>>>It is simply a matter of homeostasis - the ability of the various body systems to work together to regulate our physiology<<<<

You see that's my point for some reason the ability to create labels somehow gives a false idea of reality. Labels were created to try and explain an observation. Something that you can see and touch.

Newton explained natures workings in terms of solid bodies, straight line motion and fixed constants that ruled all physical events. Because matter stayed within set rules, there was no need to theorize about a 'hidden world'.

Quantum physics however 'discovered' or gave a label to what is known as a 'neuropeptide'. This was a really important discovery - these messenger molocules showed that the body is fluid enough to match the mind. Thanks to this discovery we now know that events that seem totally unconnected - such as a thought and a bodily action- are now to be seen consistent.

And a neuropeptide isn't a thought but it moves with thought, serving as a point of transformation. A neuropeptide springs into existance at the touch of a thought, but NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT COMES FROM. A thought of fear and the neurochemical that it turns into are somehow connectd in a hidden process, a transformation of non matter into matter.

The same thing happens everywhere in nature, except we do not call it thinking. The newly accepted theories of quantum physics states there is some kind of hidden control room that cordinates the physical world. Even as you think now of a rose it invloves a huge number of brain cells. No one knows how many but "science" says at least a million.(probably a lot more)

But these cells don't get intouch with one another by passing message from A to B to C and so on untill the whole million get the message. The thought just appears. Suddenly localised in time and space and with it the brain cells all change in sync. The theory is that this must happen "below the line". In this invisible control room where there is some kind of intellegence.

As stated above the same thing happens in nature we just don't call it thinking. Infact each person could be thought of as a complete quantum mechanical universe.

These are scientific discoveries if you want to refer to science you now have "discoveries" and a set of labels that say you are wrong. And they show that Newton's Laws of physics were incomplete. And these new laws are now becoming more accepted by the scientific community. So if you want to throw labels around you are falling behind on the most up to date resrearch.

By the way Danny I have two University Degrees. How many do you have?

>>>>I hate to break it to you, Mindpunisher, but our incomplete explanations will eventually become complete<<<<

Eventually will never happen for the reasons above. Explanations are just explanations. We create reality when we observe and label it. Reality itself behaves differently depending upon how we observe it.

(I thought I heard a loud bang? could it be Danny banging his head off his computer table?)

Punishey, you don't even have a name on this board, now we are supposed to simply take your word for your alledged degrees? You refuse to tell us anything about who or what you are and now you report two degrees.

I am sure you have at least two.

Oh and it was my head banging in laughter fits.

You are indeed funny.

Playing the same old record? have you any comments on my post? Do you have anything you would like to contribute to the thread?

Can you actually contribute anything worthwhile? If not just sit back and learn something. After all its free.

And maybe you should just accept that you tripping me up eventually is about as likely as every scientific explanation becoming complete. But don't give up otherwise we will all miss a good laugh.

Hi Mindpunisher. Neuropeptides have nothing whatsoever to do with quantum physics. They are studied by biochemists. Quantum physics deals with events at a subatomic level, not a molecular level.
You state: The newly accepted theories of quantum physics states there is some kind of hidden control room that cordinates the physical world.
Not in any version of quantum physics I am familiar with. But just to be sure, I e-mailed my brother, whose doctorate is in that area. He was not familiar with your version either.
As a species we have been conscious for several tens of thousands of years - perhaps longer. But we have only been applying our brains to the universe for about four hundred years. In that time we have made amazing progress. Give us another four hundred years and our knowledge of the universe will be extraordinary.
By the way, the number of degrees you have gives no indication of your level of intelligence. I worked with one man who had seven degrees. He was one of the dullest and most narrow-minded men I have ever encountered. And astronomer Patrick Moore, who was called in to advise NASA plan the moon landings, had no degree (apart from honorary ones). This is not intended to be a personal remark. But unless one of your degrees is in physics or biochemestry, then the fact that you have two degrees is not relavent to this discussion.
The problem with quantam physics (all the post-Newtonian physics) is that it is extremely complex, and can only be understood properly through the mathematical framework it is expressed in. Writers who popularise Quantam Physics end up over-simplyfing it, or taking bits out of context, to make it even vaguely understandable. And mistaken ideas of what it is creep in.
Typical of this is your statement: Reality itself behaves differently depending upon how we observe it.
This is true at a tiny subatomic level, and is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You cannot determine the position and momentum of a particle beyond a certain level of precision. If you determine the position accurately you cannot know the momentum, and vice-versa. But the relationship between position and momentum is expressed in very precise mathematical terms. So the Uncertainty Principle is not that uncertain.
However this principle does not apply to the gross world of molecules and larger, where Newtonian physics applies.
This is all fascinating stuff, but we are moving further and further away from the original question of whether there is anything to Mesmer's idea of animal magnetism. And I still say no.

Who provides the laughs punishy?

Tony what are you going on about? You've basically written half a book and said nothing.

As for the 'degrees' that was answering Danny's stupid remark. I agree they don't mean much and your post has proved how dull and ineffective an academic can be when he really tries too hard. youve proved your own point.

My theories may not be as academic as yours. But in simple plain Engilsh just answer me.

>>>>>And a neuropeptide isn't a thought but it moves with thought, serving as a point of transformation. A neuropeptide springs into existance at the touch of a thought, but NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT COMES FROM. A thought of fear and the neurochemical that it turns into are somehow connectd in a hidden process, a transformation of non matter into matter.<<<<


Tell me where do these neurochemicals come from? And why is it that they appear in tandem with thought? In plain English if possibe. And what is the organizing principle behind all these systems and chemical reactions you like to talk about?

As for theories being so "complex mistakes are made when trying to translate them to ordinary folks" that's because they are theories. Theories are never complete that's why they are theorie's.

As for the observer creating reality and it being true on a tiny subatomic level. Actually its also true on a psychological perceptial level.

Science is one filter its not the complete piture and it will never be complete. It will never explain everying.

As for the original question on the thread I really don't know about Mesmer one way or the other. It was designed to open up a discussion on the possibility that hypnosis or persuasion might be more than suggestion. (I believe it is)I can't say one way or another and nothing you have said has really added to the discussion or proved anything.

I have heard similar academic long winded explanations from other professionals mainly in the medcial profession. They meant nothing and in the practical world they meant even less. Science has it important place but it doesn't have all the answers.

As human beings we are always more than what we think we are. We are more than a bunch of scientific theories and more than a collection of chemical reactions. And we are more than our physical matter.

Science is limited to the lens it operates from.

Posted: May 3, 2009 6:48pm Reply with quote Send a Private Message View Profile of mindpunisher Edit/Delete This Post Report this post to forum moderator View Posters IP (Moderators/Admins Only)
Danny what is this obsession you have with my name? You have had my real name telephone number list of testimonials from clients via link to my website some time ago. Actually you have had more access to personal information about me than I have had about you.

Dozens if not in the hunderds have dealt with me privately with products Ive marketed on this forum in the past. Mindpunisher is a name on this board and is judged by the posts. People who have dealt with me privately or business wise also know me.

I personally know nothing about you other than your a holiday hypnotist on a
holiday resort. that's all I know about you. Your name means nothing. And from what you post.

I also know you get a lot of your basic information from Richard Nongard since you keep quoting him constantly about really basic stuff like matching and mirroring.

You've also said you've been a hypnotist for 20 years which I find hard to believe since you are learning basic from Richard. Which I can only assume this is relatively recent? Unless Richard was creating products 20 years ago? I would expect all hypnotists to know about rapport within the first month or so of studying hypnosis. Or within the first couple of hours on any training.

You have a name on this board. But its not as grand as you think.

As for me or my name? I really couldn't care I am only here for the fun and the telly is crap.

And when I say your name has no meaning I don't mean that in a condescending way. I really don't know much about you. But that is the same for evreybody on here. We all see through our own computer screens and create our own worlds on here.

Another case of the observer creating their own reality. Through my computer screen you are much a product of my imagination as real. And if I give you laughs then that's good. Because You give me plenty.

Hi Mindpunisher. As this will be my last post on the Magic Café I will speak plainly. You have little knowledge of neurophsyiology, and a very limited knowledge of biochemestry and quantam physics. You are asking meaningless questions.
You ask: what is the organizing principle behind all these systems and chemical reactions you like to talk about?
There is no organising principal. It is a meaningless question. Chemical processes follow clearly physical laws. That is all. There is no organising principal or meaning behind it. Any more than there is meaning behind an object falling when you drop it.
You accuse me of being long-winded. True. But only because I was responding to inaccuracies in your posts.
You say that theoris are never complete, and that is why they are theories. This is nonesense. Theories are meant to be complete for the set of observations they cover. Newton's theories are 100% accurate when examining the object they cover. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is 100% accurate in describing the ojbects it covers.
We don't know everything yet. We might or might not at some stage. But our only hope is science.
You say that you believe there is more to hypnosis than suggestion, but you give no reasons for this belief other than a misinterpretation of science. If you want us to throw away 150 years of research on hypnosis you have to give us far more than that.
There is an old expression. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt. There is wisdom in those words. All the best, Tony.

Punishy, when exactly did I say I learned ANYTHING from Richard? I quote him so those learning are pointed to information. Sorry to confuse you so badly.