Science and Reincarnation

Off Topic
21

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Thanks for the link, but did you post this because you believe it is impossible? What are your thoughts on anything related to it?

My thoughts on it are that while you may believe you have a faint ESP capability, the fact is that you are mistaken.

Human psychology is such that we tend to remember successes more than failures; and that once you’ve got the idea that you can “tell when people stare at you,” you’ll notice more the times when you “feel a stare” and it happens that the person was actually staring; and notice less when it turns out your “feeling” was wrong.

Testing it allows to decide the question, one way or another. Maybe you can tell whether someone is staring at you by means unexplainable by science and your natural senses; but there’s no way to actually know (rather than believe or think so) until we check.

The reasons why I don’t believe it’s possible is because all previous tested claims of it have failed. Of course, all the thousands of light bulbs Edison tried before finding the right filament didn’t prove it was impossible, only that he hadn’t tested the right one.

I would very much like to be proven wrong; because ESP and all those other mental powers would be way cool. I could really use telekinesis to bring the remote from the top of the TV to my hand when I’m already comfortably plopped in my easy chair.

[/quote]

I actually wasn’t relating feeling someone staring at you to the classic concept of ESP. I simply mentioned that along with it.

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I actually wasn’t relating feeling someone staring at you to the classic concept of ESP. I simply mentioned that along with it. [/quote]

Still, if you can really tell when someone is staring at you, and you’re not relying on your normal senses to do so, then it would be ESP, by the very definition. You’d be perceiving something, using something other than your 5 to 9 (depending on how you count them) normal senses.

23

[quote]pookie wrote:

normal senses.
[/quote]

Define normal.

24

I always wondered why everyone who claims memory of a past life is either a member of royalty, a famous person or a genius back then. Why are these archetypes represented over criminals, village idiots or general bad-assed motherfuckers?

Perhaps because “genetic memory” is actually encoded in our mitochondrial DNA, which only contains about 16,500 base pairs as compared to the regular human genome containing about 3 billion. Go back far enough and we all share some single ancestral genes. Or we are all descended from Adam and Eve to those of you who favor “Intelligent Design” over my blatant Darwinism. So we claim these “collective genetic memories” as personal proof of reincarnation, when they are actually just commom sequences in our shared primordial DNA.

25

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
pookie wrote:

normal senses.

Define normal.

[/quote]

Never mind normal, I’ll list the senses: Sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, balance and body awareness. That’s seven senses. You can get a few more if you break down “touch” into pressure/heat/pain, but basically the “normal” senses are those by which you can perceive your surroundings, and yourself in those surroudings (for balance and body awareness) in manners understood by science.

If you can perceive something without using any of those senses; then you are demonstrating extra-sensory perception, or ESP.

26

[quote]pookie wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
pookie wrote:

normal senses.

Define normal.

Never mind normal, I’ll list the senses: Sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, balance and body awareness. That’s seven senses. You can get a few more if you break down “touch” into pressure/heat/pain, but basically the “normal” senses are those by which you can perceive your surroundings, and yourself in those surroudings (for balance and body awareness) in manners understood by science.

If you can perceive something without using any of those senses; then you are demonstrating extra-sensory perception, or ESP.

[/quote]

I remember that show on the Sci Fi network “Crossing Over with John Edwards” as he spent an hour telling people about family members who died.

“Did his name start with a ‘P’?”

“no”

“An ‘S’?”

“Why, yes!”

It was full of shit, however, you have to give the man credit for one thing…being perceptive. What if what many people think of as ESP is simply hypersensitivity of one of the 5 common senses?

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What if what many people think of as ESP is simply hypersensitivity of one of the 5 common senses? [/quote]

That’s exactly what I believe it is. I have a great interest in the bioelectric field of organisms, and how it relates to what we feel, and whether actions outside our normal basic physical senses can be felt due to external effects on our bodies fields.

I’m not talking aura, superstition, ESP stuff. Just simply, we have a perceivable bioelectric field, that much is a fact. The question is, is it possible to be sensitive enough to changes in this field, to qualify it as a sense. I believe yes, that it can be used as a method of perception. My favorite example, although it’s a bit too simple and externally influenced, is one of those static electricity balls that make your hair stand on end. While touching one, you can easily feel an approaching hand before it touches you. It’s simple to do, and is too obvious a fact, so I dont believe it has much relevance to this sense. Nevertheless, you still feel something without physical contact.

In regards to the whole “feel someone staring at you” sentiment, isn’t it just possible a person is perceiving another person based on this psuedo-sense? Assuming were talking about an actual, definite feeling - with an actual watcher in the NEAR proximity, and not just a random guess of paranoia.

28

[quote]pookie wrote:

, but basically the “normal” senses are those by which you can perceive your surroundings, and yourself in those surroudings (for balance and body awareness) in manners understood by science.

If you can perceive something without using any of those senses; then you are demonstrating extra-sensory perception, or ESP.

[/quote]

So basically, if you can perceive your physical surroundings using your physical organs as your only means of perceptive power in a manner which can be physically understood by science you are demonstrating normal sensing?

29

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
I always wondered why everyone who claims memory of a past life is either a member of royalty, a famous person or a genius back then. Why are these archetypes represented over criminals, village idiots or general bad-assed motherfuckers?

Perhaps because “genetic memory” is actually encoded in our mitochondrial DNA, which only contains about 16,500 base pairs as compared to the regular human genome containing about 3 billion. Go back far enough and we all share some single ancestral genes. Or we are all descended from Adam and Eve to those of you who favor “Intelligent Design” over my blatant Darwinism. So we claim these “collective genetic memories” as personal proof of reincarnation, when they are actually just commom sequences in our shared primordial DNA.

[/quote]

That makes sense.

30

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I remember that show on the Sci Fi network “Crossing Over with John Edwards” as he spent an hour telling people about family members who died.

“Did his name start with a ‘P’?”

“no”

“An ‘S’?”

“Why, yes!”

It was full of shit, however, you have to give the man credit for one thing…being perceptive. What if what many people think of as ESP is simply hypersensitivity of one of the 5 common senses? [/quote]

Funny you should bring him up, I’d started writing something about him in a previous reply before I changed my mind and removed it.

There are transcripts available of his shows, and if you count the number of hits he has when he guesses, the actual ratio of hit to misses is pretty abysmal. He’s helped immensely by the audience member who desperately want to believe they’re talking to – or at least in contact with – their departed loved ones. The audience members will often correct him about some detail and he’ll take that information and run with it, presenting it as if he’d come up with it in the first place.

Add to that the pre-show interviews made of the people waiting to get it by his crew; and the editing of the show to keep a majority of hits vs. misses, and the end package appears as if he might be actually contacting the dead.

As for the hypersensitivy argument, it’s a valid one. In fact, I’ve read somewhere an explanation of psychics that could explain them while not requiring any paranormal gifts.

It went like this: Take the average person’s musical skills and compare them to the skill of a genius/prodigy such as Mozart.

Now, imagine a similar comparison of skill, but with “intuition” being the skill rather than musical ability. If we define intuition as the ability to inter-relate known facts and figures into new conclusions; to draw useful information from a mountain of seemingly unrelated data; you could explain why some psychics manage to come up with startling conclusions after being presented with the same facts that police, journalists, investigators, etc. had but where unable to correctly interpret.

Basically, a psychic would simply be a Mozart of intuition, more able to arrive at those “leap” when a solution suddenly appears in your mind in which previously known facts are inter-related in some new manner that makes a lot of sense.

That would also explain why the same psychics fail when tested in a laboratory setting, because under thightly controlled conditions, there are no “intuitive leaps” to be made; and under those circumstances, a psychic can do no better than anyone else.

I still think that most psychics are fraud who exploit people in vulnerable moments, but it is an interesting explanation to consider.

31

[quote]Houshin Akai wrote:

Nevertheless, you still feel something without physical contact.

In regards to the whole “feel someone staring at you” sentiment, isn’t it just possible a person is perceiving another person based on this psuedo-sense? Assuming were talking about an actual, definite feeling - with an actual watcher in the NEAR proximity, and not just a random guess of paranoia.[/quote]

It isn’t a feeling. An actual feeling does qualify as paranoia.

Perception is a function of the senses. You sense the “presence” of the ball without touching, seeing, smelling, hearing or tasting it. You are not “feeling it” you are sensing.

Then after you sense it you experience it’s effect on your body through a feeling = hair up.

Sexual pleasure is a sensation. If you allow it to affect your whole body you experience “feelings” of love.

That’s how I “see”* it.

*which sense am I using to form this perception, in your opinion?

32

[quote]pookie wrote:

I still think that most psychics are fraud who exploit people in vulnerable moments, but it is an interesting explanation to consider.
[/quote]

I agree. Intuition is unreliable since the data is mixed with the feelings of the intuitive and subject to his personal interpretation of events. It’s good guess work at best.

And I don’t believe in reincarnation at all so I better get out of this thread. I am greatly interested in perception and sensation, however, so I couldn’t resist.

33

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I agree. Intuition is unreliable since the data is mixed with the feelings of the intuitive and subject to his personal interpretation of events. It’s good guess work at best.[/quote]

Well the gist of the explanation is that psychics would be Mozarts of guess work. It is the first explanation of them I have come upon that doesn’t require the supernatural to get involved to explain what they do. It’s probably bullshit, but it’s scientifically palatable bullshit, at least.

I didn’t understand a thing of what you where trying to say in your previous posts. I have a feeling it was sensible, but I missed it. :slight_smile:

34

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
It isn’t a feeling. An actual feeling does qualify as paranoia.

Perception is a function of the senses. You sense the “presence” of the ball without touching, seeing, smelling, hearing or tasting it. You are not “feeling it” you are sensing.

Then after you sense it you experience it’s effect on your body through a feeling = hair up.

Sexual pleasure is a sensation. If you allow it to affect your whole body you experience “feelings” of love.

That’s how I “see”* it.

*which sense am I using to form this perception, in your opinion?

[/quote]

I meant the hand, not the ball. You can feel an approaching hand from a foot or more away, in a clearly visible feeling. The only reason I brought this up was because my physics teacher showed us this in high school. I’ve done it, but it really doesnt have much relevance due to the external influnce of static electricity. From a non-modified perspective, there may be people who are hypersensitive to the feelings normally associated with this experience, who think it’s ESP, when in fact it’s just sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.

If you want to make this a “real” sense, there are body modifications - inserting magnets into the body by your nerves in order to literally feel electromagnetic waves in the air. Here’s a couple intersting articles on people who had it done to them.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20060115.html

http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html

Regarding sexual sensation… it’s a nice little argument over what the senses are. If I were to classify it as a sense, it would be the sense of “the perceived effects of chemicals acting upon the nervouse system to form an altered state of physical feeling.” But lets just call it love, I’d much rather experience it and call it love than try and dissect it and term it in regards to the physical responses we have.

I dont believe in reincarnation either… hmm.

35

[quote]pookie wrote:

I didn’t understand a thing of what you where trying to say in your previous posts. I have a feeling it was sensible, but I missed it. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Good…it was the beginning of a sensible hijack, : P

I enjoyed your responses, anyway.

36

[quote]Houshin Akai wrote:

Regarding sexual sensation… it’s a nice little argument over what the senses are. If I were to classify it as a sense, it would be the sense of…[/quote]

Touch.

37

[quote]Houshin Akai wrote:

Here’s a couple intersting articles on people who had it done to them.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20060115.html

http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20040226.html
[/quote]

I found this unnecessary and totaly disrespectful to life.
But to each his own.