Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Identify Phantom Limb Brain Activity
mmmscience writes "Researchers in Switzerland think they had identified the regions of the brain responsible for creating phantom limbs and the senses that go along with them. Scientists studied a stroke victim who claimed that the phantom limb of her now-paralyzed left arm could do a number of things a normal limb could do, including 'scratch an itch on her head, with an actual sense of relief.'"
What explains phantom brain slashdot moderation?
Can you masturbate with a phantom limb?
In Larry Niven's Gil "The Arm" Hamilton stories (collected in Flatlander ), the protagonist lost his arm in an accident, but found that without the physical arm he had developed telekinesis with the remaining phantom hand feeling. This persisted after he got a new arm transplanted, so he had in effect three arms. Now, one can discount Niven's interest in the paranormal, peculiar for a writer usually lauded for the believable science of his stories. But I'd be interested to know if in reality the feeling of a phantom limb would persist even after a new prosthetic or even human transplant were added.
Vacuous lack of information? What's this 'scientists in Switzerland' rubbish? We may not be the biggest country, but it would be polite to say which scientists, even where. For anyone that cares, the study was led by Asaid Khateb, a neuropsychologist at Geneva University Hospitals. Published in the Annals of Nuerology, abstract here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122269076/abstract
Intriguing. So, the more Metachlorians one has, the more one can control the body?
.. I can feel satisfied only from imagining pulling RMS' beard.
It's been long suspected in sports training that mentally practicing a skill is often as useful and productive as doing the real thing. fMRI supports this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Practice_of_Action The surprising thing to me is that she actually got relief from phantom-ly scratching herself. I suspect this is some placebo effect. Or related to why you can't tickle yourself.
Now that they've found it, I'd like to see if they could - though I understand such specific manipulation is no doubt a long way off - work on a way to stimulate the area artificially. The ability to build controllable phantom limbs could be of great use for interacting with virtual realities. Imagine, while still having full control of your senses and limbs, being able to walk around a second entirely separate world with an entirely separate body; a lucid, computer-assisted daydream, essentially.
But does it have something to do with Dr. Girlfriend, or the Monarch?
Do male to female transexuals get phantom erections after the operation?
Watch this guy explain it and be amazed. The phantom Limb part comes in at around half way if I remember correctly. This was filmed in 2007 so ya old news. Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/184
what's it thinking?
And if it is thinking, doesn't that prove Descartes wrong?
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Is anyone safe?
No, it's MIDI-chlorians, you double ni[bleep].
Preferably an arm so I can scratch myself while carrying two cups of coffee..
Damn!
(and damn the lameness filter, too!)
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Finally reaches the human brain...
I'm glad it find a new CPU.
"PHUCK IT'S THE PHANTOM!!!"
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I only opened this article to read the ensuing Venture Bros. jokes, and no one managed to post any with +3 or better moderation. Reanimated corpse slugs could have done better. Slashdot, you've failed me for the... well, neither first nor last time... but you've still failed me.
I know what you did last summer. Just kidding, I don't work at the NSA.
a lot of people suffer from it
there are many kinds of tinnitus, but the most common, the persistent ringing that i suffer from and a lot of others do , is, in fact, a form of phantom limb phenomenon
tinnitus is deafness, except just like that lost hand or that lost foot, sometimes the body maps the lack of information from that dead inner ear cell to the permanent "on" position, to tinnitus sufferer's permanent torture
so any research on phantom limbs is important to a lot more people reading this than the exotic few missing a limb
there are other body processes which neurologists are beginning to rethink as phaton limb phenomena. neuralgia, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralgia
the perversity is that so many people with tinnitus or neuralgia focus on treating the area where the sensation occurs. when the source of the sensation is actually deep in the brain
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have to wonder, if there is a large body of science behind paranormal events, why don't the scientists cash in on the Randi Million Dollar challenge (or any of the several dozen smaller ones that are out there, if Randis requirements are too hard)?
Too hard? It's got nothing to do with 'hard'. It has to do with Randi being a dick who will do anything in his power to not know what he doesn't want to know. The man has the thundering ego of a. . , well, a stage magician whose reputation and sense of self-worth are pinned directly to his being Right. Quite simply, he is not capable of being wrong, and therefore he will not be, regardless of what reality has to say about it. Read through some of the case studies of his 'challenge'. The man is loud, rude and biased, about as unscientific as any religious pundit. If you've ever dealt with somebody like that personally, and you probably have, then you'd know that such a 'challenge' is not real, but rather is presented entirely to give the impression of reasonableness, thus giving one the illusory basis for righteous denial of anything which offends and frightens them. It functions, I suspect, from the same part of the brain as extends the Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly form of 'journalistic integrity'.
Any challenger or prize-offerer is going to hold a similar profile. If they truly wanted to Know, then they would. It's not that difficult to go and find and experience this stuff. --Thus, the larger part of the issue is that such 'challenges' make the presumption that truth is owed to the rest of the world. It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth. To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring. If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with.
Thus, we get nonsense like the false, 'Randi Challenge'. Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair. Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
-FL
consider this new yorker piece:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
basically, this poor woman's condition has bolstered neurologists rethinking of the itch sensation as something completely unrelated to pain. she had an incredibly rare "phantom itch". how disabling was it? she scratched THROUGH HER SKULL, until she was scratching brain matter
she survived, in a debilitated condition, but she did better than her roommate, who, with a similar phantom itch, scratched through to his carotid, and killed himself
read, for an especially horrifying insight into what its like to live with a phantom itch:
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not entirely sure what you are rambling on about, but, the guy and his rules seem pretty simple to me: Come in and prove you can do whatever it is you claim you can do, under our conditions, those conditions also being fairly straight forward. No cheating.
So, aside from your word, which is nothing short of one big "Citation Needed", I'm going to see "1 (one) million dollars, verified in a bank account, just waiting to be had", along with a sensible set of rules that should be absolutely no problem at all for anyone having a talent of this kind, and conclude that you are either scorned because you failed it, or just incapable of understanding others might be a tad cynical of those who come with extraordinary claims.
Forget about Randi's challenge. Just prove scientifically something paranormal. Get a Nobel prize (or at least some recognition).
meh
about people with psychic arms called Elfen Lied. Never watch it. It's horrible. People who say it's good are the same kind of people who say "smell my fart". The music is nice though.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring. If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are.
I'm one of those people who really, really wants magic to be real. Sadly, I'm not an idiot, and so I can't just wish upon a star and then tell myself it worked - I have to actually try and test it. Every single time I've found something that looks like it *might* be working, any remotely rigorous testing shows it's just imagination and confirmation bias.
Hell, at one stage my Dad was insisting he could feel peoples' auras by waving his hands around. This went on for months until I finally stood in front of him, made him close his eyes, and then told him to show me exactly where my aura was, by feel. He'd pretty confidently found it by a minute later, by which time I was on the other side of the room.
If anyone could do anything remotely genuine in the paranormal sense then solving a trivial problem like "read what's in the envelope in my pocket" would net them an easy million. I can't see a single non-bullshit reason not to claim such a prize... if you genuinely can.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I once experienced something almost exactly like a phantom limb. After an episode of sleep paralysis laying on the couch on the third floor of my university library, I suddenly regained control of my arms. I was unable to open even my eyes...but I had complete control of my hands and arms. Eventually I reached up and touched my face, only to discover that there was no opposite sensation from the skin on my face. I was able to feel my hair and the features of my face, but my face felt as if it had been completely numbed.
Eventually I was able to force my eyelids open, and to my complete amazement...my arms were laying crossed across my chest in the same position they were in when I fell asleep. I was able to "move" them across my field of vision, but they remained motionless on my chest. The whole experience lasted a minute or two and was strangle not unpleasant, unlike all of the sleep paralysis episodes I have.
Has anyone hear heard of such a thing? Sleep paralysis is well documented, but I have never been able to find anything similar to what I have described here.
and phantom limbs, i have a theory about ghosts:
social contact is extremely important psychologically for human beings, especially in regard to close friends and family. we form social bonds with a small group of other humans who can finish our sentences and wordlessly engage in complex tasks with us. that our social connection with others in this small group can be said to be as strong and vital and deep and as complex and important for our survival as our psychological connection with our own hand or foot
such that to lose a loved one can be said to be virtually psychologically the same as to lose an arm or a leg, at least in terms of dramatic traumatic impact. that people's perceptions of ghosts might be the exact same psychological phenomenon as the perception of phantom limbs. the important person who has passed away is like their phantom limb they still perceive, that important psychological connection that carries on in denial after being severed from traumatically
in other words, ghosts are completely "real" in the sense that the person perceiving them might not be making them up at all, and are being completely psychologically honest when they see or hear their phantom loved one. assuming, and this is a big assumption, that the loss of a loved one and the perception of ghosts can be said to be the exact same psychological circuit as the loss of a limb and the perception of phantoms. which is a huge psychological if, but is not entirely out of the question, at some level of the mind
i've never heard this idea before, but that doesn't mean someone else hasn't already thought of it. but i would be excited to find out that this idea is original to me, so here this slashdot post stands as posterity as a possible original idea on my part. so mod me up for my historical posterity! ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I can't see a single non-bullshit reason not to claim such a prize... if you genuinely can.
I don't believe in that stuff either, but... money isn't everything and someone who could do something like that probably feels enough like a freak already and perhaps isn't interested in the kind of attention they would get from claiming such a prize.
So, no, I don't believe in supernatural powers, but there are certainly reasons for not participating in those contests. And if I could do that kinda stuff, I would find another way to make money, that wouldn't result in the entire world chasing me for the rest of my life, because I could cure them or tell them the future or whatever.
True that money isn't everything, but if I could move stuff around with my mind, or read the details off an envelope that's inside a safe, I wouldn't feel like a freak, I'd just feel FREAKIN' AWESOME! And I'd want to know how I did what I did, and how to teach other people to do it (if possible), and whether there was anything else I could do that I hadn't discovered yet. I'd want to know what my abilities meant for conventional science, and what new engineering techniques they would lead to. Hiding away a gift that could fundamentally change our understanding of the world would be a crime against humanity.
In my experience, people who claim paranormal powers generally do so because they want to feel special, and so they see attempts to verify their 'powers' as personal attacks, knowing they'll only be discredited.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
So, aside from your word, which is nothing short of one big "Citation Needed", I'm going to see "1 (one) million dollars, verified in a bank account, just waiting to be had", along with a sensible set of rules that should be absolutely no problem at all for anyone having a talent of this kind, and conclude that you are either scorned because you failed it, or just incapable of understanding others might be a tad cynical of those who come with extraordinary claims.
And this is exactly how I felt about things as well until I went to explore the claims and counter-claims surrounding Randi.
Clearly, you have not done this. Why?
--That's a rhetorical "Why?" which I answered in my previous post. Citations are useful and they are out certainly available, but you are not asking for one; you are challenging with a chin-jutting attitude. What does this say about what you really want?
What do I 'win' by convincing you, other than perhaps your respect and that of society's in general? The thing is, I no longer crave society's respect (and certainly not yours) due to the work I have done in re-writing the programming in my own mind. --The combative "Jury Box" system of truth discernment is a feature of our world which has been sold to us through television with the broad suggestion that it can and should be applied in all instances including the scientific forum, but this is not the case. Here's an interesting fact: Many of the forces which exist beyond the walls of 'official culture' have to do with one's state of consciousness, and can be affected and indeed blocked through an application of intent and strong will. If you don't want to see something, then in a surprising number of cases, it is entirely possible to trick yourself into not seeing it. You can even prevent others from seeing. There are a vast number of phenomenon like this.
As for the win/lose method of knowledge distribution. . .
I've already 'won' by increasing my knowledge. Yow win nothing by fortifying ignorance. But we are taught that "Winning = Not Getting the Ego Bruised". "Being Wrong" has been attached with a powerful negative emotional cost hammered into us all through an education system which pitted children against one another through the tactic of age segregation. Age segregation makes it so that leaders are not readily found within groups, thus increasing the competition among children to very high levels while never allowing for a clear 'winner'. One result is that of, "Jocks v.s. Geeks". --The result being a shell-shocked geek community which grows into adulthood with deeply set baggage wrt losing face in any kind of contest. Thus the attaining of knowledge comes in at a distant second to being Right At All Cost. (And when I say, "Right" I do not mean, "Factually Correct". I mean "In line with the official version".) --The age segregation and the combat it forces children to undergo makes knowledge given by authority figures (like the TV) the only safe way of accumulating data because the data given is not accompanied by a sense of guilt or defeat in not previously knowing, but rather a warm-fuzzy feeling. So if you can control the media, and you also control the knowledge stream because the population will police itself, allowing no new knowledge to arise from its peers. The only thing geeks are allowed to say is simply a repetition of what TV's and various other globally recognized media authority figures have stated as being 'true'.
-FL
Forget about Randi's challenge. Just prove scientifically something paranormal. Get a Nobel prize (or at least some recognition).
I'll be able to do that when you can prove that you, 'Dream'.
And in fact, I can. --But only for those who have figured out how to prove that they dream.
The answer doesn't come from demanding the world dance for you, but by getting out there and exploring beyond the walls of official culture. --And by letting go of the foolish desire for societal approval and "recognition" as you put it. Knowledge is its own reward. Henry freekin' Kissinger won a Nobel prize, after all. That should tell you something about the natures of Ego and Truth.
-FL
True that money isn't everything, but if I could move stuff around with my mind, or read the details off an envelope that's inside a safe, I wouldn't feel like a freak, I'd just feel FREAKIN' AWESOME! And I'd want to know how I did what I did, and how to teach other people to do it (if possible), and whether there was anything else I could do that I hadn't discovered yet. I'd want to know what my abilities meant for conventional science, and what new engineering techniques they would lead to. Hiding away a gift that could fundamentally change our understanding of the world would be a crime against humanity.
In my experience, people who claim paranormal powers generally do so because they want to feel special, and so they see attempts to verify their 'powers' as personal attacks, knowing they'll only be discredited.
I agree with several of your points, although feeling, "FREAKIN' AWESOME" as you put it, is an ego state which easily prevents the accumulation of real knowledge through the fear of discreditation. What people DO feel is afraid of persecution. It is easy decide that humanity does not deserve to know that which they will kill you for stating. The knowledge is not exactly hidden. It is simply that most just don't want to know.
When you describe your experiments with your father, you are not describing all experiments. You need to look further afield and seek some awareness of your own if you want to find valid experiences. Also, it's not 'magic' by any means. That attitude is problematic.
It is helpful to recognize that many of the forces in question have a great deal to do with consciousness. --Consciousness is affected deeply by mental programming, bias and beliefs. It is entirely possible to suggest something out of one's perceptual range. You can hypnotize somebody into not being able to see the third man in the room. A question to ask is this: "How can you prove that you dream?"
-FL
Common and valid argument -- I'd definitely just use my powers of flight for fun. This time, however, the poster talked about science... That claim requires reproducibility.
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
Really, if you do have a major discovery, it's not difficult to get published.
to me it is like asking for a thousand 1000$ transactions from your account to your account.
In the end you are not a million$ richer.
I mean what is the use of mentally scratching with a non existent hand and feeling the relief??? ;)
Sleeping provides the same result
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
The poster I was responding to brought James Randi into the equation. James Randi is not a man of science.
I'm as fascinated by the scientific method as you are, but I do think it is important to distinguish between real science and 'cult of science'. There are very few scientists out there who are not corrupted by discriminatory and prejudicial belief systems. Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
Yes, it sounds as silly as, "I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking," but it is still an entirely valid question. Science will be limited until it knows how to answer this.
-FL
to find a way to use that knowledge to build better direct neural interfaces between machine and man.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
If they dislike Randi's attitude enough to turn down a million dollars, that's up to them, but why pass up the opportunity to prove the existence of such powers once and for all? You'd be world famous, and it would be a revolution in science. You'd be remembered in history.
You don't have to have Randi doing the test, find some other independent group to test you under repeatable scientific conditions if you prefer.
It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth.
Yeah yeah, and Jesus exists just so long as I'm willing to look for the Truth.
Well I am willing to look for the truth - but you have to be willing to provide it, and that means in the form of scientific results.
To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
Don't be absurd. No one is talking about this. There are plenty of people willing to investigate this (e.g., Randi), and plenty of people who would be eager to see the results if it is conducted scientifically, rather than only on terms that allow trickery.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring.
Well in that case, I have three heads, and can see everything that you do. It's up to you to look to see if that's true, not me - it's not my fault if you're too lazy to do that.
You would need an impartial observer to make such an experiment. Perhaps some kind of machine that can measure such a force? Then do the experiment with two groups, etc. If you do not have that, then there is absolutely no functional difference between such a "force" and faith/placebo. Unless of course if such a machine doesn't exist. So the problem isn't with science. It's that we don't yet have machines that can measure everything. When we understand consciousness better, we'll do experiments with that as well. Or would you prefer we all went with faith instead? That isn't science.
I don't know why you say that James Randi is not a man of science. Yes, I suspect that you do, as do I, perceive him as kind of cynical and dismissive of paranormal arguments. But then again, so would you be if you had been dealing with the world's biggest crazy nutty self-deluded crackpots for the last 50 years. And it doesn't really surprise me that no one won the prize. After all, it would be about the most important profound scientific discovery of recent times if it ever happened.
meh
Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Whether we can know everything, or if we are limited, is an interesting question. I'm happy to accept that there are some things we might never be able to know.
But what I think you propose (and is common for paranormal advocates who refuse to allow any scientific testing) is the claim that there exist some things which we can't find out about using the scientific method, but for which there exists another means by which to find out.
So what exactly is this means, and - if it involves making observations about the world, and forming hypotheses and testing them - how is it not science?
Even if every scientist is corrupted as you claim, that shouldn't stop a paranormal believer conducting experiments according to the scientific method, which everyone else could then repeat.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
If we wanted to test a force that could be affected by people's will, then we would conduct an experiment with those different people. Those observing the results would not be told which people were with which result.
"You can hypnotize somebody into not being able to see the third man in the room." No, you can't. When you've 'hypnotized' someone, all you've done is find someone who will put up with your bullshit and do what you say for a bit. Try hypnotizing an unwilling person or getting someone to jump out of a window whilst 'hypnotized'; nothing will happen, unless of course the person is just THAT dumb.
I came here to post the same. Great video.
Beetle B.
"the phantom limb of her now-paralyzed left arm could... 'scratch an itch on her head, with an actual sense of relief.'"
This seems consistent with an evolving view of perception as a Bayesian process that incorporates both the current sensory evidence and our prior knowledge of what has been perceived in similar situations in the past. This is coupled with the additional fact that information about motor movements is directly provided to sensory parts of the brain from motor parts of the brain without needing to be perceived through external sensory systems. When a limb is missing due to amputation, or the sensory input from it is missing due to paralysis, the brain is still sending motor information (despite the fact the motor signals aren't actually able to get to the missing/paralyzed limb) and it still has all of the prior knowledge about what has previously been experienced when such a motor action is taken. As a result, when a phantom limb is used to scratch an itch, the perceptual system 'knows' the scratching action is being taken and 'knows' that scratching has previously relieved itching, and despite the fact that no actual sensory info to this extent is coming from the head, the Bayesian posterior still makes 'itch relief' be the most likely outcome, and thus, apparently, that is the experienced outcome.
The main point to take from this is that perception, while certainly related to what is actually going on in the external world, is far far FAR from a 'pure' reflection of it.
Nova had a special that covered the "phantom limb" phenomenon in 2001. It was interesting. Here is the companion web page for the episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/
Enjoy!
Placebo effect.
Your brain is not a computer.
WOW. Someone truly open minded on /. - can it be?
Like you, FL, I also used to be a hard nose skeptic - no, scratch that, not a skeptic, more like a "cynic"; skepticism is healthy, cynicism is what we're dealing with here though. Over my 46 years, certain life experiences taught me to be more accepting of the possibilities (and claims of others) while at the same time, I came to fully realize that science is not so black & white, cut and dried, and nowhere near complete. It's not that I'm "anti-science" or anything (far far from it!) it's just that a cynical attitude is not very scientific.
What people seem to forget in every modern generation, is that science itself is a work in progress, subject to revision or even a total overhaul as new data permits. We make new discoveries everyday; we've detected new forms of matter or energy unknown to us before; we constantly learn that seeing is not necessary to believing, as there is a whole universe outside our 5 limited senses, one we're immersed in nonetheless.
Yet, history is full of "experts", (who in hindsight, should've known better) declaring this and that are "nonsense" on the basis of the current scientific knowledge at that time. Does anyone really believe that we know just about everything we're going to know, or even that our current view of how the universe is absolutely correct and infallible, and all that's left to do is build on the current foundation? Damn, that's just arrogant and hard headed. Those with such a rigid, inflexible, unforgivable worldview can hardly claim to be "scientific"; in fact that attitude is the very antithesis of the spirit of science.
Look how many people used to believe heavier than air flight was scientifically impossible. Pasteur's "germ theory" was rejected by a peer as "ridiculous fiction". There's a pretty good list of these poor judgements on the MIT website
http://web.mit.edu/randy/www/words.html
People need to be less willing to make a kneejerk denial of something as "unscientific".
And besides the point, nothing is every truly "proven", scientifically or otherwise.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Here's a question for you along with some personal history to give you an idea of why I am asking it.
I have found myself increasingly believing that there is a huge swath of reality that the system of western science is either ignoring or is incapable of comprehending. This includes things like ESP, telekineses, the human energy field (aura), out of body experiences, and other things in the vein we tend to call "paranormal." This interest was sparked when, during college, I connected with a pastor of a house church where they believed in and practiced the spiritual gifts outlined in the Bible (healing, prophecy, tongues, etc.). I experienced some things while there that felt genuinely, unarguably true and spiritual in a way that I don't remember having felt before. I have since wandered away from Christianity as a life framework, but that experience is not diminished in hindsight.
Some years later I came across "The Holographic Universe," a book by Michael Talbot that is based on the work of David Bohm and Karl Pribam. The book claims that if the universe is indeed holographic, there's plenty of room for all that stuff that western science wants to shove under the rug (the commonplace example being the placebo effect). Reading all those credible examples of the paranormal makes it seem very plausible that it exists, and indeed if asked about it I will affirm as much.
But.
My own experience has been much more mundane. Aside from the handful of times I mentioned during college, I have not seen any firsthand evidence of this stuff, and what little I have was quite minor in comparison to the incredible experience of, say, an accurate aura reading (where the viewer may express knowledge that he could not otherwise possess) or even seeing a pen leap off the table. My hypothesis is that due to my perceptive/intuitive nature I won't be able to generate any "psychic activity" without having personally experienced it and perhaps having been taught how to grasp it.
So the question is, for someone such as myself who is definitely interested in what you are talking about and who has book knowledge of it but is, shall we say, a reluctant skeptic, what is the next step in the process? If it is finding someone to learn from who is psychic, how do I find someone genuinely psychic instead of a run-of-the-mill, cold-reading palmist? If it is "rewriting the programming in my own mind," where can I find more information about doing so?
Or am I way off-base in my estimation of what you are talking about to begin with?
Your brain is not a computer.
Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair.
You're the coward. You're making grand claims of truth that the populous refuses to see, from your armchair, and then say you feel no need to back up your claims.
Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
Are you hiding from the truth? What do you believe and why? I can pick a religion and believe it is true too, many people do, and then tell others I have found the "truth". Whatever helps you sleep better at night.
Perhaps they could gather a group of observers all of whom genuinely wish to measure said "force" and take measurements while minimizing the "negative influence" of outsiders. While it would be difficult or impossible for any particular group to reproduce, at least it could be filmed and meticulously documented to determine if there were methodological faults.
Of course, that will never happen. Many believers don't care to have their cherished notions put to the test, and many skeptics would immediately dismiss such an experimental setup, but one who would thoroughly investigate such an experiment would be James Randi.
Your are correct in that he is not a scientist, but he is a rationalist. All he asks is for someone to actually demonstrate what they claim to be capable of doing in an experimental setup that removes opportunities for deception. Many have tried, and all have failed. All participants have to agree to a testing protocol beforehand, but it is not forced upon them. If people were truly capable of performing these feats, it should not matter whether or not a double-blind experimental setup is used. Unfortunately, such rigorous testing is needed because people have an amazing capacity to deceive, both themselves and others.
Personally, I am open to new ideas and experiences, but I ask that someone actually provide evidence. Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has held one bogus notion after another. Our minds are pattern seeking devices, and they are quite capable of seeing patterns where none exist. Ideas that map usefully to reality are investigated, modified, corrected, and revised until they match the observable world as closely as possible.
Subjective experiences are just that, subjective. In meditation, you may experience vivid images, the feeling of other "presences", phantom noises, or other phenomena. However, wholly subjective experiences are by definition not demonstrable to others. Dreams, hallucinations, inner voices...they may have some deep meaning to you, but it is likely because they emanate from your mind, not the outside world.
Anyway, while science is by no means complete, we do have a handle on the basic forces of the universe. While there may be some untestable force only measurable by believers, it is quite unlikely. What is likely, and common, is the desire for believers in the paranormal to clock their beliefs in jargon to make them sound more scientific than they truly are. Using the word "force" doesn't make it science, only observation and experimentation. However, such a force would be a very useful device for charlatans to explain the failures of their abilities any time that they are put to the test.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
I'm not entirely sure what you are rambling on about, but, the guy and his rules seem pretty simple to me: Come in and prove you can do whatever it is you claim you can do, under our conditions, those conditions also being fairly straight forward. No cheating.
I'm familiar with this challenge, and also somewhat familiar with a lot of the "crackpots" and their ideas. It is something that simply interests me, I make no claims as to the merits or truths.
Having said that, I have to agree that Randi is a Dick. Plain and simple, his reasons for placing the challenge stem not from any legitimate interest in science, but as a personal vendetta against anything he thinks sounds "fishy". I firmly believe that if someone were to appear before him in a flash of light, levitate and bend objects with their mind, and reveal contents of his own mind that only he knows, the guy would either find a way to rationalize it away or have a stroke on the spot.
In specific, IF the "paranormal researchers" are actually right (something I am NOT supporting) then HE, himself, is actually applying an equal (or greater) anti-paranormal force. Or in other words, he is, himself, pyschic, telekenetic, etc. and is actively interfering with his own "experiment".
The fact that he refuses to even examine this "possibility" shows he is as out-of touch with reality as those he seeks to debunk.
Or to put it another way, I can think of several scientific experiments that demonstrate normal, accepted science which would fail under the restrictions of his testing.
You would need an impartial observer to make such an experiment.
Exactly. And to say that Randi isn't impartial is a massive understatement. The man is a giant ball of bullying, ill-reasoning ego and he has demonstrated this more than once. For this reason, he and his challenge can be crossed off the list of things to be taken seriously.
The interesting thing is that there have been experiments which have been conducted in a far more mature and scientific manner. The results of such experiments tend to be ignored, or discredited in the public 'official' realm, and often with a high degree of emotion, (which speaks volumes as to the people doing the discreditation). In other realms, military for instance, things are very different. If you find and ask the right people with the right job descriptions at the right moments in their lives, you will learn all kinds of fascinating things.
On a personal level, studies can also be conducted. --Though, it tends to be more difficult to do things in a properly scientific manner. --However, one can study phenomena using rationality and good sense. --In much the same way as you might learn how to fold bed sheets or figure out the source of a buzzing noise in your house, we have bodies and senses and we can use them to solve all manner of problems very effectively. The results of such explorations, however, are not particularly useful in proving anything to others in the public at large, (especially if the people we are describing our activities to become angry and defensive when the subjects of bed sheets or buzzing noises are brought up; people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of such things), but for the individual and those who share an interest, such explorations are extremely valuable.
So why not take their findings and report the most important discovery of recent times?
Well, it actually happens with a fair degree of regularity. Go look for yourself. The world is bustling with knowledge, stuff you can test and verify yourself.
The problem is that the kinds of people who post rewards for proof of bedsheets are not really looking for bedsheets. They are looking to shore up the edges of their non-bedsheet containing realities. If they wanted to find bedsheets, they would go out and find bedsheets. It's really not that hard. And so the battle to convince such people is entirely fruitless. --Unless one is willing to basically rape James Randi of his dearly held belief structure, squash his giant ego, make him look like a fool in public and take away his money. --Try to recall the last time you had to admit you were wrong to a bunch of people, say on Slashdot, who were frothing at the mouth in anticipation of calling you a bunch of names. Were you even able to admit that you were wrong? Most don't have what it takes to do this seemingly simple thing. Now take that same feeling and increase it many times, and you will find an approximation of the position James Randi is in. He is never, NEVER going to let it happen, and a read-through of his methods shows just how far he will go in order to make sure of this.
A real scientist would not be difficult to work with, and indeed, they can be worked with and have been.
But given just how important and profound such a 'discovery' would be, -it would change the face of humanity and the ability to enslave it, given that, it is quite easy to see why the media does not support such notions. --Why it promotes idiocy and charlatans.
And so, official culture, like Randi, will not ever bend. But that doesn't mean you can't go looking on your own steam. In fact, it is the only way. But you need to be brave. --Because it will never be sanctioned, it will never be 'okay' and the self-policing mind-slaves of our world will never reward you with their respect. Or a million dollars.
That fact is well understood by those in the know. Randi's challenge is meant to keep people inside the cage. Those on the outside have no more need for such things.
I don't want convincing, and I didn't post trying to make you look bad with some high and mighty attitude. You post your business on a public forum, you get questioned in public. End of story. I have my answers already, you appear to be shaping my entire persona from a single slashdot post though, which would make you just as bad as you perceive me to be. I'm ok with this.
I was wanting to see some of this evidence that Randi is a crackpot and deserving of the statements you made. I'm not saying that he isn't, I'm saying that at face value what he is asking for seems pretty rational and logical.
I get it, you're in to metaphysics, great, I've read all the books too. Been there done that, I went the opposite way though, from an early childhood firm belief in such things, to a slow dawning rationalization that humans are pretty damn good at convincing themselves of anything at all. Anything. The more I experience, the more I learn, the more I know how little I actually know. Sanity, it's a sliding scale. Reality, I don't know what yours is, but I'm a little bit stuck with mine. If yours tells you that you can make mine different with or without me knowing, then I'm going to need a little bit more than just some text saying "well that's just how it is! I don't need to prove it to you"
I'm going to want a little bit of evidence, maybe an experiment or two. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from "We, the ones that can 'really' do this stuff, we don't need to prove anything to anyone!"
Meh, I know your type too, sir.
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
Clever signature text goes here.
So what you are saying is that Randi would be critical to what he was seeing, and look for natural explanations rather than resorting to bullshit pseudoscientific nonsense?
Clever signature text goes here.
But of course, you and other superstitious idiots with no evidence what so ever for your claims know better? Give me a fucking break.
See, this is why you are an idiot. No one claims that we know everything. But going from that to blindly believing in bullshit claims with no evidence what so ever is a huge leap.
Your supersitious bullshit is nothing new at all. You are making it out to be some amazing discovery, but your delusion has been the default for all of humanity's existence. Only with science were we able to move beyond the bullshit you so blindly accept.
Clever signature text goes here.
So what? If you actually have something valid, you will show him being wrong. But you don't, because your delusion is supersitious nonsense with no evidence what so ever, and you know it.
How, specifically?
Ah, the typical braindead superstitious moron move. "You will only know if you want to know!" Brilliant! No need to do science. No sirree! Just pull the "you aren't worthy" card.
You have not been able to show that it doesn't work. All you have done is to spew out vague nonsense.
Clever signature text goes here.
If you don't want to see something, then in a surprising number of cases, it is entirely possible to trick yourself into not seeing it. You can even prevent others from seeing. There are a vast number of phenomenon like this
You succeeding in preventing from the reading the rest of your post, at least!
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
Actually, I think you are mistaken in this. --Impartiality is a requirement of good science. This is why we perform double-blind tests; in an effort to combat our own proclivity in fooling ourselves; it is fascinating to me that even such attempts don't always take the full spectrum of possibility into account. In any case, it's a two-way street; the ability to affect results is possible for both the True Believer and the. . , well the other flavor of True Believer. Whatever you Truly Believe in has the potential to skew your results. Randi, if you will investigate, has Big Issues with this. It verges on straw-grasping comedy at times.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
Wow. I didn't say this at all; if you came away with that impression, then my efforts at clear communication have been a failure, but I don't think it has as much to do with my methods as it does your inability to read clearly. "Attacking" and "Describing" are quite different things. By contrast, you seem quite angry and irrational; even stooping to call school-yard names at people you disagree with. Your inability to recognize what has been said offers an excellent example as to why impartiality is important if you want to see clearly. I suspect, however, that you don't actually want this, and in fact, you define something I said earlier; "If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with."
You are making a rather angry effort to attack those around you who do not share your view, making no effort to hear or address the legitimate points. High emotion has no place in true science.
-FL
Hm.
I forget sometimes where I came from myself. --The world really is pretty locked down. I started out the son of an engineer and a big fan of science. Did the model rocket, and build your own radio thing as a kid. At a party many years later, somebody brought out a Chinese divination system based on an old game, and proceeded to do readings for people. It was unlike anything I'd ever chanced across before; all I'd seen of the esoteric was the newspaper horoscope section which I'd always found to be entirely silly; a clear example of vague information being used to trick people into seeing more than was there. This system, however, crossed some kind of line. It was starkly accurate to the point where each person was quite shaken by the accuracy and depth at which it worked. I came away from that rather stunned.
Of course, I knew it was possible to manipulate things like cards and tiles and such, and so I decided to investigate further. It wasn't an immediate process, over the next several years, I met at random people who were similarly tuned to this kind of stuff, and I'd grill them. --One of the first people I met was a girl who was good at palm reading; who at one party was reading palms. After reading one guy, she turned to her boyfriend, white in the face and said, "That guy had NO life-line. I didn't want to tell him." The next night that guy, in his 20's, died in his sleep from heart failure. --I walked through dozens of episodes like that, both happy and sad, but never really had any direct experiences.
I also started reading. Carlos Castaneda began that, and from there, the other important books showed up on my reading list as necessary. The interesting thing with Castaneda is that one slowly comes across the notion that intent shapes experiences in a very practical way. --Which is really pretty obvious. "I intend to experience a bowl of Cheerios. I go and prepare one and thus my intention is realized." The neat part is that you learn that it works without the need for a discernible linear physical approach. --And that was when I started meeting teachers who could do some of the *really* intense stuff. Those who I call, "Powerful People". --My last girlfriend was one of these, and she has no interest in the esoteric world at all, but she is able to shape reality in the most uncanny of ways. She has experiences which are TOTALLY off the map which she doesn't understand. By the time I met her, I'd accumulated an encyclopedic knowledge of this kind of material and was able to explain and help her through many of her experiences. She's the kind of person who finds herself jumping into a car and driving off willy-nilly because she feels a strong urge and then finds herself an hour later standing at the center of a fresh crop circle.
My own level of awareness has increased a great deal over the years. I know and feel stuff I shouldn't; it seems that having enough iron in your diet is an important component, meditation helps a lot, but that for the most part, one's genetic make-up appears to play a large role. I've seen and done some pretty weird stuff, but some of the people I've met experience things in a far greater capacity than others by default. But in terms of sculpting experiences and knowing why the world is as it is. . , anybody can do that.
Simple steps to take. . .
Chinese and Western astrology are considered sort of entry points, because they offer easy evidence that 'something is up'. I like Theadora Lau's book on Chinese astrology. It was one of those early, "You have GOT to be kidding me!" works; I'd recommend her work; it's cheap and easy enough to find. Also, Suzanne Miller's Astrology website here, http://www.astrologyzone.com/ is a good representative of the Western model. Carlos Castaneda's books, despite their flaws, are also a fun read, so even if you get nothing out of them, (though I don't see how that is at all possible), it won't be a waste of your time. (Those books are wher