http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/strongmen/...ighty_atom.htmlWell, I am certainly going out on a limb here. The Mighty Atom is not nearly as well known as he should be, given the feats of strength he demonstrated. These feats of strength were well-documented, and at a time when it was much more difficult to fake.
btw, ths is the first link that came up on google. There may be better ones if you search; this one gives enough info for the post.
I am bringing up the Mighty Atom as a potential example of physical ability that may not be solely attributed to the body alone. For those who have never heard of him, Joseph Greenstein was a 'strongman' who toured the world, and repeatedly demonstrated feats of strength that no one could attempt. This is not similar to David Blaine's street magic, or even to his Blaine's level of demonstrated physical endurance (which is endurance well within human limits).
Greenstein had pupils, some of which he taught to do feats that Greenstein himself couldn't do. Whereas many of his feats are acceptable within human limits, there are also ones that stretch credulity, especially since he was not a magician, and was not demonstrating magic or sleight of anything. Another important point is that neither Greenstein nor his best pupils were body builder types of people. Honed and cut for sure, but no 24" arms...
The second reason I am bringing him up is this:
Zern's is a huge farmer's market. I have lived within 15 minutes of it for most of my life. I knew the Mighty Atom when I was a kid, so I have some personal experience. He actually lived in Gilbertsville for a long while. If my folks went there to shop, they knew where I'd be running to. He would send me/friends to get various things elsewhere in the market for him to bend, break, etc. I knew he was real, since the burden of proof was with me. I wasn't retrieving stage props for him; it was all real. He would let me hold the iron spikes while he bent them. I'd retrieve ten penny nails that he'd easily bend with his fingers. No one could bend them back! But his most amazing feats are all photographically documented.
I don't think it is truthful to say that as long as one person can do amazing physical feats, that this implies that all these feats are within human ability. I think it is truthful to say that extremely rare physical abilities should be researched, because there may be more to it than muscle fibers. This man could bend bars that gorillas in cages couldn't, in preliminary fits of rage at just being caged. An animal uses everything it has, all the adrenaline it has, all the strength it can wring from itself, when in a desperate situation. When a gorilla in this situation does not have strength that exceeds a short human weighing 140 lbs., we should research why. It is not scientific to say "well he was just strong, that's all". I am trying to present examples that qualify as areas of research in determining the possibility that human willpower is a player in physicality, and human willpower emanates from thought. I provided this example because the feats of strength by this man are extraordinary, some of them have never been successfully repeated by anyone else, he has been thoroughly vetted and is in no way a fake, and I have my own personal observations to add to it.
I will say that the Atom himself attributed the bulk of his ability not to metaphysics, but to extraordinary inner physical health. For those interested, he has always proclaimed that the elimination system was the key in this. Basically he has said that the healthier your stomach-to-colon system inclusive is, the stronger your natural physical base would be. And he has maintained that the best colon tonic you could take is a tea made from the
goldenseal plant - Hydrastis canadensis.
I do not make that claim, since goldenseal is in the buttercup family, and as such,
you must use a great deal of caution. DO NOT use this plant without employing due diligence. Yes, it is commonly available in health food stores, but I am officially making my warning statement.
This thread is itself very controversial, so any presentation of potentially supporting evidence will also be controversial. I am not trying to prove a cherished belief. But I am agnostic, not atheist, and as such,
1)if there is Deity, then there is potential immortality,
2)if there is immortality, then there is something beyond the physical that endures,
3)I am looking at
thought as a product of "that which endures",
4)and I am calling "that which endures"
mind.
So let the lively discussions, festivities, and poo-flinging begin! - if there's any interest in this besides my own.
Wow what a great story. How old were you in 1968? I was 22. I don't remember ever hearing of Greenstein. It used to be the rumor that taking Goldenseal could help you pass the 'piss test' for marijahwana. I don't mean to ignore the topic but I just don't have a clue what to think or say.
soundhertz
26th April 2011 - 03:22 PM
QUOTE (brucep+)
Wow what a great story. How old were you in 1968? I was 22. I don't remember ever hearing of Greenstein. It used to be the rumor that taking Goldenseal could help you pass the 'piss test' for marijahwana. I don't mean to ignore the topic but I just don't have a clue what to think or say.
In 1968 I went from 13 to 14. Zern's operating hours have never changed: Fridays and Saturdays until 10PM. At 9:30 you can buy baskets of tomatoes peppers squash, and for less than a single one of those items at the supermarket. 10 tomatoes for a buck!! Ah, Zerns...
And for Atom, there he was each of the two nights, mostly talking about diet, nutrition, and non-negative thinking, in order to keep a healthy body and mind - pretty interesting stuff since there wasn't a "New Age/Holistic" fashion yet. He never asked for donations; he wasn't about that.
afa goldenseal for weed, I have never heard that one before. But when Atom gave me a cup of the tea to try, I nearly tossed. "Can't I at least use some sugar?" "If you must..."
afa not knowing what to think or say, I do understand. "I don't mean to ignore the topic but I just don't have a clue what to think or say." - is about the kindest thing any empirical scientist here can say concerning the topic. A lot of things that could have already been said, haven't!! I can only be grateful, since if I didn't think there was something to this, there wouldn't be a thread.
And is this subject more controversial than the conclusion some researchers just deduced about TIME? Did you see the article on Physorg? Saying time as a dimension doesn't exist, when we can measure time dilation, and even utilize it in GPS applications....at least I am not refuting data; I'm just looking for data that may or may not exist, to support a possibility that may or may not exist.
brucep
26th April 2011 - 10:22 PM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 26 2011, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (brucep+)
Wow what a great story. How old were you in 1968? I was 22. I don't remember ever hearing of Greenstein. It used to be the rumor that taking Goldenseal could help you pass the 'piss test' for marijahwana. I don't mean to ignore the topic but I just don't have a clue what to think or say.
In 1968 I went from 13 to 14. Zern's operating hours have never changed: Fridays and Saturdays until 10PM. At 9:30 you can buy baskets of tomatoes peppers squash, and for less than a single one of those items at the supermarket. 10 tomatoes for a buck!! Ah, Zerns...
And for Atom, there he was each of the two nights, mostly talking about diet, nutrition, and non-negative thinking, in order to keep a healthy body and mind - pretty interesting stuff since there wasn't a "New Age/Holistic" fashion yet. He never asked for donations; he wasn't about that.
afa goldenseal for weed, I have never heard that one before. But when Atom gave me a cup of the tea to try, I nearly tossed. "Can't I at least use some sugar?" "If you must..."
afa not knowing what to think or say, I do understand. "I don't mean to ignore the topic but I just don't have a clue what to think or say." - is about the kindest thing any empirical scientist here can say concerning the topic. A lot of things that could have already been said, haven't!! I can only be grateful, since if I didn't think there was something to this, there wouldn't be a thread.
And is this subject more controversial than the conclusion some researchers just deduced about TIME? Did you see the article on Physorg? Saying time as a dimension doesn't exist, when we can measure time dilation, and even utilize it in GPS applications....at least I am not refuting data; I'm just looking for data that may or may not exist, to support a possibility that may or may not exist.
No, I didn't see the physorg thing on time. I'm probably going to stick with time being a dimension based on usefulness. Being a bit facetious. There has to be something going on when a 140lb guy with an average build can do stuff like Greenstein. How about stories where folks have performed feats of strenght trying to save loved ones and others? It happens.
soundhertz
27th April 2011 - 02:07 AM
QUOTE (brucep+)
How about stories where folks have performed feats of strength trying to save loved ones and others?
Yes they're similar. Some of the links NA has provided covers certain aspects of the instinctual response that results in greatly increased strength, among other things, pretty well. My question is whether the explanations are complete. The other issue is that instinct response>super-strength is very short-lived. With Greenstein, he didn't have to be placed in a desperate scene, he didn't have to work up to it; it became a natural state for him. Which means he was accomplishing it without the greatly increased adrenaline flow we would require.
He isn't the only example. But there are few people displaying abilities of a rare order, because the the abilities are of a rare order. When something arises 'out of the box', we need to research it if possible. We might be looking at a chance to broaden our box. We have some people who through Asperger's or other reasons, are savants. While we are all impressed with the impossibly fast mental calculating, we don't seem as impressed as to why. Throughout the lexicon of human ability, there are occasional one in many hundred millions with an ability that's unexplainable. It's compelling that these people could be an easier potential gateway to new knowledge. Researchers like Dr. Saxe are getting close to this subject. If possible, somebody will develop an experiment to find what I (we?) feel in my (our?) hearts but say is wrong - that somebody is actually home. As of right now, none of us are 'home'. The research, the data - all show there is no one to be home.
btw, not being a theist, I don't see any difference between species. I wouldn't say 'man' has non-corporeal life but animals don't. Only a theist stance could allow for that. If it turns out that we in fact are capable of non-corporeal existence, I would think animals could too. It goes back to the Zen idea that life force can never not be once it is. Of course, we can't seem to locate or measure 'life force', though there is some research, as well as quackery with the subject. We all know the 21 grams thing. Nothing will be proven by that road since a million and one reasons can be given for a tiny weight loss. Kirlian photography is similar, though it has potential despite criticism. This is something I had personal experience with, and it's worth some sort of discussion possibly.
Derek1148
27th April 2011 - 02:41 AM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 26 2011, 03:22 PM)
In 1968 I went from 13 to 14.
"...in 65 I was 17."
synthsin75
27th April 2011 - 03:31 AM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 26 2011, 08:07 PM)
btw, not being a theist, I don't see any difference between species. I wouldn't say 'man' has non-corporeal life but animals don't. Only a theist stance could allow for that. If it turns out that we in fact are capable of non-corporeal existence, I would think animals could too. It goes back to the Zen idea that life force can never not be once it is. Of course, we can't seem to locate or measure 'life force', though there is some research, as well as quackery with the subject. We all know the 21 grams thing. Nothing will be proven by that road since a million and one reasons can be given for a tiny weight loss. Kirlian photography is similar, though it has potential despite criticism. This is something I had personal experience with, and it's worth some sort of discussion possibly.
I'd agree. If there is an independent "mind", all life, man, animal, and plant, would be imbued with it. Granted, there would probably be a difference in endowment/capacity among them.
I think one of the main problems with research on this subject is that lines of credibility have already been drawn, at least insofar as research funding is considered. There's just more money behind the notion that it's all just brain phenomena. Even if there is an independent mind, we already know that pharmaceuticals can intervene to some extent (whether or nor that is desirable). Knowing this, there is a heavy profit motivation to further advance that notion. Although there may some hope with placebo effects.
Placebo's effect in brain surprises researchersQUOTE
In both cases, the difference was most significant in the brain's prefrontal region, mainly in the right hemisphere. People responding to the antidepressants had a decrease in activity there; people responding to the placebo had an increase.
...
Yet the caveats involved in such research are huge – for one thing, "we don't even know if the people have the same disease," Dr. Nestler notes.
"Out of 100 depressed patients, it's quite likely that there are 10 different diseases contained in what we call depression," he says. "We're not at the point yet that we can differentiate depression" the same way doctors can tell whether a cough is caused by pneumonia or a cold.
Seems an increase in brain activity would always be preferable to a decrease. So when a person does it unassisted by drugs, other than their faith in the drugs, they actually seem to be "flexing" a native ability, where relying on drugs seems to suppress ability.
Also, I'm always baffled when quacks can "definitively" diagnose something like depression, while having NO IDEA what that diagnosis may entail. I have no idea how you could conclusively say it's all brain when you don't have any better handle on the causes of these things.
soundhertz
27th April 2011 - 02:58 PM
The placebo was the next subject I was going to bring up. It appears similar to the other issues here since we are seeing effects that are not in the expected norm, so that is compelling. I've no time today, but placebo research is a necessary part of this issue, since drugs/therapies are physical, but placebo effect seems to occur in the mind first.
Beer w/Straw
27th April 2011 - 03:50 PM
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 27 2011, 02:41 AM)
"...in 65 I was 17."
I wasn't born.
Beer w/Straw
27th April 2011 - 03:57 PM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 27 2011, 02:58 PM)
The placebo was the next subject I was going to bring up. It appears similar to the other issues here since we are seeing effects that are not in the expected norm, so that is compelling. I've no time today, but placebo research is a necessary part of this issue, since drugs/therapies are physical, but placebo effect seems to occur in the mind first.
And there is spontaneous remission of cancer.
NymphaeaAlba
27th April 2011 - 08:41 PM
I was an oocyte in 1965...
QUOTE (Hertz+)
I am quite fine with being fed videos NA, but you can feed me your thoughts too.
Like I said, sometimes, pantheistic fantasies seep in, and I find myself feeling a little existential when discussing things I don’t fully comprehend, like the observer in quantum physics, but even John Stewart Bell said, "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?".
Nevertheless, the mighty atom is no longer around to observe and study to offer an explanation. I am curious about him chewing on metal, though. Perhaps, he had some type of hidden mouth guard, who knows?
Some of the pantheistic type views include the idea that there may be secret or hidden knowledge in ancient text, which I am
critical of.
In regards to the mind body problem, I’m afraid that I agree strongly with Rodolfo Llinas. I can imagine a religion saying that matter and energy is God. It’s a beautiful thought, but instead of understanding what you are, you want to be what you’re not. However, it’s just because they don’t understand how precious, and absolutely incredible matter is, or how precious you are, and it is sad. Just because we can understand feelings from a material point of view, people view it as though it somehow demeans our nature, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for?
Oh, and about the placebo effect, RP previously threw up these links.
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologis...rding_the_p.phphttp://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunder...o-me-would-you/http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9339
Goofus A Gallant
27th April 2011 - 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 26 2011, 08:41 PM)
"...in 65 I was 17."
Were ya runnin up One-O-One?
synthsin75
27th April 2011 - 09:59 PM
NA, that last placebo link is funny. The author determines that the participants were deceived, not by being blind to the fact that they were given placebos but by being told they were in a study about placebos, of which everyone knows the mind over body implications. Seems like a moot point, considering the brain is the control center for the body anyway. Such studies wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on the question of whether the mind and brain are independent.
soundhertz
27th April 2011 - 11:37 PM
QUOTE (NA+)
Some of the pantheistic type views include the idea that there may be secret or hidden knowledge in ancient text, which I am critical of.
I want to steer clear of that type of thing. I'm more interested in mind/thought research going on now, as well as what honest little we can cull from the recent past.
QUOTE (NA+)
but instead of understanding what you are, you want to be what you’re not. However, it’s just because they don’t understand how precious, and absolutely incredible matter is, or how precious you are, and it is sad. Just because we can understand feelings from a material point of view, people view it as though it somehow demeans our nature, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for?
But I'm not sure of what I am. I do know I have skepticism - and a lot. Do not confuse this with antipathy toward our 3D world. D, I love nature enough that I have >1,000 seedlings started under lights (no, not one of them is; you don't have to ask
) just to give to people because I love growing plants, the thousand leggers can crawl over me at night and I don't care an iota, even at 57 I'll go waterfall climbing again this year, every single thunderstorm that arrives will have me as an audience like it was my first one, and today while gardening for 6 hours, I stopped and smelled a good half dozen different spring beauties in bloom - and i'm an a/v guy.....nope I make lots of time for nature, earth, and it's because I am in a perpetual state of awe - and some pretty decent oneness with nature. So what more could I possibly ask for? We're all searching for the beautiful questions, the ones whose answers matter the most. "Is life more than we know it to be?" I don't know if that will prove to be a beautiful question, but I wonder about this nevertheless.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
And there is spontaneous remission of cancer.
And that's an especially spicy event that keeps occurring, because in most cases, still no reason can be found, only some general speculation.
Out of time
NymphaeaAlba
28th April 2011 - 01:22 AM
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
NA, that last placebo link is funny. The author determines that the participants were deceived, not by being blind to the fact that they were given placebos but by being told they were in a study about placebos, of which everyone knows the mind over body implications. Seems like a moot point, considering the brain is the control center for the body anyway. Such studies wouldn't necessarily have any bearing on the question of whether the mind and brain are independent.
Tell it to the Watson. I copied him.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 27 2011, 03:37 PM)
But I'm not sure of what I am. I do know I have skepticism - and a lot. Do not confuse this with antipathy toward our 3D world. D, I love nature enough that I have >1,000 seedlings started under lights (no, not one of them is; you don't have to ask
) just to give to people because I love growing plants, the thousand leggers can crawl over me at night and I don't care an iota, even at 57 I'll go waterfall climbing again this year, every single thunderstorm that arrives will have me as an audience like it was my first one, and today while gardening for 6 hours, I stopped and smelled a good half dozen different spring beauties in bloom - and i'm an a/v guy.....nope I make lots of time for nature, earth, and it's because I am in a perpetual state of awe - and some pretty decent oneness with nature. So what more could I possibly ask for? We're all searching for the beautiful questions, the ones whose answers matter the most. "Is life more than we know it to be?" I don't know if that will prove to be a beautiful question, but I wonder about this nevertheless.
That’s funny and (cough-cough) of course, I believe you. Besides, it grows better in the Emerald Triangle, eh? Hiking is my thing. We may not have fireflies but we do have some waterfalls. I’ve spent this month going back and forth to the coast and this weekend I’m heading back to the Trinity Alps. I’m terrible at photography but I took a few good ones with my little digital camera. The
pictures of the helictites is from a cave not too far from me.
I think it’s a question that will never be answered, at least not in my lifetime. I’m just enjoying the ride. After all, heaven is modeled after earthly delights, right?
Cheerio
soundhertz
28th April 2011 - 03:21 AM
Not too much time, but, heaven....hmmmm....well I suppose it qualifies as a possible state of mind too, whether or not attainable. But that's just me being agnostic. Before we say what immortality is, we have to get past
if it is..
Enjoy your hiking. Glad to hear it's your thing. It's as good as gardening. If you're near any water, stick your head under! Always a good side course on the plate. A little oneness happens too
edit:
QUOTE (synthsin+)
The author determines that the participants were deceived, not by being blind to the fact that they were given placebos but by being told they were in a study about placebos, of which everyone knows the mind over body implications.
Which makes legitimate experimenting with placebo effect very difficult. But placebo effect is ongoing, and still unexplained.
Derek1148
28th April 2011 - 04:45 AM
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 27 2011, 08:45 PM)
Were ya runnin up One-O-One?
Yeah. "In 69 I was 21 and I called the road my own."
Derek1148
28th April 2011 - 04:48 AM
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 27 2011, 03:50 PM)
I wasn't born.
I run into that a lot these days.
synthsin75
28th April 2011 - 05:36 AM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 27 2011, 09:21 PM)
edit:
QUOTE (synthsin+)
The author determines that the participants were deceived, not by being blind to the fact that they were given placebos but by being told they were in a study about placebos, of which everyone knows the mind over body implications.
Which makes legitimate experimenting with placebo effect very difficult. But placebo effect is ongoing, and still unexplained.
Well only if you're wanting to be honest with the participants, which was the the point of that one. But like I said, that doesn't really distinguish anything other than brain/mind over body, rather than any brain/mind division.
Honestly, I don't see much hope for determining brain/mind independence/dependence through placebo.
If the mind operates through the brain, anything done to the brain (drugs, surgeries, etc.) would impair the control system used by the mind. You'd never be able to distinguish any greater mind capabilities beyond what the brain can accomplish. If the mind is even more remote from brain function, you don't even have that much correlation.
Now if the mind has control access to the entire nervous system, then perhaps a lie detector/bio feedback device could be utilized with the brain suppressed, but I'm not sure you can do that without effecting the entire nervous system.
We'd probably need better criteria for what constitutes a mind. Is it the personality? Does it include memory?
What about this?
Brain rewires itselfQUOTE
...they glimpsed a revolutionary idea about the brain: the ability of mere thought to alter the physical structure and function of our gray matter.
...
The doctrine of the unchanging human brain has had profound ramifications.
...
But research in the past few years has overthrown the dogma. In its place has come the realization that the adult brain retains impressive powers of "neuroplasticity"--the ability to change its structure and function in response to experience.
This brings up an interesting idea. Now we'd expect experience to be capable of reorganizing how the brain is utilized, if the brain shows any plasticity at all. But the notion of imagined experience altering function in the same way raises some questions. Can we reasonably assume that the brain can spontaneously reorganize itself for any randomly generated purpose? Or is there a mind that orchestrates such?
This seems pretty promising. We know that external experience can alter brain function, as we classify that as normal learning. But a brain that can teach itself without external stimuli would seem to stretch plausibility.
soundhertz
28th April 2011 - 05:41 PM
QUOTE (synthsin+)
What about this?
Brain rewires itself
Yes I've read that, and it is quite curious. If the brain is a self-regulating system that has it's own re-tooling ability, then apart from the issue of this thread even, it is very exciting and promising, let alone the possibility that thought itself is a part of, or the bulk of, the mechanism. If thought itself is proven to initialize or create or enable healing of affected areas, we may be able to prod that mechanism further, as well as increasing our understanding of the thought process, and maybe discover that there is more going on with thought than anything we have previously known.
Again, outta time. Thanks synthsin for taking up some of the duty here: you've been providing more salient links than me!
synthsin75
28th April 2011 - 06:03 PM
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 28 2011, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (synthsin+)
What about this?
Brain rewires itself
Yes I've read that, and it is quite curious. If the brain is a self-regulating system that has it's own re-tooling ability, then apart from the issue of this thread even, it is very exciting and promising, let alone the possibility that thought itself is a part of, or the bulk of, the mechanism. If thought itself is proven to initialize or create or enable healing of affected areas, we may be able to prod that mechanism further, as well as increasing our understanding of the thought process, and maybe discover that there is more going on with thought than anything we have previously known.
Again, outta time. Thanks synthsin for taking up some of the duty here: you've been providing more salient links than me!
Perhaps a study could be done to mentally practice a completely imaginary task, and see if that could cause rewiring. As imaginary task, I'd say something the body is not capable of, like breathing water. Have the subjects imagine practicing breathing water. Pushing and pulling a heavier substance in and out of their lungs. Would this show rewiring?
If it did, it would be a step towards showing that the brain could be influenced by something other than what the body can experience. It could also lead to some interesting ideas on directed evolution/development.
I don't see much motivation for funding such a study though. While Christians may like some evidence of a possible soul, they probably wouldn't like the evolution implications. Perhaps the medical community will eventually see enough merit in pursuing this, although it could be at odds with the big pharmaceutical agenda.
SH, I've just been lucky that this thread has led me to Google some things I wouldn't have otherwise. So thanks for starting it.
soundhertz
29th April 2011 - 09:52 PM
Here's an interesting paper by Pascal Boyer:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7066679/Religiou...ons-BoyerPascal Although the paper does not explicitly seek to prove the notion one way or another, it does provide an overview of psychological/neuro aspects of how we make esoteric determinations. As the paper contends, more and better research will yield clearer data.
The idea of non-corporeal mind evolving evolutionarily from the body, as I just read elsewhere here, is quite a spicy and fun idea, and in line with an earlier comment I made - that maybe we in our evolution are in a state of
becoming. If so, can mind grow to the point that mind's prescience of it's own future becomes the crest of the wave of it's evolution? And then what?
synthsin75
29th April 2011 - 11:42 PM
Damn, I really hate the lack of rigor in psychology-related fields. Instead of utilizing things like MRIs to get some objective data to work with, they cobble together a lot of conjecture and call it science. Notice the absence of reference to even any data from a study.
Non-corporeal evolving from the corporeal? I've only heard of that in science fiction, never seriously considered as scientific. I just can't see any way to make that transition. We do know that solid matter is a condensation of a considerably more "ethereal" energy, by comparison, but the reverse, so far, has pretty devastating effects. Would a body have to give up the energy of its matter to accomplish such a thing?
It would just seem a simpler assumption that, if there ever could be a non-corporeal mind, that it was always there.
I mean we can assume that a non-corporeal mind could control the body, perhaps through the brain, but if we assume the body, perhaps through the brain, can control the non-corporeal mind, then why assume a non-corporeal mind? It would never be observable as independent from body/brain function.
soundhertz
30th April 2011 - 02:14 PM
The non-corporeal mind from body notion was something I just read yesterday from NA's thread. I never considered it before, but I thought it was fun. afa proving such, that would be an exercise in futility at this juncture, even if it was true. I don't believe it is, but then I don't believe in much....
The paper is from a psychologist, and why i posted it is because it is trying to tackle the mental reasons why we wax esoteric in the first place. It wasn't really a scientific experiment as much as some educated notions.. The whole reason why psychology isn't favored by empiricists is because it doesn't contain much hard core data; nothing involved with 'personality' does. We have a lot of data concerning brain function, but little empirical data concerning personality, which is the core of psychology. It's another indication of the rift between the two, and another indication that we don't have the kind of handle on personality that hard-core data gives. Even though psychology can be successfully predictive, most empiricists don't believe in it. Which is silly, as the very ones who don't believe in it are still being manipulated mentally by all sorts of advertising/media/and other people, even if they deny it. Psychology does exist, and is real; we can be mentally and emotionally manipulated. Anyone ever been married? It is just difficult to involve it, because there is so little hard data, just repeatable observations. I believe it has a place in this discussion, just not as big a place as neuro research.
synthsin75
30th April 2011 - 04:06 PM
Not quite. Psychology could, and does occasionally, make use to more rigorous tools. They have developed many IQ/personality/aptitude tests, that in conjunction with things like MRIs and experimental studies could provide more empirical data. The problem with these fields is systemic. Many "researchers" only research existing literature without comparison to the real world, and conjecture from that alone.
It's mainly a problem of people being draw to the field to handle their own neuroses, which they can't really face up to. Leads to a general inability to face real data.
NymphaeaAlba
22nd July 2011 - 02:56 AM
YouTube: One Life Newguy, newguy, newguy...Just kiddng!
Christianity teaches that the bible tells us that the saved go to heaven when they die…but does it?
QUOTE (John 3:13+)
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
From a Christian’s point of view, does this mean that none of God’s loyal servants, which lived before Christ, went to heaven?
QUOTE (Acts 2:29+)
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
QUOTE (Ecc. 3:19-22+)
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
QUOTE ( Psalms 146:4+)
His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
QUOTE (Ecc 9:5-6+)
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
QUOTE (Gospels of Thomas 113+)
His disciples said to him, when will the kingdom come? "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
There is one person who knows for sure, if there’s life after death, and that is
Thomas Bradford. Although, he didn’t commit suicide, a British physicist, Oliver Lodge, set up similar test. Robert H. Thouless was another who created an unbreakable code and invited psychics to contact him after his death in order to break the code.
The Human Consciousness Project
NymphaeaAlba
1st December 2011 - 08:54 PM
Yep, like I’ve said before, “
Rest and Motion-The Dance of the Universe, the Essence of God...aka (man).”
The Real Reason For Brains
El_Machinae
2nd December 2011 - 08:56 PM
Yeah, it's a powerful insight. Brains are to model the universe, incompletely but sufficiently. The concept of 'self' seems to have an evolutionary purpose as well, it allows a greater level of abstraction.
It's interesting that we value this selfness so much, morally. I think it's a terrifically important moral concept, and is what drives my opinion of objective morality. For a lot people staying alive requires maintaining their consciousness in some acceptable form, and I quite agree. We'd like to have our descendants remember us fondly, but that's still valuing their sentience.
The more we know about minds, the more we can benefit them, imo.
yani
3rd December 2011 - 12:57 PM
QUOTE
Brains are to model the universe,
Would you accept that brains
are the model of the universe?
In the synaptic connections are ways to keep your heart beating, recognize food no matter how slow or fast it moves, learn how to put stones on top of each other, draw abstracts like thermodynamics and quantum mechanics out of the brain and make things. Our life is based on those synaptic connections.
Some people have recently drawn Multiverses out of it. Maybe that's why we can imagine flying horses and people walking on water.
As far as mind surviving body, when the activity of that electrically sensitive matter is stopped by lack of oxygen or a projectile going through it, then...then...
Then hell. Like all good science experiments, you have to do it to find out.
Who want's to go first?
El_Machinae
3rd December 2011 - 03:52 PM
Maybe not the 'whole' brain is a model. But grand components of it are. The perception machinery models the universe. The prediction machinery does too. Maybe the specific movement machinery does not, it's merely doing what the prediction machinery does.
As for it being a model, that's a tough question to answer. Ostensibly a rock is also a model of the universe, because it's the sum of the universe's influence upon the rock stored in physical memory. The brain is obviously that ... but it's also a bit more.
yani
8th December 2011 - 06:57 AM
QUOTE
As for it being a model, that's a tough question to answer. Ostensibly a rock is also a model of the universe, because it's the sum of the universe's influence upon the rock stored in physical memory. The brain is obviously that ... but it's also a bit more.
Be patient while I grasp at things.
Albert saw curved space. And then numbers told him, "yes, it is."
So..how did he see it..unless.. the synaptic connections that modeled it, waiting for a few electrons to charge them, weren't there to begin with.
niels
7th January 2012 - 12:14 AM
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Dec 3 2011, 03:52 PM)
Maybe not the 'whole' brain is a model. But grand components of it are. The perception machinery models the universe. The prediction machinery does too. Maybe the specific movement machinery does not, it's merely doing what the prediction machinery does.
As for it being a model, that's a tough question to answer. Ostensibly a rock is also a model of the universe, because it's the sum of the universe's influence upon the rock stored in physical memory. The brain is obviously that ... but it's also a bit more.
yeah the brain is a bit more in an anthropic context - apart from this I think that everything in Universe ranks equal - when it comes to smallest and to absolut entanglement - and to the concept that everything potentially is being contained in everything -
human mind is an information Qbit - just like any other repetitive configuration in space-time. It is about scale and complexity in said scale and stability in repetitions - i.e. the gliding from one configuration expression to the nextfollowing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
...that was a cork.
Didn't mean it to be. Just pointing out that some direction for the conversation to move forward should be indicated. If there's no way to determine between alternatives, are we just meant to argue uselessly?
