Edtharan

Electric charge describes a potential difference between two points. A potential difference is when one location has more or less charged particles (electrons usually) than the other. So, if one pole had more electrons than the other, then there is a potential difference and therefore an electric field. What I think you are getting confused by is an Electro Magnet. this is a magnet created when you force charged particles to move (typically electrons constrained by a wire wrapped into a spiral). The Electro magent is not created because one area has more or less electrons than another location, but it is created when the electrons move along a wire (winding it around and around allows each winding to add to the total field, but so long as the winding is in the same direction).

Firstly Additive and Subtractive colour mixing. The colours you described are subtractive colour mixing. Subtractive colour mixing occures becuase the substances you are interested in are absorbing certain frequencies of light. If you have a white light (made up of all frequenceies) and shon it on some red paint, then that magenta paint (most people mistakenly call it red paint) absorbes blue light and reflects both green and red light. If you then had cyan paint (again often called green paint), then it reflects blue and green light and absorbs Red light. If you then mix these two paints together you can predict the final colour that you see by Subtracting the colours that both paints absorb from white light (that made up from all colours). The Cyan absorb Red light and the Magenta Paint absorbs Blue light. This leaves only Green light. Mixing Magenta Paint and Cyan Pain will give you Green paint. This is subtractive colour mixing is all about. You look at what light frequenceies are absorbed and remove (subtract) them from white light. Actually, you might call it "True Blue". Typically our eyes have 3 types of colour receptive cells in them (ok some people have abnormalities that give them two in the case of colour blindness or even 4 types, but I am talking about the typical here). Each of these cells has a chemical that reacts to a range of frequencies of light (with a peak in the specific frequenciy that we call the primary colours). So the cells that have the chemical that reacts strongly to longer wavelengths of light, we call Red. Those that react to the highest frequency we call blue, and the one in the middle we call green. Our brain has evolved to be able to tell different combinations of activation of these cells so that the Red/Blue cells being activated is different from the Green cell activating. This means that whenever we get a combination of colours activating it is an interperetation of what reaches our eyes rather than just a pure colour based on wavelengths of light.

Sorry I haven't posted in the last few days, the shoulder was bad (and still is). I have a special shoulder support designed to reduce the agrivation and risk of dislocation while at a desk. This does help a lot (I can usually get around 10 to 15 minutes of constant typeing as opposed to a couple of munite without it). So yes, I have these things and they do help, it is just not enough.

Yes, music can have a beinificial effect on plants: Take some sheet music, mulch it up and spread it around the bas of a plant. Well, ok, I was only making a joke. As far as I have heard, there has been no study done that actually deomnstrates a positive effect of music on plants. Sound waves might provide (extremely small) stresses on plant tissue, but whether or not this has a positive or even negative effect (or any effect at all) is unknown and would most liekly differ from plant to plant. And one would wonder: why would plants react favourably to somndes that we find plesent? There are many noises made by other animals that we might find unplesent (the sound some birds make comes to mind, or the whine of a mosquito). Why should a sound that is plesent to us be favourable to a plant?

All this "Time is an Illusion" stuff is because there is a "lay" definition of Time and a"scientific" definition of time and people are trying to mash them together. The lay definition is based on our (extremely) falable perceptions. However, the Scientific one is mathematical and is beyond understanding based on our perceptions. Just because we can't understand the mathematica defintion through our perceptions, does not mean that we can't understand it at all. It only means that we can't understand it so long as we try to udnerstand it in terms of our perceptions (like using analogies and such). Try this one: Can you explain what space is without refereing to distance or using analogies? Well, my definition is: That which exists between two points. This also applies to Time: That which exists between two events. We could use all these arguments that attempt to present time as an "Illusion" (or otherwise) and turn it around and use them to show that space is just the same. Is space an illusion because we can't write an explaination of it? Is something an illusion just because we don't understand it in some way? Just because we perceieve something doe it make it concrete (not an illusion)? Just because we don't percieve something is it an illusion or not an illusion? To answer all these only requiers us to show that the "Thing" (if you haven't been following I mean Time) has some physical reality beyond our perceptions. As long as we rely on our "perceptions" as Judge of reality or illusion we will tie ourselves into knots needlessly. Perceptions can be foold, therfore we can not rely on them as a judge of Reality or Illusion. They can be fooled, even by ourselves (and this foolling is necessary for our functioning and survival). Because perception is unreliable, we can not rely on it. Well to determine if time exists (as currently proposed as a4th dimension in a space time "fabric"), we can look at what points and events are. Events are defined as Two points in Time. That is: If time has an existance not tied to our perceptions, then there can exist two points seperated by time. Just as with space there cvan be two points seperated by distance. Now, we we can have two objects occupy the same spatial location (the difference between the spatial points is 0), but they do not collide (that is they are not the same object, and dose not have to "push" the other out so as to be able to occupy the same spatial location), then they must have some form of physical speration that is not space. This seperation is called Time. As anyone can perform this experiemnt at home, it is very simple to show that Time must have a physical existance and so therefore is not an Illusion. Time is not an Illusion (hiwever, our perceptions of it can be).

The colour of Mars is not caused by it parent star (our sun) being Red. If it was, then it would be just as red here on Earth. It is red because of the large amounts of Iron Oxide (yes rust) in the dust of the planet. The sunlight is weaker because it is further away from the sun, but the light has the same wavelengths as we get here on Earth. So these kinds of organisms with the Chlorophyll D would not do any better than here on Earth (and actually do worse due to the less sunlight reaching the planet). This might help an organisms survive on Mars as it would be capturing more of the spectrum and so it might get just that little bit more energy. However, it would be a cost/expendature problem. IF the costs of producing the Chlorophyll D was less than the benifit it recieved by having it, then it would not be viable.

A common misunderstanding. What you are describing is a way of defining two Events. These events are what we use to measure a period of time, not Time itself. Just as the two ends of a ruler allow us to measure distance, but are not what distance is. Events are like the two ends of a ruler, they allow us to measure, but they are not what we are measuriing. In a way, yes. However, for you to experience Time standing still you would have to accelereate to the speed of light, and that is imposible. Time running backwards is even more problematic as you would first have to accelerate to the speed of light and then, accelerate past it (again impossible). Now although relitivity does say that it is imposible for anything to be accelerated to the speed of light (or past it), it does not say anything about something being created with that velocity. Light is one example of something being created already moving at the speed of light. However, we have never detected soomething moving faster than the speed of light (the name for these hypothetical particles are "Tachyons"). Of course we are taling about "Speedof light in a vaccum". Light does travel slower in other mediums (like water or air) and you can have a particle traveling faster than the light travels in that medium. It is called Cherenekov (spelling ?) radiation. It is a bit like a sonic boom with light (Photonic Boom? ). However, in this situation you don't get backwards in time travel as the particle is still not traveling faster than light in a vacuum. So, relitivity does awwlo "Stationart" time (and reverse time) but it also says that they are physically impossible for us to achieve . Also, this "Time Travel" would be relative (hence the name Relitivity ). A hypothetical traveler traveling at the speed of light would not see their own time stopped, but would see the rest of the universe operating at an infinite speed (they would see time sped up). The rest of the Universe would then see the Traveler "frozen" in time.

It was a dislocation. The shoulder was under strain at the time so the muscles and capsule were tight (so when the head of the bone came out it did a lot more damage that it would have if it had dislocated due to an impact like most dislocations are - it was probably the worst way to dislocate the sholder).

Even if the "Events" themselves didn't exist, then Time could still exist. However, if time is only defined by the events, then without the events Time would not exist. An event is a point in Time. Just like a point on a ruler. Time is not defined by the Events, but the (non spatial) speration of the events is Time. It is a difficult concept, but to understand it you have to put Time on an equal footing as Space. This is what relitivity does and it has been shown to be a very accurate descrition of reality. As relitivty shows, Time is a concrete as Space. So Time in this sense is not an illusion, and has little to do with Human perceptions. We get into trouble trying to understand Relitivity according to our perceptions because our perceptions have not evolved to operate within such an environment. Therefore we have a perception of Time that is different (skewed if you will) from the reality of Time. Therefore our perception of Time (according to the definition of Illusions posted earlier) is an Illusion. So there exists a "Time" that is not dependant on our perceptions, and our perception of that "Time" is not the same as the reality of that "Time". Time (as in the physical property of the Universe) is not an Illusion, but our perception of it is an Illusion.

If you have a Wii console, you can use two remotes as the Sensor bar (in the Wii the sensor bar does not actually "sense" anything, it is just an emitter for the sensor in the remotes to detect). All you need to do is make sure that the buttons on the remotes are held down (I did it with heavy books when I tried this). The main problem is that you will go through the batteries in your remotes fast if you do this (so it is only really worth while as a party trick ).

The actual classification is a little difficult and some doctoers class it as Chronic Pain (as the pain has lasted for more than 6 months - going on nearly 8 years now - 1st of May will be 8 years), but because it has been caused by a repeated injury, some doctors call it a chroinic injury (although I don't think there is such a medical term). Very intense . It is why I will occasionally not post on here for several days sometimes, due to a particularly bad episode with my shoulder. Because ofthe pain from the inflamation, I can uauall get around 10 minutes of typeing done before I need to take a break (around 1/2 hour with an ice pack) to bring the inflamation down. Yes. However, as the pain never quite goes away (just from the sheer amount of tissue damage that has occurred through 6 opperations, and nearly 8 years of almost constant dislocations). The amount of constant pain I am in (when not in an accute phase) is roughly the same as having your arm twisted hard behind your back. I have learned to live with this level of constant pain through the methods I talked about earlier (distraction, etc). Without consious awareness, this background pain is manageable. However, when the subluxation occurs, then there are other signals that draw my attention to the injured site and it is much harder to avoid awareness of the pain, but I can control it in the same way (it just takes much more effort to avoid awareness of the stimulus). Yes. I can avoid using the shoulder (which is really difficult as it is the shouder of my dominent hand ) and reduce the inflamation, which does bring down the background levels of pain. But, it doesn't elimiate them as there is soft tissue damage, and possible some minor nerve damage that means that there will always be some pain.

Actually I think that "personal" perception of time is what needs to be eliminated. It has been clearly shown that our perceptions of the passage of time can be skewed the fact that our perceptions are just an interperetation of the outside world. So any definition of time that is based on these personal perceptions is necesarily dubious. So the exploration of the philosphy of "what is time" will just lead us to an endless circle of argument that runs: My perception of time ios different to your perception of time so Time does not exist as such. Actually, this is both right and wrong. It is right in so far as it deals only with our perceptions of time, but not with the physical reality of time. Aristotle, Plato and St. Augustine did not have access to modern science adn the experiments that have been performed. The maths that would have allowed them to understand the results of these experiements were not around when they were alive. They explored the "philosophy" of time as they had no physical model and mathematical understanding to which to base a non philosophical understanding of Time on. So I agree with you when it comes to determining what our experience of tiem is like. Then we can discuss our personal experiences. However, I disagree that this is the only method of the expoloration of what time is. As I was saying, our perception of time is highly subjective to the observer (not as in relitivty, but in how our brain processes, stores and retrieves information). It is only a mystery because we want our personal experiences to match with what reality is. THer eis no reason that our personal experience and perceptions has to match with an outside reality. All that needs to occur is that our perceptions allow us to operate within that outside reailty. Our personal experiences do not match with reality. All our senses interperet and process (quite hevily) what they recieve into what we "experience". I have give one example already, namely colour. But other parts of our visual system are also heavily interpereted too. If you extend your arm to it full length out in front of you, then your thumbnail is about all of the world you can actually see in detail at any one time (this also includes colour). The further out from that you go, the less detail (and colour definition) you get. But, we think we see the world in a "panoramic" like display. You can probably see all the letters on your keyboard in detail, and you know that the coverage of that keyboard is much greater than the area of your thumbnail at arm's length. So, either what we know of the biology of the eye is completely incorrect, or our perceptions of the world do not neccesarily match reality. Even what we see is not a "live feed", it is delayed by around 1/3 of a second (there is a fast and crude pathway for visual perceptions used during extreme events which takes around 1/10 of a second to reach awareness and the glitching of this pathway is the cause of deja-vu). So if our perceptions can not be relied apon to give us a view of reality, we must attempt to eliminate our perceptions from considderation. This means that we should avoiding "to express our personal opinions" as these are by necessity biased by our perceptions (which have been shown to be unreliable). This is what I meant by: Our perception of time is an illusion. Our perception of it is an illusion, but only in so far as it is an interperetation of reality given to us by our senses. But Time as an aspect of the operation of the Universe, is not. Someone mentioned that we measured distance by usign two points on a ruler. Well we also measure Time by two points as well (just not in space), although we tend to call them "Events". However, the two points on the ruler are not distance. They are what we use to mark out a specific "reference" distance. The points we use to measure time are also like this. They do not define time, but define our "refernece" measurment of Time. Time is what exist between the events. Time is not the events themselves, but what seperates the events. Just like distance is not the marks on a ruler, but what we use the ruler to measure. Distance is what sperates two points in space. Time is what seperates two events. Well we could go to a symantic answer to this: If we remembered the future, then we would call it the past. Ok, but more seriously. This is just an analogy, so don't try to push it too far or it will break. Imagine a "Pony Express" main delivery system. Each rider passes the package on to the next at specific waystations. Each Way station is the equivilent of an "Event", what we use to mark out notches on the "ruler" of time. Now, as the package (present) move through the system, it follows a series of waystations (events). But because the waystations are not placed ontop of each other (there is seperation betweent them) then what occures at one waystation will cary on with the package after it has been through that station. So a station has knock on effects on all waystations that lie further along the path that the package takes. You could interperet this as a waystation closer to the package's origin "caused" the "Effect" at a waystation further along. Now, for this analogy I have had to completely convert Time into Space and Space into Time. The way our brain works is by events. One Neuron releases a neurotransmitter (event) and is picked up by the next neuron (another event), and so on. Because of this we can get confused that it is the Events themselves that make up time. However, the events only mark out a "Distance" (if you will) of Time. Which leads onto this: Second, Hours, Minute, Years, Months, and so on are just two events. The striking of a bell, the click of a ratchet, the changeing phases of a moon. These are all two events seperated by Time. We use such definitions as they are a standard "reference" as to the seperation of two events. Just as we use Centimetre, Metre, ect as standard references as to distance. We don't say that just because we use terms like "Kilometre" that there is nothing to support our views that Distance exists. We, that is as in Human, need to break up things into manageable chunks. Whether this is with Distance, Weight, or Time, these chunkings are simply a human invention and do not necesarily reflect the underlying reality. We break the continuum up and then teach our selves to percieve the world as if it is made up of those chunkcs, but the continuum still exists even thoguh we percieve it as chunky.

But wehat we percieve and what actually occurs are two different (but related) things. Just becuase we "experience" time does not mean that time is like that. Just because we "remember" the past does not mena that Time is a mental construct. Our sense of time flowing could very well be a mental construct, but this does not mean that time has to flow. This is what I meant in my post. That our perception of time mught be an illusion, but time itself can stll be real. As an example. We percieve colour in 3 types (red, gree and blue). But doe sthis mena that the electromagnetic spectrum (or even the bit we see) is broken up into those colours? No, if fact we find that ther eis a seamless transition between all three colour (red to green and green to blue) and there is no fundamental speeration of these wavelength groupings. It is onlu our perception of them that makes us think there is actually a seperation between them. But, it does make sense. Time (as a perception) is an illusion. Lunchtime (an artificial seperation of our perception - a perception of a perception if you will) doubly so. Did he know something the rest of us didn't...

As a sufferer of chronic pain I can fully aggree with this. I have a reoccuring injury (dislocaed sholder) which partically dislocates a couple of times a day (from a few milimetres to about 1.5 cm). Needless to say I am in constant pain. I have learnt to control this pain by controling my focus. If I concentrate of the injury, then I am aware of the pain and it feels worse. But I can force my concentration elsewhere and I can reduce my awareness of the pain. However, the Noxious stimulus (from the subluxations) are still there. Noxious stimulus, from my experience, does not equal pain. But it is associated with it. You can have pain without any noxious stimulus (phantom limb syndrome for example), and you can have noxious stimulus without pain (as I do when I avoid concentrating on my injury). I would say that "Pain" is awareness of the noxious stimulus. But, we can have this awareness fooled by non-noxious stimulus, much as any sense can be fooled.

Disnumria (I have that too - makes phone numbers hell). Yes, especially as he used it to indicate that I didn't understand what he was saying (which I did - I just disagreed with it). WHich is an Ad-Hominin. Disagreement is not misunderstanding. My dislexia (which is realtivly mild) usually means that my spelling is attrotious but I can take a good shot at the word (which many take as being that I don't know much about the subject that I am writing about or that I am not smart). I can usually read words (will make a few mistakes) as I don't actually read the letters, but the shape of the word (it is a bit like how you know what the Male and Female symbols are just by looking at them and knowing that they mean Male or Female). I am willing to persist if you understand that I disagree with you. The most valuable people you will ever find are those that are willing to disagree with you. People who blindly agree with you will never be able to show you when you are wrong (and we are only human so we will make mistakes). We learn from our mistakes. So people who can see them and help you to see them are the ones that will help you to learn and become a batter person. Therefore they are the most valuable people that you can ever find.

I was only useing the term "Psychic" as a collective Noun. As a handel to aid conversation when talking about all the different abilities that you describe. If you give me an acceptable collective Noun that I can use, then will. Untill you do so, I will just have to use the onyl one that comes close. Even though I know that it is not entirely accurate (in your point of view). Besides, psychic stems from psycho, which relates to the mind. As you have described them as relating to the mind, then Psychic is a perfectally acceptable term (in lieu of one proposed by you). Ok, maybe I did overestimate your speculation, but you seem to be trying to specify a mechanism for such powers. But this is the closest you have actually come to using known scientific phenomina. That is why I foccused on it. If we get into speculation that does not use known scientific phenomina, then litterally anything might be possible and then there is absolutly no whay I can argue against it. And, there is also no way you could argue for it either (unless you can show that these new physics actually exist in the first place). What is it about neural wireing that give us control that would give us these powers that could not be replicated by harwireing a simpler brain (ie instinct)? Yes, but this does not address my questions at all. I will accept (for the sake of argument), that these abilities requier self control. Then why would the potential to access these powers developed in Humans and not other animals? If all it takes is self control to access these powers, then why would other animals, which show some aspect of self control (even you have admitted that), not be abel to access these powers? If you claim that it requiers a specific level of self control, then why is it only at our level of self control that we have the potential? What about self control gives us access to these powers? What if the level of self control was actually beyond that of any Human? What if it was a lot lower? The Anthropogenic priciple is not a good position to support your claims. The anthropogenic priciple is not an explaination. Actually I do have a slight dislexia, thanks for using it as an insult. I am quite familiar with the concept, and there are many different oopinions on it. Some of which contradict what you are claiming. You have chosen a subset of the subject and are using it to support your theories. However, within "the philosophy of cognitive thought" there are different thoughts. I subscribe to a more "Materialistic" moddel. That is there is nothing within our brains that can't be explained within the laws of science. I have experimented with Artificial Neural Network simulations and I see no ability that our brain performs that is not explainable with curreently known science. The only difficulty is one of information density. The brain is so complex that we don't currently have the computational and storage capacities to accuratly moddel it. But this does not mean that ther is anything within it that defies any known law of physics. So "Concentration" and "Meditation" are just activity patterns within the complex network of Neurons that lie within our brains. There is nothing Special about them (untill shown otherwise). The neuron types that make up our brains occure in nearly all vertibrates, so there is nothing but how they are wired and the numbers of them that sperates us from any other vertibrate brain. Now that wireing and numbers do count for a lot, but so far you have not explained why you think that just wireing and numbers can give us extra abilities that are impossible in other animals wihtin invoking new physics (which would have to be proved first before they can be used as an explaination for these powers). Scans of the brain show that not all our brain is used when we concentrate or meditate. This means that if concentration or meditation allows us to use these powers, then it can't be all the neurons in that particular region that allows us to access them. The conclusion is that it would be down to a small "clump" of neurons that would give us these powers. If a clump like that can form (and evolve) then at all points it must have had a useful function (even if co-opted from another function). As it, therfore, can not be our entire brain that would give us access to these powers, it should be posible to replicate the same clupm in a smaller brain. So, again, if this clump that gives us these powers can be replicated in a smaller brain, and the development of the clump gives us evolutionary advantage throught its development, why can't this clump evolve wihtin a more primative brain? You claim that it is only control that gives us access to these powers. But, how did they evolve if the neural physiology had to have appeard without any intervening (and evolutionary advantgious) steps, and only in humans and no other animals? But how does this difference give us these abilities?! Why should complexity give us an ability that is not explainable with any known law of physics? All right then: How? How do these powers work? Not really. Visual cortex, Auditory, Auditory, Olfactory, etc, etc. Non Mammals don't have the Neocortex, but all mammals have it. Other than size and differences in positioning, there is very little difference between any two mammal brains. So, maybe we can go so far as to say that they need the Neocortex, but then it still doesn't explain why no other mammal has these abilities. Well for one it was not evolutionary advantagious to do so. We only think such abilities are useful because they are useful to us in our environment. What if a species had the ability to make tools, but was a solitary animal? It could not develop technology as technology requiers collaberation. What if an animal develop the mental ability to create tools, but their natural weapons (claws and fangs) prohibited them from using them? There are many, many, many reasons why tool making, or any of the other things would not develop to such a high level of complexity. As further examples: A lot of aniamls have a rudimentry mathematical ability. For example, in birds, such ability can be useful to avoid parasitic species, like the cockoo from gaining an advantage by adding another egg to the nest. Bees have been show that they can count. The number of repeats in a wiggle dance indicate the distance to the flowers that the scout bees have found (and the number of wiggles in the dance have meaning too). There are numerous examples of animals being naturally able to count and add up. Humans have this too. We have a natural counting limit of around 5 (+/- 2). Try it your self. Get a random number of marbles from a jar (without counting first) and then without counting determin the number of marbles you have when you take a quick look at the number. You will find that this is very difficult for any number greater than 5 and at around 7 we find it almost imposible to determine the numbers by sight. Ants (leafcutter ants specifically) demonstrate agriculture. They collect leaves (which they don't eat) and mulch them up and allow a fungus to consume them. they then harvest the fungus. They care for the fungus, giving it water and nutrients when needed, then remove "weeds" (invasive species), and they even transport it to new colonies. In what way is this not agriculture? Sure it is instinctual, but that just might mean that they have evolved their agriculture far beyond our own. They have been at their agriculture for millions of years, where as we have only been at ours for a few thousand. Go read "Colapse: How societies choose to fail or survive" by Jared Diamond. Hunting and Forraging take far less time than farming, but because you can't store the products for long periods (as we can do with grains), you have to keep doing it if you want to eat. Farming give delayed rewards. The work you do today will not be rewarded for many months. It also produces foods that can be easliy stored (like grains), or kept until needed (animals). Farming is not just chucking seeds out into a field and then collecting them back up again in a few months time. For farming to succeed you need to make sure that the field is watered, ther are no weeds, keep pests (rabits, and other vermin) away, clear rubble (branches, fallen trees, rocks, etc), and so forth. These are all daily tasks! . The thing is, a farmer can produce more food for a given effort, but that effort is still needed whether they are only producing enough for themselves or for the whole group, and that technology can have a increasing effect on the amount an individual can produce (where as hunting and gathering does not get such as great a benifit from technology). Tool use among apes is quite well studdied nowdays. Many use stone tools to crack nuts. Even some monkeys - Macaqus (spelling?) - have show a remarkable grasp of tool use (even going so far as to use boyancy to achieve a goal - David Attenbough did a documentry on this). Chimpanzees are know to throw rocks and sticks at invading troups and even use them as clubs. Meditation and Concentration are just a product of our "neurological thing". So in what way is concentration and meditation not a "neurological thing"? Again, they do have it. Many animals can tell the difference between 1 and 2 and some can get as high as 3 (or more). They can tell if something has been taken away, or added, and those that have an ability for abstract thought have demonstrated that they can count (Dolphins, Grerat Apes and suprisingly African grey parrots). So, as you were saying? If counting and mathematical ability were evolutionary advantagious, then: it is not suprising that we actually see it evoled in other animals. As both you and I brought up, we have the largest brain volume to body size than any other animal. But, we can apply this to fosilised ancestors too. We can look at their brain volume as compared to their body size, and even back 4 million years, our ancestors had large brain sizes as compared to their body sizes, the largest of all the aniamls at that time (but not compared to us now). So we can conclude that compared to other animals of this time period, these ancestors of ours would have likely been mental giants as compared to the other species. SO my pint is why is it only now that we might have had the potential to evolve these powers? Concentration? Well we can roughly determine when speaking evolved in human's ancestors due to the way the throat is constructed. It is not an absolute proof, but the structures would have had to exist before speaking could ever have evolved in us and there is no obvious (or remotely obvious) reason that the structures should have evolved otherwise. So it is a good bet that this is when speaking began. Now, speaking requiers a lot of control. It requiers control of the vocal chords, control of intent of the communication and it requiers control over breathing. That is a lot of control. So we can safely assume that this is when humans would have had to have evolved a reasonable amount of control over their bodily functions. However, these were not Humans. The species was a human ancestor, but it was not "Human" as we define it. They were about halfway between Chimps and us (just a little bit further along towards us though, but that ofcourse could be bias too). No, I didn't assume that we could do it right away. I am arguing that if such an ability were possible then any access however weak would give that species a huge evolutionary advantage and so would rapidly evolve to be a lot stronger in that species. Actually, if you think about it, telekinisis would suppress any tool use or development. If you could move thiings with your mind, then plucking fruit from the highest branches would be easy, if it developed to be powerful enough (which it should given time) the species could fell trees, plow land, fight off enemies by throwing objects, or just outright strangle them, etc, etc, etc, and all wothout the need to devleop any tools. In the last 40,000 years, humans have evolved quite a few physiological differences (skin colour, body sizes, etc), so if such an ability were available 40,000 years ago, then any group that could even use it occasionally with concentration, would have had a massive advantage over other groups and come to dominate the human gene pool in that time. 40,000 years ago, there weren't all that many humans on the planet. Humans passed through an evolutionary bottle neck (several times) and nearly became extinct (we would have been classed as an endangered species by today's defintion). And yet, we have now evolved quite a lot of variety. We also know that when a species has a small geen pool that any advantagious mutation will rapidly spread through the population (as they are almost inbreeding). So after considdering all these factors: If We are biologically the same as Humasn 40,000 years ago, why don't we see a strong presence of these abilities? And if it is only in more recent times that 40,000 years ago that we have "evolved" this ability what makes us so special now? Why now rather than in 10,000,000 years time? ALso, if it is more recent than 40,000 years ago that we ahve evolved these powers, then it is likely that not all people will have such powers regardless of their ability to concentrate or meditate. In fact they should almost be classed as a seperate species as they would have abilities that go beyond that "normal humans" could achieve. Not a point so much as a few questions: 1)What is it about our brains that allows us to gain access to these abilities that is completely impossible for any other lower animal to have evolved? Just stating that it is because we can exersize self control or meditate is not an answer. Self control and meditation are just states of the brain. If this was all that was needed, then aniamls would have evolved the ability to have self control because it would allow them access to those abilities. Doing that is just dodging the question. 2) Why is the level of self control limited to just what we can do now (with concentration)? What physical reason allows us at our current abilities just be able to get access to these powers? What is so special about our place in the Universe that we can get access to these powrers and other aniamls can't? 3) How do these powers work? What is it about our brains that allows them to use telekinisis? What is the physiological structure (or a good geuess at it will do) that give us this ability that does not occur in any other animal to any extent? Complexity can be evolved if it is advantagious to do so (as having these powers would be), so complexity is not the answer.

I don't think that "Time" is an illusion, but our perceptions of it might be. There might not be a flow of time, but there is some seperation of events that occur at the same location, this seperation is what is called "Time". Most people think of time as a serise of events, but really, if there was no gap between those events, then they would all occur at the same Time. It is the "Gap", not the events that is important. The events just allow us to break up a larger gap into smaller gaps. However, as it is events (the firing of neurons) that give us our perceptions, this means that our perceptions of Time tend to be "distorted" by this. So our Perception of Time might be an illusion, but Time itself is not.

Yes you did: Sorry, that is not how it reads. Telekinesis and Remote Viewing (the two abilities you have been talking about) are commonly refered to as "psychic powers". So 1) I am not redefining what Psychic Powers are and 2) The efects you describe are very closely related to the descriptions as they are considdered under the term psychic powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekinesis Have a look down near the bottom under the heading: Psychokinesis in popular culture. It says: You are caliming that telekinetic powers (and other "psychic powers" if they exist) are dependent on our ability to use self control. However, as there is no known proof of actual psychic powers actually existing, how can you make the claim that they are connected? It is an assumption that you later use to prove that same assumption. You claim that telekinetics requiers us to exert "control". Therefore, if we have the ability to control ourselves, this is therfore admisable as proof that telekinetics exists. I am sorry it just does not folow. That control could have come into existance for a completely different reason, therfore it is not admisable as proof of telekinetics. You seem to be looking for proof that telekinetics exists but starting from the assumption that telekinetics exists. Again Inductive reasoning requiers assuptions. Therefore all my claims that you have been making assuptions is therofre not a strawman, but based on the fact that inductive reasoning requiers assuptions. What? Magnetic fields exist -> The brain produces electromagnetic fields -> Therefore telekinesis is the brain manipulating electromagnetic fields in a way to make obejcts move. If you could get them to understand the concept of slowing their heart, then yes, they could do that. Dogs (and other animals) can be trained to control other autonomous function (salavating, for example - look to Pavlov's experiments to see where this started). So you have made assumptions without being in possesion of all the facts, and when these facts are presented to you, you claim: "Fallacy". Physiologically there is nothing "New" in our brains that is not present in nearly all other vertabrates. So, are you claiming that we have somthing extra to our brains, or that it is just that we have more of it? If it is only a case of "more of it", then there is no reason that the necesary wireing could not have appeared within another species as not all out frontal lobe would be used for telekinetic (or other) powers (or we wouldn't have the self control that we have). Therefore, the part of the frontal lobe that theortically might be responsable for telekinetic powers must only be a part of that larger structure. If it is not the whole thing, then it could appear within a smaller frontal lobe in a more "primative" animal. Which is the point of my "evolution disproves psychic powers" argument. If it could have existed in another animal, why, given it's obviously major advantage to survival, is it not commonly seen in animals? If you are claiming that there is someting new to our brains, then the burden of proof is on you to show what that is (and where it is) in scans of the brain (MRI, etc). The exact same technology that you are referenceing to show that it is our frontal cortext that is used in self control show absolutly no new physiological feature in our brains that could be involved in psychic powers. So, either you must accept that if there is such an aspect to our frontal cortex that controls telekinetic potential is a sub feature that could occur within the brains of a less mentally developed animal, or that the scans of the brain that show the frontal coretx are wrong (which then means that it is not our frontal cortex that gives us control), or that psychic powrs are not dependant on the frontal cortex development at all (and are to do with some other aspect of our brains - but that opens all the problems that belong to both of the first options). Funtion and composition of the brain, besides the sizes of the brain regions, are remarkably similar acros all vertabrates from Humans to Fish. Not only are the various regions of the brain included, the positioning of them relative to each other are also remarkable similar. Ok. But as Humans are the only sentient species that we know of, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that you ment "Humans". Also, as you have been arguing that other animals are not capable and only Humans have the capability, it further re-enforces this conclusion. So, not a strawman exactly. But a reasonable conclusion based off your statements. Sure, if there is an intelligent alien species that is sentient, then sure, they might have the capacity, but as you have not brought that up, and any such speculation is just that: Speculation wihtout the posibility of proof within this context. But that has been my point . If it is possible that a mutation could allow any animal to develop these kinds of powers, then evolution would favour the spread of these and further development and refinement of them. So, if animals could get a mutation that would give them such powers, then it begs the question: Why don't we see aniamls with these powers? And it wouldn't be a subtle existance of these powers, it would definitly show up in an obvious way (responding to predators that they could not have posible detected otherwise, actually moveing obejcts - like fruit from distant branches, etc). So from this we can conclude that ther eis no modification of existing brain physilogy that would allow such powers to exist and as humans, besides haivng larger brains are physiologically identical to a fish's brain, we can therefore conclude that if psychic powers are existant in other vertibrates, then it is not likely (read virtually imposible) that such powers exist for us. Factual error 102: The ancestoral species that Humans decened from did not pop into existance 65,000,000 years ago. That ancestor was decened from a species that existed before 65,000,000 years ago, and can trace it's ancestory back to the first life on Earth. Therefore we are the result of around 4,000,000,000 years of evolution, just like I said. Technology does not equal intelligence. Just because a species has not developed a high level of technology does not mean that it is not intelligent. Dolphins have a high intelligence and like humans have a high brain size for their body size. However, I have yet to see a Dolphin with a PDA or typing on the internet. Technology is the result of Intelligence, environment (both the physical environment and the social environment) and physiology that allows tool use. It could be possible for an animal (not that one exists) to have an intelligence far exceeding our own, but if it was a solitary animal that never formed a social structure, then whatever it invents would never be passed on to others and so technology would never develop. Or, if they laced apendages that could manipulate tools, then they would never invent tools and so never be able to devleop technology. You have presented a non-sequiter. Not only that, but intelliegnece is not necesary for tool use in the first place. Weaver ants use the silk from their lava to construct their nests. Their tool might come from a living organism (but is not a wood tool the same for us?), but it is using a tool to achieve a job. There are so many exceptions to all your claims, that it amounts to your claims lacking any real substance. Only if you assum that telikinitics exist in the first palce. Remember the discussion is not about how one would go about using these powers, but whether the powers actually exist. Hunting and gathering actually take up less time than farming. The advantage of farming is that yoiu have a constant supply and can produce more than you need. Have you ever collected berries yourself? I have (blackberries) and you can collect in about an hour easily enough to feed you for a day or two (they usually don't keep longer than that). This was gathering (as in hunting and gathering). So, a farmer would have to tend their fields for that two days (and still not have anything to show for it at the end of those two days), and I spent an hour. Which takes more time? Actually, the average life spans of aincent times is slightly skewed by the fact that there where two main causes of death. 1) Deaths during child birth of both the mother and the infant. 2) Deaths during childhood and adolecence (in fact deaths during adolecence is still quite high compared to other ages). So yes, if over half the children die before the age of 18, then even if you have the rest living to 60, the average age will still be quite low. So your reasoning is flawed. Many of the aincent populations did have a low average life expectancey, but it was not because nobody lived beyond 40, it was because there were many infant and childhood deaths. Lets just think aobut it. If we use a conservative estimate (sorry consensus details are not currently available for 10,000 years ago ) of 1/3 dieing before the age of 18, then a constant die off from 18 years on and assume an average life expectancey of 40, then we can easily see that many people would have to live past 40 and for a lot longer past 40 to get that average life expectance up to 40. Peopl didn't just reach their 40th birthday and just drop dead. No, that is an average life expectancy and with a high infant mortality rate, once you made it past those early years you life expectancey would be quite high (around 60 or 70 and even as high as 80). Average life expectancy has sored in recent years, not because we are living decades longer, but because infant mortality rates have dramatically dropped. Training is just changeing the way your brain is wired. So, back to my "evolution disprove it", if it is down to "training" or the wireing of the brain, then there is no barrier for an animal having a mutation that wires their brain up the right way to achieve these powers. If this is so, then again: Why don't we see animals with these powers? And, why do you keep insisting that only Humans are capable of manifesting these powers? No, it is being thorough. If the material used to block cheating might cause the blocking of the psychic powers, then this must be taken into account. If we just tried once and failed and then never checked again, then if the failure was down to the material used, then the whole inquirey would have been worthless (as it gave an incorrect result because we didn't take into account all the variable that might have contributed to the experimeny's failure). So it would be unscientific not to test all the variables that might have effected the outcome of the experiment and what I proposed was extremely scientific by comparison. Have you by chance heard of the Pauli effect? It was a joke superstition about Wolfgang Puli a famous physicist. It seemed that whenever he was around, experiments would "inexplicably" go wrong. It was tested and no super natural effect was found. In your research you probably only looked at experiments where they were directly testing for psychic phenomina. However, in any experiment, things go wrong. When they do, they have to try and find out what caused the error. It is in these that you would find the data to indicate (not an absolute proof or disproof, but supporting evidence for further experimentation). Not even through this data has there ever been any telekinetic effect been found. Sorry, there just does not exist any evidence. :confused: Are you claiming that matter knows that it is in a scientific laboritory and decides to "play up" and not behave the same way as in the outside world? No statistical analysis will reveal whether or not you have "false" positives. Also such "noise" would be accounted for and you would be seeking a result above the background noise. Actually, many of these measurement devices are so sensitive that the signal they are looking for is far less than the background noise anyway. So they have developed techniques that allow them to remove all the background noise and reveal any signal there. So this argument that it is "too sensitive" is just a way of avoiding the posibility of a real test of the existance of such powers, and an obvious one at that.

Yes I was joking, but the Tuatara does actually exist and it does have a vetigal 3rd eye ( ), I think that is pretty cool. What you have done in this paragraph is make a common logical falacy. You have assumed that as our intelligence is evolving, this is proof that psychic powers are also evolving. Yes, intelegence is evolving in humans, but just because we are intelligent does not necesarily mean that we have psychic powers. We could be intelligent without psychic powers. Therefore Intelligence does not equal psychic potential. What proof do you have of this? This is just an assumption by you on your preconcieved expectations of what you believe psychic powers are. The ability to "control" ones actions is not only in Humans, Dogs can do this (they usually have to be taught it), most (if not all) the great apes have this ability, and maybe some birds and cetations too and suprisingly some Crocodiles have shown a remarkable level of intelegence to the point where they can be taught tricks like a dog. Many (well neraly all) of the mental abilities that we ascribe as being essential to being Human have been show to occur in animals (either only some of them, or to a lesser degree admittedly). So if, as you claim, it is only Humans that have the potential to express psychic powres, then you will have to explain why other animals will find it impossible (and it has to be an absolute impossibility as if they could have them, then why don't they show them?). As all other mental abilities occur in other animals, then, if psychic powers are a product of the brain, why can't they occur in other animals? No, Humans have been evolving for 4 billion years or so. Admittedly we weren't Homo Sapiens for most of that, but for the last 1,000,000 we have been "almost" Human. Sure civilization might have only been around for 10,000 years or so, but Humans have been around much longer than just the last 10,000 years, and there is a lot of evidence that many of the species we have decended from have had some remarkable mental abilities (like the ability to control their actions as we do - what you claim is a necesity for psychic powers to develop). So I would estimate that there has been around 5,000,000 years for such powers to develop in an environment: an "intelligent" creature capable of being able to . Would that be enough time, you did say it would take millions of years and 5 million (or more) is a good number So no we are not "at the beginning". We have had millions of years of opertunity to evolve any rudimentary abilities. There was no physiological leap when we developed civilisation, it was just a series of social structures and apropreate environmental conditions being in the same place and time. Yes and no. Inhereted immunity and aquiered immunity are two different things. The rabbits have developed an inherited immunity to the Calisi virus. Any survivor will have an acuired immunity, but even rabbits that have never been "exposed" to the virus have an increased immunity (which means they are more likely to survive their first encounter with the virus and go on to develop a full blown aquiered immunity). So, yes, they can develop an aquiered immunity, and you are right in that. But, it is the inherited resistance and immunity that I was talking about, and in that your statement is wrong. Well you could try differnet materials (as it might be a variable in the outcome). Actually, if it couold be blocked by materials, could it be blocked by Air? This would of course mean that no psychic powres could be used except in a vaccum (which would mean that there would not be much use for it here on Earth and it would not have evolved, so we wouldn't have it in the first place ). Now you have postulated that it might be a manipulation of magnetic fields. However, we know what materials would block magnetic fields so we can then rule out either it is caused by manipulation of magnetic fields or that the materials used blocks the effects of the psychic powers. We also know what materials block all known forces (ie for gravity: none), so we can then extend the above conclusion to: Either psychic powers are caused by a new and previously unknown and undetected force that is blocked by mundane materials (and if it is a force, blocking it should allow us to detect it anyway, just not on the object that we are hopeing to target but on the object that is blocking it), or psychic powers don't exist. Measuring devices now days can be extremely sensitive. We can measure displacemnts of less than an atomic width, we can weigh molecules, we can detect changes in timing down to a very small fraction of a second, and yet, in none of these has any significant effect been detected that we didn't know about (or couldn't be attributed to something we know about). So, based on this, we can set an upper limit on the effectivness of any psychic power (telekinisis) as too weak to give more force than the weight of a molecule, or move something greater thana fraction of an atomic width. Of what use would such an ability be? There would be no whay that such an ability could have had any effect like you are expecting. Forget a pinwheel. How about using something much more sensitive? Fire a laser through a beam splitter, then reflect each beam of a mirror and into another beam splitter (aligned so as to recombine the beams). Adjust the mirrors so that the beams interfere with each other. Get the telekinetic to move one of the mirrors. Even the slightest movemnt should be picked up as a slight change in the mirror will dramaticly change the interference pattern. You should be able to detect movemnts and forces far smaller than what would be needed to move a pinwheel. I wonder why people use the magic trick style of demonstration of psychic powers. As an amature magician (well, more of a hobby than doing actual performances, but I have done a couple of improptu performances), I can easily understnad why someone who wanted to fake it would choose such a format as it give plenty of oppertunity to sneak a trick in there. It also restricts acurate measuerments (an essential if you are wanting to fake it). Using known and well understood scientific devices menas the "performer" would not be able to set the apperatus up as they liked (another hint that it is a fake in progress) and as these "performance prop" demonstration have many unaccounted for inputs. Those attempting to study it can not eliminate all causes and so the performer can claim that the scientist was not able to determine what the cause of the effect is. Then by using some really bad logical fallacies, claim that because they don't know what the cause was exactly, then that proves that psychic powers exist. Yes, I actually got into a conversation with someone that did exactly that. They claimed that because someone could completely rule out that it might have been psychic power, then that was absolute proof that psychic powers existed. Why am I saying this? Well you seem to be headding down that path.

In New Zealand there is a Lizard (the Tuatara IIRC) with a vetigial 3rd eye. It is little more than a light sensitive patch of skin covered by scales. However, this does not give it any psychic powers. Actually evolution would be an argument against any psychic powers existing. You must remember, under most circumstances, the greatest selection pressure on an organism comes not from predators (or prey), but from members of the organism's own species. If you think about it, which groups would pose the greatest challenge to an organism's chance of mating and food? The answer: Members of the Organism's same species. This is important for the next bit. If you have two siblings competeing for food and mates, then as their genes are closer than any others of the same species, then any small advantage that one sibling has over the other (and can pass on) will give that sibling and all it's decendants a greater advantage (and thus more offspring). For a population of organisms to remain stable, every mateing pair must produce exactly 2 offspring that make it to adult hood (and successfully breed). If an organism gives it's offspring even a slightly increased chance (say 2.001 successful offspring make it to adult hood as against just 2), over many genreations this leads to a massive increase population leves decened from that advantaged pair. So, any small advantage, over the course of many generations, is exponetially increased and in a relativly homoginious population (equal breeding success), then if any of those animals developed any form of psychic powers, then that would give them a significant advantage. As these organisms have an advantage, over time their genes would come to dominate that species gene pool. That is: Over time all members of that species would develop psychic powers. Then, any increased effectivness of those powers would give that creature an advantage and the whole cycle starts all over again. Look at how quickly resistance to pesticies and poisons and deseases develop in organisms. It has been less than 20 years since the Calisi virus was introduced to the rabbit populations in Australia in an attempt to control the population, they are already starting to develop a degree of immunity to the virus. How fast would a mutation that allowed them to manipulate small objetcs (virus particles?) spread through the population. Or what about being able to predict where predators are going to be (being able to predict the future). Or be able to send "messages" through pure thought (could be used to warn of a nearby predator without revealing sender's location to the predator). The fact that we haven't been able to find any overt (as in a widespread ability) evidence of any psychic power in an organism (including humans), in light of how evolution works, seems to indicate that psychic powers don't exist. At 100% accuracy, ther are many, many things that such an ability could be used for (winning at poker for one ). You could send a coded message using morse code (long and short gaps between pulses), and from that any text message could therefore be transmitted. Such secure communication systems would be an invaluable ability in many undertakings (even leagal and ethical ones). At the very least you could develop a stage show and make millions. If you could really do this and do it wish 100% accuracy as you claim, then surly this idea of a stage show would have occurred. There are magicians out there that are raking in the money and they have to resort to trickery. If you could do it legit, then you would be the most famous of all magicians. Let me know when your opening night is and I'll believe you.

Yes. What I was showing was that anyone can come up with a theory, but without any evidence for it, no matter how "logical" (or illogical) it sounds, there is no reason to accept it as being true. Scinetific theories should be a descrition (as close as we can get) to reality, so if there is no phyiscal evidence that a theory is true, then how can one claim that it is a description of reality? So with my turtle "theory" , I said that the turtle was so big that we could never detect it. I essentially said that there would be no evidence for the theory as an example of why you need that evidence.

Actually, the Universe is riding on the back of a Giant Tortise, but it is too big to observe so I can prove it... Sorry, but if you are basing this Theory on "on years of scientific experiments an observations", then you must have some evidence of this "Sphere" (as that is just exactly what you said you have). So, no, by your own statemnts you have to have that evidence or you are just making it up. Either you have the evidence and gave therefore give us the evidence that shows us what the sphere is, or you don't have any evidence and you were therfore lying about haing "years of scientific experiments an observations" that support your theory. This is a cop out. If you have understood it enough to come up with they theory (or any human for that matter), then it can not be outside the ability of humans to understnad it. This leaves us again with two options: 1) The theory is made up with nothing to actually support it, or 2) No human is capable of understanding it and therefore no human could have come up with it (and therefore the theory does not exist - unless of course you aren't Human) You would think that a "Surface" would cause the galaxies to line up on it. But as you said, they are at all different angles, so they are no lined up at all. This to me indicates that there is no surface at all. Is this globe a sold, liquid, gas, plasma, Bose/Einstein Condensate? Is it matter or energy (photons and such)? What are it's physical properties. As you say it seems to interact with matter (all those galaxies are stuck on the surface of it), so it must have some way of interacting with matter, how does it do this? If it interacts with matter in any way we should be able to detect it and through that interaction we can determine many of it's properties. In fact, if you are claiming that you have any evidence of this sphere existing, then this is the kind of data one would need to make that claim. So is: "What is the "shell" made of?" a leading question? No. It is a perfectly valid question that any theory like what you have proposed must fullfill. Oh, and if you want to prove it, give us the data that supports you theory. All scientific theories must be supported by data (observations at least). IF they don't have this supporting data, then they are not a scientific theory.

Yes, as far as we know and according to the models (which match very closely to the observed universe), the Universe has no edge. And, no, it does not mean that space is infinite. To explain better: Where is the edge of the surface of the Earth? In fact, there is no edge of the surface of the Earth, yet, would you say the surface of the Earth is infinite in size? No, the surface of the Earth is not infinite in size, and it has no edge. If the Universe wraps around in on it's self (and not just in a sphere, it could be like a doughnut or other weird shape) then it can be without an edge adn finite in size. Also, at which point in the surface of the Earth is the centre of the surface of the Earth? Again, this is a trick question. There is no centre to the surface of the Earth. No, the surface of the Earth is only 2 dimensional, but the Universe is 4+ dimensions, so these examples will not give you an exact image of how it really is, but if you can begin to understand how a surface of a shpere has no edges, is infinite in size and has no centre, then you are on your way to understanding more about how our universe (appears) to be. :confused: Now, may peopl do get confused about the above examples and will say something like: "But we know there is a centre of the Earth. And yes, they are right. But... I did not ask where the centre of the Earth is, I asked where the centre of the surface of the Earth is. Actually, lets, use this centre of the Earth mistake and make it right. We know that there is a centre of the Earth. Now, in my examples above, I was only looking at the surface, a 2D simplification of 3D space. Well, there is also a dimension of Time, the 4th dimension. In our example with the Earth, if space is the 2D surface, then we can use the distance from the centre to represent Time. So, if we now imagine that the Earth is infinitely small, then this is the singularity at the start of the Universe. At this point the surface of the Earth would be 0, so there is no space, or we could say that all of space is in the same place. Then as we expand the Earth up, we move forward through Time, and the Universe gets bigger. We call this the Big Bang! Because everything that has expanded all started from the same point, then whatever caused that expansion to start (the big bang) must have occurred at all points after that expansion simply because all the points were all at that point when the big bang occurred. And the next question that everyone asks is: But what is it expanding into? The answer: The future. remember, the distance from the centre is supposed to represent Time, so the Expansion is away form the centre so it must be expanding into time, that is: The future.

Actually, you could determine if you were on the edge of an "Explosion" as compared to the centre. In the centre all material that is visible will be (on average) moving away at the same rate regardless of the direction you are looking. However, if you are near the edge (even if you can't see the edge), then you will see material moving at different rates depending on the direction that you look. What we see in the sky when we look at the speeds of galaxies receding from us is that no matter which direction we look, at the same distance from us, the galaxies are moving at the smae speed. There are only 2 possible solution that can account for this. 1) We are at the centre of an exploding Universe. or 2) There is no centre of the Universe. For other reasons option 1 is ruled out, so therefore we are left only with option (2), which means that there is no centre of the Universe.

Actually there is Epigenetics. Substances encountered by a parent (or even grandparent) can switch genes on an off and these can be passed down the genetic line. They can't "add" information, but can turn genes that already exist on or off.