<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with telekinesis</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/telekinesis</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'telekinesis' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:18:51 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:18:51 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>Why can&apos;t I move shit with my mind?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/87333/Why%2Dcant%2DI%2Dmove%2Dshit%2Dwith%2Dmy%2Dmind</link>	
	<description>On what grounds does one draw the line between quantum physics/mechanics and pseudoscientific claims about the powers of consciousness? I&apos;m naturally skeptical of claims like the following that purport to be supported by quantum physics/mechanics:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
- Telekinesis.&lt;br&gt;
- Telepathy.&lt;br&gt;
- Healing yourself with your mind, etc.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I don&apos;t know enough about quantum physics to understand where the reasoning goes south, though.  When I read skeptical articles, they usually dismiss the claims by saying &quot;they misunderstand the science,&quot; but they don&apos;t go into detail.  That&apos;s what I&apos;m looking for.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
If it&apos;s helpful, these sort of things tend to take the idea that your consciousness acts on everything it observes and extrapolates from there.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Does it have something to do with the idea of a &quot;conscious observer&quot; not necessarily meaning &quot;a human being with a conscious,&quot; depending on your interpretation of quantum mechanics?  Is it conflating superposition with observer effect?  Something else?  &lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Are these claims actually possible in some &quot;legitimate&quot; interpretations but we&apos;re doubtful those interpretations are true?  Or are all the claims based on misunderstanding?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I feel like I have a very vague grasp of these concepts, and whenever I try to pinpoint the flaw in reasoning my mind can&apos;t process it.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2008:site.87333</guid>
	<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:18:51 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>metaphysics</category>
	<category>pseudoscience</category>
	<category>quantummechanics</category>
	<category>quantumphysics</category>
	<category>telekinesis</category>
	<category>telepathy</category>
	<dc:creator>Nattie</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Is there objective proof of psychic phenomenon or what??</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/54855/Is%2Dthere%2Dobjective%2Dproof%2Dof%2Dpsychic%2Dphenomenon%2Dor%2Dwhat</link>	
	<description>Is there any scientific evidence to support the existence of psychic phenomenon? I&apos;ve been reading Daniel Pinchbecks 2012 and early on in the book he makes the claim that it&apos;s a fairly done deal as regards the reality of various psychic phenomenon, linking it in the same sort of way to quantum physics that the movie What The Bleep did.  What&apos;s the deal?  Is there really a large group of scientists who 1) say that these things happen and 2) are not complete nut jobs?  Are we really on the verge of accepting that we don&apos;t live in a stricly mechanical world?  That consciousness might actually be able to affect its surroundings?  That consciousness might actually be at the center of everything?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Daniel Pinchbeck is a lucid, enaging writer (his Breaking Open The Head is one of my favorites) so when he says that the scientific proof is out there yet doesn&apos;t cite any it gives me some problems as a reader trying to take his work seriously.  In fact, a lot of my favorite authors make similiar claims.  What&apos;s the deal?</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2007:site.54855</guid>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:38:15 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>2012</category>
	<category>batshitinsane?</category>
	<category>Nuts</category>
	<category>Occult</category>
	<category>Pinchbeck</category>
	<category>Prophecy</category>
	<category>Psi</category>
	<category>Psychic</category>
	<category>Shamanism</category>
	<category>Synchronicity</category>
	<category>Telekinesis</category>
	<category>Telepathy</category>
	<dc:creator>my homunculus is drowning</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>she taught him things he already knew</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/41964/she%2Dtaught%2Dhim%2Dthings%2Dhe%2Dalready%2Dknew</link>	
	<description>Lost Book: Juvenile sci-fi. A girl from an advanced society befriends a boy on a primitive planet, and gives him a magic rock that makes him telekinetic. The twist is that he (and all other humans) are already telekinetic, but not advanced enough to know how to bring it out in themselves. I think that the girl actually had other powers, including pyrokinesis. I also know how it ends, but will put that inside. In the end, after an inner struggle, she takes away the rock, and the boy is left &apos;powerless,&apos; even though technically the rock did nothing and he would still have the power if only he believed it strongly enough, or something.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2006:site.41964</guid>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:53:16 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>lostbook</category>
	<category>scifi</category>
	<category>telekinesis</category>
	<dc:creator>bingo</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Does ESP exist?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/27723/Does%2DESP%2Dexist</link>	
	<description>What are some landmark studies about the existence of Extra-sensory perception? Interested in clairvoyance, precognition and telekinesis mostly. I was wondering if anyone knows any peer-reviewed studies in psychology or parapsychology (if such a journal exists) or anything like that. Infamous and well-known studies are best for my purposes. Thanks.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2005:site.27723</guid>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:40:11 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>ESP</category>
	<category>parapsychology</category>
	<category>psychology</category>
	<category>telekinesis</category>
	<dc:creator>Holygrail2</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

