Author Topic: How to NOT Practice Psi  (Read 36301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 30, 2006, 12:19:47 PM
Reply #15

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4988
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
Where did I say he was an "oracle of omniscience"?  Please, read what I said.  And since when do you need to be an "oracle of omniscience" to create a useful technique?

Call it an attempt at tact on my part, and lets move on.

If a technique COULD produce false results, you proclaim that is DOES produce false results.  If a logical check COULD produce false feedback, then you proclaim it is "quite likely" to produce false feedback.

Precisely.  Perhaps this is because you and I are looking at it from different perspectives.  I am considering the perspective of how to most effectively teach large numbers of people.  If a technique COULD produce false results in, perhaps, 70% of the people who try it, then when a large number of people try it, it DOES produce false results in 70% of those people.  Then, 70% of the people who try a particular technique are led astray for a time.

Techniques don't need to be perfectly orchestrated training systems to produce results.

Well, my goal isn't just "to produce results".  Results we've had plenty of.  My goal is to produce training methods which are better, faster, and more potent than what we currently have.  And a key step of that is getting rid of all these high false-positive techniques.

People don't need air tight scientific protocols for verifying their skills for themselves.

Well, the experience of many people here shows that typical members of the OEC, even reasonably intelligent ones, will lead themselves astray significantly if they use suggestive scanning regularly without realizing they are doing it.  So it is critically important that people begin to be aware of these things.  Why not become better than we have been when faced with the opportunity?

This entire argument is just silly... I can take a quote out of any psionic article and ridicule it.  For example, Skywind writes: "Picture the energy flowing from your body, through your arms, and out through your hands."  Well picturing energy is a good way to induce false sensations in the body... so her technique must always produce false results.  Do you see how silly that sounds?

That's not entirely silly.  In fact, that quote you extracted is perhaps the major lingering problem with Skywind's text.  Huge portions of the problems radki'ers created were due to an overuse of "picturing" things happening, much of which they got from extracting portions of Skywind's text.  Her description of picturing energy flowing and feeling energy flowing, especially when combined with proper application of the technique of centering taught above this point in the text, will get many close to the proper state (much closer than emulating a physical sensation), but it still has its problems.  I think it's probably a mistake to begin with psiballs that have no external feedback as an introductory exercise, as Skywind does.  The end result is that good numbers of people who have followed her technique in that order, without having pre-existing natural experience, have experienced significant analytical overlay for a while.  Not as many as would result from a technique on emulating physical sensation, but still, a notable problem.

However, I have the benefit of speaking from over a decade more accumulated hindsight than was available back in 1993.  Back then, which is right around when I first read her text, the idea of teaching psi over the internet was somewhat revolutionary.  Now we have over a decade more accumulated experience with teaching psi over the internet, and it's probably time to update a few of our ideas to take these experiences into account.

(As most people here know, I'm quite fond of Skywind as a person, and I have high respect for her abilities, her work, and her contributions to the field.  It's just the way of things that we should adapt and improve our training methods to what we find works better.)
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 30, 2006, 02:39:49 PM
Reply #16

kakkarot

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • 0. The Fool... Inverted?

  • 2701
  • Karma:
    3
  • Personal Text
    Pirate "Not-A-Mod" BoB
    • View Profile
solstice: yeah i saw the post before it was deleted. but by saying "making stuff up" and "figuring stuff out" are the same thing, you're saying radki was "figured out" and traditional chinese medicine was "made up".

in truth, radki is what was made up, created out of imagination rather than experimental study of reality.

and it was tcm that was figured out via experimentation and noting the results over thousands of years and god-knows-how-many practicioners, rather than being fabricated by a small group of children who didn't know what they were doing.

see the difference? if not, i'm going to mail you a dictionary for christmas.

making stuff up requires merely that you create an idea in your head and then believe that it's true.

figuring stuff out requires that you interact with reality to discover what really is true about reality.

~kakkarot
« Last Edit: July 30, 2006, 02:41:25 PM by kakkarot »
Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

July 31, 2006, 08:34:37 AM
Reply #17

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
No, I do not see any intrinsic difference, other than one seems to be adhired stronger than the other.  You simply preffer one perspective than the other, when we are comparing Catsup to Ketchup.

What you are arguing is which sounds better and which makes one more comfortable.  ALL medicine was first "made-up", because every single advancement AND failure is the result much pain and mistakes.  Since the first sergions had NO point of reference and no one to teach them.  So, Bruce admits to having no formal reference, then where on this planet did get one?  Himself!
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

August 01, 2006, 07:02:26 AM
Reply #18

TheThing

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 561
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Man, radki is just silly. It's like comparing playing air guitar to classical music. Honestly it's hard to explain how unbelievably inferior radki is proper che manipulation. I just makes me angry that it can be mentiolned in the same sentance as a very old art that 1000s of poeple have dedicated their lives to perfecting. Thank god it's dead. :biggrin:
TheThings's Flatmate.

August 01, 2006, 09:06:24 AM
Reply #19

Vox Nocti

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****
  • Frequent poster

  • 256
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Frequent poster
    • View Profile
Hey, Rad-ki could theoretically work, if it's fixed up thremendously. Note that I said theoretically :P

And I like your comparison *steals it*
"I'd like to apologize in advance for anything that I may say or do that could be construed as offensive as I slowly go NUTS." (Col. Jack 'O Neill, Stargate sg-1)

Ashrak: "And you are considered...well, a pain in the nikta"
'O Neill: "Neck?"
Teal'c: "No."

August 01, 2006, 09:34:44 AM
Reply #20

TheThing

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 561
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Hey, Rad-ki could theoretically work, if it's fixed up thremendously. Note that I said theoretically :P

And I like your comparison *steals it*
In the small way I could theoretically sell out a stadium tour playing air guitar out of tune. That's how bad radki is.
TheThings's Flatmate.

August 12, 2006, 05:09:28 AM
Reply #21

Sakireth

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 64
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Your master
    • View Profile
The solution to the "fake a sensation" is pretty simple. you only need 2 people, you then make a psiball in the other persons's hands and after that ask what he felt (also works with other stuff - making people happy and giving short headaches and stings) - it's how I test it out. i do something, the person says "wtf", and i know "hey, it worked!"
--- Sakireth

August 12, 2006, 09:55:31 AM
Reply #22

kakkarot

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • 0. The Fool... Inverted?

  • 2701
  • Karma:
    3
  • Personal Text
    Pirate "Not-A-Mod" BoB
    • View Profile
True, Sakireth, IF those two are being honest with themselves. I've seen a lot of delusional people, in completely mundane settings, where one will say something and the other will kind of disagree and then the other one will quickly change his mind so that he's in complete harmony with the second just because he wants to feel like he's right, often times by believing that if others say the same thing he says then it's proof that he's right and therefore smart.

It's a psychological problem that persists in the weakwilled and is probably one of the reasons many people do get into radki for any length of time (they just keep reinterpreting results to make them seem more real. hence why i completely disagree with the idea that you should "believe" in what you're doing as you do it, in metaphysics, because believing in the modern sense often results in delusions). I've also experienced it myself, and have seen it applied in "traditional" metaphysical abilities as well, so by no means am I dissing radki with this argument, but it does seem to me that such individuals as who are most susceptable to such delusional thinking are the ones who go straight for radki because it promises quick and easy results if you just believe really hard that what you're doing is real.

~kakkarot
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 10:08:21 AM by kakkarot »
Philippians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

August 12, 2006, 03:46:51 PM
Reply #23

no_one_2000

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **
  • Greenhorn

  • 95
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    Veritas' Favorite Lurker
    • View Profile
The solution to the "fake a sensation" is pretty simple. you only need 2 people, you then make a psiball in the other persons's hands and after that ask what he felt (also works with other stuff - making people happy and giving short headaches and stings) - it's how I test it out. i do something, the person says "wtf", and i know "hey, it worked!"

But the way you go about this could completely ruin the experiment.  I've been on both ends of this experiment multiple times.  If the person receiving the construct is aware that he is going to be receiving one, he will eventually feel something, regardless of whether a construct was sent or not.  (This repeats much of what Kobok said in his article)  Two variations on this are to send the construct to one specific hand or any location around the body (but not tell them where) or to not tell them at all and hope for a visible reaction.  I've still had problems with the former, generally due to an unfocused mind and analytical overlay.  Plus, if you began your training with methods that promote biofeedback, it's especially easy to confuse any number of normal sensations with the perception of a construct.  The latter is difficult to work with because not everybody is going to produce a visible reaction, even if they do feel the sensation.

--

I think the reason so many beginners give up and quit their metaphysical practice so quickly is because they don't think.  Holding your arms/hands in various positions for a few minutes, depending on how you do it, could easily mess with your blood flow and create some kind of physical sensation.  Once they realize this, they quit.  The same thing happens with telekinesis.  Once somebody shows them how putting your hands next to an unstable object with minimal friction can cause it to move via random wind or breathing, static electricity, heat convection, or even movement of the hand, they get discouraged and quit.  Why?  It's because of these false-positives.  Once you suddenly realize that it's not only possible, but likely that you've been tricking yourself this whole time, you not only create mental blocks of inferiority, but essentially end up in worse of a position than that of when you began, and belief becomes a difficult thing to work with, to say the least.  (And the fact that most beginners never even think that placing your hands near a piece of paper on a pin would case it to move by physical means is somewhat disturbing as well)

Furthermore, I can tell you why methods such as these are so popular:  People like positive results.  Unfortunately, if these positive results are fabricated by completely normal and every-day phenomena, then they're doing the practitioner more harm than good.  Even if, with these methods, you are able to perform psionics functionally (beyond the biofeedback), you'll still have to eventually face the doubt in wondering if your results were successful due to physical means or those of the metaphysical.  I don't think that's the proper way for a beginner to start his or her practice.

People need to be aware of these things before they start, and this is why I applaud Kobok for writing this article.  Take it from me, there's nothing more frustrating than realizing the positive results you were so hyped about weren't actually "results" at all.  It's better to be safe and not learn the hard way.

August 14, 2006, 11:43:00 PM
Reply #24

ThiefDeath

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Posting chief

  • 1549
  • Karma:
    4
  • Personal Text
    Grammaton Cleric
    • View Profile
First of all, great article kobok.  I've pretty much been wanting to touch on all of those points for a while and I have been doing so on various IRC rooms for a long time but I was always too lazy to write a long, well-written, convincing article about it, especially since all the articles I've written for Veritas in the past somehow never made it into the actual articles section :teethy: .  Good job.

I can vouch for kobok also that the psiball portion of this article was no sort of attack against psipog or a response to its most recent article.  This subject has been around and has been in discussion for several years.  I could have written this article today and I haven't read a psipog article in at least a year. 

Now I could go go over all the ways that self-induced feedback is counter-productive and I could go into risk vs. reward or present Rad-Ki as an argument  (P.S. Fun fact: Skywind's Playful Psychic was the original platform that Radki was developed off of).  However, I am not going to do that as it seems you have all done that out to the max.  So, instead, I will present my own unique theory on this whole thing which I should probably be writing about in a separate article.  Alot of the previous responses in this thread have collectively touched on most of this but I'd like to try to put it into a big clear picture for everyone.

It's rather simple actually.  The problem with this psi manipulation technique is that is it circular.  Supposedly one can create a psiball by inducing certain feelings.  However, at the sametime, those same feelings are also used as an INDICATOR of the presence of the psiball.  So one goes to induce the feelings, they are successful at inducing the feelings, and instantly they can conclude they have made a psiball because the feelings are there.  This person can then go through this cycle of supporting their newly discovered psiball technique a virtually infinite amount of times in this endless uncontrolled loop, because there is nothing stopping them from having any doubt at all that they are making a psiball.

So their mind eventually becomes essentially programmed that this technique works. But what if the technique actually didn't work?  Anyone can create artificial feelings; it doesn't neccessarily prove you are making a psiball; so What if they really aren't making psiballs?  Now what?  Their mind is programmed with a useless training pattern that will be extremely difficult to remove.  So what's the problem here?  Are induced feelings bad?  Not neccessarily...

What we have shown here is not that induced feelings are bad, but merely that they cannot be used as an inducer and an indicator at the same time.  Inducer and indicator are obviously incompatible as they contribute to an infinite loop.  Due to this, most people suggest the removal of the inducer; to no longer attempt to create the feelings ourselves.  But what if Robert Monroe, Skywind, the PsiPog authors, and all the people out there that have been supposedly been having success by using induced feelings were right?  What if induced feelings IS a successful way to make a psiball? Obviously we could no longer remove the inducer.  So out of the inducer and the indicator, what does that leave us with?  It leaves us with the indicator.  Instead of removing the induction of feelings from our technique, we can remove the indication of a psiball through feelings.   

Removing the indicator now breaks the loop.  So our practioner goes to make a psiball, he uses induced feelings to attempt to make it, and then what...  His own induced feelings are no longer an indicator of the presence of the psiball.  He used them, but he now still doesn't know whether he made a psiball or not.  He'll obviously have to find another way to prove that he made a psiball.  His best bet is probably to program it to go do something external to himself, and see if whatever he programmed it to do got done.  Some suggestions might include moving an object, changing the temperature on a thermometer, interfering with an electronic device, causing a certain feeling in another person, or relaying a telepathic message to another person.  You could probably even think of a way a beginner could objectively prove the psiball without the use of complex programming or difficult tasks.  If he suceeds, he knows his method is working and he can start enforcing an operational method in his mind.  If he fails, heknows his method is not working and he can tweak or alter his method.  Either way, he is not longer getting himself into an infinite loop or developing a nasty habit.
[23:48] <DanielH> You guys are all strange
[23:48] <DanielH> You have a different way of thinking (which is wrong)

How about a shave?

May 25, 2007, 10:22:00 PM
Reply #25

U-mos

  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 36
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
the one headed with aming for feeling, i think i may have done but im not sure if i messed my self up, well ive been following this new energy ways program http://www.astraldynamics.com/tutorials/?BoardID=6 and it starts out with trying to copy that feeling you get by drawing a circle on your hand to jump start the energy work, but now i do the energy work with out even looking at the part im stimulating and i was wondering if its was totaly messed up (i just found this site)

May 26, 2007, 12:10:42 AM
Reply #26

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
A note to make regarding N.E.W. is that the feeling that you're getting is just a feeling, it's sensory input that you're causing the hand to give you. However, the mechanism used to create that feeling in your hand is the same mechanism as which is used in metaphysics, so learn how to develop that to do more than just cause your own senses to give you feedback.

I suggest you start here http://forums.vsociety.net/topic/4867.0 and here http://forums.vsociety.net/topic/5141.0 :)

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?