The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Not sure if the above is actually a word, but basically ESP, telikinesis and all the rest - what does everyone think, do you believe or not?
There's a whole load of info on it in New Scientist this week and I find it very hard to believe, but it got me thinking about 2 things, 1) that I was reading recently that there is a theory that through instinct we have evolved the ability to sense when someone is looking at us, which I find hard to believe as that would mean that we do have psychic powers of some sort and 2) that I watched a programme once that said that they have proved (yeah right) that you can actually work muscles by thinking about moving them. Their 'statistics' showed that if people thought about moving their thumb they actually developed muscles, so in effect, you can work out by just thinking about it. It was a programme about your 'qui' (think that's how you spell it) mind over matter (Shaolin Monks, etc.) which I am really interested in cos I think mental strength can help so much with your health, and stress can cause serious illness.
So I am interested in stuff like that and I think there's more there that we have to learn, but the psychic stuff and telekinesis is (for me) too far-fetched.
Also, Forest Fan - what does religion think about this? Well I suppose religion agrees with it cos God's telikinetic and therefore so must Jesus be.
Whad'ya reckon?
There's a whole load of info on it in New Scientist this week and I find it very hard to believe, but it got me thinking about 2 things, 1) that I was reading recently that there is a theory that through instinct we have evolved the ability to sense when someone is looking at us, which I find hard to believe as that would mean that we do have psychic powers of some sort and 2) that I watched a programme once that said that they have proved (yeah right) that you can actually work muscles by thinking about moving them. Their 'statistics' showed that if people thought about moving their thumb they actually developed muscles, so in effect, you can work out by just thinking about it. It was a programme about your 'qui' (think that's how you spell it) mind over matter (Shaolin Monks, etc.) which I am really interested in cos I think mental strength can help so much with your health, and stress can cause serious illness.
So I am interested in stuff like that and I think there's more there that we have to learn, but the psychic stuff and telekinesis is (for me) too far-fetched.
Also, Forest Fan - what does religion think about this? Well I suppose religion agrees with it cos God's telikinetic and therefore so must Jesus be.
Whad'ya reckon?
Page:
The sagacious one wrote:
> There have been experiments where children have been shown pictures of
> white blood cells (which fight of nasty invaders) and then told to
> think about these every day for 20 mins for a month (something like
> that). There was of course a control group of kids who continued to
> eat boogers and chase Donkeys as normal.
>
> The results were surprising and the kids who were concentrating on
> their immune system showed a significant increase (in the white blood
> cell count) than the control group.
>
I'm having a problem with this.
I know the kids are concentrating on the White Blood Cells, but how can the "machine" (body control) part of the brain decipher a kids thought and actually realise what the "personality" part of the brain is talking about.
The only conclusion is that we can control the content of our blood and from this, and a whole other bunch of stuff as far as our health is concerned.
Making sure is all.
> There have been experiments where children have been shown pictures of
> white blood cells (which fight of nasty invaders) and then told to
> think about these every day for 20 mins for a month (something like
> that). There was of course a control group of kids who continued to
> eat boogers and chase Donkeys as normal.
>
> The results were surprising and the kids who were concentrating on
> their immune system showed a significant increase (in the white blood
> cell count) than the control group.
>
I'm having a problem with this.
I know the kids are concentrating on the White Blood Cells, but how can the "machine" (body control) part of the brain decipher a kids thought and actually realise what the "personality" part of the brain is talking about.
The only conclusion is that we can control the content of our blood and from this, and a whole other bunch of stuff as far as our health is concerned.
Making sure is all.
Yes I know. But organically.
That sounds just like manually editing the Registry in Windows.
The brain does things automatically. For instance breath. We can control our breathing rate but when we don't control it ourselves, the brain kicks in and does it for us.
Could it just be that instead of the "brain" doing things, "we" can somehow do stuff like, control hormone release etc.
Isin't that a bit like evolving? Being able to control stuff like that because the environment is changing? But then again the brain would do that automatically like in the past.
Maybe the rest of the brain, i.e making sure the body is functioning properly, can be controlled by "us".
Hmm, but wouldn't that mean if we had a medical disorder that we couldn't fix, it would technically be a mental illness.
Bah. I'm rambling.
Could it just be that instead of the "brain" doing things, "we" can somehow do stuff like, control hormone release etc.
Isin't that a bit like evolving? Being able to control stuff like that because the environment is changing? But then again the brain would do that automatically like in the past.
Maybe the rest of the brain, i.e making sure the body is functioning properly, can be controlled by "us".
Hmm, but wouldn't that mean if we had a medical disorder that we couldn't fix, it would technically be a mental illness.
Bah. I'm rambling.
Flockhart wrote:
> I'll give you something to think about, how about the idea that only
> use a small per centage of our brain, i think it's no more than 20%.
> what do you think the other 80% does or can do ?
I believe the source of those numbers has been debated many times, however, that doesn't mean I don't think Pyschic Ability exists. There are plenty of things science doesn't understand yet and there are many people who will only believe what science tells them.
If you don't consider things which our outside of our current understanding, then we will never evolve mentally. Even science knows this and is by no-means stable. Scientific discoveries are challenging what scientists have held as a set of rules to work by, but it is only when the larger elements of science are challenged that we the public hear about it.
So, in short, yes I believe there could be something in it, but never take anything, even science, at face value.
> I'll give you something to think about, how about the idea that only
> use a small per centage of our brain, i think it's no more than 20%.
> what do you think the other 80% does or can do ?
I believe the source of those numbers has been debated many times, however, that doesn't mean I don't think Pyschic Ability exists. There are plenty of things science doesn't understand yet and there are many people who will only believe what science tells them.
If you don't consider things which our outside of our current understanding, then we will never evolve mentally. Even science knows this and is by no-means stable. Scientific discoveries are challenging what scientists have held as a set of rules to work by, but it is only when the larger elements of science are challenged that we the public hear about it.
So, in short, yes I believe there could be something in it, but never take anything, even science, at face value.
Kat wrote:
> 2) that I watched a programme
> once that said that they have proved (yeah right) that you can
> actually work muscles by thinking about moving them.
I've heard this before, in studies based on strength training.
It doesn't sound so far-fetched when you break down what's going on:
When you exercise you make 'micro-tears' in your muscle. Your body then heals them, creating extra muscle.
Your subconscious is unable to tell the difference between a real and vividly imagined experience.
So if you imagine something then this should accurately recreate some of the physical responses to the stimulus.
Of course, you'd expect it to be a bit limited in that there wouldn't be the same hormones or whatever present in the blood.
But there's still the opportunity to 'trick' the brain into certain reponses.
So then the body builds up extra muscle (presumably microtears that occur normally, but are smaller - or the process doesn't strictly require microtears).
And you get the muscle.
> 1) that I was reading recently that there is a theory that through
> instinct we have evolved the ability to sense when someone is looking
> at us, which I find hard to believe as that would mean that we do
> have psychic powers of some sort and
We don't know that much about the brain. I'm sceptical about this, but you never know, perhaps the brain emits some kind of wave (EM? Something we've not discovered?) as a natural consequence of its activities. And if so maybe the brain can also somehow detect this radiation. And maybe the radiation predominantly comes out directly through the forehead and roughly in the direction you're facing - and thus sometimes the way youlre looking. If it were stronger when you were looking at something because of activity around the concentrating lobes?!
You never know. We just might not have worked out enough of what's happening yet.
> 2) that I watched a programme
> once that said that they have proved (yeah right) that you can
> actually work muscles by thinking about moving them.
I've heard this before, in studies based on strength training.
It doesn't sound so far-fetched when you break down what's going on:
When you exercise you make 'micro-tears' in your muscle. Your body then heals them, creating extra muscle.
Your subconscious is unable to tell the difference between a real and vividly imagined experience.
So if you imagine something then this should accurately recreate some of the physical responses to the stimulus.
Of course, you'd expect it to be a bit limited in that there wouldn't be the same hormones or whatever present in the blood.
But there's still the opportunity to 'trick' the brain into certain reponses.
So then the body builds up extra muscle (presumably microtears that occur normally, but are smaller - or the process doesn't strictly require microtears).
And you get the muscle.
> 1) that I was reading recently that there is a theory that through
> instinct we have evolved the ability to sense when someone is looking
> at us, which I find hard to believe as that would mean that we do
> have psychic powers of some sort and
We don't know that much about the brain. I'm sceptical about this, but you never know, perhaps the brain emits some kind of wave (EM? Something we've not discovered?) as a natural consequence of its activities. And if so maybe the brain can also somehow detect this radiation. And maybe the radiation predominantly comes out directly through the forehead and roughly in the direction you're facing - and thus sometimes the way youlre looking. If it were stronger when you were looking at something because of activity around the concentrating lobes?!
You never know. We just might not have worked out enough of what's happening yet.
In fact it is much much less than 20%, somewhere in the region of 1% according to a shrink friend of mine.
That is something I have always wondered about actually, because evolution as I understand it would not require us to have such big brains.
The bit where certain members of a species gain superiority over others through a pronounced characteristic sort of makes sense, but I can't think of a scenario that would require us to have developed as a species with such big brains and then not use it.
But then again, probably 100 years ago we did use more of it, just as Pop Idol and neds continually increase in popularity it all wastes away...
That is something I have always wondered about actually, because evolution as I understand it would not require us to have such big brains.
The bit where certain members of a species gain superiority over others through a pronounced characteristic sort of makes sense, but I can't think of a scenario that would require us to have developed as a species with such big brains and then not use it.
But then again, probably 100 years ago we did use more of it, just as Pop Idol and neds continually increase in popularity it all wastes away...
In fact it is much much less than 20%, somewhere in the region of 1% according to a shrink friend of mine.
That is something I have always wondered about actually, because evolution as I understand it would not require us to have such big brains.
The bit where certain members of a species gain superiority over others through a pronounced characteristic sort of makes sense, but I can't think of a scenario that would require us to have developed as a species with such big brains and then not use it.
But then again, probably 100 years ago we did use more of it, just as Pop Idol and neds continually increase in popularity it all wastes away...
That is something I have always wondered about actually, because evolution as I understand it would not require us to have such big brains.
The bit where certain members of a species gain superiority over others through a pronounced characteristic sort of makes sense, but I can't think of a scenario that would require us to have developed as a species with such big brains and then not use it.
But then again, probably 100 years ago we did use more of it, just as Pop Idol and neds continually increase in popularity it all wastes away...
I'll give you something to think about, how about the idea that only use a small per centage of our brain, i think it's no more than 20%.
what do you think the other 80% does or can do ?
what do you think the other 80% does or can do ?
Actually, that's not always the case. If a person is behind you looking elsewhere, but can see you in the corner of the eye, and you *think* they are staring at you and look towards them, they will instinctively look at you because you turned to them first.
Page: