It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
I'm not claiming to be psychic or saying anyone else is 'psychic.' I've had similar experiences and simply wonder if there's something our brains do that we're not currently able to understand.
On the other hand, I have had the few moments I have been able to tell you what was about to happen. Or what WOULD happen. eta: and at times, it was unexpected and to the point in a way that no one would have been able to expect it ahead of time.
From American Indian shamanism* to esoteric Judaism, this concept has dominated for millennia. As it has now become clear, western civilization is unique in history in it’s failure to recognize each human being as a subtle energy system in constant relationship to a vast sea of energies in the surrounding cosmos. – Dr Edward Mann, Sociologist
Interpreted from this point of view, a schizophrenic breakdown is an inward and backward journey to recover something missed or lost, and to restore, thereby, a vital balance. So let the voyager go. He has tipped over and is sinking, perhaps drowning; yet, as in the old legend of Gilgamesh and his long, deep dive to the bottom of the cosmic sea to pluck the watercress of immortality, there is the one green value of his life down there. Don’t cut him off from it: help him through. – Joseph Campbell, Schizophrenia: The Inward Journey
We had a lot of trouble with western mental health workers who came here immediately after the genocide and we had to ask some of them to leave. They came and their practice did not involve being outside in the sun where you begin to feel better. There was no music or drumming to get your blood flowing again. There was no sense that everyone had taken the day off so that the entire community could come together to try to lift you up and bring you back to joy. There was no acknowledgement of the depression as something invasive and external that could actually be cast out again.Instead they would take people one at a time into these dingy little rooms and have them sit around for an hour or so and talk about bad things that had happened to them. We had to ask them to leave. – A Rwandan talking to writer, Andrew Solomon
The next big challenge is symptom suppression. Critics of the current model of care (who now seem to include the British Psychological Association) argue that psychiatric medication merely suppresses symptoms.
Research indicates that pineal involvement in mental health may go beyond psychosis. It is very likely that the pineal plays a significant role in the manifestation of several mental illnesses.
www.sciencedirect.com...
According to Bleuler (1911/1955) some psychic complexes creating aggregates of thoughts, feelings and affects may dominate personality structure, while other complexes may be “split off” and operate as fragments connected with the others in an “illogical” way. In historical context Bleuler's definition of “split mind” as a characteristic feature of disturbed cognition in schizophrenia is related to Descartes' proposal the binding multidimensional information from various sensory modalities that enables conscious experience (Bob, 2015 and Barrera-Mera and Barrera-Calva, 1998)
His study also helps settle a decades-long debate, providing further evidence that '___' does, in fact, mirror the symptoms and chemical activity found in the brains of schizophrenics.
Such extreme biological reductionism produces confusion that is rampant not only in high-profile policy outlets connected with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) but in conventional scholarly presentations, even by some of the most prominent psychopathology scientists. “The word mind refers to those functions of the body that reside in the brain” (Andreasen, 1984, p. 219, emphasis in original). But, as argued below, the mind is not the sort of entity that resides anywhere in space.
This chaos2 now permeates presentations aimed at the public. A popular personal investments columnist referred to “…the hippocampus, a part of the brain where long-term memory lives” (Zweig, 2007). But as discussed below, memory does not “live” anywhere—it has no specific physical location. A public-aimed Web site for a university clinic applies “leading-edge research to the clinical treatment of children who suffer from biological brain diseases such as bipolar disorder, depression, autism, and schizophrenia” (www.psych.uic.edu/clinical/child.htm, accessed 10/29/07). Numerous similar examples are readily available. Again, such statements that psychological events are nothing more than brain events, for all their recent popularity, are logical errors. Psychological pathology is not neural pathology. Redefining terms to avoid fundamental conceptual problems does not advance science.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
There are two problems in these statements from a Nobel Prize winner and a past president of the Society for Neuroscience. The lesser problem is the implication that scientists were not able to associate specific functions with specific brain regions until recently. But this has been possible, in various forms, for decades. One sees this type of “Scientists are now able to…” characterization of scientific progress in the popular press all the time. It misleads the public to think that we are finally on the verge of a decisive breakthrough—often the decisive breakthrough in some area—when in fact most progress is incremental. The more important problem with the 1992 statement is the claim that we can localize function at all. As argued above, mental events are not the sort of thing that has a spatial location. What we can do (increasingly often and increasingly well) is localize in space a portion of the tissue that seems differentially associated with mental events. “What we can do is correlate a person’s thinking of this or that with localized brain activity…. But this does not show that the brain is thinking, reflecting or ruminating; it shows that such-and-such parts of a person’s cortex are active when the person is thinking, reflecting or ruminating” (Bennett & Hacker, 2003, p. 83; emphasis in original). We cannot spatially localize those functions themselves: “…it makes scant sense to identify the mind with the brain…” (Bennett & Hacker, 2003, p. 105). Functions do not have location.
Under the headline “Area responsible for ‘self-control’ found in the human brain” appeared a story claiming that “The area of the brain responsible for self-control—where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it—is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience” (www.physorg.com/news106936688.html accessed March 4, 2010). It is unimaginable in modern cognitive neuroscience, however, that there is a single brain region responsible for self-control
Trust decisions and political attitudes do not occur in the brain. Decisions, feelings, perceptions, delusions, memories do not have a spatial location. We image brain events: electromagnetic, hemodynamic, and optical. We do not image, and cannot localize in space, psychological constructs. We can make inferences about the latter from the former, using bridge principles that connect observable data and hypothetical constructs. But the latter are not the former. “After all, we now have [neuroimaging] machines that can literally watch the mind at work.” (Watters, 2010). This is not true: EEG, MEG, fMRI, etc. watch the brain at work. What inferences we want to make about the mind based on such data are our constructions, not our observations
Why is studying this not a top research priority? If depression is just a chemical imbalance, and if drugs are the only way that a chemical imbalance can be addressed (two separate faulty assumptions), it is no wonder we have a dysfunctional mental health system. Assessment, prevention, and intervention are sorely (and expensively!) truncated by assumptions that, in part, are associated with the Decades of the Brain.
The Decade of the Brain necessarily had limits, because science constantly strives for parsimony, simplifying the picture to abstract what it can. We throw away data every time we compute a mean or a trend. We do so to make problems and theories and data more tractable, and we see how far we can get. When we find the limit, we are supposed to revise and try again—sometimes incrementally, sometimes with a more dramatic shift (Kuhn, 1962). The present critique does not fault the now-aging notion of the Decade of the Brain for what it was, but some limits have become clear. Let us revise and move on.
plato.stanford.edu...
The solution of this puzzle is to be found in a passage which Descartes wrote a few years before the Passions, in which he compared the mind with the heaviness or gravity of a body: “I saw that the gravity, while remaining coextensive with the heavy body, could exercise all its force in any one part of the body; for if the body were hung from a rope attached to any part of it, it would still pull the rope down with all its force, just as if all the gravity existed in the part actually touching the rope instead of being scattered through the remaining parts. This is exactly the way in which I now understand the mind to be coextensive with the body—the whole mind in the whole body and the whole mind in any one of its parts” (Replies to the sixth set of objections to the Meditations, 1641, AT VII:441, CSM II:297). He added that he thought that our ideas about gravity are derived from our conception of the soul.
originally posted by: Phage
One psychiatrist agrees...
Tom Cruise hates psychiatrists.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: neoholographic
Last week I woke up in the middle of a very clear dream that was about an envelope and a cheque. In the dream I couldn't seem to 'see' the value of the cheque because it was always out of focus.
The same day I was given an envelope and the same night was shown a cheque by a friend. I didn't notice the value of the cheque because my brain was recalling the dream and I was already telling her about it lol.
I'm not claiming to be psychic or saying anyone else is 'psychic.' I've had similar experiences and simply wonder if there's something our brains do that we're not currently able to understand. It's almost like an experience in our immediate futures can somehow impress upon our awareness in the present. For example, several years ago, I suddenly slammed on the car brakes because I *knew* a police speed trap was round the bend. They really were round the corner and I got a speeding ticket.
People often think of 'psychic' like they think of magic powers or Jedi abilities. I've a sneaking suspicion 'psychic' will turn out to be something measurable and natural that most, maybe all, of us experience.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: neoholographic
As a Psychic, while I see this as a good thing I'm fearful of how society will treat us if we are exposed out in the open. I fear the rise of discrimination against us a la the X Men.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Phage
Actually we all hallucinate this because the resultant effect of sensory input results in an internal representation.
I already explained that.
The study, led by Mount Sinai researcher Dr. Joel Dudley, proposed that since schizophrenia is relatively prevalent in humans despite being so detrimental—the condition affects over 1% of adults—that it perhaps has a complex evolutionary backstory that would explain its persistence and exclusivity to humans. Specifically they were curious about segments of our genome called human accelerated regions, or HARs. HARs are short stretches of DNA that while conserved in other species, underwent rapid evolution in humans following our split with chimpanzees, presumably since they provided some benefit specific to our species. Rather than encoding for proteins themselves, HARs often help regulate neighboring genes. Since both schizophrenia and HARs appear to be for the most part human-specific, the researchers wondered if there might be a connection between the two.
originally posted by: Phage
No. It isn't. It says that some people really think they hear voices that don't originate from their own heads.
The skeptic has been saying for years that Psychics are liars and charlatans but this study is telling us that some Psychics are telling the truth.
Just in case someone doesn't read the article, it says that you don't have to be tormented by those voices you hear. It just depend on your point of view.
They found that the voices experienced by this group are similar in many ways to those reported by people with schizophrenia, with a few big differences: Psychics are much more likely to perceive the voices as positive or helpful and as experiences that can be controlled, according to a new study published Sept. 28 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: neoholographic
First of all, a psychiatrist cannot validate claims of psychic capability. Why? Because psychiatry is a science in the same way that pop music is a concerto. It is soft edged, imprecise, and experimental doctrine in that field is about as rigorous as the much famed "man look" when a fellow has misplaced his keys.
Furthermore, I am surprised to see this distinction made between individuals who have negative or positive experiences with the voices in their heads, because as far as I was aware, the polarity of ones experiences do not have any effect on the diagnosis. If you hear voices, absent a speaker to speak them, then you have schizophrenia, not superpowers, regardless of whether they are telling you to eat the flesh of the innocent, or make sure that you tell the next person you meet that everything will be ok, and not to forget to pick up the laundry.
Now, scientifically speaking, showing a difference between these two is actually impossible, leading the critical thinker to believe that they are indeed, identical conditions which present differently depending on the particular mind in which they occur. However, you posted a list of supposed psychic abilities.
On that list, there are some capabilities which can be tested very easily, with a great deal of scientific methodology.
Levitation
Precognition
Pyrokinesis
Telekinesis
These, and probably ONLY these can be studied in a truly scientific fashion, with any hope of successful or useful result. Levitation, Pyrokinesis, and Telekinesis all have visible effects on solid matter, which can be recorded using a plethora of apparatus, in multiple spectra, without reliance on taking anyone at their word. Precognition could also be tested in a scientifically valid manner, by simply blindfolding an adept of the talent, and putting them in a room with fifty or so dodgeball launchers.
But testing one of the many supposed expressions of psychic powers, which are entirely internal in their outworking, seems a bloody stupid thing to do, if what you are after doing, is using ACTUAL science to study the claim that people walking the world, have psychic abilities.
originally posted by: sputniksteve
originally posted by: Phage
No. It isn't. It says that some people really think they hear voices that don't originate from their own heads.
The skeptic has been saying for years that Psychics are liars and charlatans but this study is telling us that some Psychics are telling the truth.
Just in case someone doesn't read the article, it says that you don't have to be tormented by those voices you hear. It just depend on your point of view.
They found that the voices experienced by this group are similar in many ways to those reported by people with schizophrenia, with a few big differences: Psychics are much more likely to perceive the voices as positive or helpful and as experiences that can be controlled, according to a new study published Sept. 28 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.
How is that not the same thing as telling the truth?