Our Hearts and Brains Emit Energy Fields

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


look in Google !! for example :
www.generativescience.org...
www.enspirepress.com...
etc etc .. you are a big boy and you can search by yourself no ?




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 


EM fields are generated by the body. Without fuel to generate that energy, you will not generate EM fields. The heart pumps this fuel through the body. The brain and sensory organs propagate electrical signals that convey commands and information that help us function. The EM field, again, is a product of the body not a causation for it's animation. Please don't mistake food consumption and the energy derived from it with EM fields. Nor do EM alone trigger reactions within the body, just saying..



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by sirnex
 


look in Google !! for example :
www.generativescience.org...
www.enspirepress.com...
etc etc .. you are a big boy and you can search by yourself no ?



I really dislike attempts to muddy the observer effect aspect of quantum physics. The human mind does not directly observe anything. When discussing the observer effect, it's discussing the instruments that directly observe particles. The human mind itself never comes into direct observation of any particle or event. Therefore, there is no observer effect in consciousness. It's not even implied in the observer effect. What you've linked to is a pseudo-scientific essay that purposefully ignores this aspect of the theory to assert biased agenda that human consciousness is more than what it seems simply because we are capable of higher functions compared to other species of life on our planet.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by sirnex
 


I continue to discuss with you because it's stronger than myself ...

yes also the cows are part of the whole UNI-verse, did you think they were outside that UNI-verse ?
their milk is good for us and our children, their meat also .....
YOU are part of this UNI-verse, yes ? or no ?
every living being is part of the UNI-verse or the MULTI-verse ... ok ?
never heard of the ONEness of all this ?
so, part = part = relation = interaction = how much interaction ? = question we ask ! OK ?


Why the need to evade the question? Just out of curiosity...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

You'll call fallacies when it's convenient for you, but then argue from "common sense" (a totally meaningless phrase) in the next instant.


You argued from authority.


No, I didn't. Telling you to look at the URL and think twice before slinging insults is not arguing from authority. Saying "they're right because they're from Princeton, an Ivy League school," would have been arguing from authority. I never said anything equivalent to that. This is another example of you not being up to your own standards when it comes to using logic (correctly). And you never had anything intelligent to say about the actual website or the project it represents.


The fact remains that independent analysis did not observe any statistical anomalies at all. Again, argument from authority in conjunction with confirmation bias.


What "independent analysis" are you talking about? Why do you never give sources when you make claims? Do you think you're the only source that you or anyone else needs?



So now you're playing the robot whenever your arguments get shot down. Okay. You said our energy fields can't do work. Well work in physics is defined (one definition) as displacing mass. Electrons are mass. They are displaced. The EM energy fields around our body therefore do work. That is not a "deflection," that is what you would call a debunking of your claim.


Your deflection of my criticism against the OP's video is once again duly noted


And once again, you claimed the EM fields around our body can do no work, and that is wrong.

That is not a deflection, that is your claims on this thread being debunked. This is easy to repeat.


Simply pretending that I'm talking about the inner workings of muscular contraction in hands and arms is rather infantile as no mention of those causation's has yet to be called into question by myself.


Your ignorant claims would have contradicted the fact that your EM field does interface with your muscular system and perform work within it. Using the word "infantile" is only a reflection of your own state of mind.



Again you make a statement with no proof. This is argument from ignorance. Do you have scientific papers to validate this claim?


Hold a compass. Does it still work? Please explain how the Em field emitted by the human organism can affect a planetary magnetic field but has no affect upon the workings of a compass.


In the same way that it interfaces with your body, which can not only pick up frogs and paperclips but has produced every "civilized" product known to mankind. It does not have to use brute force to do what it does, and this is what you never seemed to understand. Extremely important information can be carried from a smaller system to a larger system by small energy levels. That's how your EM fields control your muscles. Your DNA is another example of something extremely small and otherwise insignificant making a huge impact on your over-all body, and thus your environment, etc.

And also realize that you are still making a logical fallacy. Making a claim, and then when I ask for proof, asking me rhetorical questions instead, is ignorant of how an actual logical argument is constructed.



So what do you do with all these "deflections" that you take due note of? Do you count them up and see what score you get at the end?


I'm just attempting to make you aware that my issue lays with the OP's video and not with muscular contractions of hands and arms as you keep pretending.


You're just mad because you wanted to tell us all that the EM fields are insignificant and useless and you have already been proven wrong. You would be dead without them.



Yes, I purposefully ignored it, so I could explain what is in the quote of mine immediately above this text. Once again, go back to the original context. You're trying to say electricity doesn't really control the actions of our arms and legs? Put it this way: without electric flow, you arms and legs and etc. wouldn't move.

I never said electrochemical processes have no control in muscular contraction. Please quote that specific statement. I appreciate this bout of entertaining deflection and ill thought out arguments though.


Now this is a deflection. You're just like FOX "News." I'm talking about pure electricity (pure electrical current) causing muscles to seize up, and you keep weaseling in electrochemical as if to downplay the critical role of electricity in the whole process. Your entire posts are orchestrated to deny, insult, deny, insult, deny, insult.


What your doing is called quoting out of context, another logical fallacy, which you appear to be very fond of. My mention of the human organisms EM field not being strong enough to do work or exert force is clearly (in context) in reference to instances such as moving a paperclip or affecting the Earth's magnetic field. I do appreciate your entertaining straw man arguments though.


Then your definition of "work" differs from physics' definition of "work," and you are still technically wrong. EM fields do exert force and perform work, only on a smaller scale than our arms and legs deal with. Why does your EM field have to pick up a paperclip to be significant? Because you want Jedi powers, apparently. That's the only reason I can think of. I would say more mature and level-headed individuals are probably content with what they can already accomplish with their EM fields as it is, and aren't going to be miserable and throwing insults and putting themselves into denial just because they aren't Obi Wan Kenobi.



Yes, I have. I noted that your argument is an argument from ignorance. You just say it doesn't affect it, and that's it. You think because you won't accept any evidence for it, then that means you somehow have evidence to the contrary. Too bad it doesn't work that way. That's why they invented the phrase "argument from ignorance." You confuse being debunked with "deflecting." I'm going to assume that's some form of cognitive dissonance.


No evidence has thus been provided which indicates that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields.


That is your opinion, when you ignore data collected by a scientific project based in Princeton but involving scientists all over the world. Sorry, but just saying they're wrong isn't science. It's arrogance.

And having started there, to go on and pretend that a lack of evidence is somehow positive evidence to the contrary, you are again demonstrating argument from ignorance. You aren't going to brute force your way through a logical fallacy by repeating it in so many words over and over, and finally somehow be right.


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).


en.wikipedia.org...


Please levitate a paperclip or cause a compass needle to spin by placing your hand over them.


Please show me where I ever claimed to be able to do this, or anyone in the video in the OP claiming to be able to do this.

You should be banned from accusing others of making logical fallacies ever again after this massive string of them in a row.


Of course I feel great, give me great pleasure in having the common sense to know that if the human EM field has no affect upon a lowly button compass then it will have no affect upon a larger planetary magnetic field.


Except this is hardly "common sense," "common sense" doesn't even mean anything, and really all you are doing is making yourself feel good by artificially inflating your ego arguing with people on the internet. And doing it badly. It's really not as flattering as you make it sound.



Sure, but they can't predict how any one person will react to any given stimuli.


Point being?


Just saying.




I'm not even religious myself. Apparently me posting Einstein quotes is an "argument that he was a religious man." That speaks for itself.

Aww, you don't like the quotes I posted and you want me to go find your favorite one. Noooo.


I appreciate the entertaining four year old ramblings.


I wonder if you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed reading that Einstein's own words were me arguing that he was religious? That was pretty funny.




"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."


Neither of those quotes contradict his earlier quotes I posted above. Remember, I never called him religious, and I'm not religious either, I just posted his own words. He even says he finds nature "a magnificent structure" just like he echoes in his other quotes, finding "rapturous amazement" in it and all the rest. You've proved nothing.


There is that short term memory problem cropping up again. Einstein is not my hero. Please look back at my previous reply if your curious about my views on him.


You said you were Einsteinian in your thinking, originally. I guess not so much after all, now that you realize he was involved in this "superstitious garbage and propaganda trying to push a spiritualist everything is connected message."


Please quote a single direct insult.


I didn't say direct insult.
I'm not quite so stupid as to miss what you mean with words like "infantile." Now are you going to try to weasel out of that next, or are you just going to use the opportunity to throw another insult (direct or not)? You would make an awful lawyer btw.


The list of philosophical musings that mention the Judaic-Christian deity by non-religious persons is rather lengthy and pointless to argue about. I do appreciate the attempt to deviate from my initial criticism with yet another straw man tactic.


It's not hard to go off onto these side-topics when you make claim after claim after claim and have proven none of them, and offer nothing but fallacious reasoning instead. That's why we're talking about non-religious people talking about God in the first place. You apparently thought I was trying to argue that Einstein was religious, which is wrong.



Einstein's quote reads almost as if he was summing up our entire discussion, rather than just the one point about us being "part of the whole, called by us Universe." Part of something. That is a relation. You can deny it all you want. It's sad, like you're denying your own family member or something, like a Westboro member denying their own daughter. You came from the universe yet want to claim that you have nothing to do with it.


Again, failure to grasp simple rhetoric in conjunction with confirmation bias.


Those are very convenient excuses, good job, but from everything you failed to even try to address, your argument as to what Einstein's quote means is much weaker than mine. Being a part of something is having a relation to it. That's what you can't debunk, and for some reason is very offensive to you, because you want to keep thinking of yourself as separate from everything else. That's what Einstein himself called a delusion. Show me how that is taken out of context.


You changed your terminology from connected to in relation.


I offer you to post the full definitions of either word from the dictionary of your choice.

I believe either should prove to you that by being a part of the universe, we are automatically connected or related to it. That does not mean physically connected to every other object in the universe, or that you can shoot fireballs from your eyes, so try not to be quite that dense in your response.


The common definition of connected implies two things being joined together.


Again, source? Post a dictionary definition and do yourself in. You make a lousy dictionary.


My mention of magnetic fields levitating frogs was to show that the human body does not possess the capacity to generate the required electromagnetic fields to manipulate a planetary magnetic field.


You either don't understand what's being argued in the first place, or you just like being a troll. What exactly do you think we have in mind when we say that the human body's EM field can interact or "manipulate" the Earth's magnetic field? Tell me exactly what you think we're trying to accomplish with this. Because all of your arguments are based on trying to move objects of mass and this is completely irrelevant to anything anyone is saying.


So what exactly is your argument with me this whole time?


That various claims you have been making are wrong, whether it's because you just didn't understand the original video or whatever your problem is.


Do you not subscribe to the idea that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields or do you not?


I believe the Global Consciousness Project is a credible organization with credible data, yes. I also believe EM interfaces with more subtle energies that also play a subtle but significant role in our environment, for example as has already been demonstrated by the "electroweak" force.


I'm having a hard time understanding what your personal beliefs are in regards to this with all these deviations


The deviations are purely your fault, I promise you. I don't "believe" anything. I follow science like what is mentioned above, and unlike yourself, I don't make excuses for it. I don't believe in unicorns, I'm not Christian, and when I say something, I don't actually mean a million other ridiculous things that are totally irrelevant like you seem to imagine. Thus what you call deviations.
edit on 4-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by sirnex
 


look in Google !! for example :
www.generativescience.org...
www.enspirepress.com...
etc etc .. you are a big boy and you can search by yourself no ?



When discussing the observer effect, it's discussing the instruments that directly observe particles.


Not true.

This is the experiment the proves measuring is not what collapses the wave function.

The availability of information to a conscious observer collapse the wave function.

A Double-Slit Quantum Eraser Experiment
grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

"This experiment uses the phenomena of interference, produced by light incident on a double slit, to investigate the quantum mechanical principle of complementarity between the wave and particle characteristics of light. Using a special state of light, Walborn and his coworkers created an interference pattern, made a "which-way" measurement which destroyed the interference, and then erased the "which-way" marker, bringing the interference back. This experiment clearly displays the way in which nature is counterintuitive on the quantum scale and makes it clear that our ways of thinking based on our everyday experiences in the classical world are often completely inadequate to understand the quantum world."


Delayed Erasure

"Next the erasure measurement is performed. Before photon p can encounter the polarizer, s will be detected. Yet it is found that the interference pattern is still restored. It seems photon s knows the "which-way" marker has been erased and that the interference behavior should be present again, without a secret signal from photon p. "



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I personally don't feel like repeating over and over and over and over and over many more times, so I'll makes this short.

I have no issues with electrical activity causing motive force within the human body nor has this ever been an argument of mine. I've asked you more than once to quote where I've had issues against this and you have thus far failed to do so.

My criticism is with the assertions put forth in the OP's video which state that human feelings have had an affect upon the planets magnetic field.

If your looking for a source in regards to that independent study mentioned, please go to Wikipedia and search global consciousness project.

You can keep continuing with your straw man arguments if you wish, that's your choice, but you look like a complete idiot when you can't even simply address my criticism against the OP's video and instead have to moronically counter argue about god damned hands and arms. Yes, no I'm getting upset and now I'm insulting you directly retard.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


This idea of energy fields and spiritual connectedness, reminds me of Dr. Masaru Emoto work with water and crystals.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Realtruth
 


This idea of energy fields and spiritual connectedness, reminds me of Dr. Masaru Emoto work with water and crystals.


He was debunked long ago. If I'm not mistaken he's tried a different approach with a bit more thought put behind his trickery, forget what exactly it was off the top of my head that he did the second time around.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Can't debunk that which people connect to, spiritually.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by sirnex
 


Can't debunk that which people connect to, spiritually.


So, basically still believe it regards of the evidence that points to the contrary? I understand why people want to believe they're special and have some control over reality itself and I understand that such a belief isn't inherently detrimental to one's self. What I don't understand is why people don't care about learning more about the reality in which they live and how it works. Why the need to blindly believe in made up stories that were initially created thousands of years ago by primitive man and have evolved to include modern terminology? Why the continued hatred for true discovery and scientific progress? Why the bashing of science while using every single tool provided by scientific progress?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I believe that [science and technology] and [philosophy and spirituality] are mutually beneficial. There need not be a disconnect or dissonance regarding this. It speaks to the 'wholeness' of a person and what is influencing how or why someone lives their life the way the do.
edit on 5-4-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I personally don't feel like repeating over and over and over and over and over many more times, so I'll makes this short.


I don't mind repeating myself over and over, provided you keep making the same fallacies, just so we can keep lining up your fallacy followed by me pointing it out as such. That's my whole point, is pointing out that what you're posting stems from your own personal bias and is even more baseless than you claim the OP is.


I have no issues with electrical activity causing motive force within the human body nor has this ever been an argument of mine.


Then you should have chosen your words more carefully before coming in and claiming EM fields could do not work, especially while simultaneously calling us all "infantile."

Just for reference, to be fair to you, here is one example of you claiming....


Originally posted by sirnex
...it is also true that the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree


These statements are obviously wrong.



My criticism is with the assertions put forth in the OP's video which state that human feelings have had an affect upon the planets magnetic field.


You have no evidence of that either. But if this is true, you should have stuck to that argument, and not branched off to claiming our EM fields affect nothing, aren't controllable, etc. Your hormones got the best of you I guess and you just felt like "debunking" everything, even well-established medical facts.



You can keep continuing with your straw man arguments if you wish, that's your choice, but you look like a complete idiot when you can't even simply address my criticism against the OP's video and instead have to moronically counter argue about god damned hands and arms. Yes, no I'm getting upset and now I'm insulting you directly retard.



Quoted for pricelessness.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Then you should have chosen your words more carefully before coming in and claiming EM fields could do not work, especially while simultaneously calling us all "infantile."


Learn to read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yes and it is also true that the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything and certainly never anything non-magnetic in nature. It is also true that the human body can never ever ever generate the required energy to create and sustain an electromagnetic field powerful enough to affect a paperclip two feet away from it.

Let alone manipulate a planetary magnetic field.


That was my very first mention of EM fields generated by the human body and it's capacity to do work. you have severe lack of reading comprehension skills. No mention whatsoever has been made from the outset of anything to do with the internal workings of electrical activity and it's influence upon muscular contractions.

LEARN TO READ!



Then you should have chosen your words more carefully before coming in and claiming EM fields could do not work


How clear is this phrase?

the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything

Please, enough with the idiotic, moronic, infantile, childish, out of context, ill thought out, deflective, straw man arguments. You look like a complete idiot with your hands and arms argument that has no god damned bearing on my criticism to the OP's video.

Hopefully NOW I've made this flipping clear, I'm guessing not because YOU CAN'T READ SIMPLE ENGLISH!

Again EXTERNAL
edit on 5-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Then you should have chosen your words more carefully before coming in and claiming EM fields could do not work, especially while simultaneously calling us all "infantile."


Learn to read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I can already read. I posted the quote of yours above where you made claims that were wrong. Maybe you're the one who has difficulty reading?

Here it is again:


Originally posted by sirnex
...it is also true that the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree


"no physical affect upon anything"

Wrong, because it controls the function of my muscles.

"nor is controllable to any degree"

Wrong, because I can control it, to control the function of my muscles.

And that doesn't necessarily mean its usefulness stops there, and of course the human EM field is responsible for more than that. So any claims that that's all it can do, would need scientific validation.


That was my very first mention of EM fields generated by the human body


And it was wrong, and you should have stopped there, but you didn't. You started making even more sweeping claims that were also completely wrong, and slinging insults on the side, because that's what caliber person you are. That was also your mistake. I know how to read.



Then you should have chosen your words more carefully before coming in and claiming EM fields could do not work


How clear is this phrase?

the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything


Perfectly clear. Don't even start re-inventing what your words mean now that you realize they were wrong.

As I already said, your EM field does do physical, "external work" because electrons are mass, and displacing mass is one physics definition of performing work.

These claims of yours are completely wrong, up and down. This is not something you can fix by trying to spin your semantics around.


Please, enough with the idiotic, moronic, infantile, childish, out of context, ill thought out, deflective, straw man arguments.


You can only stop those yourself. I'm just pointing them out.


You look like a complete idiot with your hands and arms argument that has no god damned bearing on my criticism to the OP's video.


Actually they do, because you claimed EM fields couldn't do work, aren't controllable, don't affect anything, etc.

Basically you said a bunch of total bull without an ounce of scientific validation behind it, and now you're eating crow for it.


Hopefully NOW I've made this flipping clear, I'm guessing not because YOU CAN'T READ SIMPLE ENGLISH!


I think it's kind of obvious that I can read English. You were just wrong. That's the problem. You will never admit it though. So keep crying, I guess.


Again EXTERNAL


I realize this is like the last straw you have to clutch onto, but laws of physics already prove that your EM field automatically performs external work by its very existence. Unless you're going to disprove that electrons are mass, or that displacing mass is a physics definition of work.

Like I said, you should have chosen your words better, and stuck to a narrower and more technically correct argument. You chose to neglect all those things, and throw lots of insults on top of it, so you've just made a fool of yourself. Have you ever heard the phrase, "better stop while you're ahead"? Something close to that would apply here now I think.
edit on 5-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I appreciate your ability to quote out of context, it truly shows that you have no thought out argument.

Please quote the entire sentence in context to my criticism against tho OP's video rather than this out of context drivel you keep continuing with. Here's the full sentence again.

Yes and it is also true that the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything and certainly never anything non-magnetic in nature.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I appreciate your ability to quote out of context, it truly shows that you have no thought out argument.


You have to try harder than that man. I'm posting your own quotes, in context. Your exact words, and full quote, again:


Originally posted by sirnex
Yes and it is also true that the electromagnetic field that barely penetrates outside the human body has no physical affect upon anything nor is controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything and certainly never anything non-magnetic in nature.


So let's enumerate the claims you are making here:

1) The human EM field can't perform work outside of the human body. False. Electrons are mass and moving them is work, by physics definition. The EM fields very existence is indicative of it doing physical work, which is how it interfaces with muscles inside the body in the first place.

2) The human EM field "has no affect upon anything." False, including when you consider the EM field outside of the human body. The human EM field is measurable outside of the body, exists outside of the human body, and has natural and obvious consequences that follow from that as per laws of physics.

3) "...nor is [the human EM field] controllable to any degree to do any external work upon anything and certainly never anything non-magnetic in nature." This is also patently False, as each individual's EM field is controlled by their own psyche, which operates our limbs to perform plenty of external work including on non-magnetic objects. That is direct proof that the human EM field is controllable and can be used to do legitimate work, both in physics terms and in your so-called "common sense" terms.



Please quote the entire sentence in context to my criticism against tho OP's video rather than this out of context drivel you keep continuing with. Here's the full sentence again.


You didn't need to bother. I posted the full quote for you myself above, and have already destroyed any meaning you can get out of it.

It was your claim, so if it's a deflection, it's your deflection. And your claims have been shown 100% wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Clearly you have no argument in context to my criticism in regards to the OP's video. I appreciate your time and I'm in awe that you would go to such pitiful childish lengths to argue out of context with material that never addresses my criticism against the OP's video. I'm done, this is simply a pointless exercise of futility.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Our entire body, our entire nervous system is basically one giant electrical circuit. You have to be able to develop a stable electomagnetic field in order to reach higher states of consciousness.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SystemResistor
Our entire body, our entire nervous system is basically one giant electrical circuit. You have to be able to develop a stable electomagnetic field in order to reach higher states of consciousness.


There's no validity in that statement at all. The nervous system is not strictly electrical, it's electrochemical, never forget that. Higher state of consciousness just means having better control over your mind and will. You don't reach some amazing enlightenment and knowledge or any of the other new age concept associated with higher consciousness.





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join