Realistic Basis for Extra-Sensory Perception

[metacogitans]

Of the 5 traditional senses, 2 are the result of chemical stimulus (smell and taste) and 3 result from frequency-based stimulus. 2 of the latter 3 result from kinetic stimulus (touch and hearing) and one is the result from electromagnetic radiation in a certain range of frequencies (vision).

 

Right away, we can add another sense and say that perception of temperature is its own sense, as it results from radiation in the 'infrared' range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum - which is distinct from the kinetic stimulus resulting in 'touch'.

 

Presumably, sensory neurons can exist for any frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum. It is more unlikely for there not to be sensory neurons somewhere in the body which specialize in different frequencies in the spectrum than those used by the traditional 5 (6) senses.

 

Many of the different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum are capable of passing through the human body without being absorbed by the body. Although they pass through us, they still slightly influence the particles within the human body; this 'slight influence' could be picked up by specialized sensory neurons. The receptors specializing in these frequencies would not necessarily even have to be limited to a designated sensory neuron; and could be dispersed throughout the nervous system.

 

The traditional 5 (6) senses might just be the senses requiring external sensory input. There could be a far greater number of different senses picking up on radiation that passes through the body. Receptors specializing in radiation passing through the body might be found on all sorts of neurons throughout the nervous system where they play a secondary role for that neuron, detecting conditional stimulus. Some of these frequencies may not be found often enough for the nervous system to need to have designated neurons for them - instead just having a few receptors sprinkled throughout the nervous system (as part of a secondary role for the whichever neuron they're attached to) might be sufficient for the nervous system to be made aware of their presence.

 

Edit: Deleted a paragraph that was disputable and not relevant to the central idea of the post.

Edited January 29, 2016 by metacogitans

[kisai]

 

sensory neurons can exist for any frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

This is an error. Neurons cannot transmit frequency. All they can do is pulse. More pulsing means more stimulus, not higher/lower frequency from the exterior stimulus.

 

For example, the cones in your eyes are excited by light at a range of frequencies (and you have three different types to capture this). When they transmit, they do not convey frequency. They just pulse. Your brain sorts out this pulsing to mean to see such an object in such a color range, but it doesn't actually know what frequency of light that is, and that information is not conveyed. To illustrate my point: humans don't have a cone for yellow. The color yellow stimulates both the red and green cones, but not the blue. So red and green pulse, and your brain takes that info, and turns red-green and not-blue into its own color: yellow.

 

Your idea of how smell works is wrong. Yes, smell is keyed to an olfactory bulb, but that receptor twinges neurons that stimulate memory, so you recall what you're smelling. Once again, neurons cannot relay information about a frequency. They can only pulse, which is unrelated to the exterior stimuli.

Edited January 29, 2016 by kisai

[metacogitans]

 

This is an error. Neurons cannot transmit frequency. All they can do is pulse. More pulsing means more stimulus, not higher/lower frequency.

 

For example, the cones in your eyes are excited by light at a range of frequencies (and you have three different types to capture this). When they transmit, they do not convey frequency. They just pulse. Your brain sorts out this pulsing to mean to see such an object in such a color range, but it doesn't actually know what frequency of light that is, and that information is not conveyed. To illustrate my point: humans don't have a cone for yellow. The color yellow stimulates both the red and green cones, but not the blue. So red and green pulse, and your brain takes that info, and turns red-green and not-blue into its own color: yellow.

 

Your idea of how smell works is wrong. Yes, smell is keyed to an olfactory bulb, but that receptor twinges neurons that stimulate memory, so you recall what you're smelling. Once again, neurons cannot relay information about a frequency. They can only pulse, which is unrelated to the exterior stimuli.

Photoreceptors cover a range of frequencies. Although photo-receptors do not identify specific colors, they can identify stimulus as being between two different colors.

 

Any particular frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum could have a receptor where that frequency is included in the receptor's range of frequencies.The action potential generated by a frequency-based sensory neuron indicates a frequency within a given range.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that an exact frequency can be identified by a receptor; I did mention 'range of frequencies' in the original post, in the second sentence. I didn't really think it was necessary to repeatedly specify that receptors are limited to detecting a particular range of frequencies and thought that just came with the context of what I was saying.

Edited January 29, 2016 by metacogitans

[kisai]

 

 

Any particular frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum could have a receptor where that frequency is included in the receptor's range of frequencies.

 

You're going to have to identify which organs act as receptors for EMF beyond visible light. I haven't seen any evidence that humans could detect radio waves, for example. Neurons themselves trigger on a chemical change within their cellular structure (lots of neat stuff with keeping an imbalance of ions with the help of a pump that I shan't get into), not on an arbitrary exposure to an EMF.

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to imply that an exact frequency can be identified by a receptor

 

I thought you were implying that neurons themselves could convey information about frequency, when all they are are more analogous to pulsed switches which trigger on a stimulus, and its amazing the way vision works to take all of that pulsing and turn it into a picture.

Edited January 29, 2016 by kisai

[swansont]

 

Right away, we can add another sense and say that perception of temperature is its own sense, as it results from radiation in the 'infrared' range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum - which is distinct from the kinetic stimulus resulting in 'touch'.

 

Radiation isn't the only heat transfer mechanism. What about conduction and convection? They both rely on physical contact. Is my perception of temperature different if I detect warm sunlight or touch a warm surface?

 

The body is also measuring heat flow, not temperature. Touch a metal plate and piece of wood at the same temperature (say 15 - 20ºC) and the metal plate will feel cooler. The same temperature air feels different as humidity changes, and if there's a wind blowing.

[metacogitans]

 

You're going to have to identify which organs act as receptors for EMF beyond visible light. I haven't seen any evidence that humans could detect radio waves, for example. Neurons themselves trigger on a chemical change within their cellular structure (lots of neat stuff with keeping an imbalance of ions with the help of a pump that I shan't get into), not on an arbitrary exposure to an EMF.

 

 

I thought you were implying that neurons themselves could convey information about frequency, when all they are are more analogous to pulsed switches which trigger on a stimulus, and its amazing the way vision works to take all of that pulsing and turn it into a picture.

 

We might not actually have any such receptors, but it definitely could be possible and isn't necessarily a superstition.

 

Some reasons why they haven't been identified though could be:

 

- They might be too sparse to find, and no one has been looking for them.

 

- Receptors can lock shut when not in use; the receptors might only activate as part of a particular environmental response.

 

- There might not be any of the receptors in our body currently, but we might have the instructions and capability to make them if for some reason they were put into production as an environmental response. After all, a significant portion of human DNA is 'retired' genetic code from a different epoch.

 

As for vision, its actually amazing we can even see anything at all. If we could freeze frame our vision and look at what a still image during one instant of our vision actually looks like, it'd be nothing but an incoherent mess of blurry smudges. There is also 'noise' from the optical nerve which has to be filtered out by the visual cortex, otherwise we'd constantly have something similar-looking to white noise in our vision.

 

It turns out we are all actually near-blind and our visual cortex is just a master of making deductions. The visual cortex is also lazy however, and doesn't completely deduce what something is until told to. It only 'fills in the blanks' as much as it has to in order to conserve resources and also because it might simply not be big enough for multitasking with focus on multiple things at once.

Edited January 29, 2016 by metacogitans

[kisai]

Oh, I agree it's entirely possible to create a device that would hack into your neurons and give you sensory information that goes beyond what humans can experience. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not that fooling a neuron is difficult, but that your brain as an infant goes through a period of plasticity where it is "Use it or lose it" time. So if you're born missing an eye, the resources for that missing eye can be commandeered by your good eye. Beyond this infancy period, it is very difficult for the brain to readjust to a different way of operating, so a restored eye would probably still be blind. To go beyond this limit may be possible if you could revert portions of the brain into stem cells and then retrain it, but we are so far into science fiction territory here...

 

As for your collection of points, you're going to have to look for evidence in animals to help support your theories.

Edited January 29, 2016 by kisai

[swansont]

 

It turns out we are all actually near-blind and our visual cortex is just a master of making deductions. The visual cortex is also lazy however, and doesn't completely deduce what something is until told to. It only 'fills in the blanks' as much as it has to in order to conserve resources and also because it might simply not be big enough for multitasking with focus on multiple things at once.

 

I think the inability to focus on more than one thing at a time is a limitation of optics. Hardware, not software.

[John Cuthber]

OK, for a start the idea that we have 5 senses is very old; and wrong.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/

It's also unrealistic to think we could have eurons that respond to every wavelength of EM radiation.

At the long wavelength end of the spectrum we are warm and we emit lots of long wave IR. The neurons would never stop firing.

At the short wavelength end there's a problem where the photon energy is big enough to significantly damage a cell.

 

 

But there's a more important issue.

Why speculate on the nature of ESP when there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is real.

 

It's like asking how unicorns fly backwards.

[Robittybob1]

OK, ....

But there's a more important issue.

Why speculate on the nature of ESP when there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is real.

 

It's like asking how unicorns fly backwards.

That is an easy question. The unicorns engage reverse thrust.

[metacogitans]

 

Oh, I agree it's entirely possible to create a device that would hack into your neurons and give you sensory information that goes beyond what humans can experience. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not that fooling a neuron is difficult, but that your brain as an infant goes through a period of plasticity where it is "Use it or lose it" time.

 

Just a speculation here, but wouldn't the neuron shut down the affected dendrite(s)? Excessive activity causes the neuron begin building up chemical signals for downregulating receptors. If the device were to produce activity greater than what the neuron experiences naturally, the neuron would begin downregulating receptors, reducing the intensity of signals coming to the cell naturally, and making it harder for an action potential to be generated.. So the device would basically cause the neuron to shut down if it were producing any significant amount of activity greater than whats it produces naturally.

 

How many neurons with the device attached would there need to be to produce the desired result? Because the greater the number of neurons affected by devices, the more it would interfere with the natural functioning of that region of the brain, and that region of the brain couldn't be 'hacked' or manipulated then because it wouldn't be working properly.

Edited January 29, 2016 by metacogitans

[Robittybob1]

What sort of events come under the heading ESP?

[metacogitans]

But there's a more important issue.

Why speculate on the nature of ESP when there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is real.

 

It's like asking how unicorns fly backwards.

If you ask me, it's never been given a serious attempt at being proven/disproven,

 

Would something like 'mental telepathy' really be any more hard to believe than a TV stations sending moving talking pictures through the air invisibly that end up on screens inside a persons house?

[Robittybob1]

If you ask me, it's never been given a serious attempt at being proven/disproven,

 

Would something like 'mental telepathy' really be any more hard to believe than a TV stations sending moving talking pictures through the air invisibly that end up on screens inside a persons house?

Has anyone been reported picking up TV or radio transmissions?

Years ago I remember hearing a report that someone's fillings were picking up a radio station. I don't know how verified this was.

But I remember thinking "that wouldn't be that be so bad", for I liked listening to the radio. I wonder if it is still on the web somewhere?

It is still being discussed at some sites but the hyperlinks are broken http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3638/is-it-possible-to-pick-up-radio-signals-from-dental-fillings

so it isn't that easy to check out fully. It could have been a hoax from the beginning.

 

Blow me down here is a demonstration of something.

I'm not sure this is for real, but someone in the comments confirmed it.

Metallic filling acting as a speaker! I think that is what they are demonstrating.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Robittybob1

[kisai]

You can pick up strong AM transmissions on your fillings or braces. That's a few millivolts that can be enough to vibrate your teeth as a speaker and use your mouth as a sounding board. I am reading that the material in your mouth has to act like a diode for a one way transmission, and I'd like to delete this post so I can think things through a bit more, but it is late and I am not seeing a deletion button...

Edited January 30, 2016 by kisai

[John Cuthber]

Good question; is there a delete button?

If you ask me, it's never been given a serious attempt at being proven/disproven,

 

Would something like 'mental telepathy' really be any more hard to believe than a TV stations sending moving talking pictures through the air invisibly that end up on screens inside a persons house?

Every serious attempt has ended in failure. People stopped taking the idea seriously after a while.

 

Since we know how TV works, there's nothing hard to believe about it.

Also, practically all of us have seen it.

So, yes, telepathy- which has never been observed- is more difficult to believe than TV which all of us have seen.

 

Was that a serious question?

Edited January 30, 2016 by John Cuthber

[metacogitans]

Good question; is there a delete button?

Every serious attempt has ended in failure. People stopped taking the idea seriously after a while.

 

Since we know how TV works, there's nothing hard to believe about it.

Also, practically all of us have seen it.

So, yes, telepathy- which has never been observed- is more difficult to believe than TV which all of us have seen.

 

Was that a serious question?

Has it ever been tested with fMRI?

 

If I was able to set-up time to get to use two of them,, I have a few tests in mind looking for a few different things:

 

First one I have in mind is to have two test subjects having an fMRI scan spend half an hour having a conversation with each other, then put in separate rooms sound-proofed from each other to see if they share any random spikes in activity. This wouldn't be due to mental telepathy exactly, just that sharing a conversation caused them to share their train of thought with each other, so it's likely their brains would both process the conversation in similar ways and at a similar speed.

 

Next, if that turned out to be the case, have the same experiment repeat except in one of the sound proofed rooms, instruct one of the subjects to try and get the other test subject's attention (maybe by tricking them and saying there's microphones in both rooms with speakers going to the other, and we need to sound-test them by calling the other person's name. If the other test subject sitting in the room of silence has any anomalous spikes in activity at the same time their name is called, that would be some pretty good evidence

 

The two soundproof rooms couldn't be anywhere near each other though, so they couldn't actually faintly hear each other. They'd have to be put in opposite ends of the building, and both have to walk down two identical hallways that have a turn at the end going in the same direction to the soundproofed room.

 

If there is 'telepathic communication' through unusual electromagnetic frequencies, the two subjects having a conversation together might have caused them to attune to each others 'telepathic sense', and this might be strongest a short while after a long conversation.

 

The fMRI probably wouldn't show anything unusual happening, but they might for the first test idea.

Edited January 31, 2016 by metacogitans

[Electron1]

To add to this. I would be inclined to believe all human beings posse a form of electromagnetic perception. But only a few may be consciously aware of this. A remnant of when we evolved from fish millions of years ago. The genetic code for this may still exist in the human genome?

 

You guys spoke of what would be the sensory organs.

 

Well theoretically the electro-sensitive cells would be associated with the sensory dendritic connections (First order dendrites - Exteroreceptors). Much like electroreceptors and how they operate using thousands of Ca2+ ion channels on each electroreceptor. The potential is developed across membranes. This in turn opens Ca2+ ions channels allowing signal conduction via ion potentials down the dendritic connection to localised synapse. Or in the case of electroreceptors through the electro-receptive cell to the localised synapse. It must also be noted that electroreceptors are essentially extensions of the nervous system sensory receptors that are merely due to evolution on the skins surface (of the epidermis) rather than embedded within the body ( below the epidermis & dermis ).

 

Due to the surface area of these membranes it is unlikely they would be stimulated by most of man made electromagnetic frequencies.

 

As for telepathy I'd have to be against it. having researched the electromagnetic & magnetic fields and radiation produced by the head region alone. Such radiation is too infinitesimal to propagate any substantial distance from a living body.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Electron1

[Robittybob1]

The only time I have experienced something akin to ESP it seemed that it was mediated through some sort of spirit entity.

There was voice in my dream telling me what someone else had been dreaming about. When I broached the topic the subject and theme of the dream he had was exactly as I was informed. (Obviously I did not see any part of his dream.)

This seems more like what the psychics suggest (as in the Sensing Murder series screened in NZ), but in my case with a whole lot more specificity.

[swansont]

To add to this. I would be inclined to believe all human beings posse a form of electromagnetic perception. But only a few may be consciously aware of this. A remnant of when we evolved from fish millions of years ago. The genetic code for this may still exist in the human genome?

 

I think most people with functioning eyes are aware of them. That's a form of electromagnetic perception, though it's limited to around the 400-700 nm range of the spectrum. Skin is a lower-resolution form of electromagnetic perception. Most people are probably aware of sunlight on their skin, under some circumstances, and can perceive sunburn.

 

 

Due to the surface area of these membranes it is unlikely they would be stimulated by most of man made electromagnetic frequencies.

What are man-made frequencies?

[Robittybob1]

Do humans have a sense of direction like other animals do by picking up the direction of the Earth's magnetic field?

I must have one the worst cases of lack of sense of direction.

This is the first time I have read that humans have cells with magnetite as well!

 

http://www.decodedscience.org/animal-magnetism-magnetic-field-influences-animal-navigation/50745

While people have not studied the magnetoreceptor anatomy of all animals that migrate, many organisms – including humans – contain particles of magnetite within their bodies. In the case of the magnetic bacteria, the bacteria contain magnetosomes, particles of magnetite or iron sulfide tucked into their cells.

[Electron1]

Hey again.

 

I was not referring to the eyes ability to detect light waves. Or the ears ability to detect sound waves etc....

 

It is feasible that the paramagnetic membranes of fine dendrites become polarised in the presence eV radiation. That this causes a potential difference to develop across dendritic membranes. This change of potentials on the membrane cause Ca2+ ion channels to open etc....

 

It has been proven that humans also have Fe4O3 magnetite's located both behind the nose bone etc. but also in the trigeminal and associated nerves. As for humans ability to utilise these magnetite's there yet is any conclusive proof that it is either used or other wise.

 

We all know that in the genome of many animals that certain genes are turned on and others turned off to what part may this play in the overall truths that remain undiscovered.

 

As far as religion, spirituality such things seem highly implausible. I do not believe in such things. The hunt for truth must remain in facts, logical deduction, rational thinking, data & patterns analysis in research.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Electron1

[Robittybob1]

Hey again.

 

I was not referring to the eyes ability to detect light waves. Or the ears ability to detect sound waves etc....

 

It is feasible that the paramagnetic membranes of fine dendrites become polarised in the presence eV radiation. That this causes a potential difference to develop across dendritic membranes. This change of potentials on the membrane cause Ca2+ ion channels to open etc....

 

It has been proven that humans also have Fe4O3 magnetite's located both behind the nose bone etc. but also in the trigeminal and associated nerves. As for humans ability to utilise these magnetite's there yet is any conclusive proof that it is either used or other wise.

 

We all know that in the genome of many animals that certain genes are turned on and others turned off to what part may this play in the overall truths that remain undiscovered.

 

As far as religion, spirituality such things seem highly implausible. I do not believe in such things. The hunt for truth must remain in facts, logical deduction, rational thinking, data & patterns analysis in research.

If there are magnetite crystals inside nerve cells or wherever that has the potential to be a type of magnetic recorder or recording possibly it the alignment could be held for any length of time. The animals that use magnetite for navigation must have an intracellular mechanism for reading that alignment.

 

You might not like my example but it did occur.

[Electron1]

I presume that you are not a scientist.

 

If you read carefully what I had written I was referring to human beings using this magnetite. There is no data to suggest they do.

 

There are well documented cases of all other forms of life responding to earths EMF. How these magnetite's intricately interact with the brain still remains mostly unsolved. Reptiles, birds, cows etc... are thought to use this sensory perception.

[Robittybob1]

I presume that you are not a scientist.

 

If you read carefully what I had written I was referring to human beings using this magnetite. There is no data to suggest they do.

 

There are well documented cases of all other forms of life responding to earths EMF. How these magnetite's intricately interact with the brain still remains mostly unsolved. Reptiles, birds, cows etc... are thought to use this sensory perception.

Evolution could well have used the same sensory mechanism and given it a different purpose. I was thinking about how light sensitive pigments have evolved and how spatial recognition was reused to give colour vision. (So I have been told)

Could animals walking on land lose the sense of magnetic orientation and global positioning and use the magnetite orientation system for some other form of perception?

I don't know but it certainly would be worth considering.

 

As an aside you didn't use the word "not". So the meaning of what you wrote previously was unclear.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Robittybob1