Glider

If he claims to do Psychological entertainment stuff, then he succeeds and thus it is feasible. As far as I can see, he never claims special powers or anything like that. In fact he is a magic skeptic and spends a lot of time showing how 'mediums' and the like do what they do through 'cold reading' etc.. As far as Psychology goes, most 'magic', illusions, mediums and stuff is based on psychology; misdirection, manipulation, suggestion and so-on. As for the video, that seems feasible. It's straightforward hypnosis. There are a few things about it that I noticed, but I don't see anything unexplainable. The real issue I think is ethics. Milgram wouldn't get away with his studies today, but in the name of entertainment, stage hypnotists get away with worse. Hey ho, that's how it is I guess.

And yet you want others to expend the time and effort required to find the images you want, scan them and send them to you? You need to remember to whom this work is most important.

Nobody here could come up with anything more probable than the medic who examined her I'm afraid. We would be using (with all due respect) second hand descriptions and not clinical observations (e.g. colour, pulse, respiration, BP etc.). Moreover, the number of possible explanations is quite large (e.g. cardiocerebral syncope is one), but I doubt anyone here is as qualified to diagnose as the medic who examinrd her.

You're welcome.

What does he claim to do?

Yes. The number and frequency of action potentials (APs) signals the duration and intensity of whatever stimulus triggers them. APs conform to an 'all or none' law, which means if the stimulation reaches a threshold an action potential will be triggered. APs are all the same. It doesn't matter where they happen, an AP in an optic nerve fibre is the same as an AP in an auditory nerve fibre, or a chemoreceptor or any other fibre. The more intense the stimulus, the higher the frequency of APs and the longer the duration of the stimulus, the greater the number of APs (until habituation). What allows us to differentiate between e.g. sound and light is quite simply the anatomical connections. Light stimulates the optic nerve which terminates in the primary visual cortex in the occipital lobes. Sound stimulates the auditory nerve which terminates in the auditory cortex in the temporal lobes. These areas of cortex are speciallised to interpret incoming information as images and sounds respectively. However, they can't differentiate between sources of AP volleys, so, if you were to connect the auditory nerve to the visual cortex, any sound you heard would be percieved as forms of light and movement. The same would happen in you connected the optic nerve to the auditory cortex. Any images triggering APs in the optic nerve would result in the perception of sounds. A little experiment you can do to show this is to close one eye, and push (gently) in one corner. Mechanical deformation of the retinal cells will also trigger APs. Yet, these will be percieved as blotches of light because the visual cortex cannot differentiate between causes of the incoming APs; light or mechanical force or indeed APs from any other source terminating in the visual cortex will always be interpreted as light/movement. In short, the specialisation of the areas of brain receiving APs determines the eventual percept, not differences in the qualities of the APs, because there are none. Therefore, the anatomical connection determines the experience, not qualities of the APs or stimulus.

It's normal. In the (British) army, you are not held responsible for your actions within the first minute of waking. This is why, should you need to be woken quickly, the NCO will always use a stick and stand away because they know if you go for them, you'll get away with it Coming from a deep sleep, you are not processing external information well, so it's not surprising that if you have some presented within the first few seconds, you won't remember it. Just tell him that if he wants you to remember what he tells you, he heeds to wait until you are receptive to it and focussed.

The vestibular mechanism (semicircular canals) are, as Dak says, fluid filled chambers. However, there are no bubbles in them, so the fluid doesn't maintain a surface parallel to the ground. The semicircular canals (of which there are three) are structured in 3 planes; vertical, horizontal and diagonal. They are illed with fluid and are lined with hairs (villi). These hairs are covered by a layer of mucus which, in turn, contains small grains of calcium carbonate (called otoliths) which add mass. When you turn your head, the fluid in the semicircular canals doesn't move immediately, just as when you spin a bucket of water, the bucket moves but the water doesn't immediately begin spinning too. This differential (i.e. the ralative movement of the fluid within the canals) drags on the villi, bending them and causing the receptor cells to which they are attatched to fire, which tell us that we are moving. Our perception of the direction of motion depends on which canal is sending the strongest sgnal (i.e. the highest frequency volley). If we keep spinning, the fluid in the canals will eventually catch up and when we stop, it keeps moving. This causes the dizziness associated with spinning, which is a result of percieved motion due to the relative movement of the fluid within the canals. The other mechanism is gravity. The mass of the otoliths will cause the villi to bend if we move our heads from the veticle, however slowly, signalling a change in orientation. The other mechanism is proproception. This tells us the relative positions of all our lims and trunk to our head. Every joint contains sensory organs such as stretch receptors and deep tendon spindles. The activity of these receptors tels us the position of the limb relative to the body, and the psition of the body relative to the head. Information from these receptors is processed mainly in the cerebellum (responsible for posture and muscle tone). The really amazing thing I think is the integration of these two sets of information in the vestubular nuclei and cerebellum. This integration means that we know the orientation of our heads in space and the position of any part of our body relative to the head. Regardless of our orientation and movement, we can always point 'up'. Watch a gymnast or a high diver and you'll get an idea of the amount of information being processed and the speed at which it's processed.

Hehe, yeah, that'd be it

How do you know coma patients feel pain?

It's real, but not very well understood. People have undergone surgery without anaesthesia, using hypnosis to prevent the pain. I doubt this would be effective if there was nothing to it at all.

Oxygen too.

He's talking about the Dopeler effect.

Body heat. As AzurePhoenix says, they follow the CO2 trail over distances, then use body heat to home in on their target.

In short words, no. Alcohol will reach your brain in the same time time regardless of how quickly you drink it. The difference is how much reaches your brain. So, unit for unit, alcohol will have the same effect, but a little reaching your brain will have a gentler effect than a lot. If you chug a pint, then a pint's worth of alcohol will reach your brain at once. If you drink at a moderate pace then smaller amounts of alcohol reach the brain at any time and the liver begins to metabolise the alcohol in your blood before you finish the drink. It takes time for alcohol to reach the brain as most of it is absorbed by the small intestines. The exact time depends on a number of factors: body mass, whether or not you have eaten, sex etc.. The problem with drinking quickly is that you take in so much so quickly that by the time the first alcohol bgins to reach your brain, there is much more already being absorbed into the blood and it's too late to return it. However, attempts to do so will usually follow shortly.

I'm afraid I can't help you there. My scanner was smashed during my move, so I have no way of getting the images onto my system.

True, but the problem (if I read right) is whether or not this infatuation is unfounded. The first step towards a solution I think, is to find that out first, before doing anything about it. Transdecimal asks if he should 'recognise the warning signs of unfounded infatuation'. I think he needs to reflect on those signs and decide. If he decides it is unfounded, then he needs the will power to stay away. If he can't decide whether or not his feelings are unfounded, then he needs to find out.

There are plenty. You just haven't come across any yet. The article also seems to base its argument on cortical activity, but there is no 'pain centre' in the brain. These areas are just as likely to light up with any tactile stimulation. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of pain includes the statement that: "Activity in nociceptive fibres or pathways is not pain".

Does it matter? The problem remains either way. Transdecimal: If you are sure it's an unfounded infatuation, then you need the willpower to stay away. Not easy, but way better in the long run. If you are not sure it's unfounded, then get to know him and find out.

A terminal illness is any illness that kills you (even a cold, if it kills you). However, the term is usually used to decribe conditions where mortality is an expected outcome (e.g. certain agressive cancers, haemorrhagic viruses etc.). Mortality is not the expected outcome for lonliness, which is treatable.

I think images like the ones you are looking for can be found in: Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, K. H. and Jessell, T. M. (1991). Principles of Neural Science. International: Prentice-Hall international Inc.

It is a weak argument. Whilst it may be that the ability of a thing to feel pain may be an argument for not killing it, that a thing does not feel pain is not a justification for killing it.

It still hasn't. The article talks about neurological activity. That is not pain.

Opinions? Theories. We call them 'theories'. As it goes, the mechanisms of motivated behaviour are comparatively well understood, as is the role of the thalamus in them. It is the more complex behaviours that are problematic. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with 'going it alone', discarding the basics is always a mistake. If you want to present new ideas (which is a good thing), you have to make sure they do not contradict what is already known, or at least that which has a body of evidence in support of it. If you think the accepted view is wrong, you need to present stronger evidence for your view, or evidence that refutes the current view. In any event, what exactly is the problem with 'scientific polytheism'? All it means is that people are approaching the same problems from different perspectives. Or do you consider it a problem that people are not all approaching these problems from the same perspective? If so, which perspective would you like them to use? Yours perhaps? Here you are confusing instinctive behaviours with stereotype reinforcement. These are separate issues and are not comparable. Bigots have the same instincts as all other members of the species. Stereotype reinforcement is not an instinctive behaviour. By the way, it's 'senses'. Spaceships and androids from Star Trek use sensors. Humans have senses). Again, these are theories, not illusions. Theories are held or disgarded depending on the data. Nobody considers them 'reality' as most scientists realise that theories are merely predictive models used to explain reality. I.e. they are explanations of the processes underlying observable reality, they are not themselves considered reality. They change over time as the body of data changes. Why would Psychology step in a tell physicists that they're deluded? I don't know what you mean by 'relativity of behaviour bias', but Psychologists use the same method as other scientists. They observe a behaviour, formulate a theory to explain it and then try to refute the theory through a process of hypothesis testing. Psychology does not define its methods or position by taking contrary positions to those of any religion. That would be to define Psychology by what religion isn't and defining yourself by what onother isnt is always foolish. Building sand castles is not a bad analogy. If the ones that are built are flawd and do not represent the real castle, then they will fall when the tide comes in. The one that most closely represents reality will stand and be accepted, until it falls and is replaced by a better, more accurate model. What is it exactly that you think scientists are doing wrong? Maybe it's scientific method you have a problem with? Or is it that someone once told you that you are out of touch with reality and you won't let it go? This is the evidence you present in support of your case? A picture by Escher? This picture is not predictive of any state of affairs. It is not evidence of anything. I'll say it again, if you have a case, present it. Do so clearly and coherently. If your issue is with science or scientific method, present it in general discussion. If your problem is with the way people think or behave in genreal, that should also go in general discussion. If your issue is with Psychology in particular, present it here. In any case, present your argument clearly; state exactly what the problem is and your evidence for it. Try to avoid irrelevancies and try to avoid presenting rambling, conjectural lectures.

This is what I'm talking about. You want to 'help people to understand', but in order to do so you present conjecture and speculation. These two are mutually exclusive. If you say you want to help people to understand a thing, it's generally good practice to demonstrate that you understand what it is you want them to know. I don't think you do. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Do some reading. Get a basic grasp of Psychology and an understanding of instinctive behaviours. At least get a grasp of standard terminology. Then come back and present a case.