Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

Does telepathy conflict with science ?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#46    Zarifa

Zarifa

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 56 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2011

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:00 PM

Beany, I agree on all points. I'm pretty sure that most "believers" would welcome the substantiation of science, and in fact, many are working toward that end.


#47    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,281 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:31 PM

Any article or argument associating 'psi powers' with 'quantum physics' throws up an immediate red flag, imo, because what goes on in the human brain has nothing to do with physics on the quantum level.

Our neurology (like the rest of our central nervous system) is most clearly a molecular level phenomenon. So what goes on in there is still absolutely describable using Newtonian (classical) physics.

While it has been shown that the brain can exert control over objects external to our physical bodies, this is only possible through direct connectivity via implanted microcircuitry. We can 'tap our thoughts' - using electrodes - to put a message on a computer screen, but this is not telepathy. There is absolutely no evidence that stands up and shouts "our thoughts can exist independent of our brains", unlike a transmitter where the signal is not restricted to the device which transmits it. There is no evidence of a 'thought receiving device' in our neurological structure, which would be a necessary requirement for telepathic communication.

There is no evolutionary basis for 'psi powers', and no science that even suggests our existence extends beyond the physical limits of our bodies.

So, does telepathy conflict with science?

That would be a big, fat "Yes".

Edited by Leonardo, 16 April 2012 - 09:33 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#48    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 16 April 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Any article or argument associating 'psi powers' with 'quantum physics' throws up an immediate red flag, imo, because what goes on in the human brain has nothing to do with physics on the quantum level.

How can you be sure that the human brain has nothing to do with quantum physics? The brain itself and quantum physics are not totolly understood yet. And as far as consciousness goes, we have no clue as to how it is generated from electric activity (electron flux). That's why, as far as I know, some scientists are trying to get a quantum approach to it since electrons are subatomic particles.

Quote

Our neurology (like the rest of our central nervous system) is most clearly a molecular level phenomenon. So what goes on in there is still absolutely describable using Newtonian (classical) physics.

Quite right. Classical physics can describe very well the link between awarness and the brain's electric activity. But not consciousness at the fundamental level (how it is generated).

Quote

There is no evidence of a 'thought receiving device' in our neurological structure, which would be a necessary requirement for telepathic communication.

The brain has much more to reveal. But I'm not talking about telepathy per se.

Quote

There is no evolutionary basis for 'psi powers', and no science that even suggests our existence extends beyond the physical limits of our bodies.

If our existence really extends beyond the physical limits of the body (I beleive that for instance) of course there is no way science can demonstrate it (yet). If our existence (consciousness) is partially non-material, how could we ever analyse it through physics?

I think our current physics has it's limits. I think that as long as science will consider consciousness as beeing purely material (resulting from matter), we will face issues in explaining everything. But that's what I beleive. Not implying it's all true.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#49    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,281 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:14 PM

View PostJayMark, on 17 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

How can you be sure that the human brain has nothing to do with quantum physics? The brain itself and quantum physics are not totolly understood yet. And as far as consciousness goes, we have no clue as to how it is generated from electric activity (electron flux). That's why, as far as I know, some scientists are trying to get a quantum approach to it since electrons are subatomic particles.



Quite right. Classical physics can describe very well the link between awarness and the brain's electric activity. But not consciousness at the fundamental level (how it is generated).



The brain has much more to reveal. But I'm not talking about telepathy per se.



If our existence really extends beyond the physical limits of the body (I beleive that for instance) of course there is no way science can demonstrate it (yet). If our existence (consciousness) is partially non-material, how could we ever analyse it through physics?

I think our current physics has it's limits. I think that as long as science will consider consciousness as beeing purely material (resulting from matter), we will face issues in explaining everything. But that's what I beleive. Not implying it's all true.

My thoughts.

Peace.

I disagree with your assessment of the brain.

The brain, as an organ and how it works, is very well understood. I accept that how our consciousness is expressed via the brain is incompletely understood - but there is nothing that would suggest any part of that expression happens due to activity at the quantum level of physics.

Activity arising out of a flow of electrons, as you suggest some aspect of consciousness is believed to be, is not 'quantum activity'. Electricity is a classical (Newtonian) phenomenon and arises completely from the flow of electrons.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#50    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

I think they can now come pretty close to proving telepathy scientifically using modern technology... They now have FMRI machines that can read thoughts..  just do controls of the individuals being studies to see how  images.. thoughts  register in the brain  put them in separate rooms or buildings and ask them to mentally send set messages/images... see if these FMRI images match...



http://newscenter.be...2/brain-movies/

Quote

Previously, Gallant and fellow researchers recorded brain activity in the visual cortex while a subject viewed black-and-white photographs. They then built a computational model that enabled them to predict with overwhelming accuracy which picture the subject was looking at.

In their latest experiment, researchers say they have solved a much more difficult problem by actually decoding brain signals generated by moving pictures.


“Our natural visual experience is like watching a movie,” said Shinji Nishimoto, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher in Gallant’s lab. “In order for this technology to have wide applicability, we must understand how the brain processes these dynamic visual experiences.
    

http://techland.time...ts-into-movies/

Quote

Nishimoto and two other research team members served as subjects for the experiment, because the procedure requires volunteers to remain still inside the MRI scanner for hours at a time.

They watched two separate sets of Hollywood movie trailers, while fMRI was used to measure blood flow through the visual cortex, the part of the brain that processes visual information. On the computer, the brain was divided into small, three-dimensional cubes known as volumetric pixels, or “voxels.”

“We built a model for each voxel that describes how shape and motion information in the movie is mapped into brain activity,” Nishimoto said.

The brain activity recorded while subjects viewed the first set of clips was fed into a computer program that learned, second by second, to associate visual patterns in the movie with the corresponding brain activity.

Brain activity evoked by the second set of clips was used to test the movie reconstruction algorithm. This was done by feeding 18 million seconds of random YouTube videos into the computer program so that it could predict the brain activity that each film clip would most likely evoke in each subject.

Finally, the 100 clips that the computer program decided were most similar to the clip that the subject had probably seen were merged to produce a blurry yet continuous reconstruction of the original movie


Some other research done by Dean Radin on telepathy... http://www.deanradin...4602_203406.pdf


#51    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:30 PM

getting close... Telepathy machine reconstructs speech from brainwaves

http://howsyourrobot...rom-brainwaves/

Quote

When you read this sentence to yourself, it’s likely that you hear the words in your head. Now, in what amounts to technological telepathy, others are on the verge of being able to hear your inner dialogue too. By peering inside the brain, it is possible to reconstruct speech from the activity that takes place when we hear someone talking.

Because this brain activity is thought to be similar whether we hear a sentence or think the same sentence, the discovery brings us a step closer to broadcasting our inner thoughts to the world without speaking. The implications are enormous – people made mute through paralysis or locked-in syndrome could regain their voice. It might even be possible to read someone’s mind.



#52    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

... and closer.. NeuroVigil’s Research Aims to Allow Dr. Stephen Hawking Communicate by Thinking


http://neurogadget.c...y-thinking/3963


Science Student Aims to Win with Computer-Aided Telepathic Communications
>>> http://neurogadget.c...unications/2016


and... Nick won the gold medal for his project.. http://www.sd36.bc.c...i-johnston.html

Quote

His project won a gold medal at the South Fraser Regional Science Fair and earned Nick a spot on Team Canada at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair last spring. Now the soft-spoken 16-year-old Grade 11 student has been invited to present his findings at the National Association of the Academies of Science/American Junior Academy of Science annual conference Feb. 15 to 19 in Vancouver.

"If a person has no ability for sensory output, this device would help them communicate – a person with a neurological illness could potentially speak," explains Nick.

Beyond the medical applications for his research, Nick sees his computer-assisted telepathic communication system having endless potential for the military as well as significant commercial value for anyone needing to communicate efficiently, accurately and wordlessly.

"I wanted to do something monumental," says Nick.

Nick's field of research is called neurotechnology. Already, he's spent countless hours reducing the more than 500,000 words that make up the English language into 40 distinct phonemes or basic sounds. Then with help from nine human subjects, he measured their brain activity as they thought of these basic sounds and used mathematical equations to create averages that were then programmed into his system.

When someone wears the device – essentially a plastic toolbox with a circuit board hooked up to a series of electrodes insulated by foam and recycled Gatorade caps – their brainwaves are translated into syllables and, ultimately, words.

"It's not perfect yet – it's about 70 per cent accurate," says Nick



#53    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:09 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 17 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I disagree with your assessment of the brain.

The brain, as an organ and how it works, is very well understood. I accept that how our consciousness is expressed via the brain is incompletely understood - but there is nothing that would suggest any part of that expression happens due to activity at the quantum level of physics.

Activity arising out of a flow of electrons, as you suggest some aspect of consciousness is believed to be, is not 'quantum activity'. Electricity is a classical (Newtonian) phenomenon and arises completely from the flow of electrons.

Fair enough. I am not trying to go against what is already proven and understood as a matter of fact.

But I sincerly think that there is more to consciousness as a whole that electric activity in the sense that consciousness is more than simply physical awarness. But you are right, science, as far as it is involved, can't prove this. But many scientists are thinking about it. As long as we haven't figured out how the hell electricity generates consciousness, I will not fully agree that it is purely the work of matter. Just that the brain does play a very evident, established and understood role in our perception of this physical universe.

One of the issues involved in my beleifs is free will. If there is such a thing as free will, how can you describe that with only classic physics? Just by the way the brain is configured? Wouldn't it mean that free will is only an illusion purely driven by causual physics? If it is the case, shouldn't it theorically be possible (at least one day) to fully predict what anybody will do/say/think or live a specific emotion facing a given situation just by knowing how his/her brain is "programmed" for instance (and perhaps other factors)?

I'm waiting to see what you have to say about it. Like I said, I'm not against science at all. I just think that by it's current methodology, it might be self-restricted in some areas. But understanding more about current neurophysics knowledge will help me having a better picture of the whole thing and adjust my beleifs accordingly.

My thoughts. I have more to add but will go step-by-step.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#54    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,281 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 17 April 2012 - 05:24 PM

View PostJayMark, on 17 April 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Fair enough. I am not trying to go against what is already proven and understood as a matter of fact.

But I sincerly think that there is more to consciousness as a whole that electric activity in the sense that consciousness is more than simply physical awarness. But you are right, science, as far as it is involved, can't prove this. But many scientists are thinking about it. As long as we haven't figured out how the hell electricity generates consciousness, I will not fully agree that it is purely the work of matter. Just that the brain does play a very evident, established and understood role in our perception of this physical universe.

One of the issues involved in my beleifs is free will. If there is such a thing as free will, how can you describe that with only classic physics? Just by the way the brain is configured? Wouldn't it mean that free will is only an illusion purely driven by causual physics? If it is the case, shouldn't it theorically be possible (at least one day) to fully predict what anybody will do/say/think or live a specific emotion facing a given situation just by knowing how his/her brain is "programmed" for instance (and perhaps other factors)?

I'm waiting to see what you have to say about it. Like I said, I'm not against science at all. I just think that by it's current methodology, it might be self-restricted in some areas. But understanding more about current neurophysics knowledge will help me having a better picture of the whole thing and adjust my beleifs accordingly.

My thoughts. I have more to add but will go step-by-step.

Peace.

This is getting off-topic a bit, but 'free will' may simply be the product of a decision randomiser. None of us have unlimited choice in anything, so that dispenses with the broadest meaning of 'free-will', but take this hypothetical situation.

It is a hot day, and you want to buy something cool. You have enough money to buy either an ice-cream or a soda - but not enough to buy both. This is a 'free-will' choice. Some of the time, your choice will be prejudiced by a prior choice. For example, it may have been hot yesterday, and you bought a soda, so today you buy an ice-cream to have variation. But that is not an example of free will.

Assuming nothing prejudices your choice (and this is probably very rarely the case), the same result as can be made from 'free-will', can be made using a computer program run through a randomiser. This 'decision randomiser' operating in your brain does not have to be a quantum object, it would be just as effective if it was chemically-based.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#55    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 17 April 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

This is getting off-topic a bit, but 'free will' may simply be the product of a decision randomiser. None of us have unlimited choice in anything, so that dispenses with the broadest meaning of 'free-will', but take this hypothetical situation.

It is a hot day, and you want to buy something cool. You have enough money to buy either an ice-cream or a soda - but not enough to buy both. This is a 'free-will' choice. Some of the time, your choice will be prejudiced by a prior choice. For example, it may have been hot yesterday, and you bought a soda, so today you buy an ice-cream to have variation. But that is not an example of free will.

Assuming nothing prejudices your choice (and this is probably very rarely the case), the same result as can be made from 'free-will', can be made using a computer program run through a randomiser. This 'decision randomiser' operating in your brain does not have to be a quantum object, it would be just as effective if it was chemically-based.

Fair enough. I haven't looked at this "decision randomizer" matter but I surely will. It does not interfere with the very essence of my beleifs but might help me to adapt it to more causual situations like this physical universe.

I think our free will in this universe is mainly limited by our awarness, by physical/material constraints and can also be affected by other people's free will as well. So you can't make a choise that you are not aware of (like you can't choose to buy ice cream if you don't know it exists) and you can't go against the laws of physics (like I can't throw a tennis ball into space from my yard with bare arms simply because I want to). Of cousre, this also implies other material constraints (like I can't choose to buy a MKIV Toyota Supra Turbo, put a 3.4L stroker kit and put a GT 47-88 turbo on it with only $100) and the other people's choise (like I can't go shopping if another person decided to put me in jail).

My profound spiritual views about this universe are at a much deeper level. Fundamentally, I beleive that consciousness is the source of matter and not the contrary. It implies that it is the source of everything, including the laws of physics and all the mechanisms we observe and understand. That can't be proved or disproved by physics because 1) physics does not consider counsciousness as being "entangled" to matter (but rather as being the fruit of it) and 2) physics generally implies that counsciousness is solely the result of matter.

So as I said, I do not wish to go against it (science). I think for instance that even the correlation between the brain and awarness is down right, only that this mechanism (as well as everything else) originates from counsciousness at a deep collective level which is greater than our physical awarness of this universe.

So yeah, it might be off-topic here so I have no problem ending the discussion here if you wish. I bet it'll be brought in another topic.

Those are strictly my beleifs.

Anyhow, I always enjoy those discussions. Thanks.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#56    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:03 AM

View PostJayMark, on 17 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:





My profound spiritual views about this universe are at a much deeper level. Fundamentally, I beleive that consciousness is the source of matter and not the contrary. It implies that it is the source of everything, including the laws of physics and all the mechanisms we observe and understand. That can't be proved or disproved by physics because 1) physics does not consider counsciousness as being "entangled" to matter (but rather as being the fruit of it) and 2) physics generally implies that counsciousness is solely the result of matter.

So as I said, I do not wish to go against it (science). I think for instance that even the correlation between the brain and awarness is down right, only that this mechanism (as well as everything else) originates from counsciousness at a deep collective level which is greater than our physical awarness of this universe.





Peace.


You might enjoy Dean Radin's work
http://deanradin.blogspot.com.au/





#57    jbefumo

jbefumo

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:39 AM

This writer reminds me of the historically pompous Lord Kelvin, who announced that "everything about science is already known...." Windbags are always plentiful. Those who make discoveries are the ones with an open mind. This person obviously knows everything in the universe, so why bother arguing. Just bow and worship his genius.  

Ever occur to him that electrochemical (molecular) interactions set up fields? Fields interact on subtle levels?

Want an OPEN MINDED analysis? Check out:

http://www.mountplea...AndPhysics.html

The FACT is that modern physics DEMAND a believe in certain paranormal phenomena, except, of course, to those whose understanding is purely superficial.

For them, yes - -all the mysteries of science are already explained.  Ignorance is bliss, so this must be a happy person indeed!

View PostLeonardo, on 16 April 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Any article or argument associating 'psi powers' with 'quantum physics' throws up an immediate red flag, imo, because what goes on in the human brain has nothing to do with physics on the quantum level.

Our neurology (like the rest of our central nervous system) is most clearly a molecular level phenomenon. So what goes on in there is still absolutely describable using Newtonian (classical) physics.

While it has been shown that the brain can exert control over objects external to our physical bodies, this is only possible through direct connectivity via implanted microcircuitry. We can 'tap our thoughts' - using electrodes - to put a message on a computer screen, but this is not telepathy. There is absolutely no evidence that stands up and shouts "our thoughts can exist independent of our brains", unlike a transmitter where the signal is not restricted to the device which transmits it. There is no evidence of a 'thought receiving device' in our neurological structure, which would be a necessary requirement for telepathic communication.

There is no evolutionary basis for 'psi powers', and no science that even suggests our existence extends beyond the physical limits of our bodies.

So, does telepathy conflict with science?

That would be a big, fat "Yes".



#58    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,008 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:10 AM

View Postjbefumo, on 22 September 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

This writer reminds me of the historically pompous Lord Kelvin, who announced that "everything about science is already known...." Windbags are always plentiful. Those who make discoveries are the ones with an open mind. This person obviously knows everything in the universe, so why bother arguing. Just bow and worship his genius.
You remind me of someone gullible who rather believe the words of charlatans over actual evidence. Those who make discoveries also possess a degree of critical thinking, try it some time.

Quote

The FACT is that modern physics DEMAND a believe in certain paranormal phenomena, except, of course, to those whose understanding is purely superficial.
That's an uneducated opinion. Modern physics make no such demands.

Edited by Rlyeh, 22 September 2012 - 08:11 AM.


#59    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 23 September 2012 - 04:24 AM

If we truly understood how consciousness worked we would be able to replicate it artificially. You start looking at cell signaling, biochemistry, neuroscience, quantum mechanics,  the whole teleportation experiment, and all of the new tech coming out well I wouldn't push it off the table just yet. I don't think it goes against science quite yet since we don't understand everything.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users