water memory:

Cell memory: … memory.htm … ories.html

Skeptics: … cells.html

Never had a transplant, so I dunno… thankfully! :smile:

Interesting: … essary.htm

(BTW, I quickly found the above. :tongue: )

I think you’re being a little over-simplistic here. Granted, we can’t map out consciousness in its entirety as we can with other, less complicated systems. But we have a very, very functional model that demonstrates how it probably exists within the human brain, at least to an elementary or fundamental level. As Josh said (though his comment was apparently overlooked), we’re not just speculating on the brain’s involvement in the process merely because it appears to be actively firing neurons all the time. We now have much more specific evidence than that, including a very thorough understanding of which parts of the brain are responsible for the traits we observe in consciousness. The ancient Greeks didn’t have the means to observe brain activity, so they were at a disadvantage. Now that we do, we’re able to watch exactly what happens within our heads when a person is upset, happy, excited, stimulated, deep in thought, sleeping, in pain, in love, suffering from a particular illness… you name it.

If consciousness itself doesn’t originate within the brain, then the brain is at least a direct, consistent, and unwaveringly accurate way of representing the precise actions and states of our consciousness at any given moment. It shows us who we are, why we do the things we do, and what we’re ultimately capable of—at least to the rudimentary level that our instruments can thus-far examine.

As tempting as it is to believe that our understanding of consciousness is always changing, and will undoubtedly be entirely reconsidered when a significant enough discovery is found further down the track… that just isn’t the case anymore. We now have a very developed understanding of neurology, and we’re not going to back-track in a couple of years and suddenly decide that our memories are actually stored in our big toes. The popular cry of, “we don’t know anything and never will” seems to be a leap of faith, and perhaps a show of dissatisfaction at the thought of being reduced to physical components. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that’s all we are (I’m in the process of reexamining my own beliefs right now), but it does seem inappropriate to discount everything we’ve learned about the human brain in relation to our behavoir and potential abilities.

Good lord, no. :content: ; although I bet it remembers the last time I stubbed it. :grin:

But I do not believe the mind is in any part of the body… I think, it is the other way around.
(kind like the tv is not the creator of the the tv signal)… although it may appear to be… and brain is a tuner, of sorts.

Have you ever been in love? Where does that come from, sure it will have a measurable affect on the brain… but where are you living when that happens? For me it tends to be a mindless thing… we even, in this society, say things like “she is acting from her heart”… or “he is out of his head”… curious expressions about not using the rational mind. But assume for a second, that they are not in the mind; then where are they? Or is it a trick of the mind to make you think you are not in your head? :bored:

But look who is telling us this :smile: The neuologists? (sorry, could not resist. :smile: )

Me too. :content:

Agreed. No reason not to include the old models with the new, if they emerge.

And that is what I am talking about… models. We are operating from slightly different models… I blame LD for mine :wink:

So is PK possible? I hope so, but do not know. But I quote the great metaphysician, Shakespere.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
(that is my hope, at least)

Thanks for noticing. :wink:

That’s a pretty popular view, and one that I can definitely understand. I’m tempted to lean in that direction myself, if only because it’s less restricting and opens up more of the “why” questions instead of just the “how.” But paranormal or not, any time we experience a sensation of any kind (from what we’ve seen so far), we can also notice a coinciding change in the physiology of that person’s brain. Likewise, and this is where it gets really tricky, we can influence a person by manipulating his or her brain. You can’t change the course of your TV show by tampering with your TV, but you can make someone feel a specific emotion by tampering with a part of their brain. Is it a two-way broadcast now? :tongue:

I have, and it’s the single biggest influence on my recent change of heart concerning this topic. It’s most certainly a puzzling emotion, and one that has a very powerful effect on the mind. I don’t claim to know how it all works, but I do know that we can observe a change in the brain when a subject is in love. In other words, it’s not a totally mystical sensation that doesn’t appear to have any connection to our physiology and chemistry, so I don’t think it’s cause enough to abandon the “brain = consciousness” model entirely. It does blur the lines, though. :smile:

A very fitting quote, though one that still relies on faith in the unknown. I can’t tell you that PK isn’t possible, but working on the basis of my previous posts in this thread, I’m hesitant to give it much credit at this point. When we move an object with our hands, we can see how each step of the process works. We can see the neurological intention to move that part of our body, we can see the muscles expending energy as they work, and we can calculate how much force is required to move the object. The whole process costs us energy, which we use in everything we do. A car doesn’t run without fuel, and neither do we. We work within the bounds of physics to manipulate this environment, because we’re physical machines, and we can’t function without energy.

PK suggests that we can defy these rules, even though we have no reason to believe that such a feat is even possible. It doesn’t claim to make use of a previously dormant part of the brain, because we would still need to use physics as the vessel to ultimately move an object in this realm. PK is like perpetual motion (also known as “free energy”), which has no merit whatsoever that we can see. If we can move things with the power of thought, then we’re changing the world without exerting a proportional amount of energy, and this just doesn’t fit with our current accepted view of reality. It’s free energy, and it defies physics.

I must admit, however, that I’m mostly just playing Devil’s advocate here. I don’t know if the physical world is all that exists, and I like to think it probably isn’t. But I’m used to presenting the scientific view on these kinds of debates, and I guess I’ll continue to do so. :smile:

I believe it will be possible in RL in a few years say 5-10 when either:
a.) scientists develop technology to allow us to do so.
b.) when we pass through the photon belt in the year 2012 (seriously, a bunch of unknown energy particles passing through us… who knows what might happen)

For now, we will just have to put up with only being able to do it in our dreams :tongue:

At some point you have to let go of the iron grip of your previous beliefs or models if you want to expand.
This does not mean to throw them away, but take a next step, using previous experience as a backboard.
(The mathematical model I mention somewhere above, makes each new model a superset of the previous.)

The scientfic models of the things we have right now are very good. And they were good in the late 1800 when Einstein started to think past the then modern day rules.

Many great inovations, discoveries and insigts have come from amatuers and people not accepting the consensus of the day.

In order to find something bigger, in order to grow, you must proceed past current boundries… and that may be a little uncomfortable. If you go too far out from the status quo, you will find you are all alone. And faith? What else do you have in the unknown. Faith that eventually you will find your place again in the scheme of things.

Here is a thought experiment. Suppose there is a Santa Claus… a real person who does all those things lore and TV tells us he does. How does that affect your model? The idea being, you are presented with something which current models do not allow. What do you do? What if it is PK instead of Santa Claus? Or Cellular memory, or a collective unconscious, or faster than light technologies, or that David Bohm is on to something :wink:

“Why” is a horrible question… always leads to excuses.
I like “What” much better.

Yup. I was going to mention that earlier, but thought it too out there. (it is indirectly what brought me here).

Why would you if you do not have direct experience of it, or have direct experience with a body (scientific or not) that does. I think that is a healthy view point. But this is different that saying it is impossible.

No, PK suggests are rules do not describe reality (physically or not) correctly. And that is it challenge. And if not PK, then something else… light as a particle and a wave used to be in this category.

Are you sure? (I do not mean to imply that I am). Some people who claim to do this sort of thing describe being drain or having a loss of energy.

oops, outta time.

Thanks, I’d love to read about it :smile:

To me, a lot of people assume paranormal means that there is no explanation for something, when in actuality we just don’t know the explanation yet. For example, Steve Shaw (stage name is Banachek) can bend spoons with his mind…at least to the observer who doesn’t know the mechanism behind this illusion.
So I like to use words like unusual or interesting, rather than paranormal or supernatural, since the latter two imply that impossible things happen, and impossible things don’t happen because they are impossible :yes:

Good to hear :smile:
I just want to clarify, I wasn’t trying to challenge you to prove you can do telekinesis or anything, making the statement that if it’s possible and it can be observed, then someone should do it, and donate the million dollars to charity or something.

All I can say is…I wish I could do it :grin:

Only if there’s sufficient reason to do so. If my “iron grip” beliefs currently appear to explain everything I’ve experienced in this realm, then why do I have to change them? It seems silly to rush off and search for ways to validate these paranormal beliefs when we’ve never even witnessed an event that gives them credence in the first place. Why invest resources in a search for Santa Claus, when there exists no evidence to suggest that he’s real? You have to be able to draw a line between reality and imagination, and a lot of people don’t know where to put this line. Ideas like PK (if I had to guess) probably originated as an imaginative concept, then slowly made their way into peoples’ belief systems out of sheer “cool”-factor, rather than observation and demonstration. Again, why do you make it appear that I am closed off, when I’ve yet to see anything outside the bounds of my existing beliefs? If I can’t see anything outside, then why open the gate to let it in?

There’s a difference between “open minded,” and being unable to distinguish valid holes in our model of reality from those born of imagination. Yes, we’ve had to adjust our views countless times in human history to take into account radical new discoveries. We’re forever changing our minds about how the universe works. It’s inevitable, as nobody bothered to leave us an instruction manual when we were first put on this planet. But if anything, these changes to our understanding have been moving us away from magic and paranormal explanations, not towards them. Every time we discover how something works, it means that we’ve been able to find a logical cause for that phenomenon, seated within the unbreakable laws that everything ultimately comes down to.

It’s a predictable pattern:

  1. A phenomenon is witnessed and we can’t explain it.
  2. A supernatural or paranormal explanation is given as a “temporary” explanation, because we refuse to admit that we’re missing something.
  3. Someone works out which physical process was actually responsible for the phenomenon, and we adjust our views to accord.

It’s a pretty consistent pattern, and hasn’t faltered yet, as far as I can see. The problem with PK is that it skips the first step entirely. People are providing paranormal explanations for something that we haven’t even witnessed yet! Hold your horses, everyone. It’s not sensible to investigate something that never seems to have happened before. Why not rush out into the countryside and look for leprechauns? :smile:

I remind you, a million dollars is still waiting for anyone who can demonstrate these powers. It’s all well and good to suggest that those capable of performing the ability are too meek or shy to step forward, for fear that they will become lab rats, but I don’t buy it. Considering people are willing to post movies of themselves apparently using Psionic powers on the internet, it’s obvious that they don’t all wish to remain anonymous. They simply can’t do what they claim to be able to.

The Randi Challange isn’t a fair one. Not only are 990,000 of the prizes in bonds (which the organization wouldn’t comment on when further questioned) but they have a bad way of treating people who apply, and refuse many of the people from even being tested. This may be a case of he said they said, but since Kramer later admitted to altering the emails (though not to fabricating that last one) I would go with Peebrain’s side. Which is also the side of the paranormal in this case. Here is his write up about his experience with the Randi organization:
You can also check out their forums and see their responses and Peebrain’s.

That’s certainly an intersting link, and if true, would indeed show that the Randi challenge isn’t as straight-forward as it first appeared. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture here. Even if the money was awarded in the form of bonds, and even if those bonds somehow happen to be worth nothing (very unlikely), still, there would be people willing to take the challenge if they thought they could win. It’s not just about the money… it’s about being the first person ever to prove in a controlled environment that paranormal activity does exist. If you can perform a repeatable action that this or any other institution cannot explain, then you’re going to get recognition for it. You’re going to change the world in a very drastic way. Hell, you don’t even need to deal with Randi if you don’t want to. Any respectable scientist would love for you to show your abilities in his lab. And nobody ever has, barring those crudely outdated German experiments during WW2.

Peebrain could have demonstrated this ability to any scientific association, and he’d still make a fortune.

It’s also inportant to remember that there are many other awards and challenges that are a lot like Randi’s, yet no one has succeeded at beating them either.
And Atheist is right, the recognition alone should be enough for someone to step up and do one of these challenges.

I am not debating those points. I just really don’t like people quoting Randi’s challenge after that little ordeal. I wonder about those as well, and I believe in TK. If anybody has a good explanation for those, which I doubt, I would be very interested to hear it.

your right, but i think that the natural skeptic is going to question the legibility of the so called “scientists” who are supposedly making sure noone cheats. i really believe that its just something you need to experiance for yourself.

Sorry, I did not mean you, personally. I meant 2nd person narrative.
I know there are things that exist that our current model cannot explain. But as to what they are… who can tell?
As for PK. Sure, that would be nice to be true. Is it? I dunno…
Can I test it? nope. Can I disqualify it from the realm of existence? Not at this time, but also I cannot accept it as a reality for me.

As for Santa Claus… well, that was just a thought experiment… what happens when you are confronted with a reality shaking event (what ever that is). Sometimes I wonder if somebody from the 1700s could see what things looked like today… radio, tv, airplanes, cars, internet, space travel… would it make sense? Or would it be like someone telling us “no, really there is a Santa Claus… and here he is” …

Indeed. Even if that reason is to question if your current models are valid. Maybe they are, maybe there is something more. either way :smile:

water memory:

Unless, they can do something even better like manefest $1M by themselves. :tongue:
Bill Murray once said something like: “Given the choice to accept either fame or fortune, choose fortune first… and see if that works for you”
– But I agree. If somebody can do it, they should claim the prize.

Not quite. Things are much harder under constant pressure and being watched. also we are talking about proving things. It is literally impossible to prove most things. the only things we are able to prove are laws. “If I let go of this apple, it will fall” that is the basis of a law. It offers no explanation of how it works, just an if _____ happens then _______ will happen. keep that in mind. I personally believe Telekinesis or w/e you want to call it is true. however the concious mind can only do so much. Picking up something larger than a pencil would use a great deal of your own energy. I believe that if a human concentrate they can control energy fields to a limited extent. If you look at psipog you can find out about how they were able to influence a geiger counter using only their brains. Also I am not affiliated with the peebrain who runs the site. I picked this as my internet name long before discovering Psipog because of a inside joke between me and my friends. so don’t ask. Just my two cents

Assuming the individual mind is an extension of the Universe’s mind, whatever we believe will inevitably be true. I’m not suggesting that someone who believes they can fly or perform PK, can, but I’m not suggesting they can’t. If we are all expressions of the Universe’s mind, then majority of belief rules. Where I come from, that’s Christian Capitalist. Not good or bad, but limiting. Physical, tangible laws of science will be true if that’s what humanity looks for and then believes in. I think in Quantum Physics this is called the Observer created Universe or maybe it’s the Wave Function collapse. Je sais pas. Any attempt at understanding the vast potential of human, and therefore Universal, awareness will end in a limited understanding of that awareness. The word is not the thing itself.

I don’t believe it. If people could do it, then we’d see it a lot more often in real life. Or they could take up Randi’s challenge and earn a hefty amount of money.

As for the “We only use [insert number]% of our brains,” debunked that a while ago.

Merged into existing topic :moh:

Do you think it is possible to move things with your mind? Maybe just slightly?
I read somthing on the internet about scientists say that It could be possible. I also saw some websites and videos of people claiming to do it and saying that it is real. So, if you know anything about it, or if you can (or claim you can) do it, tell me.

I’m not crazy

isnt the big psi topic for this … bur well good you open a dicussion on this (anyone notice that stycky threads are less frequently replyed to then non-sticky ?)