Bio energy

[0011235813]

Okay, so you are postulating an imaginary force, that leaves no evidence...To explain things pretty well explained through science and biology.....to answer questions that you don't understand the answers too.

Why again is it not supernatural?....

The better question would be, Aquatus, why is this in the Paleontology and Archaeology section? And even better; why is it in the science section at all? We are not talking science here, and most certainly the science of paleontology or archaeology--We are however, talking about faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Sorry is my name Aquatus? Maybe you should read the post.

As for the paleontology, archeology and history section- There was a glitch in the site and it went under the wrong topic...

sorry about that.

[aquatus1]

He wasn't talking to you, but rather to me, asking me in a roundabout fashion why this topic hasn't been moved to the Paranormal section. I am tempted, but not just yet.

I think it is important here to differentiate between the supernatural and the paranormal. If we assume this Force, to use a well-understood movie reference, to originate from an individual person, then we run into several issues. We have to determine the source of the force, the organs or process controlling it, the metrics involved, and, of course, the utter lack of any precedent. No paranormal phenomena has ever been shown to exist.

If, on the other hand, we assume that this is not paranormal, but rather supernatural, then we have a bit more leeway. The supernatural has a long history of being shown to be part of the natural world. In this case, we would need to find out how the human body can access of manipulate this Force, which exists in the environment, not within ourselves.

That said, we do continue to have a problem, and that is that saying "The Force did it." is no more an explanation than saying "Bob did it.". All it does is lay the blame on something; it doesn't really add anything to our knowledge base. The purpose of science is to explain existing phenomena. The thing about it is, though, that the existence of the phenomena is never really in question. No one disagrees that gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc, exist as phenomena. They may disagree on what it is and how it works, but not on whether it actually exists. The phenomena that you are talking about here...there really is no preponderance of evidence, let alone consesus, on it's existence.

[Setton]

The purpose of science is to explain existing phenomena. The thing about it is, though, that the existence of the phenomena is never really in question. No one disagrees that gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc, exist as phenomena. They may disagree on what it is and how it works, but not on whether it actually exists. The phenomena that you are talking about here...there really is no preponderance of evidence, let alone consesus, on it's existence.

You mean like the scientific research going into climate change at the moment? Even though its existence is still debated?

(I know its nowhere near the same level as this but, in principle it should be the same)

Sorry, spent all day looking at climate change and your post made me think of it again

[aquatus1]

You mean like the scientific research going into climate change at the moment? Even though its existence is still debated?

It is a valid comparison. However, I think you will find that the general consensus is that the climate is indeed changing. The cause of the climate change is under debate, but the preponderance of evidence is that the phenomena itself is occurring.

This is not to say that this could not be in error. There are some (nowhere near a majority, or even a statistically significant percentage) who say the climate is not changing at all, or is only undergoing a natural fluctuation (as opposed to entering a new ice age or a new heat age). They are currently in the minority, but if they have strong evidence, it will eventually overcome the opposition.

[Setton]

It is a valid comparison. However, I think you will find that the general consensus is that the climate is indeed changing. The cause of the climate change is under debate, but the preponderance of evidence is that the phenomena itself is occurring.

This is not to say that this could not be in error. There are some (nowhere near a majority, or even a statistically significant percentage) who say the climate is not changing at all, or is only undergoing a natural fluctuation (as opposed to entering a new ice age or a new heat age). They are currently in the minority, but if they have strong evidence, it will eventually overcome the opposition.

Yeah I know there's only a handfull of poorly regarded scientists claim it's not happening. After lectures today, believe me, I know :/

And yes the climate is changing - I now have half a dozen graphs to look at telling me just that

Just couldn't resist making the comparison

[Copasetic]

I agree it doesn't belong in the palaeontology, Archaeology and History section. That's it.

1. You say 'an imaginary force that leaves no evidence' - read the thread and you will find links to evidence both for and against.

2. You say 'things pretty well explained through science and biology' - again, read the thread. If they were explained by current science, we would not be having this discussion.

3. It is not supernatural because he is looking for a scientific explaination for it. Read the post you quoted.

4. We are not talking 'faeries at the bottom of the garden'. We are talking about finding a scientific reason for phenomena that have been reported for centuries.

Any clearer?

Okay, I'll play--What scientific questions does 'bioenergy' answer that science or biology does not. As this is the science form, please be specific as to what these questions are--Vague "they answer life" type statements don't count.

[Rlyeh]

So that comment was calling countless civilizations stupid? They might not have Iphones, that doesn't mean they are stupid.

Where did I call them stupid? Countless ancient civilizations lacked the understanding of atoms, space, gravity, etc. Does that make them stupid? Edited March 3, 2011 by Rlyeh

[Copasetic]

Sorry is my name Aquatus? Maybe you should read the post.

As for the paleontology, archeology and history section- There was a glitch in the site and it went under the wrong topic...

sorry about that.

Maybe you'd like to play too then? Let's pass the buck;

Okay, I'll play--What scientific questions does 'bioenergy' answer that science or biology does not. As this is the science form, please be specific as to what these questions are--Vague "they answer life" type statements don't count.

[Setton]

Okay, I'll play--What scientific questions does 'bioenergy' answer that science or biology does not. As this is the science form, please be specific as to what these questions are--Vague "they answer life" type statements don't count.

Ok, scientific questions this force answers that science doesn't. I have no intention of giving a vague answer. As I've said right from the start, this is looking for a scientific explaination of the inexplicable.

Mainly, inexplicable/biologically impossible events that are seemingly miraculous. As linked in one of my earlier posts. Since you plainly haven't bothered to read the thread, I will provide them again:

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

EDIT: Forgot to mention - these are only the academic reerences I found. If you're not interested in reliability, I can find a few million more.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Setton

[Copasetic]

Ok, scientific questions this force answers that science doesn't. I have no intention of giving a vague answer. As I've said right from the start, this is looking for a scientific explaination of the inexplicable.

Mainly, inexplicable/biologically impossible events that are seemingly miraculous. As linked in one of my earlier posts. Since you plainly haven't bothered to read the thread, I will provide them again:

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

EDIT: Forgot to mention - these are only the academic reerences I found. If you're not interested in reliability, I can find a few million more.

Since you are new, I am going to give you a chance to actually read the articles you are citing before it gets embarrassing! Here's two things to consider. First, you should actually read both of these "sources", just using "google" to link articles you know nothing about--Is only bound to make you look foolish in the end. Since the second article isn't available online, (even with institutional access) the chances you've read it (or even the abstract it would appear) seems low--I'd make sure you at least read the abstract here.

Second--Again you need to be specific. Just GoogleBinging something like "mind over matter" and throwing up the first scientific articles that come up isn't how science is done. Like I iterated in my first post that you responded to, you need to be specific here. Science is an endeavor in specificity, if I have to explain how science works to you--Than your argument this 'biogenery' is scientific is rather self-defeating. So the point to consider; what question do you claim these articles raise? How does 'bioenergy' answer it? What allows you to reject your 'null hypothesis' that science or biology can explain these two articles? What is the mechanism that 'bioenergy' provides to answer these questions?

I'll give you a chance to consider these points and collect your thoughts. If you want to retract them, I'll understand.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Copasetic

[0011235813]

Since you are new, I am going to give you a chance to actually read the articles you are citing before it gets embarrassing! Here's two things to consider. First, you should actually read both of these "sources", just using "google" to link articles you know nothing about--Is only bound to make you look foolish in the end. Since the second article isn't available online, (even with institutional access) the chances you've read it (or even the abstract it would appear) seems low--I'd make sure you at least read the abstract here.

Second--Again you need to be specific. Just GoogleBinging something like "mind over matter" and throwing up the first scientific articles that come up isn't how science is done. Like I iterated in my first post that you responded to, you need to be specific here. Science is an endeavor in specificity, if I have to explain how science works to you--Than your argument this 'biogenery' is scientific is rather self-defeating. So the point to consider; what question do you claim these articles raise? How does 'bioenergy' answer it? What allows you to reject your 'null hypothesis' that science or biology can explain these two articles? What is the mechanism that 'bioenergy' provides to answer these questions?

I'll give you a chance to consider these points and collect your thoughts. If you want to retract them, I'll understand.

Maybe you should ask me..

Biology does not answer how A person can view an object from thousand's of miles away without actually being there.

Bio-energy can. Bio-energy is the energy YOU have (if you ask what organ it is stored then it's your entire body)

You can use it to make quantum intengalation, For example, If you have an object that belonged to the person

you wan't to find then you can use it to trace them (sometimes called dowsing) or Making a body exactly

the same as your own exept made out of bio-energy. (some may call it astral projection)

Bio-energy is also not like magnetism or light, there is no way you can detect it with the technology we have

now, just like you cannot detect Dark matter as It does not interact with our medium. Bio-energy does not

interact with machines, only living thing's. So if science can accept dark energy, why not Bio-energy?

something that is inside ourself's.

[Copasetic]

Maybe you should ask me..

Biology does not answer how A person can view an object from thousand's of miles away without actually being there.

Bio-energy can. Bio-energy is the energy YOU have (if you ask what organ it is stored then it's your entire body)

You can use it to make quantum intengalation, For example, If you have an object that belonged to the person

you wan't to find then you can use it to trace them (sometimes called dowsing) or Making a body exactly

the same as your own exept made out of bio-energy. (some may call it astral projection)

Bio-energy is also not like magnetism or light, there is no way you can detect it with the technology we have

now, just like you cannot detect Dark matter as It does not interact with our medium. Bio-energy does not

interact with machines, only living thing's. So if science can accept dark energy, why not Bio-energy?

something that is inside ourself's.

This is the wishy-washy nonsense I was talking about. You've talked here, but you haven't really said anything. You claim this is something scientific and not supernatural--So let's address it as such.

Bioenergy "solves" the problem of "remote viewing". Okay, here's your first assignment then. Let's establish that remote viewing is an actual phenomena. So can you provide some evidence of that? Evidence of the scientific kind, not stories or anecdote. Establishing a phenomena exists, isn't testing it--That will come later. For now, you just want to show empirical observations of said phenomena.

Let's use an example to help explain. Suppose I'm real dumb and don't know that letting go of things make them "fall down", you could cite preliminary scientific study, which contains a methodology, for me to observe this phenomena. That is what "preliminary scientific studies" do--They establish that phenomena; exists and is observable.

Now, you claim that 'bioenergy' explains this phenomena--So let's hear your explanation, mechanistically speaking, of how 'bioenergy' explains it. Saying "it explains it" isn't actually explaining anything.

Its like Aquatus said; its not different than saying "Bob explains it". So this is where you get to provide more citations referring to basic scientific research. Here is where you use controlled experiments that test hypotheses you put forth about 'bioenergy'. Got it now?

[0011235813]

This is the wishy-washy nonsense I was talking about. You've talked here, but you haven't really said anything. You claim this is something scientific and not supernatural--So let's address it as such.

Bioenergy "solves" the problem of "remote viewing". Okay, here's your first assignment then. Let's establish that remote viewing is an actual phenomena. So can you provide some evidence of that? Evidence of the scientific kind, not stories or anecdote. Establishing a phenomena exists, isn't testing it--That will come later. For now, you just want to show empirical observations of said phenomena.

Let's use an example to help explain. Suppose I'm real dumb and don't know that letting go of things make them "fall down", you could cite preliminary scientific study, which contains a methodology, for me to observe this phenomena. That is what "preliminary scientific studies" do--They establish that phenomena; exists and is observable.

Now, you claim that 'bioenergy' explains this phenomena--So let's hear your explanation, mechanistically speaking, of how 'bioenergy' explains it. Saying "it explains it" isn't actually explaining anything.

Its like Aquatus said; its not different than saying "Bob explains it". So this is where you get to provide more citations referring to basic scientific research. Here is where you use controlled experiments that test hypotheses you put forth about 'bioenergy'. Got it now?

I don't think you realize that you can't test this theory by the means you are used to.

Bio-energy is not like gravity, you can't see it affect the world around you, It's too subtle.

You think Biology explain's everything about living organism's, Yet this thread would not exist if Biology

could explain everything. you wan't evidence that remote viewing exist's, well If you READ this thread you would

have heard of the experiment's the military conducted on remote viewing, If a group of voluunter's could all

come up with an image that matches real life and that they had never seen or heard, and that all the other voluunter's

had the same image even though they did not comunicate and were unable to see each other's drawring's, then you

say It's impossible because it does not fit into biology, That's stupid! Science is about explaining the world around

you, Remote viewing is part of that, You can't say something does not exist because it does not fit in with your idea

of the world. That's what fundementalist's do, They denie the world around them because it does not

fit into the bible, Why let science become another art of ignorance? Not accepting the world around you

is called ignorance and closed mindid-ness.

[0011235813]

Now please, if you wan't to comment, then can you go to the trouble of reading the post?

It's not 30 pages long.... is it?

[+HerNibs]

This is the wishy-washy nonsense I was talking about. You've talked here, but you haven't really said anything. You claim this is something scientific and not supernatural--So let's address it as such.

Bioenergy "solves" the problem of "remote viewing". Okay, here's your first assignment then. Let's establish that remote viewing is an actual phenomena. So can you provide some evidence of that? Evidence of the scientific kind, not stories or anecdote. Establishing a phenomena exists, isn't testing it--That will come later. For now, you just want to show empirical observations of said phenomena.

Let's use an example to help explain. Suppose I'm real dumb and don't know that letting go of things make them "fall down", you could cite preliminary scientific study, which contains a methodology, for me to observe this phenomena. That is what "preliminary scientific studies" do--They establish that phenomena; exists and is observable.

Now, you claim that 'bioenergy' explains this phenomena--So let's hear your explanation, mechanistically speaking, of how 'bioenergy' explains it. Saying "it explains it" isn't actually explaining anything.

Its like Aquatus said; its not different than saying "Bob explains it". So this is where you get to provide more citations referring to basic scientific research. Here is where you use controlled experiments that test hypotheses you put forth about 'bioenergy'. Got it now?

Marry me Copa.

This is what I was attempting to find out as well.

Words, you use them well.

Nibs

[Copasetic]

I don't think you realize that you can't test this theory by the means you are used to.

Bio-energy is not like gravity, you can't see it affect the world around you, It's too subtle.

So we have arrived back to faeries at the bottom of the garden.

You think Biology explain's everything about living organism's, Yet this thread would not exist if Biology

could explain everything.

Straw Man. I never claimed that biology explains everything. You, not me, put forth the claim that 'bioenergy' explains things that science and biology cannot. It is not unreasonable then, to ask you, the claimant, just what these things are that biology and science 'fails to explain' that 'bioenergy' does.

you wan't evidence that remote viewing exist's, well If you READ this thread you would

have heard of the experiment's the military conducted on remote viewing, If a group of voluunter's could all

come up with an image that matches real life and that they had never seen or heard, and that all the other voluunter's

had the same image even though they did not comunicate and were unable to see each other's drawring's, then you

say It's impossible because it does not fit into biology,

I did read it. And I didn't ask for 'he said, she said' stories. I asked you to please cite (reference) a preliminary scientific study which establishes said phenomena exists. Before we go any farther, yes I understand that you are putting forth remote viewing exists. We get that, so we can dispense with simply reiterating the claim--its on the table and here I am to entertain it. What I asked of you is to provide evidence, via a preliminary or 'discovery' type of study which vindicates your claim. See that difference thar?

That's stupid! Science is about explaining the world around you, Remote viewing is part of that, You can't say something does not exist because it does not fit in with your idea of the world.

Again, we understand this to be your claim. No one I've seen post on the topic thus far seems to not understand this is your claim. What we would like to do is move past your claim and actually establish said phenomena exists.

That's what fundementalist's do, They denie the world around them because it does not

fit into the bible, Why let science become another art of ignorance? Not accepting the world around you

is called ignorance and closed mindid-ness.

Ahh, so now we start with the "your closed minded" claims? As I just said above, I understand your claim and I am willing to let you put forth evidence to support it--Kind of the pillar of open-minded no? Your frustration with me for not accepting your claim at face-value and referring to me as being "closed-minded" says a great deal about this conversation.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

Marry me Copa.

Sorry Ma'dear, polygamy is illegal where I'm at!!!

This is what I was attempting to find out as well.

Words, you use them well.

Nibs

Thanks, . Though I keep noticing I am missing words in my sentences--Seems its that time of the block where sleep deprivation accumulates enough to make word usage an endeavor

[0011235813]

So we have arrived back to faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Straw Man. I never claimed that biology explains everything. You, not me, put forth the claim that 'bioenergy' explains things that science and biology cannot. It is not unreasonable then, to ask you, the claimant, just what these things are that biology and science 'fails to explain' that 'bioenergy' does.

I did read it. And I didn't ask for 'he said, she said' stories. I asked you to please cite (reference) a preliminary scientific study which establishes said phenomena exists. Before we go any farther, yes I understand that you are putting forth remote viewing exists. We get that, so we can dispense with simply reiterating the claim--its on the table and here I am to entertain it. What I asked of you is to provide evidence, via a preliminary or 'discovery' type of study which vindicates your claim. See that difference thar?

Again, we understand this to be your claim. No one I've seen post on the topic thus far seems to not understand this is your claim. What we would like to do is move past your claim and actually establish said phenomena exists.

Ahh, so now we start with the "your closed minded" claims? As I just said above, I understand your claim and I am willing to let you put forth evidence to support it--Kind of the pillar of open-minded no? Your frustration with me for not accepting your claim at face-value and referring to me as being "closed-minded" says a great deal about this conversation.

Well there have been a lot of study's into the phenomena of remote viewing, If you don't think any of them count's as a "viable preliminary scientific study"

then that's your opinion. I am just saying that "mind over matter" experiment's are going on, they do have scientific viability, and they can yield result's.

I know you do not believe my theory, But why do you say that remote viewing experiments are bogus? Is it just because you don't understand it?

[+HerNibs]

Sorry Ma'dear, polygamy is illegal where I'm at!!!

eh, here too. Bummer.

Thanks, . Though I keep noticing I am missing words in my sentences--Seems its that time of the block where sleep deprivation accumulates enough to make word usage an endeavor

LOL - I don't even have that excuse. My brain and fingers sometimes refuse to cooperate with each other.

____________________________

0011253813

I would still like to know how all cells in our body create this energy and how it's stored and expelled.

Nibs

[+HerNibs]

Well there have been a lot of study's into the phenomena of remote viewing, If you don't think any of them count's as a "viable preliminary scientific study"

then that's your opinion. I am just saying that "mind over matter" experiment's are going on, they do have scientific viability, and they can yield result's.

I know you do not believe my theory, But why do you say that remote viewing experiments are bogus? Is it just because you don't understand it?

I'm very confident Copa understands human biology and chemistry very well. What you are discussing are stories heard/told by people who haven't offered any testable or verifiable evidence.

All these people who say it is possible should be able to have ONE person show up at a university and provide evidence. It should be repeatable and measurable.

This thread doesn't contain that type of evidence.

Nibs

Edited March 3, 2011 by HerNibs

[0011235813]

I'm very confident Copa understands human biology and chemistry very well. What you are discussing are stories heard/told by people who haven't offered any testable or verifiable evidence.

All these people who say it is possible should be able to have ONE person show up at a university and provide evidence. It should be repeatable and measurable.

This thread doesn't contain that type of evidence.

Nibs

Since when was anything ever that simple?

[Copasetic]

Well there have been a lot of study's into the phenomena of remote viewing, If you don't think any of them count's as a "viable preliminary scientific study"

then that's your opinion. I am just saying that "mind over matter" experiment's are going on, they do have scientific viability, and they can yield result's.

I know you do not believe my theory, But why do you say that remote viewing experiments are bogus? Is it just because you don't understand it?

As Nibs pointed out, where are these studies? Again, you have a claim (that such studies exist establishing this phenomena), so let's support that claim, no?

[+HerNibs]

Since when was anything ever that simple?

Well, it shouldn't be too hard.We know how the body turns food into energy.

Inside your cells, the glucose is burned to produce heat and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a molecule that stores and releases energy as required by the cell. The transformation of glucose into energy occurs in one of two ways: with oxygen or without it. Glucose is converted to energy with oxygen in the mitochondria — tiny bodies in the jellylike substance inside every cell. This conversion yields energy (ATP, heat) plus water and carbon dioxide — a waste product.

Red blood cells do not have mitochondria, so they change glucose into energy without oxygen. This yields energy (ATP, heat) and lactic acid.

Glucose is also converted to energy in muscle cells. When it comes to producing energy from glucose, muscle cells are, well, double-jointed. They have mitochondria, so they can process glucose with oxygen. But if the level of oxygen in the muscle cell falls very low, the cells can just go ahead and change glucose into energy without it. This is most likely to happen when you’ve been exercising so strenuously that you (and your muscles) are, literally, out of breath.

Being able to turn glucose into energy without oxygen is a handy trick, but here’s the downside: One byproduct is lactic acid. Why is that a big deal? Too much lactic acid makes your muscles ache.

Read more: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-your-body-turns-carbohydrates-into-energy.html#ixzz1FYYrJDK1

So it wouldn't be too hard to find this "energy", its source and where it's stored.

Nibs

[0011235813]

____________________________

0011253813

I would still like to know how all cells in our body create this energy and how it's stored and expelled.

Nibs

The energy is stored in our body, It's not being expelled, It's sole purpose is to stay in our bodies and keep it functioning.

And the cells don't "create" it, They absorb it from other sources.

[+HerNibs]

The energy is stored in our body, It's not being expelled, It's sole purpose is to stay in our bodies and keep it functioning.

And the cells don't "create" it, They absorb it from other sources.

Where in the cell? By what mechanism? How and where is it absorbed from?

Nibs