I told myself I wasn’t coming back to this thread…… In fact, I shouldn’t be here now, as I don’t get a lunch break for the 2nd day in a row. But I decided I am tired of seeing myself quoted when I never finished what I was trying to get to. And it probably is only fair to you guys that I finish explaining. I rarely have time to spend on posting, so it can take several days to finally get enough said to make my point. And we seemed to disagree on a certain sticking point….. So it may take me all day to type this response, and hopefully I can finally get it all said. I wasn’t trying to prove that my friend did anything special, nor that I did anything special. I was just using an example to get to a point in a round about way.
So now, with my disclaimer handled, on to what I was trying to get at way back when.
Ms Music said:
But that was my point. Some people "apparently" CAN heal others, and it is something my friend is apparently gaining the ability to do. Okay, so maybe it involves touching the person to sense what is sick in the body. But once again, how is that different from zooby? Couldn't that be considered telecommunication with cells in another persons body?
The reason I said “apparently”, is that there are people that believe they can heal, and there are people that believe they have been healed by the healers. This should be testable (with fMRI). It is the same with telecommunication. What happened with Zooby is very testable. Did you ask her if she “heard” your comment? If so, you definitely have your own proof that there was telecommunication between the two of you. If you didn’t ask her, all you have is your own perception of what you want to believe happened. And what happened could be as simple as
my assuming that when you had the thought “what a cute face”, that a tiny smile actually crossed your own face. She sees that tiny smile, and realizes that you are being patient and understanding while she deals with this difficult customer. So she looks at you and whispers “Thank you” [for your patience and understanding] while the difficult customer is looking away.
zoobyshoe said:
I just remembered that in Seeing Voices Sacks describes a similar hallucinating what you expect, or mental filling in of some sensory piece that is missing from a pre-established habit of concurrance of inputs from two separate stimuli.
Explains exactly what I was describing above. With my example of cranial sacral, there is no proof that there was anything wrong with me, there is no proof that she (or I) did anything to fix me. It is easy to “hallucinate what I/you expect” that she or I healed something. It is possible that something similar to an fMRI could be used to show what was going on in the brain, since FMRI can be used to show blood flow increasing when neurons are activated. Without some sort of physical proof of what occurs during cranial sacral, there is no proof that anything at all happened, especially if it can’t be duplicated. But it doesn’t mean that it can’t be proven in the future.
The same with ghosts. You can’t prove something was observed. But that doesn’t mean it won't be provable in the future. Which means you can’t disprove ghosts. People will believe what they want to believe, but it isn’t in any way proof neither for, nor against the existence of ghosts. It is possible it is merely a hallucination, but it is also possible that there really is something there. Non believers have just as much to prove as the believers do.
Same with string theory.

It hasn’t been proven yet, but it definitely explains what we are observing.
Okay, now I hope I am a little closer to what I was trying to get at. If you want to believe I healed myself, you first need a leap of faith in the “chi”. If you want to believe that there are ghosts, you need a leap of faith that ghosts exist. If you DON’T want to believe that ghosts exist, then you must have a leap of faith that there is no such thing as a ghost. So far, it isn’t testable either way.
Oh, and I wanted to make a comment on the cell phone thing. It really isn’t anything special to know you are getting a phone call before the phone rings. I use a wired hands free when driving, because I don’t like Bluetooth. When my phone is about to ring, there is a very faint click that I hear in the ear bud one to two seconds before the phone actually rings. So if you know your phone is about to ring, you probably are just picking up on the signal going into your phone. It just takes a couple of seconds for your phone to “wake up” and ring.
Aren’t I just a party pooper?
And now I see that others have said similar things through out the day… <sigh>