Age 70+...How’s Your CFS?

[Wayne]

I hope your wife was not hurt falling!

She got shaken up a bit, and though for the most part she seems to be doing fine, I don't think she's totally recovered. She somewhat injured her wrist catching her fall, but it appears no major structural issues have come of it. She can walk perfectly fine, and has some good health practitioners able to help restore her equilibrium. Plus, she's quite healthy to begin with. -- Thanks for your concern!

 

[Wishful]

Humans evolved to be sensitive to social cues, some subtle, some subliminal. We aren't aware of all the processing our brains do with the information from our senses, but we do pick up emotional cues from other humans (and animals). So, other people can affect you, but it's almost impossible for it to be by sensing their electrical energy.

Bodies do generate electrical and magnetic fields. Electrical fields be measured fairly easily from electrodes on the skin. That's how EKGs are done. Measuring those electrical fields at a distance is at least several magnitudes more difficult. Detecting the electrical fields caused by a few specific neurons firing in the brain (involved with emotional thought) is many orders of magnitude more difficult. Here's a quote:

'Detecting such coherent firing at nodes around the brain is robust both noninvasively and invasively, though noninvasive techniques currently cannot resolve firing sequences of individual neurons within such groups. For example, a surface electroencephalography (EEG) signal requires the coherent firing of tens of thousands of neurons, while electrical detection of a single neuronal firing requires that a measurement probe be placed proximal to the neuron of interest, such that the probe is closer to that neuron than to any adjacent neuron.' from https://www.nap.edu/read/19017/chapter/24.

Measuring the magnetic field is possible too, but similar in difficulty. The magnetic sensors used for brain research are supercooled not only for physical reasons, but to minimize thermal noise.

Just for a thought experiment, imagine that you are sensitive enough to electric or magnetic fields to detect neurons firing in the brain of someone standing a meter away from you. Now add in the reality of environmental EM noise. You would be screaming in agony from signal overload, because the EM noise was many many many orders of magnitude greater than the EM signal from some (shielded by the braincase) neurons a meter away. For that matter, the EM fields from your own brain would swamp anything received from someone a meter away. There's a very good reason why brain signal measurement is done in very well EM shielded rooms. Probably even the power cords and outlets are well-shielded, if they don't use DC power instead.

That's aside from the lack of evidence for humans having sensors for low-level, extremely low frequency EM. We might be able to sense very, very high level EM fields, but I did have an MRI and didn't notice the magnetic field, so humans seem pretty insensitive to even very strong magnetic fields. I seem pretty insensitive to EM fields below red wavelength.

So, sensing the EM fields of another human without being swamped by EM noise is pretty much impossible. Noticing social cues of emotional state is far, far, far more plausible.

 

[Wolfcub]

Bodies do generate electrical and magnetic fields. Electrical fields be measured fairly easily from electrodes on the skin. That's how EKGs are done. Measuring those electrical fields at a distance is at least several magnitudes more difficult. Detecting the electrical fields caused by a few specific neurons firing in the brain (involved with emotional thought) is many orders of magnitude more difficult.

Well I do differ with you a bit there @Wishful as I had a dog who was perfectly capable of "sensing my energy" even from another room, and with no visual or sound clues, even subliminal. She had been sleeping and came dashing in, looking very concerned with her head and tail down a bit, and started to lick my face.
If they can sense someone's emotional energy then maybe some more sensitive humans do the same?

 

[Mary]

This thread is now re-opened. it has been moderated as the discussion was getting a bit acrimonious. Please try to keep it on-topic going forward - thanks!

 

[Wishful]

My response wasn't intended as a personal attack, or an 'I'm better than you because I believe x.' comment. I really do wonder why people reject scientifically-supported theories in favour of mysticism. I posted a rational explanation for 'feeling' another person's emotional state. It's not only an accepted theory, it's measurable and used in psychological research. I recently read that AI ability to determine a human's emotional state from visual cues has surpassed that of humans. I'm pretty sure that the AI had a camera for a sensor, and no sensor for ultra-low-level EM, so emotional state information is communicated by visual cues.

So I provided a rational theory for sensing emotions, supported by scientific evidence, and the scientific reasons for why sensing moods by EM fields is exceedingly unlikely. So I was surprised to see the mystical explanation preferred. I don't understand the thought processes behind that.

The reason for why humans develop mystical explanations for observed phenomena isn't hard to guess at. In the absence of adequate knowledge, our brains come up with possible explanations. A primitive man watching the sun and moon cross the sky might think 'Those things in the sky move. Animals move. Maybe those things are animals, chasing each other across the sky!'. From that originate stories about hunters trying to catch the sun and moon. Move forward to telescopes and calculus and physics, and those mystical explanations get replaced by orbital mechanics.

What I don't understand is why humans reject theories supported by evidence in favour of mysticism. While thinking about it, I did come up with a possible explanation. I grew up excited by science, and developed a good understanding of the basics, and a reasonable feel for comparative values, such as the EM fields generated by neurons vs background EM fields. When I read about a scientific hypothesis, I often do have a reasonable feel for what is involved, so I can accept it. For a person who lacks that scientific background--and this includes people with high IQs and multiple PhDs in non-science fields--those people are likely to not have a feel for what is involved.

To them, the details of EM fields and their magnitude might be incomprehensible, and might appear no different from a theory involving astrological signs, Egyptian pyramids, and magic spells. With no ability to judge the theories based on content, they have to judge them on other criteria, such as being raised by parents who read their astrological forecasts every morning, carried lucky charms, and followed other superstitious beliefs. Mystical stories (or theories) tend to be presented in ways that are more accessible to those lacking in scientific background, and I expect more likely to contain something hopeful: 'This magic crystal will make you young and beautiful and healthy!' Scientific theories tend to be less hopeful: 'We don't know of any way to reduce the effects of ageing.'

So, is this the reason why some people reject scientific theories? Can anyone offer another explanation?

I think this topic is relevant to ME, since we base our decisions on what to try as treatments on theories. For some diseases that are fatal if not treated promptly, making the wrong decision can be fatal. I have heard stories about people who rejected conventional medicine in favour of quackery with glittery equipment and a great mystical spiel...who then died when they might have lived with proper treatment. So, it would be helpful for the medical community to understand why some people reject scientific theories in favour of mysticism. Maybe it's as simple as having a better understanding of the target audience, and how to present the facts in a way that is acceptable.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

My profile is a cross between Clint Eastwood
and Eric Clapton.

Right on!

I admired a man at the blood draw, in his Tom Petty t-shirt. Yes older, but still charming and handsome and still gonna Rock and Roll.

I will speak to strangers, on my rare trips out and about. And then won't call my friends, as that takes energy I don't have. And involves brain-zapping cell phone next to brain syndrome. Or I avoid calling as it confronts this issue: that I am sick, and they continue to live their lives.

I have one friend, four states way, whom I can talk with about these things which truely matter. She has a developmentally disabled daughter, now grown. She understands that life is NOT an E ticket to an endless party, but a challenging, complex and stunning experience in trying to survive and be a better being.

 

[Stretched]

Right on!

I have one friend, four states way, whom I can talk with about these things which truely matter. She has a developmentally disabled daughter, now grown. She understands that life is NOT an E ticket to an endless party, but a challenging, complex and stunning experience in trying to survive and be a better being.

I like your post re memes but I was tripping and pondering other tangents - probably not an appropriate place to muse...but thanks for ‘tuning in”

Darn software is picking up a formatting bug, I think.