Telekenisis and other 'superhuman' mind abilities

[Silicate Wielder]

Anyone else here believe that we humans posses abilities in our minds that we just have to unlock the door to? And if your not a firm believer, what abilities do you think are most likely to be possible?

[ksdnfkfr]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

[IcaJess]

I dont think any of its possible at all.

[XZoDiaCX]

Well we are using 10 % of our braid and some people used more % that us and they were the people that become a history and invent great things and we see that happen in our days too and we call them the genius kids but the prolbem is that people posses that gift die very young

[Meganium]

Actually, the 10% of our brain thing has been discredited.

However, I do think that it's probable, but it would probably be incredibly lackluster.

[ksdnfkfr]

Actually, the 10% of our brain thing has been discredited.

I had a feeling that was outdated...

a visitor asked recently on the autism forum if we could predict the future..

[AlexOnToast]

Would i be kicked off this thread for saying that the greatest superpower of all it (sniffles) LOVE?

[Gigablue]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

That's been debunked for years. We use all of our brain, not necessarily at the same time, but there aren't any useless parts of brain. The brain uses so much energy, if there were useless parts, there would be huge evolutionary pressure to get rid of them.

Anyone else here believe that we humans posses abilities in our minds that we just have to unlock the door to? And if your not a firm believer, what abilities do you think are most likely to be possible?

I don't know exactly what abilities you mean, but telekinesis is almost certainly impossible. There isn't any plausible mechanism. The brain isn't some mystical thing. It's just a bunch of cells. For any ability, you should be able to demonstrate it reliably, or at least come up with a plausible mechanism.

[RavleIncarnate]

I have a theory to debunk supernatural occurences, I put it on Dark Unicorn's home page as a VM. It could be used for debunking the unknown powers of the mind, couldn't it?

I'm bored.

[LunaLights]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

I'm pretty sure that's just at any one given time xD

[Stronk Serb]

The brain and the nervous system are a bunch of cells performing a certain task(s). The brain cannot do anything except it's ordinary things like thinking and controlling the body. If we used 100% of our brain, I think that the power surge would damage the nervous system or other organ systems. Homo Sapiend isn't designed to fully use it's brain, maybe through evolution we would adapt our nervous system for handling the usage of a larger percentage of our brain.

[Coprocephalus]

Well... There have been several cases of telekinesis and whatnot. One example for all -> Nina Kulagina (http://youtu.be/L61RptUUEqU)

Another thing is "Spoon bending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_bending)" There are many spoon bending videos on youtube. Some of them are tricks but some show small kids bending spoons, forks etc., I am pretty sure there are some documentary movies on spoon bending too.


From what I've read, it seems that "super powers" could be possible to a certain degree. We may not know how it works or why (Like double slit experiment), but it just works.

[Camazotz]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/RANDI.jpg/533px-RANDI.jpg

No, that's just silly. It makes for fun in comic books, but supernatural powers are pure imagination.

[Tarannosaurus]

Anything is possible, not sure about 'superhuman' but our brains definitely have huge potential. I think deja vu and being able to see/sense things that are going to happen is part of this for example (no I'm not a connecting-with-god lunatic) I've often anticipated full conversations with my friends, as in word for word what their answers to me will be, a few days before it happens. I think things like that are possible, maybe through using new parts of your brain or natural instincts or something. You hear a lot of mind things that occur in people with with epilepsy.

[Bleid]

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/RANDI.jpg/533px-RANDI.jpg)

No, that's just silly. It makes for fun in comic books, but supernatural powers are pure imagination.

I find it amusing that you post an image of James Randi, a skeptic, and then go on to say that supernatural powers are pure imagination.

[Human]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

That's a myth and it really annoys me when people say that :p

I don't believe in telekinesis, maybe we could use technology, but not with our minds

[Camazotz]

I find it amusing that you post an image of James Randi, a skeptic, and then go on to say that supernatural powers are pure imagination.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's exactly why I posted a picture of James Randi- he doesn't believe in supernatural powers either.

[ksdnfkfr]

That's a myth and it really annoys me when people say that :p

so many ppl have corrected me on that and i was just joking.
looks like unintentionally trolled heehee

[Bleid]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's exactly why I posted a picture of James Randi- he doesn't believe in supernatural powers either.

James Randi is a skeptic. A skeptic must have evidence for something before they believe it. Supernatural powers not being real has no evidence, and James has said numerous times that he cannot dismiss the claims (as he should say) until evidence has been provided.

Then you went on to say that supernatural powers are pure imagination, which goes entirely against a skeptic's views (James Randi being a skeptic).

[RavleIncarnate]

I thought that if emotional stress and emotions were powerful enough, then it would be transmitted to physical form, in the case of ghosts, sadness and anger kept people from "moving on" to whatever is next, with Ms. Kulagina it was intense anger directed at an egg, and the anger was just powerful enough (she actually started shaking from the intense emotion during one point in the experiment) to trigger a physical response, in this case, separating a whole egg without touch.

[Canadian Dream]

Sure it would be nice, but I just don't think it's possible. There is no science to prove anything like that could be possible.

[RavleIncarnate]

Yes, because nobody has given it enough thought.

[Camazotz]

James Randi is a skeptic. A skeptic must have evidence for something before they believe it.

Therefore, Randi believes that supernatural powers probably don't exist. Psychics like Sylvia Browne probably scam people without actually having powers. You're right, he's not saying that there is definitely not a chance of these things for these things to exist (as am I), but they probably don't exist.

Don't confuse this as him believing in supernatural- quite the opposite. He challenges these people to prove themselves and their "powers", which has never happened.

[Tenoka]

I wouldn't say "superhuman" abilities but if we used the brain near its full potential then I think we could tell emotions from facial expressions more clearly then we can now. As for telekenisis, I highly doubt it. The brain has a lot of jobs to do, but being able to pick up something without the use of physical interaction? Doesn't seem logical.

[Bleid]

Therefore, Randi believes that supernatural powers probably don't exist. Psychics like Sylvia Browne probably scam people without actually having powers. You're right, he's not saying that there is definitely not a chance of these things for these things to exist (as am I), but they probably don't exist.

Don't confuse this as him believing in supernatural- quite the opposite. He challenges these people to prove themselves and their "powers", which has never happened.

While we're speaking about the confused:

It makes for fun in comic books, but supernatural powers are pure imagination.

he's not saying that there is definitely not a chance of these things for these things to exist (as am I), but they probably don't exist.

Nice.

Even if you didn't just contradict yourself - you still cannot justify the claim that supernatural powers probably don't exist. Neither can James.

[abc983055235235231a]

I'll accept it as a possibility if someone can provide even a basic sketch of how such a thing could exist, and be consistent with the laws of physics.

[Camazotz]

Even if you didn't just contradict yourself - you still cannot justify the claim that supernatural powers probably don't exist. Neither can James.

Yes, I can. In order for me to believe physical phenomena, it must be empirically proven and scientifically observable. I do believe in trees because I can see them. I do believe in gravity because we have observed a force of attraction between bodies of mass.

I do not believe in a physical God because we have not observed supernatural forces that cannot be explained by scientifically. I do not believe in telepathy because we have never observed a person that is able to predict someone's choices from cards with symbols in a manner that is statistically significant (meaning they got 100% correct in hundreds of trials using at least five different cards).

Because of a lack of evidence, I am assuming that supernatural phenomena does not exist. I fully accept the possibility of its existence, just as I accept that there is a possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity like God. However, just because this possibility exists does not mean I believe in it. I do not believe that invisible unicorns live on the moon because I have no evidence that they exist. I do not believe in "superhuman mind abilities" because I have no evidence that they exist.

[Cjk_20]

Kind of. A little bit.

[Bleid]

Yes, I can. In order for me to believe physical phenomena, it must be empirically proven and scientifically observable. I do believe in trees because I can see them. I do believe in gravity because we have observed a force of attraction between bodies of mass.

I do not believe in a physical God because we have not observed supernatural forces that cannot be explained by scientifically. I do not believe in telepathy because we have never observed a person that is able to predict someone's choices from cards with symbols in a manner that is statistically significant (meaning they got 100% correct in hundreds of trials using at least five different cards).

Because of a lack of evidence, I am assuming that supernatural phenomena does not exist. I fully accept the possibility of its existence, just as I accept that there is a possibility of the existence of a supernatural deity like God. However, just because this possibility exists does not mean I believe in it. I do not believe that invisible unicorns live on the moon because I have no evidence that they exist. I do not believe in "superhuman mind abilities" because I have no evidence that they exist.

Throughout the whole of what you said here and what you said in posts previous, you have a problem of equivocating between not believing and believing that it is not.

What you said previously was that they were imaginary - meaning they aren't actually existing. This is to believe that it is not.

What you're dancing over to now is that you simply don't believe in them. This is not believing.

There is a clear difference between the two and I'd appreciate it if you would stick to one or the other, and if you'd make it a point to not contradict yourself by saying you simply don't believe when you previously said,

It makes for fun in comic books, but supernatural powers are pure imagination.

And so, you don't have to believe what you don't want to, but you cannot rationally believe that it is not the case.

[The Trendy Wolf]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

My thoughts exactly. Although, what is telekinesis scientifically speaking? Would we send signals in waves from our brains that would lift objects in some way? How could telekinesis be achieved without defying the Laws of Physics?

[abc983055235235231a]

My thoughts exactly. Although, what is telekinesis scientifically speaking? Would we send signals in waves from our brains that would lift objects in some way? How could telekinesis be achieved without defying the Laws of Physics?

....we actually use almost all of our brains almost all of the time. The 10% thing is a gross misunderstanding by ignorant people who didn't know what they were reading about brain plasticity.

[Gwen]

I'd think that if these kind of powers were possible by humans, it would be abused like most things we create or discover are. It's a lot harder to find a murderer if the knife floats in the air and stabs someone. Thieves wouldn't need to put there hands near your stuff it'd just come to them. I can't see these abilities being in a way that would help people.

[The Trendy Wolf]

....we actually use almost all of our brains almost all of the time. The 10% thing is a gross misunderstanding by ignorant people who didn't know what they were reading about brain plasticity.

So you are suggesting that we are ignorant because we can't perform our own neurological studies to prove whether we truly use 10% of our brain or not? I would also appreciate an article of some sort to prove your claim, if you would.

[Camazotz]

Throughout the whole of what you said here and what you said in posts previous, you have a problem of equivocating between not believing and believing that it is not.

What you said previously was that they were imaginary - meaning they aren't actually existing. This is to believe that it is not.

What you're dancing over to now is that you simply don't believe in them. This is not believing.

I'd say both:

1) I do not believe in supernatural abilities
2) Supernatural abilities do not exist

Supernatural abilities may exist, but they still do not.

[sqishy]

Anything is possible. I don't want to see it as if it's real or not, it's not as black-and-white as that. It's ot black-and-white with anything. Having an open mind means exactly that. You don't take things absolutely and forever.
So superpowers do 'exist' and have a use, just that we are looking at the whole thing in the wrong prespective.

We have sent probes beyond the solar system. We have invented fantasy worlds that come alive in our minds, and stories that can change people's lives (including mine). We have created bombs that can kill thousands at once. We are changing an entire planet's surface.
So by the view of science and physics (NOT the only view, don't see it that way ever), we have superpowers. At least relative to us.

But I don't want to get into my whole view of it because tbh I'm falling asleep...
Please no arguing with me >.<

[Bleid]

I'd say both:

1) I do not believe in supernatural abilities
2) Supernatural abilities do not exist

Supernatural abilities may exist, but they still do not.


But then what justification would we have for believing #2?

I have no issue with #1.

Also your part at the end confuses me.

How is it that they don't exist, but they may exist?

Anything is possible. I don't want to see it as if it's real or not, it's not as black-and-white as that. It's ot black-and-white with anything. Having an open mind means exactly that. You don't take things absolutely and forever.
So superpowers do 'exist' and have a use, just that we are looking at the whole thing in the wrong prespective.

Explain your reason to believe this?

"It's not black-and-white with anything."

[abc983055235235231a]

So you are suggesting that we are ignorant because we can't perform our own neurological studies to prove whether we truly use 10% of our brain or not? I would also appreciate an article of some sort to prove your claim, if you would.

Sorry, I meant to suggest that the people who first propagated the "10% of our brains" claim were ignorant.

The first link I'll provide will just be wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

Here's a scientific american article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain/

Peer reviewed journal editorial: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v6/n2/full/nn0203-99.html

I actually looked for a research paper about the myth itself, but it's not really surprising that I didn't find one. For a neuroscientist to address that in such a rigorous manner would be much like a modern physicist writing to prove that the Earth wasn't flat.

[Camazotz]

But then what justification would we have for believing #2?

My justification would be that we have no evidence of supernatural powers, which I acknowledge isn't proof of it not existing, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and assume that since we haven't observed something metaphysical yet, it probably isn't real.

Also your part at the end confuses me.

How is it that they don't exist, but they may exist?

Well, I guess it's impossible to be 100% sure of anything. What we "know" may not be true. Scientific theories are explanations based on empirically observed phenomena, so gravity is "probably" an existing force, but the current theories of gravitation might be incorrect. 2+2 can equal 4 in this universe, but if there are multiple universes where natural phenomena are different, 2+2 might equal 5.

In terms of burden of proof, I think that unless a claim has reasonable evidence to support it, we shouldn't accept it. However, it would be impossible to disprove this kind of claim, so I can't deny there's a possibility of a claim being true. Sorry if I'm being unclear.

[Bleid]

My justification would be that we have no evidence of supernatural powers, which I acknowledge isn't proof of it not existing, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and assume that since we haven't observed something metaphysical yet, it probably isn't real.

That is quite a limb, though. We wouldn't be able to conclude through probabilities on that. It'd be a blind faith leap.

Well, I guess it's impossible to be 100% sure of anything. What we "know" may not be true. Scientific theories are explanations based on empirically observed phenomena, so gravity is "probably" an existing force, but the current theories of gravitation might be incorrect. 2+2 can equal 4 in this universe, but if there are multiple universes where natural phenomena are different, 2+2 might equal 5.

In terms of burden of proof, I think that unless a claim has reasonable evidence to support it, we shouldn't accept it. However, it would be impossible to disprove this kind of claim, so I can't deny there's a possibility of a claim being true. Sorry if I'm being unclear.

Shouldn't accept it, certainly - but we should make sure to be careful not to make an Argument from Ignorance, yes?

[sqishy]

"Anything is possible. I don't want to see it as if it's real or not, it's not as black-and-white as that. It's ot black-and-white with anything. Having an open mind means exactly that. You don't take things absolutely and forever.
So superpowers do 'exist' and have a use, just that we are looking at the whole thing in the wrong prespective."

Explain your reason to believe this?
"It's not black-and-white with anything."

I once tried to look at things in one way and it didn't work out for me, it didn't make sense from all angles. When I meant black-and-white I meant the idea of total truth or total lie, no middle ground, everything is absolute. I don't take that anymore. What I think now (my ideas change btw) is that things are different from different viewpoints. Like relativity.
As in my sig pic, I like philosophy and relativism (and ontology, didn't include that (I think in that way a bit)) at least now. How you see the world changes the world you see.

It's complicated, not even I know what the sum of my 'beliefs' are.

Just search relativism.

[Bleid]

I once tried to look at things in one way and it didn't work out for me, it didn't make sense from all angles. When I meant black-and-white I meant the idea of total truth or total lie, no middle ground, everything is absolute. I don't take that anymore. What I think now (my ideas change btw) is that things are different from different viewpoints. Like relativity.
As in my sig pic, I like philosophy and relativism (and ontology, didn't include that (I think in that way a bit)) at least now. How you see the world changes the world you see.

It's complicated, not even I know what the sum of my 'beliefs' are.

Just search relativism.

Thank you for your response. I'm aware of what relativism is and I always found it to be logically flawed. That's the reason I asked you your reasoning behind believing it.

So I will ask you another question:

Why don't you take that belief anymore (of absolutes) - what was it that made you go against it and choose this relativistic mindset?

[sqishy]

Thank you for your response. I'm aware of what relativism is and I always found it to be logically flawed. That's the reason I asked you your reasoning behind believing it.

So I will ask you another question:

Why don't you take that belief anymore (of absolutes) - what was it that made you go against it and choose this relativistic mindset?

Because when you take absolute beliefs you make a lot of compromises and end up finding exceptions to your rules. I am not talking about science, I mean everything. There is no-size-fits-all.
Yeah relatisivm is logically flawed, but logic is not all that is part of it. Every theory has assumptions and some work and some don't. Logical thinking is one view on things. It is not the view that will uncover all there is. And if it does, it'll only be revealing what goes along with its model.
Dividing by zero. How do you define a cube with only 1-dimensional lines?
There is no equation to define my experiences of 'redness' with the cone cells in my eyes.

I believe in treating things as real when they have a use that achieves 'real' effects. So it's like a big venn diagram, different areas of knowledge work here and there. Pick and mix.

[Bleid]

Because when you take absolute beliefs you make a lot of compromises and end up finding exceptions to your rules.

Those exceptions are incorporated into the rules, though.

We can still say, "It is absolutely the case that some dogs have fur and others do not."

I am not talking about science, I mean everything. There is no-size-fits-all.
Yeah relatisivm is logically flawed, but logic is not all that is part of it. Every theory has assumptions and some work and some don't. Logical thinking is one view on things. It is not the view that will uncover all there is.And if it does, it'll only be revealing what goes along with its model.

And so it is revealing something - these somethings being existent things and hence, are absolute, even within the model.

Dividing by zero. How do you define a cube with only 1-dimensional lines?

This presumes that there are any 1-dimensional cubes in the first place.

And further, just for clarification's sake: dividing by zero is only not permitted because the solution set is not currently known - it doesn't mean that it has no answer, or that it's impossible to find a mathematical answer.

There is no equation to define my experiences of 'redness' with the cone cells in my eyes.

There needs to be?

Equations don't define states of affairs. They define quantities - specifically, equivalences between quantities.

I believe in treating things as real when they have a use that achieves 'real' effects. So it's like a big venn diagram, different areas of knowledge work here and there. Pick and mix.

But this doesn't mean there is no absolute. It gets us to there being an absolute and us having to use many manners of work in order to determine it.

[the_dude69]

Anyone else here believe that we humans posses abilities in our minds that we just have to unlock the door to? And if your not a firm believer, what abilities do you think are most likely to be possible?

DMT is the best power in our possession

[Silicate Wielder]

DMT is the best power in our possession

And what is DMT exactly?

[sqishy]

"Those exceptions are incorporated into the rules, though."
The exceptions in a way define the rules, because they show where the rules end so you can get an idea of where the rules are. They have to, no exceptions without rules and vice-versa, it's just not a good idea to assume the rules take power over the exceptions.

"We can still say, "It is absolutely the case that some dogs have fur and others do not." "
We can yes, to us. As long as you define abolutely, which is a mutable, relative word. Absolutely as in for all of time, or when? This absolute absolute sounds like a permanent non-changing forever, which is unlikely to work or be useful to work with.


"And so it is revealing something - these somethings being existent things and hence, are absolute, even within the model."
The model hase to include itself within it for it to operate, paradoxical from some angles. That is a rare feature to find in models and methods, though, it has something else to offer. Relativism is itself only a model, no more and no less, like everything else. But then that is an absolute statement, but then again all other models take absolutes, so where do we stand? We stand using the models that achieve results and make things easier for us. Not more truthful, easier and more practical.

"This presumes that there are any 1-dimensional cubes in the first place."
You mean lines. But yes, it presumes that. It also presumes what a dimension is, the dimension being spetial. We have to have illusory absolutes to get around the place. What matters is that you don't keep those absolutes as 'absolute' but use them where needed. You accept that they change and are relative in the end.

"And further, just for clarification's sake: dividing by zero is only not permitted because the solution set is not currently known - it doesn't mean that it has no answer, or that it's impossible to find a mathematical answer."
I think mathematicians have already found out the answers. Some point to infinity, others to indeterminancy. You can work with infinities but not between them and real numbers, or between imaginary numbers too. The real numbers are imaginary to the imaginary numbers.

"There needs to be?"
There needs not, as there is nothing to get from such an equation if it were to be useful. But exactly. You mentioned need. We tend to have things for needs, the need being related to the use, how useful something is. And so we get back to why we came up with models in the first place, so we can use them and achieve results.

"Equations don't define states of affairs. They define quantities - specifically, equivalences between quantities."
Mathematically they do yes. Mathematical quantities. The loudness of something in my sense of hearing is a quanitity to me. Another quantity is how long I will live for, and how much anger I will feel in one day. Not a countable quantity, but still a quantity. Countable quantities work better with maths than non-countable ones (assuming they can work with mathematics at all (most of the one we relate to do)), but some can't be equatable to others.These different kinds of quantities have little equivalence, only representations of each other from each's perspective.

"But this doesn't mean there is no absolute. It gets us to there being an absolute and us having to use many manners of work in order to determine it."
There may well be an absolute, but I think such things would have to be independent of the universe in some form. Like light speed in a vacuum, which straddles the boundary between space and time, not one one side more than the other. But then we take that as an absolute, but what is the light wave/particle's viewpoint then? Since we are part of the universe, we cannot as such achieve an untimate absolute perspective, because it would mean that that viewpoint looks the same from everywhere, as it is absolute. So maybe in a self-paradoxical way the only thing absolute is the relative, and change is the only constant.
All I said, is taking absolute assumptions; so is everything else being said from everyone else. I find this viewpoint more useful for me than other things, for now at least. I will use it where it helps.
We can agree to disagree. So in a way we can never disagree, because we are agreeing with it.

[Bleid]

The exceptions in a way define the rules, because they show where the rules end so you can get an idea of where the rules are. They have to, no exceptions without rules and vice-versa, it's just not a good idea to assume the rules take power over the exceptions.

Who said there are any exceptions? And why is that "just not a good idea"?

We can yes, to us. As long as you define abolutely, which is a mutable, relative word. Absolutely as in for all of time, or when? This absolute absolute sounds like a permanent non-changing forever, which is unlikely to work or be useful to work with.

"Absolutely" is not a relative word. It is a word whose use depends on context - not the observer depending on it.

And we've clearly been talking in the context of truth being relative or absolute. That's how the discussion began.

The model hase to include itself within it for it to operate, paradoxical from some angles. That is a rare feature to find in models and methods, though, it has something else to offer. Relativism is itself only a model, no more and no less, like everything else. But then that is an absolute statement, but then again all other models take absolutes, so where do we stand? We stand using the models that achieve results and make things easier for us. Not more truthful, easier and more practical.

Oh, but it doesn't. That's what's called begging the question and it would render the model unsound if it contained itself.

You mean lines. But yes, it presumes that. It also presumes what a dimension is, the dimension being spetial. We have to have illusory absolutes to get around the place. What matters is that you don't keep those absolutes as 'absolute' but use them where needed. You accept that they change and are relative in the end.

Nah, I mean cubes, because the cube is defined by one-dimensional lines. If it's a cube, this implies it take 'z' coordinates into account, which, if we're defining it by lines on a one-dimensional plane, there's an issue.

I think mathematicians have already found out the answers. Some point to infinity, others to indeterminancy. You can work with infinities but not between them and real numbers, or between imaginary numbers too. The real numbers are imaginary to the imaginary numbers.

Mathematicians have not found answers precisely because there is no provable solution. That's what it means to have a solution - to have absolute certainty of the set of answers, which there is not one, yet.

Mathematically they do yes. Mathematical quantities. The loudness of something in my sense of hearing is a quanitity to me. Another quantity is how long I will live for, and how much anger I will feel in one day. Not a countable quantity, but still a quantity. Countable quantities work better with maths than non-countable ones (assuming they can work with mathematics at all (most of the one we relate to do)), but some can't be equatable to others.These different kinds of quantities have little equivalence, only representations of each other from each's perspective.

They aren't represented from the perspectives of the numbers. They're represented from perspective of both at once. When equivalence is stated, by definition, both ends of the equation are equivalent to one another. There's no relativism to be found there, either.

There may well be an absolute, but I think such things would have to be independent of the universe in some form. Like light speed in a vacuum, which straddles the boundary between space and time, not one one side more than the other. But then we take that as an absolute, but what is the light wave/particle's viewpoint then? Since we are part of the universe, we cannot as such achieve an untimate absolute perspective, because it would mean that that viewpoint looks the same from everywhere, as it is absolute. So maybe in a self-paradoxical way the only thing absolute is the relative, and change is the only constant.
All I said, is taking absolute assumptions; so is everything else being said from everyone else. I find this viewpoint more useful for me than other things, for now at least. I will use it where it helps.
We can agree to disagree. So in a way we can never disagree, because we are agreeing with it.

The viewpoint not looking the same from every angle does not mean it is not absolute. Whether I am looking at a door from the inside of a house or the outside of a house does not change whether or not the door is in fact, a door.

Similarly, whether I am looking at x = 3 from the perspective that '3' is equal to 'x' or that 'x' is equal to '3', I'm looking at the same quantity equivalence either way.

Where does the relativistic part come into any of it? I keep seeing you provide absolutes and then just posit that they must be relative for no clear reason as to why.

Can you provide some iron-tight examples of where you think there's certainly a case of relativism being accurate? I wouldn't ask you to do it here, necessarily, but even in IMs would be fine. Since, it might be misconstrued that we're going off topic here, even though establishing relatives vs absolutes is necessary to this discussion. I wouldn't want to get you a warning or any such thing.

[sqishy]

Who said there are any exceptions? And why is that "just not a good idea"? We just assumed it there, or you did first. Rules don't have to have exceptions, but then you don't know where the rules 'begin' or 'end' so it's much less useful.

"Absolutely" is not a relative word. It is a word whose use depends on context - not the observer depending on it.
The context was made by someone who has to have some viewpoint. A context can be misinterpreted. The context depends on the obersver to see it, so the context only really has a point in existing if it has some effect on someone.

And we've clearly been talking in the context of truth being relative or absolute. That's how the discussion began.
Therefore we are getting nowhere. I don't want to argue or critisise you, I simply said in my first post I was just stating my opinon and didn't want word wars.

Oh, but it doesn't. That's what's called begging the question and it would render the model unsound if it contained itself.

I don't see how it's unsound it it's contained within itself. We are not seeing each other's points here.

Nah, I mean cubes, because the cube is defined by one-dimensional lines. If it's a cube, this implies it take 'z' coordinates into account, which, if we're defining it by lines on a one-dimensional plane, there's an issue.

The cube's edges are defined by one-dimensional lines, not the cube itself. You need an infinite number of 1-dimensional-filling lines to produce a 2-dimensional-filling square, and so on for the cube.

Mathematicians have not found answers precisely because there is no provable solution. That's what it means to have a solution - to have absolute certainty of the set of answers, which there is not one, yet.
We would then hope to see these soon. Solutions have absolute certainty when in a certain number set or when they equal to each other (the same type of equality).

They aren't represented from the perspectives of the numbers. They're represented from perspective of both at once. When equivalence is stated, by definition, both ends of the equation are equivalent to one another. There's no relativism to be found there, either.
Not within maths where it doesn't allow any in it. Another model.

The viewpoint not looking the same from every angle does not mean it is not absolute. Whether I am looking at a door from the inside of a house or the outside of a house does not change whether or not the door is in fact, a door.
It's only a door when you use it. Not when you look at it. The door is so because of it's action and doing, not it's 'being'. Otherwise it's something pretending to be a door.

Similarly, whether I am looking at x = 3 from the perspective that '3' is equal to 'x' or that 'x' is equal to '3', I'm looking at the same quantity equivalence either way.
In maths yes, you are. I don't disagree with that.

Where does the relativistic part come into any of it? I keep seeing you provide absolutes and then just posit that they must be relative for no clear reason as to why.
I said many times we have to assume abolutes to get around with simply using and sharing knowledge/information etc. The absolutes change, we accept they are variable but are treated as illusory absolutes. I am trying to say that.

Can you provide some iron-tight examples of where you think there's certainly a case of relativism being accurate?
Special and general relativity. It works everywhere in the classical physical world, a much bigger space of existence than most other theories work in. I could provide more but not being in the strict physical world, there will be 'problems' between us again.

I wouldn't ask you to do it here, necessarily, but even in IMs would be fine. Since, it might be misconstrued that we're going off topic here, even though establishing relatives vs absolutes is necessary to this discussion. I wouldn't want to get you a warning or any such thing.
To be honest this is already off topic and ending this now will be much easier for the both of us. Agree to diasgree.

OK?

I ask quesitons, I get answers, a lot of them don't agree with each other, I ask more questions, I get more answers and things clear up, but they give more questions, and so on. My opinion changes, it is not the same. I'm not saying anything of mine is truly right, because I don't believe in that. But I am giving them a fighting chance, and I am not ready to be arguing where it raises both our blood pressures. Because we are not going to get to a place where we agree. I'm not annoyed in any way, just saying. But soon I will be.

[SecretlyKnown]

I don't think telekenisis is possible at all.

[Rallo]

Simply us looking at a proton can change its state, does that count?

[Synyster Shadows]

I'd love to believe that such abilities were possible, but I don't. Great stuff to dream about, though.

[Promans]

They say we only use 10% of our brain, so i think its possible.

That isn't a fact you should stop listening to "them"

[ksdnfkfr]

That isn't a fact you should stop listening to "them"

thanks for the advice, but i was just joking when i wrote that.

[darthearth]

Once I was thinking about how we all could be one and the same consciousness, just separated into different bodies. I then thought, could I then move someone else's arm? I tried in class once, there was a guy sitting in front of me up a few seats, and I simply tried to move his arm using my mind, like it was my arm. After several seconds of trying he actually lifted up his arm and looked at it as if he felt something weird in it, then he glanced to the side as if he was sensing something behind him trying to do something.

Isn't that interesting, I never tried again.

[thesurvivalist]

Telekinesis and energy manipulation is real. I have only delved into electrokinesis and pyrokinesis, but telekinesis is definitely possible. Like a muscle, the more you work your willpower to concentrate energy the stronger it becomes; however don't be expecting lightning bolts and fireballs, but more shocks and heat.

[Saint of Sinners]

Well, I don't think it's possible. From an evolutionary point of view, since no other living creature has been observed to posses such abilities, and looking at historic evidence about environmental conditions during the evolution of humans, there aren't really any factors that would encourage spontaneous evolution of such abilities. So In my opinion, the existence of these powers are at best highly improbable.

Such a shame, powers would make for awesome fights :)

[Miserabilia]

I don't beleive in anything supernatural.