In order to extend knowledge of parapsychology, I am compiling a list of current problems and victories of the current understanding of Psychokinesis(PK) in parapsychology. As I said before, I’m a proponent of Psychokinesis. I not only believe it, but I do know about it. Unfortunally, the study of psychokinesis still belongs to the fringes of science and its mechanism is quite unknown to Man.

Psychokinesis Notes on a philosophical/scientific method prespective:
1) The problem of causality
When psychokinesis occurs, i.e. some object moves due to intent or some Random Event Generator (REG) syncronizes with the intent, we assume that it changes due to the effect of the mind over the matter. The problem is that we don’t know this and we need to stay open to new hypothesis about what exactly causes this anomalous behaviour in the matter. Psychokinesis might be caused by a biological effect triggered by your intent and willpower, but It might not be directly related. This is important in situations where only the subject’s subconscious makes the intent. Of course, also the subconscious is a structure hardly understood by psychologists. Because of this problem, some parapsychologists call the effect Anomalous Perturbation.
Moreover, if the Universe encodes its space with discreet variables and is not continuous, then time will also be discreet. There are certain findings (in neurobiology) that agree that time and memory are not encoded continously in our brains. The unidirectional forward arrow of time only exists in our conscious mind. This of course is not the case of our subconscious mind and there is a hint this may not be the case of the Universe. So if Psychokinesis is an effect messing with more fundamental properties of the Universe, we may have to consider indirect causation. An intent for afecting matter right now may affect it yesterday or tomorrow. Yes, I did say yesterday.
2) Micro PK and Macro PK
Everyone and I mean really everyone can affect microscopic or quantum events. Everyone that I know that tried to influence a dice could achieve it with strong statistical significance. REGs are also well documented and have significant results. I think this is a reasonable victory in the demonstration of PK effects. Macroscopic effects are rarer. Although, the demonstrations of Jack Houck and his PK parties might be what we’re looking for. Houck’s findings stands (for me of course) as evidence of Macro PK until someone finds a hoax (but I don’t fully agree with his philosophical proposition of psi functioning). I hope I can try the PK Party experience in a near future.
3) The problem of Evolution
To consider a materialistic view of PK, we have to find the structures of the brain that intervene in it. Unfortunally no one knows where the Mind is, let alone PK. Everyone might agree with me that is difficult to control PK effects. Even when it works, it might stop working in the next moment or it might endure much more time than we foresaw. This control gets better with use and training, so this is a hint that if PK effects can get better with training, it also can get worse with not training. Think for example what is needed to move a small rock. Mankind and other animals may have had better neural structures to execute PK in the past, but they may have got athrophied because it is much more easier to affect things with your physical body (i.e. moving a rock with your hands). The physical body is much more natural than your mind. Animals have been using it for millions of years and the conscious mind is a recent development in the biology of earthly creatures. This evolutive heritage of the use of physical body and not the mind may weight a lot when it comes down to make displays of PK.
Psychokinesis Notes on a social perspective:
1) Is PK a thing of the uneducated?
There are many illiterate skeptics that shout out loud that only uneducated people believe in PK. Well, Professor Radin once said that PK is much more popular with the illiterate than with the well educated. And it is true, I agree. But, many parapsychologists have a life-time of study. Parapsychology is a very hard field because it is too interdisciplinary and some scientists look into all the fields of knowledge. Althou many parapsychologists refrain from the study of PK (and focus on ESP), those who are into it have to have an incredible knowledge base and a varied team to work with. Parapsychology is far from being only a thing of illusionists, hoaxers and illiterate. Illiterate are those who think that current science is written in stone and believe what other (better) scientists tell them.
2) The eye of the beholder
Most hard skeptics believe that PK have never been demonstrated and frequently say that the unclaimed Randi Prize is a proof of this. But what I want to bring attention here is not whether PK is true or not, but the actual method for reasoning about PK (and for parapsychology in general). Skeptics are good for science, but their utility ceases exactly when all demonstrations (hoax or not) serves them the only purpose to show how PK is inexistent or absurd.
Several social experiments have been made to show this phenomenon. When presented with a hoax as real evidence, many skeptics will find incredible explanations to discredit the effect and many believers will find incredible explanations to support the effect. In the end, the authors of the hoax always find that everybody are wrong about the functioning of the effect. This is lethal to scientific progress. Unfortunaly, nearly all skeptics I’ve found, fall into this trap. Assuming what an effect is by what it looks like is unaceptable.
3) Function is not equal to Causation
One of the most used arguments used by skeptics is that if they can reproduce the effect by trick, then the effect is a trick. I personally find this argument quite absurd, but it is used frequently. A mouse is not equal to a robotic mouse, but they may do the same thing. Some day, automatons may be, act and look like humans, but automatons will never be humans. You can use the same analogy with an effect for which you don’t know the cause. Two similar effects might or might not have the same cause or conjunction of causes.