Dokta Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 Does neuroscience explain how psychics work? Thier brains must be able to pick up energies and signals that science cannot understand. I think that humans are less psychic than we were years ago. Maybe everybody was psychic a few thousand years ago. Anyway what are your views on a psychic brain.
Pinch Paxton Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 Well, there is the possibility of a psychic centre in the brain. Nutrinos pass through our body all of the time. They change type during their journey from the sun to Earth. This change in their type means that they do not travel at the speed of light. It was decided that they must therefore have mass. This is not the only possible explenation for nutrinos to change though. Science has cheated by not allowing the nutrinos to travel faster than light. If nutrinos travel faster than light then they can change, but they also pass through our bodies in a different time zone. If we could pick up their information, we could see an event that is going to happen in the future. I have written a few computer programs that attempt to amplify this information from the nutrinos. Or any other matter that might be passing you faster than the speed of light. My computer programs show a considerable increase in your chance of predicting future events. I have been testing this for 3 years, and have had some very strange results.
chuman Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 very interesting, does that mean a mass can travel faster than c?
blike Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 Does neuroscience explain how psychics work? Neuroscientists don't bother, because no psychic has ever "proven" his or herself under controlled conditions.
Pinch Paxton Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 very interesting, does that mean a mass can travel faster than c? No, Nutrinos are allowed to have mass if they slow down, but if they speed up, then they most likely can't have mass. Neuroscientists don't bother, because no psychic has ever "proven" his or herself under controlled conditions. That's true. Even my computer program would be hard to make sense of. My example is that it picked 5 of my lotto numbers, and 5 of my friends lotto numbers. It only did it once for each of us. The odds were pretty amazing, and I only ran it 3 times for myself, and 3 times for my friend, but it doesn't do it all of the time, so hard to prove. Pincho.
BrainMan Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 Does neuroscience explain how psychics work? Although this is not quite what you seem to have in mind... reduction is about reducing one theory (pr set of theories) to another. If we could, using modern neuroscience, explain the exact mechanisms and processes at work during the formulation and development of all theories in physics, we could effectively reduce physics to neuroscience. Given that neuroscience is supposed to reduce to physics, I think this is a bit of a problem.
Pinch Paxton Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 Are you talking about Physics, or Psychics? There's a BIG difference.
BrainMan Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 ahem...well...I was talking about physics, but I see now that the first thread was about psychics.
BrainMan Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Thier brains must be able to pick up energies and signals that science cannot understand. If science cannot understand it, then I think you answered your own question...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 blike said in post # : Neuroscientists don't bother, because no psychic has ever "proven" his or herself under controlled conditions. In fact, one of the Apollo astronauts believed he could transmit images psychicly. When he was on the moon, he tried to "transmit" some tarot cards to psychics on earth, with no good results.
Hades Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 blike said in post # : Neuroscientists don't bother, because no psychic has ever "proven" his or herself under controlled conditions. altho not directly related, ive seen tests done with subjects claiming to induce an obe at will. Separated by a wall, the test subject begins the process, and supposedly is able to leave the body and move thru other matter, such as walls without interference. As the man began to undergo the obe, he was then to read a specific sequence of numbers on a table the person in the next room over separated by the walls was holding. the test came back inconclusively several times, but i do wonder. . . Im shy to say, but during my 'experimental' years with buddhism i practiced meditation heavily. During one specific session tho, actually my last lol, i realized i was seeing an image of myself even tho i my eyes were closed. I had an obe, but was so terrified as the realization hit me it ended as fast as it began. Ok, now with that said, discount everything i have ever posted scientifically.
MishMish Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Not on psychic claims per se, but some have claimed that others' moods have colors associated with them. Is it possible that that could represent some form of synesthesia? It's about the only explanation that seems to me it could have some validity, but not even sure how to evaluate it as a possibility
Glider Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 The question "Does neuroscience explain how psychics work?" is based on the (flawed) premise that psychics do work (i.e. that there is something to explain). As Blike said, there is no empirical evidence to show that psychics do work, therefore there is nothing for neuroscience to explain.
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :In fact, one of the Apollo astronauts believed he could transmit images psychicly. When he was on the moon, he tried to "transmit" some tarot cards to psychics on earth, with no good results. He probably should have tried telepathy instead then. In the digitally remastered DVD of Star Wars: A New Hope that's coming out soon, I heard George Lucas has changed the Death Star trench dialogue for Gold Leader to "stay on topic; Stay On Topic!"
Pinch Paxton Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 The question "Does neuroscience explain how psychics work?" is based on the (flawed) premise that psychics do work Yeah you have to see some evidence first. I was not going to bother with the subject myself, but 3 things made me decide to write my computer programs. 1/ When I was 13 I was given some tarot cards. When I was 18 I decided to try them out. I told someone that their gran was in hospital, and they would get a phone call when they got home. She would be alright, and would be leaving hospital that same night. I also told her that she would split up with her boyfriend, but meet someone else on the same night. She would be getting engaged to her new boyfriend. Everything I said actually happened! I didn't even know the girl, she just wanted me to read her tarot cards. 2/ The ball bearing experiment. Ball bearings are dropped in their thousands down a board, and pins in the board bounce them around in all directions. The ball bearings can fall into two buckets. Left bucket, and right bucket. You are sat in front of the pinboard, and asked to concentrate on making the bearings go into the left bucket. Apparently more bearings go into the left bucket. Then you are told to do the same, and make the bearings go into the right bucket. Research showed that more bearings went into the right bucket. Now I wasn't present during the test, it was on TV so who knows what really happened. 3/ The national Lottery. Well I thought it might be worth making a computer program to predict Lottery numbers, even if the experiments didn't work it wouldn't cost me anything. So I made my computer programs based on the psychic research. Instead of picking winning Lotto numbers, they picked 5 of my own Lotto numbers that I place every week. That is still amazing though. Pincho.
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # : 2/ The ball bearing experiment. Telekinesis is not a psychic ability.
Pinch Paxton Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Just because there are different words for different results from experiments, doesn't mean that they aren't the same ability. It's like saying that the ripples caused from a stone throw, are different to the ripples caused by swimming. What I mean is that we are talking neuroscience, so we are talking about the same part of the brain being used for all of these examples. This puts all examples into the same basket. Pincho.
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Telekinesis is the ability to actively manipulate matter in the physical world. Psychic senses are considered to be the passive reception of indeterminate 'signals' that are not part of the physical world. In no way are they similar. Your stone analogy is flawed. In both cases same effect occurs, with different causes; whereas in our discussion there are different effects occuring with different causes. As Glider already pointed out, psychic abilities are not a part of neuroscience, so I'm not sure where you get that last point from.
YT2095 Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 perhaps he veiwed the word "Pshchic" as the set or universe, and all the others were subsets within or under this title, a good many people consider it under the same heading "Psychic" it`s just an error in deffinition, that`s all Parapsychology or Parascience would be area of study, under these there falls 2 main catagories, ESP (receiver) Psychokinetic (transmitter) to use radio terminology. often either or both are called "Psychic" abilities, rightly or wrongly so
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Regardless, any results from experiments in telekinesis are not evidence of psychic abilities, which is what he was proposing to Glider. ESP is a horribly broad term for this sort of discussion.
Pinch Paxton Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Well what I was doing was linking the brain, to nutrinos or other connections with the outside world in both cases, but we can ignore my perception if you like, and stick with the standard definitions. The thing is that if you are going to move something, you need a link between you and the thing, and if you are going to predict something then you need a link between you and a future event. Part of my argument was that the thing connecting us is like a pond of water, and in both cases, it is ripples in the same pond that connect the two things together, but the ripples are either used as receivers, or transmitters. Anyhow, you can use the two things like a telephone, with an ear piece, and the microphone. A telephone is considered as a single object, but Ok I shall stick with the two seperate objects. Pincho.
Glider Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # : Yeah you have to see some evidence first. I was not going to bother with the subject myself, but 3 things made me decide to write my computer programs. 1/ When I was 13 I was given some tarot cards. When I was 18 I decided to try them out. I told someone that their gran was in hospital, and they would get a phone call when they got home. She would be alright, and would be leaving hospital that same night. I also told her that she would split up with her boyfriend, but meet someone else on the same night. She would be getting engaged to her new boyfriend. Everything I said actually happened! I didn't even know the girl, she just wanted me to read her tarot cards. Cool! It's not evidence of anything though. 2/ The ball bearing experiment. Ball bearings are dropped in their thousands down a board, and pins in the board bounce them around in all directions. The ball bearings can fall into two buckets. Left bucket, and right bucket. You are sat in front of the pinboard, and asked to concentrate on making the bearings go into the left bucket. Apparently more bearings go into the left bucket. Then you are told to do the same, and make the bearings go into the right bucket. Research showed that more bearings went into the right bucket. Now I wasn't present during the test, it was on TV so who knows what really happened. Who indeed. It was on TV. It was probably there for a reason. Neat trick; not evidence. 3/ The national Lottery. Well I thought it might be worth making a computer program to predict Lottery numbers, even if the experiments didn't work it wouldn't cost me anything. So I made my computer programs based on the psychic research. Instead of picking winning Lotto numbers, they picked 5 of my own Lotto numbers that I place every week. That is still amazing though. I already have one of those. It's the random number generator (RNG) function on my calculator. It can generate lottery numbers for me. The only drawback is that numbers predicted by the RNG have the same probability of being correct as numbers generated by any other method (about 13.9 million to 1 against).
Pinch Paxton Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 My computer program is not a random number generator, its the ballbearing test placed inside a computer. It can drop millions of ballbearings, and has 49 buckets instead of 2. So you see it is based of psychic tests. If you can manipulate the simulated ball bearings into the winning lotto number buckets then you can predict the future. See how I have linked Telekenisis, and Psychic phenomenon together? Like I said, the program picked 5 of my numbers. I connected to the concious part of the brain, instead of the psychic. I have been trying to fix this. Pincho.
Recommended Posts