Ram Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 There are certain books that all of us remember more than others , for a variety of reasons. This is my take on the weirdest book that i have ever read. This was during my mid-teens. The book was " Bring out the Magic in your Mind" by Al Koran. Koran claims he had extra-sensory powers from his childhood and was able to see things that others could not , like predicting where his aunt's lost ring was , or telling the answer of the math problem even before the question was put up. In the book , he systematically goes on to describe of how using the power of mind , we could get almost anything we want. He says everything in this world ( right from thoughts , emotions , ideas , energy etc) is made of waves which are out there in the world and if your waves are strong enough , then you can communicate with anybody in the world to get what you want. Some of the things Al Koran says you can do by using your powers of concentration ** Communicate with people who are somewhere else ** Win a lottery/jackpot etc ** Get gifts that you wanted ** Get rid of diseases. ** Mind-read ** Create rains , clouds and even sunshine ! And many more incredible things. He prescribes you a certain way of lifestyle which he says will help you achieve you wanted ( like the color of your clothes/car , jewelry you should wear , what you should say every morning when you get up ) etc.. When i first read the book , i was so captivated by it that i diligently made notes and tried to follow whatever he said. This is the worst part - Me and my friend would go to the terrace and try to "create" rains by staring at the sky for 10 minutes and concentrating on rain. We would also test our mind-reading skills by asking one of us to go to into room and concentrate hard on something , while the other would try to predict what the other was thinking.. Oh well ! The things some of us would do at the young age ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 There is some substance to the 'teeming pile of BS' as the description suggests, Sriram. For eg, it was noted, with curiosity amongst certain scientists that there might be something 'tangiable' to this 'myth' of 'power of the mind to influence real-world things'. There was a rather recent experiment conducted in a reputed US unviersity (the name escapes me), where an audience of people were asked to think about a particular common number (ie, think about # 40 or 1313 or 2424). A random number generator was present as control- rather interestingly, the random number generator *did* generate a few of the numbers when the audience were thinking about it for a while. Rather interesting, wouldn't you say ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 There is some substance to the 'teeming pile of BS' as the description suggests, Sriram. For eg, it was noted, with curiosity amongst certain scientists that there might be something 'tangiable' to this 'myth' of 'power of the mind to influence real-world things'. There was a rather recent experiment conducted in a reputed US unviersity (the name escapes me), where an audience of people were asked to think about a particular common number (ie, think about # 40 or 1313 or 2424). A random number generator was present as control- rather interestingly, the random number generator *did* generate a few of the numbers when the audience were thinking about it for a while. Rather interesting, wouldn't you say ? What is the random generator thing that you are talking about CC ? I dont understand. I for one , do have some belief in mind control leading to positive/favourable reactions. I do not know how many of the people here would support me on that. When I was reading the " Its not about the Bike" By Lance Armstrong , He describes of how every day he would " talk" to the cancer cells in his body , saying things like - " I am too strong for you , I know you would go away "etc. It was a complete medical miracle that a man , given a 2% survival chance , made a FULL recovery from cancer and went on to win an astonishing 6 Tour de France titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 What is the random generator thing that you are talking about CC ? I dont understand. A simple machine with a rather simple circuitry to generate random numbers. its field can be set and in this case, it was set up to twelve digit numbers ( ie, it can generate anywhere between 0 & 1*10^11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 A simple machine with a rather simple circuitry to generate random numbers. its field can be set and in this case' date=' it was set up to twelve digit numbers ( ie, it can generate anywhere between 0 & 1*10^11).[/quote'] Hang on a moment here CC. Does that mean, the people in that arena actually influenced what number the circuit generated ? This is way way amazing ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Does that mean, the people in that arena actually influenced what number the circuit generated ? This is way way amazing ! not every single time...but enough number of times to definitely not be a 'co-incidence'. But yes, essentially, that is so. Not done by one or two people mind you- rather, an entire auditorium of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 not every single time...but enough number of times to definitely not be a 'co-incidence'. But yes, essentially, that is so. Not done by one or two people mind you- rather, an entire auditorium of people. Was the experiment done simultaneously ? I wonder, which one influenced which... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 When I was reading the " Its not about the Bike" By Lance Armstrong ' date=' He describes of how every day he would " talk" to the cancer cells in his body , saying things like - " I am too strong for you , I know you would go away "etc. It was a complete medical miracle that a man , given a 2% survival chance , made a FULL recovery from cancer and went on to win an astonishing 6 Tour de France titles.[/quote'] Now now no need to get too far ahead of ourselves :wink_smile: Lance said that but does not mean that he was cured because of that! He himself acknowledges that the clever doctors + medicine cured him. Any idea the amount of toxins that got pumped into his @ss? There are million of people who say similar positive stuff and they still end up dying of cancer. Lance's positive attitude was his way of dealing with the huge problem that he was facing...but to say that he got got cured because of that is pushing the boat. Btw it's VERY refreshing to have an American sports hero who doesn't "thank God" or religion for his success! Love this Armstrong quote- “If there was a god, I’d still have both nuts.” :wink_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Lance's positive attitude was his way of dealing with the huge problem that he was facing...but to say that he got got cured because of that is pushing the boat. I never said he was cured because of his positive attitude. I suspect his mindset had a role to play in his recovery. In the same book , the same doctors you had talked about , refer to how Armstrong's recovery was indeed a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty_South Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 The weirdest book you have read... Harry Potter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I never said he was cured because of his positive attitude. I suspect his mindset had a role to play in his recovery. In the same book ' date=' the same doctors you had talked about , refer to how Armstrong's recovery was indeed a miracle.[/quote'] Define miracle :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Define miracle :hysterical: Dude, there is a thing called 'mind over matter', even if in a very limited scale - numerous philosophical treatese exists in Indian texts for it and the random number gen. + collective conciousness experiment shows. Willpower is a pretty strong thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Dude' date=' there is a thing called 'mind over matter', even if in a very limited scale - numerous philosophical treatese exists in Indian texts for it[/quote'] Indian texts say so it must be true. I am not going to start as we both are ek number ke @ss holes :tounge_smile::hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Indian texts say so it must be true. I am not going to start as we both are ek number ke @ss holes :tounge_smile::hysterical: No, i didnt say that- i added another source of this information. What has gotten me interested is this rand# gen. test where a collective thought did show influence on machine output. I don't see what is so scientifically wrong in thinking that psycho-kinesis is not possible. Radiation is a form of transmission of energy & it is a well established fact that our brain has a strong electromagnetic potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FakeId Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Advanced Thermodynamics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Solaris by Stainslaw Lem. Heck even Astronaut had me puzzled. Lem has this thing about him that he writes less about a story but more about the human mind and how it functions. and not physiologically but (and indulge the use of this pseudoscientific term) metaphysically. and while we are at it, the craziest short stories i have ever read were by Philip K. Dick, in particular "Beyond lies the WUB" and "Garbage Men". But then again Philip was doing a lot of LSD when he wrote those and his psychosis was at unprecedented levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 No, i didnt say that- i added another source of this information. What has gotten me interested is this rand# gen. test where a collective thought did show influence on machine output. I don't see what is so scientifically wrong in thinking that psycho-kinesis is not possible. Radiation is a form of transmission of energy & it is a well established fact that our brain has a strong electromagnetic potential. Pseudoscience. dont waste your time on it, and more specifically restrain from the topic as i am trying hard not to bash your with rationale thought, something that a believer in psycho kinesis will find hard to digest. dont know how long can i hold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Pseudoscience.Nothing psuedo-scientific about the observation. I also care not for your judgment on what is/isn't pseudo-science- i find myself quite capable of making that decision. Rather, an oddity that is unexplainable- science has a long history of trying to pooh-pooh anything it cannot explain as psuedo-science. something that a believer in psycho kinesis will find hard to digest.Believer ? No. I am not a believer. I am merely open to the possibility of its existance/rationale. I find it far more unscientific to classify phenomena into 'believer/established' and 'unbeliever->unestablished'- there is a third state, which is essentially the indeterminate (ie, the 'i don't know- maybe/may not be') that western philosophy of science has a hard time dealing with. It fundamentally doesnt like the 'i don't know' explanation, since the philosophy of western science is bit too caught up in its notion of perfection in logic/concept (which it isn't, really and i can produce voluminous discourse in both western & eastern philosophy highlighting the limitations of scientific thought in the phenomenal world.) So save your bashings for something that is worth bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THX_1138 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Nothing psuedo-scientific about the observation. I also care not for your judgment on what is/isn't pseudo-science- i find myself quite capable of making that decision. Rather, an oddity that is unexplainable- science has a long history of trying to pooh-pooh anything it cannot explain as psuedo-science. Believer ? No. I am not a believer. I am merely open to the possibility of its existance/rationale. I find it far more unscientific to classify phenomena into 'believer/established' and 'unbeliever->unestablished'- there is a third state, which is essentially the indeterminate (ie, the 'i don't know- maybe/may not be') that western philosophy of science has a hard time dealing with. It fundamentally doesnt like the 'i don't know' explanation, since the philosophy of western science is bit too caught up in its notion of perfection in logic/concept (which it isn't, really and i can produce voluminous discourse in both western & eastern philosophy highlighting the limitations of scientific thought in the phenomenal world.) So save your bashings for something that is worth bashing. usual CC jargon that is about one echelon above a troll but one below a logically constructed statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 usual CC jargon that is about one echelon above a troll but one below a logically constructed statement.Anything else to highlight your incomprehension ? There is nothing logically lacking in that statement, i am sorry to say. Do you or do you not acknowledge the divergence of thought between these two statements ? : 1. something that a believer in psycho kinesis will find hard to digest. (by you) 2. Believer ? No. I am not a believer. I am merely open to the possibility of its existance/rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts