Hi Dannydoyle. Funnily I agree with you fully. And when I do a gig I give no thought to theory, and am never asked afterwards is it real. This is only a fun discussion on the side.
Mindpunisher, as usual you are showing a complete ignorance of physics. To answer some of your points (completely irrelevant to the rest of the discussion):
We cannot decide which way the electricity flows. Electricity is a stream of electrons, and it flows negative to positive - just like water flows downhill. Nothing to do with the theories of physicists. We didn't decide which direction it flows in, any more than we decide which direction a river flows in.
Negative and positive are not human constructs. You seem to be completely missing the point. There is a huge difference between a positively charged particle and a negatively charged particle. To help you understand this think of a compass. It will not suddenly turn south just because you change your way of thinking. That's why Uri Geller has to use a magnet when he wants to influence a compass.
Being trained as a physicist has not limited my ability to think beyond the one discipline. Rather it has given me a mental discipline to cut through the ******** and think clearly and logically across all disciplines.
And in answer to your point about physicists and religious belief, the statistic is clear; 90% of physicists and of Nobel Prize winners in science do not have religious beliefs.
The laws of nature are not human constructs. They are discovered by us, not invented by us. Hope that clears it up.

Bummer of an "icon." James Randi is to magic as Kraft Singles are to cheese.

Also, James Randi is to science as ballpoint pens are to calligraphy.



MP is not as far off as you are suggesting. Anything within the bounds of humanity, communication, and understanding is a social construct. Humans are social beings. Every part of the way we communicate is merely a symbol for an actuality, no exceptions. Science is a social construct. Religion is a social construct. The laws of nature are the laws of nature. Human understanding of them is an evolving process and is a social construct. You say you can think "logically across all disciplines." I can think of at least one discipline that would VEHEMENTLY disagree with your assertions and have good cause.

Hi Pearljamjeff. Although humanity, communication and understanding are social constructs that doesn't stop science exploring them. The scope of science is being extended all the time. And I am fully aware that every part of the way we communicate is a symbol. The map is not the territory. I have academic qualifications in the field of applied communications.
But science, expressed in the language of mathematics, is more than a social construct. At least in the physical sciences the mathematical theories provide 100% accurate descriptions of what is happening in the physical world. That's not a social construct. That's real, just like electrons flowing from negative to positive is real.
What makes science different from other ways of looking at the world is that science changes when the world differs from its theories - which is why Newtonian physics was superceded by Einstien's relativity theory, etc.
Another difference is that the world of hard science is not a world of opinions. If we are launching a rocket we do not get a hundred different scientists offering a hundred different opinions about what will happen to the rocket. We get one set of universally agreed-upon calculations which tell us where the rocket will end up. And it does end up there. That makes science different from religion, philosophy, and idle speculation.
Once you move away from the world of physics and chemistry science is on less firm ground, and that is why this current debate on the reality or otherwise of trance states is so heated.
I would love to know what discipline "would vehemehtly disagree with my assertions." All the best, Tony.

Hey Tony. I would say "sociology." Your last post clarifies a bit more and I agree with you slightly more now. I still do not agree that science is not a social construct. Sociology, depending on the framework, would position "science" as a social construct that attempts to define and understand that which exists outside of social constructs. I'm not trying to say that science is altogether subjective; that goes against it's very nature. However, it is still a social construct that attempts to remove subjectivity. Therefore, I do not believe is possible, within the context of the subjective nature of human communication and understanding, for science to be infallible.

It's true that with regard to the "laws of nature" (another socially constructed idea) whatever is IS. However, that does not mean that our understanding of whatever is IS.

With regard to whether "trance" states exist, whether it is a socially constructed phenomenon or a scientific fact, either way... it can exist. Socially constructed concepts are just as real within the context of society as natural phenomenon.

I hope my initial post was not read with any miscalculated disrespect. And the post about Randi was merely in jest.

Tony, I think what is trying to be said is this...

"Negative" and "Positive" polarities are names WE give to what is occuring.

It helps us understand what is happening.

Nature is indifferent to what WE call it. It had always done what it does before Humans could call it anything. Imo, an Intelligent Alien Civilisation would NAME Nature's workings differently in their "scientific language", if such a Civilisation existed.

As far as Hypnosis is concerned, I never call it that. That kinda gives the method away imho... I just simply call it "Magic"...

Pearljamjeff - Sociology. You are right. You could throw in a lot of psychology there, and some other disciplines. The hard science approach of theoritical physics is not up to that challenge yet - and may never be. But we can try.
Idealy science should try to step beyond subjectivity, but it is not always possible.
Pakar Ilusi - You are right. Positive and negative are names we give these things. But the things we label are real. We know that, but I sometimes wonder if Mindpunisher does. Although his posts on hypnosis and psychology are very knowledgable, when he strays into physics he seems to think that our theories are social constructs and consciousness can influence the things we observe. That is incorrect. All the best, Tony.

It's been one of the most interesting threads I've read on the Café if not the most interesting. I want to thank Alex and everyone else contributing (beside dmkraig, I stopped reading his posts after the porn remark). It's been an intellectual pleasure.

Nimrod , Israel

Tony I only stray into physics. I make no claims of being an expert in this area. All I am trying to get over is that physics or any scientific perspective is just that. Nothing more. It is not complete as far as reality goes. Even so during all our exchanges about physics you can only tell methat you can measure what you see happening and give names and labels to chemical processes etc. You still couldn't answer what was behind them organising them or creating them.

>>>>The hard science approach of theoritical physics is not up to that challenge yet - and may never be. But we can try.
Idealy science should try to step beyond subjectivity, but it is not always possible.<<<

The hard science approach while highly valuable is not the complete picture and can never be. It is just one filter through which we percieve the world. It can never be totally free from subjectvity because it brings with it its own beliefs and training and conditioning which lead to absolute conviction which makes it difficult to see beyond these conditionings. Infact it is a form of "Unconscious Persuasion" in its self. Unconscious Persuasion is Everywhere its these conditionings which I term as "Trance".

Here is one example. A far as I can remember I have suffered from Hayfever really badly. For years the medical profession has tried to force me to take antihitamines ever since I as a kid. They have NEVER worked for me in fact they made me ill worse than the hayfever which I still had on top of the symptoms. Hayfever was a big deal for me most of my life I couldn't leave home for six weeks of the year every year it was so bad. I tried everything through out all my life.

The only thing that ever had some relief and gave me control was using self hypnosis and some NLP anchoring techniques. Which then allowed me to get out more and have some relief. ( I am not going to argue wheyher hypnosis exists or not in my reality the relief existed)

When I told my doctor this he wouldn't even listen. Went into all the medical reasons why this was imposible and why antihistamine is the only solution. He wouldn't believe me when I told him I had tried all the antihitamines over a period of more than 30 years along with various other solutions and they all made me ill. The only one out of all of them was hypnosis that at least gave me some relief.

Over the last 9 years or so I started taking vit c everyday because I used to get the flu and catch colds all the time. I haven't had a cold or the flu in a bout 9 years! Not only that my hayfever started to get less after the first year and reduced each year until now its almost completely gone!

Now I don't know if it was because of the vit c. I really don't care. The reality is that the medical model failed me although I am sure my Doctor would be happy to prove that it is impossible through his superior scientific background.

All I am saying is science is not the complete picture it is part of it.

Hi Mindpunisher. I, too, suffer from hayfever, but the antihistamines work for me. However asthma inhalers do nothing for my asthma. The butekyo breathing system helps - but try telling that to a doctor. The problem is that medicine is not science. A lot of it is based on science, but a lot is also based on the lure of the money from pharmaceutical companies. Which is why a lot of very good treatments (TENS pain relief, for instance) struggle to get accepted.
Physics is a different matter. The laws of physics are always expressed in mathematical language, and are not subjective. They provide an accurate discription of the world, in so far as they go.

You ask: You still couldn't answer what was behind them organising them or creating them.

To be honest this is a meaningless question. There is nothing behind the laws of physics, organising them, or creating them. The laws of physics are the way they are because that is the way the universe is. To ask what is behind them is like asking the meaning of an apple falling from a tree. There is no meaning. It just falls.
The thing about science is that it doesn't look for meanings or purposes. It just observes the facts and tries to discover the underlying rules behind those facts. That's what makes it such a glorious pursuit. There is no baggage.
We have had several thousand years of looking at the world through various philosophical and religious filters. We have only had a few hundred years of science. Already the progress has been impressive. Give it another hundred years and all might be a lot clearer. Or not. But it will be fun either way.

It's fun right now.




Good thread!



Posted: May 31, 2009 12:27am
If you smiled at that, I meant for that to be suggested.

It's not Hypnosis btw...

I'm sorry I am lost. When exactly did doing a hypnosis show become physics again?

Now I'm lost.

>>>To be honest this is a meaningless question.<<<<

That is only the meaning you subscribe to it. The meaning I subscribe to the question is quite different. The fact you say its meaningless means your model falls far short of being able to answer that. So you might be right it is meaningless trying to ask a physicist such a question. Just like the Medical Doctor cannot operate outside their model of the world due to the pain they experience having their convictions challenged a physicist cannot operate out of their limitations. that's really what your answer means. The real truth is you don't know anymore than anyone else.



>>>There is nothing behind the laws of physics, organising them, or creating them. The laws of physics are the way they are because that is the way the universe is. To ask what is behind them is like asking the meaning of an apple falling from a tree. There is no meaning. It just falls<<<<

It may be true there is nothing behind the law of physics ( I don't know I can only take your word for that) but that doesn't mean there is no driving or organisational force behind what you label and observe. It just means the model you operate from is not elegant enough to include it.

Infact it can mean anything you want that's my point. Reality is fluid who knows it might even be plastic.

>>>There is nothing behind the laws of physics, organising them, or creating them. The laws of physics are the way they are because that is the way the universe is. To ask what is behind them is like asking the meaning of an apple falling from a tree. There is no meaning. It just falls<<<<

It could mean the apple is over ripe...the tree has a disease....someone is shaking the branches....it could mean so many things....that the actual action of the apple falling is the product of something else behind it.

Q:Tell me where did your motivation and passion come from for physics? Or the human drive to explore and master the environment?

Q: Or inspiration to create beautiful art or music?

Answer X+1 squared/pie= - 2.3x c - cv + 4$/5% = 0000000000000000000000000.1 - 2 mins and 30 secs...

Ahhhh that's right how could I have missed that?

Mindpunisher, life has no meaning. People ascribe meaning to it because they need to try and understand things. But life just happens. It is just random that good people suffer and bad people thrive, or vice-versa. There is no meaning to it. If you feel the need to look for meaning, go right ahead. But it is a meaning that you are imposing on the facts. If it makes you happy and does not harm others, then a look for meaning behind random events is fine. Unfortunately a lot of the search for meaning has led to the narrow-minded dogmatism of most religious systems, which is why I steer clear of it.
And Dannydoyle, my apologies if I have facilitated this discussion drifting into physics. I am merely responding to the facts of physics being misinterpreted to boulster arguements they have nothing to do with. This happens because the facts of physics are obscure and misunderstood. I do not mean by Mindpunisher. I mean by society in general. It became popular during the hippy days to quote physics and "quantam theory" as a sort of buzz-word that would provide legitimacy for completely bogus theories of consciousness. When physics is misunderstood I like to right that situation.

>>>>Mindpunisher, life has no meaning. People ascribe meaning to it because they need to try and understand things. But life just happens. It is just random that good people suffer and bad people thrive, or vice-versa. There is no meaning to it. If you feel the need to look for meaning, go right ahead. But it is a meaning that you are imposing on the facts. If it makes you happy and does not harm others, then a look for meaning behind random events is fine. Unfortunately a lot of the search for meaning has led to the narrow-minded dogmatism of most religious systems, which is why I steer clear of it.<<<<


First of all Tony I feel very sorry for you that you believe you have nocontrol over your life. Perhaps studying Physics is a pursuit much more worthless than I originally thought if it does indeed disempower you in the way you describe.

All I am trying to do is to open your mind to other perspectives and views of reality so that you may have more choice over your perceptions and ultimately more control over your environment.

While your physics conditiong tells us "that is how the universe is." Your arrogance is no different from the Medical Doctor or the Religeous fanatic who can only see and operate from their mind programming.

And that YOUR meanings are the only meanings? (it makes me smile that you cannot see you are guilty of what you critizise others for) I included physics as a valuable filter while you exclude everything else. To me its obvious that the dogma and religeous notion you mention is nothing but projection And that you are enslaved within your conditioning and programming.

I again repeat I feel sorry for you that you have no meaning in your life or have no control over the random events as they unfold. It sounds like studying physics has handicapped you in some way.

Posted: Jun 1, 2009 12:22pm
On a Side note are you telling me your wife family have no meaning to you? What about hypnosis or non hypnosis? Physics has no meaning to you?

I don't believe you have no meaning in your life. You would've topped yourself by now.

Don't you see how meaningless not realising that physics is just one perspective.....one filter but not absolute reality?

Mindpunisher, whatever gave you that bizarre idea? Nowhere in my posts do I imply that I have no control over my life. I appear to have full self-determination, just like everyone else.
I don't have a wife, but my children and my family are tremendously important to me, and have great meaning for me. But it is a meaning that I impose. It is not an intrinsic meaning. That is what I mean about life having no meaning. It has no INTRINSIC meaning. Any meaning it has is a meaning we put on it. Just like everyone else I put meaning on life. I am just not blinkered enough to assume that meaning exists independently of me.
I suggest you read some of the works of philosophers associated with the logical positivism school of thought. They (the professionals) deal in meaning in far more detail than I can in a few paragraphs here.
All the best, Tony.

I hypnotised a person today (fear of flying). The incident in itself was nothing that would be considered by any other hypnotist as anything special. But as she went under the rems were running wild, she had those red blotches around her neck area and her breathing completely changed. When she came out her eyes were deep, red and watery and she looked around, kind of wondering where she was and I gave her more time to acclimatise herself to her awakened condition. Like I said, nothing special. Albeit she'd be regarded on the farther side of what might be considered the spectrum of depth by most hypnotists.
I'm writing this because as I looked upon her I suddenly thought of this thread from a couple weeks ago and the suggestion that: 'there's no such thing as hypnosis, rather they merely believe they're hypnotised', and it simply made me smile.
It was one of those moments where you have a myriad of thoughts all in the one nanosecond. It made me think of the times in the past when I was in the no-state camp and simply didn't believe hypnosis existed. But when you get them that deep... well, not only could I not argue that maybe she wasn't hypnotised but it was obvious that she herself had no idea that she was hypnotised. By that I mean that she had no belief that she was hypnotised. She was simply and obviously somewhere else. And I think that place was: deep deep hypnosis.
I think this thread to a certain extent has been a waste of time through the use of intellect to try and disprove a fact. For a while back there it was a pishing contest based on who read what versus individual and collective experiences, which is actually quite shocking, and it was probably this that actually got on the tittarooskies of those that can SEE the state in operation.
Anyway, it was me who started the thread. I've found the guy I wanted and the result is that the 'ayes' to the right have it and that hypnosis exists, well done all you 'ayes'!
Oh and the girl? Sorted of course.

Hee. I like that part.

Any resources on doing hypnosis show without using the words "hypnosis"/"sleep" or "trance" at all? I mean not even in the pre-talk. For places where "hypnosis" is forbidden. It doesn't matter to me if it exists or not - I care about its effects.

I'd like to know that too.

Sidestep the whole Hypnosis stigma if we never even allude to or mention it.