What exactly is the connection between conscious and autosomatic thinking?

[iNow]

What sorts of error bars do you expect following such a method? Would this low level of precision be allowed in any other area of science that you can think of, and do you think the data obtained in this process are sufficient to scale with the claims being made?

[SamBridge]

What sorts of error bars do you expect following such a method? Would this low level of precision be allowed in any other area of science that you can think of, and do you think the data obtained in this process are sufficient to scale with the claims being made?

I can quote you saying there's limited ability to control things like your heart rate, you should have no problem with what I am saying because I stated that the measured limit of how much I can lower it appears to be my resting heart rate which fits under "limited ability". It's really not complicated, if you run out of oxygen you will notice, did you even try either of the experiments yourself like I had asked?

Edited February 17, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

Super. Now, do you want to try answering the questions I actually posed to you?

[sysD]

Yeah I put two fingers and squeezed on my wrist and counted, it's pretty easy to notice O2 levels decrease when your muscles become fatigued all of a sudden

 

Yeah, like iNow said, this is really not a valid method based on empirical observations.

 

If you actually want to assert this claim, you need to measure (at the very least) your pulse with electronics to get proper measurements. This isn't really hard to do, if you're willing to spend some money.

 

 

 

I think the point that everyone here is trying to make is this:

 

You have a hypothesis; this is fine.

 

You need to carry out a proper experiment to test this hypothesis, without leaning toward any specific conclusion during its execution.

 

Set up a procedure you can follow each time, in which you can alter variables you want to test for. Then simply get the equipment you need to measure data, and record that data, impartially.

 

Do this experiment multiple times with different parameters. Record your resting heart rate as well... and do your experiment without trying to alter your heart rate (control data).

 

You need to record all the data without bias, without expectation of a certain result. Just record that data.

 

After you've got all this raw data, you can analyse it and draw conclusions. [You need to include that raw data in your final results.]

 

 

 

 

 

The process isn't really that hard.

The point everyone here is trying to make is that your current method is not objective or scientific in any way.

 

You have a very interesting hypothesis, though, and I'd be interested in seeing you test it.

[SamBridge]

Yeah, like iNow said, this is really not a valid method based on empirical observations.

 

If you actually want to assert this claim, you need to measure (at the very least) your pulse with electronics to get proper measurements. This isn't really hard to do, if you're willing to spend some money.

 

 

 

I think the point that everyone here is trying to make is this:

 

You have a hypothesis; this is fine.

 

You need to carry out a proper experiment to test this hypothesis, without leaning toward any specific conclusion during its execution.

 

Set up a procedure you can follow each time, in which you can alter variables you want to test for. Then simply get the equipment you need to measure data, and record that data, impartially.

 

Do this experiment multiple times with different parameters. Record your resting heart rate as well... and do your experiment without trying to alter your heart rate (control data).

 

You need to record all the data without bias, without expectation of a certain result. Just record that data.

 

After you've got all this raw data, you can analyse it and draw conclusions. [You need to include that raw data in your final results.]

 

 

 

 

 

The process isn't really that hard.

The point everyone here is trying to make is that your current method is not objective or scientific in any way.

 

You have a very interesting hypothesis, though, and I'd be interested in seeing you test it.

Except I did carry out an experiment, Holding my breath for walking produces the same exact effects that slowing the heart rate down very fast after jogging to umping jacks did, so I can logically conclude there is a moderate likelihood they have a similar root cause or are involved in a similar process. Do you deny this?

iNow himself said there is limited capacity to control auto-somatic functions, for instance you normally automatically breath, but you can hold your breath at will, some people have done it to the point where they passed out, but they continue breathing after that of course because they no longer have conscious control of their breathing after they pass out. I not only measured my heart rate in my wrist but my heart was beating so hard I could clearly feel it in my chest alone and immediately noticed the slow down upon willful concentration both in my wrist and in my test, even though there was a slight delay from the heart-beat I felt in my chest than in my wrist. Although formal testing should be done like next time I get a physical if it's not too complicated, I think there is evidence and it's really not that strange or far-out there, so I do not see a particular reason to deny it. I know for a fact that what I measured was my heart rate slowing down when I wanted it to, I don't have an issue with that, the only thing I have an issue with is explaining it to people who find it skeptical because with no logical reason they automatically associate with voodo of phychic-ness or something like that when really it seems to be a completely normal phenomena that follows limitations. I don't know the limit of the ability to control it which is what I suspect iNow and Ringer should have or were trying to inquire about, but I lack knowledge and concise evidence on that, however I still know that to some extent I did control the heart rate. The limitation of this ability is unknown, I was not able to slow it down past the resting heart rate but who knows maybe someone else can do it, I don't know. It's not much more strange than the ability to hold your breath and control the rate at which you take in air with its limitations of course.

Edited February 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

Nobody ever challenged your ability to slightly alter or influence your heart rate. The issue is that you cannot control it completely, your control has very narrow limitations and constraints, and your suggestions on how others might test this are frankly rather infantile and ultimately a bit useless.

[SamBridge]

Nobody ever challenged your ability to slightly alter or influence your heart rate. The issue is that you cannot control it completely, your control has very narrow limitations and constraints, and your suggestions on how others might test this are frankly rather infantile and ultimately a bit useless.

If that's the argument then it has been one big straw-man because I never said that you had unlimited control, in fact I specifically provided evidence that you don't have unlimited control by stating my findings that I could not lower the rate past my resting heart rate.

[iNow]

Okay. Now, how about those questions I asked in post #26?

[sysD]

Ladies, please; step back for a second.

 

 

 

SamBridge... please use indentations or line breaks between paragraphs. The wall of text there is kind of difficult to read. Also, spellcheck [only takes a sec =) ].

 

I'll correct some spelling errors in the quotes from you that I use for clarity's sake.

 

 

 

 

[Also, try fully reading the responses people give you.]

 

Well regardless of "no you wouldn't", it still happened, 7 miles per hour isn't my "top speed", but I walked for around 20 seconds and immediately after I noticed heavy but short-term fatigue in my legs. If I ever get a chance to measure lactic acid, maybe next time I get a check-up at a doctor, I'll see what the results are.

 

I think you're misunderstanding here. The previous poster was talking about lactic acid concentration. He said it was 7 cubic millimeters per litre. There are 1 000 000 mm³ in a litre.

Incidentally, 7mph is only about twice the average walking pace. So, not that fast at all. Maybe a steady jog.

 

 

Except I did carry out an experiment, Holding my breath for walking produces the same exact effects that slowing the heart rate down very fast after jogging to jumping jacks did, so I can logically conclude there is a moderate likelihood they have a similar root cause or are involved in a similar process.

 

That's cool, bro. But what I'm saying is that you need an objective way to measure your heart rate (eg. with electronics). Subjective methods such as "I put my fingers on my wrist and felt a difference in my heart rate" are unverifiable. Therefore you won't be taken seriously. There's a large margin of error in subjective methods such as the one you used....

 

 

 

 

iNow himself said there is limited capacity to control auto-somatic functions, for instance you normally automatically breath, but you can hold your breath at will, some people have done it to the point where they passed out, but they continue breathing after that of course because they no longer have conscious control of their breathing after they pass out. I not only measured my heart rate in my wrist but my heart was beating so hard I could clearly feel it in my chest alone and immediately noticed the slow down upon willful concentration both in my wrist and in my test

 

I'm curious about your respiratory rate during the different stages of your "experiments." Increased RR usually correlates with increased HR... and vice versa. If you (consciously or otherwise) altered your RR after completing exercise, that may contributed to the lowered HR....

 

Holding one's breath means dropping respiration rate down to zero. I'm not sure what method you're using to lower your heart rate. You weren't clear on that at all.

 

 

 

I don't have an issue with that, the only thing I have an issue with is explaining it to people who find it skeptical because with no logical reason they automatically associate with voodoo of phychic-ness or something like that when really it seems to be a completely normal phenomena that follows limitations.

 

No one's really denying your original assertion/hypothesis... for some reason you've gone off on multiple tangents about how no one believes you ect... cool it down man. We're just talking here.

 

 

To restate what you said, you don't have a problem with believing that you are right (without a controlled, rational experiment conducted). That's cool. Yet you need to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that you need to do what you're advising others to do - open your mind.

 

In the same breath you say that you have a problem with those who disagree with your viewpoint, assuming that they believe that wilfully lowering one's heart rate can only be achieved via some otherworldly pseudo-science. This isn't true simply because it has been proved not to be true (research meditation). Stop assuming that others believe you're completely full of shit - no one has said that. You're projecting your own attitudes onto others.

 

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm suggesting that you stop being so very defensive when people question you. Science is all about questioning stuff; its part of the process. To be blunt, if you can't handle it, gtfo.

 

 

 

. I don't know the limit of the ability to control it which is what I suspect iNow and Ringer should have or were trying to inquire about

 

There! An answer!

Simplicity is a beautiful thing, man. Trim away all the fat and the defensiveness and you get to the core of the point you're trying to make.

 

 

I think that what you're proposing is probably possible, either via controlled RR or some sort of meditative state. However, without a proper experiment and data to back it up, this whole argument is pointless.

 

I'll probably bow out of this thread now; I really don't think its going anywhere productive - too many people butting heads.

 

 

Some sort of dick-waving contest.

 

 

Have fun.

Edited February 19, 2013 by sysD

[SamBridge]

Ladies, please; step back for a second.

 

 

 

SamBridge... please use indentations or line breaks between paragraphs. The wall of text there is kind of difficult to read. Also, spellcheck [only takes a sec =) ].

 

I'll correct some spelling errors in the quotes from you that I use for clarity's sake.

 

 

 

 

[Also, try fully reading the responses people give you.]

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding here. The previous poster was talking about lactic acid concentration. He said it was 7 cubic millimeters per litre. There are 1 000 000 mm³ in a litre.

Incidentally, 7mph is only about twice the average walking pace. So, not that fast at all. Maybe a steady jog.

 

 

 

That's cool, bro. But what I'm saying is that you need an objective way to measure your heart rate (eg. with electronics). Subjective methods such as "I put my fingers on my wrist and felt a difference in my heart rate" are unverifiable. Therefore you won't be taken seriously. There's a large margin of error in subjective methods such as the one you used....

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious about your respiratory rate during the different stages of your "experiments." Increased RR usually correlates with increased HR... and vice versa. If you (consciously or otherwise) altered your RR after completing exercise, that may contributed to the lowered HR....

 

Holding one's breath means dropping respiration rate down to zero. I'm not sure what method you're using to lower your heart rate. You weren't clear on that at all.

 

 

 

 

No one's really denying your original assertion/hypothesis... for some reason you've gone off on multiple tangents about how no one believes you ect... cool it down man. We're just talking here.

 

 

To restate what you said, you don't have a problem with believing that you are right (without a controlled, rational experiment conducted). That's cool. Yet you need to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that you need to do what you're advising others to do - open your mind.

 

In the same breath you say that you have a problem with those who disagree with your viewpoint, assuming that they believe that wilfully lowering one's heart rate can only be achieved via some otherworldly pseudo-science. This isn't true simply because it has been proved not to be true (research meditation). Stop assuming that others believe you're completely full of shit - no one has said that. You're projecting your own attitudes onto others.

 

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm suggesting that you stop being so very defensive when people question you. Science is all about questioning stuff; its part of the process. To be blunt, if you can't handle it, gtfo.

 

 

 

 

There! An answer!

Simplicity is a beautiful thing, man. Trim away all the fat and the defensiveness and you get to the core of the point you're trying to make.

 

 

I think that what you're proposing is probably possible, either via controlled RR or some sort of meditative state. However, without a proper experiment and data to back it up, this whole argument is pointless.

 

I'll probably bow out of this thread now; I really don't think its going anywhere productive - too many people butting heads.

 

 

Some sort of dick-waving contest.

 

 

Have fun.

If you actually cared about science rather than trolling in your own illusion of self prominence you would at least make any attempt to perform the experiment yourself. If you believe lowering your heart rate within the limitations I described then you must believe all of biology is pseudo science because it says you can willfully hold your breath.

 

Okay. Now, how about those questions I asked in post #26?

As I said, I know what I measured, I have 100% confidence I measured the heart rate slowing down at will, the only mystery is the limitations which based on trials seem to conclude that it is the resting heart rate. I also found it inconclusive that it works the other way around to raise one's heart rate.

Edited February 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

As I said, I know what I measured, I have 100% confidence I measured the heart rate slowing down at will, the only mystery is the limitations which based on trials seem to conclude that it is the resting heart rate. I also found it inconclusive that it works the other way around to raise one's heart rate.

Within what limits? How long and under what conditions can you lower your heart rate? What is the minimum to which you can lower it when under stress or while exercising and what is the maximum duration which that state can be maintained? What is the maximum you can raise your heart rate while resting and still, and how long can you sustain that? How many measurements did you take to obtain those numbers to ensure it is not some one time fluke? How do those numbers compare to the average baseline in the rest of the population? Is your result statistically significant in some way, and to what degree?

 

These are the types of questions that will help you come up with something meaningful to say on this topic. If you'd rather not share anything meaningful and you want to lash out at people like sysD who are quite clearly trying to help you, then so be it.

Edited February 19, 2013 by iNow

[sysD]

If you actually cared about science rather than trolling in your own illusion of self prominence you would at least make any attempt to perform the experiment yourself. If you believe lowering your heart rate within the limitations I described then you must believe all of biology is pseudo science because it says you can willfully hold your breath.

 

LOL. There you go again. No one is attacking your theory - only the way you present it and the design of your experiment.

 

You sir, have problems. Maybe you should actually try reading posts before replying to them?

 

That being said, I'm done with this thread because you clearly cannot take criticism in any form. Maybe you should be researching personality disorders instead.

 

Bye!

 

 

 

 

edit - maybe your question and the format of your experiment would get a better response on the bodybuilding forums: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/

Edited February 19, 2013 by sysD

[SamBridge]

Within what limits? How long and under what conditions can you lower your heart rate? What is the minimum to which you can lower it when under stress or while exercising and what is the maximum duration which that state can be maintained? What is the maximum you can raise your heart rate while resting and still, and how long can you sustain that? How many measurements did you take to obtain those numbers to ensure it is not some one time fluke? How do those numbers compare to the average baseline in the rest of the population? Is your result statistically significant in some way, and to what degree?

 

These are the types of questions that will help you come up with something meaningful to say on this topic. If you'd rather not share anything meaningful and you want to lash out at people like sysD who are quite clearly trying to help you, then so be it.

 

 

LOL. There you go again. No one is attacking your theory - only the way you present it and the design of your experiment.

 

You sir, have problems. Maybe you should actually try reading posts before replying to them?

 

That being said, I'm done with this thread because you clearly cannot take criticism in any form. Maybe you should be researching personality disorders instead.

 

Bye!

 

 

 

 

edit - maybe your question and the format of your experiment would get a better response on the bodybuilding forums: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/

I must say I find it rather insulting people think I am incapable of measuring my own rate especially in repeated trials and getting the same results, and I would consider it trolling to suggest I cannot do so. If one can measure their heart rate, that is the only requirement necessary to confirm if your rate is fast or normal relative to the resting heart rate, nothing more, not that complicated. Your automatic association of the idea with vodoo or whatever religion when I myself was skeptical is irrational which I had to accept when I found it was possible to lower one's heart rate, however unlike you two I decided to try it myself, since no one else here has done that STILL, it is clear sys and possibly iNow are not in the thread to discuss science, but rather to attempt display hypothetical prowess which is in no way helpful to science.

if you actually cared about investigating the situation, then like me and the other person who told me, one other person would have tried it. There are several pieces of proof which I can display if desired that show I am more than willing to compromise and "take criticism", so If I find out from a real doctor or biologist that what I'm saying is perfectly legitimate and I had little reason to doubt it, I'm doing some reporting.

 

I'm guessing that you iNow would be the most "confused" or interested in as to how you were insulting me. Here's how it works:

My accuracy = my ability to measure my heart rate. Therefore, if you say my accuracy is faulty, you are by the transitive property of logic saying that my ability to measure my heart rate is faulty, which I of course find insulting because even clinically retarded people can measure their heart rate to a degree of accuracy that can determine if it is high or low relative to their resting heart rate. It is really pretty easy to measure if your heart rate is high or low compared to your resting heart rate so your claim that I am not being accurate enough to me has little basis at all and is insulting.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

It's not about if you have the ability to measure your heart rate, it's about the accuracy of measuring your heart rate. People aren't accurate at any sort of counting. If you think you're ability is high enough to be considered scientific you are wrong. I would be wrong if I thought that as well. Don't take things so personally.

[iNow]

Gosh, RInger. I can't believe you've stooped to trolling like that. I'm sure your post will get reported.

[SamBridge]

It's not about if you have the ability to measure your heart rate, it's about the accuracy of measuring your heart rate. People aren't accurate at any sort of counting. If you think you're ability is high enough to be considered scientific you are wrong. I would be wrong if I thought that as well. Don't take things so personally.

Except the problem with your point is in my trials I only need the knowledge of one significant digit to have accuracy to confirm if my heart rate is high or low. It is scientifically accurate because I use a consistent form of measurement that has results which approach the accuracy that more accurate machines can make, repeat the trial with consistency and I get consistent and repeated results. In every trial, I can measure that within 3 seconds after my will is concentrated on slowing my heart rate, that the time between heart beats decreases. What you're saying is like saying I need to prove a ball comes back towards the ground after I throw it. You don't need to test it, it can clearly be measured that it's actions clearly fit within our definition of the words "moving down". If you want specific such as position time equations at an instantaneous moment, that's where you need much scientific testing.

 

Gosh, RInger. I can't believe you've stooped to trolling like that. I'm sure your post will get reported.

I didn't report you for your last post or this post, by the looks of it you seem to act brash an condescending rather often.

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

Gosh, RInger. I can't believe you've stooped to trolling like that. I'm sure your post will get reported.

 

It's something I've always wanted to dip my toes into, but I don't think I'll make a career out of it.

Except the problem with your point is in my trials I only need the knowledge of one significant digit to have accuracy to confirm if my heart rate is high or low. It is scientifically accurate because I use a consistent form of measurement that has results which approach the accuracy that more accurate machines can make, repeat the trial with consistency and I get consistent and repeated results. In every trial, I can measure that within 3 seconds after my will is concentrated on slowing my heart rate, that the time between heart beats decreases. What you're saying is like saying I need to prove a ball comes back towards the ground after I throw it. You don't need to test it, it can clearly be measured that it's actions clearly fit within our definition of the words "moving down". If you want specific such as position time equations at an instantaneous moment, that's where you need much scientific testing.

You realize that 1.) your claim now is drastically different from your original and 2.) you aren't nearly as accurate as an ECG.

 

Your original claim is that you can control your heart rate, now it's that you can alter your heart rate. One noone has disagreed the other is what people posted saying you cannot do. I assume you know which is which.

[SamBridge]

It's something I've always wanted to dip my toes into, but I don't think I'll make a career out of it.

You realize that 1.) your claim now is drastically different from your original and 2.) you aren't nearly as accurate as an ECG.

 

Your original claim is that you can control your heart rate, now it's that you can alter your heart rate. One noone has disagreed the other is what people posted saying you cannot do. I assume you know which is which.

My original claim was that I can control my heart rate in such a way that I can lower it at will, I did not state that I could raise it or lower it indefinitely to 0, but merely that I can lower it by some clearly measurable amount. Do you disagree that this is physically possible?

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

My original claim was that I can control my heart rate in such a way that I can lower it at will, I did not state that I could raise it or lower it indefinitely to 0, but merely that I can lower it by some clearly measurable amount. Do you disagree that this is physically possible?

Has anyone said you can't raise or lower your heart rate? Control and alter are two different things. Your OP specifically said control. I can close my eyes and I won't see anything, that doesn't mean I can control my vision. Lowering your heart rate is something anyone can do, there's nothing special to it.

[SamBridge]

Has anyone said you can't raise or lower your heart rate? Control and alter are two different things. Your OP specifically said control. I can close my eyes and I won't see anything, that doesn't mean I can control my vision. Lowering your heart rate is something anyone can do, there's nothing special to it.

Now you're just arguing semantics so you can avoid admitting you made a mistake. It is easily to translate alter at will for control. However, I continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued to specify that there were limitations to the control, which you apparently ignored, thus your point is invalid anyway.

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[iNow]

You're a real pleasure to interact with.

[SamBridge]

I could very well say the same about you . Now your not even debating science, you're just trying to find any way you can to find something negative to say about me.

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

Now you're just arguing semantics so you can avoid admitting you made a mistake. It is easily to translate alter at will for control. However, I continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued and continued to specify that there were limitations to the control, which you apparently ignored, thus your point is invalid anyway.

Please point out where you said you couldn't control it and where I made my mistake.

[SamBridge]

Please point out where you said you couldn't control it and where I made my mistake.

Very well.

 

 

"I don't think I said anywhere that you can "override your physiology", but it is still true that you have a limited range..." post #23

 

"But according to what I measure, it seems you can in fact not only slow your heart rate down to a limited extent at will" post #15

" but so far I haven't been able to slow it to lower than 60 beats per minute so I shouldn't have to worry about that. 60 beats per minute by the way is y resting heart rate," post #15

"I still know that to some (not indefinite) extent I did control the heart rate. The limitation of this ability is unknown, I was not able to slow it down past the resting heart rate" post #30

 

I also did not state in the first post that I said or thought it was possible to have unlimited or indefinite control, I meant any amount of control at all, as I was not aware you had any measurable amount of "alteration" at will in any form before I conducted trials.

 

Do you understand my context now?

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ringer]

Then it seems there is no disagreement about the main topic, the point of this thread seems to have ended.