| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Telepathy ,  telepathy is possible???
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Telepathy , telepathy is possible???

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
victortelepathic View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote victortelepathic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Telepathy , telepathy is possible???
    Posted: 02 Oct 2011 at 23:15

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.



Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2011 at 23:20
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.

Edited by pinguin - 02 Oct 2011 at 23:20
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2015 at 18:35
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.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 10:40
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/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 15:38
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
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 17:20
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)."


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


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 21:18
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.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 21:30
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? 
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 06:07
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:(
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 06:26
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  
Back to Top
Thorvald View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thorvald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 07:25
I believe in many things unexplainable being possible, Telepathy is one of them.

http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2015 at 09:31
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.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2015 at 05:44
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"?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2015 at 20:23
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.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 05:19
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?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 06:16
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.

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2015 at 04:12
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. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2015 at 21:58
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  

    
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 11:04
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/
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 12:38
Therefore language is important
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2015 at 19:47
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.  
 


Edited by franciscosan - 08 Jul 2015 at 19:50
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 02:40
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.

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 05:29
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.


Edited by franciscosan - 09 Jul 2015 at 05:34
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 05:43
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.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 05:59
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>.   
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 06:28
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. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 08:19
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.   
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jul 2015 at 18:34
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. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2015 at 00:02
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).
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2015 at 05:43
I'm waiting
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.