|
|
|
|
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/14/2007 8:50:43 AM | I have read your earlier posts.
All of the things you list are not relevant to this discussion. The OP asks if we can physically alter our environment via thought alone; almost everything you list is a biochemical process, pathway, or mindset that is well understood in medicine/science - it's not the same as what this thread is leaning towards.
There is still no evidence that a human being can change their environment purely by thought. | |
|
| |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:00:05 AM | This is what the OP posted, back on page 1:
Our minds are bathed in this electro-chemical bath and our brains produce thoughts. Are our thoughts a form of energy that can influence other things on a molecular level ?
He said NOTHING about changing environment. He asked is our minds can influence "other things" ona molecular level.
almost everything you list is a biochemical process, pathway, or mindset that is well understood in medicine/science - it's not the same as what this thread is leaning towards.
Well, what do you expect? Physical processes in living organisms operate by biochemical processes, through reaction pathways. You got something else in mind?
There is still no evidence that a human being can change their environment purely by thought.
What the hell do you think "thought" is??
Its a bio-electrical process. Its not some mumbo jumbo layer that runs ON TOP of biochemical processes. When sufficient acidity and excess net skin surface charge is present, it can stop digital watches by field interference (and this has been investigated and proven as well).
Now, I would say that is CNS activity that is causing an exterior effect on an object.
There is simply no evidence that a larger force, acting over distance, exists and can be proven in experiments. That is your claim, and I don't dispute it. What I am saying is that the OP posed an open ended query in his initial post. I answered that query by listing known effects of 'thought' that influences internal and external outcomes. | |
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/14/2007 4:56:13 PM | Please.
The FIRST post says: "could a billion people, all thinking about the same thing, influence an event?" Do you think that "event", manipulated by a billion people, is at a molecular level? It's pretty clear that ISN'T what he (or many others) on this thread are referring to. The OP goes on later to talk about "the butterfly effect", others refer to the ridiculous experiment with thought and water crystals perpetuated by the bunk "What the Bleep Do We Know?", someone even draws comparison to the utter crap called "The Secret"; THIS is where the thread was/is heading - THIS is what I'm saying is simply NOT possible. I know you agree with me, so I don't understand why you nit-pick at things I've already clarified in my other posts as being separate from what I'm pointing out. Nowhere have I disagreed that thought influences body process/chemistry/temp./etc., what I DO disagree with it that the mind can manipulate other objects via thought alone across distance.
You are still talking about processes that nobody disputes - we all know how thinking can change your body for better or worse. That isn't what this thread is leaning towards - and that's it.
Also, I know you value your science background - but you're not the only one here who has one. You may be/have been faculty, but that doesn't mean nobody else is on your level.
I say that referring to your "I eat your kind for lunch" comment... Some of us aren't so readily devoured. | |
|
| |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:06:02 PM | What more do you want skeptics to say? The burden of proof is on those making the claims :)
Indeed, well said and justly so.
The claim that the earth was the center of the universe: That was the claim, the burden of proof to support that claim was on those making it. They couldn't do it.
But for many centuries this was the commonly held belief and consider a truth. To dispute this truth could have dire consequences, much like on POF. Furthermore,
Galileo comes to mind, although he had his hypotheses, these were either misunderstood by the masses/rulers or deemed blasphemous by the religious heirarchy. He retracted his comments to save his neck.
The opinion that we didn't live in a geocentric universe was held by others, it was their responsibility to support thier claim. They could. They did.
Yes, but their ability to prove their claim was due to the tools by which they proved it.
So as per the thread of this thread, to claim that "we" cannot influence things at a greater distance molecularly, perhaps the "tools or tool" to prove this claim have not been developed yet. Our sciences are only as good as the tools we use to measure with.
So maybe we could say: It hasn't been proven yet. As it is seen now - we cannot do this ~ yet. :)
| |
|
| |
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 208 | |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/15/2007 4:05:36 PM | From issue 2562 of New Scientist magazine, 26 July 2006, page 15
Josef Penninger of the Austrian Institute of Molecular Biotechnology in Vienna
and Min Zhao of the University of Aberdeen, UK, have demonstrated that
natural electric fields and currents in tissue play a vital role in orchestrating
the wound-healing process by attracting repair cells to damaged areas.
The researchers have also identified the genes that control the process.
"We were originally sceptical, but then we realised it was a real effect
and looked for the genes responsible," Penninger says.
"It's not homeopathy, it's biophysics."
Cells and tissues essentially function as chemical batteries,
with positively charged potassium ions and negatively charged chloride ions
flowing across membranes.
This creates electric field patterns all over the body.
When tissue is wounded this disrupts the battery, effectively short-circuiting it.
Penninger and his colleagues realised that it is the resulting altered fields
that attract and guide repair cells to the damaged area.
The next stage is to investigate ways of manipulating the phenomenon
to accelerate healing, says Mark Ferguson, a wound-healing specialist
at the University of Manchester, UK.
"For many years there have been anecdotal reports of the effects
of electrical currents on wound healing," he says.
"This paper not only demonstrates the effects of electrical currents
on cellular migration to wound defects, it also provides
a mechanistic understanding of how such signals alter cell behaviour." | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 209 | |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 5/15/2007 4:19:43 PM | Iontophoresis is distinguishable from other applications of electric energy
in rehabilitation medicine in that the current itself is therapeutic.
With iontophoresis, electric current is used to transport therapeutic agents
into target tissues, most often to treat acute local inflammatory conditions,
but is also used to soften scar tissue, for local pain control, and to reduce calcium deposits.
Iontophoresis is a drug delivery method that uses low-level direct current
in the milliampere (mA) range to transport drugs and other water-soluble salts
through and into tissues of the body.
Iontophoretic dose is usually defined as current multiplied by time of application: Dose (mA-minutes) = Current (mA) x Time (minutes). | |
|
| |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/10/2007 12:18:23 PM | "Are our thoughts a form of energy that can influence other things on a molecular level ?"
yes, that's actually how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mind_and_Brain
"If we can "push" a few electrons around by just thinking about something....hmmmmm.
Could a billion people , all thinking about the same thing, influence an event ?????"
sure... actually happens during osu v. michigan games at the horseshoe, for instance. 100k+ fans all screaming can definitely help motivate the outcome.
if you're talking about quantum mechanical interactions at a distance, there has been some evidence of that but with many, many constraints. if you wanna be the next jedi with the schwartz - good luck with that. | |
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/10/2007 12:32:43 PM | "Iontophoretic dose is usually defined as current multiplied by time of application: Dose (mA-minutes) = Current (mA) x Time (minutes)."
actually, there's another, more common term used by physicists to describe what you're labeling as "dose"...
current*time = charge //charge is a physical quanity often measured in coulombs
however, you're more likely to magnetically levitate a train using well known engineering principles than getting a billion people together to move the train by "telepathy". i'm not even sure how much electromagnetic force a billion brains together can produce - and in what geometrical array. but once you know the electromagnic force output of a single brain, you can just substitute some other electrical device in its stead.
the more complicated question by far is how electromagnetic field maps change over time - within a single brain. even the most powerful MRI machine on the planet (here in Columbus) doesn't have resolution that's arbitrarily precise - its scale of resolution is very limited. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 213 | |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/10/2007 12:52:03 PM | Plenty of territory yet to explore.
All those neat machines that enable us to ""watch"" brain functions offer insight
towards how we actually use electro-chemical reactions inside the human body.
Perhaps one day we'll better understand if we really do emit some ""electrical energy""
that may influence those around us in some micro manner. | |
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/11/2007 7:06:16 AM | I have found some interesting info on Physics and consiousness. Not having the mathematics background I must rely on those physicists who can couch things in laymens terms. There is a theory of microtubules and quantum particles. So I would surmise that any effect from thought would be below the "atom" level.
here goes...
We discussed in Chapter 2 the path of twentieth-century physics, and the rankings of centuries of scientific thought that Roger Penrose presents in his 1989 book, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Penrose is a prominent University of Oxford mathematician who has made major contributions to modern physics. His 1989 book—aimed at the popular market although with significant scientific substance—speculated on the nature of consciousness.
Penrose mentions that he’s been asked how he would rank a theory of physics—twistor theory—that he himself has been developing over the years as a proposed reconciliation of quantum physics with general relativity. Penrose answers that twistor theory can be placed no higher than “tentative.” It certainly can’t be any higher up on the scale that Penrose would rate his speculations on consciousness, with which he closes The Emperor’s New Mind.
Penrose is clearly of the school that consciousness goes beyond the simple accumulation of more and more complex algorithmic capabilities. Therefore, Penrose is not within the Strong A. I. school of artificial intelligence that advocates that computers either now have a mind, or at least will soon have a mind once we have exceeded a critical mass of computational capacity and speed.
Penrose supports his argument against the Strong A. I. philosophy by invoking the Gödel incompleteness theorem, by which the early-twentieth-century logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that no mathematical system—no formal system of logic of any type—can ever be truly complete, in the sense of proving everything within its scope. This, in Penrose’s argument, contradicts any claim that a mechanical computational system will ever replicate the complexity of the mind and human intelligence.
Penrose speculates that consciousness involves access to the universe’s idealized concepts; these are the Platonic ideals of centuries-old philosophy. In Plato’s formulation, it is not our typically understood physical world that is real; what’s truly real are forms and ideas. The physical world is a mere shadow of the real world of forms and ideas.
When the mind perceives one of the mathematical concepts of Plato’s worldview, the mind is making contact with this world. Our experience of grasping a concept is a holistic experiences of seeing at once, as a whole, the solution to a problem. Or, as Penrose cites, it’s Mozart discussing how he seizes at a glance an entire musical composition: “It does not come to me successively . . . but in its entirety that my imagination lets me hear it.”
Before our mind reaches these kernels of understanding, Penrose proposes, a physiological process within the brain allows the brain to form these ideas. The process involves physical brain activity—rapid trials of combinations of growing and contracting dendritic spines, which stretch out to the synapses that separate a nerve cell from its neighbor.
These trials take place under the radar screen. They must be short-lived, because the nonvalid trials would otherwise be detected through the electromagnetic fields that they would produce. And the trials must take place below the one-graviton level.
Now . . . the one-graviton level . . . this is exciting stuff! Remember: the graviton is the particle that, according to quantum physics, transmits the force of gravity. The graviton is indivisible—it’s an elementary particle, and therefore it gives us the lower limit for the size of a granule of gravity. The smallest granule of gravity would be that transmitted by one graviton. And since gravity reshapes space, another way of saying the same thing is: the smallest disturbance of the shape of space that can be produced is that produced by one graviton. Above this level, we are operating in the world of measurable certainty. At this level and below, we are operating in quantum physics’ world of uncertainty, a world where things don’t exist with single-point definiteness, but instead have various probabilities as to the form in which they can precisely exist.
How small is this? Penrose makes a rough estimate that, measured in terms of mass, the one-graviton level is one ten-millionth of a gram, 10^-7 grams, which for the quantum world is very big. A hydrogen atom has mass one hundred million billion times smaller (that is, mass of 10^-24 grams).
Gravity is such a weak force that it requires mass enormously larger than an atom before gravity’s elementary particle can transmit or sense gravity. But we’ll sense a hydrogen atom electromagnetically long before we’ll sense it gravitationally. Penrose is proposing a quantum gravitational window, without detection aided by other forces, and he’s relying on the additional constraint of a short time duration to avoid electromagnetic detection.
So our brain has a window of opportunity within which to toy with possibilities for dendritic spine construction. How does the brain settle on its ultimate choice?
Penrose goes on. In part, the construction is influenced by the physiology and chemistry of its environment. So the construction depends in part on our emotional state and on the preexisting state of our brain and its connections.
But what provides the core decision-making criterion? How is a final dendrite construction settled on when our mind grasps a concept or glimpses a new symphonic work?
Here, Penrose takes this even further. His answer is quantum gravity, which is also the (still not found) answer to the question of how general relativity is to be reconciled with quantum physics.
Penrose has frequently collaborated with Stuart Hameroff, who has extensively studied microtubules, which give shape to our neurons and through which neuronal chemicals pass. Hameroff, tracing the evolution of life, marks the incorporation of microtubules into the modern cell as taking place about 1.5 billion years ago, as part of a general symbiotic merger of previously independent organelles (cell parts). A billion years later, during the Cambrian period which began 540 million years ago, there was a vast and abrupt emergence of varied lifeforms—the Cambrian explosion—which Hameroff attributes directly to the early precedents of consciousness that microtubules permit.
Penrose and Hameroff propose these microtubules as our brain’s link—through orchestrated reduction—to the collapse (reduction) of the quantum wave function: many neuronal microtubules, acting in concert (orchestrated), create an act of consciousness linked to the quantum physical world.
Penrose is not presenting the full story; he is looking first for the correct understanding of quantum gravity to be developed. It is Penrose’s belief that, through this understanding, the phenomenon of consciousness may be elucidated.
Penrose emphasizes the noncomputable nature of consciousness, and he expects to find an analogous noncomputability in our ultimate understanding of quantum gravity. But he warns: consciousness “will fit only very uncomfortably into our present conventional space-time descriptions.”
Take it as you will... but the jury is out, for now | |
|
| |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/11/2007 7:12:27 PM |
Plenty of territory yet to explore.
All those neat machines that enable us to ""watch"" brain functions offer insight
towards how we actually use electro-chemical reactions inside the human body.
Perhaps one day we'll better understand if we really do emit some ""electrical energy""
that may influence those around us in some micro manner.
We don't even have to do that much! We all have the earth's magnetic forces flowing through us every second of every day. Remember they come out of one pole and flow towards the other outside of the magnet(earth, in this case)? So they flow right through us. So all we have to do is alter what is already there. We probably alter the magnetic forces going through us just by the mineral content in our diet alone.
I've come to a similar conclusion as that article about the healing process and how we feel pain. But mine was through buying this Q ray bracelet, eventually the plating wore off and I saw it was just two brass or bronze ends. I remember from electronics college brass is paramagnetic. Like .85 or thereabouts... I'd have to dig up the exact number and it probably differs with the ratio of the elemental metals in the alloy being used, but the point is that .85 means it flows less magnetic force through it than the comparitive standard.(was it steel or iron? LOL, maybe I really should look this up!) 85 percent rather than 100 percent. Anyway I was so intrigued by this I went rummaging around my basement where I found some brass washers from an old sink faucet I had replaced with a newer one. I taped them to painful spots and sure enough the pain let up some. Why? The paramagnetic effect. How? I'm no biologist, unfortunately.
Iontophoresis is distinguishable from other applications of electric energy
in rehabilitation medicine in that the current itself is therapeutic.
With iontophoresis, electric current is used to transport therapeutic agents
into target tissues, most often to treat acute local inflammatory conditions,
but is also used to soften scar tissue, for local pain control, and to reduce calcium deposits.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've read about that at one time but it sounds like it has expanded as field. I doubt they even have their own Medical Journal just yet but it would justify more research. I know all that digressed off the original intended topic thread.
In terms of the thoughts affecting tangible matter, I believe it is possible but right now the only real scientifically proven ones are folks like the Tibetan Monks raising their body temp through thought and meditation. Mayo clinic has scanned their brains while doing so. Could some of them move matter? I kind of doubt they would tell us if they could. I think it would most likely take a lot of training the mind. I think some of our olympic athletes prove it with their own ability to heal. | |
|
| |
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 218 | |
| |
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/12/2007 12:19:46 AM | Absa,freakin,lutely,YES !!!! changes on bottles of water, after being contemplated on by
Shaolin Munk's. heady stuff. look it up or watch the documentary called
" what the bleep do we know?" featuring some of the greatest academic mind's of our generation. | |
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/12/2007 12:34:52 AM | And what many of you is describing can also be called prayer, do I believe in prayer, YES... do you?
Imagine billions of people praying / thinking / using positive thoughts, about (any) one thing, at the same time. just imagine it.
Doctors tell story's of loved ones praying for the recovery of a terminally ill person, and then finding the cancer cells have stopped growing without benefit of drugs or radiation.
Frequently these doctors are non religious, so you cant always attribute it to there own religious beliefs, coloring there perceptions of what happened. It simply is....
. | |
|
| Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/13/2007 11:39:01 AM | | "Thought" is the "stuff" that bathes the cosmos and links everything together; in fact the reason that the physicists can't get to the exact moment that "time" began is that they haven't realized that thought is the basis of everything. It is the thread that forever seperates matter from anti-matter yet links them at the same time. It is the realm of infinite possibility where anything and everything co-exists eternally as an unrealized thing until "conjured" into "reality" by the thought process. Even if our reality proves to be entropic and the "physical" universe as we know it eventually uses up all of its energy and dissipates into a frozen near nothingness, everything that ever existed in that "dead" state will go on forever on a level of pure thought and could be coaxed back to life by being thought of again. For this reason alone an entropic universe would have to be just one small experimental version of reality that bubbled up in a remote corner of the infinite universe. What people don't realize is that a finite universe would never have come into being in the first place so the one we live in can only be either infinite or a temporary finite bubble in an ultimately larger infinite universe. As to thoughts "inluencing" things on a molecular level the answer is yes and no. If reality is thought based and molecules themselves used to be pure thought thinking about anything long and hard enough may tend to get any individual molecule to "want" to return to its previously malleable state where it could be anything other than what it ended up becoming. Luckily for us or in some cases perhaps to our dismay one of the strongest "laws" of our physical reality is that things tend to like to stay the way they are once they come to exist at all. A body at rest will try to stay that way, in other words the original "becoming" was such a big deal it takes a lot to change it. Does this mean it's impossible? Absolutely not! It takes energy and lots of it. It has been shown that half a classroom talking to and "praying" to their plants as opposed to the other half that simply feeds and waters them under the same conditions will usually produce healthier more robust and larger plants. Their thoughts influenced them on a molecular level. If you've ever seen film of Beatles fans acting in ways they never would normally or while doing a mundane task, you've seen their thoughts influencing their molecules to the point where they are nearly "out of their minds" and their physical responses are way beyond what would normally happen from observing a performance of some sort regardless of how exciting or "scary" it is. Thoughts influence the physical world all the time but unfortuneately it is generally for a very short period of time and then everything reverts back to its original state. They can change slowly over time though and perhaps even "mutate" if the thoughts are focused enough and as directed and steady as a lazer beam with infinite energy trying to burn through a seemingly impregnable object. In fact enough people thinking the same thoughts for a long enough period of time can change anything and everything including "reality" as we now know it. So be careful what you think or more importantly what you truly believe... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
