Jump to content

Telepathy is not illogical...


SilverRevlis
 Share

Recommended Posts

String Junky,

 

"It is my opinion that much of this desire for paranormal phenomena to exist and the idea of spiritual selves etc stems from a deep dissatisfaction with what we have, what we know and our impending mortality ie ...there's GOT to be more than this. They appear to be symptoms of over- imaginative desperation."

 

I hold a similar opinion, but color it slightly with a few assumptions. One, that none of us humans are immune and some form of speculative imagination is bound to seep into the thinking of even the most "objective" among us. And two, that there is only one reality, that we all share, that fits together exactly right, with no exceptions. And three, each of us has a fantastically integrated ability to internalize the external reality we are part of, remember it, and imagine it, at all different scales, and from all different perspectives(even scales and perspectives that defy our actual ability to acheive such a perch in reality.)

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask why you would move this topic to Pseudo Science and Speculation when whole University's, especially University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, devote whole studies to this topic, plenty of money and it is taking very seriously. As you can see, this is also a popular topic.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To add, I cannot more agree with your statement, I myself am only saying we need new and better experiments, like the Interfere With The Fan, and even better to actually show words on a computer screen which someone is projecting... outdated experiments like cards and such are not sufficient

First, the fact a university does studies in Pseudo Science does not imply that the studies are thus, anything but pseudo science - especially when they have not achieved any scientific results that would elevate it above pseudo science. If you feel the reason for this is that they are using outdated experiments, why not take it up with them?

A. Saying there is no ether, the ether medium, is saying there is no radio and/or microwave communication. Maybe, that's just the problem... the experiments so far only do stick electrodes on your head in outdated EEG scans. And, once again, saying your head is isolated in the void of space not emmitting waves is truly ridiculous...

Simply repeating that it is "ridiculous" to claim ether does not exist when all modern physics works on the basis that there is no ether does not lend credibility either to the idea that telepathy can operate through ether nor lend credibility to the idea that ether exists. Threads on ether come up regularly and have yet to provide any persuasive arguments in favor of ether. The fact you find it ridiculous that ether doesn't exist has no more weight than the arguments of the very brilliant Nikola Tesla that it is ridiculous to claim that splitting an atom can release energy. His failure to understand atomic energy had no impact on the future of Nuclear energy, just as your failure to understand contemporary physics has no impact in a debate regarding ether.

Sorry, but catch up - or at least try to understand why it is anything but ridiculous to acknowledge that ether is an exceptionally weak theory at this point in modern physics. It does you no favor in your attempt to communicate with others when you ignore mountains of empirical evidence that contradicts your conclusions. Your ideas may mean a lot to you but they mean nothing to anyone else unless you supply evidence to back up your arguments. Merely implying we are ridiculous repeatedly is not going to persuade anyone.

 

B. No, difficulty due to the lack of evolution and training in humans does not mean impossibility. Effort exerted can be more energy... see comic strips...

C. The point about a 'receptor' in the brain, as described, is similar if not the same as your ears picking up waves/vibrations and then your brain section translating it... it is most likely that human has just not evolved and/or trained for such...


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Thank you, I myself was going to bring up different parts of the human brain which can be responsible for Telepathy, such as the hypothalumus, front lobes, cognitive centres

and occipital lobes. It is just simply underdeveloped, not yet developed, not yet evolved and/or is a tiny percentage of gene selection. This would be, of course, to protect the human who would in the first instance go insane with all the signalled information.

 

Can you explain how any of those centers are supposed to work? What is this magical signal that all of our technological sensors fail to detect, yet the brain apparently can? We can detect far more emissions and energy waves, sounds, pressure fluctuations, individual photons from the Deep Field Objects, x-rays, gamma rays and minute gravitational fluctuations... IR to UV to sub atomic particles in massive colliders through mechanical instruments than we can through our biological senses.

 

Secondarily, you are taking about the transmission of thought - which contains a huge amount of data. Just communicating a single image requires a lot of data as you cannot get around the issue that compression only gets you so far in reducing the quantity of data. To enhance compression to any real viable degree you need shared algorithms between the two points in the communication and there is no evidence to suggest this can occur independently in two minds - the way in which we may mentally compress. It is at least feasible to suggest that when you imagine a "specific parrot" you may have an image of "the first parrot you saw" modified to resemble the "specific parrot" to create the end result image with high compression - yet without seeing the same "initial parrot" you could never communicate that image using that compression technique. You'd have to "send" the whole image of the new parrot, which can only be compressed so much.

 

The more data you want to transmit at once, the more energy is required. There is zero evidence that any part of the brain can even handle those energy requirements, let alone generate any kind of signal with it. Quite simply, the amount of energy required in any given brain center would quickly disperse throughout the rest of the brain and probably fry the whole thing.

 

Therefore, you cannot have telepathy that works in any manner consistent with classical physics. You would need some sort of means to transmit information over large distances with low energy requirements that is not subject to noise disruption. It is fine if you believe this is the case but it is errant to claim this is a logical conclusion. You may find anecdotal evidence compelling, or you may find it fits with how you feel the world works or what you feel humans are capable of or explains strange idiosyncratic experiences you've had but none of those are scientific logical reasons you can share with the scientific community at large.

 

All of the arguments I've made by the way - are simply isolating one issue: energy required to transmit a large quantity of data coherently. I am not even touching the issue of if the brain has a center capable of intentionally creating a trough or peak signal of any degree capable of being detected even one meter from the subject. Nor am I addressing the issue of a center actually being able to detect a trough or peak. I am simply saying that the energy requirements needed to send any coherent signal of any complexity with any degree of integrity are too large to even channel to any center of the brain without overloading the conduits that could transport the electrical energy. Neurons are not rubber insulated lines of copper wire. If there is some form of telepathy in humans - which could be the case - it is not the result of some biological mechanical system explainable through our current understanding of physics.

Edited by padren
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask why you would move this topic to Pseudo Science and Speculation when whole University's, especially University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, devote whole studies to this topic, plenty of money and it is taking very seriously. As you can see, this is also a popular topic.

 

People spend money studying Reikkei, acupuncture and homeopathy, too. Doesn't mean there's evidence showing that they work as advertised.

 

The existence of telepathy is speculative, at best, given the lack of evidence for it. The mechanism for it is thus also speculative, since it can't be tested.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
When we can change the the laws of Nature and the Universe at will or evolve, then we might have telepathic abilities ....in a million years or three. :D

 

If one can change it, then it isn't a law of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my God... I got the next development in... what do you think of the amplification of your thoughts?

 

We already have technology to do this:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37192

 

Granted, the range is very limited and the amount of data that can be conveyed is very limited, but the energy it detects can be amplified by the system I am sure. Once you capture a signal it's trivial to amplify it.

 

Of course, if you mean amplifying thoughts to transmit them from within the brain you'd have to account for the energy required to amplify them, which I highly doubt the brain would be capable of conduit to any such organ or brain center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pssst - infra-red light just means heat.

 

Well, to be more accurate, that's what they use to detect temperature differences. Infrared isn't itself heat, though. It's EM radiation. It's just that things which are around the temperature of humans give off blackbody radiation mostly around the infrared part of the spectrum. Things which are much hotter would give off visible light (like a flame), things which are much colder in the microwave, etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, as you can see there is inherent in Nature amongst many animals a non-auditory group form of communication. It matters very little if this is 'non-intelligent' or 'primitive'.

I think you misunderstood what I said. There is no "group" communication. It is all local information received by an individual from its immediate surroundings. They are not intentionally sending information to the other members of the flock. Each creature is acting "selfishly" and is only interested in what the environment is like.

 

Many animals react to the actions of other species (like if a predator comes close). One would not say that the predator is "communicating" with its prey. What would be the point? Why would a predator alert its prey to an imminent attack?

 

These flocking animals are reacting in a similar way as they would to a predator (just different rules). They are reacting to the environment of the other creatures in the flock in a way that improves their own chances of survival (safety in numbers). In fact it is not in their own best interest to let other members of the flock know that there are predators around, as the creatures in the flock compete most strongly, for food and mates, with members of its own species (it is just that the benefit of being in a group is greater than the competition of food and mates).

 

If you have a look again at those rules, you will notice that none of them sends any information to the nearby creatures in then flock. There is nothing in flocking behaviour that requires the group to co-operate by letting them know of their own behaviours. They see the others react, and then react in a way that benefits them the most. They don't communicate this at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a bit bored reading through the last few replies... but I did go and stick my head in a broadband microwave detector upstairs and try and communicate with someone sat back in my office... there was no microwaves detected...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our brains had transmitting/receiving capabilities, wouldn't there be overwhelming interference from cell phones, wi-fi, TV remotes, garage door openers, etc?

To be fair, no. Not if our brains worked on a completely different medium than electromagnetic radiation, or, for that matter, in a completely different frequencies.

 

However, to expand on your point, if our brains DID intercept any sort of natural medium, we should have received some sort of noise from SOMEWHERE. There is such a huge amount of natural "noise" in nature, that if we were functioning as antenae, we would've gotten it from somewhere. Constantly.

 

Of course, to be fair again, the claim can be raised that we might actually BE intercepting it right now, but since it's constant, we don't notice it. That's a fair point, but one that needs some evidence. As it is, all evidence proposed were discounted and other evidence were shown to obliterate this idea completely.

 

And yet another however, if we were to intercept (or transmit) any form of detectable wave on any frequency, the experiments that were performed would have picked it up. They did not.

 

Even more than that, experiments that were done just to see if a person can intercept another through an opaque screen (for instance, an experiment was performed to see if a self-claimed "mind reader" / "energy intercepter" whatever they call themselves) can pinpoint the location of where a different person put their hand on an opaque THIN layer of screen.

Those failed too.

 

All evidence so far show, therefore, that our brain does not transmit any form of detectable, usable "brain power" thought telepathy of any kind that can be used for either telepathy or telekinesis or any other tele-something.

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, no. Not if our brains worked on a completely different medium than electromagnetic radiation, or, for that matter, in a completely different frequencies.

However, the 'mechanism' claimed in this thread IS EM radiation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the 'mechanism' claimed in this thread IS EM radiation.

Indeed, which still wouldn't necessarily mean we will get noise from household appliances (the claim can be that we're using some different range of frequencies) *BUT* we will very likely get a lot of noise from a whole RANGE of other E&M radiation, from the Sun to satellite transmissions to the CMB.

 

Again, though, to be fair, that's not what would discard the idea (you COULD claim that we already ARE recieving said noise but since it's constant, we don't notice it). That, actually, is a known phenomenon of our brains - if you get a non changing input for a while, you stop processing it, as your brain decides it's "noise".

 

That's why I continued to say that the actual EVIDENCE for transmitting/reception from and to our brain is showing to be completely bollocks. It's nonexistent not necessarily because of whatever noise we'll be getting, but because it's just nonexistent.

 

It's a subtle destinction, and yet one worth making. Experiments were done, experiments showed the NONEXISTENCE of this phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experiments were done, experiments showed the NONEXISTENCE of this phenomenon.

 

Technically, the experiments failed to find the existence of it - it's not truly possible to definitively show something is non-existent (though manipulative experiments can show the failure of A to produce effect B).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a subtle destinction, and yet one worth making. Experiments were done, experiments showed the NONEXISTENCE of this phenomenon.

 

To be fair, those experiments only proved the inability of those people to demonstrate telepathy under those circumstances in that instance. They could have been hung over or hungy.

 

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, the experiments failed to find the existence of it - it's not truly possible to definitively show something is non-existent

Yes. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. However, continued lack of evidence does correlate rather highly with lack of funding.

 

Thirty years ago schools, including several prestigious ones, proved that the science could be subverted given adequate sources of money. Paranormal studies departments sprang up all over the place. The drying up of funding coupled with lack of success coupled with the utter intellectual embarrassment of the whole concept later led most schools to close these paranormal studies departments. Good riddance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if the paranormal studies departments weren't there in the first place then we would not be able to say so confidently that we've looked for evidence of telepathy and not found it. Also, the existence of paranormal studies departments provided the premise for the Ghostbusters film - something that we can all benefit from in many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the existence of paranormal studies departments provided the premise for the Ghostbusters film - something that we can all benefit from in many ways.

 

So very true.

 

hungy.

 

Hungarian ?

 

However, continued lack of evidence does correlate rather highly with lack of funding

 

Albeit that was probably a joke, but within the field of science, yes, rather annoying that there's a stupid amount of money made from a lack of evidence, i.e science can't explain this prefabricated phenomena, lets test it, and waste a stupid amount of time wondering if it exists.

 

not to mention the horrendous signal to noise ratio

 

Which personally I think is the salient point.

 

Exhange of photons is ubiquitous (not particularly relevant), you can extract information from simple sysems, e.g a spectral fingerprint of hydrogen, now apply that to thought. You'd have to run an almost infinite number of experiments to correlate a spectral fingerprint to thought...it doesn't make sense.

 

The distance radiation has from the brain, is quickly dissapated by ambient effects i.e it's micrometers, telepathy could possibly work if your head was next to somebody elses, and you had a way of decoding that information, but that is utterly impossible (see above). Plus, you can cheat the system, which renders it useless. More than happy to provide links.

Edited by Snail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, no. Not if our brains worked on a completely different medium than electromagnetic radiation, or, for that matter, in a completely different frequencies.

 

But what would this be, and how could we not notice? Interactions involve the exchange of energy, and the basis of all of the exchanges are atomic/molecular interactions. These are electromagnetic in nature, and this is borne out by theory and experiment matching up. So any purported telepathic energy is living way down past the thirteenth decimal place of agreement (or wherever the experimental uncertainty appears) of QED. Otherwise we'd see a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont,

 

"But what would this be, and how could we not notice? Interactions involve the exchange of energy, and the basis of all of the exchanges are atomic/molecular interactions."

 

Gravaton frequency shift? Neutrino density variations? Tachyon intensity variation? Faint infrared echos?

 

Who knows? (yet)

 

How do women know when men are staring at their figure?

Why do all heads turn when certain people walk into a room?

Why do some people have a "commanding" presence?

How do I know that Mooeypoo will accuse me of shifting the goal posts? (Other than, that I am.)

 

Fact is, as an earlier post, (forgot whose,) pointed out, the skull is not isolated from the rest of reality.

 

The brain is connected by nerves and vessels and structures to the rest of the body. The body is normally touching the ground, and can sense the vibration of an unseen passing truck. If its Wenesday at 6:30 there is a good chance its the garbage truck.

 

Of the mass of photons that strike our body every second, we are accutely aware of those that strike our eyes, are focused by lenses on the back of our eyeballs where the frequencies of the photons cause certain cones to fire pulses and certain rods respond to the intensity or amount of photons. As a baby, seeing our first sights, the world actually appears upside down, backward, and we see two images of it, and its probably quite a blur of color and light. Eventually we learn to focus, to discern near from far, identify shapes and colors, learn, in combination with info from our inner ear, what is up and down. This attention we pay to, and the information we glean about the world from our eyes, does not stop photons from hitting the rest of our body, does not stop our hand from feeling infrared heat, or our back from getting sunburnt.

 

Often in reading about telepathy, I see the term "tuning in" or read suggestions that emotions are easier to "transmit" than shapes. What, of the plethora of particles, vibrations, frequencies, and waves that reach a human, can a human focus on, to determine which and what is an indication of another human's effect on reality? What effects on reality does a human's emotions have, that is "louder" than the thought of a circle?

 

Subtle subconcious differences in our environment can give us information we don't even realize we are getting. Pheromones in the air, upside down distorted reflections off the little bumps on the plastic ceiling tile covering the turned off fluoresent bulb fixture, the gurgling of a stomach 3 yards away, the slight sound of a heartbeat or a breath.

 

Depends on what you are focused on, and how you have learned to interpret the patterns.

 

I do not think that telepathy, as defined, is logical. As soon as telepathy claims to be capable of transmitting thoughts in some unreal, paranormal way, it goes the way of prayer, in being unreal, illogical, magical, and nothing more than imagination. It has repeatedly failed to prove itself as a real phenomena.

 

However, there are many real ways, known, and yet to be discovered, that one human can know, or a least make a good guess, at what might be going on in another person's mind. After all, about a hundred percent of humans are actually human, endowed with the same set of bodily features, the same kind of brain, the same set of senses, and in many cases a similar set of stimuli, common history and symbol systems.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at the point of being able to interpret the content (i.e. meaning) of brain waves.

We are able to install chips to read brain waves.

Transmitting the signal has been in our technological grasp for over a century.

We can also (or should shortly bea ble to) implant a chip which provides direct stimulus of the audio nerves.

So we are approaching the point when we can exchange thoughts between two suitably 'chipped' persons.

 

"It's telepathy Jim, but not as we know it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, that is true. but we've already been able to do something similar for millenia(at least).

 

its very easy to transfer thoughts from one mind to another. its called talking. using an implant would be the same thing. i was under the impression that the topic being discussed here was more to do with direct brain to brain communication without the need for modifying the brains structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its very easy to transfer thoughts from one mind to another. its called talking. using an implant would be the same thing.
Except that with the implant it might be possible to get wives to listen to husbands. That would be a giant leap forward.:)

 

i was under the impression that the topic being discussed here was more to do with direct brain to brain communication without the need for modifying the brains structure.
I felt that aspect was beginning to run out of steam and so injected a change of pace. It was an indirect way of saying telepathy is not a valid concept without artificial aids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.