Print Page | Close Window

Telepathy , telepathy is possible???

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Description: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=127023
Printed Date: 22 Nov 2019 at 14:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Telepathy , telepathy is possible???
Posted By: victortelepathic
Subject: Telepathy , telepathy is possible???
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 09:15

I am medicine student , today I received email from one person that "can use telepathy". 
Is it possible that telepathy works on the distance of few kilometer, correct and all the time?
I can not find any official document on any existing person today that can use telepathy
but I found Vinko Rajic and Uri Geller and they are talking that they can use telepathy.
Why they do not make research on it? Many Schizophrenic are coming with similar story.
Can it be that some  Schizophrenics are just receiving from some other head?
James Randi offer 1000000$ for evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?

There is not scientific evidence for telepathy. Why this telepathy madness?
At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
Vinko maybe can give evidence for it but why they do not make an experiment with Vinko or Uri Geller?

Why are Schneider's symptoms of the first rank for Schizophrenia exact  the same as Vinko's telepathy?
Is CIA's remove viewing project just a bluff because telepath's like Vinko can never find out who actually
is sending to them , also receiver or sender can never localize each other.


I think it is in interests of science and human kind to make some really research on Vinko and Uri.






Replies:
Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 09:20
I don't think so, but if you find a way to make a demonstration of telephaty in public, you will get more famous than Uri Geller.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Jul 2015 at 04:35
Let's say that you are broadcasting on a radio, well on a radio you have different frequencies and a receiver that can distinguish between broadcasts, so you can pick up different shows.
Now let's say that there _is_ no difference between broadcasts, that they are jumbled together, just little snippets of things.  Wouldn't you want to turn the whole thing off?
Well comic books, have often portrayed "emerging" telepaths as people who cannot "turn off" the broadcasting of other minds (X-Men-Jean Grey, Professor X), until they are finally taught to control or focus it.  Imagine being in a crowded room, one's "mind" flitting from one alien thought to another, unable to stop, distressed, _crazy_, until some Eastern Guru or serene sensei teaches mind "control."

How do you get a telepath? well supposedly_everybody_ has the innate ability, but in order to foster that ability, you need a telepath, who in turn needed a telepath, and ad infinitum.  (This, btw is where secret societies come in handy).  It is not clear exactly how a telepath could teach themselves, rather than just being a crazy person.  Or they could just be boring like the rest of us.  Or maybe, just maybe, they could get glimpses of something, maybe through dreams, but nothing that they could really understand.

One good portrayal of a "telepath" is the lead actress in "True Blood."  Not an omniscient Professor X, but a flighty waitress, who just picks up the random thoughts in the air, including the guy checking her out.  I am not saying I recommend "True Blood," but that character is interesting.


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 20:40
My own feelings is that telepathy as depicted in scifi is impossible. I do recognise that strange experiences do happen and sometimes we seem to know more than we ought to. It appears that if telepathy actually exists (there is reasonable doubt) then it's a subliminal process and limited in scope. You cannot exchange specific information or speak with the mind. You cannot physically move objects. In fact, concentration or 'thinking' seem to override any potential for telepathy (which might explain why typical scientific experiments fail) . In other words, that feeling we're being watched is perhaps as close to telepathy as you will ever get, but of course, if you're busy concentrating on some other task like reading gentleman's literature, you won't notice the evil monster approach.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 01:38
Inspiration is telepathy in my view. You don't know where its coming from but getting an idea is like catching a fly ball, your mind being the glove.

Heard of the Morphogenetic field? Rupert Sheldrake did some great experiments with a dog named JT who knew 78 % of the time when his owner was coming home. The time of day she came home, the vehicle she drove and the location of the dog were changed and she would sometimes approach on foot. Two camera teams caught dog and owner simultaneously. You see the owner saying/thinking "I'm going home" and JT at that moment, got up and took a place at the window to wait.

http://www.sheldrake.org/videos/richard-wiseman-s-failed-attempt-to-debunk-the-psychic-pet-phenomenon" rel="nofollow - http://www.sheldrake.org/videos/richard-wiseman-s-failed-attempt-to-debunk-the-psychic-pet-phenomenon

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 03:20
In seems likely that machines will be able to "read" our minds someday.

 Brain decoder can eavesdrop on your inner voice

"Despite the neural activity from imagined or actual speech differing slightly, the decoder was able to reconstruct which words several of the volunteers were thinking, using neural activity alone (Frontiers in Neuroengineering, doi.org/whb)."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429934.000-brain-decoder-can-eavesdrop-on-your-inner-voice.html#.VZVjTPm6eUm" rel="nofollow - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429934.000-brain-decoder-can-eavesdrop-on-your-inner-voice.html#.VZVjTPm6eUm

This is about as close to proof of concept that telepathy is possible as anything I can think of.




Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 07:18
God, my ass itches, whoops, sorry God, didn't mean that, I wander what's for dinner?  Not hamsters again!  ha ha ha ha.  I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy.  I miss beer.  Tempted to smoke just to have some vice.  "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?"  Adam Ant, good song.... bebebebe.  B2 or not B2 that is the question, as the congressman on the defense committee said.  Kiraena

a selection from John's inner voice.


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 07:30
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

God, my ass itches, whoops, sorry God, didn't mean that, I wander what's for dinner?  Not hamsters again!  ha ha ha ha.  I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy.  I miss beer.  Tempted to smoke just to have some vice.  "Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?"  Adam Ant, good song.... bebebebe.  B2 or not B2 that is the question, as the congressman on the defense committee said.  Kiraena

a selection from John's inner voice.

The question is do you play poker for money? 


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 16:07
I don't gamble, except a little on the stock market.   I wonder if the dog knows he is telepathic?  Dogs seem to be pretty empathic.  I also wonder, (if telepathy "exists,") how empathy is related to telepathy?
Would self-consciousness, rationality (or even 'self' awareness) get in the way of picking up 'signals' out of the "ether"?

I suspect that if one 'eavesdropped' in on someone's "inner voice," it would be more scattered, and less coherent than my "example."  It is probably good that people can't "hear" what other people are thinking, otherwise, the thought police would come and arrest us all:(


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 16:26
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't gamble, except a little on the stock market.   I wonder if the dog knows he is telepathic?  Dogs seem to be pretty empathic.  I also wonder, (if telepathy "exists,") how empathy is related to telepathy?
Would self-consciousness, rationality (or even 'self' awareness) get in the way of picking up 'signals' out of the "ether"?

I suspect that if one 'eavesdropped' in on someone's "inner voice," it would be more scattered, and less coherent than my "example."  It is probably good that people can't "hear" what other people are thinking, otherwise, the thought police would come and arrest us all:(

I agree that self-conscious may actually interfere with a hypothetical sense.  We don't need to start that discussion about self consciousness in animals here it has beaten to death elsewhere but this is a different angle.  I have said for years that the the probability that humans don't have sophisticated instinct is practically zero.  Insects prove that you only need a brain the size of a pin point to have some fairly sophisticated instincts so don't go looking for them some place in the brain.  Besides we now know how mental functions are distributed over neural circuits.  Almost every neuroscientist I have been able to talk to thinks humans don't have instincts leading me to believe that there is something anthropocentric at work in their brains.

It is likely that being self conscious actually means not being self conscious.  The more functions that are moderated by the cerebral cortex the fewer sensory distractions the better.  I think it is a well known trade off but of course I could be totally wrong Wink  


Posted By: Thorvald
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 17:25
I believe in many things unexplainable being possible, Telepathy is one of them.

-------------

http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 19:31
Originally posted by Thorvald Thorvald wrote:

I believe in many things unexplainable being possible, Telepathy is one of them.

This may be the one of those areas where faith makes more sense than science.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2015 at 15:44
Is a belief in telepathy consistent with materialism?

Does anyone want to go for a definition of telepathy?

Thorvald do you mean "unexplainable"? or "unexplained"?


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 06:23
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Is a belief in telepathy consistent with materialism?

Does anyone want to go for a definition of telepathy?

Thorvald do you mean "unexplainable"? or "unexplained"?

Instead of materialism it would be better to say consistent with a mostly deterministic world view.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 15:19
so it would be consistent with a slightly indeterministic world view?  Is that like being a little bit pregnant? <grin>  I mean, if you allow for quantum indeterminacy anything can and will happen, given an infinite amount of time and space, which of course we don't have, at least not according to our _current_ models of the universe.  I mean, next thing you will do is go believing in the raising of the dead, turning water into wine, and that a philadelphia chess steak is good for you!  How is it that you denounce one "superstition" and allow another one (telepathy) to pass muster?

I'm just giving you a hard time, you don't have to answer:)  But it is an interesting question, should we consider telepathy a "miracle," and as such should we abolish it from our scientistic universe?  Or, does it get in through the backdoor of quantum physics, but what else comes in if we allow telepathy in?


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 16:16
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

so it would be consistent with a slightly indeterministic world view?  Is that like being a little bit pregnant? <grin>  I mean, if you allow for quantum indeterminacy anything can and will happen, given an infinite amount of time and space, which of course we don't have, at least not according to our _current_ models of the universe.  I mean, next thing you will do is go believing in the raising of the dead, turning water into wine, and that a philadelphia chess steak is good for you!  How is it that you denounce one "superstition" and allow another one (telepathy) to pass muster?

I'm just giving you a hard time, you don't have to answer:)  But it is an interesting question, should we consider telepathy a "miracle," and as such should we abolish it from our scientistic universe?  Or, does it get in through the backdoor of quantum physics, but what else comes in if we allow telepathy in?

Your not giving me a hard time at all it is exactly why the orthodoxy of science is such a mystery to many people.  Scientists say they can answer every question given enough time but time is the most valuable commodity we have.  I certainly don't intend to squander all my time on science.  I also don't think the scientist I respect have much time for orthodoxy as it just isn't a big deal unless your are in it for the prestige or money alone.  If you are really into science you do it because it is fun not to brow beat other people with your intellect.  In general they call what Richard Dawkins and the like do pop science.  In a similar fashion I would say what a lot of preachers and priests do is pop religion as they are more political than need be.  (I certainly question the popes marxist position of AGW)

The same scientist who claim that free will is an illusion expect a seat at the political table which to me is a logical contradiction.  Often the same people demanding a seat at the political table are the ones obsessed with orthodoxy.  AGW is a glaring example of this phenomenon.  (By the way I believe in AGW I just don't think many of the people who promote it are smart enough to be involved in the politics.)
 
I'm going to go out on limb here and say I have already demonstrated that telepathy is theoretically possible something that I cannot grant raising the dead (I guess with the exception of resuscitation which is kind of silly).  Maybe someday someone will raise the dead but I don't know how you get around brain damage.  If a machine can "read" peoples minds then it seems possible the same thing may exist in "nature".  Of course if you have been paying any attention to me you would have noted that I think placing machines outside nature creates a false dichotomy.



Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2015 at 14:12
I am not sure what you mean by nature, what most people call machines are electro-mechanical devices designed on the level of classical (Newtonian) mechanics.  Life, I would propose, taps into the quantum mechanical level, and is thus capable of operating on a much deeper 'level' of reality.  Both are "natural."

I think that there is a vagueness to the idea of telepathy, the idea of "reading minds."  That is why I asked if anyone wanted to offer a definition.  It is easier to tell if something exists if one knows what is (or should be) in the first place.  For example, I think the metaphor of "reading" might lead us astray from what telepathy, if it 'existed,' would resemble. 


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2015 at 07:58
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by nature, what most people call machines are electro-mechanical devices designed on the level of classical (Newtonian) mechanics.  Life, I would propose, taps into the quantum mechanical level, and is thus capable of operating on a much deeper 'level' of reality.  Both are "natural."

I think that there is a vagueness to the idea of telepathy, the idea of "reading minds."  That is why I asked if anyone wanted to offer a definition.  It is easier to tell if something exists if one knows what is (or should be) in the first place.  For example, I think the metaphor of "reading" might lead us astray from what telepathy, if it 'existed,' would resemble. 

Honey combs, beaver dams and termite mounds are all examples of sophisticated "technology".   They are no more or less "natural" than machines they are simply less intentional.  

If we look at sexual selection we can see that in both humans and animals mental processes come into play as part of adaptation.  It is the degree of intentionality not the nature of the process that separates termite mounds from machines.  Life has the apparent characteristic of "intelligence" in many of it's manifestations. 

Life is not just about DNA it is also about the chemical and physical environment that life exist in and is altered by life.  No quantum mechanics are necessary to see how "intentional" alteration of the environment is a coauthor of evolution along with "random" mutations.  These principals apply to human and non human animals alike.

One of the areas of evolution that is poorly understood by most people is the artificial separation of  mutations and selection into random and non random events.  There is no guarantee that even the best adaptations will survive "random" environmental conditions and the probabilities surrounding gene transfer.

Cultural "evolution" like it's physical counter part can be shown to be "random" as there is no evidence that there was intentionality in cultural selection that leads from stone tools to space ships.  While a bit of quantum mechanics is necessary to explain mutations at the phenotype expression level the relatively deterministic nature of life is evident.   The distinction between "natural" selection and "intelligent" selection is often exaggerated. 

Until we can more precisely define "intelligent" and "natural" the human escape from "natural" selection that is dependent on intelligence leads to nebulus debates about topics such as absolute free will.  There may be a quantum god but it seems prudent to focus on the more deterministic aspects of existence at the moment.

Thanks for reading Embarrassed  

    


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 21:04
Quote Does anyone want to go for a definition of telepathy?

Communication between two minds.

Since the Mind is the sum total of brain activity and the brain has no means to send or receive communication, telepathy cannot be possible. We communicate via physical movement or manipulation of our enviroment, which although the brain controls, it is connected to the means remotely. Since we have no biological device to send thoughts back and forth, our brains cannot communicate.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 22:38
Therefore language is important

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 05:47
If I say I see red, it may be true that a particular area of the brain may be active, the same basic area that is active for others when they see red, _but_ I am not saying that a particular area of the brain is active, I am saying that "I see red."  Furthermore, that red for me is probably not just a frequency on the spectrum, but also has more subjective associations with it.  If it is blood red, it may mean something different to me than if it is fire engine red.  When we say, we see red, we tend to think we know what we mean, but I have a friend who would be puzzled by such a statement because he is an art restorationist and has very sophisticated understanding of color.
It isn't as bad as caldrail says, it's worse:P  The brain is a physical entity.  The mind, thoughts, feelings, and more religious notions, the spirit, the soul, God, are "non"-physical, "mental" entities that come from a pre modern-scientific era.  Some people think these concepts will conceptually whither away as science becomes more sophisticated, others believe that they are necessary and deeply rooted in our understanding of the ourselves and the world.  But, my point is, if we say telepathy is 'communication between two minds,' we then have to get into what a "mind" is.  Just saying that the mind is activity of the brain misses that we have a first person account (but not necessarily infallible) of what our own sensations or thoughts are, but a scientist has a third person vantage of what a catscan would say, not a first person vantage like us.  That difference in perspective is crucial and something that science, for now, cannot adjust for.

I think the earlier dog case that Vanuatu gave is interesting in its report, whether or not it is flawed, I have no idea, but it suggests a possible approach for such things.  Forget the "smart" human and look at the behavior of the "dumb" animal.
One thing you have is a lot of anecdotes about people "feeling" from a distance that something terrible has happened to a loved one.  Then they call home and find out that the loved one died, or was in a car accident or something else traumatic.  I would not consider a collection of such stories as (scientific) evidence for telepathy, but one could understand why people, after having such a feeling, tend to believe in it.  I have never had such an experience myself, but I have heard others report such an event.  
 


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 12:40
I have to admit I have had these "experiences" but I can't say that it isn't just my mind playing tricks on me.  If I was certain it was something real I wouldn't let scientific convention or group pressure stop me from declaring telepathy a reality.  I certainly didn't need science to tell me animals were "self aware".  Now that it is accepted more or less that animals are self aware we have the great debate about what self aware means.   There seems to be a tendency to keep pushing the definitions toward some sort of comfort zone that fits conventional dogma.   

I'm pretty certain we are designed to evolve but a lot of scientist are working hard to prove that it is just a case of selection pressure giving that illusion.  Extraordinary claims may require extraordinary proof but who decides what is extraordinary.  More importantly why do we need a special definition for certain proposals.  If it is nearly impossible to prove something is true or false just move on to something you consider is likely to be more productive.

It would be better if scientist simply stuck with probabilities and left the certainty to religion.



Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 15:29
literaryclarity is right about language being important, but definitions and explanations come to an end, for example, Aristotle calls man a rational animal, which sounds great and can spur people to think about humanity, but there is a potential problem, what does rational mean? and what does animal mean?  One could imagine for a definition (or explanation), one could then ask what each word means, and then ask what each word of each new definition means, and on and on.  At some point, one has to stop and say that a definition is good enough for whatever purpose one has.  Change that purpose and the definition (or explanation) could breakdown, calling for the individual to change the definition, most likely "tweeking" it with minor changes.
We can see this in Bill Clinton repeatly asking for definitions of sex until he could choose a definition where he could 'honestly' say, "no I did not have sex with that woman."  In Clinton's case it was the sophistry of a lawyer, but we could also select, say, Mercury's orbital period as an exception to Newton's physics (because its closeness to the Sun), which allowed Einstein to come up with his theories regarding gravity.

Well, wolfhound, you decide what is ordinary or extraordinary, and I decide that too, and others are also involved, and we discuss it (or don't discuss it) until we either come to an agreement or an impass.  Galileo's claims were once extraordinary, but now they are much of the status quo for people, a lot of whom pretend they understand him, and look down upon earlier individuals as, say, 'primitive.'

I think of the saying, "In God we Trust, all others must pay cash."  Some things, like Euclidian axioms are self-evident, everything else though needs (through language) definitions, specificity, distinctions, grammar to make sure that is clear.  That does not mean that the definitions are set in stone, if we are going to engage in investigating things, we should realize that they are "working" definitions like Newton's writings on Calculus were working definitions.  Very few people learn calculus through reading Newton, others came along and developed modern notation and smoothed things out.  
In this I am talking about prose, and prosaic things, not poetry and poetic things, TS Eliot put footnotes in his poems, and others have criticized him for doing so.  Imagine a dictionary definition in a poem, it would probably ruin the mood.

Wolfhound, if you can't define or explain something, how do you know that you know it?  I mean know it in a scientific sense.  A "Promethean" sense as in the titan who stole fire and gave it to man.  Something where you can manipulate it?  Maybe you want to maintain a more mystic, respectful attitude towards the idea of telepathy, and you don't personally need to define it or explain it.  Still, I think that if we are going to scientifically look for signs of telepathy in human thought and animal behavior, it would be good to have a self-consistent concept of it, before we look for it.  We may come up with a wrong headed notion of what it is, but the least we can do is have a self-consistent definition.  If we can't even do that, then we can poetically or mystically talk about telepathy (but so can the latest X-men movie), but we are not much in a position to treat it as scientific or even just a descriptive idea.

But, I am not looking to "prove" something true or false, I am just looking at a "working" definition or explanation.  Hypothesis, theory, law.  Even a law is a very, very, very sturdy working definition IMO.  If you see the ghost of Sir Karl Popper behind this, well for good reason.


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 15:43
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

 
But, I am not looking to "prove" something true or false, I am just looking at a "working" definition or explanation.  Hypothesis, theory, law.  Even a law is a very, very, very sturdy working definition IMO.  If you see the ghost of Sir Karl Popper behind this, well for good reason.

Don't take this the wrong way but I assume that everyone loves the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language as much as I do.

Telepathy = The supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.

I assumed we were using the same language?

There is after all some fundamental assumptions that are required for communication and I don't think it is unreasonable to rely on the Oxford Dictionary.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 15:59
One more thing (yeah right), once upon a time school children pointed out how South America fitted together with Africa, they were told that it was just a coincidence, it couldn't be so.  Now we have an understanding of plate tectonics.  Therefore, unlike Caldrail, I think there might be some kind of phenomena at the heart of our notion of telepathy, but it is tremendously confusing and confused.  For one thing, if I am "reading" your thoughts, then where are my thoughts while I am doing that?  Let's say I have telepathic 'flash' while I am hunting a wooly mammoth, would this be good evolutionary wise? or am I not going to get out of the way of a rampaging mammoth at a key moment?

I find it interesting, but do not know what to make of it, that during brain surgery, often the patient is kept awake while the surgeons 'poke' around in their brain.  That way the patient can report what kind of sensations or responses are created for the different parts of the brain.  If the brain can react to those proddings then maybe it could react to some other stimulus introduced from outside.  "maybe could," you can see how certain I am about that kind of thing.  Just random C-fibers firing in my brain giving me a wild idea<grin>.   


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 16:28
No we are not using the same language, that is why we have to talk, so we get on the same page, so to speak.  Your OED definition says "supposed," and so it does not state whether telepathy exists or not which is the basic question here (which again, your definition does not solve).  Which is it? thoughts or ideas?  Do we pick which one, or are they just covering their bases by putting both in there.  Could telepathy be something that also can involve thing that are neither thoughts nor ideas?  and what the hell is a thought or an idea, anyway?  Known senses by whom?  Are we talking about the five senses?  Do you have a sense of balance?  Well that is one of senses in addition to the five senses.  How about the additional senses, that a yogi or a mystic talks about?  They say they know these mystical senses, which a Western scientist denies.  So, if you look at your OED definition, under a little pressure it falls apart.  However, it works to some degree, just not to the extent that a serious investigation would require.
But, I think you already know that, and are just trying to yank my chain. 


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 18:19
I'm not jerking you chain.  I wish I could define what it is that makes apparently a large part of the population believe in telepathy while main stream science wants nothing to do with it.   I just did  a search of the internet and I did not find anything new on the subject.  Every test that was conducted with proper controls suggest that at best assuming it exists telepathy is so unreliable that it is useless.

I keep trying to figure out why if telepathy exist it is so hard to demonstrate.  At least for me personally if I can't find a way to test something I dismiss it.  When I say I dismiss it that only means I don't worry about it and move on to things I can test.

I don't know if there is a god or if telepathy exists but I don't run around worrying about it.  Some people apparently can't live that way and have "proved" god doesn't exist and that telepathy is a fraud.   I find them almost as curious as parapsychologist as I really just don't see why they care about the subject so intensely.  It's like Daniel Dennett says about free will the magical kind doesn't matter and isn't worth discussing but the kind that does matter people have and it's worth discussing.  Get a few beers in me however and I will prove to you telepathy exists even if normally I would tell you it doesn't matter.  When you are drunk the uninteresting become interesting as your normal ability to think clearly is impaired and your ability to determine the various merit of things weakened.

Telepathy doesn't matter to me because we have other ways of communicating that are proven to be reliable and serve my purposes well.  If there was some proof that telepathy would serve my communication needs better perhaps I would look into it more.  Alas as the military has discontinued their research into the field I'm guessing that proof is not going to materialize.   


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2015 at 04:34
Since Wolfhound and Caldrail have presented definitions, It is only fair that I present a definition, and thus open myself to criticism on that account.  But I won't get to that for a day or two.

I don't drink anymore, and so I don't have that excuse.  I miss a good microbrew:(

Think of telepathy this way, "where there is smoke there is fire, but sometimes there is just smoke."
A big fire can produce smoke, but so can something insignificant smoldering.  By looking at the smoke it is hard to tell whether one has an emergency or not. 


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2015 at 10:02
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Since Wolfhound and Caldrail have presented definitions, It is only fair that I present a definition, and thus open myself to criticism on that account.  But I won't get to that for a day or two.

I don't drink anymore, and so I don't have that excuse.  I miss a good microbrew:(

Think of telepathy this way, "where there is smoke there is fire, but sometimes there is just smoke."
A big fire can produce smoke, but so can something insignificant smoldering.  By looking at the smoke it is hard to tell whether one has an emergency or not. 

Should be interesting to see your next post, we await your insights.  What makes this an interesting discussion is indeed the disparity between general population beliefs (the smoke) and the scientific evidence (the fire).


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2015 at 15:43
I'm waiting


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2015 at 23:12
Quote One thing you have is a lot of anecdotes about people "feeling" from a distance that something terrible has happened to a loved one. Then they call home and find out that the loved one died, or was in a car accident or something else traumatic. I would not consider a collection of such stories as (scientific) evidence for telepathy, but one could understand why people, after having such a feeling, tend to believe in it. I have never had such an experience myself, but I have heard others report such an event.


Sheldrake did an interview with Joe Rogan and he talked about experiments that he did with his son. The kid was younger than ten not exactly sure. Sheldrake asks the boy to sit in a chair and he stands behind him about eight feet away. Then he asks the boy to say whether or not the he thinks dad is looking at him. The first time the boy was 100% correct he knew when dad was looking or not looking at him.

Then the boy wanted to switch and dad was not 100% accurate. It was as if he introduced the concept of being 'wrong' and the boy never got it 100% right again. He did however correctly perceive at a high rate usually in the 90%+ range. Sheldrake duplicated this experiment with groups of school children and created another experiment done over the phone. The subject has to say which of two friends is calling. Again children are much better at this than adults.

When I played 20 questions as a kid with my siblings I never needed 20 questions. And they always knew what I was thinking of too. When I played with other people it was much more difficult. I think an emotional connection helps with extra sensory perception.















-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2015 at 13:46
Wolfhound, how do you keep someone in suspense?
?
?
?
But seriously, don't wait for me, I will do it, when I get around to it:)  I have got other things calling on my time, I haven't got back to the astrology thread, for which I read an academic book on ancient astrology (or rather I am interested in ancient astronomy and the two are indistinguishable).  But, I have other things in my "real life" too.  Maybe I'll get to it tomorrow, I am going to do it, but don't hold your breath (or do hold your breath, but it won't make it any faster). 

Elsewhere I have referred to the "we do not see because we have eyes, we have eyes because we see."  Eyes are 'stuck' on us like Mr. Potatohead, they are integral to who we are, however, people who are blind but saw as a child, have in some cases developed skills in echolocation.  In other words, they make "clicks" and are able to "see" from the reflections of soundwaves off of objects.  Bats of course do this, and of course the hearing of the blind is usually exceptional.  But, the stories I have heard about people developing echo-location emphasize that the individual was once able to see but now can no longer.  Hearing is just the ear sensing sound waves, if someone can see through hearing, then I wonder whether someone could see by feeling.  Now of course, such a talent would _never_ be developed normally, just like seeing through hearing is not developed normally but by someone who once saw with their eyes, but are now blind and use clicks to echolocate.  You and I could not do it, and probably someone who was blind from birth couldn't do either, and it would probably help a lot to have the example of the bat.

I think Vanuatu has opened up an interesting avenue to explore, 'esp' seems like part of the family of phenomena that the name "telepathy" seeks to explain.

For the _start_ of a definition:  telepathy describes a family of phenomena characterized in popular culture and folk psychology.....


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2015 at 15:15
I would never have brought up a topic like this but now that I have thought about it I really have developed a curiosity about it.  Mostly because franciscosan has been talking about science and belief.

I respect science but I don't rely on it exclusively for guidance.  The main reason is the way scientist keep moving goal posts for evidence.

I will give you an example when I was kid old farmers would talk about epigenetics of course they didn't use that word and their ideas were a bit muddled but basicly it was the same theory of some phenotype expressions being inherited by experience of the mother.  Years ago when I approached biologists with the idea they said it was simple ignorance.  Now that it is confirmed at least to a degree they say I'm confusing epigenetics with Lamarckism.   If it is confirmed to an even greater degree than expected they will simply say we knew that all along you just had a confused interpretation of what we were saying.

The idea that science is never wrong is something that is contradictory to the vary nature of science and most scientist will agree in principal but they will seldom agree they were wrong.  Human nature I suppose is to think you are always right if you are an authority. 

I have never understood why scientist think they need to have an opinion on god, every aspect of politics, philosophy or telepathy.  It's like going to your doctor and finding out he has no clue what is wrong with you but continuing to insist that he knows something important that he just can't share.    

I of course would have more faith in religion if science didn't exist but then again I would have more faith in science if scientist were honest.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2015 at 00:36
"J.B. Rhine investigated ghosts, telepathy, poltergeists, and other unseen parapsychology phenomena from 1927 to 1965 at his Duke laboratory. "

Rhine's objective was to use the scientific method to establish telepathy as "a force operating outside of the body" I like that as part of the definition. If this was true then only our bodies would experience death and we would experience an afterlife. Karl Zener developed ESP Cards for these experiments; wavy lines, box, circle or cross.

This agrees with Sheldrake's theory of the Morphogenetic Field as seen in animal behavior like schooling fish, insects and their architecture and birds flying in unison. These animals move as one by the hundreds, and thousands with no obvious communication. They don't crash into each other they are able to follow the group.


http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/111209/depqa.html" rel="nofollow - http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/111209/depqa.html

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2015 at 08:15
I think that women notice when men watch, normally they don't notice that they're noticing.

I have a female friend who is my age (48), and she really notices how she isn't watched anymore.
She used to be a cute young thing and get the attention, but she never planned on getting married or having kids (or rather she planned _not_ to get married and having kids).  In the past five years she has gotten an engineering degree, and she is now being ignored by a whole other male dominated area of life.  She really is now the "odd man" out.
I think women when they are young get plenty of attention, as they age, their looks decrease, but by that time they usually settle down with husbands.  Over time, physical attractiveness decreases, but comfort and companionship increase.  Also, attention from one's children becomes very important.  If a girl never had the looks or charisma, well then she probably doesn't miss the attention an attractive girl once got from younger men, but someone who once had the charisma like my friend, finds that the guys are no longer paying attention to her.  Of course, maybe they weren't paying attention to _her_ in the first place, just that she was cute.  But now, with an engineering degree, she wants them to pay attention to her ideas and skills, getting attention however, is a difficulty.  
Many woman (and men) are probably not aware of this, it is not a matter of any particular case which is important for the attention or not.  It is a general atmosphere which a cute young woman is in, which then is replaced by an atmosphere of marriage and/or children. Of course, there is a similar thing for men, young women want attention, but when you get to a certain age, young women don't particularly want attention from you.  Women notice men paying attention, but it not so much that women are looking at men, looking at them, although plenty of that goes on too.  But their awareness is a generalized thing, not the sum of observations.  And when that "male gaze" goes away, unless something has substituted for it, women notice that too.
I have come to realize how amazing birds in formation are.  I live next to a golf course and in the winter there are a lot of Canada Geese. 


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2015 at 15:00
When it comes to the question of how "perfectly" evolved a species is I would say birds and sharks in many ways outdo humans.  The evidence suggests that we were in a transitory adaptive phase when cultural evolution made "natural" selection less relevant. 


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2015 at 16:01
popular culture and folk psychology have within them a family of phenomena, like all families, this family tends to look alike, and like other families, the individuals do not all have the same traits, but have in common a set of traits.  So and so, has the same nose as someone, where as someone has the same eyes as another, and the ears of another resemble the ears of someone else, while the chin of someones else resembles the chin of so and so.
The descriptors of the family of phenomena, _within_ popular culture and folk psychology, include things like telepathy, esp, telekinesis, invisibility, pyrhotechnics, 'spidey' sense, bilocation, clairvoyance (seeing the future), clairaudience (hearing the future), 'laying on hands,' "mutant" abilities etc, etc.  
But, to say that telepathy is a communication between two minds, misses the possibility that telepathy can include 'eavesdropping' on someone's thoughts, seeing into the subconscious, sensing someone is looking at you, empathy and suggestion, inadvertently picking up people unknowingly broadcasting thoughts, perhaps even without the awareness of the receiver of what they are.  Of course, all these descriptors are interpretations of what phenomena could be 'psychically' possible according to popular culture and folk psychology.  

In popular culture and folk psychology, there is nothing _logically_ impossible about me thinking the same thoughts as you, or even flying.  It is _physically_ impossible, but our understanding of physics will change.  In fact, while physics has been the queen of the sciences for the past few hundred years, physics may be more and more eclipsed by biology.  The physical understanding of the universe treats matter as dead, whereas increasingly our understanding of nature is going to be as something living.  We have biological and medical ethical problems that we lacked before (stem cells), because our growing understanding of biology.  Now I am not saying that telepathy, etc. is 'historically inevitable' or some kind of bunk like that.  If "telepathy" is going to be scientifically explained, one first has to get past the characterizations of folk psychology and popular culture.   Some better understanding, of what today is packaged in folk psychology and popular culture, might arise from looking further into the dynamics between living organisms, instead of a living organism (us) and 'dead' matter.  I mean, we even look at the living as 'dead' matter that just so happens to be alive.  Doctors deal with the body, and if they considered what they were actually doing with it, that might get in their way.  Maybe all of us, are looking at life, the universe and everything, the wrong way....


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2015 at 21:52
If you can think back to your very first memory, you realize there was a moment of separation. You ceased to be part of the landscape and emerged as an individual. This is the point where objects begin to reflect latent abilities and connections. You learn who you are through interaction with objects like your parents, mirrors and nature.

What of that embryonic stage when you are not yet individualized? Is this the natural state of an animal? A sense of belonging without separation may explain the mass consciousness of animal groups. I believe we do share subliminal connections of thought and emotion and generationally group think influences our behavior; think of Nazi phenomenon fueled by the nightmares of those who lived through WW1.

In UK there is a town that has seen suicides in numbers that extend well beyond the mean in comparative areas. Its the youth mostly but also young adults are hanging themselves. Even as the subject is discussed with a teen one week, and he is baffled and swears he won't ever take his own life, the next week he is found hanging from a rope.

The town also experiences inordinate amount of spontaneous violent crime. People just walking down the street, assaulted for no reason. In some cases grown men attacking teen girls. All those interviewed expressed the lack of optimism and lack of hope in an economically depressed area. These emotional conditions seem to affect group behavior.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2015 at 16:04
I don't remember my "first memory."  My parents are not objects or things:P I am not sure nature should be considered an object (or even a set of objects), since nature is not just "over there" but within us/amongst? us as well.  "What is this 'wet' I keep hearing about?" said one fish to another.

Males are conditioned as "other" than the maternal parent, where as females tend to be conditioned as "same," whether boys are born that way (nature) or because they are raised very early on that way (nurture).  This is just Carol Gilligan.  But I think that you mean by embryonic something after birth, in the infant stage.  Human infants are quite helpless, animals, on the other hand, tend to be able to walk or climb hours after birth.

I have heard that a lot of suicides are spur of the moment things.  I heard about them putting acetaminophen in blister packs to discourage its use in suicides (and yet I still buy it in a bottle?!?), apparently, punching out all those pills from a blister pack is enough to discourage some people (vs.
having a bottle full of pills making it easy to, spur of the moment, gulp them down.

I think about the Smiths song about swerving into oncoming traffic:

If a double decker bus, crashes into us, to die by your side, what a wonderful way to die!
If a two-ton truck, crashes into us, to die by your side, the pleasure, the privilege is mine!

It's kind of a "why not?" situation.  The young man that hanged himself, well maybe if he had waited 5 minutes, he would have been okay.  Morbidsy (Morrissey) is kind of fun, but he does kind of wallow in the angst, and grand gestures.  Something that teens love to do.  I think that your young man would have been better off if he had understood his acquaintances' actions, but did not agree.  The way you make it sound, he set himself up in a rigid position, where, when it failed, he had nowhere to retreat,

I have heard that the poor lemming is misunderstood, they swarm and when they get to a river, they cross it, but when they get to the ocean, they think it is a river, and try to cross it too.  I am not sure what that means as far as suicides are concerned, but I thought I would mention it;)


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2015 at 21:20
Quote Therefore, unlike Caldrail, I think there might be some kind of phenomena at the heart of our notion of telepathy

You might be wrong there. All I say is that the mind istrapped within the brain and cannot communicate directly. If telepathy exists, then it's a power of the spirit, not the mind, but that strays into my religious beliefs as I cannot prove that spirituality has any physical basis (if indeed is has any to start with). That's why I say sixth sense phenomena - which do occur and sometimes are impossible without some form of communication - are subliminal and not possible by concentration, which overrides any potential to 'feel' external stimuli of this sort.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2015 at 21:45
The first memory that you can identify is your first memory. Your sentimental about your parents understandably but they are an object that you relate to the same as you are an object to others unless you have come to a realization about consciousness, most haven't.

The nature that we are a part of is there upon reflection. I agree we are part of that but man as far as you remember, considered himself separate and even wants to dominate and control nature as a separate entity. The fish doesn't know water just as you don't know consciousness as the wet you are swimming in, that is most people are not approaching life with awareness of consciousness.

The suicides are a recent addition to a long history dating back to the Druids. It has happened all over the world. Now Eastern Europe has the most but UK, Japan and Russia have seen these spikes in suicides its not new. This is the "wet" the fish are wondering about, those involved in the suicides are soaking in malaise. The teen boy I mentioned actually did say these things, I haven't set up anything you have perceived your own ideas about death. See Bridgend, Wales suicides draw your own conclusions. They are both male and female teens and young adults.

I agree it is a why not? situation. There is nothing that is promising in this life for these people and they do believe that another existence is waiting beyond death in this world. Lemmings, I don't know what the truth is about lemmings. It seems they are reacting to group think and there appears to be a similarity in the suicide spikes, its extra sensory, if I'm proposing any set up.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2015 at 22:45
Quote That's why I say sixth sense phenomena - which do occur and sometimes are impossible without some form of communication - are subliminal and not possible by concentration, which overrides any potential to 'feel' external stimuli of this sort.


Do you think that psychics such as those who help police solve crimes and missing persons cases are retrieving the information randomly? Or do you dismiss the idea altogether?

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 04:51
I think that even if you don't have a ready answer for "why?" "why not?" should not be one's fall back position.  Just because one doesn't see an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.  If one is in a hole, then one should crawl out of the hole, step by step, moment by moment. 

The plural of anecdote is data.  What we have for telepathy, etc, is anecdotal evidence, Sheldrake not withstanding, that people can feel when they're stared at, that people can sense when a trauma happens to a distant loved one (I sense a disturbance in the force.).  I think that they can happen, but it is far from reliable both in that it often might not happen when one might think it "should," and that it might happen (false positive) when one thinks it shouldn't.  I think that there are shadows of something there, but then I blink and am not sure.
Those shadows are a far cry from the pop culture icons of Professor X and Jean Grey in the X-Men.  A more accurate portrayal of what it could be like is ditzy waitress Sookie Stackhouse in HBO series, True Blood.  Kind of like someone turning the dial on an old radio, with just bits of conversation and music temporarily playing after one another.  I think that nobody in life 'thinks' in even half of the time in coherent sentences.
I don't believe in _extra_ sensory perception, if there is something there, it is related to the senses, either senses we have, but don't know, or senses we have, but are unfamiliar with in some odd way of using (echolocation)).  There are more than the five senses, balance, positioning of the body (your feet don't need to be touching something in order for you to know where they are), some birds have a magnetic sense.  I have heard of a scientist with a terrible sense of direction who keeps a rare earth magnet in his pocket, which shifts around, letting him always know which direction is north.  
Come to think of it, we are able to tell the direction of gravity, if you are ever in an avalanche, figure out the direction your saliva goes in your mouth, and dig in the opposite direction.  Chances are, you will never be in an avalanche and you might not live even if you are, but the direction of your saliva in your mouth might be one more thing to go right for you (if you think of it), and that may make the difference.  But what if 'telepathy,' and other such things are like thinking of the direction your saliva goes in your mouth, in other words, something that you or may not think of in the middle of a hazardous situation?


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 05:02
Vanuatu, people are not objects, or at least they're not objects to the extent one has empathy.
To a psychopath or sociopath, they're objects, to the doctor in order for him to operate on someone, that body has to be an object.  We are never completely free of objectifying people to some extent, but it is never just that people are simply objects.  Often when we objectify them, they can hit (back).  That was my point about my parents, and I imagine your parents, and anybody's parents.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 20:24
Belief is a personal matter, its no surprise that lacking a mountain of evidence most reject ESP but few have actually studied it. No surprise that you dismiss Sheldrake, the need to discount any real proof by saying there is no proof is the reason Duke U. no longer has a parapsychology program.

To me there is no down side in being an insignificant object its a relief in fact. I don't think 'why not?' is the only explanation for the suicides, you_ said_ that. I agreed because a teenager who knew some of the suicide kids in Wales had made similar comments when asked to speculate on the reasons for these deaths.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2015 at 22:37
Quote Do you think that psychics such as those who help police solve crimes and missing persons cases are retrieving the information randomly? Or do you dismiss the idea altogether?

I don't have enough data to make a conclusion there, although I do know that the Police don't turn to these people unless they tun out of leads and that results are not a sparkling success overall. There are too many con artists making aliving out of these activities to say accurately whether anything about it is 'real'.

I do recall an instance some years ago when two ladies walking on french beach heard loud noises they described as like being in a battle. The correlation between what they described and events in 1944 were startling - but not proven, because ultimately we rely on the accuracy and honesty of the witnesses.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 04:00
I don't have a problem listening to the ladies on the Normandy Beach, and tentatively believing in what they say, namely that they heard (or imagined they heard with the force of the imagination making it "real") something.  Going any further than this, as in, "give me money," or "convict this guy" is an entirely different question.  

On Thursdays on PBS, there were GK Chesterton murder mysteries, with a small English town priest c. 1920s as the main character.  The funny thing is, is that as a priest he believes in the supernatural (miracles of the Bible), but his solutions are always from rational deductions.  His acquaintances, who are in their opinion strict rationalists, often fall into a crass supernaturalist conclusion, whenever _they_ see that a rational explanation is not immediately forthcoming.

Unfortunately, in studying something in the University or at a lab means that something else doesn't get studied (or funded).  "The fighting is fiercest over the smallest ground."  As an outside observer, I don't really have any problem with parapsychology trying to figure out experimental angles from which to approach the question of detecting telepathy or other such phenomena.  A scientist, however, views it as an abomination and personal affront threatening the whole scientific endeavor, not to mention, his "cash cow."  He gets madder than a catholic when the Virgin Mary is insulted by some new atheist.  But, yes, Sheldrake does not convince me that there is something there.  On the other hand, I am not convinced that there is nothing there.  I find that it is muddled, and a big question mark, which as a philosopher, I do not feel that I have to know.  Sometimes knowing the question to ask is more important than the answer.  I would however, like to better understand his explanation of what he thinks is there, his morphogenetic field, which might explain to my theory inclined mind, a little better.  


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 21:34
There is a very famous case of child abduction when a psychic did find the right town but the claim was dismissed by police. Steven Stayner was abducted in 1972 and eventually escaped when his abductor Kenneth Parnell brought home another child Timothy White.

A psychic told Stayner's mother he was alive, which town he was in and that he was very much afraid. The kid had been taken and abused by Parnell only 20 miles from where Stayner's grandfather was living. He was there for seven years. Police didn't consider it a reliable lead, they figured the psychic is just randomly choosing location.

In a weird twist Steven's brother Cary was convicted of three murders in Yosemite National Park when he was working there as a park ranger in 1999.

Point is, the psychic did get a bead on where the kid was.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2015 at 21:40
Sheldrake addressed the cash problem with the understanding that changing the flow of research dollars would be too disruptive and suggests 5% of available monies would yield good results in a reasonably short amount of time.

The scientific mainstream dislikes Sheldrake but he is no slouch. He is a Cambridge graduate in Bio-chemistry he comes from the mainstream of scientific research. He is also an Anglican but did spend some years as an atheist mostly because he was influenced by world of scientific research.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 15:22

Telepathy Has Been Scientifically Proven to be Real


https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/telepathy-has-been-scientifically-proven-to-be-real/


Obviously the results could be argued to still be within the margin of error.  On the other hand almost all physicists agree that reality is not without it's wrinkles.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 21:41
Stargate and other such programs were started by the CIA about a decade after the Parapsychology program at Duke was ended. Recently declassified documents show some pretty amazing descriptions of locations, as subjects are asked to retrieve a mental image of where another participant is located.

Maybe more documents still kept secret. Wrinkles and all its really an expansion of what most of us have already experienced. My childhood friend and her mother could track the dad/husband and figure out which bar room he was at with stunning accuracy.


http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2015 at 16:47
If a new species of bird was found, a scientist could point at the bird and show/explain why it is different.  Perhaps, it would look like another species, but a scientist could explain how the two are different, or there might be debates about whether it was a species or a subspecies.
If there was a supernova in outer space, an astronomer could point out, or point to photos and point it out to a general audience.  If a black hole was found, an astronomer could point out the effects of its gravity on nearby stars and gas jets, etc.  

This following relates particularly to the blog linked to wolfhound's last post.  but also Vanuatu's link.

If "remote sensing" has been 'proven,' it hasn't been 'proven' like a new species of bird or a supernova.  With all the tests and meta-analyses, and meta-meta-analyses, it is a shadow, a nuance.  And without plunging into the meta-meta-study (and the meta-studies, and even the studies), one cannot decide for one's self the validity of such studies, or whether the meta-studies and the meta-meta-study is messaging the data or not.  
You know, I don't know if I *want* telepathy or remote sensing (or whatever), to be _proven_.  I have a mystic streak in me, and I feel that I already _feel_ it enough for my satisfaction.  Science analyzing things, but in order to analyze things it dissects them.  But the problem with dissection is that it pretty well kills the subject.  Are we sure that if we really _prove_ telepathy by scientific standards, that that is going to be a good thing?  Maybe it will kill off such obscure phenomena, or chase it away.  Star Gate, in exploring remote sensing is going at it, in a rather obvious way.  Think of telepathy as an animal, if you hunt it, it will disappear into the bushes, or you'll kill it.  Think telepathy as a tame animal which needs to be cajoled and tempted with treats.  I suspect it is _not_ a tame animal, but more like the birds of St. Francis of Assisi, who called the animals brother and sister, and the little birds (I imagine) perched on his shoulders.  Of course, the birds did the same thing to Shaq O'Neal when he did a 'living statue' at an art museum.  Go figure.  But, reading the blog about the Meta-Meta-analysis, etc, I cannot help but think that such work goes about it the wrong way.  That doesn't mean that that approach won't reveal a little something about such phenomena, but if you are really interested in such phenomena, look at the mystics.  But be warned that they approach that all very indirectly.  It is a gift that comes from the cosmos very infrequently, it doesn't come when you want it to come, it comes when it wants to come.  You try to force it, and you might just break it for good (or rather for bad, for you that is).


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2015 at 22:02
Quote I have a mystic streak in me, and I feel that I already _feel_ it enough for my satisfaction. Science analyzing things, but in order to analyze things it dissects them. But the problem with dissection is that it pretty well kills the subject. Are we sure that if we really _prove_ telepathy by scientific standards, that that is going to be a good thing?


I don't see how it could be proven given the materialist standards and dogmas. Materialism became a belief system unto itself. The dogmas about the conservation of matter and energy for example. How do we know that amount of matter in the universe is same since the big bang? How do we know that the laws of matter will be ever unchanging?

Panpsychism was the world of Plato and St Thomas Aquinas. If the sun has a psyche then why not the universe and is there a galactic body making us something comparable to a cell. It's Descartes dualism that started pulling us away from nature. Doesn't Plato talk about the soul of a flower determining its shape?

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2015 at 07:45
If you accept Sir Karl Popper's philosophy of science, science is never "proven" or verified.  It is falsifiable, because it is only by being falsifiable that science can advance, through the overturning of old theories.  A "scientific theory" that is not falsifiable is not a scientific theory (Marxist alienation, Freud).  People talk about the proof that science offers, technically (at least according to Popper), they are mistaken.  Scientific theories can last for hundreds of years (Newton's gravity), and be 'replaced' by a new theory (Einstein).  Of course, Newton is still good for most studies involving gravity, but then again navigating across an ocean without use of satellites uses a geocentric model of star charts revolving around the Earth. 

Panpsychism is fine for the mystic, but the mystic does not necessarily want to _do_ anything with the universe, other than be a part of it.  The scientist does.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2015 at 15:00
Let me say that the scientist should do whatever the scientist wants to do, he does not owe anything to the mystic, unless he is getting something from the mystic (for example, a scientist who is studying Buddhist meditation practices on heart rate, owes gratitude to the monks who share with him their practice, what that gratitude translates into is between him and those monks.)  The scientist, however, owes it to science to come up with novel approaches at whatever phenomena he is studying.  But there is a difference between the personal certainty that people feel from their own experience, and the scientific certainty that is the goal of science.


Posted By: wolfhnd
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2015 at 15:58
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Let me say that the scientist should do whatever the scientist wants to do, he does not owe anything to the mystic, unless he is getting something from the mystic (for example, a scientist who is studying Buddhist meditation practices on heart rate, owes gratitude to the monks who share with him their practice, what that gratitude translates into is between him and those monks.)  The scientist, however, owes it to science to come up with novel approaches at whatever phenomena he is studying.  But there is a difference between the personal certainty that people feel from their own experience, and the scientific certainty that is the goal of science.

Don't we all owe somethings to each other like honesty. 


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2015 at 22:05
deception can play a role in experiments.  So "honesty" might not be a good example.
But yes, there certain virtues that we owe each other due to our humanity.
But the scientist does not owe an additional list of virtues just because he
is a scientist.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2015 at 04:09
Before the scientist who was there trying to get a grip on life? The farmer, mystic or shaman, the midwife even the hunters who painted Lascaux were guided by a psychic lead.

Life has become more complex not always better. Think of Rome legislating to manage the use of roads. There were too many people for at whim travel. Science can manage such things as growth but is the quality of life for most people good and commensurate with progress?

Science replaced the Old World I'm sure the world is no better for it and I agree its hardly more virtuous.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2015 at 09:20
"psychic" is a word originating from Greece, whether it or something similar to it would be understood in Lascaux, I don't know.  We should be very careful about interpreting their experience through our words.
We can _say_ that they had a shaman, but that would be 20-30 thousand years before any character that we know as a shaman appears in history.  Shaman is one of those words that perhaps invites more questions than it answers. 

For complexity of life look at the Cambrian explosion, it has all been downhill from there.  did Rome legislate the use of roads?!?  I always thought that people could use them as long as they stayed out of the way of marching armies.
Whose fault is it, if people's quality of life is lacking?  Not that blaming anyone actually helps.  But, the fact is that a lot of people are damaged, and due to that damage, wallow in self-pity.  They are not physically prevented from bettering themselves, the resources in society are there, but rather they have limits on their ways of thinking that blind them from changing.

If everyone walked around with a knife or a gun, and nobody died, that would be virtuous.  If nobody walked around with a knife or a gun, and nobody died, well, it wouldn't be because of virtue, it might be, because of social engineering, but it would not really be virtuous.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2015 at 04:42
The word psychic ad when it dates from means very little. Until recently there was no name for certain weather anomalies such as Sprites but we can be fairly assured that they existed.

When you cite lack of proof for paleolithic shaman, I'm puzzled. There is no proof of a risen messiah yet so may millions believe in one, thousands dies in the name of a risen messiah and so many more are prepared to die for the Islamic version of which there is no proof. This invites more doubt (to me) than known healers and spiritual guides who still use ancient practices based on oral history.

There no universally accepted cause for the Cambrian explosion, its used in the arguments both for and against intelligent design.

Julius Caesar legislated the use of Roman roads, that is a recorded fact.

I would say a greater complexity of life explains the increasing number of challenges to humans. More pollution more inequality in the use of dwindling resources. The resources are limited that is a problem.

Do you need a knife or gun to kill someone? Or to be cruel and diminish another human being? Its isn't virtuous to exercise restraint I'm not sure which point you are arguing there.

I say telepathy is inspiration whether we are talking about Jesus Christ, Einstein, Tesla or Beethoven. A wild animal giving birth knows what to do instinctively and it knows because of the body of self organizing intelligence, a condition of all living things.

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2015 at 16:37
The word psyche means different things for Homer than it means for Aristotle.  I think was Descartes (or was it Bacon) that didn't think animals had souls.  That meant you could cut them up live, and you wouldn't really be "causing" them pain, just "mechanical" responses.   A very sick view if you ask me.

Our general idea of soul _probably_ would be like Aristotle's, but Homeric might be closer, on the other hand, the Iliad and the Odyssey are heroic and have very little magical elements.

In Boy Scouts, we went canoeing at the Minnesota boundary water, and I found it fascinating that the topographical maps were wrong.  Two lakes were connected on the maps, but not in "reality," (or something like that) and so we had to make a portage.  There is what is called a map/territory distinction.  It is simple enough, the map represents the territory, but what happens if the map is wrong?  do we rely on the map and disbelieve in the reality?  (Do we assert that the map is right and the territory is wrong?)  It sounds silly, but remember the way we understand the territory is through the map, if we reject the map, then are we able to deal with the territory at all?

Now let's call the map "shaman," and ask ourselves what the territory is.  Some people actually know what a shaman is, but a lot of other people use that word as if they know what it means, and really they don't.  They would not be able to tell a fraud from the real thing, and they are not in a culture were shamans are a living tradition.  They would get caught up in the map, and try to correct the territory.  Please note, I include myself in that category, although I do believe that Peter Kingsley could be called a modern Shaman, that is, if labels were important.  There are exceptions of course, Siberia, American Indian cultures, they have shamans or something very close to them.  Even so, a twenty-first century shaman would probably be a pale comparison to what was around 30,000 years ago.  So yes, you could probably call a Lascaux 'medicine man' a shaman, but I think doing so conceals more than it reveals.  A lot of smoke and heat, but not much light.

What did Caesar legislate?  That people should use them? That only certain people should use them?  When you use them?


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 13:30
Yes Caesar legislated who and at what time of day they could use the roads. The city was too crowded to have wagons and pedestrians all on the street at once. Carts were to be used at night, people could travel on foot by day.

So, yes maps and territory are like that; the United states has in the past created maps that show US territory as larger than USSR. Its common for countries to have conflicting lines of demarcation and pictorial size on a given area. Its very political.

Descartes did perform vivisection without mercy on hundreds of dogs, with the idea that they did not feel pain.

There is just no way I'm believing that Siberia was home to the first shaman. As long as there have been people there have been healers and those who dwell in both realms, the spiritual and material world. They serve as guides and mediums to solve problems and heal (something like priests??). they often trip on hallucinogens for the greater good, that is they commune with natural forces to better understand how to live.

Now why do you think all that started with the Siberians?

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 22:31
http://www.jstor.org/stable/660223?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" rel="nofollow - http://www.jstor.org/stable/660223?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I think this article gets to heart of the etymology. The word 'saman' comes by way of Russian Cossacks in reference to the Tungusian people.
Its also noted that the word shaman is part of the anthropological nomenclature.

'Shaman' is used by the anthropologists who studied Lascaux. Not everyone agrees that it is the correct term but certainly it is an archetype and immediately understood in any context. If I think voodoo priestess, witch doctor, wiccan, medicine man, then shaman, it seems to fit this archetype.


http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/11/shamans-in-the-paleolithic/" rel="nofollow - http://www.aggsbach.de/2010/11/shamans-in-the-paleolithic/

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2015 at 06:40
The word 'archetype' implies a Jungian (psychological) interpretation, which for certain purposes, can work, but for others it doesn't.  If you are equating voodoo priestess with Witch doctor with wiccan, with medicine man, with shaman, well I would agree they are in the same ball park (if that is what you are implying), but it is painting with an awefully broad brush, and it might just conceal more than it reveals.

I am just saying don't confuse the map with the territory, if looking at paleolithic "religious" men as shamans works for you, okay good, just realize that at some point that interpretation breaks down.  It is okay to use a map, just don't let the map use you.

I was saying that the places where shamans are left are American Indians and in Siberia, I was not saying that they got started in Siberia.  I don't know where they started. 

Now if you are talking about the golden chain (or the golden thread or ribbon), I can believe that goes back to the dawn of mankind. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net