So picking up from where my last blog
left off - my debate/rout/argument with AR took a turn from the merely strange and unusual into the TOTALLY WEIRD
We begin things up with a small area of overlap, he's telling me how reality is a matter of perspective,
and I give an example of how my own colour-blindness is an example of altered perception but doesn't mean that what I see is necessarily real.
As I think you will see, what he considers 'real' versus what I am trying to defend don't quite match.
And he thinks humans can have super-powers, and he's dead serious.
Here are the unedited exchanges.AR:
re: Well by definition a delusion is not real or it
wouldn't be a delusion.
It depends, I am missing the colour receptors in my retina so have only a shortened spectrum, short version is lots of colours look very similar
even when they are not. so my orange and my green aren't that distinct: I can confuse them. My pink and my grey are frankly interchangeable, red and black I can confuse. blue and purple I regularly confuse.
Colour is a mixture of
brightness, hue and saturation, I can confuse hues, and depending on how
saturated or bright a colour is (which modulate the hue) that process becomes harder and harder.
I cannot tell pastels apart at all.AR:
I have no problem in defining what is real or not in this life but I do like to ponder about what it could be , through scientific breakthrough or genetic mutation.RH:
re: We use a very small amount of our brains--------------------------
The article in full:http://www.drjamesghoodblog.com/?p=1127
Ain't the internet, grand?AR:
^ You speak of the hyperthallamus ,
epicenter for memory OOh I had a biology brainwave (hyper
thallamus/thallium) (cold fusion)if thoughts are flashes of neuclear energy within a liquid , thallium would be a bi product(as it is with all neuclear fusion) . if the thallium is result of decision and is
heavy so falls to centre/hyper thallamus hmm.....So thallium could be the solid evidence of thought .
re: Using the schitzophrenic example , these people tend to have higher than average intelligence , if they have stumbled on the doorway to this
"teleport" area/skill ? I perceived/ witnessed with my own eyes (during my first breakdown) Alchemy , telekenesis , teleportation . Many
different dimensional states 1d,2d, 4d and more.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
don't know about the higher than average intelligence thing. What they are is trouble by a very difficult neurological disorder, be they intelligent or not.
As for 'stumbling onto some secret unknown
talent' I highly doubt it.
Teleportation I'll come back to but
telekinesis and telepathy for example there is no known mechanism to even think why this would work, indeed let's just think about telepathy for second, we know thoughts aren't like that. So not only is there no causal explanation (or evidence, I might add) for telepathy there's no reason to think it would work and that we just don't know something
The 4th dimension comes straight from Einstein and his
his equations for describing space-time (yes maths - again!) in which a 4th axis can be drawn.
This gets almost immediately very
confusing and it's very similar to what I was saying yesterday about
quantum. It's not that one reality is 'more real' than another an an explanation for the fundamental behaviour of the universe but that the mathematics for describing it have multiple solutions which gives rise to this popular idea of many realities.
A nice idea I heard a
while back was that time is not a fundamental property of the universe
but might be - yes, you guessed it, emergent.
I can only really
go a gloss on this but the idea ran something like this.
the universe is up and running as it were, there are enough separate systems, oscillations and repetitions, decaying orbits and so that you can by various measures discover a great many systems that serve as clocks, but that at a fundamental level, the particles of which those things are composed do not obey laws they have time written into them as some kind of variable rather time (and our perception of it) emerges from out of all these particles interacting and is a sort of higher-level phenomenon but not actually fundamental, ie a part of the universe yes but if you right down the (simple) rules for describing the complex whole you don't need explicit time built it.
relativistic physics in a few sentences can it be done?
imagine a sliced loaf stood upright, the slices stacked horizontally. the area of the bread is in three dimensions and horizontal axis is time, each of the 'slices' akin to any sequences of successive instants of 'time.'
Is one way of viewing time.
And Einstein kind of
turned it on it's head becuase he said these things arent' separate, if
an object moves in space it also move in time. so what this means is two observers of the same event won't agree on how long it took., how long the event lasted or when it finished, becuase the time between them is relative.
There is always a problem with the way in which you
interpret the mathematical description of a physical system. Becuase there are often many mathematically equivalent ways of saying the same
thing, many logical ways of saying the same thing but the difference lies in the interpretation.
Einstein's picture was of a particle
moving in space and time traces out a curve in the space-time diagram
I put a pencil on a piece of paper, the vertical axis is time, the horizontal space, wiggling the pencil back and forth up the page and you'll draw a curve.
That curve has a mathematical description
equivalent to my moving the pencil. But the difference is the mathematical equation is a finished object going all the way up the time axis: it's the whole history in one go. Whereas while I was drawing it, only the beginning of the curve existed the next bit didn't exist yet. Now becuase the rules of relativity predict the future uniquely in terms of the present. There is only one way that curve could have gone there is only one path I could have drawn according to the rules on how it moves.
So there are two different descriptions: either it's moving and
creating it's future as it moves or the future is already sitting there waiting we're just not seeing it. Those are two VERY different physical
statement of the same mathematics.
It's that same kind of
confusion that I think bedevils the mis-apprehensions of quantum events
of which you (and not exclusively) are so fond.
finally - Teleportation.
This has happened and is a real
phenomenon - BUT... wait for it... NOT in the sense of Nightcrawler
from X-men or Star Trek
But it relies and depends on quantum
entanglement to work.
You can read up some about the experiments
that confirmed quantum teleportation here:
But please note, my preamble about the interpretation of the mathematics was
not a vain one - this too is a situation where there are multiple interpretations of the SAME mathematics.
Now really finally
Lobe Epileptics when the electrical processes in their brain go haywire, they experience a kind of shedding of the vale, an intense universal oneness, some eve come to believe they have had god revealed to them or that they are god - able to see deeper and further into reality than anyone else.
When the fit ends, they return to
"normal"but during the epileptic seizure they are beset by intense,
overwhelming sensations of religious awe and insight, which probably has something to do with a misfiring of the systems for identifying significance.
This perception they experience is a function of
their disorder - yet another example of a phenomena apparently real to them occasioned by piece of pathology that, this aside, has no further
You can hear a temporal lobe epileptic talk
about what it is like here:
re:Do you not think that the mind is more capable than we understand it now?
I think we are still learning about how
active the brain is, and no I don't share the conception of the brain as being mostly inactive and that activating newer parts will lead to new abilities. Brains don't work like that.AR:
RH:re: It doesn't support a case for telepathy but it does give an inclination toward the possibility .
I'm not sure what the
"it" you refer to is, but almost regardless - I don't think based on the evidence that such a claim is possible as there is no likely explanatory mechanism for telepathy.RH:
re: We developed our imagination for a reason during evolution. It is for
design . First we imagine then we create . Psychology affects design so therefore affects future reality,society, devices and everything.
you see in your imagination is what you get after effort . Ask and you shall receive of quantum physics seems to state the possibility of removing effort , simply picture and bring into being
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All highly speculative. I don't think if we are honest that we know exactly why many of our cognitive faculties including imagination evolved? Though we can be sure they did. It's not even clear if imagination is purely a human characteristic. It's probably got something to do with the pre-frontal lobes, at a guess our most overly-develop neurological feature.
Your skirting around what I think is a genuine question about representing realities, but many
animals get by just fine on instincts without this high level skill of representation.
re: phenomenon film with John Travolta shows him using telekinesis, the
character states it works by him having an agreement or collaboration with the energy that makes the pencil. Now if collaboration with this energy is possible(future present whatever) then picturing someone's face accurately enough and you energies could communicate . Or any other psi talent for that matter.
Yes you showed me the clip. I don't
wish to belabour an obvious point - but that is fiction.
now said repeatedly there is no explanatory nor causal mechanism for that to happen and it contradicts other already better established areas of knowledge.
So I do not think it is at all likely.
enjoy a good bit of fiction as much as the next guy, but I am able to distinguish fantasy from reality. You are too. I'm unsure why you therefore persist in thinking a movie fake tells us anything about the
The mechanism you describe isn't a mechanism at all
and there's no reason t suppose it would work and no evidence it does work.
Show me that it works and how it works and I'll maybe change my
mind, but until then.
re: Evolution is not purposeful. It is if we control it .
And evolution can be run in the lab and cell lines 'evolved' - just recently the first synthetic cell was created and synthetic biology looks to be very promising and exciting science, but what you are talking about is far outside the bounds of what is feasibly possible at the moment, possibly ever.
It's hypothetical at best and if you are talking about engineering humans - ethically suspect and very
For something to be written and read it exists in this reality same with
film and memories of delusion. Whether it's concept is real or not can only be proved/disproved by time and study.
A reality with no options
other than solid facts would not require imagination and would never evolve or need to. Which would leave us eternally suffering the laws of that stated reality.
I know what
exists now as far as psi talents are little more than options/directions for study.
But I would not discount options purely because I can't
evidence them now.
Science has turned on its head before , so has the
chance of doing it again .
Facts/reality is far different today
than 200 years ago . What we see as complex may well be simple we are
just approaching from the wrong angle (perspective).AR:
re: It's hypothetical at best and if you are
talking about engineering humans - ethically suspect and very illegal