Psychic ability is science

[Bendy Demon]

Well, we have an electric current in our brain, and neurons are wires that could transmit electrical signals. By definition, it's enough.

As DecoNoir said, there IS a difference between frequencies. You cannot call a microwave a electric wave then claim that therefore since the body produces minute electricity that it also produces microwave, gamma rays and so forth. It is just plain wrong and misleading especially from a scientific standpoint.

We don't care at the moment what organ could receive them, but here is the thing, we have enough conditions to create a wave signal.

We should care if one is going to make statements however erroneous especially if one wants to study these things.

[FlyingAngel]

There are no wires in the human brain despite what you may think,your theory is nonsense

Of course there are, not metal wire but bio-wires

Although chemicals are required to send a message from neuron to neuron, it takes a different medium to transmit that message from the receiving neuron's dendrites to its own axon terminals: electricity. When the neurotransmitters trigger the receiving neuron to fire, it sends an electrical "action potential" along its length the way that an electrical pulse flows down a metal wire. Like wires, some axons even have an insulating coating, the fatty myelin sheath, to make the signal travel faster.

Source : http://io9.com/5877531/how-exactly-do-neurons-pass-signals-through-your-nervous-system

So as someone above suggested, it's possible for the brain to create wave, not "radio" one. But technically, telepathy for a short distance like 1m is possible.

And since this is about physic, it's science

[Emma_Acid]

So as someone above suggested, it's possible for the brain to create wave, not "radio" one. But technically, telepathy for a short distance like 1m is possible.

And since this is about physic, it's science

Please show your workings.

[dr no]

Please show your workings.

This should be good!

[aquatus1]

I've been thinking.. if a smartphone could send a signal up to space, 1000 miles away, then why shouldn't our brain ?

Empathy, gut feelings, telepathy connections... maybe all of them are true?

What do you think?

The major problem is that there really isn't any mechanism in the brain that could accomplish this, as opposed to a cellphone which is specifically design to transmit a signal anywhere between 25 and 50 miles away to a cell phone tower, which then transmits it to a satellite approximately 22,000 miles up in space. A cell phone that could transmit over 1000 miles would be fairly hefty, less a cell phone and more an amateur radio transmitter. Right off the bat, we see a problem with scale, both in terms of equipment (amateur radio being far larger than cell phones and most human brains) and power requirement (much greater than the approximately 2.5 volts, a little less than two AA batteries, inside your brain).

The brain is often said to be electrical, but that isn't quite correct. The brain is actually electrochemical. To understand the signifigance here, we have to talk a little bit about electricity and energy. The first thing about these two things is that they aren't actually "things".

"Energy" isn't the nebulous, glowy, cloud that people think of when they talk about the energy in a human body, particularly in reference to psychic anythings. Energy is more accurately described as the capacity to perform "Work" (in the "Force overcoming Resistance" physics sense). Electricity is a form of energy, meaning that electricity is something that has the capacity to perform work through the use of charged particles.

Most people think of electricity in the form of electrons, such as those in wires. That is certainly one type of electricity. However there is also the type of electricity found in differential between ion charges (guys familiar with these concepts: I know, I know, I'm trying to simplify it and butchering it terribly). Inside the brain, the synapses have little gateways which physically (inasfar as the term can be used for ions) shuttle Na and K ions in and out. When the difference in the charges within the synapse and outside the synapse is great enough, the synapse discharges. This is the sort of electricity found in the human brain. It is so weak that you need a huge gallumphing machine just to detect its movement inside the skull. There is no transmission, in the psychic sense of the word, of this electricity outside the skull. It's like watching an animal in a zoo; you can see it, but it isn't getting out.

Wireless transmission, on the other hand, is a type of energy known as "radiation". To create this, you need a large source of energy, because you are going to be modifying it from regular electrical, changing the amplitude, frequency, phase, etc, handing it off to a resonant antenna, and then converting it to electromagnetic energy, all of which requires energy to do, meaning your actual signal has much, much less energy than you originally started with. It is the resonance and behaviour of the electrons that allows one to fine tune it, as well as the properties of metal that allow for the large amounts of energy needed, to perform this. Tiny little organic synapses would burn to a crisp with even a fraction of the energy involved.

If psychic powers exist, they are not due to any biological property of the human brain that we are currently aware of. There is simply not enough energy being produced by the brain for transmission of any known sort, nor any mechanism that would be able to cope with the amount of energy should it be there to begin with.

[John from Lowell]

If psychic powers exist, they are not due to any biological property of the human brain that we are currently aware of. There is simply not enough energy being produced by the brain for transmission of any known sort, nor any mechanism that would be able to cope with the amount of energy should it be there to begin with.

Yes I agree completely. At some point science will identify that missing energy you speak about. If you would like, I can post a link to channeled information about that subject?

John

[FlyingAngel]

Yes I agree completely. At some point science will identify that missing energy you speak about. If you would like, I can post a link to channeled information about that subject?

John

Yes please?

[aquatus1]

Yes I agree completely. At some point science will identify that missing energy you speak about.

Prior to doing that, it needs to determine what sort of work is being done that would necessitate finding any sort of energy that is doing it.

Looking for an answer to a question that doesn't actually exist yet is not a really useful way of going about things.

If you would like, I can post a link to channeled information about that subject?

John

If you like. I haven't really heard anything new on the subject over the past 20 years or so.

[John from Lowell]

Hi,

The MP3 audio on the right is about physics over the next 300-500 years.

http://www.kryon.com/cartprodimages/2014%20downloads/download_moscow_14.html

We all have different ways of doing things and your way is as valid as any other, as I see these things. Hard science requires a great deal of objectivity. I hope this presentation fits that criteria.

John

[aquatus1]

There is a certain aspect to science called "usefulness". It refers to data, information, and what can be done with it. It isn't about "correctness" so much as it is about being able to actually do anything with it. It is the aspect of "usefulness" that distinguishes being able to determine something scientifically, from being right out of sheer chance.

The mp3 is a fairly good example of something that lacks "usefulness". For all intents and purposes, it is little more than what can be found in the science fiction section of your local library. While there is certainly incorrect information found there, and there is also misleading and agenda driven information as well, it is neither the correctness nor the bias which is so much the problem as simply the complete lack of usefulness. I'll go into it a little more in detail.

Right off the bat, we see an example of re-defining terminology. This is a technique used to begin the process of persuasion; using words with slightly different levels of variation, one moves the listener farther and father away from the original meanign under discussion into the one the speaker wants them to follow. The first thing the speaker does, under the guise of attempting to simplify things, is re-define the meaning of physics by claiming that "Physics is how things work".

Well...no, not really.

Physics concerns the nature and properties of matter and energy. It is less about how things work and more about how things interact. Indeed, one of the basic foundations of physics is that when one is dealing with physics, one stops dealing with the "thing" as a whole, and instead one begins to work with only a specific part of it. If one is trying to determine the speed of a horse pulling a cart, one doesn't need to get physics involved; it is simply a distance/time equation because you are dealing with the entire "thing" (horse and cart). Physics would be if you started measuring the forces between the wheels and the road, the horse and the harness, the harness and the cart. Physics is about the interaction of all these forces, not about how the entire "thing" works as a whole.

A simplified definition that pretty much leads you towards the polar opposite of the actual definition isn't a definition you should put a lot of trust in.

The second idea presented to us is the idea that there is a spiritual aspect to physics. My question s simply this: What for?

What is the purpose of claiming there is a spiritual aspect to physics? Where does it fit, what does it answer, why is it needed, what is the relevance? To just up and claim that spirituality plays a part in physics is akin to claiming that bravery, or happiness, or anger, plays a part in physics. There is no role for it. It doesn't answer any questions, it doesn't create any questions, it doesn't affect any of the processes we use, so what exactly is it there for? Why include it?

If you include something with no reason to include it, that is referred to as bias. It goes against the foundational concept of science, which is to create as objective an environment as possible in order research.

Along with the re-definition of physics, the speaker also went on to redefine Quantum Physics. According to him, Quantum Physics can also be referred to as "Multi-Dimensional Physics".

Well...no, it can't. That would imply that defining dimensions is the purpose of quantum physics. Multiple directions in space are certainly a part of quantum physics, but they are hardly the definition of it. So, why redefine it like this? Well, keep it in mind, because we have begun traveling down the slippery slope.

The speaker comments: "Most of your physics is single dimension, up to 4. It is linear physics."

Ahh...kind of by definition, a single dimension doesn't go up to four. Nor is it linear. Linear would be 1-dimensional physics (forwards/backwards, single point in space). 2-dimensional physics, like the photons on your computer monitor, have two directions in space (forward/backward, side-to-side). Our existence as humans is done largely in the 3rd dimension (forwards/backwards, side-to-side, up/down). We touch on, but are not part of, the 4th dimension, movement through time (forwards/backwards, side-to-side, up/down, before/after)

But that isn't what quantum physics is realy about. Quantum physics is about the behaviour of quanta, of tiny little things that exist within the influence of Planck's Constant. It is actually a rather specific thing, certainly nothing as vague as "multi-dimensional".

I'll ignore the heavy God bias, and the Intelligent Design comments, etc, as they serve no purpose.

The speaker claims to pesent us with 4 concepts for the future. He refers to them as discoveries, but shies away from calling them theories or details, preferring instead to just refer to them as "concepts". Meh. Fine.

The problem with this claim is that not only have pretty much all these concepts already been discovered, most of them already have people making decent headway into resolving them.

He makes a big deal about the first concept/discovery/prediction being the ability to see and measure quatum energy. Think about that: See and measure energy.

"See" and "measure" the capacity to do Work.

This is the classic error. The idea that energy is some sort of glowy cloud, intangible yet affective, that invisibly permeates...everything. If it is in a human, it is a spirit. If it was in a human, but is now outside, it is a ghost. If in a tree or rock, it is part of nature ,or spiritual force, or the Great Web of Interconnect Twaddle that forms patterns between everything.

That isn't energy. Energy isn't a "thing". Energy is a calculation. It is math. It is nothing more than figuring out how much force would be required to overcome the resistance of a given object. Energy is nothing more than the capacity to do work. The speaker claims that by using a plasma lens, we will be able to see the patterns of quantum energy between the rocks, the air, and the people. The problem with that is that at the quantum level, there are no rocks, air, or people. If you were flying around a tiny little mini-quantum space ship, you would not be able to tell when you were in the air, when you were in a rock, or when you were in a person. At the quantum level, there is no distinction between the whole and the part. Everything is nothing more than mathematical relationships between quanta.

The second "discovery" is about two new laws. While telling us the laws would have been pretty damn easy, and would not have actually put anyone in danger as knowing the laws and being able to actually use them are two different things, the speaker chose to stay the course and only give the vague concept around them. I had a little trouble understanding what the discoveries were supposed to be because everything that was mentioned has already been know about for some time.

He started the second concept by claiming that most of use use the words "galaxy" and "universe" interchangeably. I personally don't know nor have I ever met anyone above the age of junior high who does this. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually define what he means by galaxy, save to say that galaxies apparently have spiritual systems that affect the forces of physics, which is why we shouldn't use what we know about physics and apply it to other galaxies. In other words, the claim is that physics are not universal. They change by galaxy, depending on the galaxies spiritual force.

Now, those who have studied physics know that the numbers and equations up on the blackboard weren't pulled out of some old professor's black hole for the sheer sake of tenure. The formulas have both purpose and usefulness; the accurately predict and can be cross-checked. They are in accordance with all the data that we not only gather today, but that we have extrapolated from the past and been able to predict in the future. It is so reliable that it is actually one of the primary axioms of all of science itself: Simply put, we have never observed, noted, nor detected, not at any time in the history of the entire universe, any situation in which the laws of physics have not remained constant since the stabilization of the Big Bang (roughly a fraction of a microsecond after the explosion).

It isn't simply a matter of being wrong. It is a matter of if we are wrong about it, then our entire existence falls into question. Whether or not God is real becomes as insignificant a subject as whether or not one likes ketchup or mustard on their hot dogs. The universality of physics is implied by the quantum Hamiltonian. Not existing results in recursive errors. It cannot, in the most basic, fundamental, definition of the word "existence", exist.

But to our Pleadian speaker, it is treated more along the lines of an amusing little silly conclusion that we cute humans have arrived at and will eventually notice that, oops, we forgot to carry the one.

In all honesty, I was ready to stop at that point, as the 40 minute podcast was getting downright painful to listen to. The final three concepts I'll just run down quickly.

• Free energy: Already underway.
  
• God in the atomic structure: Yeah, well, God has been pretty much everywhere scientists haven't looked, till they did, and boom, God suddenly find himself a new rabbit hole. At first he was in the sky, then he was in the body, then he was in the mind, then he was in biology, then he was in physics, and now he is hiding in the quantum world. Basically, God is like the legend of the Amazons. There's a tribe of warrior women hiding in that one jungle we haven't explored, up until we actually explore it, and then they must be hiding in a different jungle.
  
• Human consciousness is quantum, hence multi-dimensional: Oooooh...now it makes sense why the speaker wanted us to be thinking of Quantum physics as multi-dimensional. It makes it real easy to then argue that humans must also be multi-dimensional because our brains are quantum. If "quantum" is multidimensional, and human brains are quantum, then human brains are multidimensional. It's perfectly logical, sure. It's just incorrect, in that the only way it works is if one re-defines terminology, incorrectly applies actual theory, and if one assumes the existence of something not shown to exist.
  
• The 4th concept, Coherent DNA: An oldie but a goodie.Remember back in the late 80's, when the fad was "Activating you DNA!" Same thing. According to our speaker, our DNA is currently working at 30%, and we need to be bumped up to 90% in order to achieve "dimensional alignment", which he refers to as coherence. He states that coherence is "magic", and that once achieved, it will change your body. I imagine so. Activating even 1% of currently inactive DNA would likely result in cataclysmic failures in the body. You would be suddenly growing teeth out of your eyes, second, third, fourth livers, scar tissue, all sorts of nasty things. DNA isn't some sort of video game power meter; more is not necessarily better, and often worse. Changes as minute as a few genomes in a fetus frequently result in a miscarriage. On an actual adult, having the DNA suddenly start coding for proteins you never used before is going to be fatal. If you think of your DNA as a cookbook for all the parts of your body, it would be the difference between making a sensible meal and just dumping a bunch of different dishes on a table.
  

When all is said and done, there is nothing being offered in this alleged channeling. It doesn't even get concepts that humans known about correctly, much less talk about concepts aliens should be beyond familiar with. No alien is going to use the term "galaxy" interchangeably with "dimension", and they certainly aren't going to talk about quantum dimensions as if they were writing a travelogue. It isn't really a matter of belief, however. Simply put, there is no direction offered in this 40 minute meander. There is nothing testable, there is nothing productive, there isn't even a whole lot that can be verified. It is basically a ufo/religious/scifi sermon, telling a story intended to be taken as true and then, for all intents and purposes forgotten.

If you are exactly where you were after being given this information as you where prior to being given the information, you have effectively gained nothing and lost time.

[Emma_Acid]

Yes please?

Fancy addressing aquatus's points?

[Emma_Acid]

Fancy addressing aquatus's points?

I'll take that as a no then.

[enigma7]

Understanding the nature of conscious experience generated by the brain remains an "unsolved mystery" in psychology and science. If we could define consciousness and scientifically explain how it functions then someone could legitimately say whether psychic abilities are impossible scientifically. But we're not there yet and this is where it becomes useless to disregard the "whole" and only focus on specifics. For example, colors exist as wavelengths of light in the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are not objective. Our perception of color is determined by subjective factors that can't be calculated mathematically. So what's all the fuss about acknowledging that modern physics might not have all the answers yet?

Psychic abilities aren't something to be afraid of or just some delusional fairytale invented by teenagers with too much time on their hands (I'm not a teenager by the way). Telling people to fear or ignore what they don't understand sounds more like religious/Christian doctrine than an interest in "hard science" to me...

[aquatus1]

If we could define consciousness and scientifically explain how it functions then someone could legitimately say whether psychic abilities are impossible scientifically.

Would we have to be able to define scientifically what psychic abilities are first?

Psychic abilities aren't something to be afraid of or just some delusional fairytale invented by teenagers with too much time on their hands (I'm not a teenager by the way). Telling people to fear or ignore what they don't understand sounds more like religious/Christian doctrine than an interest in "hard science" to me...

...

Did anyone here do this?

[enigma7]

Would we have to be able to define scientifically what psychic abilities are first?

No, just like we don't need to define scientifically the way our brain is perceiving a color to know it exists.

...

Did anyone here do this?

And not specifically but sorry that was just my first impression reading through the comments here, and you mentioned God so.. I think that is something that bothers a lot of people about quantum physics, having the "bigger picture" called into question...

[aquatus1]

No, just like we don't need to define scientifically the way our brain is perceiving a color to know it exists.

...

But you are not talking about the same thing.

That we can perceive colors is beyond doubt, what colors are is no in debate. Perceiving colors is a phenomena that no one disagrees with. Consequently, science can go about finding a solution to this phenomena, as is its purpose.

There is no consensus on whether the phenomena of psychic powers exists. There is no concensus on what psychic powers are. The purpose of science is to explain existing phenomena; how can one explain a phenomena that hasn't even met the bare minimum requirement of existing beyond the shadow of a doubt?

And not specifically but sorry that was just my first impression reading through the comments here, and you mentioned God so.. I think that is something that bothers a lot of people about quantum physics, having the "bigger picture" called into question...

Adding things to a discussion that are not required and are unnecessary to explain any given point tends to make the whole more unclear, much in the same way that finding a solution to a phenomena that doesn't exist doesn't make an answer any clearer.

[enigma7]

But you are not talking about the same thing.

That we can perceive colors is beyond doubt, what colors are is no in debate. Perceiving colors is a phenomena that no one disagrees with. Consequently, science can go about finding a solution to this phenomena, as is its purpose.

There is no consensus on whether the phenomena of psychic powers exists. There is no concensus on what psychic powers are. The purpose of science is to explain existing phenomena; how can one explain a phenomena that hasn't even met the bare minimum requirement of existing beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Well, some people are color blind, others are born blind.. No two people will look at the same object and perceive it as exactly the same shade of a certain color, they might even disagree on how to label it. Sure everyone knows humans can perceive colors, but is there a single definition of that somewhere that's documented in scientific law? No and by definition even scientific "law" can be disproved if contradicting evidence is found later on, nothing is ever proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

So I'm just not understanding what seems so mystical about "psychic" abilities. Psychic coming from the word psyche, which for anyone who studies psychology shouldn't seem like such a foreign concept.

Adding things to a discussion that are not required and are unnecessary to explain any given point tends to make the whole more unclear, much in the same way that finding a solution to a phenomena that doesn't exist doesn't make an answer any clearer.

Mkay, I'm not looking for a solution, just pointing out that until you can scientifically explain the concept of consciousness (which is a phenomenon most people would agree exists right?) then there's not really anything to disprove scientifically. Anyway, sorry I hadn't seen your responses earlier, I'll get back to your other one soon...

[aquatus1]

Well, some people are color blind, others are born blind.. No two people will look at the same object and perceive it as exactly the same shade of a certain color, they might even disagree on how to label it. Sure everyone knows humans can perceive colors, but is there a single definition of that somewhere that's documented in scientific law?

Yes, there is a definition of "color" that's universally agreed by scientists, as there is one for "law", in the scientific sense. "Color" is defined by the frequency in which a given object reflects light, and "scientific law" is a particular behaviour specific to a given phenomena that always occurs reliably and predictably and who's description has never been observed to be incorrect.

No and by definition even scientific "law" can be disproved if contradicting evidence is found later on, nothing is ever proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it was.

Perhaps you shouldn't keep making counter-statements to claims that haven't been presented. It smacks of strawman, although I doubt that is your intention.

So I'm just not understanding what seems so mystical about "psychic" abilities.

The part about them being inexplicable by the natural laws that apply to all other scientific phenomena in existence.

Psychic coming from the word psyche, which for anyone who studies psychology shouldn't seem like such a foreign concept.

It isn't the etymology that people object to. It is simply that it describes a phenomena that hasn't been reliably shown to exist.

Mkay, I'm not looking for a solution, just pointing out that until you can scientifically explain the concept of consciousness (which is a phenomenon most people would agree exists right?)

Sure. It is a state in which one is self-aware and able to perceive and react to the environment around them. Medical and psychological professionals deal with it on a regular basis, and have a series of tests to determine both the level and status of it for official reports.

then there's not really anything to disprove scientifically.

That's kind of the point. There isn't anything to disprove because there is nothing proven, and on top of that, there isn't really agreement on whether a phenomena actually exists which would warrant any theories that would then need to be either proven or disproven.

Anyway, sorry I hadn't seen your responses earlier, I'll get back to your other one soon...

Take your time.

[RoofGardener]

There are many things accepted as "scientific" which are NOT directly reproducible. Atomic Decay is not "reproducible" for any given atom; we have to take a statistical approach instead. Then we have the Heisenberg principle, and some of the more esoteric aspects of quantum physics.

[aquatus1]

There are many things accepted as "scientific" which are NOT directly reproducible.

Not really. They may not be reproducible due to lack of resources or conditions, however when the requirements are met, the phenomena is reproduced.

Atomic Decay is not "reproducible" for any given atom; we have to take a statistical approach instead.

Sure it is. You don't even have to do anything; just watch it and eventually it will decay.

The half-life of a given radioactive substance can be calculated using the statistical model you mentioned, but (by sheer definition of "statistics") the model doesn't apply to individuals, and it would not be correct to do so.

Then we have the Heisenberg principle, and some of the more esoteric aspects of quantum physics.

True, theoretical sciences are bit harder to model in terms of replicable phenomena than most of our macro ones, however, none of these are any particular issue. The Heisenberg principle is not a phenomena, but (as indicated by the name) a "principle", which is similar to a scientific law in the sense that it is an observation that has never been shown to be incorrect, but which differs by also being the foundational behaviour or property for a theory or reasoning. In this case, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is a semi-official property of quantum behaviour, where any situation in which the uncertainty between any energy/time or position/momentum approaches or exceeds the Planck constant is pretty much defined as being "quantum".

Edited June 8, 2014 by aquatus1

[RoofGardener]

Heisenberg was pulled over by the police.

Policeman : "Do you know how fast you where going Sir ? "

Heisenberg: "No Officer, but I know exactly where I was".

This passes as a joke amongst Physicists.

[enigma7]

Yes, there is a definition of "color" that's universally agreed by scientists, as there is one for "law", in the scientific sense. "Color" is defined by the frequency in which a given object reflects light, and "scientific law" is a particular behaviour specific to a given phenomena that always occurs reliably and predictably and who's description has never been observed to be incorrect.

You're missing the point.

I'm not aware of anyone claiming it was.

Perhaps you shouldn't keep making counter-statements to claims that haven't been presented. It smacks of strawman, although I doubt that is your intention.

In your above post you claim it doesn't "meet the bare minimum requirement of existing beyond the shadow of a doubt" in science. I'll try to be more clear but perhaps you should stop contradicting yourself as well, it's getting confusing..

The part about them being inexplicable by the natural laws that apply to all other scientific phenomena in existence.

This is a pretty abstract statement...

Sure. It is a state in which one is self-aware and able to perceive and react to the environment around them. Medical and psychological professionals deal with it on a regular basis, and have a series of tests to determine both the level and status of it for official reports.

Missing the point again.

There isn't anything to disprove because there is nothing proven, and on top of that, there isn't really agreement on whether a phenomena actually exists which would warrant any theories that would then need to be either proven or disproven.

There are theories (unified field, superstring theory, etc.) that relate to interconnectivity and "universal consciousness" but that is within the realm of quantum and I can see there's no point debating this with you if you don't consider it "real science". Just understand that's the real issue here in my opinion... the theories should be more important than how they're labeled.

Edited June 8, 2014 by enigma7

[aquatus1]

You're missing the point.

Am I? It sounds like you believe that the subjective experience of individuals is what defines the actual properties of a given object or property.

The definition of color is not reliant on what a given individual perceives it to be. The applies to scientific law as well. The same should apply to psychic phenomena.

In your above post you claim it doesn't "meet the bare minimum requirement of existing beyond the shadow of a doubt" in science. I'll try to be more clear but perhaps you should stop contradicting yourself as well, it's getting confusing..

There is no contradiction. The existence of a given phenomena must be beyond the shadow of a doubt. Scientific proofs or laws regarding the phenomena have no such condition. Proofs are nothing more than explanations with high probabilities of accuracy and laws simply observations of behaviour that have not been shown to be incorrect.

This is a pretty abstract statement...

It is pretty specific. Psychic abilities do not match any of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology that all other scientific topics meet.

Missing the point again.

Apparently so. From where I stand, you keep making claims that there is no definition for this or that, but when provided with one, you claim that the point has been missed.

I currently believe that your point is that there are concepts applied in science that either don't have specific definitions or are subjectively defined. I do not believe this and haven't seen an example of such. If this is not your point, I have definitely missed it.

There are theories (unified field, superstring theory, etc.) that relate to interconnectivity and "universal consciousness" but that is within the realm of quantum and I can see there's no point debating this with you if you don't consider it "real science".

I suspect the problem is less what I consider "real science" and more what your understanding of what these theories propose that is the problem here. I am not aware of anything in either unified field research (there isn't an actual "Unified Field theory") or any of the five Superstring theories that precludes (or even particularly affects) the concept of "universal consciousness" as defined by Giulio Tononi; nor, for that matter, that "universal consciousness" would have anything to do with psychic powers...unless, of course, the issue is with you believing that the Integrated Information theory from which the concept of "universal consciousness" was derived from has something to do with the interconnectivity of quantum physics. Personally, I consider ITT to be a perfectly acceptable (and quite elegantly dignified) mathematical description of the feeling we commonly refer to as spirituality.

Just understand that's the real issue here in my opinion...

My opinion is that your understanding and use of the science you mention has less to do with knowledge and more to do with desire.

Edited June 8, 2014 by aquatus1

[enigma7]

You're right it's been a long day and I'm not articulating things very well so will have to come back to write more later. But really I'm just trying to say that although there's a universal definition for color it's also a subjective experience.. much like love as I was saying earlier, and much like psychic abilities imo.

You're getting so wrapped up in semantics and doing a great job of talking me in circles but have lost sight of the big picture.

I know you see my understanding as unrealistic, but I see yours as a little close-minded.

Yes I believe the Unified Field/Einstein's theory of relativity along with the superstring theory relate to psychic abilities due to the interconnectivity of quantum physics which allow us to make sense of synchronicity, symbolism, consciousness...

Our brains are hardwired like networks with the ability to expand and connect with one another. I'm sure you'll find these completely ridiculous, but just to leave you with some food for thought lol

**I am SO sorry! I thought I was responding to you, but I had accidentally clicked on "Edit" instead of "Quote"! I rebuilt your post as well as I was able to, but I wasn't able to retrieve the links you posted. Again, my sincere apologies, and I hope I didn't miss anything you considered critical.**

Edited June 8, 2014 by aquatus1
Sudden Onset of Idiocy

[aquatus1]

You're right it's been a long day and I'm not articulating things very well so will have to come back to write more later.

As I said before, take your time. There is no hurry, we will all still be here.

But really I'm just trying to say that although there's a universal definition for color it's also a subjective experience.. much like love as I was saying earlier, and much like psychic abilities imo.

And I don't disagree with that. The existence or definition of either color or love, however, is not subjective. And the purpose of science, which is brought into the discussion due by the very title of this thread, is to explain existing phenomena (existence requiring an objective reality) with theoretical explanations. There's absolutely nothing incorrect about claiming that people have different ideas about different concepts. It is only when these ideas are considered the equivalent of scientifically plausible that the problems begin to appear.

You're getting so wrapped up in semantics and doing a great job of talking me in circles but have lost sight of the big picture.

Perhaps what you consider to be the big picture isn't quite as big as you think it is.

I know you see my understanding as unrealistic, but I see yours as a little close-minded.

I don't see them as unrealistic. I just don't see them as particularly well-defined. You haven't really said or described anything.

Yes I believe the Unified Field/Einstein's theory of relativity along with the superstring theory relate to psychic abilities due to the interconnectivity of quantum physics which allow us to make sense of synchronicity, symbolism, consciousness...

As I already mentioned, I don't believe you actually understand how this would work. You might, but you haven't come close to providing even a cursory idea of what the connection between any of them might be other than you believe that there is some sort of connection. Perhaps after you get some rest you will, or perhaps you won't. Either way, I still haven't heard anything that would indicate that these theories have anything to do with any particular abilities the human animal would possess. In all honesty, it seems like a rather grandious claim to make, that the human brain is so powerful that it is somehow able to manipulate the quantum world so casually. It's perfectly in keeping with humanity's historic Ego in regards to our place in the natural world, of course, but it still seems like quite a leap.

Our brains are hardwired like networks with the ability to expand and connect with one another. I'm sure you'll find these completely ridiculous, but just to leave you with some food for thought lol

Again, not so much ridiculous as completed unfounded and unsupported. There is no purpose for such claims to exist, other than to support an idea that has not been shown to exist either. In other words, they are indistinguishible from faith-based postulates concerning the existence of divine beings.

I am not arguing about whether or not psychic powers exist as much as I am about whether or not psychic powers can be considered scientific.

Edited June 8, 2014 by aquatus1