It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theory to explain Telepathy, and other applications

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

If three other labs can't reproduce your results, it's time to explain that or watch everyone move on.




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Geez, did you read that paper? It's not exactly Nobel material. "Neuroquantology" isn't exactly Annalen der Physik either.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: MamaJ

It continues to be studied in depth despite the ones crying "woo".


IMO anyone crying "Woo" should not be taken seriously anymore. They're not open to a real discussion on the subject.


Real discussion would involve the papers being put up as great reference material having some rigor and not being one of those essentially math free no proof papers.

All of them so far are "we think maybe there's a zero point quantum coherence bla bla" long on speculation and short on proposed proof and data. Especially that last one from Neuroquantology, which reads like the turboencabulator skit arranged as a paper.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I might add that anyone who states that replicability is not necessary because their particular topic is special as was quoted a few posts back is a red flag that the guy is a crank.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

Real discussion would involve the papers being put up as great reference material having some rigor and not being one of those essentially math free no proof papers.


Digging more into the links I've posted, you'll see the of links posted where the actual experiments are documented. It's obvious you haven't put much effort in really looking at them.



All of them so far are "we think maybe there's a zero point quantum coherence bla bla" long on speculation and short on proposed proof and data. Especially that last one from Neuroquantology, which reads like the turboencabulator skit arranged as a paper.


Impossible that you could've read all of them in such a short time. And I will admit that I haven't read them all either.


Here's another list. It includes negative reviews. It's from Noetics (although you and other dismiss that site).


Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research


There's a whole discussion about it in comments section of this blog post:

deanradin.blogspot.com...
edit on 30-6-2016 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2016 by TheBandit795 because: added to the post



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Frankly, your post looked like a Gish gallop, which I generally ignore.

"Here's a list of links, read all the papers on the list and all the entries in a blog" seems pointless, in a sort of 'trials of Hercules' fashion. I don't want to sweep the Augean Stables, thank you very much.

eta: off to bed. ttfn
edit on 30-6-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Thank you for confirming what I said earlier about people like you not being open to discussing the subject.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Im changing the idea from telepathy, to telekinesis. PLEASE READ. PLEASE READ...

"Solid looking objects like a pen, book and even the molecules, atoms, and cells in our bodies for that matter, are actually made up of vibratory energy particles called electrons, protons, neutrons, and further more, tiny particles. So when these particles vibrate in the nucleus, a small electrical impluse is generated in our body. According to the famous law of physic "When there is an electrical field around the body, a magnetic field gets developed automatically". So the tiny electrical impluses in our body results into the formation of a magnetic field around our body, which is actually known as the aura. Since everything in this universe is made up of the same basic building blocks: Protons, elections, neutrons, ect,That means everything has an aura (electromagnetic field.) and therefore everything in this universe has a magnetic field aswell."

It was found that objects which are not alive, do not change parameter of their aura by more than 2%
BUT LIVING objects howerver, can change their aura field dramatically, and quickly.
A Russian professor found that the response in Kirlian (A type of way to measure the aura, aka electromagnetic field.) seems to precede (Appear as soon as, or earlier than.)
The electrical processes in the brain during decision making.
It seems that a thought has influence on the aura, before any electrical activity in the brain is detected.

Classically, electric and magnetic fields are thought of as being produced by smooth motions of charged objects. For example, oscillating charges ( produce electric and magnetic fields that may be viewed in a 'smooth', continuous, wavelike fashion. In this case, energy is viewed as being transferred continuously through the electromagnetic field between any two locations. For instance, the metal atoms in a radio transmitter appear to transfer energy continuously. This view is useful to a certain extent (radiation of low frequency), but problems are found at high frequencies
TLDR Electromagnetic fields (Our aura,) at low frequency (Our brain waves.) Can transfer energy (Our emotions.)


This is the part I need guys:

Say I want to move the pencil with my mind.. What would be the requirements?

My first thought is to increase the electromagnetic fields around myself, inorder to push it.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: TheBandit795

Frankly, your post looked like a Gish gallop, which I generally ignore.




You mean like 95% of my posts ans IMs?


Bass sad now



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: Bedlam

Thank you for confirming what I said earlier about people like you not being open to discussing the subject.


Don't post Gish gallops. It's tacky. Discussing the subject involves a bit more than a link wall, and a command to read and comment on them all or 'you're not open'. That's a simon pure Gish.

Instead, choose one that you feel is the sui generis of your beliefs on the subject. You can discuss ONE, no sane person is going to do that with your link aggregation, though.
edit on 30-6-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadCat
Im changing the idea from telepathy, to telekinesis. PLEASE READ. PLEASE READ...


That's a copypasta from biofieldglobal, it looks like. I encourage you to use the quote function, it saves the site grief and lets other people know where it came from.

It's also incorrect.

"are actually made up of vibratory energy particles called electrons, protons, neutrons, and further more, tiny particles"

Made up of particles, and further more, particles? More, we call these things 'matter', because 'vibratory energy particles' isn't true.

It's also not true that their mere existence causes 'electrical impulses in the body'. Static electrical fields and static magnetic fields do not create each other, and even time-varying ones may or may not produce propagating EM.

I suppose one could say, "I define 'aura' to mean a magnetic field", but that's the only way you could get away with that. You can't see magnetic fields, and there are persons who claim to be able to see aurae. So if it's visible, it's not a magnetic field.



It was found that objects which are not alive, do not change parameter of their aura by more than 2%
BUT LIVING objects howerver, can change their aura field dramatically, and quickly.


And this was measured, how?



A Russian professor found that the response in Kirlian (A type of way to measure the aura, aka electromagnetic field.) seems to precede (Appear as soon as, or earlier than.)


Kirlian photography doesn't measure magnetic fields. If you can say it's actually doing anything useful, it's indicating where coronal discharges are likely to form. And so it measures ionic contaminants and water vapor. But not a lot else.






This is the part I need guys:

Say I want to move the pencil with my mind.. What would be the requirements?

My first thought is to increase the electromagnetic fields around myself, inorder to push it.


EM fields can only impart very small amounts of momentum. That's how light sails work. However, the brain doesn't emit propagating EM, because it's made of meat. And it's in a nice conducting bag of juice. And there's not a lot of ionic motion in any one neuron membrane, and they're all oriented chaotically, and there's not much way that you can get an organized EM field out of it.

You're awash in electromagnetic fields right now. But things don't move about macroscopically because of it. There is random microscopic motion due to thermal energy. But it doesn't cause large scale objects to roll around.

Consider - big transmitters put out lots of EM, and all in one spot, and in a fairly concentrated way. Yet they don't tend to cause motion even in small, light objects. That's because EM doesn't really cause mechanical force. Until you get up to something really serious, like an antimatter powered laser or something, then you could make a photon drive.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Never heard of Gish Gallop. Sounds like some nonsensical pseudoskeptic term.

Here's one: www.researchgate.net... _Bayesian_Review_of_Evidences


What evidence is there to support the existence of NLP? If we use the results obtained with the frequentist statistical approach, i.e., P(Data/H0), apart from the results obtained using participants in normal states of consciousness and the free-response protocol, all of the statistics in the remaining meta-analyses lead to the rejection of the null hypothesis, even if the measures of effect size are clearly greater using the free-response protocol.In contrast, if we refer to the results obtained with the Bayesian statistical approach, i.e., P(H0/Data), only for the three meta-anal-yses which relate to the ganzfeld condition, the RV procedure and anticipatory responses, there is an high probability that H1, the hypothesis supporting the existence of NLP, may be true.



Are these converging results with these three protocols “extraor-dinary” evidence? Perhaps. Surely these results are well beyond the standards for a “strong recommendation” suggested by the GRADE system. However, the results presented in this study con-cern the “recommendation” to accept the existence of NLP and not to apply medical or psychological interventions to ameliorate human health. Do we need more stringent standards to enable us to accept phenomena that apparently seem to violate our common beliefs regarding physical laws? However, if results analyzed with both frequentist and Bayesian statistical approaches from more than 200 studies conducted by different researchers with more than 6000 participants in total and three different experimental protocols are not considered “extraordinary,” or at least “sufficient” to suggest that the human mind may have quantum-like properties, what standards can possibly apply? Or we should accept that, in order to accept new hypotheses about the functioning of the human mind, it is necessary for us to abandon quantitative standards and in this case quantitative methods are useless?


Here's the abstract:


Starting from the famous phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” we will present the evidence supporting the concept that human visual perception may have non-local properties, in other words, that it may operate beyond the space and time constraints of sensory organs, in order to discuss which criteria can be used to define evidence as extraordinary. This evidence has been obtained from seven databases which are related to six different protocols used to test the reality and the functioning of non-local perception, analyzed using both a frequentist and a new Bayesian meta-analysis statistical procedure. According to a frequentist meta-analysis, the null hypothesis can be rejected for all six protocols even if the effect sizes range from 0.007 to 0.28. According to Bayesian meta-analysis, the Bayes factors provides strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis (H1) over the null hypothesis (H0), but only for three out of the six protocols. We will discuss whether quantitative psychology can contribute to defining the criteria for the acceptance of new scientific ideas in order to avoid the inconclusive controversies between supporters and opponents.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DeadCat
Im changing the idea from telepathy, to telekinesis. PLEASE READ. PLEASE READ...


That's a copypasta from biofieldglobal, it looks like. I encourage you to use the quote function, it saves the site grief and lets other people know where it came from.

It's also incorrect.

"are actually made up of vibratory energy particles called electrons, protons, neutrons, and further more, tiny particles"

Made up of particles, and further more, particles? More, we call these things 'matter', because 'vibratory energy particles' isn't true.

It's also not true that their mere existence causes 'electrical impulses in the body'. Static electrical fields and static magnetic fields do not create each other, and even time-varying ones may or may not produce propagating EM.

I suppose one could say, "I define 'aura' to mean a magnetic field", but that's the only way you could get away with that. You can't see magnetic fields, and there are persons who claim to be able to see aurae. So if it's visible, it's not a magnetic field.



It was found that objects which are not alive, do not change parameter of their aura by more than 2%
BUT LIVING objects howerver, can change their aura field dramatically, and quickly.


And this was measured, how?



A Russian professor found that the response in Kirlian (A type of way to measure the aura, aka electromagnetic field.) seems to precede (Appear as soon as, or earlier than.)


Kirlian photography doesn't measure magnetic fields. If you can say it's actually doing anything useful, it's indicating where coronal discharges are likely to form. And so it measures ionic contaminants and water vapor. But not a lot else.






This is the part I need guys:

Say I want to move the pencil with my mind.. What would be the requirements?

My first thought is to increase the electromagnetic fields around myself, inorder to push it.


EM fields can only impart very small amounts of momentum. That's how light sails work. However, the brain doesn't emit propagating EM, because it's made of meat. And it's in a nice conducting bag of juice. And there's not a lot of ionic motion in any one neuron membrane, and they're all oriented chaotically, and there's not much way that you can get an organized EM field out of it.

You're awash in electromagnetic fields right now. But things don't move about macroscopically because of it. There is random microscopic motion due to thermal energy. But it doesn't cause large scale objects to roll around.

Consider - big transmitters put out lots of EM, and all in one spot, and in a fairly concentrated way. Yet they don't tend to cause motion even in small, light objects. That's because EM doesn't really cause mechanical force. Until you get up to something really serious, like an antimatter powered laser or something, then you could make a photon drive.


Don't take my copypastas as my attempt to seems smart or anything, this is just how I gather my information, its easier for me.. In terms of thermodynamics. Would you agree that humans are each individual thermodynamic systems?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
EM waves sensed via the optic nerve. It has the highest bitrate of any of our senses. So, it's the best conduit to hack into the mind with.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: RedDragon

April 2014, west los angeles.

"What the hell is that?!?"

"You can see that!?!"

"Yes"

A day later:

"How bout now? Can you see me now"

"....yes."



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




If three other labs can't reproduce your results, it's time to explain that or watch everyone move on.





I might add that anyone who states that replicability is not necessary because their particular topic is special as was quoted a few posts back is a red flag that the guy is a crank.


As you should already know if you have looked into psi at all it is very difficult in the field to replicate. Reasons are plentiful and common sense ( literally).

Also, "crank" to me can be described as scientists who are so stuck on holding onto old theories without room for growth they become dogmatic in their beliefs. Their skepticism truly becomes dogmatic whereas they use words like "woo". These people cannot fathom nor do they want to fathom due to fear of what our minds and energy fields are actually capable of.

Our law enforcement and enforcement searching for missing people use psychics so why wouldn't our government? If they in fact use said psychics then obviously they unlike mainstream scientists know the phenomena is real.

For the fearful scientist I say to them...

Mind is the builder and creator of all things. Keep yours in a box but allow mine to be free. Just because you do notbelieve"spooky at a distance" can explain psi doesn't mean it doesn't. Your beliefs and barriers to taking such work seriously reminds me of the old pastor that screams his beliefs in a church keeping his congregation boxed into certain dogma. The scientific world view is obviously biased and when their peers go outside of their world view they are "woo'ed" from their own community and guess what happens? They either conform with their head held low or they venture out creating their own "denomination".
QE and QM will not remain boxed in.... it's only a "matter of time" (literally).



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Gish Gallop has entered the Halls of Infamy from Duane Gish.

The hallmark of a Gish Gallop is a text wall that demands dozens of replies on various subjects, some of which are barely related but if you don't reply to them ALL then you have failed to meet the Gisher's standard of reply, and your entire argument is invalid.

Another form of it is to post a link list which the person for which the other poster must read, analyze, and respond to every link before replying.

It's ridiculous to expect someone to do that.

When challenged with a link list, I generally ask the poster to pick one. You did. Great! I have to say up front, I'm generally well disposed towards NLP, having been exposed to it in my yoot, but it's not telepathy. I'll read your link this week. My little time off is at an end in an hour or two. Alas.

eta: oh, and while I'm up for Bayes, most statisticians detest it and find it to be inaccurate. If you resort to Bayes and it's not an analysis involving 'the wisdom of many' then it's possible the writer is resorting to Bayes to 'handwave' or 'blow smoke'. Bayes shines when you're aggregating many peoples' intuitive impressions. For physics, it's often not used.
edit on 1-7-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadCat
Don't take my copypastas as my attempt to seems smart or anything, this is just how I gather my information, its easier for me.. In terms of thermodynamics. Would you agree that humans are each individual thermodynamic systems?


No, no, don't get me wrong, it's just that other sites have been gripey over non-attributed links, and it's sort of hard to tell sometimes who said what you posted and what the context was. Attribution solves all of this.

To your other question, sort of, yes. Except if you start trying to conflate new age arrogation of physics terms to thermodynamics. So if you launch off into thoughts = energy, energy cannot be destroyed etc as an argument it's going to end badly, crushed against the rocks of what the laws of thermodynamics actually mean vs new age misusage of terms.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
As you should already know if you have looked into psi at all it is very difficult in the field to replicate. Reasons are plentiful and common sense ( literally).


Also, a lack of reproducibility can mean that it does not exist. Or that the experimental design is wrong. Again, if you try arguing for your particular topic being above that or not subject to it, then it's likely you are a crank. The link you provided does just that.



Also, "crank" to me can be described as scientists who are so stuck on holding onto old theories without room for growth they become dogmatic in their beliefs. Their skepticism truly becomes dogmatic whereas they use words like "woo". These people cannot fathom nor do they want to fathom due to fear of what our minds and energy fields are actually capable of.


Or perhaps you're wanting something to be true so badly you have left common sense behind, and are buying into any old thing that comes along. Also, the only energy fields you've got are thermal, and some near IR and microwave emissions. Beyond that is likely 'woo'.



Our law enforcement and enforcement searching for missing people use psychics so why wouldn't our government? If they in fact use said psychics then obviously they unlike mainstream scientists know the phenomena is real.


They do, and have, and the results are generally less than sterling. You hear about psychics that make amazing discoveries but you rarely hear about the many many failures.



Mind is the builder and creator of all things. Keep yours in a box but allow mine to be free. Just because you do notbelieve"spooky at a distance" can explain psi doesn't mean it doesn't.


Mind is a way to understand what's actually going on. Rarely does mind create something that didn't already exist. Imagination is great, but has to be tamed with an understanding of what's actually happening. BTW, 'spooky action' requires a deep understanding of GR, which few have.



Your beliefs and barriers to taking such work seriously reminds me of the old pastor that screams his beliefs in a church keeping his congregation boxed into certain dogma. The scientific world view is obviously biased and when their peers go outside of their world view they are "woo'ed" from their own community and guess what happens? They either conform with their head held low or they venture out creating their own "denomination".


MY beliefs require what I believe to be true, and useful, or people have plane crashes, or weapons malfunctions, or the drive augers in and everyone looks like beets run through a blender and painted onto every surface.

That to say, when engineering goes bad, it goes very very bad. There isn't a lot of room for woo. QM is a part of it. And it's not the Deepak Chopra version of it. If wishes were horses, we'd all eat steak.



QE and QM will not remain boxed in.... it's only a "matter of time" (literally).



Quantum mechanics requires a lot of math. It's definitely not Chopra territory. And it's very concrete, even if it's not intuitive.
edit on 1-7-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: DeadCat
Don't take my copypastas as my attempt to seems smart or anything, this is just how I gather my information, its easier for me.. In terms of thermodynamics. Would you agree that humans are each individual thermodynamic systems?


No, no, don't get me wrong, it's just that other sites have been gripey over non-attributed links, and it's sort of hard to tell sometimes who said what you posted and what the context was. Attribution solves all of this.

To your other question, sort of, yes. Except if you start trying to conflate new age arrogation of physics terms to thermodynamics. So if you launch off into thoughts = energy, energy cannot be destroyed etc as an argument it's going to end badly, crushed against the rocks of what the laws of thermodynamics actually mean vs new age misusage of terms.


My goal is to stay far away from new age terminology or definition, within this theory. So if we can assume for the sake of theory that humans are thermodynamic systems then I offer you my next piece to the theoretical puzzle, which includes some copypasta which ill put into quotation. "" :

So why does it matter that humans are individual thermal dynamic systems? How does this relate to my theory of kinetics?
Because all the systems are confined by a wall. I need to find out what types of walls are preventing the transfer of energies. If it is even possible to transfer the energy needed to move a pencil through these walls that we posses.




"A system is enclosed by walls that bound it and connect it to its surroundings. Often a wall restricts passage across it by some form of matter or energy, making the connection indirect."

(Remember, You are never actually touching anything? Indirect connections, bound to surroundings, but indirectly connected.)

There are 5 types of walls shown here. Lets find out which wall we posses.






The system is delimited by walls or boundaries, either actual or notional, across which conserved (such as matter and energy) or unconserved (such as entropy) quantities can pass into and out of the system.


So you could argue we have two walls, The physical body (Matter and energy.), and the electromagnetic field we produce (entropy.)

It's my belief that the physical body is wall type 2. And the electromagnetic field is wall type 1. (Giving us all the check marks.) But since you didnt concur with the idea of the elecromagnetic field, let us just assume we have just one: The physical body.)


Here is some extra info on what it means to be a thermodynamic system, and why I believe we are such:




"A thermodynamic system is the material and radiative content of a macroscopic volume in space, that can be adequately described by variables such as temperature, entropy, internal energy and pressure. Usually, by default, a thermodynamic system is taken to be in its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium.The thermodynamic system is always enclosed by walls that separate it from its surroundings; these constrain the system."


Material and radiative? Check.
Macroscopic volume in space? Check.
Temperature? Check. Entropy? Check.
Internal energy and pressure? Check.
Your own internal state of thermal equilibrium? Our bodies try to maintain a set temperature at all times. Not sure if that qualifies?
A wall to separate the system from its surroundings? How about your body? Check.
edit on 1-7-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join