1,720,964 research outputs found
Telepathy: A Science or Pseudoscience ?
No full textTelepathy: A Science or Pseudoscience ?
Telepathy means transmission of information from one person to another without using any known human sensory channels or physical interaction. The term was coined by Frederick W. H. Myers, a founder of the society for psychical research, in 1882 [1].
Over the decades, the researches on telepathy failed to produce any convincing and replicable evidence that could prove that telepathy exists, and often been considered by the scientific community as to be the pseudoscience.
Here, we are predicting from some common observations that though telepathy, in the sense of thought transmission, may not be existing, emotional transmission could be a possible phenomenon.
These common observations are :
(1) In a room full of happy persons, a person will also feel happy to some extent, although in normal situation there is no reason for him to be happy to that extent. Festive occasions for that carry feelings of happiness to everyone in that community.
In opposite, in a room full of gloomy persons, a normal individual will feel distressed to some extent.
Or in a room full of angry persons, a normal person will feel distressed on anger emotional scale.
(2) Suppose in a room someone is present and another person very angrily entered in that room from behind silently. Without having any sensational perception (through vision, audition, physical contact etc.) the existing person will feel a sensation of another's anger.
(3) In a crowded place, we feel dizzy, because of variant emotional expressions by others. In a secluded place, or when we are in our own room, we feel a more relaxed mental state.
All of the above mentioned common observations predict the fact that there is possibility that emotions could be transmitted by some measure without any sensational perception (vision, audition, touch etc.) and without any human made sensory channels from one person to another at a considerable distance.
If it could be so, the question comes what could be this unknown measure?
There are two possibilities :
(1) Ultrasonic waves which is dependent on an existing medium between the emitter and perceiver.
(2) Electromagnetic waves (which is most possible).
Any study could rule out the former by changing the medium. Like whether an angry person will affect another to same extent in air or under water, or not. Or in space, whether it is possible for this emotional transmission or not. And also by directly measuring ultrasonic waves.
But if it is electromagnetic wave, then study should be carried out to detect the change in intensity of any particular range of electromagnetic waves around a person, when the person is expressing strongly an emotion, or not.
One study revealed the evidence of emitting specific electromagnetic waves, other than thermal radiation, by a living human body that they intended to detect a living human body buried under snow or caved in in an earthquake, mines, etc. [2]. If it is true, we have to accept the fact that living human body can emit electromagnetic waves other than thermal radiations.
So it is also possible that intensity as well as wavelengths or frequencies of these waves could alter in different emotional states. Or different emotional centers in brain emit EMWs of different wavelengths or frequencies and their intensity varies on the grades of expression of that emotion.
In this abstract, we are not predicting that the telepathy, as a conception of thought transmission, is possible. But a person's emotional state can be transmissible to another person at a distance without any contact or usual sensory perception.
However, if emotional transmission exists, one can understand another's emotional state at a distance. And he can also predict from this information what the emitter is roughly thinking about for that moment, though it is not possible for the receiver to tell about what the emitter is exactly thinking.
But intimacy can also close these factors. A person who is a receiver and well-acquianted with the emitter, would more correctly tell about his thinking. For example, if 'A' person knows that 'B' person gets more angry to someone or something, it is more easy to predict for the 'A' person from the 'B' person's severe angry state – to what he is so angry, and more correctly read his mind. If 'A' person knows what the 'B' person loves the most, then from the 'B' person's intense lovable emotional state, 'A' person could predict what 'B' person is thinking about for that moment.
However, the facts here should be considered that if it is true, emotional transmission is both range dependent and intensity dependent. An angry or joyful person will affect another more in a room or in close proximity, but less when they are 100 meters or more apart. The more the distance the less will be the emotional perception. And another variable is the strength of expressed emotion. When emotions are strong, obviously our emotional centers would emit stronger waves which will be carried on for longer distance.
So this typy of transmission is both range and strength dependent.
In this case, it also should be speculated that these EMWs are specific and not similar in their frequencies with respect to different emotional centers of our brain. Different emotional centers have their unique nature of their waves including their specific frequencies. As emotional recognition is dependent on simultaneous possession of similar emotional centers in an organism [3], these specific waves targeted to affect the similar emotional centers in others. Another important factor is that not everyone’s brain is equally powerful to produce waves of stronger intensities with regard to different emotions. The more powerful it is, the stronger waves it can produce and that can travel greater distance without attenuation; and thus can affect larger number of other brains. So it can indirectly also reflect a person’s emotionality quotient (EQ), with regard to a particular emotion or a person’s general emotionality.
This article is just a prediction from our common observations. We think that we need to carry out scientific researches to detect out the possibility of the existence of this type of transmission.
References :
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
[2] Lipkova J, Cechak J (2005). “Human electromagnetic emission in the ELF band”. Measurement Science Review; Vol.5, section 2, 2005.
[3] Das K K (2017). “A Theoretical Approach to Define and Analyze Emotions”. Int J Emerg Ment Health; Vol 19(4): 374, pg 1-14.
[The author is searching research grant to carry out this research
Telepathy: A Science or Pseudoscience ?
No full textTelepathy: A Science or Pseudoscience ?
Telepathy means transmission of information from one person to another without using any known human sensory channels or physical interaction. The term was coined by Frederick W. H. Myers, a founder of the society for psychical research, in 1882 [1].
Over the decades, the researches on telepathy failed to produce any convincing and replicable evidence that could prove that telepathy exists, and often been considered by the scientific community as to be the pseudoscience.
Here, we are predicting from some common observations that though telepathy, in the sense of thought transmission, may not be existing, emotional transmission could be a possible phenomenon.
These common observations are :
(1) In a room full of happy persons, a person will also feel happy to some extent, although in normal situation there is no reason for him to be happy to that extent. Festive occasions for that carry feelings of happiness to everyone in that community.
In opposite, in a room full of gloomy persons, a normal individual will feel distressed to some extent.
Or in a room full of angry persons, a normal person will feel distressed on anger emotional scale.
(2) Suppose in a room someone is present and another person very angrily entered in that room from behind silently. Without having any sensational perception (through vision, audition, physical contact etc.) the existing person will feel a sensation of another's anger.
(3) In a crowded place, we feel dizzy, because of variant emotional expressions by others. In a secluded place, or when we are in our own room, we feel a more relaxed mental state.
All of the above mentioned common observations predict the fact that there is possibility that emotions could be transmitted by some measure without any sensational perception (vision, audition, touch etc.) and without any human made sensory channels from one person to another at a considerable distance.
If it could be so, the question comes what could be this unknown measure?
There are two possibilities :
(1) Ultrasonic waves which is dependent on an existing medium between the emitter and perceiver.
(2) Electromagnetic waves (which is most possible).
Any study could rule out the former by changing the medium. Like whether an angry person will affect another to same extent in air or under water, or not. Or in space, whether it is possible for this emotional transmission or not. And also by directly measuring ultrasonic waves.
But if it is electromagnetic wave, then study should be carried out to detect the change in intensity of any particular range of electromagnetic waves around a person, when the person is expressing strongly an emotion, or not.
One study revealed the evidence of emitting specific electromagnetic waves, other than thermal radiation, by a living human body that they intended to detect a living human body buried under snow or caved in in an earthquake, mines, etc. [2]. If it is true, we have to accept the fact that living human body can emit electromagnetic waves other than thermal radiations.
So it is also possible that intensity as well as wavelengths or frequencies of these waves could alter in different emotional states. Or different emotional centers in brain emit EMWs of different wavelengths or frequencies and their intensity varies on the grades of expression of that emotion.
In this abstract, we are not predicting that the telepathy, as a conception of thought transmission, is possible. But a person's emotional state can be transmissible to another person at a distance without any contact or usual sensory perception.
However, if emotional transmission exists, one can understand another's emotional state at a distance. And he can also predict from this information what the emitter is roughly thinking about for that moment, though it is not possible for the receiver to tell about what the emitter is exactly thinking.
But intimacy can also close these factors. A person who is a receiver and well-acquianted with the emitter, would more correctly tell about his thinking. For example, if 'A' person knows that 'B' person gets more angry to someone or something, it is more easy to predict for the 'A' person from the 'B' person's severe angry state – to what he is so angry, and more correctly read his mind. If 'A' person knows what the 'B' person loves the most, then from the 'B' person's intense lovable emotional state, 'A' person could predict what 'B' person is thinking about for that moment.
However, the facts here should be considered that if it is true, emotional transmission is both range dependent and intensity dependent. An angry or joyful person will affect another more in a room or in close proximity, but less when they are 100 meters or more apart. The more the distance the less will be the emotional perception. And another variable is the strength of expressed emotion. When emotions are strong, obviously our emotional centers would emit stronger waves which will be carried on for longer distance.
So this typy of transmission is both range and strength dependent.
In this case, it also should be speculated that these EMWs are specific and not similar in their frequencies with respect to different emotional centers of our brain. Different emotional centers have their unique nature of their waves including their specific frequencies. As emotional recognition is dependent on simultaneous possession of similar emotional centers in an organism [3], these specific waves targeted to affect the similar emotional centers in others. Another important factor is that not everyone’s brain is equally powerful to produce waves of stronger intensities with regard to different emotions. The more powerful it is, the stronger waves it can produce and that can travel greater distance without attenuation; and thus can affect larger number of other brains. So it can indirectly also reflect a person’s emotionality quotient (EQ), with regard to a particular emotion or a person’s general emotionality.
This article is just a prediction from our common observations. We think that we need to carry out scientific researches to detect out the possibility of the existence of this type of transmission.
References :
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
[2] Lipkova J, Cechak J (2005). “Human electromagnetic emission in the ELF band”. Measurement Science Review; Vol.5, section 2, 2005.
[3] Das K K (2017). “A Theoretical Approach to Define and Analyze Emotions”. Int J Emerg Ment Health; Vol 19(4): 374, pg 1-14.
[The author is searching research grant to carry out this research
Hermann Grid Optical Illusion and The Rebelling Dots of Reality
No full textIn 1870, Ludimar Hermann reported an optical illusion that has been popularized thereafter after his name. In this Hermann Grid illusion, we see either white grid upon the background of complete black or black grid on the background of complete white. If we watch the grid, we see blobs of darkness or blobs of white smudges appearing at the intersections of the white or black grid respectively that are more prominent at peripheral view. A number of approaches to explain this illusion have been ventured in course of time. In this article, we will take the endeavor to explain it from the angle of familiarity with the previous associated memories of grid views. To summarize our view, we can say that we see Hermann grid illusion because of the impossibility of the Hermann grid in reality
Consciousness and its relation with subconscious mind: The mystery probed
No full textWhat is the nature of consciousness? How is it related to subconscious functioning of the mind? What drives our conscious and subconscious mind? Is your mind yours? i.e., is there a free will? – If I tell you to read the telephone directory from cover to cover (without any incentive), not missing a single word – you will probably get some idea about the answer of that question. If we deeply think, our consciousness as well as mind’s functioning is equivalent to molecular tendency. It is like sodium's affinity to react with water to make a stable compound. There is no need to import divine attribute upon consciousness. But can we say ‘sodium is conscious’? – not in the way by which we feel our very subjective consciousness. Then why our consciousness evolved? It evolved to guide an array of complex molecular reactions that accidentally trapped into a cycle within our earth’s microcosm. Consciousness is a part of this cycle, though not always essential in this cycle. Consciousness is a feeling; just like some primitive organism felt pain to avoid noxious stimuli, or felt hunger to be attracted to particular molecules. Any organism that can feel, we can say it is conscious, though it may not experience conscious intellectual workings. Human consciousness is the highest developed form of the feelings that can feel sensory perceptions as well as intellectual workings and others. In this article we have also defined our subconscious mind and how it differs from conscious mind. There are a good number of questions regarding our subconscious mind. Is it more powerful than our conscious mind? Does the drive that works for conscious mind work for subconscious too? We all experience somehow the presence of our subconscious mind, but where in the structures of brain it resides? Can subconscious be autoactivated and act on its own? Can subconscious create its own goal? Or can its activities be primed for a goal? In this treatise, we reviewed different literatures and tried to give answers to these questions to demystify the nature and realm of activities of our conscious and subconscious mind
Milgram's Study: Obedience or Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?
No full textMilgram's Study: Obedience or Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?
Abstract: This project has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the famous psychological experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsey-Chittenham hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle - that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or summation of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments
Supplemental materials for preprint: A Study on Evolutionary Perspectives of ‘Emotions’ and ‘Mood’ on Biological Evolutionary Platform
No full textMeme: Is Replicated On A Survival Interest ?
No full textMEME: IS REPLICATED ON A SURVIVAL INTEREST ?
Our mind does not want to take up anything if that mind is totally disinterested about it from its any of the quarters of conscious, subconscious, or unconscious sections. And the mind, as all of the other parts of the body, is tuned such that it scarcely gets interested in anything that has nothing to do with the survival of the species. This is true from the evolutionary perspective.
'Meme' is described as an unit of cultural beliefs, ideas, habits that can be transferred or replicated from one individual into another individual. The term ‘meme’ was coined by Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘Selfish Gene’ [1]. ‘Meme’, an unit of cultural properties, is similar to ‘Gene’ which is an unit of hereditary properties.
There is a dictum when two people from two different backgrounds or cultures meet together, there happens cultural exchange between them, or between their minds. In real world whenever two people meet, there is some mutual interest. So in practical life, this is almost true. But in real sense, the law is not supposed to be true. If mind does not get interested in the material being transferred from another mind in respect of any of its quarters - that is conscious, subconscious, and unconscious; the mind will try to resist the transfer. Yet some cultural exchange occurs in almost all cases. The reason behind it is most possibly the emotion ‘curiosity’. Even if, the transfer is devoid of other interest, the emotion ‘curiosity’ or ‘desire to know the unknown’ is attached with some survival interest which has been elaborated elsewhere in my works [2]. And this could be the reason for some inevitable cultural exchange in these cases. But more introspection and studies are required.
References :
1. Dawkins R (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University press.
2. Das K K (2017). "A Theoretical Approach to Define and Analyze Emotions". International Journal of Emergency Mental Health; 19(4): 374, 1-14
Meme: Is Replicated On A Survival Interest ?
No full textMEME: IS REPLICATED ON A SURVIVAL INTEREST ?
Our mind does not want to take up anything if that mind is totally disinterested about it from its any of the quarters of conscious, subconscious, or unconscious sections. And the mind, as all of the other parts of the body, is tuned such that it scarcely gets interested in anything that has nothing to do with the survival of the species. This is true from the evolutionary perspective.
'Meme' is described as an unit of cultural beliefs, ideas, habits that can be transferred or replicated from one individual into another individual. The term ‘meme’ was coined by Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘Selfish Gene’ [1]. ‘Meme’, an unit of cultural properties, is similar to ‘Gene’ which is an unit of hereditary properties.
There is a dictum when two people from two different backgrounds or cultures meet together, there happens cultural exchange between them, or between their minds. In real world whenever two people meet, there is some mutual interest. So in practical life, this is almost true. But in real sense, the law is not supposed to be true. If mind does not get interested in the material being transferred from another mind in respect of any of its quarters - that is conscious, subconscious, and unconscious; the mind will try to resist the transfer. Yet some cultural exchange occurs in almost all cases. The reason behind it is most possibly the emotion ‘curiosity’. Even if, the transfer is devoid of other interest, the emotion ‘curiosity’ or ‘desire to know the unknown’ is attached with some survival interest which has been elaborated elsewhere in my works [2]. And this could be the reason for some inevitable cultural exchange in these cases. But more introspection and studies are required.
References :
1. Dawkins R (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University press.
2. Das K K (2017). "A Theoretical Approach to Define and Analyze Emotions". International Journal of Emergency Mental Health; 19(4): 374, 1-14
- …
