Are thoughts transcendant?

I think you will find that the electrochemical behaviour of nerves are pretty well understood in terms of ion pumps and the like. Any A level biology book could fill you in pretty quickly. It's certainly true that negative cognition leads to negative affect; but what you imply here is nothing short of magical thinking. This is evidence of coincidence: you have to remeber the millions of times people think or dream about loved ones and absolutly nothing happens. If telepathy were true it would work: it has never been shown to work, ever. Untill you can provide evidence the answer is a big fat no.If you can provide evidence I suggest you get on the 'phone to James Randi and claim you 1,000,000 prize.Self conscious thought appears to be an excellent survival mechanism. Why paint it magic?

You would have to learn to discriminate colours in a meaningfull way, just like blind from birth people who have their sight restored have to learn how to integrate their new found perceptual system.

Read any thing by Aaron T. Beck and you would see that's exactly what's found and is the basis for CBT.ABE: Nator I have been replying to posts in sequence and found that I seem to be echoing you quite accurately. From this I conclude that we must have some psychic connection. Shall we go to Mr Randi and claim our prize?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Jung (like Freud) pulled many non sensical theories out of his arse. None are based on evidence based research.

Seriously, an A level human biology text book is more than adequate to give you the bare bones of all things neurological.The thing is the more you learn the more you listen to what people come out with and say "that's obviously crap". This need distorts your perceptions. This is where bias creeps in. We can't be intellectually honest unless we control for bias and ones learns all about it in statical reasoning.Layperson logic is almost always burdened with unseen bias as we draw conclusions based on what we feel is right. This is hardly ever an accurate way to draw conclusions.Would you say "I feel this man is guilty of murder?". No, you would do your best to examine evidence in a systematic way and reject what you feel in favour of the balance of evidence. Again, would you use this logic if it was in a court of law?Is it ok now?

Why is that? What is there in the world that we cannnot percieve? Do you imply that you would rather adopt a feel good conclusion that is wrong rather than an unpleasent conclusion that is correct.I used to believe that climate change was not true; it reduced my anxiety to believe so. There came a point however when the evidence I examined rendered my belief irrelevent.Reality has no recognition of what we believe and the only thing that can really challenge what we believe is hard evidence.A really good book to read on this is 'The Demon Haunted World' by the late great Carl Sagan. Yup. I think Jar is a good example on the boards.