Telepathy , Telepathy Is Possible?

[Ken]

I think this thread is locked on the hypothesis that Telepathy , if it exists , is effected by electromagnetic impulses...

This unnecessarily restricts research, [i have pointed towards the ouija phenomen as possibly having a telepathic origin and hinted that telepathy might be part of social situations not yet thought of.[/color]

 

 

What does that mean?

 

 

:P

[sigurdV]

Excuse me but what "that" do you refer to?

The ouija phenomenon?

If you are serious I might as well tell you the story:

 

I found a book on parapsychology on my parents bookshelf and tried it as good night litterature.

Next morning at breakfast I told mother abut the laughs i had had on the ridiculous stories i just read.

-Dont laugh! Some of it is true! Mother said, cleared the table took a glass and pencil and began drawing cirles(using the glass upside down) in a big circle around the table. She wrote the letters in the alphabet in them and ended with an empty circle in the middle. Putting her index finger on the glass in the middle she told me to do the same...

What now? I asked: We wait!

 

After a little while the glass moved... You did that! I said...

No! Would I cheat my only son? She said... the glass kept on moving in irregular jerks but soon it "flowed" smoothly around the letters and settled on a letter. Remember it! she said, and the glass started searching for the next letter...A text with some dreamlike quality was produced!!

 

Mothers can cheat in order to educate their children (remember sancta claus) so I wasnt really convinced.

 

Later when married I decided to repeat the experiment ,and yes, my wife was cheating on me as well!

 

Later when the children arrived i checked again and yes my whole family was cheating on me.

Suddenly it struck me: The phenomenon is for real and none of us was a cheater!

 

So how is the phenomen explained when cheating is not the case... I decided it must stem from the subconscious (an entity i didnt really believe in before) I decided on the name "unconscious cooperation"... but it might also be so that the strongest subconscious gets to tell the fibs.

 

Personally ill try every other explanation before I accept telepathy, but some ppl would perhaps tell me Im biased :)

[Eclogite]

It might be argued, that short-range natural telepathy exists. But that's probably just our using cues from voice-tones, body-language, pheromone exudations and so on. And being too impressed by lucky guesses and coincidences of thought. Not by our reading each other's minds.

Exactly so, which is why I disagree with this statement from farhquad.

Humans developed vocal cords and ears, and do not need to communicate by dancing, pheromones, electromagnetic sensors, or other means.

Apparently farhquad has never picked up a partner is in a dance hall, disco, or rave, where the background noise makes conversation all but meaningless. If vocal chords and ears were sufficient, we wouldn't bother with video conferencing.

[Ken]

Excuse me but what "that" do you refer to?

The ouija phenomenon?

If you are serious I might as well tell you the story:

 

I found a book on parapsychology on my parents bookshelf and tried it as good night litterature.

Next morning at breakfast I told mother abut the laughs i had had on the ridiculous stories i just read.

-Dont laugh! Some of it is true! Mother said, cleared the table took a glass and pencil and began drawing cirles(using the glass upside down) in a big circle around the table. She wrote the letters in the alphabet in them and ended with an empty circle in the middle. Putting her index finger on the glass in the middle she told me to do the same...

What now? I asked: We wait!

 

After a little while the glass moved... You did that! I said...

No! Would I cheat my only son? She said... the glass kept on moving in irregular jerks but soon it "flowed" smoothly around the letters and settled on a letter. Remember it! she said, and the glass started searching for the next letter...A text with some dreamlike quality was produced!!

 

Mothers can cheat in order to educate their children (remember sancta claus) so I wasnt really convinced.

 

Later when married I decided to repeat the experiment ,and yes, my wife was cheating on me as well!

 

Later when the children arrived i checked again and yes my whole family was cheating on me.

Suddenly it struck me: The phenomenon is for real and none of us was a cheater!

 

So how is the phenomen explained when cheating is not the case... I decided it must stem from the subconscious (an entity i didnt really believe in before) I decided on the name "unconscious cooperation"... but it might also be so that the strongest subconscious gets to tell the fibs.

 

Personally ill try every other explanation before I accept telepathy, but some ppl would perhaps tell me Im biased :)

 

Have you tried it blindfolded, with an objective observer copying the "text" produced?

 

You might want to read this:

 

http://www.skepdic.com/ouija.html

[sigurdV]

Have you tried it blindfolded, with an objective observer copying the "text" produced?

 

You might want to read this:

 

http://www.skepdic.com/ouija.html

No... Im aware that my personal experience does not qualify as research, and I doubt that the phenomen would occure if participitors are blindfolded or all take their fingers away from the glass.

But I suppose our subconscious has a better orientation than we have... so: Blind or blindfolded participators might produce text. But what else would thereby be proven?

 

My focus is on the appearence of the text and to who or what "the copyright should be given"!?

One thing I did was taking my finger away and the writing continued with no noticeable change in it.

I think neurologcal research on this would not strenghten the hypothesis of telepathy,

but perhaps new insight into the Abilities of and Proof of the Existence of the "Unconscious Mind" might be arrived at.

 

To my knowledge ALL (so called) research into the Ouia Effect has been successful attempts to show it doesnt prove the existence of telepathy...

I just happen to think THAT is no good example of unbiased science. Do you?

[JMJones0424]

To my knowledge ALL (so called) research into the Ouia Effect has been successful attempts to show it doesnt prove the existence of telepathy...

I just happen to think THAT is no good example of unbiased science. Do you?

 

Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying here. That telepathy doesn't exist is the null hypothesis. No objective evidence exists to reject the null hypothesis. It would be a difficult task indeed to prove the non-existence of anything, as that requires omniscience. Science is about creating and testing falsifiable explanations.

[Ken]

No... Im aware that my personal experience does not qualify as research, and I doubt that the phenomen would occure if participitors are blindfolded or all take their fingers away from the glass.

But I suppose our subconscious has a better orientation than we have... so: Blind or blindfolded participators might produce text. But what else would thereby be proven?

 

Well, science doesn't "prove" anything, it reduces uncertainty but never achieves certainty. But here you start with a dubious claim ("Blind or blindfolded participators might produce text") and then move on to a conclusion/question that assumes that the claim is supported.

 

My focus is on the appearence of the text and to who or what "the copyright should be given"!?

One thing I did was taking my finger away and the writing continued with no noticeable change in it.

 

All that such an observation would support is that you were a passive participant and that someone else was moving the planchette.

 

I think neurologcal research on this would not strenghten the hypothesis of telepathy,

but perhaps new insight into the Abilities of and Proof of the Existence of the "Unconscious Mind" might be arrived at.

 

What would such neurological research focus on? How would neurological research support "Abilities of and Proof of Existence of the 'Unconscious' mind"? You seem to be wandering through a view of physical observations and metaphysical speculations without any attempt at sorting them out.

 

To my knowledge ALL (so called) research into the Ouia Effect has been successful attempts to show it doesnt prove the existence of telepathy...

I just happen to think THAT is no good example of unbiased science. Do you?

 

Are you saying that unbiased science is that which supports your notions? How do you define "so called" research?

 

How do you measure "subconscious", or "Unconscious", or "Mind"? Science deals with the study of observable, measurable, phenomena. It offers nothing for alleged phenomena that can't be observed and measured.

 

Perhaps this discussion should start again with an Operational Definition of Telepathy, i.e., a definition that includes how Telepathy would be measured. Then it could extend to Operational Definitions of conscious/unconscious, etc.

 

;)

[sigurdV]

1 Well, science doesn't "prove" anything, it reduces uncertainty but never achieves certainty. But here you start with a dubious claim ("Blind or blindfolded participators might produce text") and then move on to a conclusion/question that assumes that the claim is supported.

 

 

 

2 All that such an observation would support is that you were a passive participant and that someone else was moving the planchette.

 

 

 

3 What would such neurological research focus on? How would neurological research support "Abilities of and Proof of Existence of the 'Unconscious' mind"? You seem to be wandering through a view of physical observations and metaphysical speculations without any attempt at sorting them out.

 

 

 

4 Are you saying that unbiased science is that which supports your notions? 5 How do you define "so called" research?

 

6 How do you measure "subconscious", or "Unconscious", or "Mind"? Science deals with the study of observable, measurable, phenomena. It offers nothing for alleged phenomena that can't be observed and measured.

 

7 Perhaps this discussion should start again with an Operational Definition of Telepathy, i.e., a definition that includes how Telepathy would be measured. Then it could extend to Operational Definitions of conscious/unconscious, etc.

 

;)

 

1: I dont think it is correct to state that I really was making that claim: note the "might"! Rather i was reporting my expectations on the matter, and then Claiming the implication that were blinded ppl producing text not much besides the fact in itself would be proved by the experiment. And the same with the possibly acidic remark that taking the fingers off would only prove no psychokinesics were involved. I think the envisioned experimenting is directed to enquire into under what conditions the effect occures but not directly into the causes of the effect!

And: I do think science in some special circumstances produces certainty: Are you not certain that 1 participator added to another participator makes 2 participators?

 

2: I think your comment on my removal of finger is hitting the nail on its head.

Except for the reservation that i could before have been part of causing the effect and if so the others quickly took over my eventual involvement.

 

3: Alas! On the outcome of neurological experiments i can only report my expectations...Do you mean i should keep quiet and leave the speculations to the experts?

 

4: The job of unbiased science is to find facts , not to support personal belief.

 

5: By " "so called" research " i meant research that is flawed in some way: For instance if research y into the causes of x satisfies itself by only excluding one possible cause of x

 

6: Now you show some sense, but you are putting the shoe on the wrong foot, this is what you should have asked: How do WE measure the subconscious? etc etc I am no scientist, all i am doing is pointing towards a method of possible Discovery of the Unconscious, "measuring" sounds nice but i have no idea of how that could be done.

 

7: Your last two lines are, as far as I understand them, again hitting the nail right on the head! But i think telepathy shouldnt be defined by the actual mechanism used... My layman opinion is that its better to focus on the transmitting or creation of information in an unknown way, then the mechanism itself remains to be discovered :)

[dduckwessel]

there is very little supporting data for telepathy:

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

 

However, (and I hope the mods will allow it) I would like to present 'personal experiences' as evidence for it.

 

I don't believe that telepathy can be monitored as I believe it occurs randomly. However, I've been somewhat monitoring the times when I experience it.

 

My last experience occurred about a week ago. I was cooking supper when I suddenly had the distinct impression that I should call my son's friend's (who had stayed overnight) mother (they live in the same town). I headed for the phone and was about to pick up the receiver to dial her but the phone rang and it was their number on the display.

 

Other experiences like it happen frequently between one of my sons and myself. He will be thinking of calling me and I will suddenly think of, and call, him.

 

You will have to take my word for it that this happens quite frequently to me. I started listening to what others were saying and sure enough other people were relating their stories.

 

I have noted a few characteristics:

a) it occurs to females far more than males (I think that females are hardwired for telepathy) I used to think it was possibly an evolutionary development as an aid to child rearing until I discovered that I could 'think of my friend in Kentucky and she (has no children) would email me shortly thereafter (I live in Western Canada)

- there is no special time of day that it occurs except that I have never been wakened in the middle of the night with a premonition but I know that others have

- there appears to be a forgetting (like disconnecting a telephone) involved before a thought can travel to the other person (I'm still working on this one)

- it's random, seemingly not something that we can control, rather it just happens

- there is both a sender and a receiver

- must be a good relationship between parties but I don't think it's necessarily a criteria for receiving

 

 

I believe there is only one way to truly test this: is to closely monitor people that experience this quite freqquently and document the cases, and get in touch with the person supposedly contacted.

 

If this occurs predominantly to females I have to think there is something in our genetic makeup that makes it possible? However, because it's a random thing it's an experiment that has to be conducted over a long period of time and with many subjects.

[sigurdV]

Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying here. That telepathy doesn't exist is the null hypothesis. No objective evidence exists to reject the null hypothesis. It would be a difficult task indeed to prove the non-existence of anything, as that requires omniscience. Science is about creating and testing falsifiable explanations.

Hi Mr Jones!

 

What im saying is that experiments show that the Ouija Effect is NOT telepathy, as implicitly defined in this tread.

The question whether telepathy exists or not, depends on the DEFINITION of "telepathy".

We cant give no definite meaning to the null hypothesis without there being a definition of "telepathy" right?

 

I wont believe unless facing an example, but IF we define "telepathy" as "the creation of, or transmitting of,

information in a way science as yet cannot account for",(Perhaps too wide since it includes thoughts)

THEN (provided cheating can be ruled out) the Ouija Effect fits the definition!

And I wonder: Do humans have a "subconscious", causing (among other things) the ouija effect.

 

This is not the first time i notice its awkward not to use the deficient mental map of the majority:

Personal experience tells me there are occurrenses of the Ouija Effect not caused by cheating,

so i seek another explanation. I reject telepathy as normally defined... So what explanation is then left ???

 

WHAT FORCE is acting on the participators? I point towards an object, the part of the brain that:

 

a construct our dreams, (can create stories)

b gives us more physical resources when we need them (can distribute power)

c has been envisioned by psychology. (is already assumed to exist)

 

PS When in trouble and nothing aint right,

run in circles howl and shout :)

 

PPS perhaps some of what im saying in here violates the topic? Maybe Id better start a thread in psychology forum or the neurology forum, I will of course answer questions but I will, at least temporarily, not further disturb the peace in here :)

[monique06]

I guess, Telepathy do really exist.

 

Things of this world might be divided by 3 aspects.

 

1. things solved by science

2. things unsolved by science but solved by faith

3. things unsolved by science and unsolved by faith

 

Although there, had been arguments that faith is exactly non-science, but there were certain scientists who used faith to solve such cases.

 

The use of these aspects will help in creating maps of what to discover. regarding to TELEPATHY, I think it belongs to the 2nd category(unsolved by science but solved by faith. although there were no certain evidence by science that telepathy actually exist, but through faith and just through own perception of people, TELEPATHY do really exist. :dogwalk:

[sigurdV]

I guess, Telepathy do really exist.

 

Things of this world might be divided by 3 aspects.

 

1. things solved by science

2. things unsolved by science but solved by faith

3. things unsolved by science and unsolved by faith

 

Although there, had been arguments that faith is exactly non-science, but there were certain scientists who used faith to solve such cases.

 

The use of these aspects will help in creating maps of what to discover. regarding to TELEPATHY, I think it belongs to the 2nd category(unsolved by science but solved by faith. although there were no certain evidence by science that telepathy actually exist, but through faith and just through own perception of people, TELEPATHY do really exist. :dogwalk:

 

I believe/accept "Telepathy" depending on the definition of the term. My own definition is so wide zoo it includes the progression from this thought to the next :)

[maddog]

i think that all life uses it in one way or another

like a bee, if you send good vibrations, the bee is friendly, if you send bad vibrations you get stung

I understand what you are getting at. This also happens with a lot of animals. I

hate to pop your balloon though there are other possibilities that do not include

telepathy. I am not discounting telepathy per se, just that no need to grab an

example that doesn't actually preclude another explanation.

 

With respect to bees, there could be chemical cues of which they are Very attuned to

that could determine 'friendly' or 'not friendly'. Dogs are very good with scent. It is

thought that dogs can 'smell' your fear.

 

Now were telepathy to actually be a valid form of communication (which I am not saying

it is), it would require a medium that physics does not recognize. Personally, I

think this goes for all the know paranormal phenomena. The one that comes to

mind are Tachyons. These particles as a class are thought not to exist in the

understanding within the Standard Model.

 

Of course recently there are now some experimental data that seems to be

challenging even Einstein's SR. Depending on how the next couple of years

goes whether an ultimate explanation is found or we have to reconsider

whether we have some hidden assumption we are not taking account of

remains to be seen.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Things of this world might be divided by 3 aspects.

1. things solved by science

2. things unsolved by science but solved by faith

3. things unsolved by science and unsolved by faith

Although there, had been arguments that faith is exactly non-science, but there were certain scientists who used faith to solve such cases.

I am not sure I can put 'faith' in any way under analytical scrutiny...(?) <_<

Also believing a thing so does not make it so (except in your own mind).

Science is built upon reproducible validations that events or explanations

are as described. Faith is Just believed. I don't even see how they are

of the same caliber (or even paradigm). I do not mean in any way that

one is less than the other, just different. These are Not equivalent

practices.

 

maddog

[sigurdV]

I'm thinking you have no physical definition of Unconscious, or mind.

 

:D

You are correct. I think Dr Freud was the first to postulate a "Sub Conscious" in order to explain conscious phenomena. The theory has not been successful in the way "the theory of Qarks" has been, still there is no good competing theory to explain matters of consciousness:

 

Where do our thoughts and feelings originate? What forces moderate our mental actions? Who knows?

 

Perhaps the newly emerged "Science of Neuro Psychology" can experimentally verify the existense of a sub conscious... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_neuroscience#Neuropsychology

Until then i can only note that the concept has taken root in us laymen.

[sigurdV]

I agree that what is not possible now might become possible in the future. The question, in the name of the tread, was "is telepathy possible?" I would ask it differently. Is telepathy real? Does it play a role in our exchanges of information?

 

Ludwik Kowalski

A good question!

But i think it might depend on exactly How we Define "Telepathy".

 

If we define it as "information arrived at in a unknown way",

isnt then the thinking of a new thought telepathy?

[sigurdV]

What does that mean?

 

 

:P

 

What I refere to is "The Oija board" by wich some superstitious people think they can communicate with spirits.

 

The leading interpretation is that one or more participators are consciously moving the Ouija board on its march through the alfabet.

 

It is my personal experience that conscious cheating can be ruled out,

thats why I assume it will probably be properly researched eventually.

 

Meanwhile the only mechanism explaining the phenomen I can imagine depends on the existence of the subconscious...Where do our dreams come from? What produces them? What can influence my body adding strenght when in dire need of it ? Me?? Nah!!!