Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

[cloudy]

You've 'figured it out' about as well as you figure out everything else. You're a frustrated little piece of work who's trying to establish a sense of self-importance by spewing malicious nonsense and irrelevant citations. Save it for whoever you think is buying it and stop trying to rub your mini dick against me.

With apologies to everyone who's having a nice conversation.

Okay, that made me spit out my coke.

*applause*

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm fascinated by all the speculation about animal and human psychology I'm reading here.

Show of hands, how many of you believe youre conscious as you read this post? What percent of the time do you think youre conscious? What would you say consciousness is?

 

[NoJo]

I have to say there's a far too much snippiness in the AH. I think it's pretty fucking pathetic. Just ignore people who annoy you, don't reply to them. If you do it just makes it look as though you actually enjoy petty bitching at each other, when in fact all you're doing you're pissing each other off, and pissing off innocent bystanders like me who are trying to enjoy themselves here.

 

[xssve]

No.

If it were possible, Cloudy would be at my front door right now with a bowl of Strawberries and Cream, wearing nothing but a raincoat.

 

[cloudy]

No.

If it were possible, Cloudy would be at my front door right now with a bowl of Strawberries and Cream, wearing nothing but a raincoat.

It's the skin, isn't it?

 

[jomar]

You haven't ever known that the phone would ring in a sec? Or when it did ring, did you ever know, intuitively, exactly who would it would be?

There are some things that we just can't explain. It's best to accept something like that as a small gift, and go on, at least that's the way I look at it.

It has happened to me.

Also, before caller ID I used to astound a befuddle a friend because whenever he called I'd pick up the phone and say "Hello X" - he didn't realize he called every day at the same time.

...

rub your mini dick against me.

...

Kudos for bringing it back to sex.

 

[xssve]

It's the skin, isn't it?

Like butter.

 

[cloudy]

Like butter.

. .

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You haven't ever known that the phone would ring in a sec? Or when it did ring, did you ever know, intuitively, exactly who would it would be?

There are some things that we just can't explain. It's best to accept something like that as a small gift, and go on, at least that's the way I look at it.

Yeah, I've had those premonitions of the phone ringing, but I really think those are artifacts. Like, I might expect the phone to ring 20 times a day. Thing is, when you have a premonition and it doesn't come true, you forget about it. But have a premonition where the phone does ring, and you never forget it. It'll be a major memory, and you'll think your premonitions are always right when actually they're wrong 99.9% of the time.

Or else there are subconscious clues we use. Maybe we subconsciously know that so-and-so always calls at a certain time of day. Or the phone makes a sub-audible sound just before it rings. Maybe we unconsciously use body language and attitude to "read" someone's mind.

I used to have the power to turn off certain streetlights just by walking past them. I don't know what was wrong with these lights, but when I came home late at night (it had to be late), they'd dim and flicker as I passed beneath them and sometimes go out. I suspect there was something happening with the capacitance of the area under the lights which my body disturbed, although I can't imagine what a capacitance field has to do with sodium vapor street lights.

In any case, I never really investigated. I just took it as an example of something cool that happened to me, and chalked it up to magic, the way we do with so much in our lives.

 

[Recidiva]

Yeah, I've had those premonitions of the phone ringing, but I really think those are artifacts. Like, I might expect the phone to ring 20 times a day. Thing is, when you have a premonition and it doesn't come true, you forget about it. But have a premonition where the phone does ring, and you never forget it. It'll be a major memory, and you'll think your premonitions are always right when actually they're wrong 99.9% of the time.

Or else there are subconscious clues we use. Maybe we subconsciously know that so-and-so always calls at a certain time of day. Or the phone makes a sub-audible sound just before it rings. Maybe we unconsciously use body language and attitude to "read" someone's mind.

I used to have the power to turn off certain streetlights just by walking past them. I don't know what was wrong with these lights, but when I came home late at night (it had to be late), they'd dim and flicker as I passed beneath them and sometimes go out. I suspect there was something happening with the capacitance of the area under the lights which my body disturbed, although I can't imagine what a capacitance field has to do with sodium vapor street lights.

In any case, I never really investigated. I just took it as an example of something cool that happened to me, and chalked it up to magic, the way we do with so much in our lives.

I'd doubt it if that were the case. But I've never thought the phone was going to ring when it wasn't. And it wasn't part of a pattern.

If I was wrong 98% of the time, I wouldn't claim victory on 2%. If I'm right 100% of the time without thinking about it at all and it's just...there...then there is another explanation.

I'm used to being dismissed as somehow being a lightning-calculating genius and simultaneously deluded or seeking attention. I am however just reporting an observed anomaly and shrugging my shoulders as to its cause.

I know what calculation is like, I do that too. It's different and doesn't come from the same part or parts of the brain, nor is it processed the same. It's as distinct as knowing the difference between hearing and vision.

This process does not involve any thought. Thought I can control and starts as a calculation that progresses in a linear manner putting pieces together to make a puzzle come clear.

But this is just the whole picture, and it's not prone to false starts.

 

[xssve]

I've moved shit before - one time a saucer slowly slid six inches across the counter, but I have no idea how it happened, I don't know if I could ever reach that particular state of mind again, I wasn't thinking about it, I wasn't thinking about anything, but I was in a very weird, stressed mood.

Could have been a hallucination, I was very stressed, but the reason I turned my head to look was that first, I heard the thing scraping as it slid across the counter. It was fucking eerie.

Nobody has any idea how energy interacts on the quantum level, in some dimension, it's all just energy.

 

[xssve]

The phone thing is synchronicity, and I've experienced that a lot in various forms - it's a little more plausible, again, w/reference to the quantum thing - thought is energy, so mass isn't an issue - all you need is a couple of tangled pairs, and you've got quantum Vonage.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I can't. If I could, there'd be a lot more dead dictators around.

 

[xssve]

One common and well documented example: how is it people seem to know when somebody is watching them?

 

[manyeyedhydra]

My problem with telepathy is in finding a mechanism that might explain it. We've been up and down the electromagnetic spectrum and know exactly what the brain emits, and it's not much, certainly not sophisticated or complex enough to contain specific information such as, "the card I'm looking at is the five of diamonds." So by what medium would thoughts be transmitted?

On the other hand, we have a cat who can apparently tell when my wife is more than a mile away and driving home after work, and a dog who knows when my daughter's coming home from school in three days. How on earth do they do that?

Might be nonsense/discredited science/poor memory, but I think I remember reading that some of the flocking behaviour in birds was hard to explain as individuals responded faster to movements of the flock than their sensory systems should allow. Or it could have been fish. Either way their movements were more synchronised with others than should be possible if they were using their senses to watch and follow the other individual.

It could just be they're conditioned to respond in a predictable manner and what looks like one individual copying another is two individuals responding to the same external stimulus in the same manner. Presumably because the individuals that went right instead of left got chomped out of the gene pool generations back

 

[manyeyedhydra]

I can't. If I could, there'd be a lot more dead dictators around.

If I could....

lets not go there shall we.

 

[xssve]

Right, the flocking, I heard that too, it slipped my mind.

 

[past_perfect]

Can people influence the physical world with thought alone?

Simple answer: Yes.

See: Water

And the other phenomena quoted here are being investigated by Sheldrake et al: Sheldrake

 

[lance gt]

Right, the flocking, I heard that too, it slipped my mind.

They found that pigeons use the magnetic poles to navigate with. They all know where to go, but the alpha leader hes control of flight movement. Connections through electro-magnetic pulses are picked up by each bird and co-joined with the others. Fish schools move in a unified pattern for defensive manouevers. They don't use the Earth's magnetic field for guidence, but use a unified signal to move in unison, to stay together as one.

People pick up signals in much the same way, hence the feeling we're being watched. Because it doesn't happen with as great a frequency of occurence as we'd like for confirmation, I stated earlier the concept of like and un-like poles attracting. What you might be sending out are the right magnetic frequency waves that I'm tuned into. It's that same feeling of looking at someone and for no apparent reason, you get bad "vibes" from them.

There is a connection between all things physically, that being carbon, but we all have a connection meta-physically as well. We have to believe 100% with absolutely no doubts in it's existence for the human mind to accomplish constant connection, instead of random occurances happening and then passing it off as weird.

Logic tells us to only believe what is proven and everything else is ear-marked for instant negation for the sub-conscious. If we keep telling ourselves we can't do something, we won't be able to do it. This is true of our daily lives and the confidence we build doing things. I did it, so it's real. Understanding the reality of what you've done is never brought to focus, as we take everything for granted that it's there and that's that.

 

[Pure]

evidence

Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

there are several fascinating anecdotes in this thread. skeptics point out that anecdotes don't prove.

the question of evidence has to be raised, and the question cannot be answered with dogma.

methods of science are clearly relevant, and one wants publications in respectable journals. here are three such pieces of evidence for "influence" in the physical world *through thought alone* [i take this to mean, "by mental means only; no physical bodily actions undertaken; it doesn't count if, after a hateful thought, you use your fist to re arrange a face]

1. The placebo effect is widely reported. The bodily changes are physical and real, and since the "drug" was inert, it's clearly the beliefs, hopes, expectations; etc., that are operative. see. e.g. diederich, below.

Refs: The placebo effect
Joseph H. Friedman, MD and Richard Dubinsky, MD
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/71/9/e25

=====
Diederich NJ, Goetz CG. The placebo treatments in neurosciences: new insights from clinical and neuroimaging studies. Neurology 2008;71:677–684

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/conten...fd68a339e56c8f775ef7963e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

the questioner might add, however, that the "influence" should extend beyond one's own physical body.

2. There are some reports of the efficacy of prayer.

Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population.
Author: Randolph C. Byrd, M.D.
Institution: Medical Service, San Francisco General Medical Center, CA.
Source: Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/heartandsoul/byrdstudy.doc

abstract, critiques http://www.iwriteiam.nl/D960916-prayer.html

partial replication:
“A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study.” The Western Journal of Medicine. December 1998. by Fred Sicher, Elisabeth Targ, Dan Moore II, and Helene S. Smith.
abstract: http://www.citeulike.org/user/sarahmccrum/article/2846595

3. There are some reports, highly controversial, of mind influence on a random number generating machine, by the PEARS lab at Princetion.

For example, see,

Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis.

Bösch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2909.132.4.497


Psychological Bulletin. Vol 132(4), Jul 2006, 497-523.

Séance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
===
critique: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

====
such studies, no matter how well designed, are dismissed by those committed to certain worldviews ( see the csi critique above): that the material world, including that measured by the instruments of physicists, is the entire reality. so to say, there are no truths [aside from math and logic] but the propositions of science.

can all evidence be excluded. obviously yes, if one works at it. but we have to ask are the methods of exclusion principled, not ad hoc, etc.

in the 3) material above, Bosch et al. *acknowledge* an effect, but suggest "publication bias" as possible or likely explanation.

they are simply saying "this cannot be."


the method they use "work" against almost any evidence [any published study]. the term 'publication bias' refers to the effects of a) the researcher selecting sets of data to report, and b) the journals selecting articles, generally, which show significant efffects.

 

[NoJo]

I used to have the power to turn off certain streetlights just by walking past them.

The electronic engineer I work with says the same thing. Also about the "used to", interestingly. Perhaps you walk less now, or perhaps they don't make sodium lamps in the same way anymore. I haven't read any explanation which strikes me as getting to the bottom of things. Some deny the phenomenon altogether, putting it down to the fact that most sodium lights go out periodically anyway. Others claim that it's down to light sensors. Others,like yours and my electronics engineer colleague's, talk about electromagnetic forces or capacitance fields but remain vague on the details.

It seems simple enough to get to the bottom of, but so far the people interested enough to perform any kind of methodical test are out to convince themselves of paranormal phenomena and they conduct poor science.

 

[NoJo]

Sheldrake

I have worked with a (very) well-known psi researcher, who, to his credit, tries to be as impartial and scientific as possible in his Quixotic search for ESP etc in animals. Always, always, he fails, and always he believes.

Told you he was well-known

 

[Epmd607]

Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

there are several fascinating anecdotes in this thread. skeptics point out that anecdotes don't prove.

the question of evidence has to be raised, and the question cannot be answered with dogma.

methods of science are clearly relevant, and one wants publications in respectable journals. here are three such pieces of evidence for "influence" in the physical world *through thought alone* [i take this to mean, "by mental means only; no physical bodily actions undertaken; it doesn't count if, after a hateful thought, you use your fist to re arrange a face]

1. The placebo effect is widely reported. The bodily changes are physical and real, and since the "drug" was inert, it's clearly the beliefs, hopes, expectations; etc., that are operative. see. e.g. diederich, below.

Refs: The placebo effect
Joseph H. Friedman, MD and Richard Dubinsky, MD
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/71/9/e25

=====
Diederich NJ, Goetz CG. The placebo treatments in neurosciences: new insights from clinical and neuroimaging studies. Neurology 2008;71:677–684

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/conten...fd68a339e56c8f775ef7963e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

the questioner might add, however, that the "influence" should extend beyond one's own physical body.

2. There are some reports of the efficacy of prayer.

Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population.
Author: Randolph C. Byrd, M.D.
Institution: Medical Service, San Francisco General Medical Center, CA.
Source: Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/heartandsoul/byrdstudy.doc

abstract, critiques http://www.iwriteiam.nl/D960916-prayer.html

partial replication:
“A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study.” The Western Journal of Medicine. December 1998. by Fred Sicher, Elisabeth Targ, Dan Moore II, and Helene S. Smith.
abstract: http://www.citeulike.org/user/sarahmccrum/article/2846595

3. There are some reports, highly controversial, of mind influence on a random number generating machine, by the PEARS lab at Princetion.

For example, see,

Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis.

Bösch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2909.132.4.497


Psychological Bulletin. Vol 132(4), Jul 2006, 497-523.

Séance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
===
critique: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

====
such studies, no matter how well designed, are dismissed by those committed to certain worldviews ( see the csi critique above): that the material world, including that measured by the instruments of physicists, is the entire reality. so to say, there are no truths [aside from math and logic] but the propositions of science.

can all evidence be excluded. obviously yes, if one works at it. but we have to ask are the methods of exclusion principled, not ad hoc, etc.

in the 3) material above, Bosch et al. *acknowledge* an effect, but suggest "publication bias" as possible or likely explanation.

they are simply saying "this cannot be."


the method they use "work" against almost any evidence [any published study]. the term 'publication bias' refers to the effects of a) the researcher selecting sets of data to report, and b) the journals selecting articles, generally, which show significant efffects.

"If it happened that the weather were anything cloudy, foul, and rainy, all the forenoon was employed, as before specified, according to custom, with this difference only, that they had a good clear fire lighted to correct the distempers of the air. But after dinner, instead of their wonted exercitations, they did abide within, and, by way of apotherapy (that is, a making the body healthful by exercise), did recreate themselves in bottling up of hay, in cleaving and sawing of wood, and in threshing sheaves of corn at the barn. Then they studied the art of painting or carving; or brought into use the antique play of tables, as Leonicus hath written of it, and as our good friend Lascaris playeth at it. In playing they examined the passages of ancient authors wherein the said play is mentioned or any metaphor drawn from it. They went likewise to see the drawing of metals, or the casting of great ordnance; how the lapidaries did work; as also the goldsmiths and cutters of precious stones. Nor did they omit to visit the alchemists, money-coiners, upholsterers, weavers, velvet-workers, watchmakers, looking-glass framers, printers, organists, and other such kind of artificers, and, everywhere giving them somewhat to drink, did learn and consider the industry and invention of the trades. They went also to hear the public lectures, the solemn commencements, the repetitions, the acclamations, the pleadings of the gentle lawyers, and sermons of evangelical preachers. He went through the halls and places appointed for fencing, and there played against the masters themselves at all weapons, and showed them by experience that he knew as much in it as, yea, more than, they."

 

[Epmd607]

"Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?"

The Placebo Effect is psuedo-science:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/21/1594

"As compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes, regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect, but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials." New England Journal of Medicine

The pseudo-science mainstay Homeopathy works on a similar principle as the fictional accounting of the Placebo Effect. Homeopathy is a real gem. Homeopathy uses the 'vibrations' of medicine at a molecular level to cure your illness.

If the Placebo Effect existed it would still not be an influence on the physical world via thought alone since mind-body dualism is well past its prime. The brain/mind-body is one organ working in accord, the mind doesn't only give commands and the body follows. Saying the mind affects the physical world via changes in the body is no different than Cartesian Dualism. This guy is ridiculous.

Any research on ESP in experimental form has never shown the viability or possibility of ESP. The experiments aren't repeatable, you don't get similar information when the experiment is repeated therefore it's like finding a ghost on film. These experiments only show the experiments are flawed or that there are classical statistical artefacts that need to go, such as random sampling without a calculated minimum number of participants based on population size. Good thing statistics continued past 1980.

If you believe in Cartesian Dualism like this is 1809 there is a simple observable answer. If you try to feel less stress your body will feel less stress and you'll be healthier. But in 21st century land we know that that is just one action by the body to feel less stress.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If I was wrong 98% of the time, I wouldn't claim victory on 2%. If I'm right 100% of the time without thinking about it at all and it's just...there...then there is another explanation.

Las Vegas casinos make fortunes winning 2% of the time.