Telepathy

[DeletedUser]

okay i said reputable people and everyone that you just named off is well known or has a following.psycholigists or people educated in the mind would be more then acceptiable informants on they topic of telepathy. and just so you know i got their names from the Charles T Tart book on The End Of Materialism they are in the front pages with their cooments on telepathy and the so called paranormal and these exact book is what brought up the Prayer concept as the mechanism that people use for telepathy that everyone is internally praying for a variety of things without our mind consciesally knowing and that the problum occuring with telepathy is that when you try transferring your thoughts from one person to another they are thinking so many things already without knowing its hard for them to pick up on the right signal or thoughts your trying to transfer because they already have so many thoughts going on at once.this is the kind of stuff psycholigist look into not scientist i would like to think that telepathy falls more into a psychologist field of study more so then a general scientist

---------------------
okay so apparently we have like about 40 thoughts a minute so with telepathy it is hard to get the person to percieve they single thought you are trying to transfer over to them.when you have 40 others competeing for the same position
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_thoughts_do_people_have_each_day

so with this math if you had an hour session of trying to transfer thoughts someone might try and transfer 50 thoughts throughout the seessin while the subject had percieved over 2,400 thoughts
without being aware of even half of those thoughts

 

[DeletedUser3]

Really? So the psuedo-scientific approach of psychologists to examine human behavior, label, and speculate is what you think as the appropriate field for study of telepathy instead of "general" scientists?

First let's remove a few misnomers: there are no "general" scientists and the subfield of psychology that meddles in esp, etc is parapsychology, and it has very little credibility. Not merely for its psuedo-scientific approach, adopted from the larger field of psychology, but for its inability to produce.

Anyway, no. It would be far more applicable to hand it over to the field of theology, for it is entirely based on belief. It is devoid of evidence. Tests performed have repeatedly come up empty. For it to exist, it would have to exist, and yet it is not producible, let alone reproducible. So, instead what we have are people "wanting" it to be true.

Seriously, there's been a lot of money wasted, even by governments, on these notions. Countless more than has been spent on finding leprechauns. And with all that time and energy --- Nothing.

Well, nothing but a lingering belief...

But there's something quite different between a belief in telepathy and a belief in a deity. You can actually perform tests for telepathy. Yet --- still nothing. So then a belief in telepathy falls more inline with fantasy, more inline with leprechauns.

 

[DeletedUser]

What I wonder is why people want so badly for this to be true. I mean, I can understand in the perspective of a con-artist or a scammer, but why do others argue for it so much?

 

[DeletedUser]

their are alot of people who dont follow they traditional apprach to telepathy used in the field of parapsychology.
which is they reason for lack of results their are flaws in how they traditional studies are executed.so with that said we are still pioneers in the field of telepathic research and we still have alot to learn about the mind and what it is capable of because there is still alot that we dont understand.and i will let you win this debate but that doesnt mean you are right.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is the problem with that sort of "example," in that it's similar to throwing a mass of pennies in the air. One lands on its side and suddenly we claim telekinesis.

No verifiable correlation. I pick up the phone and say, "Hi Diggo" doesn't make me psychic, it just means I guessed right that time. Randomness is not a means of determination, it's merely randomness.


Simon Baron-Cohen's research is being misrepresented by you, or by whomever you are reading. He does not go into empathy in the sense inferred by psychics, but by the ability to read body language and other commonly understood communication factors that we regularly use but otherwise take for granted. This ties directly to his research in autism and does not have anything to do with "psychic ability" or "telepathy."

Careful where you obtain your facts/statements. Some peeps have their own agendas and distort researcher findings to suit their needs, but in the process pose fabrications to sufficiently confuse.


Pure and applied science? Umm, he wasn't getting into the difference of it... applied sciences are dependent up on laws that follow the rules of evidence presented by Daniel. Theoretical sciences (pure if you want to run with that label) utilizes the rules of evidence as presented by Daniel, which results in postulations or theories. All are dependent on the same formulaic pathway of examining evidence. There is no evidence when it pertains to telepathy, thus no formulaic pathway.

And let's make it clear, a person saying, "i can read your mind, you're holding an Ace of Spades," is no more a telepath than he is a trickster, which has been presented as the overriding circumstance in reports of telepathy. No evidence, no facts, just claims and tricks. Indeed, tricksters are dependent upon believers. Belief is dependent upon a circumstance devoid of evidence.

Wonderful how you reduce my postulation to nonsense, it must take years of practise . I am not claiming psychic ability or telekinesis exists or could exist and I said as much in a previous post. I was wondering whether the science of empathy might help to explain the research into twins experiences where, as I understand it, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence along the lines I suggested. Maybe I was unwise to introduce empathy instead of telepathy.

I don't mean to misrepresent his research but was drawing on his scientific study of empathy and the empathy circuit where there are 10 regions in the brain that empathise and he created the bell curve that indicates where an individual sits. Brain scans and MRI's limit to seeing blood flow but patterns emerge which have allowed neuro-scientists to identify over time such areas of the brain. Interestingly, scientists usually have low empathy and women normally have higher empathy than men.

I hope I have made myself clear as I don't have an agenda and I don't want to misrepresent. As Baron-Cohen said "feelings are difficult to reduce to a set of rules".

As to your last paragraph I totally agree.