Printable View
I have often wondered about this. I know that many animals have this ability, and have been curious about whether or not humans may possess some limited form of it. Found this article pretty interesting. :>:thumbup:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/science/28magnet.html
Looks like the NY Times science correspondent doesn't understand basic science... the gene doesn't detect anything, these studies are about the relevant protein (of course).
Interesting stuff, although this looks extremely speculative. Basically humans have a protein similar to one that correlates with magnetic sense in butterflies (and is also used for sight), though they don't know which bits of the protein do what, or how it then relays the information to the insect's nervous system (and if humans have such a mechanism), and experiments as to whether humans even have any magnetosense are inconclusive.
I knew it, I've been feeling the variations in the Earth's magnetic field since as long as I can remember. Nobody ever listened to me.
Interesting article. Reminds me of something I was trying to explain on here a few months ago without any real knowledge of that thing and only based on personal experiences and was (of course) told the concept was ridiculous. :roll:
This is unfortunate.Quote:
“It may be that our electromagnetic world is interfering with our ability to do this kind of stuff,” Dr. Phillips said.
So this could probably explain why you can tell if someone is behind you. That's if this is correct anyway.
Despite the impression you might have got from the special people on DV, humans are not electromagnetic beacons. If we do have a magnetic sense, it's so rudimentary that it can't demonstrably detect the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field of a human brain is about 10,000,000 times weaker. Being able to detect that would be like having hearing so poor that you can't make out what song a band is playing at a concert, but you can hear what two people in the crowd are whispering about fifty feet away...
Have you done the math's on that?
I would think being two feet behind you would be stronger than the Earth's.
Although I think the Earth's may be all around us anyway. Meh.
I'll go back to my theory of subtle subconscious clues such as lighting, smell, slight air movements etc.
Well, I looked up the magnetic field strengths of both.
Really tommo, have you never heard of a magnetic compass..? They wouldn't be very useful if human fields influenced them. :P
I think that, for the most part, it is - but no less interesting. I find the concept must applicable when it comes to more primitive, nomadic humans. It would be really interesting to find out whether or not humans actually do have this ability, and if its strength could be dependent on necessity. (In which case, the advent of things like compasses might have actually been counter-productive to the ability - if it does exist.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well they probably do influence them a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Just because one is stronger, doesn't mean the weaker one doesn't have an effect, or can't be detected, especially when it's closer.
They went further than that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
"Here we show using a transgenic approach, that human CRY can function as a magnetosensor in the magnetoreception system of Drosophila and that it does so in a light-dependent manner. Thus, human CRY has the molecular capability to function as a light-sensitive magnetosensor, and this finding may lead to a renewed interest in human magnetoreception."
So, the human variant of this gene can restore magnetoreception in Drosophila, which had it's intrinsic mangetosensor gene deleted. But yeah, it still doesn't mean that this protein really functions as a magnetosensor in human eyes. The term 'exaptation' comes to mind.
And it still doesn't mean that we have the necessary neural infrastructure to exploit its magnetosensor properties.
I just completed a course on genetics and had never heard this term. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer
I agree. But it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer
I'd liken the effect to gravity. If I stand next to you, there's a gravitational attraction, but it's tiny and overpowered by the attraction between ourselves and the Earth. You wouldn't argue that the force between us is detectable to human senses, just because our centre of masses are closer to each other's than to the Earth's. You look at the actual forces produced and see that the result is insignificant. Hell, just the variance in Earth's gravity alone is many orders of magnitude greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
As Xei states, you only have to look at the way equipment and the environment reacts to Earth's magnetic field to see it's far stronger than the one produced by the human body. Some animals can detect fields produced by living creatures, but we can't. Given that we can't detect the relatively massive magnetic field of the Earth - at least at a conscious level - this isn't surprising.
Interestingly, apparently humans do possess the mineral magnetite in certain bones, similar to other species which can detect magnetic fields.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823284
Who says we can't detect the magnetic field of the Earth though?
This study is suggesting we may be able to. Not like we'd really know it coz it's there all the time.
What...? It points in a certain direction. That's why it's useful. I'm getting the feeling you've never actually played with a compass..?
There have been experiments on this. One of the best ways to do it is to face somebody North (for instance) whilst blindfolded, then disorientate them, and see if they can guess which way they're then pointing better than average. One experiment indicated better than luck guesses, but it couldn't be replicated.
You can tell when someone is behind you because their body blocks/reflects some sound, and usually the body gives off enough infrared radiation that it can be felt from some distance away. Not to mention that they most likely make at least some noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
That's nothing magic. If you're not super aware, then those cues are likely subconscious to you, and you "just know" someone is there, without realizing the cues that alerted you.
I have nfi what you're talking about. Your first paragraph has nothing to do with my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Forsaken, I already said that I have gone back to my theory of subtle subconscious hints.
All I said was this "could" be an explanation. Not that it is or that it's even probable.
Suggesting magnetic field only has magnitude. :?Quote:
Who says we can't detect the magnetic field of the Earth though? ... Not like we'd really know it coz it's there all the time.
Nope.
If I'm at the South magnetic pole, I'm not going to be detecting the North magnetic pole.
Since I don't know what the other pole "feels" like, there's no reason I should and no way I could know if I am feeling or detecting the magnetic field at all.
Most animals don't spend their lives on top of the South pole...
I don't get what you meant by 'we wouldn't know if we can detect the magnetic field because it's there all the time'. Magnetic fields are like flows... the point is that when you turn by an angle, you feel that relative to you, the flow has changed. That's how birds navigate by them. That's how magnetic sense works. The strength of the field, and the fact is doesn't vary, isn't important. Magnetic sense is about being able to sense the direction. We'd notice it if we had it.
Maybe.
On the other hand, you don't notice your liver metabolising chemicals.
That's a pretty big absolute, don't you think? Abilities rise and fall due to necessity (evolution). If we, in our generation, have been so far removed from our need to be aware of this ability, the fact that we are not able to (consciously) feel/identify it does not mean it isn't there. It would mean it's possibly dormant. There is a difference between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Thanks but that's not really relevant to what I was saying; if you leave the quote in context it makes sense. I was just responding to the idea that we wouldn't notice it because we're never exposed to any changes; we are, and so if we had the ability to sense variations, we would. I'm not sure to what extent you can say somebody has a 'sense' when they aren't conscious of sensing anything, but hey, that's a semantic issue. If we wanted to be clear, you're talking about a 'physiologically potential sense'. That's what's up for debate.
Even though I see what you're saying, you are kind of missing my point. Just like people in different regions develop different skin tones and people in different conditions develop different musculoskeletal structures, etc; how do we (you and I, in our modernized generation/environment) begin to say that just because we don't "sense" this possibly-dormant trait, that humans can't? That wouldn't be necessarily true assumption. You know a previously-unconacted tribe has just been discoverred, a few days ago? I wonder how much more or less developed their survival senses (even the ones we are aware of; smell, sight, etc) are than ours. If they can fluctuate, due to what's necessary to survive in your environment, then our inability to sense it does not mean it's not a human ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I like the post a lot I doubt that skin tones is a good analogy as that's genetic. Your second analogy with musculoskelatal structures is much more on point.
Also, not being aware of a sense in no way means that it's not there so long as one can measure its effects. We don't know why we do half the things that we do, we're just good at justifying them after the fact.
Well sure it is, this far down the line. Most things are. Those different skin tones began as the body's reaction to climate/sunlight, though. Remember, mankind originated from the same region. (Africa) It was in their moving to different locales that the changes in pigmentation began happening. It's more or less the same thing. Though I do agree that the musculoskeletal system is a better analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
And in some circumstances, humans can become consciously aware of those things. Humans are able to detect the action of a single neuron, this has been clinically verified.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
You sure about that? Did you know that human sensitivity to sound frequencies exceeds that of other mammals? Neurobiology is still a relatively newer science and discoveries are being made all the time. It seems silly to me for anyone to assume "we'd notice it if we had it", and to discount such possibilities. I might be wrong, but I don't think that's how new discoveries are made (I realize the majority of them are accidental but it's still better to be more open minded imho).Quote:
We'd notice it if we had it.
Quote:
the ability of such neurons to detect the slightest of differences in sound frequency far surpasses that of the human auditory nerve, which carries information from the hair cells of the inner ear to the brain's auditory cortex - by as much as 30 times greater sensitivity. Indeed, such frequency tuning in the human auditory cortex is substantially superior to that typically found in the cortex of nonhuman mammals, with the exception of bats.
I realize we're talking about something entirely different, this is merely offered as an example.Quote:
A single auditory neuron from humans showed an amazing ability to distinguish between very subtle frequency differences, down to a tenth of an octave. This, compared to a sensitivity of about one octave in the cat, about a third of an octave in rats and a half to a full octave in the macaque.
"This is remarkable selectivity," said Fried, who is also co-director of UCLA's Seizure Disorder Center. "It is indeed a mystery why such resolution in humans came to be. Why did we develop this? Such selectivity is not needed for speech comprehension...This study, Fried noted, is the latest example of the power of neurobiological research that uses data drawn directly from inside a living human brain at the single-neuron level. Previous studies from Fried's lab have identified single cells in the human hippocampus specific to place in human navigation, and single cells that can translate varied visual images of the same item - such as the identity of an individual - into a single concept that is instantly and consistently recognizable.
This all makes sense as a separate issue, it's just that I never said otherwise, and you initially brought it up as if I had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Naturally it's possible that some of the tiny number of nomads still left in the world (for example) have this sense, and it's also possible that other people have the ability genetically but never developed it as they grew. All speculative, though.
Thanks again but if you leave the quote in context then that's not what it's about, see the response to O... or read the original post to tommo diligently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pan
I'm not entirely sure what this means concretely, can you link to whatever it is? Clearly humans can't detect the specific firing of every neuron in their heads, and it's well known that for various senses a neuron is enough for it to be tangible.Quote:
And in some circumstances, humans can become consciously aware of those things. Humans are able to detect the action of a single neuron, this has been clinically verified.
No, you never said otherwise. You just implied it, heavily. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Never. I had no doubt you thought I'd be 'closed minded' about this and you leapt on the first statement that seemed to imply I was, when in context it was about something totally separate. I am totally open to the idea that prehistoric humans had this sense, that some extant humans could still use it, and that others have the genetic potential. Why not? Many animals can do this. It's just that there's currently no conclusive evidence about it. Despite what I perceive as a common suppositious undercurrent, I am the antithesis of closed mindedness, and you won't find anything in my posts saying, or heavily implying, otherwise.
Well then I guess you and I can disagree on that. Granted, I believe you were rather careful not to take the 'closed-minded' approach. And (despite your assumption) I had no preconceived notions on what you were going to say, before you started posting. It is in phrases like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
...as well as entire posts like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
..and:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
...which brought me to say that you heavily implied it (and - if I may be so bold - I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Being that not a single point in the OP (nor the article) stated that any of the findings were conclusive, I find your stating that they are inconclusive is either A) just a bit redundant, which is fine, or B) an attempt to down-play the point being made (that, though not conclusive, it could be a significant area of study.)
So you can say that I'm just pouncing on you because of my (alleged) preconceived notions about how you would feel on the subject, but I think that, truthfully, it's a bit obvious that I was going more off of what you said...not what you thought I'd think you would say.
With all that being said, though, I'm glad that you think of it the way that you do. :thumbup:
The exodus from africa happened at least 40,000 years ago though. That's long enough for as trivial a change as melatonin variation to stabilize. "Civilization" has only been going on for the past 10,000 years that we know of. And that's with a very small percentage of the human population. I would expect that any selective pressure against the hypothesised ability has only arisen over the course of the past 500 years [i]averaged out[i] over the species. That's about 25 generations. And it's a very very light selective pressure at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I stand by my statement. Skin tone is a terrible analogy and musculoskeletal condition is a good one. You're shooting 1 out of 2. That ain't bad.
As I said, I was talking about the initial change in pigment. Not the primarily genetic difference as it is now...Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
...but yeah. I'll take that 1 out of 2. :thumbup:
Well O, I think that you developed an impression of my heavily implying convictions which I... don't actually have... is the point. None of those quotes, when read conscientiously in context, are actually about what you took from them. I mean, even picking up cues from formal pronouns..? Anyway, I don't want this to get silly, it was just a general impression I was getting from some people; if it's not actually your belief that I'm a cynical zealot rather than just cautious, then awesome.
Then I apologize for misinterpreting. However, like I said, I don't think I went too far out on a limb to do so. Though I will take you at your word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well, yeah. If by that you mean your use of "we," then I could only assume that by "we" you meant "humans." That is how you used the word, multiple times. I don't really see how I could be expected to interpret that in any other way, to be completely honest. But, again, we can move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I believe you walk the line, sometimes. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But it's because you walk the line that I try not to jump to too many conclusions - especially when it's dealing with plausible subjects, such as this. When it comes to the more controversial (like 2012, etc), I'm more inclined to believe that you'll come into the discussion with full riot gear on and guns blazing, rather than being diplomatic and genuinely open-minded. And I don't mean that as an insult, so I hope you don't take it that way. It's just the impression that I get.
:cheers:
"Look, I've always been more curious than cautious, and that's served me pretty well."
^I know O will get that one.
Haha. Absolutely. The Incredible Hulk. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pan
This is pretty interesting, but I think mostly because it may show that we (humans) had the ability at some point. It is my feeling that if we did have this ability, we should be able to utilize it on some level, and so it should be possible to device a test which would so that it's there. I'm lead to believe that such studies have been carried out.
Of course O might be right in thinking that there might be differences between certain groups of people that arise either from genetic differences or because the ability only develops if certain stimulus if provided at critical times, or even because you have to be trained to use it. With the later two possibilities, however, this should still indicate a higher than chance occurrence of detecting the correct direction in a sufficiently large study of a given group of people.