Firewalking
John A. Johnson
>
>I'm a certified firewalk instructor and have led or attended dozens
>of firewalks. So here's my two cent on the matter:
>
>If all firewalkers ever did was walk a few steps over coals then
>some of these theories would be plausible. But what happens when
>an individual *stands* still in the fire? I have stood in the
>coals for over a minute. I have seen people stand on the coals
>for over five minutes while a TV crew videotaped it. I have seen
>people sit in the fire, do cartwheels and somersaults. I have seen
>a man pick up a *burning* log and walk off with it. None of these
>people were burned. And I've walked on a 40 foot fire several times.
>At one firewalk I saw a man get burned *very* badly. Same fire,
>same circumstances, the difference was focus. He is a firewalk
>instructor now.
>
>Another theory is the radiant vs conductive heat argument. Again I
>ask, what happens when you *stand* in the fire? I have placed a number
>of objects on the coals to see what happens - wood, metal, meat, paper,
>glass, etc. to see what happens. The fire is hot indeed. Try placing
>a piece of meat 1) on the fire, 2) over the fire, 3) in the fire. In a
>very, very short time the meat sears.
>
>Another thing to consider is that people have walked on metal sheets.
>The Fijians walk on hot rocks. Fakirs in Algeria walk on swords heated
>in the fire. I know several people who have tried walking on various
>materials - wood, steel, grating (over a flaming fire). What explains
>that?
>
>Fact: some people get burned at firewalks. The common denominator
>is that they all said they were not focused and paying attention. I myself
>have gotten burned. When I focus 100%, I do not burn. When I lose my
>focus, I will burn. This has been stated in many firewalking cultures
>for thousands of years. It's the secret of not burning.
>
>I believe that the answer to firewalking and other paranormal phenomenon
>will come when we have an understanding of a superset of physical laws
>that we at present know very little about. All of the theories up to
>this point have been disproven time and again. Some people believe
>that God protects them, some believe it's the Aura that protects them,
>others believe in mind over matter, etc. All of that is just theories
>too. Whatever a person believes, even the skeptics, is just a belief.
>The skeptic who walked on fire to prove his theory BELIEVED he could.
>
>The common thread among firewalkers is that they *believe* they can
>walk on fire, for whatever reason. It's the power of belief and focus
>that enables people to walk on fire. Something happens to the body
>when they are in that state and it protects itself. Is that so hard
>to comprehend for you skeptics? Or does your world always have to
>be orderly with pat answers to all life's mysteries?
I first read about firewalking in Joseph Chilton Pearce's _The Crack in the Cos
mic Egg_. What intrigued me about the firewalking phenomenon was that nobody a
rgued with the fact that people actually walked over burning coals, a feat whic
h seemed inexplicable to me by commonly accepted scientific principles. Later,
however, I saw a TV documentary in which scientists explained the phenomenon a
s similar to what happens when you lick your finger and touch a hot iron--hissi
ng but no burn. They then proceeded to firewalk themselves, thus providing evi
dence that one does not have to be a mystic to do this--as long as one walks ra
ther quickly.
Now, as you see from the cited post, we have a "certified firewalk instructor"
who claims that the scientific explanations cannot hold because people can stan
d for some minutes in a fire without being burned. This claim raises two quest
ions for me, and I hope a few of my fellow skeptics/agnostics/atheists will pos
t their answers to these questions:
1. Is this person telling the truth about people being able to stand in a fire
for several minutes without being burned, or is an outright lie being posted o
n the net? If he is not lying, how are we to explain what he is describing wit
h existing scientific principles?
2. How can one counter this person's claim that skeptics can firewalk only bec
ause they _believe_ they can firewalk without getting burned?
John
Ken Arromdee
>2. How can one counter this person's claim that skeptics can firewalk only bec
>ause they _believe_ they can firewalk without getting burned?
The statement is on the order of Last Thursdayism; it can never be proven or
disproven. I could just as easily claim that people who drill for oil only
find oil because they _believe_ they can find oil there. (No mechanism is
proposed to explain how one's belief can cause hydrocarbon molecules to
materialize in the ground, but then none has been proposed for belief and
firewalks either.)
--
"Let's see your power stop me now, Deus ex Machina Man!"
[safe falls on villain]
"Not bad...."
-- Phil Foglio's "What's New", Dragon #79 (?)
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>>
>>The Fijians walk on hot rocks. Fakirs in Algeria walk on swords heated
What kind of rocks? Some rocks might be very porous.
>>in the fire. I know several people who have tried walking on various
>>materials - wood, steel, grating (over a flaming fire). What explains
>>that?
>>
>>Fact: some people get burned at firewalks. The common denominator
>>is that they all said they were not focused and paying attention. I myself
>>
>
>Now, as you see from the cited post, we have a "certified firewalk instructor"
>who claims that the scientific explanations cannot hold because people can stan
>d for some minutes in a fire without being burned. This claim raises two quest
>ions for me, and I hope a few of my fellow skeptics/agnostics/atheists will pos
>t their answers to these questions:
>
>2. How can one counter this person's claim that skeptics can firewalk only bec
>ause they _believe_ they can firewalk without getting burned?
>
> John
I can. I did firewalk in a charlatan's show, and I got badly burned.
(I couldn't walk for two weeks), and now, after 6 weeks walking barefeet
is still not pleasant, because the skin under my feet is still very thin.
I did believe that it was all physics. Now I think what did me in was that the
charlatan used commercial charcoal (for barbecue, ignited with gasoline. I
stepped on it when the gasoline had not burned off yet completely.
The visual difference between `coals that have gaseous burning things
coming out' and `glowing coal' is not so clear if you don't know what
to look for.
Maybe you want to know why I was so stupid. Well, the guy said that as I
had claimed that I was prepared to do it without preparation, I had to
go first without the benefit of his "trance induction" . As I had
just before that announced my plans to fire walk on a radio program, and
as TV crew and so on were standing there, I did not have the time to
think it out. I guess lots of people had something interesting to see,
when it was broadcast later.
When I later hinted that he on purpose had exposed me to a risk, he
countered that I had challenged him, and he had the right to defend
himself (he makes a living with doing this a few times a week in a show).
I'm now wary of fire walk instructors (which institute does the
certification? Not the Academy of Science) that explain how special
their craft is.
I know of an anthroplogist who says that he has seen in the interior
of East Surinam people dance in the fire (fire with flames, not just
coals). I wonder if it is possible that one remembers things like that
the wrong way (first seeing a fire with people dancing around, and then
seeing people dancing in the embers, at night, might be remembered as
`dancing in fire'). If there is a lot of ash, it might make some
difference too. I just would like to see such things performed under
controlled circumstances.
JWN
J.W. Nienhuys,
Research Group Discrete Mathematics
Dept. of Mathematics and Computing Science
Eindhoven University of Technology
P.O. BOX 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
e-mail: wsa...@urc.tue.nl
Jeffery Tye
> for several minutes without being burned, or is an outright lie being posted o
>n the net? If he is not lying, how are we to explain what he is describing wit
>h existing scientific principles?
John,
As I stated in my post, the event was recorded by a TV news crew in Merced, CA.
It is not the first time that it has been filmed or vidoetaped. As for my
other eyewitness and personal experiences which were not filmed you may believe
them or not. I suggest that you attend a firewalk and see for yourself.
I have walked on a very deep coal bed that was 40 feet long. That night, I
watched a man stop in the middle for a of couple moments and then continue
to walk to the end of the bed.
I do not have the answers as to *why* firewalking is possible. I believe the
answer lies in a deeper understanding of scientific principles. I believe
there is a superset of physical law that we barely understand at this point.
Someday the answers will come, but the fact is that it can be done today and
every theory as to why has been disproven up to this point.
Explain how a person can *stand*, not just walk, on hot coals or on a grate
over a flaming fire?
>
>2. How can one counter this person's claim that skeptics can firewalk only bec
>ause they _believe_ they can firewalk without getting burned?
Isn't it possible that the power of belief causes some sort of reaction
in the body so that it *protects* itself? I'm not a new-age-bliss-ninny
nor am I a hardened sceptic. I can tell you what I have experienced
many times. People can and do firewalk. I teach firewalking not for
the sake of firewalking. That's not the point. It's about human
potential and using the firewalk as a metaphor for fear and limiting
beliefs. Ordinary people use the techniques learned at one of my
seminars in their day-to-day situations with good results. Firewalking
is particularly more effective than other techniques because it is
so intense an experience. Each person usually formulates a belief
as to why they were able to do it. The important thing is that they did
it and they feel great.
_Attend_ a firewalk. Then judge for yourself.
Jeff*
--
``Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours.'' Richard Bach
``Argue for your greatness and that too shall be yours.'' Michael Sky
Yanek Martinson
>>an individual *stands* still in the fire? I have stood in the
>>coals for over a minute. I have seen people stand on the coals
>>for over five minutes while a TV crew videotaped it. I have seen
>>people sit in the fire, do cartwheels and somersaults. I have seen
>>a man pick up a *burning* log and walk off with it. None of these
>>The skeptic who walked on fire to prove his theory BELIEVED he could.
>>The common thread among firewalkers is that they *believe* they can
>>walk on fire, for whatever reason. It's the power of belief and focus
>Now, as you see from the cited post, we have a "certified firewalk instructor"
>who claims that the scientific explanations cannot hold because people can sta
>d for some minutes in a fire without being burned. This claim raises two ques
>ions for me, and I hope a few of my fellow skeptics/agnostics/atheists will po
Though I do not consider myself "your fellow skeptic/agnostic/atheist" I can
suggest how you could go about answering your own questions.
>1. Is this person telling the truth about people being able to stand in a fir
> for several minutes without being burned, or is an outright lie being posted
>n the net?
I have not personally seen it, but I do not think it is a lie. But if you want
to make sure, you could probably attend a firewalking yourself.
Jeffty, are you reading this? Can you tell us where/when we could see you or
someone else do that?
>If he is not lying, how are we to explain what he is describing wi
>h existing scientific principles?
I do not think it is explainable with "existing scientific principles".
I do not believe that existing scientific principles are sufficient to explain
ANYTHING that involves human mind/conciousness. Exisitng scientific principles
have *no idea* how mind works and what it can do.
>2. How can one counter this person's claim that skeptics can firewalk only be
>ause they _believe_ they can firewalk without getting burned?
Easy. Your post suggests that you don't believe that a person can stand in
fire for a few minutes, and not burn. I imagine there are people who believe
it is possible, who say they have done it and/or can do it. Conduct a
"proper scientific experiment". Both of you stand in the fire for 2 minutes,
and note the differences in the conditions of your bodies.
Ken Shirriff
Some guy survived 482 degrees F for 4 minutes without any special equipment.
Reference: "Space Medicine", Ursula Slager.
Ken Shirriff shir...@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
"In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves:
the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy." -Ivan Illich
Anonymous NNTP Posting
Not just 'heated swords or sheet-metal'. Really hot.
How hot is hot? What temperatures are we talking about?
Be warned: Someone will lose the bottoms of their feet on the steel,...
Dan Stephenson
3188569909
Rache McGregor
> I did believe that it was all physics. Now I think what did me in was that th
> charlatan used commercial charcoal (for barbecue, ignited with gasoline. I
> stepped on it when the gasoline had not burned off yet completely.
> The visual difference between `coals that have gaseous burning things
> coming out' and `glowing coal' is not so clear if you don't know what
> to look for.
>
> Maybe you want to know why I was so stupid. Well, the guy said that as I
> had claimed that I was prepared to do it without preparation, I had to
> go first without the benefit of his "trance induction" . As I had
> just before that announced my plans to fire walk on a radio program, and
> as TV crew and so on were standing there, I did not have the time to
> think it out. I guess lots of people had something interesting to see,
> when it was broadcast later.
>
> When I later hinted that he on purpose had exposed me to a risk, he
> countered that I had challenged him, and he had the right to defend
> himself (he makes a living with doing this a few times a week in a show).
....
> J.W. Nienhuys,
> Research Group Discrete Mathematics
> Dept. of Mathematics and Computing Science
> Eindhoven University of Technology
> P.O. BOX 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven
> The Netherlands
>
> e-mail: wsa...@urc.tue.nl
I would have offered to walk, without meditation or other "preparation", IN
TANDEM with the professional firewalker. Doing so would have given you the
opportunity to see how long he actually waited for the coals to "cook", and
you could've scored a lot of points with the media by asking him every so
often whether he thought the coals were ready.
Rogue Winter | "The truth knocks on the door and you say,
ro...@cellar.uucp | "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so
uunet!cellar!rogue | it goes away. Puzzling."
Cellar 215/3369503 | -Robert Pirsig (quoted in Zen_To_Go, Jon Winokur)
David Heisterberg
>On the subject of people and high temperatures:
>Some guy survived 482 degrees F for 4 minutes without any special equipment.
These temperature records are usually acheived in a fairly dry atmosphere,
dry air being a poor conductor of heat. You know, "it's not the heat, it's
the humidity."
Firewalking sounds a good deal like the "boiling lead" experiment. With
clean hands, one can pour hot (nearly boiling) lead over them without
getting burned. The explanation is that moisture in the skin is quickly
vaporized and that vapor layer prevents actual contact with the hot lead.
I've seen of film of this done in a college chemistry class in the 50's.
--
David J. Heisterberg d...@osc.edu We are NOT all
The Ohio Supercomputer Center d...@ohstpy.bitnet Keynesians now.
Columbus, Ohio 43212 ohstpy::djh
Giving C News a *HUG*
> I do not believe that existing scientific principles are sufficient to explai
Do you really mean "ANYTHING", or do you mean "EVERYTHING"?
mathew
Eric Sotnak
>Explain how a person can *stand*, not just walk, on hot coals or on a grate
>over a flaming fire?
I submit that before such a phenomenon can be explained, it must first
be shown to be possible, and the circumstances under which it is performed
carefully taken note of.
Since you teach firewalking, perhaps you might answer a few questions?
1. Is there any particular sort of procedure you always follow in
setting up for a firewalk? (i.e., particular sorts of charcoal, method of
igniting and distributing the coals, etc.)
2. How do you measure the temperature (or do you)?
3. Would you be willing to do a firewalk over a surface prepared by
someone else (perhaps provided that the temperature is measured to be
within a range you have previously walked)?
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | "No absurdity is too fantastic
es...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to gain support"
| - Antoine Arnauld
Judy Leue
My daughter steped on an ashed brickquet that fell out of the
barbeque. She was about 5 at the time and with just one quick
foot press there was a perfect rounded corner square burn. Pretty
deep burn too for such a short exposure. There is a mental state
that must accompany the walk not just fire condition.
Judy
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>Some guy survived 482 degrees F for 4 minutes without any special equipment.
>
Which happens to be 250 degrees Celsius in civilised places.
It probably means that air temperature around him was that.
You can do experiments in this direction. Heat your oven to 250 degrees
Celsius. Bake something in it. Open the door. Put your hand in it (without
touching cake or oven walls). Be sure to turn the oven fan off, because
moving gas is much better for heat transport than still air (hence chill
factors). This experiment is performed millions of times a day, all
over the world, I guess.
What is relevant is the amount of heat that can be transported
on contact with the "hot" medium, not the temperature.
JWN
David Keith Maslen
> wsa...@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
[story about Jan W. Nienhuys getting his feet burnt; questions about
preparation of coals and trance induction (he didn't do the trance thing
first, but then again the coals were different)]
> I would have offered to walk, without meditation or other "preparation", IN
> TANDEM with the professional firewalker. Doing so would have given you the
> opportunity to see how long he actually waited for the coals to "cook", and
> you could've scored a lot of points with the media by asking him every so
> often whether he thought the coals were ready.
Now, I don't know anything about such things, but I was under the
impression that your state of mind while firewalking really is important.
Quite a lot of damage can be done by your own body's defence mechanism's. I
thought the idea was to fool the body into suppressing some of these
responses (swelling etc.), and thereby come off with less damage in the
long run (especially if other "more physical" factors are working in your
favour as well). I'm not saying that the correct preparation of the fire
isn't crucial.
Does anyone out there really know? I thought firewalking was one of those
scientifically understood phenomena that people still insist on labelling
"paranormal" (like hypnotism -- some people still regard that as
paranormal, when its really quite ordinary)
--
David Keith Maslen
mas...@zariski.harvard.edu
representing himself only.
Lydick, Carl
There are a few differences between what you describe and walking on a bed of
coals. First, when the briquette fell out of the barbecue, most of the ash
probably fell off. Second, when she stepped on it, she probably brushed off
much of the remaining ash. With a bed of coals, you've got a pretty good layer
of ash, and all the firewalkers I've ever seen have appeared to be pretty
careful to step straight down onto the coals so as not to brush off the ash
before placing their weight on the coals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL Internet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
John Moore
]These temperature records are usually acheived in a fairly dry atmosphere,
]dry air being a poor conductor of heat. You know, "it's not the heat, it's
]the humidity."
Actually, dry air has almost the same thermal conductivity as saturated
air.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!jo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.
Yanek Martinson
>ya...@panix.uucp (Yanek Martinson) writes:
>
>Do you really mean "ANYTHING", or do you mean "EVERYTHING"?
I mean that some science (is psychology a science?) can approximately describe
what the human mind *does* but not what it *is*, and *how it works*. I do not
think that any science can explain just why I raise my hand when I want to.
Of course there are some special cases, like reflexes, when a piece of crumbled
paper is thrown at me I automatically close my ayes and/or raise my hand
for "protection". This kind of thing can be studied and explained. But the mind
the voluntary actions can not. When I move my hand, a scientist can say that
it moved because of a chemical reaction in the muscles. What caused that? A
message from a nerve. What caused that? Some neuron firing in the brain. Which
itself was activated by another neuron. But at that level, it's like trying to
understand a complicated AI program, by measuring voltages at CPU pins. It
will teach you about hardware, about what pin is connected to what i/o line,
etc. But it will tell you nothing about the structure of the program that
controls it all, that makes the decisions.
Mike Morgan in Colorado Springs
(Yanek Martinson) writes...
|I mean that some science (is psychology a science?) can approximately describe
|what the human mind *does* but not what it *is*, and *how it works*. I do not
|think that any science can explain just why I raise my hand when I want to.
|Of course there are some special cases, like reflexes, when a piece of crumbled
|paper is thrown at me I automatically close my ayes and/or raise my hand
|for "protection".
It seems to me to be of very little use to supposed that these
questions will never be answered. In fact some of these questions are
being answered today. However since the answers seem to be unflattering
most persons will simply ignore them.
We can easily arrive at some answer to these difficult questions,
but until we can test the answers we won't know their accuracy.
| This kind of thing can be studied and explained. But the mind
|the voluntary actions can not. When I move my hand, a scientist can say that
|it moved because of a chemical reaction in the muscles. What caused that? A
|message from a nerve. What caused that? Some neuron firing in the brain. Which
|itself was activated by another neuron. But at that level, it's like trying to
|understand a complicated AI program, by measuring voltages at CPU pins. It
|will teach you about hardware, about what pin is connected to what i/o line,
|etc. But it will tell you nothing about the structure of the program that
|controls it all, that makes the decisions.
These questions are being answered too. You'll need to keep up with
current neuroscience and cognitive science to find evolving, more
accurate answers.
* No sig. needed. You know why.
Jon J Thaler
says:
> I mean that some science (is psychology a science?) can approximately
> describe what the human mind *does* but not what it *is*, and *how it
> works*. I do not think that any science can explain just why I raise my
> hand when I want to. Of course there are some special cases, like
> reflexes, when a piece of crumbled paper is thrown at me I automatically
> close my ayes and/or raise my hand for "protection". This kind of thing
> can be studied and explained. But the mind the voluntary actions can
> not. When I move my hand, a scientist can say that it moved because of a
> chemical reaction in the muscles. What caused that? A message from a
> nerve. What caused that? Some neuron firing in the brain. Which itself
> was activated by another neuron. But at that level, it's like trying to
> understand a complicated AI program, by measuring voltages at CPU pins.
> It will teach you about hardware, about what pin is connected to what i/o
> line, etc. But it will tell you nothing about the structure of the
> program that controls it all, that makes the decisions.
Every field of science needs to deal with the phenomena at a scale appropriate
to the problem. No one expects to need to deal with quarks when studying
molecular structure. That does not imply that there is a different set of
physical laws acting in the two realms, only that the complexity of the problem
makes it to impossible to look at all scales simultaneously.
The same is true of intelligence. It is true that knowing the chemical
basis for the behavior of individual neurons does not let us know the
structure of the brain. That fact does not imply either that any new laws are
required or that "the voluntary actions can not [be studied or explained
by science]." I suggest that you subscribe to comp.ai.philosophy.
Jim Aloise
> These questions are being answered too. You'll need to keep up with
> current neuroscience and cognitive science to find evolving, more
> accurate answers.
fired in a voluntary motion.
Mike Morgan in Colorado Springs
In article <1991Jun6.0...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, alo...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Jim Aloise) writes...
There doesn't seem to be a first neuron firing. From the time your
brain forms in your mother's womb the neurons work, to a certain
extent, and from then on (after a little maturing of the cells) they
seem to fire when needed, until the brain dies.
Lydick, Carl
>
>In article <1991Jun4.2...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> ca...@juliet.caltech.edu writes:
>>of ash, and all the firewalkers I've ever seen have appeared to be pretty
>Was this in person or on TV? If it was in person, why didn't you walk
>if it's so easily explained?
Both. Broken ankle.
>``Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours.'' Richard Bach
>
>``Argue for your greatness and that too shall be yours.'' Michael Sky
Either that or you'll be considered either a megalomaniac or a pompous ass.
Pat Berry
> "Let's see your power stop me now, Deus ex Machina Man!"
> [safe falls on villain]
> "Not bad...."
> -- Phil Foglio's "What's New", Dragon #79 (?)
It's in issue #75, and the exact wording is:
Okay Deus Ex Machina Man--let's see your powers save you now!
CRUNT!!
...Not bad...
(I tried to email this to you, only to be told that your host is
unknown.)
Pat Berry p...@berry.Cary.NC.US
Jan Willem Nienhuys
[in response to my posting about a negative experience]
>
>I would have offered to walk, without meditation or other "preparation", IN
>TANDEM with the professional firewalker. Doing so would have given you the
>opportunity to see how long he actually waited for the coals to "cook", and
>you could've scored a lot of points with the media by asking him every so
>often whether he thought the coals were ready.
Actually, the guy had a marvellous excuse, to not walk at all.
He said: "Sometimes you get blisters, that is impredictable. But I have
to do this show 300 times a year, so I can't afford getting blisters."
When I was about to step on the coals, I insisted that the others (15
volunteers) come right after me, but he said he would not allow that,
they had to be hypnotised first (which I had claimed was not necessary).
After a few weeks of reflection I think I should have been more careful,
but I can assure you that when you have about five seconds to make up your
mind, with a guy with a microphone next to you, you might not take the
right decision.
JWN
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
I question the extapolation from one to many. How long was the exposure for
example? For example, I have many times touched a wet finger to a metal pan to
see if it was hot enough for the cooking I want to do. Yet this in no
extrapolates to an oveall explanation of firewalking (although I have some
suspicions that it may be related). Rather than delving into the details of
the incident, if you think the conditions of the coals is not a major factor,
how would you prove it?
GXKambic
burning disclaimer
Jeffery Tye
>coals. First, when the briquette fell out of the barbecue, most of the ash
>probably fell off. Second, when she stepped on it, she probably brushed off
>much of the remaining ash. With a bed of coals, you've got a pretty good layer
>of ash, and all the firewalkers I've ever seen have appeared to be pretty
Was this in person or on TV? If it was in person, why didn't you walk
if it's so easily explained?
>careful to step straight down onto the coals so as not to brush off the ash
>before placing their weight on the coals.
I use a combination of Oak and Madrone. These woods burn very clean and
produce very little ash. Come to one of my firewalks and talk to me
about ash. Those coals are very hot. My fire is raked over many
times during the course of the firewalk to give everyone an opportunity
of connecting with the heat. I also burn lots of wood at my fire to
make a deep coal bed.
Here's a question you skeptics keep ignoring: What about the people
who _stand_ on the coals for a minute or longer? I have stood in the
coals, held the coals, danced on the coals and have walked on many
types of coalbeds. Firewalkers do not just stroll over a few ash
coated coals.
Attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
Jeff*
--
Jeffery Tye
In article <1991Jun3.2...@panix.uucp> ya...@panix.uucp (Yanek Martinson) writes:
>
>I have not personally seen it, but I do not think it is a lie. But if you want
>to make sure, you could probably attend a firewalking yourself.
>Jeffty, are you reading this? Can you tell us where/when we could see you or
>someone else do that?
I am leading a firewalk on June 21st in Santa Cruz, California. There
are approximately 100 firewalk instructors. Another 35 are being
trained to be instructors at an intensive this week. Tonight
they will be walking on a 40 foot fire. If you want a list of
instructors and firewalk dates, call 209/928-4035 and have Tolly Burkan
send you a F.I.R.E. newsletter.
Jeffery Tye
In article <MASLEN.91...@zariski.harvard.edu> mas...@math.harvard.edu (David Keith Maslen) writes:
>
>Now, I don't know anything about such things, but I was under the
>impression that your state of mind while firewalking really is important.
The only state of mind required to walk on fire is the willingness to
confront your fear and listen to your own internal guidance. Which
voice is that? The one that relaxes you and stops the mind chattter.
>Quite a lot of damage can be done by your own body's defence mechanism's. I
>thought the idea was to fool the body into suppressing some of these
>responses (swelling etc.), and thereby come off with less damage in the
>long run (especially if other "more physical" factors are working in your
>favour as well). I'm not saying that the correct preparation of the fire
>isn't crucial.
No, you don't supress anything. Supressing is what cause burning.
I do not know why but when an individual is willing to step on
the coals and accept full responsibility for their actions, the
body does something to protect itself. How is a mystery. That
it happens is miraculous. I have walked on fire hundreds of times
and am amazed with each fire I walk on.
>Does anyone out there really know? I thought firewalking was one of those
>scientifically understood phenomena that people still insist on labelling
>"paranormal" (like hypnotism -- some people still regard that as
>paranormal, when its really quite ordinary)
No one knows why firewalking and similiar activities work. Science
is too limited at this point to provide a clear answer. *Every*
theory presented up to this point has been disproven by myself or
my colleagues.
I suggest you attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
Jeff*
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>My daughter steped on an ashed brickquet that fell out of the
>barbeque. She was about 5 at the time and with just one quick
>foot press there was a perfect rounded corner square burn. Pretty
>deep burn too for such a short exposure. There is a mental state
>that must accompany the walk not just fire condition.
The physicists point of view is that the product of
heat conductivity, specific heat and specific mass is important.
(For charcoal this product is about 100 000 times smaller than for iron).
In firewalking one thing to avoid (according to John Campbell of
New Zealand) is compact charred masses (for instance plastic eating utensils
that are dropped on the charcoal). A "briquet" doesn't sound to me like
your average (pine) charcoal. Also the skin on the feet of adults is quite
thick, may be five year olds have a thinner skin. With adults and charcoal
the "safe time" is about one second. With children and other materials it
might be a factor 10 less.
JWN
Jan Willem Nienhuys
>
>
>impression that your state of mind while firewalking really is important.
>Quite a lot of damage can be done by your own body's defence mechanism's. I
>thought the idea was to fool the body into suppressing some of these
>responses (swelling etc.), and thereby come off with less damage in the
>long run (especially if other "more physical" factors are working in your
>favour as well).
Here is an experiment you can try out. Take a piece of charcoal.
(preferably made from a light kind of wood)
Heat it in a gas flame until one end glows brightly.
Try to touch it with your finger. Observe it blackening instantly.
Observe that you finger doesn't blister. If you use the right kind
of charcoal and it doesn't burn too fiercely, you can apply your finger
for a considerable fraction of a second. Once the surface of the coal
has cooled by contact with your finger, heat from deeper layers of the
piece is transported very slowly to the surface.
You can mitigate swelling etc. by applying cold water afterwards, in case
of any burn that's always a good idea. But I doubt that any kind of mental
preparation can prevent the split second reaction of the living part of the
skin once its temperature is raised over 80 degrees C. The burn is not a
reaction to the sense of heat. If you would touch hot metal for much less
than 0.2 seconds, you will get a burn. But the nerve signal will take that
time before reaching the brain.
Maybe what you say is true, but how would you establish that this mental
preparation plays a role at all in this case? How can such mental preparation
be achieved without fail with such ease? Studies of the placebo effect
show that the mind is not such a reliable controller of the body.
JWN
ph60...@sdcc14.ucsd.edu
The most popular theory on this newsgroup seems to be that a
layer of moisture between the skin and the hot coals protects the
feet. Perhaps firewalkers somehow train themselves to sweat
profusely from the feet while walking on the hot surface. Heck,
why not? Some people get sweaty palms when they get nervous; why
can't some get sweaty feet when they walk on coals?
Tony
ph60...@sdcc14.ucsd.edu
|(Mike Morgan in Colorado Springs) writes:
|> These questions are being answered too. You'll need to keep up with
|> current neuroscience and cognitive science to find evolving, more
|> accurate answers.
|
|This doesn't help at all. Let's have a theory about how the first neuron gets
|fired in a voluntary motion.
Study a little psych and cog sci. The distinction between
voluntary and involuntary action is not quite as clear as one might
think.
I've noticed a problem with "Free Will" people-- they have real
trouble defining their position. Usually their attempts to do so
are about 5K long and full of examples, indicating that they have
some vague intuitive idea of what they're talking about, but no
rigorous definition. No wonder it's impossible for them to put
together any sort of formal logical argument supporting their
position.
Tony
Scott Ballantyne
Jeffery> In article <MASLEN.91...@zariski.harvard.edu> mas...@math.harvard.edu (David Keith Maslen) writes:
>
>Now, I don't know anything about such things, but I was under the
>impression that your state of mind while firewalking really is important.
Jeffery> The only state of mind required to walk on fire is the
Jeffery> willingness to confront your fear and listen to your own
Jeffery> internal guidance. Which voice is that? The one that
Jeffery> relaxes you and stops the mind chattter.
Doing something scary to overcome fears is not in itself foolish. I
learned how to sky dive for just that reason, and certainly it was
important to me to be focused and confront my fears before I first
stepped out of the airplane. On the other hand, it was perfectly
clear that it was the parachute, not some unknown power, that was
holding me up. So while I am sympathetic to the idea of conquering
fear by doing something like a firewalk, I am not at all sympathetic
to your constant babbling about the mystical side of it.
Jeffery> No, you don't supress anything. Supressing is what cause burning.
Jeffery> I do not know why but when an individual is willing to step on
Jeffery> the coals and accept full responsibility for their actions, the
Jeffery> body does something to protect itself. How is a mystery. That
Jeffery> it happens is miraculous. I have walked on fire hundreds of times
Jeffery> and am amazed with each fire I walk on.
There is really nothing mysterious about it, as many other individuals
have already pointed out to you. On a certain level, sky diving is
wondrous and amazing, but is still no more mysterious than the reason a paper
or feather takes longer to drop to the ground than a rock.
Firewalking is no doubt viewed as wondrous and amazing by its
practioners, but is no more mysterious than the reason you can put
your hand in a 360 degree oven without suffering instantaneous burns.
The point here is that it's possible to have exhilaration and awe
associated with doing something dangerous, and also an accurate,
clear, scientific explanation for things. Actually, as far as I'm
concerned, they are both pretty amazing, and complement each other.
Jeffery> No one knows why firewalking and similiar activities work. Science
Jeffery> is too limited at this point to provide a clear answer. *Every*
Jeffery> theory presented up to this point has been disproven by myself or
Jeffery> my colleagues.
This is simply not true. Science is not so limited that it cannot
explain something as simple as thermal conductivity. Have you even
read a book on thermal physics? (I recomend the one by Kittel.)
If you really want to shut everybody up, why not get some interested
scientists and skeptics and have them measure the flow of heat into
your foot as you go into/outof the state that allows you to firewalk?
Shouldn't even require that much heat, but of course, you can use as
much as you like. Then let us hear about the experimental protocol,
and the results. I'm sure everyone here will be interested.
Jeffery> I suggest you attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
I suggest you attend a science class and judge for yourself.
Jeffery> Jeff*
sdb
Insert clever GXKambic thermal style disclaimer here.
--
{sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net | hotmomma!s...@uunet.uu.net | uunet!hotmomma!sdb}
"A hacker is a machine for turning caffeine into programs"
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
> Here's a question you skeptics keep ignoring: What about the people
> who _stand_ on the coals for a minute or longer? I have stood in the
> coals, held the coals, danced on the coals and have walked on many
> types of coalbeds. Firewalkers do not just stroll over a few ash
> coated coals.
>
> Attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
>
> Jeff*
> --
> ``Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours.'' Richard Bach
>
> ``Argue for your greatness and that too shall be yours.'' Michael Sky
Even better-- why don't you decide to make some real bucks wit this
claim, and put in for any of the multi-thousand dollar offers made by the
skeptics. Both James Randi and Richard Busch are offering $10,000, and the
Bay Area Skeptics are tagging onto Randi's offer with $1,000 of their own.
If you can stand in the coals beyond what heat conductivity calls
for, and if they can rule out established scientific principles, then I'll
take your claims with more than your say-so.
======================================================================
Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says
[ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is
Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or
[ something some day. Just wait and see if he
re...@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
[ -- Walt Disney, 1933.
======================================================================
Yanek Martinson
>I am leading a firewalk on June 21st in Santa Cruz, California. There
Can anybody attend? Is there a fee? Where in SC is it?
So, any of you skeptics want to go check it out? Or would you rather, not,
so that you would still be able to say "I didn't see it, it doesn't exist."
Of course you didn't see it, you didn't want to.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
>
> The most popular theory on this newsgroup seems to be that a
> layer of moisture between the skin and the hot coals protects the
> feet. Perhaps firewalkers somehow train themselves to sweat
> profusely from the feet while walking on the hot surface. Heck,
> why not? Some people get sweaty palms when they get nervous; why
> can't some get sweaty feet when they walk on coals?
>
> Tony
Actually, the most popular theory appears to be the issue of thermal
conductivity, followed closely by the issue of an ash layer on the coals. The
moisture layer-- also known as the Leidenfrost Effect-- may be a factor, but
it's comparatively minor.
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
Yanek, we certainly do NOT say that firewalking 'doesn't exist.' What
we doubt is the claim that the ability to do it rests entirely on one's state
of mind-- there are well-established scientific reasons for the ability to
walk on hot coals.
I'll have to bow out of the California firewlk, though-- living in
Philadelphia, travel there is a tad expensive.
Mark William Hopkins
> Yanek, we certainly do NOT say that firewalking 'doesn't exist.' What
>we doubt is the claim that the ability to do it rests entirely on one's state
>of mind-- there are well-established scientific reasons for the ability to
>walk on hot coals.
And reasons which have to do with physical changes in the body that take place
primarily as a result of changes in the state of the mind ... remembering that
ALL states of mind including emotions are reflected physically in the body.
Checkmate. Q.E.D. Gotcha. You're outta here.
Next?
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
> In article <DVg93...@cellar.UUCP> re...@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
> > Yanek, we certainly do NOT say that firewalking 'doesn't exist.' Wha
> >we doubt is the claim that the ability to do it rests entirely on one's stat
> >of mind-- there are well-established scientific reasons for the ability to
> >walk on hot coals.
>
> And reasons which have to do with physical changes in the body that take plac
> primarily as a result of changes in the state of the mind ... remembering tha
> ALL states of mind including emotions are reflected physically in the body.
>
> Checkmate. Q.E.D. Gotcha. You're outta here.
> Next?
Checkmate? Surely, you MUST be able to actually understand what
someone's saying to you.
I said that, without even considering the mental state of the
firewalker, there are established scientific principles that explain why
people can walk on hot coals under certain conditions. No need to resort to
this 'mental states' gibberish.
Now, how is your posting something like "Emotional states are
manifested in physical states--" which is true enough-- an effective
rebuttal? You might as well have posted something like "People get afraid" or
"Human being breathe," and you'd still be addressing the point just as much.
si7_m...@debet.nhh.no
> Here's a question you skeptics keep ignoring: What about the people
> who _stand_ on the coals for a minute or longer? I have stood in the
> coals, held the coals, danced on the coals and have walked on many
> types of coalbeds. Firewalkers do not just stroll over a few ash
> coated coals.
So if they can control the physical reaction by means of the mind for
more than one minute, why can't they do the same for one hour for instance?
> Attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
I believe you, but I would like to know which other functions of the
body you think we can control just by believing that we can do it?
I once saw a woman heal the foot of someone else, just by laying her
hand on his foot. Is that somehow related to the phenomenon you talk about?
Meras
Norway
Scott Hankin
>I do not know why but when an individual is willing to step on
>the coals and accept full responsibility for their actions, the
>body does something to protect itself. How is a mystery. That
>it happens is miraculous. I have walked on fire hundreds of times
>and am amazed with each fire I walk on.
This struck a chord. I was trying to remember a similar experience from
my youth, and something in this paragraph's phrasing brought it out.
Long ago, when I was in 7th or 8th grade, I attended a party where
someone asked me to participate in an experiment. It was called
levitation. A member of the group was selected, and reclined on the
floor. Some number of us (6? 8?) surrounded the individual (2 or 3 on
each side, one at the head and one at the feet.) We placed a single
finger from each hand under the subject. We were told to concentrate on
removing the gravitational force underneath the person, and when we had
all assured the director that we had reach a state of truly believing we
had done this, we were told to lift the subject.
To our combined amazement, the person was effortlessly lifted from the
floor! We had overcome the physical laws of the universe while barely
lifting a finger. I recall my elation at hearing how many of the
physical laws of the universe could be influenced by the power of the
human mind. The director told us science did not understand this or
countless other phenomena, and we would discover more as life went on.
Later, under more sober examination, I figured out that the distribution
of weight per finger of a 150lb person was between 9 and 13 pounds
(depending on the number of participants in the levitation.) This
explained why the lifting was so effortless. My enthusiasm for the
great mysteries of mind over matter was greatly diminished, to say the
least. This was replaced, however, with the conviction that the
unexplainable often yields to explanation if you want to find the
answer.
Re: levitation vs. firewalking - my excuse is that I was only in 8th
grade.
- Scott
Scott Hankin (han...@osf.org) | "I don't understand women."
Open Software Foundation | "Do you understand color TV?"
11 Cambridge Center | "No."
Cambridge, MA 02142 | "So what's the problem?"
Eric Sotnak
not explicable in terms of thermal conductivity (at least not solely), but
requires mental influence of some kind. He may be right. But before
accepting a claim such as this, I have a few nagging doubts that must
be answered.
If thermal conductivity is not relevant to explaining firewalking, what
is? Is it JUST the mental concentration/belief involved? If so, I
propose the following test. Since firewalkers can tread over coal-beds
in excess of 1000 degrees f., it should be even easier for them to dip
their feet or hands in boiling water (a paltry 212 degrees f.). Are
any firewalkers willing to do this? If not, then there must be some
explanation beyond mental concentration/belief which accounts for
the ability to firewalk.
Or, alternatively, how about putting a hand/foot on a pancake griddle
(these can be heated to a "mere" 600 degrees f. or so)?
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | "No absurdity is too fantastic
es...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | to gain support"
| - Antoine Arnauld
Pat Berry
> The only state of mind required to walk on fire is the willingness to
> confront your fear and listen to your own internal guidance. Which
> voice is that? The one that relaxes you and stops the mind chattter.
Then dogs, who are usually relaxed and (I feel certain) have no "mind
chatter," should have no problem walking on hot coals.
> No, you don't supress anything. Supressing is what cause burning.
> I do not know why but when an individual is willing to step on
> the coals and accept full responsibility for their actions, the
> body does something to protect itself. How is a mystery.
What happens when such an individual is willing to step on razor blades?
Or a surface covered with sulfuric acid?
> No one knows why firewalking and similiar activities work. Science
> is too limited at this point to provide a clear answer. *Every*
> theory presented up to this point has been disproven by myself or
> my colleagues.
So help science to understand the matter. Volunteer to walk on various
hot surfaces in a laboratory setting, where the conditions can be
controlled and measured. --Or explain why you aren't willing to do
this.
Pat Berry p...@berry.Cary.NC.US
Jeffery Tye
In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>
>Jeffery> I suggest you attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
>
>I suggest you attend a science class and judge for yourself.
>
I have a E.E. and have been in the computer industry for 13 years (jeez,
that long? ;-) I have been involved with UNIX since 1982. I was
raised in Detroit, my father was an auto mechanic, and I loved to tinker
with things and figure out how they worked. Today, I still read
Omni and Scientific American among others.
I am not a new-age-bliss-ninny. I refuse to accept half-baked theories
about things, in this case firewalking, that I have direct experience
with. The scientific community today is for the most part funded by
big business and government. The attitude towards paranormal phenomenon
is to either ignore it, disprove it, or explain it away. Yes, there
are _many_ goonballs in the new age movement who refuse to acknowledge
the obvious but most firewalk instructors are not like that.
I walk on fire several times per month. At this point I reject all
the theories, even many of the new age ones, because they have not
been proven 100%. I've walked on many fires, under different
conditions, varying lengths (the longest was 40 feet, I walked over
several times), and have seen many incredible feats - standing,
sitting, rolling, cartwheeling - done by firewalkers. How is it
possible? I do not know at this point. Besides firewalking,
there are other incredible things I've seen.
Are you willing to accept that at this point in our human
development we are not able to understand certain things?
Is it possible that the _real_ answer to firewalking hasn't been
discovered yet? Is it possible that there is superset of
physical laws that enable bizarre thing to occur? What
about other dimensions, alternate universes/realities?
What's at the edge of the universe? What contains the
universe? Where is the universe? (ooops, we could spin
off on another thread-omatic ;-)
I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
I believe there are answers to all paranormal phenomenon. Yes,
there are charlatans and con men who dupe millions of people.
But there are thousands of others, like me, who understand
scientific principles but also believe that we have *barely*
scratched the surface of understanding. I believe a giant
leap in human evolution will occur in my lifetime - the mind
itself. Firewalking will be childs play compared to what
we will be able to do. Even then, skeptical debates will
occur just as they always have.
Jeffery
Jeffery Tye
In article <6...@rc6.urc.tue.nl> wsa...@urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>Many years ago skeptics noticed that band aid attached to the foot
>did not scorch during a firewalk. As band aid does not sweat, and has
>never been observed to be influenced by any form of consciousness of
>its wearer, the Leidenfrost effect and (3) do have little a priori
>credibility
Steve Bisyak of Seattle, the world's record holder for hottest and
longest firewalk, wore pantyhose on a firewalk once as an experiment
to see if they would burn. They didn't. He even stood on the fire
while he had them on. He's also placed his hand into a flame and held
it there for a moment. I've also seen people lay on the fire,
with their hair touching the coals, with no damage to their hair
or clothes. I know it sounds wild but it happens. How? I'm sure
there is an explanation but not conductivity, leidenfrost or
other popular theories.
David Heisterberg
>longest firewalk, wore pantyhose on a firewalk once as an experiment
>to see if they would burn. They didn't. He even stood on the fire
One can also boil water in a paper cup over a bunsen burner flame.
--
David J. Heisterberg d...@osc.edu We are NOT all
The Ohio Supercomputer Center d...@ohstpy.bitnet Keynesians now.
Columbus, Ohio 43212 ohstpy::djh
Matthew Hannigan
>>
>>Many years ago skeptics noticed that band aid attached to the foot
>>did not scorch during a firewalk. As band aid does not sweat, and has
>>never been observed to be influenced by any form of consciousness of
>>its wearer, the Leidenfrost effect and (3) do have little a priori
>>credibility
>
>Steve Bisyak of Seattle, the world's record holder for hottest and
>longest firewalk, wore pantyhose on a firewalk once as an experiment
>to see if they would burn. They didn't. He even stood on the fire
>while he had them on. He's also placed his hand into a flame and held
>it there for a moment. I've also seen people lay on the fire,
>with their hair touching the coals, with no damage to their hair
>or clothes. I know it sounds wild but it happens. How? I'm sure
>there is an explanation
Perhaps the coals weren't hot. Have you measured the temperature
just as you were walking on them? How hot were they? What method
did you use?
Oh, yeah .. you mentioned in a previous article that the particular
wood that you use is chosen for its conductivity. Surely if wanted
conductivity you would use steel, say, not wood. Or is it that you
choose it for its _lack_ of conductivity?
> but not conductivity, leidenfrost or
>other popular theories.
>
>Jeffery
>``Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours.'' Richard Bach
>``Argue for your greatness and that too shall be yours.'' Michael Sky
``Man's gotta know his limitations'' - Dirty Harry :-)
Scott Ballantyne
Jeffery> In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>
>Jeffery> I suggest you attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
>
>I suggest you attend a science class and judge for yourself.
>
Jeffery> I have a E.E. and have been in the computer industry for 13
Jeffery> years (jeez, that long? ;-) I have been involved with UNIX
Jeffery> since 1982. I was raised in Detroit, my father was an auto
Jeffery> mechanic, and I loved to tinker with things and figure out
Jeffery> how they worked. Today, I still read Omni and Scientific
Jeffery> American among others.
Jeffery> I am not a new-age-bliss-ninny. I refuse to accept
Jeffery> half-baked theories about things, in this case firewalking,
Jeffery> that I have direct experience with. The scientific community
Jeffery> today is for the most part funded by big business and
Jeffery> government. The attitude towards paranormal phenomenon is to
Jeffery> either ignore it, disprove it, or explain it away. Yes,
Jeffery> there are _many_ goonballs in the new age movement who refuse
Jeffery> to acknowledge the obvious but most firewalk instructors are
Jeffery> not like that.
If you are not a 'new-age-bliss-ninny' then why are ignoring the
many suggestions/offers for controlled testing? I had a suggestion in
the very post you followed up, but I see no interest on your part in
persuing it or any of the other suggestions that have been made to
you.
Put up or shut up.
Jeffery> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
Jeffery> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
Jeffery> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
Jeffery> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
Jeffery> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
I'd like to see this. I'd like to see you do this under controlled,
experimental conditions. There may even be people here who would be
willing to bring their own needles and examine your arm and do it to
you. I might even be so inclined. How about that?
sdb
Steve Olson
> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
The mind can effect the physical body, thats a simple fact - consider the
fight or flight reflex. Can the mind effect the body enough to explain
firewalking? I think not, but its not impossible that there could be
some mind/body interaction. But wait -- in your next post you talk about
pantyhose, other clothing, and hair. Others have mentioned band-aids.
Does a "belief field" extend to cover nearby inaminate objects? Thats
a lot harder to accept.
The needle stunt is easier to explain. Pain perception is subjective, so
you probably can train yourself to block out the pain. Actually, the
length of the needle is its least important attribute. How sharp and
how big around was the needle? Care to repeat your stunt with a knitting
needle?
> I believe there are answers to all paranormal phenomenon. Yes,
> there are charlatans and con men who dupe millions of people.
> But there are thousands of others, like me, who understand
> scientific principles but also believe that we have *barely*
> scratched the surface of understanding. I believe a giant
> leap in human evolution will occur in my lifetime - the mind
> itself. Firewalking will be childs play compared to what
> we will be able to do. Even then, skeptical debates will
> occur just as they always have.
OK, make some predictions. Test them out. Just how strong is belief?
It must have some limits, right? What are they? Don't like the idea of
standing on a heated steel plate? - perhaps belief isn't *that* strong -
then an experiment involving pantyhose and a cigarette lighter might
produce illuminating results without risking a trip to the hospital.
> Jeffery
--
-- Steve Olson
-- MIT Lincoln Laboratory
-- ol...@juliet.ll.mit.edu
--
Jeffery Tye
In article <14...@ur-cc.UUCP> es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>
>Or, alternatively, how about putting a hand/foot on a pancake griddle
>(these can be heated to a "mere" 600 degrees f. or so)?
I've already told this group about Steve Bisyak of Seattle who
walks on metal sheets placed over a flaming fire. He's also
done it on grating over a flaming fire. I have a friend who
removes hot pans from the oven without a pad. She focuses and
does not burn.
I have placed my hand into a flame, held it there and did not burn.
I have no explanation. It works. *Anyone* can do it. It requires
no mental state or trance. Just belief and the willingness to
accept whatever happens.
Jeffery
Richard Bielak
[...]
>
>I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
>I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>
But belief is not enough to convince others. Al least provide a
plausible theory.
>I believe there are answers to all paranormal phenomenon. Yes,
>there are charlatans and con men who dupe millions of people.
>But there are thousands of others, like me, who understand
>scientific principles but also believe that we have *barely*
>scratched the surface of understanding. I believe a giant
>leap in human evolution will occur in my lifetime - the mind
>itself. Firewalking will be childs play compared to what
>we will be able to do. Even then, skeptical debates will
>occur just as they always have.
What always annoyed me about these paranomal thingies, is that the
believers can "will" themselves to do such mundane and useless tasks
(eg. fire walking, or bending spoons).
If you really think that believe is can have such far reaching effect,
why not try something like flying an airplane without taking lessons
(although this is fairly easy), or perhaps will yourself to prove
Fermat's Last theorem. Or make a killing on the stock market.
...richie "I'll probably be sorry I got into this"
--
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Richie Bielak (212)-815-3072 | Experience is no substitute for |
| Internet: ric...@bony.com | competence. |
| Bang: uunet!bony1!richieb | |
MR MYTH (R.T.o.R)
>In article <17...@scorn.sco.COM> jef...@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) writes:
>>I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>>happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>>intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
>>I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>>or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>>
>
>But belief is not enough to convince others. Al least provide a
>plausible theory.
The whole theory of what this chap, Jeffery, is saying is "It works for me."
Either you can say "I'm happy about that" or "I don't believe you"
You seem to be saying "I don't believe you". You want proof.
This is all fair enough whilst talking about physical science, but we still have
Uncertainty theory, which is saying that we know we don't know. The theory here
is that belief is enough. If you believe him, it's plausible, if you don't it
isn't. Belief, faith, intuitive knowledge, call it what you will, cannot be
proven, that is in it's nature.
>>scratched the surface of understanding. I believe a giant
>>leap in human evolution will occur in my lifetime - the mind
>>itself.
I hope so.
>What always annoyed me about these paranomal thingies, is that the
>believers can "will" themselves to do such mundane and useless tasks
>(eg. fire walking, or bending spoons).
What has always annoyed me about education, and the world in general, is that
people train themselves to do such mundane and useless tasks
(eg. how many college courseworks/exam questions *really* relate to the *real*
world of work???)
Surely the point here is that practise makes perfect, an old adage is that you
can't run before you can walk. Had we not studied algebra, would we be able
to differentiate, just by following the principles - obviously yes, but we
would have to study basic algebra first anyway to understand the terminology.
The human mind develops in fits and starts, a little at a time. Surely
"paranormal thingies" will also start out as small, impromptu experiments,
gradually a hypothesis will be formed. Jeffery's hypothesis is that belief
is the key, and with belief anything is possible. The best way to nurture
belief is to start with small things and work bigger and bigger.
A baby can't drive a car. An adolescent can be taught to drive a car. The
eventual outcome of driving is that by "Middle age" experience and training
gel to form a responsible, competent road user (technically - although some
people I've seen on the roads...........:-))
Sorry to go on for so long.
--
BEOWULF - H.Billington - ceh...@uk.ac.cov.cch
Eric Shafto
> I have placed my hand into a flame, held it there and did not burn.
> I have no explanation. It works. *Anyone* can do it. It requires
> no mental state or trance. Just belief and the willingness to
> accept whatever happens.
I can't believe I am contributing to this thread, but:
Not getting burned does not require belief and willingness to
accept whatever happens.
Putting your hand in the fire requires belief and willingness
to accept whatever happens.
I have put my hand into many fires, and not gotten burned. I have
no special belief that makes the lack of burning possible. I *do*
have a belief that makes sticking my hand in the fire possible,
namely, that the gases in the fire, hot though they may be, have
a low enough conductivity and specific heat that I will have
plenty of time to pull my hand out before I get burned.
--
*Eric Shafto * Sometimes, I think we are alone. Sometimes I *
*Institute for the * think we are not. In either case, the thought *
* Learning Sciences * is quite staggering. *
*Northwestern University * -- R. Buckminster Fuller *
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
>
> In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>>
>>Jeffery> I suggest you attend a firewalk and judge for yourself.
>>
>>I suggest you attend a science class and judge for yourself.
> I am not a new-age-bliss-ninny. I refuse to accept half-baked theories
> about things, in this case firewalking, that I have direct experience
> with. The scientific community today is for the most part funded by
> big business and government. The attitude towards paranormal phenomenon
> is to either ignore it, disprove it, or explain it away.
This is a very narrowminded attitude. You seem more than willing to
accept firwalking on faith, while using the fruits of the scientific
method and technology to distribute those thoughts. You state your
beliefs and then denigrate those who question your faith. Nonsense.
People aren't questioning your faith, they are questioning the evidence
for that faith. IMHO you are taking the questioning as personal attacks.
You are making the extraordinary claim that the mind is responsible
for the ability to walk on certain types of fire (how about the steel
plate?). OK, so prove it.
> How is it
> possible? I do not know at this point. Besides firewalking,
> there are other incredible things I've seen.
> Are you willing to accept that at this point in our human
> development we are not able to understand certain things?
this, but not as a limit, as I interpret your remarks, but as
a challenge.
> Is it possible that the _real_ answer to firewalking hasn't been
> discovered yet?
Yep.
> Is it possible that there is superset of
> physical laws that enable bizarre thing to occur?
Sure it is. But is firewalking bizarre? Prove to me that the
current set of physical laws are inadequate to explain it.
[...]
> But there are thousands of others, like me, who understand
> scientific principles but also believe that we have *barely*
> scratched the surface of understanding.
Based on these posts, you ahve not demonstrated the application
of science to firewalking. Nor do I think you want to. As
someone said, I think this thread is dead.
> ``Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours.'' Richard Bach
>
> ``Argue for your greatness and that too shall be yours.'' Michael Sky
''Argue for ever and that proves you are on the net.'' The Oracle
GXKambic
standard disclaimer
Andrea Ostensoe
Ok, ONE LAST TIME!
These are your feet.
() ()
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
These are your feet on coals. Psssssssssssttt!
J. Horsmeier
Scientists call this disease: `chromadrosis', But us regular folks,
who might wear tennis shoes or an occasional python boot,
call this exquisite little inconvenience by the name of:
*** STINK FOOT ***
Jos
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|O J.A. Horsmeier AND Software B.V. phone : +31 10 4367100 O|
|O Westersingel 106/108 fax : +31 10 4367110 O|
|O 3015 LD Rotterdam NL e-mail: j...@and.nl O|
|O--------------------------------------------------------------------O|
|O I am a Hamburger (F. Zappa 1974) O|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Toby Howard
> I have no explanation. It works. *Anyone* can do it. It requires
> no mental state or trance. Just belief and the willingness to
> accept whatever happens.
Bollocks
Toby
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard Computer Science Department, University of Manchester,
Lecturer Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
to...@uk.ac.man.cs +44 61-275-6274
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
>>
>>Or, alternatively, how about putting a hand/foot on a pancake griddle
>>(these can be heated to a "mere" 600 degrees f. or so)?
>
> I've already told this group about Steve Bisyak of Seattle who
> walks on metal sheets placed over a flaming fire. He's also
> done it on grating over a flaming fire. I have a friend who
> removes hot pans from the oven without a pad. She focuses and
> does not burn.
>
> I have placed my hand into a flame, held it there and did not burn.
> I have no explanation. It works. *Anyone* can do it. It requires
> no mental state or trance. Just belief and the willingness to
> accept whatever happens.
Why don't you contact the SF bay Skeptics for a couple of tests? You
end might be able to win a couple of prizes for completing some experiments.
I would not suggest you try it, but can you do this with a Bernzomatic
torch, or with an oxyacetylene torch?
GXKambic
flaming disclaimer
Jeffery Tye
In article <1991Jun15....@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 91 19:39:57 GMT, jef...@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) said:
>
>
>Jeffery> In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>
>If you are not a 'new-age-bliss-ninny' then why are ignoring the
>many suggestions/offers for controlled testing? I had a suggestion in
>the very post you followed up, but I see no interest on your part in
>persuing it or any of the other suggestions that have been made to
>you.
>
>Put up or shut up.
What I'm looking for is an open-minded scientist who would approach
this testing from a non-biased position. Someone who is open to
the possibility that firewalking happens for reasons other than
and/or in addition to non-conductivity, etc. Someone who
understands that there are firewalkers who not only walk over
the coals but also stand on the coals, hold the coals, etc. and
wants to investigate why. I'm not interested in going into a
hostile environment.
>Jeffery> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>Jeffery> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>Jeffery> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
>Jeffery> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>Jeffery> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>
>I'd like to see this. I'd like to see you do this under controlled,
>experimental conditions. There may even be people here who would be
>willing to bring their own needles and examine your arm and do it to
>you. I might even be so inclined. How about that?
Your challenge comes from a hostile position. I'm not interested.
Attend a seminar and judge for yourself. I'll teach you how to
do it - there is no bullshit mumbo-jumbo, you just focus 100%
when you do it. Then you can go figure out why it's possible.
Brian Alan Michalowski
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 91 19:39:57 GMT, jef...@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) said:
>>
>>
>>Jeffery> In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>>
>
>What I'm looking for is an open-minded scientist who would approach
>this testing from a non-biased position. Someone who is open to
>the possibility that firewalking happens for reasons other than
>and/or in addition to non-conductivity, etc. Someone who
>understands that there are firewalkers who not only walk over
>the coals but also stand on the coals, hold the coals, etc. and
>wants to investigate why. I'm not interested in going into a
>hostile environment.
>
>>Jeffery> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>>Jeffery> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>>Jeffery> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
I posted on article in sci.skeptic about the physics of firewalking. If you
want me to explain it in detail, I can send E-mail. Basically, when someone
firewalks, the sweat on the bottoms of their feet evaporates to steam, which
rises before it heats their feet too much. The steam acts as a decent
insulator here.
>>Jeffery> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>>Jeffery> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>>willing to bring their own needles and examine your arm and do it to
>>you. I might even be so inclined. How about that?
>
>Your challenge comes from a hostile position. I'm not interested.
>Attend a seminar and judge for yourself. I'll teach you how to
>do it - there is no bullshit mumbo-jumbo, you just focus 100%
>when you do it. Then you can go figure out why it's possible.
>
I agree with you here - it's possible because the you are focusing 100%.
The mind can be very powerful if you let it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Michalowski "Without music, life would be a mistake."
b...@wam.umd.edu -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Jim Aloise
>enough. This is so at variance with the study of physical reality. Please
>provide a list of those effects proven to be true because people have
>believed in them.
Well, your heart beating fast because you believe the boogey man is under
the bed, not to mention the Compton effect.
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
> In article <1991Jun17.2...@bony1.bony.com> ric...@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>>In article <17...@scorn.sco.COM> jef...@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) writes:
> The whole theory of what this chap, Jeffery, is saying is "It works for me."
> Either you can say "I'm happy about that" or "I don't believe you"
> You seem to be saying "I don't believe you". You want proof.
> This is all fair enough whilst talking about physical science, but we still have
> Uncertainty theory, which is saying that we know we don't know. The theory here
> is that belief is enough. If you believe him, it's plausible, if you don't it
> isn't. Belief, faith, intuitive knowledge, call it what you will, cannot be
> proven, that is in it's nature.
enough. This is so at variance with the study of physical reality. Please
provide a list of those effects proven to be true because people have
believed in them.
>
> "paranormal thingies" will also start out as small, impromptu experiments,
> gradually a hypothesis will be formed. Jeffery's hypothesis is that belief
> is the key, and with belief anything is possible. The best way to nurture
> belief is to start with small things and work bigger and bigger.
>
Psi has been claimed for centuries. The claims for psi have gotten
smaller, while the arts that became sciences, chemistry, etc., have
proven that they work independent of belief.
GXkambic
standard disclaimer
Scott Ballantyne
>
>Put up or shut up.
What I'm looking for is an open-minded scientist who would approach
this testing from a non-biased position. Someone who is open to
the possibility that firewalking happens for reasons other than
and/or in addition to non-conductivity, etc. Someone who
understands that there are firewalkers who not only walk over
the coals but also stand on the coals, hold the coals, etc. and
wants to investigate why. I'm not interested in going into a
hostile environment.
There are many open minded individuals here, some of them are
scientists. They all want to investigate why, they have offered to
investigate -- what is that you find hostile about them? You have had
many offers, all you need to do is to work out the details with the
individuals involved.
>Jeffery> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>Jeffery> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>Jeffery> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
>Jeffery> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>Jeffery> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>
>I'd like to see this. I'd like to see you do this under controlled,
>experimental conditions. There may even be people here who would be
>willing to bring their own needles and examine your arm and do it to
>you. I might even be so inclined. How about that?
Your challenge comes from a hostile position. I'm not interested.
Attend a seminar and judge for yourself. I'll teach you how to
do it - there is no bullshit mumbo-jumbo, you just focus 100%
when you do it. Then you can go figure out why it's possible.
Sorry, you are wrong. In my original message to you, I went to great
pains to say that I felt it was possible that firewalking could have
some positive effects on an individual, similar to my own experience
in parachuting. This is hardly hostile. On the other hand, you make
claims that several people have questioned, and offered ways and means
to test. You claim to be able to poke a 5 inch needle through your
arm or cheek. What is hostile about someone supplying their own
needles, examining your arm or cheek for themselves, and then
performing the same deed you would do to yourself?
My suggestion is made in the spirit of open minded inquiry - you are
making a claim, and people here have expressed an interest in
examining it. Perhaps you are more fearful of the light of a
controlled investigation than the skeptics here would be of a
firewalk...
sdb
-----
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 91 19:39:57 GMT, jef...@sco.COM (Jeffery Tye) said:
>>
>>
>>Jeffery> In article <1991Jun7.2...@hotmomma.UUCP> sdb%hotm...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>>
>>If you are not a 'new-age-bliss-ninny' then why are ignoring the
>>many suggestions/offers for controlled testing? I had a suggestion in
>>the very post you followed up, but I see no interest on your part in
>>persuing it or any of the other suggestions that have been made to
>>you.
>>
>>Put up or shut up.
>
> What I'm looking for is an open-minded scientist who would approach
> this testing from a non-biased position. Someone who is open to
> the possibility that firewalking happens for reasons other than
> and/or in addition to non-conductivity, etc. Someone who
> understands that there are firewalkers who not only walk over
> the coals but also stand on the coals, hold the coals, etc. and
> wants to investigate why. I'm not interested in going into a
> hostile environment.
conversation has been about. Over and over again, people have
asked "where's the (cooked) beef?", and over and over again,
no repsonses other than believe in me, have been forthcoming.
Maybe people get a little testy sometimes. Look, why don't you
contact the Bay area skeptical group and work with them to
find a mutually satisfying. nonhostile. The guys who did the
SI writeup sure seemed to be open minded.
>
>>Jeffery> I believe the firewalk answer lies in the power of belief. Something
>>Jeffery> happens to the physical body when belief is 100% and
>>Jeffery> intention is aligned 100% with that belief. How is it that
>>Jeffery> I can poke a five inch needle through my hand without pain
>>Jeffery> or blood? Or through my cheek or arm?
>>
>>I'd like to see this. I'd like to see you do this under controlled,
>>experimental conditions. There may even be people here who would be
>>willing to bring their own needles and examine your arm and do it to
>>you. I might even be so inclined. How about that?
>
> Your challenge comes from a hostile position. I'm not interested.
> Attend a seminar and judge for yourself. I'll teach you how to
> do it - there is no bullshit mumbo-jumbo, you just focus 100%
> when you do it. Then you can go figure out why it's possible.
And I might say, most discussions seem to end here also. The claimant
withdraws for reasons totally unrelated to the claim. You are
taking what you call hostility personally. What seem to be unable to
see is that it is the issue and the claims for it that are the problem.
If you believe in this answer, fine, You are more than welcome to do
so. If you want me to accept your belief without proof, no go. How
about some non-rationalized objective evidence for once.
GXKambic
standard disclaimer
"Argue for your limits, divide them by epsilon, then take the
limit as epsilon approaches zero, and see what you got." - Lipschitz
Tom L Wallace
>What always annoyed me about these paranomal thingies, is that the
>believers can "will" themselves to do such mundane and useless tasks
>(eg. fire walking, or bending spoons).
>
>If you really think that believe is can have such far reaching effect,
>why not try something like flying an airplane without taking lessons
>(although this is fairly easy), or perhaps will yourself to prove
>Fermat's Last theorem. Or make a killing on the stock market.
>
What makes you think we don't?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
Mark Twain
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
>
> In article <1991Jun17.2...@bony1.bony.com> ric...@bony1.bony.com (Ri
> (...)>
> >What always annoyed me about these paranomal thingies, is that the
> >believers can "will" themselves to do such mundane and useless tasks
> >(eg. fire walking, or bending spoons).
> >
> >If you really think that believe is can have such far reaching effect,
> >why not try something like flying an airplane without taking lessons
> >(although this is fairly easy), or perhaps will yourself to prove
> >Fermat's Last theorem. Or make a killing on the stock market.
> >
>
>
> What makes you think we don't?
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
> Mark Twain
Well, if you HAVER solved Fermat's Last Theorem, I'd like to see the
proof.
And if you HAVE made a killing in the stock market, then here's a
test which, while not scientific, wh`ould convince me. If you've done so
well, then you might be able to peel off a thousand dollars, earmark it to
me, and parlay it for me into a fortune rather quickly.
So, take a grand, set up an account for me, and let me walk away with
the money after a year or so. If the final amount is much higher than that
expected by chance (say, the Dow Jones average or the going savings interest
rate) I'll be convinced as long as I keep the money. (I'll pay back the
thousand as long as I get the rest.)
======================================================================
Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says
[ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is
Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or
[ something some day. Just wait and see if he
re...@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
[ -- Walt Disney, 1933.
======================================================================
Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs
] I can't believe I am contributing to this thread, but:
"There's a sucker born every minute" :-)
] Not getting burned does not require belief and willingness to
] accept whatever happens.
] Putting your hand in the fire requires belief and willingness
] to accept whatever happens.
That's sort of my reaction to firewalking. I haven't done it,
but I'd expect it to be a rather liberating experience,
like skydiving or bungee-jumping would be. Your mind has all these hangups
(Walk on *Fire*? Jump off a *Bridge*? Are you *Crazy*?)
and overcoming things like that is kind of a rush, and gives you a
new perspective on the other limitations in your life.
Yes, firewalking works because of normal, everyday physical principles,
just as bungee-jumping does.
But knowing that isn't the same as having the guts to actually do it.
--
Pray for peace; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
# No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment.
# You can read it here in the fine print.
Richard Bielak
>
>In article <1991Jun17.2...@bony1.bony.com> ric...@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>(...)>
[...]
>>If you really think that believe is can have such far reaching effect,
>>why not try something like flying an airplane without taking lessons
>>(although this is fairly easy), or perhaps will yourself to prove
>>Fermat's Last theorem. Or make a killing on the stock market.
>>
>
>
>What makes you think we don't?
>
The absence of any evidence.
...richie
Patrick Walsh - UNIX Systems Programmer
read Deepak Chopra's (Chapra?) book _Quantum Healing_. When you fully
understand the physics behind physiology, come back and have an
interesting discussion, instead of ranting and raving in each of your
little pigeonholes. Come out and enjoy the experience that is life.
trick
ed...@verifone.com
>>
> And if you HAVE made a killing in the stock market, then here's a
> test which, while not scientific, wh`ould convince me. If you've done so
> well, then you might be able to peel off a thousand dollars, earmark it to
> me, and parlay it for me into a fortune rather quickly.
> So, take a grand, set up an account for me, and let me walk away with
> the money after a year or so. If the final amount is much higher than that
> expected by chance (say, the Dow Jones average or the going savings interest
> rate) I'll be convinced as long as I keep the money. (I'll pay back the
> thousand as long as I get the rest.)
>
>
> ======================================================================
> Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says
> [ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is
> Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or
> [ something some day. Just wait and see if he
> re...@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
> [ -- Walt Disney, 1933.
> ======================================================================
Brian,
I think most of us would just be happier if you disproved the
firewalk, personally. You know, take a long walk over a short bed of
hot coals till you burn up.
Seems like you're burned up over something all the time anyway.
--
***************************************************************************
* Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. *
* Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" *
* Disclaimer: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" *
***************************************************************************
Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano
Funny thing-- I just got mail from some organizatioon that's
comprised of former Transcendental Meditation fans, a kind of "TMers
Anonymous" group. I don't know much about them, but they did have something
to say re deepak Chopra.
Apparently, he managed to get an overview of ayurvedic medicine
published in JAMA, the Journal of the AMA. While the article seems pretty
technical, the stuff the ex-TMers sent me illustrates more of the historical
side of ayurvedic medicine.
Assuming that the stuff they sent me is accurate-- and it might not
be, so I'm still reserving judgement-- do you know how MUCH urine is used in
ayurvedic medicine? Yuch.
But anyway-- I'd like to see some of this 'physics and medicine'
stuff posted here. If it's more of the 'quantum
theory-equals-power-of-mind-ovber-body-because-of-Copenhagen Interpretation
stuff, sort of Frijtov Capra mixed with Norman Cousins, well, it might be fun
to read.
George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.
response, which causes the body to become react. The relationship between
fear and bodily response IMHO is understood. Now, can the mind similarly
control (something) in the feet that causes them not to burn. If so,
what is it, and how do we test for it.
GXKambic
standard disclaimer
"Practioners of a discipline ought to have a discipline to practice."
John Allen Paulos.