Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AwP
Joined: 12/31/2006
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?Page 7 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I don't have a specific citation, I'm sure you could find them if you care enough to search for it, but under lab conditions it was shown that sub atomic are influenced by the mere act of observing them. Who knows what sort of influence the sub concious mind migh be having on these particles in everyday life?
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/4/2007 1:35:37 AM
Living in Las Vegas, I will say honestly this is a question I have been interested in for a long time.
I have a continuing experiment to see if thoughts can influence poker machines.
All I can say is that I've had mixed results.
 AwP
Joined: 12/31/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/5/2007 9:59:34 AM
This is very anecdotal and "proves" nothing, but it seems appropriate to mention. I'm sure most of you have either experienced this personally or witnessed it personally happening to another person. When you're watching a TV with rabbit ears and the reception isn't great, you go to adjust the antenna but before you touch it the picture comes in perfectly so you back away to sit down and it goes bad again. It seems to me that's an example of the body's electromagnetic "aura" influencing something outside the body, not an exciting or impressive example, but an example nonetheless.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/5/2007 7:28:07 PM
From an external point of view, the power of thoughts seem limited to moving the body. If anyone can demonstrate how thoughts can make external things happen, I'd love to see it.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/10/2007 1:47:10 PM
I visited a website back before the BCS Football Championship game. They were keeping track of how many hits the Ohio State web site got, vs. the Florida web site. The Gators web site got many more visits than the OSU web site all the way up till game time.
Does this prove anything ? No, but it is interesting and this sort of study has been done many times before with the same results.

If you went back in time and tried to explain 4th dimensional geometry to Euclid himself he probably wouldn't understand it. He certainly wouldn't understand Calculus.
There are a great many interesting things which happen around us which we don't understand. Yet, who's to say that 100 years from now these things will be easily understood and even practically utilized in our everyday life ? Some future Newton or Einstein might invent a new way of looking at things which will seem so obvious to them, yet mysterious to us now .
As the astronomer Neil De Grasse Tyson says...
There is only %2 difference genetically between humans and chimpanzee. Imagine that in 10,000 years, humans have evolved who have a %2 genetic advantage over present humans and they could have the same understanding of the universe compared to us, that we have compared to the chimpanzee.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/10/2007 4:54:19 PM
Frankly, I don't think so. That's more like Sci-Fi.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/17/2007 10:41:06 AM
When your dog sits in front of your stereo and he hears the music.
He doesn't understand what music is, but he can conceive that there's something going on.
We see and experience the universe around us. Some things we understand, some things we don't.
We sence there's something going on, but our minds arn't developed enough to understand what it is.
I don't think it's possible to actually influence things to happen, at our present state of mental development. I do think it's possible to tune into the natural flow of events and use them to our advantage. Rather like the ships captain who sails when the winds and tide are favorable.
Awareness is most important now, later, we can think about actually making things happen.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/31/2007 4:32:21 PM

silivros: Peer reviews. Love em, sick of em, but love em.
When ever I have to research common PR's I get this visual of an endless line of bobble head dolls all nodding in perfect aggreement like a bunch of yes men from a bad "B" rated mafia movie.
Do you ever wonder (Andy Rooney here) If all these theories, based on theories, based on theories, based on the original theory, don't you ever wonder: What if the original theory was Wrong?????

The bobble head dolls only agree if they are forced to. What they really want to do is find flaws in each other's theories and when they do they race to publish it. For example, the ones who most desperately want to disprove the theory of evolution are those scientists who believe in the theory of evolution. Such a discovery would make any scientist both wealthy and respected beyond belief.

Theories based on theories based on theories is an interesting statement. Theories are as high as you can go for proving why something occurs. If there was a hierarchy of scientific worth, theories would be higher than laws. Those who believe that the term 'theory' implies uncertainty are completely ignorant about what theory means.
If the original theory was wrong, it could only be wrong if the efforts of countless scientists whom had scrutinized it for error all missed it.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/31/2007 6:21:49 PM

your aparent inabilty to have an inteligent debate has really shined here all you seem to do is reject everything others have to say if it does'nt completely fit your beliefs I will be the first to admit I don't agree with everyones position on this topic or any other one for that matter I would'nt be my own person if I did but that does'nt mean that it's wrong because there is no proof of it being right or that it should be rejected based solely on the fact it has'nt been agreed upon by hundreds of respectable scholars/scientists in history the theorems that have brought us the most scientific advancement have all been initially rejected by naysayers such as yourself infact people like you are the same that would have persecuted anyone who believed the world was round and boy did the naysayers get that one wrong

Look down at your keyboard.
Do you see that 'M' key?
Well, immediately to the right of it there are a couple keys that you should really try using once in a while.

/just my opinion
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 72
view profile
History
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
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 9/11/2007 7:09:48 AM
I think it can go both ways

quantum mechanics can affct consciousness and consciousness can effect quantum particles.

more research is required to express this properly
 camillia blossom
Joined: 4/13/2006
Msg: 75
view profile
History
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.
 camillia blossom
Joined: 4/13/2006
Msg: 76
view profile
History
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....
.
 1inwest
Joined: 6/10/2007
Msg: 77
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...
 privat33r
Joined: 2/8/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/19/2010 10:21:27 PM
There's some that is obvious. If sensors can detect our thoughts it must be that our thoughts have an effect on the physical universe outside of us. The question is one of two things.
-- Is it directed? As in, do they have the effect we wish?
-- Can it reach any distance or is the limit just what we see? - ie. we can change the state of very sensitive instruments close to us, but can the mind reach further?

To me this seems about whether this is even a desirable trait. If we could do this would species that had that power be more likely to survive, and if we have bits of this power wouldn't animals also have it,?. and be doing wicked whacked out things with it that would be sorta obvious.

There seems some cursory evidence that action at a distance, precognition and some degrees of perception from far away do exist. Still, if I was putting my money into a venture I'd be just as happy to work with one that required hands, it seems so much more .. handy.

There's recently some speculation that Qbits type of interactions might be involved. If that's the case,.. its an open game. If non-local interactions can help chlorophyll work there's not a lot of reason to doubt its cropped up in thousands of other biological processes.
 ForeverLong
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/25/2010 2:59:32 PM
Only in your brain. A fart can influence things even beyond the molecular level even when no one knows who did it, but a thought trapped inside your head stays inside your skull and changes only your individual chemistry...unless it leaks out...Hmmm.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 6/22/2010 2:01:45 PM

Could a billion people , all thinking about the same thing, influence an event ?????


What kind of event? A hurricane? Or could a billion people thinking the same thing influence an election?

Remember the book The Hundredth Monkey? Of course, it was completely bogus. Keyes and others completely misrepresented the research on which it was supposedly based. If the Hundredth Monkey phenomena were true, then if you put me down in the middle of China I should start spontaneously speaking Chinese, since I would be surrounded by over a billion people who speak Chinese. I haven't been to China, but I've been to at least five countries where I did not speak the language and did not spontaneously start speaking Hindi or Nepali or Russian or Latvian. And even though I've studied Spanish in the past, I'm pretty rusty and landing in Central America did not spontaneously improve my Spanish.

I really fear for democracy. That people have so little capacity for rational thinking and yet still can vote frightens me.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 7/23/2010 5:09:26 PM
Here's a great story, a guy in India who insisted he could kill a man within three minutes with just his thoughts. The skeptic in question invited him to try and do it and they showed the hijinx that followed on Indian TV. Bottom line - even though they gave him lots of time and catered to his every whim (time of day, etc.) he was unable to cause any harm.


http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2008/20080310/en_1.html
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 7/30/2010 11:38:26 PM
is everything proven?

and,

will everything be proven?

I'd say no, and no.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 1/23/2012 6:19:40 PM
I'm not reading 10 pages of comments so if someone already said this, feel free to not read it again.

This made me think of the butterfly effect but on a much smaller scale. I highly doubt that thinking about ice cream long enough will make it appear, even if the whole world does it... but it might cause a series of events that could lead to almost anything... most likely you getting fat.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 1/24/2012 6:17:46 PM
cl55, my comment was directed at the op and not you or yours
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 96
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 2/27/2012 8:00:49 PM
^^^^^ Not on a molecular level but at the quantum level, (its a byproduct of observation of time destroys matter and observation of matter destroys time).

Obviously it doesn't work too well or quantum physicists would all be dreamin up an island full a hotties with a cold beer in each hand and no more quantum physics would be gettin done.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Can thoughts influence things on a molecular level ?
Posted: 3/2/2012 2:43:33 PM

Obviously it doesn't work too well or quantum physicists would all be dreamin up an island full a hotties with a cold beer in each hand and no more quantum physics would be gettin done


Actually, quantum physicists would probably be far more likely to be dreamin up a computer with a photon based core design and lifetimes totally free unlimited download terabit internet speeds accompanied with free passwords to all porn sites and an unlimited supply of kleenexs


If thought can affect subatomic particles though it would mean that sub atomic particles might also be able to alter thought too which could explain several things like mass hallucinations, group thinking and collective consciousness and perhaps many things that are classed as "supernatural" with our current lack of scientific knowledge

Heck, maybe this is what led to the myths and legends of alchemy and magic and we're only just rediscovering the mechanisms that made them possible

Pick a muon, any muon but dont tell me which one, now I'll shuffle them and.......
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >