Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Saru

Does telepathy conflict with science ?

59 posts in this topic

So ... "Does telepathy conflict with science?" Apparently not. Does telepathy conflict with materialistic ideology? Now that's another question! wink2.gif

exposestraw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post. I also think our technology, despite beeing awesome and useful, dumb us down at some level. Animals for instance seem to have a much more developed "sixth sense" that most of us do. And they certainly do not watch TV like we do and try to make their life so much easier with technology like we do.

Just a thought. Nothing too scientific there I concur.

I remember getting that raising of the hiri on the back of my neck and then I smelled one of the worst smells I had ever smelled....there was a momma bear and her cubs upwind of us. I don't think we have lost the ability, I think it has gone dormant. Sooner or later IMO, there will be a scientific break through that will if not prove will at least increase the probability of telepathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

exposestraw.jpg

Wikipedia: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

So do you feel that I've constructed a strawman? How so?

I re-stated the original question, "does telepathy conflict with science?" ... and my answer, "apparently not" ... based on the content of the article. Then I proposed another question, "does telepathy conflict with materialist ideology?" ... Well doesn't it? In any case it's just a question.

Wikipedia: "the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions"

What original proposition was I attempting to create the illusion of having refuted?

Edited by Landry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wikipedia: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

So do you feel that I've constructed a strawman? How so?

I re-stated the original question, "does telepathy conflict with science?" ... and my answer, "apparently not" ... based on the content of the article. Then I proposed another question, "does telepathy conflict with materialist ideology?" ... Well doesn't it? In any case it's just a question.

Wikipedia: "the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions"

What original proposition was I attempting to create the illusion of having refuted?

Oh... Landry I have been over this very subject with him at least half a dozen times. Don't even engage it. It is a road to nowhere. Or Mabey you will have better luck than I. Anything he dosnt agree with is a straw man. He loves to say it.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What original proposition was I attempting to create the illusion of having refuted?

Someone like you doesn't need to act dumb. You know quite well the misconceptions you've portrayed in your blogs.

For example, you demand materialists to explain how materalism is correct after a lame attempt of pretending to refute it with quantum quackery (something you like too Seeker79? ).

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh... Landry I have been over this very subject with him at least half a dozen times. Don't even engage it. It is a road to nowhere. Or Mabey you will have better luck than I. Anything he dosnt agree with is a straw man. He loves to say it.

Do you recall claiming materialist ideology states the universe repeats? Or are you going to deny it again?

I'll refresh your memory; http://www.unexplain...howtopic=220808

You must love the taste of your foot, because it keeps ending up in your mouth.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone like you doesn't need to act dumb. You know quite well the misconceptions you've portrayed in your blogs.

For example, you demand materialists to explain how materalism is correct after a lame attempt of pretending to refute it with quantum quackery (something you like too Seeker79? ).

At the risk of straying too far from the topic at hand ... if you don't understand what constitutes a strawman argument, then how can you seriously suggest that you are able to comprehend the material I cover in my blog postings? I invite anyone to read my blog and decide for themselves. My purpose is to initiate a thought process free of psychological and cognitive conditioning. I won't speculate here what your purpose and methods entail, but I think you're getting dangerously close to making that apparent to everyone.

This comment section is not the place for carrying forward a personal vendetta against me. Please get back on topic if you have anything to contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of straying too far from the topic at hand ... if you don't understand what constitutes a strawman argument, then how can you seriously suggest that you are able to comprehend the material I cover in my blog postings? I invite anyone to read my blog and decide for themselves. My purpose is to initiate a thought process free of psychological and cognitive conditioning. I won't speculate here what your purpose and methods entail, but I think you're getting dangerously close to making that apparent to everyone.

This comment section is not the place for carrying forward a personal vendetta against me. Please get back on topic if you have anything to contribute.

Do you make it a habit to not read, or is that too a part of your crusade against materialism?

I suppose making dishonest statements does invoke some kind of thought process, though I wouldn't glorify it as you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you recall claiming materialist ideology states the universe repeats? Or are you going to deny it again?

I'll refresh your memory; http://www.unexplain...howtopic=220808

You must love the taste of your foot, because it keeps ending up in your mouth.

It is a possibility and probable consequence of materialism ( I'm not a materialist).... But you seem to not know what white board discussion is. Enough thread derailing.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is a possibility and probable consequence of materialism ( I'm not a materialist).... But you seem to not know what white board discussion is. Enough thread derailing.

Actually it was Lenord Susskind's view (hypothesis), a view not all materialists hold; you still felt the need to dictate their view for them anyway. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it was Lenord Susskind's view (hypothesis), a view not all materialists hold; you still felt the need to dictate their view for them anyway.

Uggggg I'm dictating anything to anyone. Did you read through that thread? Materialists had their heads handed to them. Even our so called life long scientist did not really even understand relativity. That very discussion highlights the truth of landrys blogs. But let's pic it up there if you want to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uggggg I'm dictating anything to anyone. Did you read through that thread? Materialists had their heads handed to them. Even our so called life long scientist did not really even understand relativity. That very discussion highlights the truth of landrys blogs. But let's pic it up there if you want to continue.

Yes I did read it. You used one man's idea and basically told all other materialists to accept Leonard Susskind's hypothesis because thats what their view really states.

Strange that you quickly dropped it when this was pointed out to you. But you still clearly think this hypothesis speaks for all materialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic please

Rlyeh if you have something to add regarding a member's blog then the best place to post it is in the blog comments area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its possible.

Because of all anecdotes? Following that line, tooth fairies are "possible"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rupert Sheldrake wrote an interesting book, The Sense of Being Stared At, in which he talks about some of the studies done in this area. Re: ESP, most of of the evidence WOULD be anecdotal because there are so few scientific studies on this topic. Certainly there are people in my life who have repeatedly demonstrated their integrity, so that I would give some weight to their anecdotal evidence; I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, nor think that because I haven't had the same experience theirs must be bogus/invented/halluncinatory.

The same is true on this forum. There are some posters I've determined have a higher credibility factor than others, whether I agree or disagree with them, based on their posts, their responses, what they have revealed about themselves, their thoughfulness, etc. And, as I said earlier, I am unwilling to dismiss the validity of my personal experiences based on someone's else's knowledge, beliefs, or experiences. That said, I am always open to explanations, new information, knowledge, that increases my understanding and enables me to think more in-depth about a topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thing doesn't need scientific evidence or explanation to exist, i.e. dark matter.

True but it DOES need scince in order to understand it rather than fantasy laden, bunny fluff. This, I fear, is what is being actively avoided by so-called "believers" because many seem to want a flashy, mystical and even magical explanation for such things as "telepathy". Because some seem to fear that a scientific, rational and mundane explanation would spoil its existence (providing it really does exist)

It is true we do not understand the human brain in its entirety but maybe at some point we'll discover that all these flashy, "speshul powers" are nothing but completely normal and mundane functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure to what the terms fantasy laden, bunny fluff refers to. Re: ESP, some of us are just waiting for science to catch up. Scientific understanding of it would change how people think about it, but wouldn't have any effect on the experience itself. But in the greater scheme of things, science has much more important work to do then studying ESP or any other phenomena. Unless of course, someone figured out it has a possible military or commercial application. Then they'd be all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rupert Sheldrake wrote an interesting book, The Sense of Being Stared At, in which he talks about some of the studies done in this area. Re: ESP, most of of the evidence WOULD be anecdotal because there are so few scientific studies on this topic. Certainly there are people in my life who have repeatedly demonstrated their integrity, so that I would give some weight to their anecdotal evidence; I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, nor think that because I haven't had the same experience theirs must be bogus/invented/halluncinatory.

The same is true on this forum. There are some posters I've determined have a higher credibility factor than others, whether I agree or disagree with them, based on their posts, their responses, what they have revealed about themselves, their thoughfulness, etc. And, as I said earlier, I am unwilling to dismiss the validity of my personal experiences based on someone's else's knowledge, beliefs, or experiences. That said, I am always open to explanations, new information, knowledge, that increases my understanding and enables me to think more in-depth about a topic.

I found this study to be very informative.

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/ESP-Researchers-Telepathy.html

I hope you like it as much as I did.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have lost the ability, I think it has gone dormant.

That's exactly what I think. Right on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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).

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

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.com/2011/09/23/scientists-can-almost-read-your-mind-turn-thoughts-into-movies/

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.com/papers/IntJYoga1266-7404602_203406.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.