Our Hearts and Brains Emit Energy Fields

reply to post by KritikalMass


See, that's the problem.. There is no truth in the video posted in the OP. Human hormones do not affect planetary magnetic fields. An emotional response is nothing more than a cascade of various hormones. If I take the hormones for various emotions and put them in one hundred thousand gallon jugs, it will just sit there doing nothing. It won't affect anything at all.

reply to post by 5senses


Ok...

reply to post by bsbray11


Good, as long as we both understand that the beliefs you hold faith in to be true without evidence of being true does not make them true to reality.

Actually all of this is false. "Barely" is not a quantifiable word and according to the laws of electromagnetism, yes, the field has a definite effect outside of the body, and so do other sources of EM radiation have an effect upon the fields both inside and outside our bodies that are generated by these organs. Studies have already shown this.

The EM radiation generated by the human body is weaker than a fridge magnet. It has no appreciable affect on anything, certainly no where near enough energy to produce the slightest amount of force upon a paperclip. And again, can not produce any force at all on something that is non-magnetic.

Granted we can make magnetic fields that do produce force on non-magnetic materials, like frogs for instance... I don't know a single person who has the capacity to generate those kinds of electromagnetic fields. Certainly if they could we would have very strong evidence for this. Seeing as how we don't... I'm going to rule out pretty much every ESP power invented by charlatans.

Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what Dr. Bruce Lipton argues of each of our cells, and he even extends the metaphor to include the whole body. We take all of our cues for how to behave based on external stimuli, which in the case of cells is determined by reactions on the outside of the cell membrane. But with skin it's a little more complicated than that, since we also take in information from our eyes, ears, and other senses, and our logical faculties inside our head.

And yet, there is still only ONE brain. Remove that brain and the entire body either dies or... well dies.

Exactly. I think the whole body is a miracle.

Miracles don't exist. Lack of understanding is what produces the perception of something being miraculous. That's why magicians and illusionists still have jobs. Along with every single religion.

The definition of truth is not the same as the definition of scientific fact. Just making sure you already understand that.

I fully understand this, which is why I consider Einsteinian physics akin to a scientific religion. It just replaces a supernatural creation myth with one based on physics. In my opinion, faulty physics as it erroneously presupposes that reality is comprised of a space-time matrix with time being a fourth dimension of temporal travel. In all due respect, this is wrong. No such fourth dimension of temporal travel has ever been observed nor measured under any circumstance.

That everything is connected IS already proven. We even have a word for it: universe.

Not sure how you arrive to this conclusion. You are not connected directly physically to a star thirteen billion light years away. Both you and the star may coexist within the same universe, but never are you *physically* connected. You can pretend you are, but reality dictates that you are not and we can see this because you are you and not a vaporized mess of atoms as you would be if you were in physical contact with a star.

Just saying...

Originally posted by sirnex
Good, as long as we both understand that the beliefs you hold faith in to be true without evidence of being true does not make them true to reality.

Exactly, but it's not just me, your beliefs are also not "true to reality" without evidence. Your attitude problem is not justified by science, neither are your assertions that EM fields affect nothing. You would be dead without them, and this thread wouldn't have a fraction as much vitriol in it.

The EM radiation generated by the human body is weaker than a fridge magnet.

And that's hugely significant because we all look up to being as evolved as a fridge magnet.

It has no appreciable affect on anything

Only in your case. In most other human cases the EM fields that help keep us alive are actually productive and useful.

certainly no where near enough energy to produce the slightest amount of force upon a paperclip.

That's why you have arms and fingers my friend, which are operated by EM energies carried through your neurons.

And again, can not produce any force at all on something that is non-magnetic.

Through your body, they most certainly can and do every day.

Granted we can make magnetic fields that do produce force on non-magnetic materials, like frogs for instance... I don't know a single person who has the capacity to generate those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

And considering that you have hands, is this a huge disappointment for you? Is that why you think we are so interested in this topic, because we want to pick up frogs like we're using the force? Do you assume everyone else has equally immature ideals for how to use these energies as yourself?

And yet, there is still only ONE brain. Remove that brain and the entire body either dies or... well dies.

And remove your heart... You die. Remove your kidneys... You die. Remove your lungs... You die. Remove your intestines... You die. Remove the EM energies from your body... your heart stops beating... You die.

What was your point again? The fact that you die when you remove the brain somehow makes the brain superior to all other organs in the body, like it's a pissing contest between your organs? Is that what you're obsessed with? What are you trying to prove again?

Exactly. I think the whole body is a miracle.

Miracles don't exist.

Satisfaction, art, spirituality, none of the higher pursuits of mankind exist. In your life.

The body is still a miracle.

Lack of understanding is what produces the perception of something being miraculous. That's why magicians and illusionists still have jobs. Along with every single religion.

I call anything that is beautiful a miracle. And for good reason when you consider that people such as yourself also must exist in this world, because you aren't so beautiful now are you? Come on, let's be honest now. Use other posts on this thread as a meter if you want. I'm not the only one to pick up on your attitude problem, and it speaks volumes about your personal development.

I fully understand this, which is why I consider Einsteinian physics akin to a scientific religion.

Einstein was infinitely more spiritual than yourself. Want some quotes or will you start puking and punching yourself in the face?

That everything is connected IS already proven. We even have a word for it: universe.

Not sure how you arrive to this conclusion.

It's simple. The "universe" is one thing.

And it contains all things.

Therefore it involves and relates to all things.

Therefore there is a relationship between all things. We call it "the universe." It is a singularity of everything.

You are not connected directly physically to a star thirteen billion light years away.

You have proof of this, or you are assuming based on faith? Remember you're the one making this positive claim. I never made it. Let's see who really knows the difference between scientific fact and faith.

reply to post by bsbray11

Exactly, but it's not just me, your beliefs are also not "true to reality" without evidence. Your attitude problem is not justified by science, neither are your assertions that EM fields affect nothing. You would be dead without them, and this thread wouldn't have a fraction as much vitriol in it.

Pathetic wordplay. The EM fields generated by the human body have no appreciable affect upon the planets magnetic field as asserted by the OP; Nor does the Em field generated by the human body have any capacity to perform work or generate force upon both magnetic and non-magnetic materials.

And that's hugely significant because we all look up to being as evolved as a fridge magnet.

Right....

Only in your case. In most other human cases the EM fields that help keep us alive are actually productive and useful.

This statement has no bearing on the assertions given in the OP's video.

That's why you have arms and fingers my friend, which are operated by EM energies carried through your neurons.

If I'm not mistaken, a muscular contraction is more due to biochemical reactions which can be initiated by electrochemical influences. Yet in some cases such as a snake for example or other reptile species, even after being separated from the head/heart these biochemical reactions still produce a motive force in the muscular tissue causing it to contract for many hours after electrical activity has ceased to be generated or conducted. True, neurons transmit electrical energy throughout the body, yet this is not the only source of motive force causing thing's like your arms or fingers to move. Just saying.

Through your body, they most certainly can and do every day.

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

And considering that you have hands, is this a huge disappointment for you? Is that why you think we are so interested in this topic, because we want to pick up frogs like we're using the force? Do you assume everyone else has equally immature ideals for how to use these energies as yourself?

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

And remove your heart... You die. Remove your kidneys... You die. Remove your lungs... You die. Remove your intestines... You die. Remove the EM energies from your body... your heart stops beating... You die.

What was your point again? The fact that you die when you remove the brain somehow makes the brain superior to all other organs in the body, like it's a pissing contest between your organs? Is that what you're obsessed with? What are you trying to prove again?

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

Satisfaction, art, spirituality, none of the higher pursuits of mankind exist. In your life.

The body is still a miracle

The human body is nor more a miracle than a rock. Both were created by physical processes the naturally exist within our universe. The perception of it being a miracle is due to our lack of current understanding of these natural processes that lead to life emerging.

I call anything that is beautiful a miracle. And for good reason when you consider that people such as yourself also must exist in this world, because you aren't so beautiful now are you? Come on, let's be honest now. Use other posts on this thread as a meter if you want. I'm not the only one to pick up on your attitude problem, and it speaks volumes about your personal development.

Beauty is but a concept. Everything in it's own right can be considered beautiful, even what we may consider the most distasteful of things.

If our species murders another of our kind, it's considered wrong. If a lion murders for whatever reason another of it's kind, it's considered majestic and powerful.

Einstein was infinitely more spiritual than yourself. Want some quotes or will you start puking and punching yourself in the face?

There is only one quote given by Einstein that I need to see. One where he speaks out against those whom have taken his spiritual remarks as false assumptions that he believed in a creator.

It's simple. The "universe" is one thing.

And it contains all things.

Therefore it involves and relates to all things.

Therefore there is a relationship between all things. We call it "the universe." It is a singularity of everything.

An orange and a bouncy balls are both spherical in shape. Therefore an orange is a bouncy ball. The two are connected to each other due to their shape. What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have.

You have proof of this, or you are assuming based on faith? Remember you're the one making this positive claim. I never made it. Let's see who really knows the difference between scientific fact and faith.

The fact that you are alive and not a mess of atoms is the proof. Light yourself on fire if you need further verification that being physically connected to something with intense heat would mean the end of you.

Again...

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

Originally posted by sirnex

Exactly, but it's not just me, your beliefs are also not "true to reality" without evidence. Your attitude problem is not justified by science, neither are your assertions that EM fields affect nothing. You would be dead without them, and this thread wouldn't have a fraction as much vitriol in it.

Pathetic wordplay. The EM fields generated by the human body have no appreciable affect upon the planets magnetic field as asserted by the OP

Do you have evidence for this, too? There is an organization called the Global Consciousness Project which has been collecting data in recent years that contradicts your assertion. So I can only assume you must have some evidence in return to contradict them.

Here's their website:

noosphere.princeton.edu...


Notice "princeton" and "edu" in the URL, and take a couple early tips from that before you start slinging more insults and vitriolic language at anyone who accomplishes the difficult feat of disagreeing with you. Chances are the people running this project are much more educated than you are on the subject, and in general.

Nor does the Em field generated by the human body have any capacity to perform work or generate force upon both magnetic and non-magnetic materials.

And where is the evidence for this? In fact if this were true it would violate laws of physics, because electrons are mass and moving them is performing work, by definition.

Only in your case. In most other human cases the EM fields that help keep us alive are actually productive and useful.

This statement has no bearing on the assertions given in the OP's video.

The fact remains that I find being alive very useful, and this would be impossible without these EM fields, despite your apparent hatred of them. They still love you enough to keep you alive, and that's saying a lot.

That's why you have arms and fingers my friend, which are operated by EM energies carried through your neurons.

If I'm not mistaken, a muscular contraction is more due to biochemical reactions which can be initiated by electrochemical influences.

Did you notice the "electro" in the word "electrochemical"? Electric currents are being carried and are the key force involved. That's why when you grab an electric fence of a strong enough voltage, it causes your hand muscles to clamp down as if you stimulated them yourself, despite no chemicals being pumped into your hand. But respond by continuing to talk trash about how your body works, and how it's nothing special or anything to enjoy, please. You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the attitudes of many people in the world today, and will help to educate others.

Through your body, they most certainly can and do every day.

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

It's not a deflection unless you can actually find where someone is claiming they can move stuff with their EM field as if they're using the force from Star Wars. I was responding to something YOU came up with. You're the only one who has such a problem with using your hands that you automatically want your EM field to move things for you as soon as you learn about it, and think this is somehow an argument against the OP.

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

You keep saying this but I am responding directly to crap that YOU posted. If it wasn't in the OP to begin with, that's YOUR fault. I addressed it anyway. You're welcome.

The human body is nor more a miracle than a rock.

Again you speak only for yourself. I will take your word for it.

Both were created by physical processes the naturally exist within our universe. The perception of it being a miracle is due to our lack of current understanding of these natural processes that lead to life emerging.

There is nothing about science that tells you how to think or feel. You are very confused if you think science debunks feelings. Choosing to experience life as miraculous is a choice, and one that leads to a life style that you obviously want no part of. That's fine. But you also enjoy pissing on people's parades apparently, and I happen to enjoy pissing on the parades of people who piss on other peoples' parades.

Beauty is but a concept.

And a beautiful one at that!

Everything in it's own right can be considered beautiful, even what we may consider the most distasteful of things.

Yes, or by contrast, and as you demonstrate yourself, it is also possible to consider the most evolved and elevated aspects of nature as distasteful and worthless, and to talk trash about them and revile them.

If our species murders another of our kind, it's considered wrong. If a lion murders for whatever reason another of it's kind, it's considered majestic and powerful.

It depends on who you ask. I don't think lions killing each other is majestic. But you want to talk about science. Again, science doesn't dictate what your emotions should be.

Einstein was infinitely more spiritual than yourself. Want some quotes or will you start puking and punching yourself in the face?

There is only one quote given by Einstein that I need to see. One where he speaks out against those whom have taken his spiritual remarks as false assumptions that he believed in a creator.

That's what you think. I think you need to see these, too, if you want to call yourself a true Einsteinian:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

Do you express feelings of "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law"?

You seem to be dying to take a poop on all the natural laws that make up the body in this thread, with all the vitriolic language and miserable attitudes. Your words and Einstein's words are like night and day.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

I can only assume you never take account of your own personality, unless you thoroughly enjoy being perceived as fatally pessimistic by others.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

I seem to recall someone who was just expressing feelings of satisfaction over their perception of having more "common sense" than myself.

God does not play dice with the universe.

Did Einstein just say God?

God is subtle but he is not malicious.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.

Holy crap! "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe"..... Where have I read something like that before? Oh yeah, in my last post to you!

According to Einstein, you are delusional by your thoughts and feelings of being separated from the rest of the universe. Wow, getting called delusional from the grave by your own hero. Must be a pretty big blow to your ego. I'm guessing it'll just make you more arrogant, because what else do you know?


I'm starting to think Einstein had more in common with my own views than yours.

The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.

All of those are attributed to Einstein. Feel free to check them yourself.

It's simple. The "universe" is one thing.

And it contains all things.

Therefore it involves and relates to all things.

Therefore there is a relationship between all things. We call it "the universe." It is a singularity of everything.

An orange and a bouncy balls are both spherical in shape. Therefore an orange is a bouncy ball. The two are connected to each other due to their shape. What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have.

Ditto. I did not say I was the universe, or anything equivalent to the stupidity you just demonstrated. I said we are part of a whole that we call the universe, and are thus related to everything within it. I did not say we are equivalent to the universe, or even equivalent to any other specific part of it. I said there is a relation, represented by the word "universe." I am very careful in my words and my reasoning. You, on the other hand, have just presented a straw-man due to a misunderstanding of my words. And then on top of that you had the sheer arrogance of following it up with "What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have." I know saying things like that makes you feel good, but others are going to read that and feel quite differently about you.

You have proof of this, or you are assuming based on faith? Remember you're the one making this positive claim. I never made it. Let's see who really knows the difference between scientific fact and faith.

The fact that you are alive and not a mess of atoms is the proof.

Nothing in the history of science explains the huge leap you make between me being alive, and therefore I am not connected in any way to x. You are abusing logic by being ignorant of it, yet pretending to understand it out of your vitriolic arrogance. If you are familiar with the concept of a unified field theory in theoretical physics, you already have the context for a direct connection between me and any given star system, and that would be the unified field itself. Or we could make it easier on you and just refer to it as the universe. I'm in the same universe as any given star. I can look at them. Photons that come from them enter my body. There is a relationship in all of that whether you want to admit it or not.

Light yourself on fire if you need further verification that being physically connected to something with intense heat would mean the end of you.

All that proves is where my nervous system ends, which is not the same. For someone so arrogant, your understanding of formal reasoning does not justify your attitude.

Your deflection towards my argument against the OP is duly noted.

If I'm deflecting from your argument, then you must have had no argument. I would ask that you clarify exactly what you think your "argument" against the OP is.

reply to post by bsbray11

Do you have evidence for this, too? There is an organization called the Global Consciousness Project which has been collecting data in recent years that contradicts your assertion. So I can only assume you must have some evidence in return to contradict them.

Here's their website:

noosphere.princeton.edu...


Notice "princeton" and "edu" in the URL, and take a couple early tips from that before you start slinging more insults and vitriolic language at anyone who accomplishes the difficult feat of disagreeing with you. Chances are the people running this project are much more educated than you are on the subject, and in general.

Your fallacy of defective induction, otherwise known as argument from authority in this case is duly noted.

The GCP, while having a web presence hosted by Princeton has not proven anything it has set out to prove. Even the example of the 9/11 attacks as cited by the OP video, the GCP claimed no casual relationship occurred. Yet the OP's video cites a distinct change in the Earth magnetic field during that troubling event.

And where is the evidence for this? In fact if this were true it would violate laws of physics, because electrons are mass and moving them is performing work, by definition.

Your attempt to deflect my argument against the OP is duly noted. The EM fields generated by the human body in no way have any affect upon the Earth's magnetic field. Our planet's magnetic field naturally and constantly fluctuates regardless of how you or I "feel" about it, or "feel" about anything. A cascade of hormones can not nor do not affect the magnetic field of an entire planet.

The fact remains that I find being alive very useful, and this would be impossible without these EM fields, despite your apparent hatred of them. They still love you enough to keep you alive, and that's saying a lot.

EM radiation do not have "feelings" Your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted yet again.

Did you notice the "electro" in the word "electrochemical"? Electric currents are being carried and are the key force involved. That's why when you grab an electric fence of a strong enough voltage, it causes your hand muscles to clamp down as if you stimulated them yourself, despite no chemicals being pumped into your hand. But respond by continuing to talk trash about how your body works, and how it's nothing special or anything to enjoy, please. You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the attitudes of many people in the world today, and will help to educate others.

Did you purposefully ignore my statement quoted which mentions biochemical reactions in which to formulate a response about electrochemical responses? Mind you, the two are distinct and separate from one another and both play a role in the human organism.

It's not a deflection unless you can actually find where someone is claiming they can move stuff with their EM field as if they're using the force from Star Wars. I was responding to something YOU came up with. You're the only one who has such a problem with using your hands that you automatically want your EM field to move things for you as soon as you learn about it, and think this is somehow an argument against the OP.

Please quote me on where I have specifically mentioned electrochemical responses that which cause motive force in the human body is where my problem lays. Again, your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted.

You keep saying this but I am responding directly to crap that YOU posted. If it wasn't in the OP to begin with, that's YOUR fault. I addressed it anyway. You're welcome.

You have yet to address my criticism against the OP's video in which it argues that the human emotions can affect planetary magnetic fields. Instead you have argued through wordplay in various attempts to deflect from that criticism in a futile and infantile fashion with little to no actual though put behind your counter arguments.

There is nothing about science that tells you how to think or feel. You are very confused if you think science debunks feelings. Choosing to experience life as miraculous is a choice, and one that leads to a life style that you obviously want no part of. That's fine. But you also enjoy pissing on people's parades apparently, and I happen to enjoy pissing on the parades of people who piss on other peoples' parades.

I am not attempting to piss on anyone's parade here. A hormonal response simply does not possess the capacity to affect planetary magnetic fields. It's physics, that's all. Either you are under the belief that hormonal responses do indeed cause changes in planetary magnetic fields or you are not. Based upon your style of argumentation I can only assume you believe the OP's video to be an accurate depiction of what occurs.

Yes, or by contrast, and as you demonstrate yourself, it is also possible to consider the most evolved and elevated aspects of nature as distasteful and worthless, and to talk trash about them and revile them.

I would hardly consider the perpetuation of archaic prehistoric metaphysical concepts as being "most evolved and elevated aspects of nature". Sure, maybe back in prehistoric times when shamans "wowed" the masses by taking drugs and "predicting when the sun would disappear in the sky" was pretty amazing... Still, it adds no credibility to the metaphysical regardless of whatever modern terminology we wish to throw upon it.

It depends on who you ask. I don't think lions killing each other is majestic. But you want to talk about science. Again, science doesn't dictate what your emotions should be.

Science doesn't dictate emotions, this is true, but science does tell us how emotional responses occur. Emotions are caused by hormonal responses to external stimuli.

That's what you think. I think you need to see these, too, if you want to call yourself a true Einsteinian:

I personally detest Einsteinian religion. Could you please provide the quote I was speaking of previously? Or would your acceptance of his mention of that specific quote hurt your argument that he was a religious man?

If I say only God knows in answer to a question, does that make me a believer of God? Perhaps you lack ability to grasp simple rhetoric?

Do you express feelings of "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law"?

You seem to be dying to take a poop on all the natural laws that make up the body in this thread, with all the vitriolic language and miserable attitudes. Your words and Einstein's words are like night and day.

Your ability to take out of context and deflect are as bright as day around noon on a warm summer day.

I can only assume you never take account of your own personality, unless you thoroughly enjoy being perceived as fatally pessimistic by others.

Where am I being pessimistic in my criticism against the OP's video? Hormones simply do not affect planetary magnetic fields.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

I seem to recall someone who was just expressing feelings of satisfaction over their perception of having more "common sense" than myself.

I wish you could briefly reflect upon that quote in your quest to understand the world around you.

Did Einstein just say God?

Many non religious persons mention God on a daily basis. Would you like to provide that quote given by Einstein that I was speaking of earlier about people who wish to take his mention of spirituality and God out of context... Or would you rather me do it for you?

Holy crap! "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe"..... Where have I read something like that before? Oh yeah, in my last post to you!

According to Einstein, you are delusional by your thoughts and feelings of being separated from the rest of the universe. Wow, getting called delusional from the grave by your own hero. Must be a pretty big blow to your ego. I'm guessing it'll just make you more arrogant, because what else do you know?


I'm starting to think Einstein had more in common with my own views than yours.

Again, you are failing to grasp simple rhetoric in an attempt to grasp at any mere mention of your belief structure. This is if I'm not mistaken called confirmation bias.

All of those are attributed to Einstein. Feel free to check them yourself.

And please, by all means equally feel free to provide the quote in which Einstein attacks the misuse of these quotes in futile and infantile attempts to call him a spiritual and religious man.

Ditto. I did not say I was the universe, or anything equivalent to the stupidity you just demonstrated. I said we are part of a whole that we call the universe, and are thus related to everything within it. I did not say we are equivalent to the universe, or even equivalent to any other specific part of it. I said there is a relation, represented by the word "universe." I am very careful in my words and my reasoning. You, on the other hand, have just presented a straw-man due to a misunderstanding of my words. And then on top of that you had the sheer arrogance of following it up with "What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have." I know saying things like that makes you feel good, but others are going to read that and feel quite differently about you.

So, you admit to purposefully muddying your language? Yes, I agree all things exist within the universe. I do not agree that all things are physically connected to each other. Please be more clear with your language and terminology. Your attempt to detract your "connectedness" argument is duly noted. I suggest buying a dictionary and learning the definition of connected.

Nothing in the history of science explains the huge leap you make between me being alive, and therefore I am not connected in any way to x. You are abusing logic by being ignorant of it, yet pretending to understand it out of your vitriolic arrogance. If you are familiar with the concept of a unified field theory in theoretical physics, you already have the context for a direct connection between me and any given star system, and that would be the unified field itself. Or we could make it easier on you and just refer to it as the universe. I'm in the same universe as any given star. I can look at them. Photons that come from them enter my body. There is a relationship in all of that whether you want to admit it or not.

The unified field theory nor any derivative to my knowledge remotely suggests that you are connected (again please look up the definition of the terminology before usage) to a star 13 billion light years away. The unified field theory is an attempt to unify the physical forces in nature, that being gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces. Your attempt to "prove" a physical connection to a star 13 billion light years away is rather infantile. Yes, photons from that star reach us, but again... that is not akin to connection.

All that proves is where my nervous system ends, which is not the same. For someone so arrogant, your understanding of formal reasoning does not justify your attitude.

Please define connected. Your definition is apparently not the standard definition and in order for me to understand your usage of the terminology I would require your personal changed definition which seems to deviate from the standard. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone when they make personal definitions to common words.

If I'm deflecting from your argument, then you must have had no argument. I would ask that you clarify exactly what you think your "argument" against the OP is.

I can only assume you lack proper short term memory or have a reading comprehension issue. I've mentioned many times now in regards to my criticism of the OP's video in which it asserts that human emotions can affect planetary magnetic fields. Without looking back at my previous post's, I'm pretty certain I've mentioned this in every correspondence between you and I. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought this was going to be a thread about human biology and wondered why it was in metaphysics. Now I understand.

I think we all need to realize how poorly these issues are understood (especially by "science").

For instance: anyone who studies spiritual teachings or uses spiritual practices has more or less certainty that there is at least one other "energy source" in the picture that science overlooks: the being (spirit) itself.

Those that have studied various mystical traditions are aware of the chakras, and each of these could be considered a separate source for its own unique energy field.

To assume that just because most people cannot hear radio stations or similar does not mean that they cannot receive or are not affected by radio-frequency fields.

To assume that all thought occurs in the brain just because the various energy fields involved cannot easily be seen or detected is not particularly good science, either.

In the mystical system, all the chakras as well as the being itself are capable of thought on some level, and in the simplified form I've studied there are at least two spiritual entities associated with a body, and each one has at least one mind that exists as an energy field and not simply as a neural complex.

The concept that the heart is associated with a kind of thinking that could be described as love-based or feminine is ancient and resonates with us. I don't know how literally accurate it is. I see the dissonance between love-based thought and logic-based thought mostly as an artificial product of thousands if not millions of years of mental manipulation. It has created a sort of artificial schizophrenia that pits these two ways of thinking against each other, when they should complement each other.

I see the body and its organization as a metaphor for, or product of, higher-level energetic relationships and not the source of them.

reply to post by l_e_cox

I thought this was going to be a thread about human biology and wondered why it was in metaphysics. Now I understand.

Certainly!

I think we all need to realize how poorly these issues are understood (especially by "science").

There is nothing to "poorly understand" here. If it has an affect, it is measurable, we can quantify it's affect. Metaphysics falls outside this realm, for all intents and purposes, it simply does not appear to exist to reality and is simply a construct of human invention dating back to the very first shaman/medicine man. It's by far the oldest archaic belief structure that has evolved into various belief systems and religions through the course of human history.

For instance: anyone who studies spiritual teachings or uses spiritual practices has more or less certainty that there is at least one other "energy source" in the picture that science overlooks: the being (spirit) itself.

Belief in spiritual energies or powers is a cognitive disorder called "true-believer syndrome". A very well known illusionist, Chris Angel demonstrates this wonderfully in one of his television episodes where he reads the same exact tarot card readings to every participant causing intense emotional responses in them, with them all commenting on how accurate the "readings" were.

Those that have studied various mystical traditions are aware of the chakras, and each of these could be considered a separate source for its own unique energy field.

Chakras are a Hindu concept and have no bearing on other esoteric teachings.

To assume that just because most people cannot hear radio stations or similar does not mean that they cannot receive or are not affected by radio-frequency fields.

The analogy is piss poor. Radio frequencies can be detected and measured.

To assume that all thought occurs in the brain just because the various energy fields involved cannot easily be seen or detected is not particularly good science, either.

Nor is it equally good to blindly believe something based upon confirmation biases. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. Many time's I've thought of someone, like a close relative and they've called me or sent me a text. Never do I utilize this coincidence as a belief that I have precognitive powers.

In the mystical system, all the chakras as well as the being itself are capable of thought on some level, and in the simplified form I've studied there are at least two spiritual entities associated with a body, and each one has at least one mind that exists as an energy field and not simply as a neural complex.

Energy must be generated by something. Energy is quantifiable. Where is this other mind's energy being generated? What medium does it exist within? What evidence has been provided that shows this? These are all questions you can not answer because you lack the answers.

The concept that the heart is associated with a kind of thinking that could be described as love-based or feminine is ancient and resonates with us. I don't know how literally accurate it is. I see the dissonance between love-based thought and logic-based thought mostly as an artificial product of thousands if not millions of years of mental manipulation. It has created a sort of artificial schizophrenia that pits these to ways of thinking against each other, when they should complement each other.

The belief is based upon relationships, fundamentally. When one falls in love, a cascade of hormones induce the heart to beat faster. We can feel these irregular heartbeats when under the influence of hormones we associate with the feeling of love. This is the simple reason why the heart is associated with this feeling.

I see the body and its organization as a metaphor for, or product of, higher-level energetic relationships and not the source of them.

What would specifically lead you to such a conclusion? Surely you would have tangible evidence in which to produce? I abhor blind belief.

think about this : one person having " good vibes " ( as I will call it ) will not influence the bigger world around !! nevertheless, one person can influence another person with his thoughts : it's called Reiki for example - on the other hand we have voodoo, a curse etc that can influence another person in a very negativ way !
I think we can agree those things exist.
So we do not speak here about ONE person, but about 100.000's man, women,children having all together at the same time the same positiv thinking, feelings, concentration to achieve some positiv target, evolution or whatever. That is the discussion here ! Lot's of people having " good vibes " that will influence the bigger picture.
Lots of heartbeats, lots of energy fields joining together to make one big field.
Otherwise you never can explain some events that occur and are incomprehensible without such theory : revolutions for example : what happens in Egypt, Lybia etc etc the people are in the same mood, with the same expectings, the same feelings, the same enthousiasm and energy that makes it all happen - until sometimes the mood changes and everybody gets scared about the situation, then the force is gone, you feel sad, everybody feels sad.
Global consciousness, global oneness means all together, not just one person in his chair ( does not mean that person is not important of course ! ).

reply to post by sirnex


Hey! I would like to explain exactly why the gut is also called a second brain. It's because
whenever you feel depressed, or agitated, or really stressed out, all this built up tension in
your body gets relieved through the gut. Ask any doctor you know, you'll get the same answer.
There is a psychosomatic connection between our feelings (especially stress and anxiety)
and the way our gut functions by processing those feelings. Even though this fact
has been scientifically proven, the scientists still can't understand why exactly this connection
takes place. So, believing that humans can affect the magnetic field is completely up to you,
since it has not been scientifically proven (yet). However, the gut is referred to as a second brain
because of its ability to express human feelings through body functions, and this is a scientific
fact.

Originally posted by sirnex
Your fallacy of defective induction, otherwise known as argument from authority in this case is duly noted.

You'll call fallacies when it's convenient for you, but then argue from "common sense" (a totally meaningless phrase) in the next instant. I just know your penchant for slinging insults, as already demonstrated, and you might want to think an extra time before slinging insults when you're talking about an Ivy Leage school. If new information were little-understood, and only the wealthiest schools could afford to invest in them, do you realize how that could relate to your role as basically the status-quo-maintaining mob that always resists new information? I'm just wondering if you've ever thought about that.

The GCP, while having a web presence hosted by Princeton has not proven anything it has set out to prove. Even the example of the 9/11 attacks as cited by the OP video, the GCP claimed no casual relationship occurred. Yet the OP's video cites a distinct change in the Earth magnetic field during that troubling event.

Causal, not casual. As in identifying a cause. The fact remains that they observed statistical anomalies on dates like 9/11 that indicate a "coincidence" with large emotional events (emotional to humans). That in itself is what they are studying, and the implications contradict what you were saying earlier about human energy fields being unable to register a change in the environment. Not to mention you don't have any actual proof of your claim anyway, you just assume it from ignorance, and argument from ignorance is another fallacy if you want to jot that down.

And where is the evidence for this? In fact if this were true it would violate laws of physics, because electrons are mass and moving them is performing work, by definition.

Your attempt to deflect my argument against the OP is duly noted.

So now you're playing the robot whenever your arguments get shot down. Okay. You said our energy fields can't do work. Well work in physics is defined (one definition) as displacing mass. Electrons are mass. They are displaced. The EM energy fields around our body therefore do work. That is not a "deflection," that is what you would call a debunking of your claim. The EM energy fields do work on a much more subtle level than the arms and legs they command, but they do work nonetheless and this is how they interact with your body.

The EM fields generated by the human body in no way have any affect upon the Earth's magnetic field.

Again you make a statement with no proof. This is argument from ignorance. Do you have scientific papers to validate this claim?

EM radiation do not have "feelings" Your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted yet again.

So what do you do with all these "deflections" that you take due note of? Do you count them up and see what score you get at the end?

Did you notice the "electro" in the word "electrochemical"? Electric currents are being carried and are the key force involved. That's why when you grab an electric fence of a strong enough voltage, it causes your hand muscles to clamp down as if you stimulated them yourself, despite no chemicals being pumped into your hand. But respond by continuing to talk trash about how your body works, and how it's nothing special or anything to enjoy, please. You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the attitudes of many people in the world today, and will help to educate others.

Did you purposefully ignore my statement quoted which mentions biochemical reactions in which to formulate a response about electrochemical responses? Mind you, the two are distinct and separate from one another and both play a role in the human organism.

Yes, I purposefully ignored it, so I could explain what is in the quote of mine immediately above this text. Once again, go back to the original context. You're trying to say electricity doesn't really control the actions of our arms and legs? Put it this way: without electric flow, you arms and legs and etc. wouldn't move.

It's not a deflection unless you can actually find where someone is claiming they can move stuff with their EM field as if they're using the force from Star Wars. I was responding to something YOU came up with. You're the only one who has such a problem with using your hands that you automatically want your EM field to move things for you as soon as you learn about it, and think this is somehow an argument against the OP.

Please quote me on where I have specifically mentioned electrochemical responses that which cause motive force in the human body is where my problem lays. Again, your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted.

You just keep saying electric fields can't do work, don't affect anything, are insignificant, etc. And you are obviously wrong because they control your body which is perfectly capable of doing work, including your thinking. Without those energies, you would be totally useless. Do you see why they are significant to talk about now? Not because we think they're going to give us super powers, like you seem to assume. But because of what they do on the subtle level that you seem to hate, unless it gives you those super powers so you can pick up frogs like a magnet.

You have yet to address my criticism against the OP's video in which it argues that the human emotions can affect planetary magnetic fields.

Yes, I have. I noted that your argument is an argument from ignorance. You just say it doesn't affect it, and that's it. You think because you won't accept any evidence for it, then that means you somehow have evidence to the contrary. Too bad it doesn't work that way. That's why they invented the phrase "argument from ignorance." You confuse being debunked with "deflecting." I'm going to assume that's some form of cognitive dissonance.

I am not attempting to piss on anyone's parade here. A hormonal response simply does not possess the capacity to affect planetary magnetic fields. It's physics, that's all.

This is the problem. If anything, the physics proves you wrong. You aren't even citing any actual field or laws of physics. You are thinking on a mundane level, like these forces should be able to pick up frogs or else they're useless. That's literally what your argument has amounted to. You've posted no sources, nothing to suggest your "criticism" has actually been validated in any way.

Yes, or by contrast, and as you demonstrate yourself, it is also possible to consider the most evolved and elevated aspects of nature as distasteful and worthless, and to talk trash about them and revile them.

I would hardly consider the perpetuation of archaic prehistoric metaphysical concepts as being "most evolved and elevated aspects of nature".

I was talking about the human body itself being evolved and elevated, not the idea of thinking of it as miraculous. Apparently the more evolved being to you is a grouch that gets irritated just by people, like Einstein, pointing out that we're part of a much bigger whole, and then starts condescending to them and talking about how great he feels to know he has more "common sense" than me.

Science doesn't dictate emotions, this is true, but science does tell us how emotional responses occur. Emotions are caused by hormonal responses to external stimuli.

Sure, but they can't predict how any one person will react to any given stimuli.

I personally detest Einsteinian religion. Could you please provide the quote I was speaking of previously? Or would your acceptance of his mention of that specific quote hurt your argument that he was a religious man?

I'm not even religious myself. Apparently me posting Einstein quotes is an "argument that he was a religious man." That speaks for itself.

Aww, you don't like the quotes I posted and you want me to go find your favorite one. Noooo.

If I say only God knows in answer to a question, does that make me a believer of God? Perhaps you lack ability to grasp simple rhetoric?

Oh you're going into denial now. I guess you're going to say his thing about mankind being part of a whole called the universe was a joke, too? Einstein mentioned God so much that even though he wasn't a Christian, he obviously believed in some intelligent order and he said as much himself on numerous occasions. Of course he thought there is a natural order; he was a mathematician.

Do you express feelings of "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law"?

Your ability to take out of context and deflect are as bright as day around noon on a warm summer day.

Well Einstein just put value on feeling the rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, so I thought I would share that quote with you, so you could reflect rapturously on that amazing harmony of natural law yourself some time and get to know your hero Einstein's view on the world a little better.

Where am I being pessimistic in my criticism against the OP's video? Hormones simply do not affect planetary magnetic fields.

Well maybe pessimistic isn't the right word. It would probably take a harsher word. I mean you resorted to slinging insults early on, and gloating about how much more sense you had. Those are the kind of personality traits I was comparing to Einstein's quote.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.

I seem to recall someone who was just expressing feelings of satisfaction over their perception of having more "common sense" than myself.

I wish you could briefly reflect upon that quote in your quest to understand the world around you.

Yeah, ignore your own words just to point it back at me. I bet you wish Einstein had been vaguer so you could have pulled that with all his quotes huh?

Did Einstein just say God?

Many non religious persons mention God on a daily basis. Would you like to provide that quote given by Einstein that I was speaking of earlier about people who wish to take his mention of spirituality and God out of context... Or would you rather me do it for you?

How many people do you know of that don't believe in God, but use God in profound quotes to explain points of view on life, nature, etc.?

Again, you are failing to grasp simple rhetoric in an attempt to grasp at any mere mention of your belief structure. This is if I'm not mistaken called confirmation bias.

No, no, let's compare again.

My quote:

It's simple. The "universe" is one thing.

And it contains all things.

Therefore it involves and relates to all things.

Therefore there is a relationship between all things. We call it "the universe." It is a singularity of everything.

Einstein's quote:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.

Einstein's quote reads almost as if he was summing up our entire discussion, rather than just the one point about us being "part of the whole, called by us Universe." Part of something. That is a relation. You can deny it all you want. It's sad, like you're denying your own family member or something, like a Westboro member denying their own daughter. You came from the universe yet want to claim that you have nothing to do with it.

All of those are attributed to Einstein. Feel free to check them yourself.

And please, by all means equally feel free to provide the quote in which Einstein attacks the misuse of these quotes in futile and infantile attempts to call him a spiritual and religious man.

Find your own damned quotes to post.

Ditto. I did not say I was the universe, or anything equivalent to the stupidity you just demonstrated. I said we are part of a whole that we call the universe, and are thus related to everything within it. I did not say we are equivalent to the universe, or even equivalent to any other specific part of it. I said there is a relation, represented by the word "universe." I am very careful in my words and my reasoning. You, on the other hand, have just presented a straw-man due to a misunderstanding of my words. And then on top of that you had the sheer arrogance of following it up with "What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have." I know saying things like that makes you feel good, but others are going to read that and feel quite differently about you.

So, you admit to purposefully muddying your language?

That is not in any way shape or form what I just said in the quote above.

In fact I said the exact opposite, that I bolded: I am very careful in my words and my reasoning.

What you just did, was confirm exactly what that quote above is talking about. You don't even understand what I'm saying and you respond anyway. You don't even respond to what I say. That is exactly what I was just talking about, and you DID IT AGAIN while responding to me pointing it out to you. Ridiculous. The common sense is just oozing out of you isn't it?

Yes, I agree all things exist within the universe. I do not agree that all things are physically connected to each other.

Did I say physically connected to each other? No. The closest thing to that I said, was that my spine ISN'T physically attached to anything else. What did I just say about responding to things I didn't even post? You seem to have some kind of negative religious obsession where you assume everyone is out to convince you of something that was always wrong and always will be wrong, forever, no matter what, "amen." If you didn't try to read between the lines you would be alright.

Please be more clear with your language and terminology.

That's your fault for reading too much into my posts. Respond only to things that I actually say, and you won't be so confused. Same with the OP. There is nothing about being physically bonded to anything else, nothing about picking up frogs like we're human supermagnets, nothing about anyone else screaming when you set me on fire or any kind of garbage like that. You're right that something isn't clear here, but it's not been my language or terminology, and same with the OP.

Your attempt to detract your "connectedness" argument is duly noted. I suggest buying a dictionary and learning the definition of connected.

Actually you can look up the definitions of words on the internet now, and I welcome you to post it.

The unified field theory nor any derivative to my knowledge remotely suggests that you are connected (again please look up the definition of the terminology before usage) to a star 13 billion light years away.

It would mean that a unified field gave rise to both me and the star, and that we both continued to exist within that unified field. It's basically the same thing as saying we are in the same universe, and yes, that in itself is significant. NO!, it doesn't mean "now you have super powers, you can pick up that frog and other people will scream if we burn you." Okay, is THAT clear enough for you yet?

Please define connected.

Please use a dictionary.

Go ahead and look it up yourself, pick your favorite website and post the definition.

we also may not forget the " aura " which is also, I think, a manifestation of the body ( electromagnetic ) force ....
never underestimate electromagnetic radiation force ! it can go through the whole universe.
How do you think they make a electrocardio ?
you will tell me those heart EM radiation does not go very far, but what do we know about it ?
First of all, our instruments are maybe just too rudimentary to pick this up on a bigger distance, and secondly lots of radiation in harmonic resonance can make a little field/force become a very big one !
Science is just on the beginning of this research, now comes the new level of science : the one that will combine the spiritual level and the material one, like we see already happening in quantum physics.
Hope I'll live a very long life ! just to see this all happen and become WAW a super science ! I am impatient, very impatient !

reply to post by Sunlionspirit

think about this : one person having " good vibes " ( as I will call it ) will not influence the bigger world around !! nevertheless, one person can influence another person with his thoughts : it's called Reiki for example - on the other hand we have voodoo, a curse etc that can influence another person in a very negativ way !

Placebo effect and nocebo effect, both pretty well known phenomena.

I think we can agree those things exist.

Yes, those phenomena do exist, but our explanations behind those phenomena are different. One a well studied and known cognitive response and the other a made up "mystical" answer with no evidence for.

So we do not speak here about ONE person, but about 100.000's man, women,children having all together at the same time the same positiv thinking, feelings, concentration to achieve some positiv target, evolution or whatever. That is the discussion here ! Lot's of people having " good vibes " that will influence the bigger picture.

The GCP has yet to conclusively prove that mass consciousness and thought has any appreciable affect on anything, including the 9/11 attack and it's supposed affect upon the planets magnetic field as cited in the OP video.

Lots of heartbeats, lots of energy fields joining together to make one big field.

Learn some rudimentary physics. Doesn't work that way, sorry.

Otherwise you never can explain some events that occur and are incomprehensible without such theory : revolutions for example : what happens in Egypt, Lybia etc etc the people are in the same mood, with the same expectings, the same feelings, the same enthousiasm and energy that makes it all happen - until sometimes the mood changes and everybody gets scared about the situation, then the force is gone, you feel sad, everybody feels sad.

Feelings alone are not the root causation of acts of those civil uprisings and protests.

Global consciousness, global oneness means all together, not just one person in his chair ( does not mean that person is not important of course ! ).

Consciousness means self aware. Our collective ability to be self aware of ourselves does not enhance if we're all in the same room. You are as self aware as you will ever be, from birth to death.

reply to post by Imogene72

Hey! I would like to explain exactly why the gut is also called a second brain. It's because
whenever you feel depressed, or agitated, or really stressed out, all this built up tension in
your body gets relieved through the gut. Ask any doctor you know, you'll get the same answer.
There is a psychosomatic connection between our feelings (especially stress and anxiety)
and the way our gut functions by processing those feelings. Even though this fact
has been scientifically proven, the scientists still can't understand why exactly this connection
takes place. So, believing that humans can affect the magnetic field is completely up to you,
since it has not been scientifically proven (yet). However, the gut is referred to as a second brain
because of its ability to express human feelings through body functions, and this is a scientific
fact.

The terminology "the second brain" is a media sensationalist term. The science behind cortisol and other stress hormones and it's affect upon the body at large, not just the gut, simply doesn't implicate or describe the gut as a second brain.

reply to post by bsbray11

You'll call fallacies when it's convenient for you, but then argue from "common sense" (a totally meaningless phrase) in the next instant. I just know your penchant for slinging insults, as already demonstrated, and you might want to think an extra time before slinging insults when you're talking about an Ivy Leage school. If new information were little-understood, and only the wealthiest schools could afford to invest in them, do you realize how that could relate to your role as basically the status-quo-maintaining mob that always resists new information? I'm just wondering if you've ever thought about that.

You argued from authority. If you take offense to me pointing this out, then perhaps the issue lies within you and not me. Nor have a flung a direct insult towards you, if memory serves me correctly. I do appreciate the slight deviation into a straw-man argument though, it was mildly entertaining.

Causal, not casual. As in identifying a cause. The fact remains that they observed statistical anomalies on dates like 9/11 that indicate a "coincidence" with large emotional events (emotional to humans). That in itself is what they are studying, and the implications contradict what you were saying earlier about human energy fields being unable to register a change in the environment. Not to mention you don't have any actual proof of your claim anyway, you just assume it from ignorance, and argument from ignorance is another fallacy if you want to jot that down.

The fact remains that independent analysis did not observe any statistical anomalies at all. Again, argument from authority in conjunction with confirmation bias.

So now you're playing the robot whenever your arguments get shot down. Okay. You said our energy fields can't do work. Well work in physics is defined (one definition) as displacing mass. Electrons are mass. They are displaced. The EM energy fields around our body therefore do work. That is not a "deflection," that is what you would call a debunking of your claim. The EM energy fields do work on a much more subtle level than the arms and legs they command, but they do work nonetheless and this is how they interact with your body.

Your deflection of my criticism against the OP's video is once again duly noted. Simply pretending that I'm talking about the inner workings of muscular contraction in hands and arms is rather infantile as no mention of those causation's has yet to be called into question by myself.

Again you make a statement with no proof. This is argument from ignorance. Do you have scientific papers to validate this claim?

Hold a compass. Does it still work? Please explain how the Em field emitted by the human organism can affect a planetary magnetic field but has no affect upon the workings of a compass.

So what do you do with all these "deflections" that you take due note of? Do you count them up and see what score you get at the end?

I'm just attempting to make you aware that my issue lays with the OP's video and not with muscular contractions of hands and arms as you keep pretending.

Yes, I purposefully ignored it, so I could explain what is in the quote of mine immediately above this text. Once again, go back to the original context. You're trying to say electricity doesn't really control the actions of our arms and legs? Put it this way: without electric flow, you arms and legs and etc. wouldn't move.

I never said electrochemical processes have no control in muscular contraction. Please quote that specific statement. I appreciate this bout of entertaining deflection and ill thought out arguments though.

You just keep saying electric fields can't do work, don't affect anything, are insignificant, etc. And you are obviously wrong because they control your body which is perfectly capable of doing work, including your thinking. Without those energies, you would be totally useless. Do you see why they are significant to talk about now? Not because we think they're going to give us super powers, like you seem to assume. But because of what they do on the subtle level that you seem to hate, unless it gives you those super powers so you can pick up frogs like a magnet.

What your doing is called quoting out of context, another logical fallacy, which you appear to be very fond of. My mention of the human organisms EM field not being strong enough to do work or exert force is clearly (in context) in reference to instances such as moving a paperclip or affecting the Earth's magnetic field. I do appreciate your entertaining straw man arguments though.

Yes, I have. I noted that your argument is an argument from ignorance. You just say it doesn't affect it, and that's it. You think because you won't accept any evidence for it, then that means you somehow have evidence to the contrary. Too bad it doesn't work that way. That's why they invented the phrase "argument from ignorance." You confuse being debunked with "deflecting." I'm going to assume that's some form of cognitive dissonance.

No evidence has thus been provided which indicates that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields. Your mention of argument from ignorance was only just now first mentioned in this last reply in regards to not having previously address my criticism against the OP's video. No attempt has been made upon to debunk that criticism except through straw man arguments about the electrochemical roles involved in muscular contraction within the human body.

This is the problem. If anything, the physics proves you wrong. You aren't even citing any actual field or laws of physics. You are thinking on a mundane level, like these forces should be able to pick up frogs or else they're useless. That's literally what your argument has amounted to. You've posted no sources, nothing to suggest your "criticism" has actually been validated in any way.

Please levitate a paperclip or cause a compass needle to spin by placing your hand over them. Again, my criticism has nothing to do with electrochemical responses that cause muscular contractions within the human body. I'm simply in awe that you are still hung up on this straw man argument.

I was talking about the human body itself being evolved and elevated, not the idea of thinking of it as miraculous. Apparently the more evolved being to you is a grouch that gets irritated just by people, like Einstein, pointing out that we're part of a much bigger whole, and then starts condescending to them and talking about how great he feels to know he has more "common sense" than me.

Of course I feel great, give me great pleasure in having the common sense to know that if the human EM field has no affect upon a lowly button compass then it will have no affect upon a larger planetary magnetic field. I am confused of this perception that I am irritated or grouchy about that.

Sure, but they can't predict how any one person will react to any given stimuli.

Point being?

I'm not even religious myself. Apparently me posting Einstein quotes is an "argument that he was a religious man." That speaks for itself.

Aww, you don't like the quotes I posted and you want me to go find your favorite one. Noooo.

I appreciate the entertaining four year old ramblings.

Oh you're going into denial now. I guess you're going to say his thing about mankind being part of a whole called the universe was a joke, too? Einstein mentioned God so much that even though he wasn't a Christian, he obviously believed in some intelligent order and he said as much himself on numerous occasions. Of course he thought there is a natural order; he was a mathematician.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

Well Einstein just put value on feeling the rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, so I thought I would share that quote with you, so you could reflect rapturously on that amazing harmony of natural law yourself some time and get to know your hero Einstein's view on the world a little better.

There is that short term memory problem cropping up again. Einstein is not my hero. Please look back at my previous reply if your curious about my views on him.

Well maybe pessimistic isn't the right word. It would probably take a harsher word. I mean you resorted to slinging insults early on, and gloating about how much more sense you had. Those are the kind of personality traits I was comparing to Einstein's quote.

Please quote a single direct insult.

Yeah, ignore your own words just to point it back at me. I bet you wish Einstein had been vaguer so you could have pulled that with all his quotes huh?

I have no need nor desire to take out of context from his quotes to formulate a straw man argument.

How many people do you know of that don't believe in God, but use God in profound quotes to explain points of view on life, nature, etc.?

The list of philosophical musings that mention the Judaic-Christian deity by non-religious persons is rather lengthy and pointless to argue about. I do appreciate the attempt to deviate from my initial criticism with yet another straw man tactic.

Einstein's quote reads almost as if he was summing up our entire discussion, rather than just the one point about us being "part of the whole, called by us Universe." Part of something. That is a relation. You can deny it all you want. It's sad, like you're denying your own family member or something, like a Westboro member denying their own daughter. You came from the universe yet want to claim that you have nothing to do with it.

Again, failure to grasp simple rhetoric in conjunction with confirmation bias.

What you just did, was confirm exactly what that quote above is talking about. You don't even understand what I'm saying and you respond anyway. You don't even respond to what I say. That is exactly what I was just talking about, and you DID IT AGAIN while responding to me pointing it out to you. Ridiculous. The common sense is just oozing out of you isn't it?

You changed your terminology from connected to in relation.

Did I say physically connected to each other? No. The closest thing to that I said, was that my spine ISN'T physically attached to anything else. What did I just say about responding to things I didn't even post? You seem to have some kind of negative religious obsession where you assume everyone is out to convince you of something that was always wrong and always will be wrong, forever, no matter what, "amen." If you didn't try to read between the lines you would be alright.

The common definition of connected implies two things being joined together.

That's your fault for reading too much into my posts. Respond only to things that I actually say, and you won't be so confused. Same with the OP. There is nothing about being physically bonded to anything else, nothing about picking up frogs like we're human supermagnets, nothing about anyone else screaming when you set me on fire or any kind of garbage like that. You're right that something isn't clear here, but it's not been my language or terminology, and same with the OP.

My mention of magnetic fields levitating frogs was to show that the human body does not possess the capacity to generate the required electromagnetic fields to manipulate a planetary magnetic field. If we can not move a compass, we can not manipulate planetary magnetic fields.

It would mean that a unified field gave rise to both me and the star, and that we both continued to exist within that unified field. It's basically the same thing as saying we are in the same universe, and yes, that in itself is significant. NO!, it doesn't mean "now you have super powers, you can pick up that frog and other people will scream if we burn you." Okay, is THAT clear enough for you yet?

So what exactly is your argument with me this whole time?

Do you not subscribe to the idea that human feelings can affect planetary magnetic fields or do you not? I'm having a hard time understanding what your personal beliefs are in regards to this with all these deviations, deflections and straw man arguments that don't specifically address my initial criticisms. I mean, look at how wordy and lengthy our replies have gotten due to your continued over abuse of straw man arguments.

reply to post by Sunlionspirit

we also may not forget the " aura " which is also, I think, a manifestation of the body ( electromagnetic ) force ....

There is no such thing as an aura around the human body.

you will tell me those heart EM radiation does not go very far, but what do we know about it ?
First of all, our instruments are maybe just too rudimentary to pick this up on a bigger distance

You can not attract a paperclip or affect a compass. The EM fields generated by the human body is weaker than that of a fridge magnet.

the one that will combine the spiritual level and the material one, like we see already happening in quantum physics.

Quantum physics says nothing about the spiritual.

reply to post by sirnex


Well, it actually does. Because the gut is the ONLY organ in our body which can
process our feelings so quickly. Of course our body has its way to process them,
but no other part of our body can do such a thing so effortlessly and quickly.
Just think about it.. I 've known many people who run to the bathroom whenever
they're sad and stressed. And that's just the simplest example I could find.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Imogene72

Well, it actually does. Because the gut is the ONLY organ in our body which can
process our feelings so quickly.

The gut doesn't process "feelings", no where in the wiki link does it even suggest this.

Of course our body has its way to process them,
but no other part of our body can do such a thing so effortlessly and quickly.
Just think about it.. I 've known many people who run to the bathroom whenever
they're sad and stressed. And that's just the simplest example I could find.

Yes, stress upon the body caused by cortisol or other stress inducing hormones can cause bowel movements.

At the end of the day, calling the gut a second brain is still a sensationalist term as the gut does not operate in the same fashion as the brain proper. We can liken it to the brain due to it's ability to function autonomously from the brain, but a brain that processes emotions it is not. It's simply reacting upon the various chemicals it deals with on a daily basis. That's like saying the heart processes the feeling of love because it beats faster. Now unless your specifically talking about the hormones that induce that feeling as being the root causation of the heart beating faster, then I'd agree with you. But if you're trying to imply that there is some "feeling type of energy" being processes as hinted by the OP's video, then I would have to disagree along with accepted scientific theories on what emotions/feelings are and how they are propagated.

reply to post by sirnex


Hello fellow Sirnex, must be more polite : or do I have to say Mister Sirnex .? Miss Sirnex .?....
as I can imagine and see you, I see a person with 1980's believings in science ......
you just don't fellow the evolution of quantum physics and the power of "spiritual" or META-HUMAN / meta-physical consciousness and spiritual implications.
You know, you do not bring anything new into the discussion, you just leave it the way it all was in 1980.
Sorry man or woman, but I feel science is going full forwards and quantum physics already makes us feel aware of some strange influences and strange behaviour of some particles.
stop - cannot discuss more with you because you are not updated ! have a nice day !

reply to post by sirnex


listen Sirnex, when you say :
"Placebo effect and nocebo effect, both pretty well known phenomena"
that I know also, that it is well known ..... that is NOT the question !!!!!!!!
the question is : what do we NOT know yet and we want to know !! what can science learn us about those strange phenomena !
can you explain voodoo ? shaman ? reiki ?
placebo ????? come on ! when you love somebody it's also placebo ? did you ever love somebody Sirnex ? did you ever HATE somebody ?? yeah placebo ....
it's easy to tell us everything is already known and WIKI knows everything !!! HAHAHAHA !!!!
we want to search more in depth, we never stop asking questions !!! and you Sirnex ? 100.000 questions we have !!! and you Sirnex, you have all the responses ok ???
did you ever try the experience with the 2 plants ? you do not know what I am speaking about ?
Well stop then, have a nice day and a good beer !

reply to post by Sunlionspirit

what do we NOT know yet and we want to know !! what can science learn us about those strange phenomena

What strange phenomena?

can you explain voodoo ? shaman ? reiki ?

Voodoo is a superstitious belief structure and religion.

Shamanism is the same.

All scientific research into Reiki have concluded that it's affects are placebo in nature.

when you love somebody it's also placebo ? did you ever love somebody Sirnex ? did you ever HATE somebody ?? yeah placebo ....

Emotions are hormonal responses to internal and external stimuli. I've mentioned this before in this thread and no where in any of my replies have I implied remotely that emotional responses are placebo in nature.

did you ever try the experience with the 2 plants ? you do not know what I am speaking about ?
Well stop then, have a nice day and a good beer !

I'm sorry, I don't know what your talking about and the information provided is too little to find anything on the subject. I'm more of a rum and coke guy myself, never did like flavored water, or beer as you call it.

reply to post by Sunlionspirit

Hello fellow Sirnex, must be more polite : or do I have to say Mister Sirnex .? Miss Sirnex .?....

I don't personally mind if your polite or rude towards me. I can handle insults like a big boy. Unlike others who whine about them, not you specifically... I just don't want to say the person's handle out of fear that he/she might get their tampon in a wad.

as I can imagine and see you, I see a person with 1980's believings in science .....

I'm unsure what you're specifically saying here. What aspects of 1980's scientific belief am I mentioning here?

you just don't fellow the evolution of quantum physics and the power of "spiritual" or META-HUMAN / meta-physical consciousness and spiritual implications.

Quantum physics says nothing about the spiritual or metaphysical. It never has.

You know, you do not bring anything new into the discussion, you just leave it the way it all was in 1980.

Again, what aspect of 1980's scientific belief are you specifically referring too?

Sorry man or woman, but I feel science is going full forwards and quantum physics already makes us feel aware of some strange influences and strange behaviour of some particles.
stop - cannot discuss more with you because you are not updated ! have a nice day !

I would hardly call this a discussion of any meaningful magnitude. It seems everyone appears to be fixated on straw man arguments rather than addressing the main issue I have with the OP's video. Not a single person who has argued with me has yet to produce any evidence whatsoever that hormonal responses from humankind can affect planetary magnetic fields. Is this a specific property that humans alone possess, or do gas bloated cows also disrupt that planets magnetic fields?

reply to post by sirnex

yeah man : you tell it : stimuli !! and what kind of stimuli please ? and what is the trigger of those hormonal behaviour ? stimuli ? very simple answer ! well could this be another word for EM radiation, our body is EM based !!! how do you think neurons do work ? stimuli ? easy answer also ! of what kind please ? chemical ? ok, yes, but trigger ? EM based !
brain = EM ! nerves are EM ! our whole body = EM !
EM = trigger of chemical = trigger of hormons
no EM = death ! = no brain = no heart
stimuli ? = talk talk talk !
but what kind is stimuli ?
Take a wodka instead of a beer then !

reply to post by sirnex


I continue to discuss with you because it's stronger than myself ...
yes also the cows are part of the whole UNI-verse, did you think they were outside that UNI-verse ?
their milk is good for us and our children, their meat also .....
YOU are part of this UNI-verse, yes ? or no ?
every living being is part of the UNI-verse or the MULTI-verse ... ok ?
never heard of the ONEness of all this ?
so, part = part = relation = interaction = how much interaction ? = question we ask ! OK ?