Werewolves and Hypertrichosis? Moder mysteries ...

Originally posted by amannion
Hmmm.
It sounds like you need some further work on your understanding of energy - but perhaps that's coming.
I think you make the classic mistake of confusing feelings with energy.

When you enter a place that you 'find to be negative', what you really mean is that you 'feel' negative (sad, angry, whatever.). When you feel anger from a person you're act ...[text shortened]... t. It makes for nice science fiction and fantasy stories but has no basis in reality.

You are correct in saying that my limited knowledge of physics impares my ability to discuss the different forms of energy on an intellectual level. However, what you seem to be refering to is the mechanical energy that you use to move your body. There are also many other forms of energy that we employ. I can think of electrical energy and heat enegry offhand, which to me means there are probably many more that a physicist could tell you about. While mechanical energy seems to only be applicable to things you touch, this is not the case for things such as heat and electricity, which are easily passed into and out of the human body. Therefore, while I admit that I don't know which catagory of energy these phenomena fall into, I think the physicists would agree with me that it is certainly possible for energy to flow out of one person and into another.
As for confusing energy with feelings, I don't think that there is necessarily such a clear distintion between the two as you make out. When I get angry, I use certain facial expressions, true, but I as kyue pointed out I also undergo biochemical reactions which change my energy state. So, if the feeling of anger is in part a change in energy state, then "feelings" and "energy" would seem to me to be inextricably intertwined.

Originally posted by whiterose
You are correct in saying that my limited knowledge of physics impares my ability to discuss the different forms of energy on an intellectual level. However, what you seem to be refering to is the mechanical energy that you use to move your body. There are also many other forms of energy that we employ. I can think of electrical energy and heat enegry offh ...[text shortened]... nergy state, then "feelings" and "energy" would seem to me to be inextricably intertwined.

You're right a physicist would agree that energy can flow out of one body and into another, but only in the trivial sense of electromagnetic radiation - of which heat is one form.
That is, my body gives off EM energy in the form of heat, and your body, if you were nearby, could absorb some of this heat.

The sort of energy you seem to be referring to though is directed and almost conscious. That is, and energy that I control in some way and direct outwards (or inwards).
This is not what happens in the human body - I have not conscious control over the heat my body radiates (well, no direct control over it anyway.) I can't 'project' energy outwards.

Your moving back into the mystical when you start saying biochemical changes associated with your feelings 'change your energy state'. What does this mean? What is an energy state associated with feelings and emotions? How can it change?
I think the distinction between energy and feelings is very important to make as your thoughts demonstrate, it's easy to confuse physical terms and processes with our everyday (often irrational) views of the workings of the body.

Originally posted by kyue
But when people are angry, their blood pressures elevate, their faces go red, sweating increases etc..they are consuming a lot of energy inside as well as disipating?

I think "the feeling of negative energy" is a sense derived by the psychological empathy as you described, and also by biochemical reactions towards a potential immediate danger by smelling the sweat, in our animal-like instinctive nature..

Yes, but so what?
This doesn't refute any of my points, you've just added to them.

Originally posted by amannion
You're right a physicist would agree that energy can flow out of one body and into another, but only in the trivial sense of electromagnetic radiation - of which heat is one form.
That is, my body gives off EM energy in the form of heat, and your body, if you were nearby, could absorb some of this heat.

The sort of energy you seem to be referring to tho ...[text shortened]... rms and processes with our everyday (often irrational) views of the workings of the body.

You have control, in some sense, of all energy entering and leaving your body. This does not mean that you consciously control it, but I think that there is no reason why it can't be consciously controled. Many people can slow down or speed up their breathing and heart rate, and thus their metabolism, at will, which is a major part of what determines heat output. That being said, transfer of energy does not require conscious control. Energy does not have to be directed at you for you to absorb it.
It is not irrational to say that biochemical reactions change your energy state. Your body has a certain amount of energy invested in each system (muscle tissue, heart, lungs, liver, etc.) at any given time. Biochemical changes, such as those produced by anger, fear, joy, etc., change how your body distributes this energy. The simplest example I can think of is the fight/flight response, whereby you release adrenaline in response to a threatening stimulus. This adrenline increases blood flow to your heart, lungs, and muscles to prepare for flight, thus increasing the amount of energy available to these tissues. It also decreases blood flow to your gut, thus decreasing its available energy. In fact, many neuroscientists would say that emotions are nothing more chemical changes in your body produced by electrical stimuli from your brain in response to some external stimulus. These chemical changes involve energy, and I see no reason why the external stimulus couldn't be energy as well.


As a side note, you mentioned earlier that we read someone's emotional state from physical cues such as facial exression. However, other species seem to be perfectly capable of reading human emotional states, even though they seem to lack the ability to read facial cues as we can. How many times have you heard the phrase "if you're not afraid of it, it won't hurt you"? In my experience, this is quite true, and would seem to imply that animals can somehow sense when we are angry of afraid. Since they cannot use facial cues, I think energy absorption would be a good theory as to how this is possible.

Originally posted by whiterose
You have control, in some sense, of all energy entering and leaving your body. This does not mean that you consciously control it, but I think that there is no reason why it can't be consciously controled. Many people can slow down or speed up their breathing and heart rate, and thus their metabolism, at will, which is a major part of what determines heat ...[text shortened]... facial cues, I think energy absorption would be a good theory as to how this is possible.

You attribute way too much to a concept that you've admitted you are not an expert on.

Firstly, the heat our bodies generate is in 'part' controlled by metabolism, which we have 'some' control over. I'd be careful about turning this into a 'major part' of what determines the heat we emit.

I agree with you on the biochemical basis of emotions. Indeed, almost all of the sensory stimuli that we respond to come to us in the form of energy - EM or mechanical energy - since most of our sensory input is either visual (light is EM energy) or auditory (sound is mechanical energy).

Other animals have different sensitivities to particular stimuli. Dogs for example can respond very sensitively to two key factors in our relationships with them - body language and smell. When we fear a dog, we present ourselves physically in a particular way that dogs can pick up on pretty easily. Our body generates smells that are essentially invisible to us, yet easily detected by the dog's more powerful nasal chemoreceptors.

Originally posted by amannion
You attribute way too much to a concept that you've admitted you are not an expert on.

Firstly, the heat our bodies generate is in 'part' controlled by metabolism, which we have 'some' control over. I'd be careful about turning this into a 'major part' of what determines the heat we emit.

I agree with you on the biochemical basis of emotions. Indeed, ...[text shortened]... y invisible to us, yet easily detected by the dog's more powerful nasal chemoreceptors.

I admit I am not an expert in physics. Biology, on the other hand, is a different story. You are correct in saying tha heat is only partly generated by metabolism. If you sat completely still and did nothing, metabolism would be the major determining factor in heat production. This is not usually the case, but anything else you do to generate heat (excercise, etc.) is usually consciously controled, so not relavent to the discussion. You say that we have 'some' control over metabolism, but I think it is a matter of how mch control you excercise rather than how much control you posess.

In terms of animals, I think dogs are a bad example because, as you stated, they can read human body language. I was refering to something like a bull, for instance, which probably cannot. The use of smell is quite interesting, though, and could quite possibly account for how many animals react to a person. What is a smell but a form of chemical energy, though? I think humans also vastly underestimate their own sense of smell, which really has some rather remarkable capacities including choosing an appropriate mate. Perhaps you have hit on something, and the sense of anger and fear I get when entering certain places is due to a lingering smell produced by those long gone.

Originally posted by whiterose
I admit I am not an expert in physics. Biology, on the other hand, is a different story. You are correct in saying tha heat is only partly generated by metabolism. If you sat completely still and did nothing, metabolism would be the major determining factor in heat production. This is not usually the case, but anything else you do to generate heat (excerci ...[text shortened]... ar I get when entering certain places is due to a lingering smell produced by those long gone.

Woah there, slow down.
Smell is not a form of chemical energy.
True, chemical energy is contained in the molecular bonds that bind any chemicals atoms together, but this isn't what we smell.

Originally posted by amannion
Woah there, slow down.
Smell is not a form of chemical energy.
True, chemical energy is contained in the molecular bonds that bind any chemicals atoms together, but this isn't what we smell.

smell: the sensation that results when olfactory receptors in the nose are stimulated by particular chemicals in gaseous form

stimulate: cause to be alert and energetic

These are straight out of a dictionary. Molecular bonds contain energy, thus the person releasing the chemical is releaing all of the energy it contains. The chemical compounds we smell are stimulatory to (i.e. increase energy of) the olafactory nerves. One person looses energy, the other gains it.

Originally posted by whiterose
smell: the sensation that results when olfactory receptors in the nose are stimulated by particular chemicals in gaseous form

stimulate: cause to be alert and energetic

These are straight out of a dictionary. Molecular bonds contain energy, thus the person releasing the chemical is releaing all of the energy it contains. The chemical compounds we sme ...[text shortened]... o (i.e. increase energy of) the olafactory nerves. One person looses energy, the other gains it.

Wrong.
Releasing chemicals is not the same as releasing energy.
For the stored energy in chemical bonds to be released it needs to be burnt - the combustion process breaks the bonds and releases the energy.
This is not what happens when you give off a smell or when your nose receives a smell.

Originally posted by amannion
Wrong.
Releasing chemicals is not the same as releasing energy.
For the stored energy in chemical bonds to be released it needs to be burnt - the combustion process breaks the bonds and releases the energy.
This is not what happens when you give off a smell or when your nose receives a smell.

When a body is doing harder work, it disipates thermal energy, and this is irrelavant and a complete separate issue with the biochemcial reactions in detecting smell. The reason why i mentioned it is because the thermal energy disipated is rather insignificant for produce any recognisable effect on this issue.

The smell theory is just a speculation anyway, there's no evidence there's such events occuring in humans, though the similar processes have been recognised in other animal species. I mentioned this in relation to a psychological empathic behaviour you mentioned as a basis.

Edit: sorry I haven't read the whole discussion yet, and have quoted a wrong one. i'll com back to this later after my work.

Originally posted by amannion
Wrong.
Releasing chemicals is not the same as releasing energy.
For the stored energy in chemical bonds to be released it needs to be burnt - the combustion process breaks the bonds and releases the energy.
This is not what happens when you give off a smell or when your nose receives a smell.

You said it yourself, "stored energy in chemial bonds". When you release a chemical, you forgo the ability to use that stored energy, thus losing it. When a chemical enters your nose and interacts with it, it breaks some of its bonds through interaction with receptors, thus releasing energy.

Originally posted by whiterose
You said it yourself, "stored energy in chemial bonds". When you release a chemical, you forgo the ability to use that stored energy, thus losing it. When a chemical enters your nose and interacts with it, it breaks some of its bonds through interaction with receptors, thus releasing energy.

Okay, but you're missing my concern about your flippant use of 'energy', 'energy state', 'negative energy', with respect to the operation of the human body and the notion of what are essentially paranormal occurrences.
I can make all sorts of claims about how, for instance, I can project my mental energies outwardly and create resonances in the minds of nearby people thereby inducing a neural link between them and me, but of course this is just mumbo jumbo - couching what is a load of crap in a semi-scientific sounding language.
Much like (with all respect) I think you're doing.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay, but you're missing my concern about your flippant use of 'energy', 'energy state', 'negative energy', with respect to the operation of the human body and the notion of what are essentially paranormal occurrences.
I can make all sorts of claims about how, for instance, I can project my mental energies outwardly and create resonances in the minds of n ...[text shortened]... a semi-scientific sounding language.
Much like (with all respect) I think you're doing.

I think you're right, we have gotten way off topic. I will grant you that my use of language has been a little vague. I think my basic point was that nobody seems to have a concrete explanation for this phenomenon, so there is no way to concretely describe what nobody knows for sure. Hence the vagueness. Hoever, just because scientists do not have a biological mechanism for it does not mean that it is 'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. It could be a completely natural, albeit uncommon, occurrance, as could telepathically linking yourself to another person. Just because you don't know how it works does not mean it is a load of crap. I don't know why, for instance, my monthly cycle resets itself to synchronise with whatever females I am living with at the time. In fact, nobody does. It has been a baffling mystery to scientists for years. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen (I can assure you it does), it only means that nobody knows the mechanism. I could hypothesise that it has something to do with chemicals and sense of smell, but of course it would all sound very vague because there is, as yet, no concrete explanation. It seems to me that a lot of scientists make the mistake of saying 'if science can't explain it, then it can't happen', when this is obviously not the case.

Originally posted by whiterose
I think you're right, we have gotten way off topic. I will grant you that my use of language has been a little vague. I think my basic point was that nobody seems to have a concrete explanation for this phenomenon, so there is no way to concretely describe what nobody knows for sure. Hence the vagueness. Hoever, just because scientists do not have a biolog ...[text shortened]... ience can't explain it, then it can't happen', when this is obviously not the case.

I agree completely and always try to keep an open mind about most things, although as I said before I'm wary of the use of scientific sounding language to explain something without really explaining it.
You're right, there's much we don't understand, and for some things the explanations we eventually come up with may be of the type that would blow yours and my minds.
But I think it's useful to keep in mind the Occam's Razor principle which is a useful part of the scientific process - albeit used intermittently.

I'm sure you're familiar with it, but in general terms it essentially suggests that where multiple explanations for some phenomena exist, the simplest is likely to be the best.

Rupert Sheldrake presents a nice case in point. He's a scientist who has devoted himself to exploring some more bizarre occurrences - esp, ghosts, angels - and in a scientific way.
Unfortunately in so doing he's invented a process - morphic resonance he calls it - which he believes can explain some of the very strange phenomena he's examined. But the reality is, morphic resonance (whatever that actually might be - Sheldrake is not terribly illuminating on this) is not the simplest explanation for some of the things he's exploring. There are simpler explanations.

Getting back to ghosts and poltergeists and stuff.
There is a simpler explanation - that they don't exist and the feelings and events that we perceive and explain away using these things are in fact internal rather than external. That is, our brain creates these situations.

Originally posted by amannion
I agree completely and always try to keep an open mind about most things, although as I said before I'm wary of the use of scientific sounding language to explain something without really explaining it.
You're right, there's much we don't understand, and for some things the explanations we eventually come up with may be of the type that would blow yours an ...[text shortened]... in fact internal rather than external. That is, our brain creates these situations.

I agree that the simplest explanation for ghosts is that they are created by the brain. But then, aren't all of our experiences in some sense created by our brains? A classic example is the 6 people who all experienced the same event, but tell completely different accounts of it. So, if ghosts are a product of the brain, are they real? I think it depends on your definition of reality.