5 2007

I moved this to a new section (it began under "Refs etc."). If I understand you correctly, you are saying that PK would be energy created by the mind that is capable of causing movement in an object, and then TK is moving that energy to the object, which then moves or reacts. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but I don't think we really know yet for certain if the energy actually travels through physical space. It could but then it could also be instantaneously teleported from the mind or a cosmic consciousness (whatever) to inside the atomic structure of the object, and then it moves or deforms accordingly. Atoms are over 99.99999...% empty space. A hypothetical "psychokinesis particle" or cloud of PK particles could fill that empty space and produce the effect observed. I'm not saying that's what I personally believe; it's just one hypothesis. We also have the problem of explaining spontaneous effects, which do not involve a conscious thought process. The article is heavily referenced now (by me :D) and changes like you suggest would have to be cited and probably cause a dispute. I will, however, say your idea is not something I came across during my reference researching. Interesting concept, but I'm not sure how one would be able to detect available energy as such until something moved. To me, PK as the umbrella, or mother, term works and TK is under that along with the others. 5Q5 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Terminolgy section - discussion

First, let me say that I researched, wrote, and referenced the material below, so I am not editing someone else's work. I intended it to be placed in a separate section, not in the above-the-contents Introduction. This particular article requires a Terminology section by virtue of the fact that it deals with two separate terms that are very prominent. Many other articles have Terminology sections. I did some research and here is just a sampling: Heat transfer, Natural environment, Education, Congenital disorder, Deafness, Detergent, Dog, Hospital, Satire, Illegal immigration, Washroom, World music, Textile, Trademark, etc. Many of these examples have very brief article Introductions. Some have just one sentence. So, that's why I may restore this section if moved elswhere. Also, I reduced "Grammatical forms" to a subheading and included it here (I authored that section, too). 5Q5 15:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


"Telekinesis" was coined in 1890[1] by British psychical researcher Frederic William Henry Myers[2] (1843-1901).

"Psychokinesis" was coined in 1914[3] by American author-publisher Henry Holt in his book On the Cosmic Relations[4] and adopted by his friend, American parapsychologist J. B. Rhine.[5]

Both terms have been described by other names, such as "remote influencing", "distant influencing", "remote mental influence", "distant mental influence", and "directed conscious intention".

Grammatical forms

Psychokinesis: psychokinetic (adjective or noun, a person), psychokinetically (adverb), psychokineticist (noun; rare), PK, PKer.

Telekinesis: telekinetic (adjective or noun, a person), telekinetically (adverb), telekineticist (noun; rare), TK, TKer.

Wiki Bot visit

A Wiki robot visited the page (see below) and is claiming that the ISBN number for the James Randi book Flim Flam! is incorrect.

00:13, 20 December 2006 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (ISBN formatting/gen fixes using AWB)

As I write this, it reads in Further Reading section: Flim Flam!, James Randi, Prometheus Books, 1982, ISBN 0-89775-198-3 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.. If someone looks into this, please leave a note here. 5Q5 15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RESOLVED. I see the correct ISBN was placed by editor Dpbsmith on 20 December 2006. 5Q5 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Refs, enough already

I removed some of the more obscure and IMHO overelaborated *cough*fanboyish*cough* items from the Cultural References to PK list, as it ALREADY HAS ITS OWN PAGE. I think this page only needs a couple of the most well known and culturally relevant examples. Noclevername 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your reasoning, so I abbreviated the list again to the three Oscar-winning or -nominated movies. This page had little material on it for awhile (until I came along :)), so that's why it might have appeared to have been filled with too much fluff stuff. 5Q5 18:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea; I did omit the Oscar nods, though, as they had nothing to do with Psychokinesis. -- Noclevername 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section about Charmed is seriously horrible but I can't figure out how to remove/edit it.

Unsourced paragraph

Because of the literal definition differences between psychokinesis ("mind-movement") and telekinesis ("distant-movement"), many researchers and fiction writers now accept that the two terms can be used to refer to different observed effects; for example, psychokinesis (the more general term) can refer to object movement, metal bending, biological healing, shape-shifting, transmutation of matter, teleportation, phasing through matter, control of photons (which are not matter), control of magnetism, etc., over a greater distance and even through a physical barrier, while telekinesis describes simply the movement of objects of any size, self levitation (including flying), and such effects as spontaneous telekinesis, in which the mind does play a consciously active role, though the subconscious may be involved.

Weasel terms like "many researchers and fiction writers now accept" raise a red flag with me. I'd like to see sources for the material in this paragraph. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I knew I might have trouble with this new Terminolgy material I wrote, and so I (later) added the fiction writers part because of all the super-PK abilities like shape-shifting, walking through walls, etc. Those things obviously are not being claimed by real-life (sane) humans. I don't see where it says a PK page on Wiki must refer only to PK in the real world. Novelists and other fiction writers might come to Wiki to research PK for fictional characters. This article does have a Psuedoscience category tag at the bottom. If you will kindly remove that (I tried once), we can restrict the article only to the real world. Might take a while to reference the above paragraph. I don't own every Psi book or sci-fi writer's magazine article or how-to book. Have you seen all the other real world science articles on Wiki that are unsourced? :) 5Q5 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, update, I went to a large bookstore over the weekend and found some published book sources for the above paragraph I authored. As I get the time, I'll work on this again with a revised opening. Dealing with all the copying and pasting and filling out of referencing templates takes time. 5Q5 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New section added - "Types of abilitities - classification

I rewrote the above "unsouced paragraph" (in green) into a new section and posted it today. It represents about two weeks of visiting libraries, book stores, pages of notes, and putting together about three feet of new source code. Please take care in disturbing the code (thanks!). I know the article has a lot of references now, but I checked the Wiki style manual and there is no limit; in fact, references are good, especially for material that might be challenged, and PK is definitely one of those types of articles. It's an excellent place to do research now. I would like to ask editors to monitor and remove abilities if people start adding all of the specific comic book superhero powers that end with a "kinesis" and such. That issue has already been addressed in the article last year (and they were removed). A debate of those "kinesis" powers can be found on the Discussion page of the List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis (an article I created). I feel that the list of abilities now is sufficiently representative of PK and TK. Sure, there could be more, maybe, if referenced. I could find no mention of pyrokinesis in any of the books I looked at, not even the comic book encyclopedias. This new section I think will be my last for awhile. I can't think of any new sections to write about and I need a break! 5Q5 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

"Spontaneous psychokinesis and telekinesis are also believed possible and have been reported."

Believed possible by whom? Reported where? Apocryphite 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The next line referring to the coining of recurrent spontaneous PK provides a cited source. But, okay, if the list of References isn't already long enough :), I'll go and get another reference for the particular line above. 5Q5 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. Springfield, Massachusetts, USA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2003. ISBN 0-87779-809-5. 
    • ^ Berger, Arthur S. (1991). The Encyclopedia of Parapsychological and Psychical Research. New York: Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-043-9.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • ^ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. Springfield, Massachusetts, USA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. 2003. ISBN 0-87779-809-5. 
    • ^ "Parapsychology Foundation "Basic terms in Parapsychology"" (Holt's books are available today as facimile reprints at online booksellers. On the Cosmic Relations can be read in pdf format on Retrieved December 22, 2006. 
    • ^ "Parapsychological Association - Glossary". Retrieved July 19, 2006.