I'll have to look at the reference you gave later, its blocked by websense here.
objective reality? not sure. we do not see things feel or taste things, we rely on the interpretations that the data processing system gives us. with most people, with just a bit of talking with them they will perceive tastes, sounds, sights etc., that are not there. That said the data is processed but not acted upon or passed on to the executive. an example, a classic experimental design in hypnosis research is the Real-simulator design. This is where low hypnotically susceptible subjects are tested by an experimenter blind to their level of hypnotic susceptibility. The low hypnotisables, but not the high hypnotisables, were told to act as if they were high hypnotisables. Additionally, the simulators are told that the experimenter will terminate the study if he suspected simulation. The logic of the real-simulator paradigm indicates that any differences between the performance of the reals and the simulators can be attributed to the differences in hypnotic susceptibility (a genuine effect), whereas if the results are identical then experimental demands cannot be ruled out as a critical factor. Using this paradigm people are hypnotized and told that a chair placed about 10 feet in front of them does not exist. The simulators will stumble into the chair etc. In contrast, the high hypntizables will move around the chair, not come near it and generally avoid the chair however they can. When you question them later, they genuinely did not experience the presence of the chair. Another interesting area is hypnotic pain control. some people using hypnosis can almost eliminate perceived pain. I won't go into the details, except to say this is a genuine phenomenon. some people can reduced all pain to almost nothing. Our lab was contacted by a local anesthesiologist to work with one person who was highly allergic to most anesthetic, but had to undergo a very invasive exploratory surgery. After a series of training session, she was able to undergo the operation with no anesthesia, simply using the methods and techniques we taught her to control the perceived pain. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM, denstar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> >> doubtful. research coming out of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig >> Germany has shown otherwise with Sufis, various hindu mystics and Zen >> Buddhist masters. While they do show a remarkable control over their >> physiology, its not at the cellular level. The single muscle unit >> training methods work at the level of a single muscle fiber. There's >> some really cool research going on at Walter Reid that's helping vets >> with brain trauma or significant nerve damage retrain their system >> using this set of techniques. > > I saw something on either "Now" or "Nova" that I thought you were > talking about. Had to do with unconscious training (muscle memory) > vs. the "old school" conscious approach that was the standard (and had > far less productive results, apparently). > > I remember the mom saying how she didn't think the techniques would > work, because they were so common sense. > > Guess that was something different though. > > Hrm, now that I think about it, what I saw might have been in the show > about the plasticity of the brain. > >> As for being able to train yourself look at what's being done with >> athletics right now. But generally I think it depends on what you want >> Personally I think its a lot of work with a minimal return for most >> people. > > Balance and whatnot is probably good for everyone. You don't have to > take it to the "pro" level to get some pretty amazing results > (compared to doing nothing). > > Watching the ice skating for the Olympics made me think about how far > the sport has evolved in such a short time. > > Snowboarding, skating (on the boards with wheels), and break dancing > (etc., etc.) have all gotten to crazy levels, compared to where they > were just a bit ago. > > And the thing is, kids can do the new stuff. It's not a result of > years and years of training or some such. > > Seems more like "monkey see, monkey now know it's possible, monkey do" > perhaps. > >> As for the Douglas Adams quote, well it shows nothing. It could also >> be the result of Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Reds under your bed. > > I wasn't talking about the earth itself, I was talking about the > "studying". Maybe a little bit about the "observer" problem. > > This looks good: http://stevenpoole.net/articles/the-observer-problem/ > > Oddly, it ties back into the deal about "will" (in my mind, which is > obviously messed up). And the idea of "personal responsibility". > > Do you think there's an objective reality? > > I find it funny how science and philosophy are like, rather similar. > > :DeN > > -- > Youth does not require reasons for living, it only needs pretexts. > Jose Ortega y Gasset > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312858 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
