PsiPog.net

View topic - What part of the brain does TK come from?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » What part of the brain does TK come from?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

What part of the brain does TK come from?

Author

Message

Posted on Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:23 am

Pyrodragon

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 81

only_love wrote:

hmm....

That being said, I would imagine that if one were to do a catscan during a TK experiement, all lobes of the brain would have activity.

Get this through your head people! Cat scans do not measure brainwave activity or anything of the sort. They produce a 3 dimensional diagram of the physical brain. A person doing psionics while having a cat scan's brain would look exactly the same as a person who was not.

Posted on Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:39 am

Chiro

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 191

MikauZora wrote:

Etree8 wrote:

I hope you know that the subconscious isn't an actual part of your brain, kind of like how an operating system isn't a physical part of a computer (like video cards and thigs). Maybe PK doesn't come from just one part of the brain. We don't know enough about it to say for certain, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say the prefrontal lobe, behind the center of your forehead, because thats what feels weird while I do PK.

anyway, i feel something there too, but sometimes feel things on back of head too, then going up and then center.

From what I understand in my own findings, Psi flows from the back of the brain up over and out of the forhead, near or excatly out of, the minds eye area, that would explain the odd feelings you both experience. Due to the fact that you use psi regardless of method in TK

Posted on Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:09 pm

xnovax

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 12

When I perform tk I can sometimes do it without feeling anything in my brain. But most times I feel mild pressure or pulsating everywhere such as the back or the top of my brain the parietal lobe I think. however the area that I feel most is the front of my brain, my forhead area, and a small pinpoint where someone would if they believed in such a thing say the third eye was located, coming down from the middle of my forhead I feel a small concetrated sensation that moved directly between my eyes tot he to p of my nose.

I know I am in the right mind set for tk when all the above occurs.

So if a part of the brain is responsible for tk I according to my experience would assume it is the prefrontal lobe as someone stated earlier, although this would be purely an assumption based soley on sensations that I experience.

However, someone said somethign earlier which I could also be inclined toa gree with, that different parts of the brain may in a combined effort perform tk. ALso it may not be too far fetched to consider that some of the tk ability does not in fact come from the brain but somewhere else, all possibilities should eb left open as we know very little about this area.

Maybe there should be a thread for people to say what they feelw hent hey perform tk, and how this changes with time.

Posted on Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:25 pm

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

DanielH, can you describe what is" working together" for you? This answer will lead us to what some people call "the mind".

Some people dissociate the "flow" from the structure in the definition of the identity ; " I ". They are not necessarily wrong because the "flow (s)" dosen't follow only the body's structures, it get in and out, if such principles are useful at that scale. For exemple, when would you state that the food you eat or the air you breath is part of "you"? Is the sunlight part of you, is the polarity of The Earth part of you and so on. It's all a question of perspective.

Your "wrong and right" intervention seem's very puerile to me and not based on a scientific approach. Scientific posture is rarely clear cut, and never definitive. The doubt is a very usefull to make evolution of knowledge.

Mordak, (scientific of carrer and french speaking)

Posted on Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:42 pm

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

Here is what i think about the subject.

As already stated, all the brain parts can be involved in the process of telekinesis. The front of the head seems to be very sensitive to magnetism. This can explain why many of us fell attraction/repulsion and exhaustion at that part of the brain while doing TK. But this is not the only part of our body that is sensitive to magnetism. All the nervous system can be involve in the feeling of magnetism.

As TK involve unusually performant perception (not necessarily ESP), the brain should be very active at many places during the process. As all psions are different, they use different techniques with different parts of their brains. Similitude may exist, research could shed light on the subject.

Posted on Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:54 pm

DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Mordak wrote:

They do different things and compliment each other. Think about ants. If you still don't get it then ask again.

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:33 am

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

What I can get from your point of view is totaly insufficient !
That's a very mechanical (classical epistemologic posture) view of "working together". Your analogies of reference are computers and ants and then you try to explain human phenomenon by similarities with bio and technological realms. I insist, try to explain how they "compliment each other". I think you will find your limits very soon.

Mordak

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:06 am

DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Mordak wrote:

Different parts of the brain do different things. For example... some parts of your brain control spatial reasoning, what you see, linguistic abilities, and so on. One or two parts of your brain wouldn't let you do too much. Maybe just see what's going on around you and have basic communication.

When your entire brain starts working together you do can do much more complex things. For example... your brain sees a car coming at you with one part, another part seeks out experiences/memories, another one tells your body "Oh shit! I'm in trouble!", another makes you jump out of the way, and so on. See? They're working together.

Do you get it yet? If not... well, I'll explain it some more. I think that's good enough though.

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:57 am

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

I asked HOW they are "working together"according your language, not what they can do when "working together". Try to explain how...the process...the exchange...the communication...the understanding of "structures" of what other structures do........the link...

Good "luck"

Mordak

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:08 pm

DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Mordak wrote:

You want me to explain how the nervous system works you mean? Take a neuroscience or biopsychology class if you want to learn on that. There are literally dozens of books written on the subject and you want me to condense it down to what? A few paragraphs or pages?

Do you know what neurons are? Do you know how they work or what they do?

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:08 pm

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

If fact neuroscience is far from explaining everything. Human science will never explain everything because human race is limited by is perception. What you identify as a definit structure is not necessarily definit. The definitive or finit aspect of "things" is just an effet of perception...it is a flawed picture of reality!

The problem with structuralism is that it cannot explain movement... "working together". When they have to, they go for functionalist arguments defining the role of the structure in a process. It's not necessarily bad...but it's definitely not all.

Tell me the shape of an electron ?
Tell me the difference between "in" and "out"...can you pin point the exact limit other than your subjective decision based on perception ?

Mordak

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:53 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

I like to picture human race as children simply growing. You can't really say we never know somethng. Because we already dont know it about it. Just because were yet see the holes means we can't learn it because were simply not there yet.

A electron donest really have a shape, it tends to spin in every dirctions (1/2 spin really)

Well you either have to be "in" to say there mite to a out but even that wouldnt be certain. Being "out" simply tells me that you havent gone in yet.

Perception is a trickly mistress, we havent seen the whole portant and understand how the artist did his strokes so we can't say yes or no to anything. Indeed we are limited on the chess bored, but as pawns we can still move to the other side.

Posted on Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:25 pm

DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Mordak wrote:

Human science will eventually explain everything. We have machines to help us perceive by the way.

1) Give me the right equipment and I will.
2) In is when 51% or more of a structure is inside of something. Out is when 51% or more of a structure is outside of something.

Oh, other than my subjective decision. That depends on your definition of in and out.

Posted on Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:54 pm

Mordak

Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 33

"Human science will eventually explain everything. We have machines to help us perceive by the way."

Machines we construct are conceptualised by logical and abstract thinking, but the informations necessary comes from perception. If human perception is limited, knowledge is limited and technology created by humans is also limited. According to this, it seem's very presumptuous to think humans will ever explain everything, given that they can explain something.

"In is when 51% or more of a structure is inside of something. Out is when 51% or more of a structure is outside of something.Oh, other than my subjective decision. That depends on your definition of in and out.
"

That's the point, in and out depends on the definition, and the definition is subjective. Considering reality in finit unity is reductive, and partly wrong according to me.

Mordak

Posted on Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:59 pm

DanielH

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 479

Mordak wrote:

Machines we construct are conceptualised by logical and abstract thinking, but the informations necessary comes from perception. If human perception is limited, knowledge is limited and technology created by humans is also limited. According to this, it seem's very presumptuous to think humans will ever explain everything, given that they can explain something.

That's the point, in and out depends on the definition, and the definition is subjective. Considering reality in finit unity is reductive, and partly wrong according to me.

Mordak

See, we can learn about things we can't normally perceive. Machines let us go beyond that stuff. Machines can help us go beyond limits by introducing new things. Sure, the information comes from perception... but it's expanded perception. What do you think exists that can't be perceived?

Well, sort of. We have standard definitions for a reason. And can't a subjective thing see what something is really like? I think it can. What in reality can't be categorized, studied, measured, etc?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » What part of the brain does TK come from?

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.