theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards
Thoughts on Telekinesis
- Thread starter guardian64
- Start date
I believe that the mind is capable of extraordinary things, however telekinesis seems to be somewhat sci-fi and not really something is real.
When you truly think about it how could it ever be accomplished, unlocking parts of your mind most likely won't allow you to have an invisible bond to an object to control or levitate it or anything.
So in the end it's what you believe, some people put faith in religion or in their own beliefs and morals. All that matters is what you really think about it and who shares the same opinions with you.
When you truly think about it how could it ever be accomplished, unlocking parts of your mind most likely won't allow you to have an invisible bond to an object to control or levitate it or anything.
So in the end it's what you believe, some people put faith in religion or in their own beliefs and morals. All that matters is what you really think about it and who shares the same opinions with you.
There's something like 93% to 97% of our brain that we don't use at all. There's a lot of room for stuff that no one thought was possible to happen with odds like those. I think we only know a small fraction of what there is to know. Telekinesis was around long before the idea of Sci-Fi too you gotta remember.
As TheBlack&WhiteIllusionist has said, everyone only uses a small fraction of the brain. I do believe in telekinesis but just not that everyone can do it. I believe one day, someone will be able to unlock the other 90% of our brain and can do the most amazing things ever. but until then, we magicians are always around.
As for the actual magic trickery part about telekinesis, I like it a lot more than levitation as: 1. A lot of laymen know about IT and thats the only plausible explanation for it. 2. Levitation invites grabbing, which usually ruins it. 3. There are a lot more methods for plain telekinesis other than IT, which makes it "grabbable". 4. It seems to relate with people more and people would think its more realistic than levitation. 5. Levitation usually uses thread, which usually gives it a un natural sway.
As for the actual magic trickery part about telekinesis, I like it a lot more than levitation as: 1. A lot of laymen know about IT and thats the only plausible explanation for it. 2. Levitation invites grabbing, which usually ruins it. 3. There are a lot more methods for plain telekinesis other than IT, which makes it "grabbable". 4. It seems to relate with people more and people would think its more realistic than levitation. 5. Levitation usually uses thread, which usually gives it a un natural sway.
About the brain state it is untrue. We use 100% of our brain. Look up on google and you shall find the answer.
I believe telekinesis is indeed better than levitation. Levitation i believe may provide more skepticism eg: whether the magician is supported via strings or a stand.
As many people believe the myth that we use only 10% of our brains, it works as great patter for most PK effects.
TK is wonderful! In fact....
http://www.titanasmagic.com/shudder.html
TK, be it moving things, or affecting them in some way with your mind is an incredibly powerful concept.
In my eyes, much more effective than cutting to aces, but that's just for my persona...
D.
http://www.titanasmagic.com/shudder.html
TK, be it moving things, or affecting them in some way with your mind is an incredibly powerful concept.
In my eyes, much more effective than cutting to aces, but that's just for my persona...
D.
As somebody else mentioned, the myth that we use only 10% of our brains is completely untrue, there's absolutely no evidence to support it and overwhelming evidence to show that we use almost all (if not all) of our brains. Please do some research before making these stupid claims.
As for telekinesis in the context of a magic trick, it's something that I think can be very powerful with the right presentation. If presented poorly I think it might just come across as a trick and the audience will be convinced you're somehow using thread of some kind even if they can't work out exactly how you're using. With a good presentation you can probably bypass all these thoughts and create an incredibly powerful piece of magic.
As for telekinesis in the context of a magic trick, it's something that I think can be very powerful with the right presentation. If presented poorly I think it might just come across as a trick and the audience will be convinced you're somehow using thread of some kind even if they can't work out exactly how you're using. With a good presentation you can probably bypass all these thoughts and create an incredibly powerful piece of magic.
This is a very interesting topic, the last big (dis)belief was around this very topic when Uri Gellar convinced most of the world that he could really use TK//PK for amazing demonstrations.
Then slightly later Steve Shaw convinced scientists that he really did have this amazing power. Even though he and an other come out and stated that they were doing nothing more than using the exact methods that James Randi had written about.
I have done shows mainly focused on this idea and to a very large success. This is that one area that you will find people will actually consistently believe that the impossible can occur and that you can control it. These pieces (in my experience) will always get the silent speechless reaction.
The only reason I took these pieces out of my shows is that they do not fit my character when I am preforming however I still go them in casual settings just to really get a few people talking.
Then slightly later Steve Shaw convinced scientists that he really did have this amazing power. Even though he and an other come out and stated that they were doing nothing more than using the exact methods that James Randi had written about.
I have done shows mainly focused on this idea and to a very large success. This is that one area that you will find people will actually consistently believe that the impossible can occur and that you can control it. These pieces (in my experience) will always get the silent speechless reaction.
The only reason I took these pieces out of my shows is that they do not fit my character when I am preforming however I still go them in casual settings just to really get a few people talking.
For all of you people talking about the brain, and what percentages we use of it, yes we do infact use 100% of our brains every day. However the misconception stems from the fact that we do not use all parts of our brain simultaneously. To process several things at once might only reqire you to use certain parts of your brain and thus only a small percentage is active, or in use. If we could use certain areas all at the same time, we might be able to tap into a greater power like TK.
This is part of my patter, but it is also true...
This is part of my patter, but it is also true...
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
If you think i'm wrong then so be it. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me.
If you think i'm wrong then so be it. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me.
I'm doing an Honors Double Major in Psychology and Sociology...the Psych part is the important one here. In particular, I've taken Cognitive Psychology (study of the brain) and Neuropsychology classes, and the professors I've had (along with the textbooks, along with the actual scientific research) have pointed to the fact (<--fact, not opinion) that we do not use 10% of our brain, or any low figure like that.
As has been mentioned, we do indeed use all of (or most of) our brain. However, again as pointed out, we only use a portion of it at any one time (although, even that portion is over 10%). The myth that we only use 10% of our brain came about before we could properly study the brain (the technology only came about in the past 20-30 years or so), but now that we have the technology to study the brain properly, we know that we use every part of our brain.
Also, although nothing is 100% in science (or anything, really), it's commonly accepted that we don't have an "infinite potential". There are genetic boundaries in place, as well as physical boundaries (the actual structure of the brain). Don't get me wrong, the brain is an incredible thing--the elasticity of it (the ability for other parts of the brain to take on dual roles when one part gets damaged early on) is beyond amazing. But, in order for us to do more things, we'll need to keep evolving and grow a new part to our brain, since every part of our brain as it currently stands is spoken for--there's no telekinesis portion, sadly.
With that said, there's still a lot about our brain that we don't know, but that type of stuff is more along the lines of not knowing the exact mechanism for coding things into memory (we know where we store stuff for both long and short term memory, but the how is a little fuzzy--there are hypotheses, but nothing overwhelmingly concrete), how exactly we interpret visual inputs (again, there are hypotheses--incredibly detailed and sophisticated hypotheses, mind you--but nothing is concrete), etc.
But, we've got the brain pretty well mapped out. What each part of the brain is for is not a mystery, like it once was. Now we're just working on specifics.
And that's just my (slightly educated) opinion. Believe me (and science) if ya like, or not. Doesn't hurt me at all.
Edit: PS, that source made me "LOL"...you should cite scholarly journals when making a scientific claim if you're going to cite anything...internet articles are a laughable waste of time at best, and can spread scarily wrong information that people will believe at worst. True story--Dr. Johnson McHonesty told me on his website...I'd link you, but his page recently went down.
You should have stuck to keeping it just an opinion. =/Also, the "only use 10% of our brain" myth, I suppose, can be pretty good for a line in a mentalism routine. I wouldn't use it personally, but it definitely works. I prefer to take actual facts, and slightly twist those.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know...I had big dreams in high school.
...still do, they just don't include telekinesis (anymore
), haha.
I know...I had big dreams in high school.
...still do, they just don't include telekinesis (anymore
yeah jeez...
(at least its still possible to levitate, phew, or Id be NO - WHERE)
I know, eh? I'll be Superman eventually. Start with levitating, move on to flying, then I'll work on the whole bullet proof thing. Maybe I should use Batman as an idol...he uses technology, so I'd be able to use bullet proof vests and stuff. A levitating Batman? Man, my future is gunna rock.
Alright alright, I submit *taps on floor* *waves white flag*
lol, Curse you cm763, you've dwindled me down to cheap movie quotes lol.
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
lol, I do respect what you said however.
lol, Curse you cm763, you've dwindled me down to cheap movie quotes lol.
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
lol, I do respect what you said however.
It's true enough, though. The way Psychology has changed...Freud was so far off on so many things (but "right" (quotes because nothing is ever proved correct in science, only accepted as the truth until something better comes along) about a few important things, too), for example...is fairly recent proof of that (Psychology is what, barely over 100 years old?, and it's already gone through so many schools of though).
I accept that some of what we take as current truths will eventually be altered or replaced, especially the stuff that's being disputed (ie. how we interpret (consciously and automatically) what we see--yes, how we code vision once it hits the brain is currently being debated), heh.