INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The Electricity of Touch

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

The Electricity of Touch

#1 Post by Felicia » September 15th, 2009, 10:00 pm

My explorations into quantum physics and string theory have led me into murky waters.... I may be drummed out of TH. Let me explain: I have been delighted by these descriptions of what makes up our worlds and all others, and string theory (which is difficult to prove experimentally, given that they'd need a collider as long as the galaxy to get anywhere near examining the behaviour of any individual string) is particularly enchanting: that everything is made of these vibrating fragments, trembling, shifting, leaping from dimension to dimension, making us and the air we breathe and everything around us that we experience. It's probably right: everyone agrees that the maths work, and it includes gravity too, which quantum mechanics doesn't, and there just is no other theory around.

The energy that everyone - Feynman for example - talks about in these tiny arenas seems to be electro-magnetism. I noted this and pondered it and talked about it a bit and then a colleague in the NHS mental health clinic where I work, gave me a paper to read. It's called The Electricity of Touch: Detection and measurement of cardiac energy exchange between people. It's by Rollin McCraty, Mike Atkinson, Dana Tomasino and William Tiller. It's available from http://www.heartmath.org.

Basically it describes what seems to me to be a properly conducted experiment. As you all know I am not a scientist and therefore have very little experience in judging such things, and that's why I'm bringing it to the attention of any of the scientists in this forum. Is this right? Because if it is, a lot of our crusade against many of the complementary therapies is going to look at least misguided. I quote here the summary:

'The idea that an energy exchange of some type occurs between individuals is a central theme in many healing techniques. This concept has often been disputed by Western Science due to the lack of a plausible mechanism to explain the nature of this energy or how it could affect or facilitate the healing process. The fact that the heart generates the strongest electromagnetic field produced by the body coupled with the recent discovery that this field becomes more coherent as the individual shifts to a sincerely loving or caring state prompted us to investigate the possibility that the field generated by the heart may significantly contribute to this energy exchange.

We present a sampling of results which provide intriguing evidence that an exchange of electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs when people touch or are in proximity. Signal averaging techniques are used to show that one's electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is registered in another person's electroencephalogram (EEG) and elsewhere on the other person's body. While the signal is strongest when people are in contact, it is still detectable when subjects are in proximity without contact.

This study represents one of the first successful attempts to directly measure an energy exchange between people and provides a solid, testable theory to explain the observed effects of many healing modalities that are based upon the assumption that an energy exchange takes place. Nonlinear stochastic resonance is discussed as a mechanism by which weak, coherent electromagnetic fields such as those generated by the heart of an individual in a caring state, may be detected and amplified by biological tissue, and potentially produce measurable effects in living systems. One implication is that the effects of therapeutic techniques involving contact or proximity between practitioner and patient could be amplified by practitioners consciously adopting a sincere caring attitude, and thus introducing increased coherence into their cardiac field.'


The experiment that follows seems to me to be proper, but all this stuff about caring attitudes etc puts my teeth on edge. But if its true/right, then we have here a real contribution to the placebo question, and will have to look again at Reiki, reflexology, cranial osteopathy, acupressure and acupuncture and many of the other therapies that rely on closish personal contact. It's ten years old and on the heartmath web site there are a huge number of other papers building on this stuff. It's used in educational projects in the USA too. Some of the papers verge into the spiritual (ugh) others investigate weird stuff like tracking people's emotional response to distressing pictures up to 4 or 5 seconds before they actually see them. But most seem to focus on what this electromagnetic force does, as it fizzes away between and within us all.

I suppose I have doubts about concepts like 'nonlinear stochastic resonance.' Does anyone know if this exists?

So what do you make of it folks?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#2 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2009, 12:10 am

Felicia wrote:My explorations into quantum physics and string theory have led me into murky waters.... I may be drummed out of TH.
We may disabuse you of a few notions, but we wouldn't drum you out! :smile:
Let me explain: I have been delighted by these descriptions of what makes up our worlds and all others, and string theory (which is difficult to prove experimentally, given that they'd need a collider as long as the galaxy to get anywhere near examining the behaviour of any individual string) is particularly enchanting: that everything is made of these vibrating fragments, trembling, shifting, leaping from dimension to dimension, making us and the air we breathe and everything around us that we experience. It's probably right: everyone agrees that the maths work, and it includes gravity too, which quantum mechanics doesn't, and there just is no other theory around.
Who was it that said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't really understand it? Anyway, I'm not sure what it would take to create evidence that string theory is a likely theory and it may or may not turn out to be a theory of everything.
The energy that everyone - Feynman for example - talks about in these tiny arenas seems to be electro-magnetism. I noted this and pondered it and talked about it a bit and then a colleague in the NHS mental health clinic where I work, gave me a paper to read. It's called The Electricity of Touch: Detection and measurement of cardiac energy exchange between people. It's by Rollin McCraty, Mike Atkinson, Dana Tomasino and William Tiller. It's available from http://www.heartmath.org.
This is where it all gets a bit more difficult. Electromagnetic radiation is everything from radio waves, heat, visible light, UV, x-rays and gamma rays. Now, muscles contract because a small electrical pulse has been applied to them and this includes the muscles of the heart. The voltage creates a current and the way the current moves is through an electromagnetic wave. It is this current that an ecg (electro cardiograph) picks up and what anyone who has watched Holby will recognise! The current is essential contained entirely within the body and it requires some fairly sensitive electronics to detect it.

This is now where most explanations of woo fall down: they obfuscate words and meanings [---][/---] either deliberately or through ignorance. In this case, it starts with the talk of 'heart energy'. If what it means is the energy that caused it to contract to pump blood, then OK. However, if they are making the leap to some kind of vitalistic energy, then they are on very shaky ground indeed! Flowing current requires a voltage difference and this is generated in the muscles and the current flows from one side of this voltage generator to the other. To start to talk about this energy, or even part of it, as something that can be transferred to another is utter nonsense. I can confidently say that they will have zero evidence for such a phenomenon.
Basically it describes what seems to me to be a properly conducted experiment. As you all know I am not a scientist and therefore have very little experience in judging such things, and that's why I'm bringing it to the attention of any of the scientists in this forum. Is this right? Because if it is, a lot of our crusade against many of the complementary therapies is going to look at least misguided. I quote here the summary:

'The idea that an energy exchange of some type occurs between individuals is a central theme in many healing techniques. This concept has often been disputed by Western Science due to the lack of a plausible mechanism to explain the nature of this energy or how it could affect or facilitate the healing process. The fact that the heart generates the strongest electromagnetic field produced by the body coupled with the recent discovery that this field becomes more coherent as the individual shifts to a sincerely loving or caring state prompted us to investigate the possibility that the field generated by the heart may significantly contribute to this energy exchange.
Apart from the woo warning signs I mentioned above, he then goes on to claim that his imaginary energy is modified by a person's feelings, etc. This is utter fantasy. However, it is a usual 'explanation' for nonsense like reiki. His use of the word coherent I suspect betrays his illiterate science background.
We present a sampling of results which provide intriguing evidence that an exchange of electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs when people touch or are in proximity. Signal averaging techniques are used to show that one's electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is registered in another person's electroencephalogram (EEG) and elsewhere on the other person's body. While the signal is strongest when people are in contact, it is still detectable when subjects are in proximity without contact.
I haven't look at the website (although I may later if I need some light relief before going to bed!), but I sincerely doubt he can measure any such effect.
This study represents one of the first successful attempts to directly measure an energy exchange between people and provides a solid, testable theory to explain the observed effects of many healing modalities that are based upon the assumption that an energy exchange takes place. Nonlinear stochastic resonance is discussed as a mechanism by which weak, coherent electromagnetic fields such as those generated by the heart of an individual in a caring state, may be detected and amplified by biological tissue, and potentially produce measurable effects in living systems. One implication is that the effects of therapeutic techniques involving contact or proximity between practitioner and patient could be amplified by practitioners consciously adopting a sincere caring attitude, and thus introducing increased coherence into their cardiac field.'
Oops! There's some other words (nonlinear stochastic resonance) that give him away again! All this use of sciency sounding words is there to make someone who does not have any scientific knowledge think he knows what he's talking about. And he doesn't.
The experiment that follows seems to me to be proper, but all this stuff about caring attitudes etc puts my teeth on edge. But if its true/right, then we have here a real contribution to the placebo question, and will have to look again at Reiki, reflexology, cranial osteopathy, acupressure and acupuncture and many of the other therapies that rely on closish personal contact. It's ten years old and on the heartmath web site there are a huge number of other papers building on this stuff. It's used in educational projects in the USA too. Some of the papers verge into the spiritual (ugh) others investigate weird stuff like tracking people's emotional response to distressing pictures up to 4 or 5 seconds before they actually see them. But most seem to focus on what this electromagnetic force does, as it fizzes away between and within us all.

I suppose I have doubts about concepts like 'nonlinear stochastic resonance.' Does anyone know if this exists?

So what do you make of it folks?
Complete and utter bullshit, I'm afraid!

This is classic woo nonsense and has just about all the usual fallacies and techniques that woo pushers use! There is a website that describes all these in detail [---][/---] I'll try to find it later.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#3 Post by Felicia » September 16th, 2009, 7:11 am

Thanks Alan... I had my suspicions! But I would be interested to know what you make of the actual paper, if you have time/inclination to read it. I find it slightly disturbing that this is floating around in a NHS clinic. This was my worry about the QPhysics etc stuff. I don't pretend to understand it, please don't think I do, how could I with 0-level maths decades ago? However my picture of it all going on everywhere, within and without us, is obviously true: we are made of molecules and atoms and particles and possibly strings. And they are all whizzing around. No wonder McCraty etc take off on it!

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#4 Post by Paolo » September 16th, 2009, 11:03 am

I have yet to read the pdf's available on the site fully, but there seems to be a big leap in assumptions between the experimental outcomes and how they are interpreted. As with much of this kind of thing, some obvious explanations are missed and emphasis is put on more speculative a priori considerations.

Much as I hate to denigrate research based on where it is published, the fact is that The Journal Of Alternative and Complementary Medicine tends to have pretty low standards for the articles it accepts and the peer-review in the Journal is atrocious. The long and short of it is that unless the results are replicated by independent researchers, I wouldn't place much trust in them.

When I get the opportunity (not for a while methinks) I will take a look into this in more detail.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#5 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2009, 2:25 pm

Felicia wrote:But I would be interested to know what you make of the actual paper, if you have time/inclination to read it.
Which particular paper is it? There seems to be a load of 'research' stuff on the website.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#6 Post by Felicia » September 17th, 2009, 1:34 pm

I gave the title in my original post: the Electricity of Touch etc by McCraty et al. I think it came out in 1996. YOu can download it from the site for free, should you wish to bother....

Hundovir
Posts: 806
Joined: June 21st, 2009, 3:23 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#7 Post by Hundovir » September 22nd, 2009, 5:31 pm

Felicia wrote:I gave the title in my original post: the Electricity of Touch etc by McCraty et al. I think it came out in 1996. YOu can download it from the site for free, should you wish to bother....
Hmm... I can't find this. There's a reference to it in a Bibliography, but otherwise, all I've found is this page - The Energetic Heart - and they want paying for a download.

I'd agree with Paolo - it stinks of woo!
The idea that an energy exchange of some type occurs between individuals is a central theme in many healing techniques.
Yeah, "healing" techniques that don't actually heal!

User avatar
Gurdur
Posts: 610
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:00 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#8 Post by Gurdur » September 25th, 2009, 12:08 pm

To play Devil's Advocate a bit:

as long as we're talking electricity rather than woo energy, there's a bit more to it.
Felicia wrote:I suppose I have doubts about concepts like 'nonlinear stochastic resonance.' Does anyone know if this exists?
Like everyone else, I have not read the full paper. :) But stochiastic resonance exists, and is described sometimes as being observed where a signal from one system applied to the noise in another system actually improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the second system. I'm going to guess that as Alan H said, the authors are applying such concepts to areas where no such application is justified or demonstrated. It sounds like the authors are saying one person by aiming their electromagnetic energy at another can actually affect the other person well, sorta Person A's signal supposed to improve Person B's body signal-to-noise ratio in a happy way. Without shouting at Person B, either (a method I usually use for improving SNR).

This does give me the idea of making millions by teaching people how to look meaningfully into someone else's eyes meaningfully while the same time surreptiously charging themselves with a reasonable whack of static electricity, so while they gaze meaningfully into the other's eyes, they can touch that person's arm or hand, and of course then the other person will feel a mild shock, which could help persuade Person B that Person A is pretty hot stuff indeed.

I don't know of anyone else getting this idea, and it could make me a very very rich man.
but all this stuff about caring attitudes etc puts my teeth on edge.
You more into the Extreme Sports stuff? :D See the movie mentioned at end of this post.
Alan H wrote:This is classic woo nonsense and has just about all the usual fallacies and techniques that woo pushers use!
Indeedy, to a degree. But I wanted to play Devil's Advocate. Here goes.
Alan H wrote: ... Flowing current requires a voltage difference and this is generated in the muscles and the current flows from one side of this voltage generator to the other. To start to talk about this energy, or even part of it, as something that can be transferred to another is utter nonsense. I can confidently say that they will have zero evidence for such a phenomenon.
Static electricity as a counter-example? Direct transfer happens there.
Alan H wrote: ... his imaginary energy is modified by a person's feelings, etc. This is utter fantasy.
Well, feelings certainly do change ElectroDermal Activity (EDA), and are the means for testing in many a physiological psychology experiment. It's not too much of a jump to suggest that you can change your skin EDA with a bit of training, and with the help of a pocket van de Graaf generator, do something totally wicked like giving someone else a nice charge for their day.
:D

Of course, this all reminds me quite vividly of the film Crank: High Voltage. Pretty funny film, too.
:)

Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#9 Post by Felicia » September 25th, 2009, 5:44 pm

Thanks Gurdur: it's clearly a fruitful area for all ideas... Not at all into extreme sports, just dislike sentimentality!

The paper is available on the heartmath website but its in the Research place (I was originally given a hard copy in the NHS clinic where i work, but I did look it up later; it took some persistence, but I assure you that's where it is. Would love to hear what someone else makes of it.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#10 Post by Marian » September 25th, 2009, 7:05 pm

Gurdur wrote: This does give me the idea of making millions by teaching people how to look meaningfully into someone else's eyes meaningfully while the same time surreptiously charging themselves with a reasonable whack of static electricity, so while they gaze meaningfully into the other's eyes, they can touch that person's arm or hand, and of course then the other person will feel a mild shock, which could help persuade Person B that Person A is pretty hot stuff indeed.
All this talk of electric shock has me thinking of this:
shock.jpg
shock.jpg (4.01 KiB) Viewed 4170 times
. Do you recognize the picture? You may not since this was taken in the US but here's another:
Attachments
milgram3.jpg
milgram3.jpg (14.14 KiB) Viewed 4169 times
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Gurdur
Posts: 610
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:00 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#11 Post by Gurdur » September 26th, 2009, 5:58 am

Ahya, Milgram. Stansford, those were the days.

Now, I will know I have finally made it as a very successful capitalist when people actually pay me to be shocked.

Come on. Look at your average Glaswegian & London ned. I'm sure with the right advertising I can convince droves of suchlike to line up in queues to pay me for being shocked.

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#12 Post by Nirvanam » September 26th, 2009, 5:53 pm

Felicia wrote:My explorations into quantum physics and string theory have led me into murky waters.... I may be drummed out of TH. Let me explain: I have been delighted by these descriptions of what makes up our worlds and all others, and string theory (which is difficult to prove experimentally, given that they'd need a collider as long as the galaxy to get anywhere near examining the behaviour of any individual string) is particularly enchanting: that everything is made of these vibrating fragments, trembling, shifting, leaping from dimension to dimension, making us and the air we breathe and everything around us that we experience. It's probably right: everyone agrees that the maths work, and it includes gravity too, which quantum mechanics doesn't, and there just is no other theory around.

The energy that everyone - Feynman for example - talks about in these tiny arenas seems to be electro-magnetism. I noted this and pondered it and talked about it a bit and then a colleague in the NHS mental health clinic where I work, gave me a paper to read. It's called The Electricity of Touch: Detection and measurement of cardiac energy exchange between people. It's by Rollin McCraty, Mike Atkinson, Dana Tomasino and William Tiller. It's available from http://www.heartmath.org.

Basically it describes what seems to me to be a properly conducted experiment. As you all know I am not a scientist and therefore have very little experience in judging such things, and that's why I'm bringing it to the attention of any of the scientists in this forum. Is this right? Because if it is, a lot of our crusade against many of the complementary therapies is going to look at least misguided. I quote here the summary:

'The idea that an energy exchange of some type occurs between individuals is a central theme in many healing techniques. This concept has often been disputed by Western Science due to the lack of a plausible mechanism to explain the nature of this energy or how it could affect or facilitate the healing process. The fact that the heart generates the strongest electromagnetic field produced by the body coupled with the recent discovery that this field becomes more coherent as the individual shifts to a sincerely loving or caring state prompted us to investigate the possibility that the field generated by the heart may significantly contribute to this energy exchange.

We present a sampling of results which provide intriguing evidence that an exchange of electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs when people touch or are in proximity. Signal averaging techniques are used to show that one's electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is registered in another person's electroencephalogram (EEG) and elsewhere on the other person's body. While the signal is strongest when people are in contact, it is still detectable when subjects are in proximity without contact.

This study represents one of the first successful attempts to directly measure an energy exchange between people and provides a solid, testable theory to explain the observed effects of many healing modalities that are based upon the assumption that an energy exchange takes place. Nonlinear stochastic resonance is discussed as a mechanism by which weak, coherent electromagnetic fields such as those generated by the heart of an individual in a caring state, may be detected and amplified by biological tissue, and potentially produce measurable effects in living systems. One implication is that the effects of therapeutic techniques involving contact or proximity between practitioner and patient could be amplified by practitioners consciously adopting a sincere caring attitude, and thus introducing increased coherence into their cardiac field.'


The experiment that follows seems to me to be proper, but all this stuff about caring attitudes etc puts my teeth on edge. But if its true/right, then we have here a real contribution to the placebo question, and will have to look again at Reiki, reflexology, cranial osteopathy, acupressure and acupuncture and many of the other therapies that rely on closish personal contact. It's ten years old and on the heartmath web site there are a huge number of other papers building on this stuff. It's used in educational projects in the USA too. Some of the papers verge into the spiritual (ugh) others investigate weird stuff like tracking people's emotional response to distressing pictures up to 4 or 5 seconds before they actually see them. But most seem to focus on what this electromagnetic force does, as it fizzes away between and within us all.

I suppose I have doubts about concepts like 'nonlinear stochastic resonance.' Does anyone know if this exists?

So what do you make of it folks?
In more ways than one I agree with you that we must not be dismissive about many things simply because we don't understand the science behind it as yet. People claiming it as "woo" in some cases are definitely right but in other cases it is a rather programmed response they have...I don't understand, nobody else that I know of or consider credible has explained it so hey it must be woo! The woo brush is used rather liberally.

One example of such attitude is this...a thread was started on the placebo effect...people said it was woo but no one really had any clear reason as to what really happens which leads to the recovery of an individual. So, if we cannot explain why someone gets better with our current understanding then it is convenient to classify it as placebo effect and any explanation for the placebo effect is treated as woo.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#13 Post by Alan H » September 27th, 2009, 12:00 am

Nirvanam wrote:In more ways than one I agree with you that we must not be dismissive about many things simply because we don't understand the science behind it as yet. People claiming it as "woo" in some cases are definitely right but in other cases it is a rather programmed response they have...I don't understand, nobody else that I know of or consider credible has explained it so hey it must be woo! The woo brush is used rather liberally.
I really don't see that it is presenting anything for there to be any science behind and I think I gave several reasons why it can only be considered woo.

No doubt there is a continuum for plausibility but where we all we might disagree is where the boundary between something eminently plausible and something patently implausible. IMHO, this is definitely on the implausible side!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#14 Post by Nirvanam » September 27th, 2009, 9:08 am

Alan H wrote:
Nirvanam wrote:In more ways than one I agree with you that we must not be dismissive about many things simply because we don't understand the science behind it as yet. People claiming it as "woo" in some cases are definitely right but in other cases it is a rather programmed response they have...I don't understand, nobody else that I know of or consider credible has explained it so hey it must be woo! The woo brush is used rather liberally.
I really don't see that it is presenting anything for there to be any science behind and I think I gave several reasons why it can only be considered woo.

No doubt there is a continuum for plausibility but where we all we might disagree is where the boundary between something eminently plausible and something patently implausible. IMHO, this is definitely on the implausible side!
Fair enough, Alan and I am with you on this point to a large extent but not in all cases.

Implausible. Yes! But that "yes" is as per our current understandings and knowledge. What I am saying is that in some cases where we do not have enough knowledge we should not conclude that out current knowledge is sufficient to dismiss or accept things. After all discovery is as permanent as evolution. So we might be able to understand the science behind some woos in the future. But from a practical standpoint it totally depends upon our own objectives, and principles to accept it as implausible or plausible.

To explain this further let me take a rather silly example. We know that fire is hot and if we put our hands in fire they will burn. Someone comes across and says that "oh no you guys got it wrong...it is not always gonna burn you, sometimes it will cool you off". Our obvious reaction would be that this guy is talking woo. Now as an individual you can choose to accept it as woo and dismiss the guy as a nut or you may choose to see if it is possible at all...who knows you may come up with an invention of "a fire that cools".

Alright the above example is a rather silly one (and I have trained my mind to think in such silly ways..fire that cools..due to TRIZ in the last 2-3 years) but try to interpret it in the context of some other example that you know is not entirely woo but was thought of as woo in the past...the earth is flat thing...imagine you were the pope in the 9th century (sorry could not think of a more appropriate chap for this example :D ) and someone claimed the Earth was round...it would sound like woo to you the pope. But until someone else proved it with more understanding in later centuries it would've still been woo.

So, basically my point is, are we so sure that this is woo?

Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#15 Post by Felicia » September 27th, 2009, 9:40 am

Nirvanem, I do so agree with you. I suspect that many/some of us here adhere to the atheistic stance for just as many emotional reasons as other turn to religion. (Ducks and runs) We tell ourselves that so long as we rely on known and verifiable scientific data, we will be safe. (just as the religious say the same of their god). This is our defence against the manifest and multiple uncertainties in the world. I do it too, probably for emotional reasons partly and partly for the cognitive satisfaction it gives, which we all would admit.. But does it mean that, in clinging to our sureties, we might miss something new? Really new, only just beginning to be understood. It's certainly true that the path of science has been littered by things that others have thought ludicrous and woo-like.

I so wish others of you had managed to read that paper! Wondering whether to send a hard copy to Alan H. My difficulty with it, she repeats, is that I am not a scientist and unfamiliar with the scientific method. But it does seem to be a properly conducted experiment, bringing in all sorts of caveats about how its set up and its results assessed (much more rigorous than anything I could have thought of), and bases it on things I know exist: electrocephelagrams, electrocariagrams etc. Magnetic resonance amplifier apparently is a real instrument and does work (have done some research).

So, despite fairly united response that this is woo, until you've read the damn thing, I'm still in a state of don't know.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#16 Post by Lifelinking » September 27th, 2009, 9:49 am

Now, I will know I have finally made it as a very successful capitalist when people actually pay me to be shocked.
I think there is a market for it Gurdur.

Image
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#17 Post by Alan H » September 27th, 2009, 11:07 am

As I said, there is a HUGE leap being made between saying the heart works by electrical current to saying this 'energy' can be altered by emotion and beneficially transferred to someone else. At this level, at least, these leaps make it unlikely in the extreme.

Now, if someone wants to provide a clear, more detailed list of steps and reasoning as to how the author got from one thing to the other, then I may be willing to read it. At the moment, it appears to be sloppy, unscientific thinking by someone who has no grasp of basic science whatsoever (not too dissimilar to proponents of, say, homeopathy). Remind me why I should spend time reading that paper? There is just far too much of this nonsense on the web and scientists would have no time for proper research if they felt they had to debunk every one of them.

However, my blood pressure is a bit low at the moment and could do with being elevated a bit,
so I'll go away and read that paper and comment on it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#18 Post by Nirvanam » September 27th, 2009, 11:14 am

Felicia wrote:So, despite fairly united response that this is woo, until you've read the damn thing, I'm still in a state of don't know.
Nice to know someone agrees with one of my viewpoints on this forum :D

More on your last sentence: I think it is basic human nature to forcibly take a decisive standpoint on something new that we are introduced to. Guess one of our psychologists or psychiatrists or anyone who knows about such stuff here can throw some light on this. We are very uncomfortable to not be "in the know" so we tend to either agree to something or dismiss it, many times as soon as it is introduced. If we practice to live in the "not know" state without feeling very uncomfortable we generally tend to understand that particular thing rather deeply. I mean just notice it in your daily life: let's say you are at work and you are given a task to perform some kinda root cause analysis. Initially we try to figure out the root cause based on our experience and when we don't find the correct answer we either give up saying "the problem occurred because of uncontrollable factors" or we actually go deeper to understand the root cause. The depth to which we go depends upon how comfortable we are with an unknown situation. Basically the perseverance is extended or not depending upon how comfortable we are with living in the unknown.

The people who train themselves not to feel uncomfortable while in the "not know" generally end up thinking harder and opening up new avenues for gaining knowledge, new perspectives, and generally end up solving the problem / understanding the situation. Capability to live with the unknown almost always increases insight, extends our knowledge, opens our mind to new possibilities. As an example consider it is midnight and you have to venture into the forest. You don't know what is around or what to expect. So it is natural you will feel uncomfortable. Now if you choose not to live with that uncomfortable feeling you will turn and go back to your camp. But if you are not all that uncomfortable then you will venture into the forest and probably discover how a big cat hunts a deer in the night or discover through experience that the air is warmer under a tree at night. The example is just to illustrate the point so hopefully no some smart ass will jump in to say that he or she can gain this knowledge through Nat Geo channel too...lol!

Felicia
Posts: 495
Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 9:16 am

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#19 Post by Felicia » September 27th, 2009, 11:26 am

:happyclappy: Nirvanam!

Bion (v. eminent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist): 'The answer is the death of the question.'

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: The Electricity of Touch

#20 Post by Nirvanam » September 27th, 2009, 11:39 am

Felicia wrote::happyclappy: Nirvanam!

Bion (v. eminent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist): 'The answer is the death of the question.'
Thank You!

Post Reply