Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Psychology and physics

  1. Apr 30, 2004 #1
    is there any branch of physics or psychology that focuses on the mind and physics (ie integration of mind to machines, astral projection, etc.)?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 2, 2004 #2
    integration of mind to machines -- yes some cybernetic work is actually being carried out. the only bit I know about though involves simulating sight in a blind man by wiring his brain. and by sight I mean a not quite dot matrix quality arrangment of dots that can perceive differences in depth.

    astral projection -- Before you can do work on something you have to acknowledge its existence. I don't know a physicist that would honestly even think about trying to do something like this.
  4. May 2, 2004 #3
    shouldnt a physicist be open to investigating any and all theories? if physicists would investigate the mind, all theories would be unfolded because the reality that physicists try to explain is nothing but perceptions in the mind.
  5. May 2, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We had a thread in these Forums that talked about the work being done to operate machinery by thought. An EEG reads electric impulses from the brain of a monkey, and translates them into instructions for a robotic arm in the next room. I can't find the thread, but when I can, I'll link to it.
  6. May 2, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Ah, here it is ! :biggrin:
  7. May 2, 2004 #6
    1) shouldnt a physicist be open to investigating any and all theories?
    2) if physicists would investigate the mind, all theories would be unfolded because the reality that physicists try to explain is
    3)nothing but perceptions in the mind.

    1) No, a physicist should be open to examining the theories and possibilities that given his/her depth of knowledge make logical sense. Usually in the case of mysticism, psychics, etc. the theories and possibilities that are tested are hypothesis which debunk the test variable. And usually they are right.

    2) Physicist do investigate the mind. I know a PhD who is currently doing research on thought processes from an electrochemical perspective. This does not mean that he will develop a complete or unfolded theory about the mind and its function.

    3)The world is not a simple perception as you claim. That would mean that what is true for one person would be false for another based on what they thought the laws of nature are. just because someone chooses not to believe in gravity, or doesn't perceive it, does not mean that the person can fly.
  8. May 2, 2004 #7
    Everybody to their own taste!

    Essentially what you are saying here is that physicists should not be open to examining theories and possibilities that, given his/her depth of knowledge, do not make logical sense. I would agree with that statement as it really says two things:
    First, they shouldn't be examining things which are beyond his/depth of knowledge (a reasonable statement).

    And second, nor should he/she examine things which, from his/her perspective, do not make logical sense. This is also reasonable as either it actually does not make logical sense or the physicist does not understand the subject and the first case applies even if the physicist is not aware of it.​
    This could be put another way: every time in the past where a competent physicist has taken the trouble to look at such circumstances, his conclusion was that there was no evidence for validity of the "theory" put forth by the practitioner. The reason I mention this is the fact that most people who believe in such things do not comprehend that they are putting forth a theory; they all tend to think that they are putting forth facts.

    In fact, most everybody (and that includes physicists) works from the perspective that what they believe to be true is true, failing to comprehend that most of what they think is true is actually only a theory and not fact at all.
    I am not about to complain about the thrust of his work as I am sure such an investigation will uncover some valuable information; but, honestly, you must admit that it is highly biased towards the idea that the universe is as the physicists sees it and that it does function the way they think it functions. In his own way, the physicist is as biased and uncritical of his own beliefs as is the astrologer or the mystic.
    I am sorry VBPhysics, but your position here is as fundamentally unthoughtout as is the position of the astrologer or the mystic. I would personally put it in the category of the "pot calling kettle black". I am afraid there is more to this universe than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

    Have fun -- Dick

    Attached Files:

  9. May 4, 2004 #8


    User Avatar


    You might want to look into the govenments "Stargate" program and remote viewing.
  10. May 4, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think I have a better answer: physicists should be open to all theories, but astral projection is not a theory. The scientific method pretty strictly constrains such investigation.
  11. May 9, 2004 #10
    isnt this more biology?

  12. May 12, 2004 #11
    A well documented work by Dean Radin, PhD UNLV "The Conscious Universe" "The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomenon" is not a work in philosophy, nor overly biased.
    Another, "Morphic Resonance, The Presence of the Past, The Habits of Nature" "Rupert Sheldrake, PhD Botonist, wrote a well documented, strictly scientific, if not heretical, work that cannot be challenged easily.

    If the physics industry ever gets serious about the subject matter of this thread they will necessarily have to discard tons of dogmatic garbage that has no place in the world of the mind. For instance, many assert dogmatically, that the brain is where the thought processes occur, where memory is stored etc. There isn't enough memory capacity for the brain to process all the memories we are capable of bringing to a conscious state of awareness. Take the analogy of a TV set with a faulty tuning transistor in the circuit. The channel selection process is faulty. The signal processing needs calibrating and retuning. In some models the brain is just one component of a biological antenna that our minds use to concentrate consciousness into our organic being. This might be one way that some think "they are Napoleon', or hear "voices from outer space", or are "psychic", "read minds" all claims of which can be perfectly true, as disturbing as some characterize those afflicted with the curse. One cannot easily conduct human expeiments and place the subjects in an objective state as we do with electrons and other matter. One will have to take the subject as she or he is.

    The model is consistent with the conservation of energy to a real extent when the radiated output of the life energy fields of humans do not dissipate. Likewise, it seems more in line with Ocaams views that a central library is more efficient than with everybody having a copy for themselves stored in memory in their brain. To assume the limits of investigation end somehow with Maxwell's equations or Heisenberg's Uncertainty stuff is to effectivley abort the experiment before it starts.
    The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?