Breaking down telepathy

[PixyMisa]

Please provide evidence to support these claims.

Happy to do so later today.

Pick one item that you find of interest and I'll address that first. Or start a thread in the Science subforum, which is where the actual working scientists here tend to be found.

 

[Kleonaptra]

Off to do the afternoon chores Y'all. I'll stop in later if I have time. Hi Giza!

 

[Giza]

hello.

 

[Marduk]

Haha, I was thinking that the telepath(going to talk as if it were a male) would have different standards when it comes to a relationship, this person would be able to read their partners mind, whenever a man appears on television once the partner has that little 'dirty' thought, the telepath would then turn the cold shoulder. Making him even more withdrawn from even attempting another relationship without a complete 'analyzation' of a prospect. This partner of the telepath would have to be solid in their love for him 100%. You know how hurtful it would be to the telepath if they were making love and realizing the partner was thinking of another man? Or you're out in public with your mate and she's thinking of the guy that just walked past? The telepath would have a great struggle when it comes to a relationship even with a person of the same sex. Imagine being out in public and reading people's mind when they are having a negative opinion of you. Telepathy wouldn't be all fun & games, is what I'm trying to say.

when you're in a committed loving relationship, you know that your partner thinks about things like that anyway, but it doesn't matter, thoughts without action are just thoughts, everyone has them. Theres this thing called trust.....
thats the problem with the telepath, he can never trust his partner, because he doesn't have to

 

[Giza]

I see, I believe the telepath would have an entirely different opinion on love. If the partner thinks of another but then corrects it, I would believe there would be no problem. But I believe the partner would work on not having those type thoughts if the partner was actually in love with the telepath. If the telepath can't trust the mind of the partner then the telepath would not trust the partner. Which would make it quite difficult for the telepath to find the 'right' one. The telepath would have quite a few hardships to go through when going through partners, which would make them quite cold yet capable of 'deep' love, but then again the telepath would become quite resistant to even attempting a relationship after one fails him.

 

[Marduk]

I see, I believe the telepath would have an entirely different opinion on love. If the partner thinks of another but then corrects it, I would believe there would be no problem. But I believe the partner would work on not having those type thoughts if the partner was actually in love with the telepath. If the telepath can't trust the mind of the partner then the telepath would not trust the partner. Which would make it quite difficult for the telepath to find the 'right' one. The telepath would have quite a few hardships to go through when going through partners, which would make them quite cold yet capable of 'deep' love.

you're only thinking about it from the telepaths perspective, theres two people in a relationship (three if youre lucky)

If the partner thinks of another then the telepath would overeact. The partner can't work on not having those type thoughts even if the partner was actually in love with the telepath. If the partner can't trust the telepath to be realistic about the partners private thoughts then the relationship is over. The telepath would never find the 'right' one because women, indeed humans can not stop themselves from having random thoughts. The telepath would have quite a few personal lessons about human thought when going through partners, which would make him incapable of even knowing what love is.
Try it yourself, look at some pictures of attractive women and stop yourself from thinking about their assets. You won't be able to do it because as a human you are a member of a species which has evolved to notice those things.

Basically, your idea of a telepath in a relationship makes him sound self centred and conceited, the only way he'd be able to find a partner would be by becoming the very worst kind of control freak, which would make him abusive in the eyes of others and as a result quite unwanted. His partner would quite happily sell him to the military for dissection, just to get a break from the opression. Your telepath is starting to sound more and more like an undiagnosed and unmedicated schizophrenic who because of his affliction doesn't understand that its not the world thats at fault, its him. As such he would be incapable of addressing his own problems and thats got social interaction fail written all over it

 

[PixyMisa]

All you are proving is that its ok to use special pleading when you want to.

Nope. All you are proving is that you don't know what special pleading is.

You believe in the existance of love because you KNOW you have experienced it, even though its outside the scope of scientific measurement.

You keep claiming that, but you have provided nothing at all - no evidence, no argument, nothing - to support your claim.

You can measure patterns of behaviour and biochemistry forever, you cant prove the existance of love.

What is love if not that?

Its entirely subjective, and the reactions will be different in every specimen and every test.

It's not entirely subjective. There's a subjective component. That's entirely different.

Pain has a subjective component, but we know the causes and mechanisms and we can track the neural activity it causes, and we can treat it chemically.

Same goes for love.

You cant prove love is the cause of these biochemical reactions or behavioral patterns.

Love is those biochemical reactions and behavioural patterns.

Its just as likely to be caused by outside stimuli or reaction to pheremones.

Those play a role. So?

Using the scientific theorim you have given me, you cant even start measuring the affects of love until you prove it exists.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Do you accept that biochemistry exists?

Do you accept that patterns of behaviour exist?

Do you accept that biochemistry influences behaviour?

Well, "love" is simply a word we attach to certain patterns of behaviour.

As I said, this is a very, very silly argument.

And it's special pleading.

 

[Giza]

Another telepath would be the ideal partner.

Many personal lessons as you said.. the telepath would have to discipline his mind before he can venture out into the world. As to the abusive part, I don't believe that to be so, the telepath would be able to read emotions as well which would make him very 'sensitive' to people's emotion so much that he feels it in himself. And this would cause him to learn how to avoid stirring up emotion in other beings.

@assets, I personally am quite 'good' at not having dirty thoughts of random chicks, but I have been working on that for about 6 years, so I don't believe it to be impossible.

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.pemft.net/part-2-frequency.html

I recommend, 'frequencies emitted by energy healers (.3 - 30HZ)'

about half way down the page.

The first half page of that site is fact. Very commonly known fact.

ALL the rest is fiction.

ETA: I checked the info on the page. Fiction. Or in more blunt language: Lies.

I completely agree in Emily Rosa's experiement, none of them could do it. Not arguing with you on that. But that it doesnt exist at all? Big claim, not enough evidence. Of course you say I'm doing the same thing.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with Pixy-Misa here: It is no use beating around the bush. In scientific circles, we can be PC and say "not enough evidence", "needs more research", "not supported by observation", and all that jazz.

But this is the general world, where people (present company excluded, of course) have no scruples lying, cheating, and/or presenting their delusions as if they were facts. So here we need to be more blunt, and when someone makes a claim that, despite repeated attempts, has not been supported by a shred of evidence, and which has no imaginable way of working, then we must use words like "nonsense", and "impossible".

Yes, there is some remote possibility, against astronomical odds, that they could have half a point, but ......

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Another telepath would be the ideal partner.

So, what do you feel would be the ideal partner for an invisible humanoid unicorn (they are all males, you know)?

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

I have to say I do have a problem with dismissing a claim simply because it is, according to everything we currently understand about how the world works, impossible.

If something like homeopathy, say, worked then it would work, and if we didn't know why we'd have to find out. If that meant throwing away everything we think we currently understand about physics and chemistry and starting again from scratch (which it pretty much would) then that's what we'd have to do. But we don't have to do that, because there is not a shred of credible evidence that homeopathy does work.

I think it's better to empathise the lack of evidence rather than the "defies the laws of nature as we understand them" reason for not accepting paranormal claims, because of the danger that the believer will simply seize on the latter (quite wrongly) as meaning that the sceptic is close minded and dogmatic and can therefore be ignored.

It is in fact the believer whose mind is closed to the mountain of evidence that what's perceived as paranormal is simply an artifact of our cognitive biases; the sceptic is open to empirical evidence to the contrary, there just isn't any.

 

[PixyMisa]

The first half page of that site is fact. Very commonly known fact.

ALL the rest is fiction.

Some of the first half is fiction too - the stuff about Schumann resonators on spacecraft is just made up. (Funny how neither NASA nor Dr Persinger have ever made any mention of this supposed collaboration.)

 

[PixyMisa]

I think it's better to emphasize the lack of evidence rather than the "defies the laws of nature as we understand them" reason for not accepting paranormal claims, because of the danger that the believer will simply seize on the latter (quite wrongly) as meaning that the sceptic is close minded and dogmatic and can therefore be ignored.

As we've seen right here, if you just point out the lack of evidence, people will escape into special pleading. ("Science can't prove love exists!!!")

So I point out the lack of evidence and the physical impossibility of it.

As you say, if there were solid evidence, then laws of physics be damned, we'd want to look into it. But if it's impossible and doesn't happen, that's three strikes against the idea.*

It is in fact the believer whose mind is closed to the mountain of evidence that what's perceived as paranormal is simply an artifact of our cognitive biases; the sceptic is open to empirical evidence to the contrary, there just isn't any.

Exactly.

* Third strike being that we've heard it all before.

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry all, the bird was a poor example - I meant, its not common for a wild bird to be SICK because of worms because of their resistance to them. Birds have worms like cats do. BTW all those pages refer to pet birds in closed environments, and they cycle their worms.

However, do they reach the pedals?

 

[Kuko 4000]

I think we should approach every claim seriously and with respect, we should recognise that this belief is important for the person making the claim. If we are not interested in that, we are probably not making as much progress as we could. This means that we should concentrate on the claim and on the testing of that claim. This should be the first step, everything else becomes a distraction.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Some of the first half is fiction too - the stuff about Schumann resonators on spacecraft is just made up. (Funny how neither NASA nor Dr Persinger have ever made any mention of this supposed collaboration.)

I said the first half page.

Hans

 

[Kleonaptra]

The first half page of that site is fact. Very commonly known fact.

ALL the rest is fiction.

ETA: I checked the info on the page. Fiction. Or in more blunt language: Lies.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to side with Pixy-Misa here: It is no use beating around the bush. In scientific circles, we can be PC and say "not enough evidence", "needs more research", "not supported by observation", and all that jazz.

But this is the general world, where people (present company excluded, of course) have no scruples lying, cheating, and/or presenting their delusions as if they were facts. So here we need to be more blunt, and when someone makes a claim that, despite repeated attempts, has not been supported by a shred of evidence, and which has no imaginable way of working, then we must use words like "nonsense", and "impossible".

Yes, there is some remote possibility, against astronomical odds, that they could have half a point, but ......

Hans

Hey Mate,
The only part of that page I actually took notice of or cared about was Dr John Zimmerman, measuring energy fields with the SQUID in the 1980s. Ive done some rather intense googling, Ive found that info in lots of places, is it true or not?

 

[Kleonaptra]

Oh Pixy. I was just trying to make a point. You are arguing with someone who says "y'all" and furthermore, types it on webpages. Lets have a cigar and a brandy shall we?

 

[Kleonaptra]

I have to say I do have a problem with dismissing a claim simply because it is, according to everything we currently understand about how the world works, impossible.

If something like homeopathy, say, worked then it would work, and if we didn't know why we'd have to find out. If that meant throwing away everything we think we currently understand about physics and chemistry and starting again from scratch (which it pretty much would) then that's what we'd have to do. But we don't have to do that, because there is not a shred of credible evidence that homeopathy does work.

I think it's better to empathise the lack of evidence rather than the "defies the laws of nature as we understand them" reason for not accepting paranormal claims, because of the danger that the believer will simply seize on the latter (quite wrongly) as meaning that the sceptic is close minded and dogmatic and can therefore be ignored.

It is in fact the believer whose mind is closed to the mountain of evidence that what's perceived as paranormal is simply an artifact of our cognitive biases; the sceptic is open to empirical evidence to the contrary, there just isn't any.

I find that really interesting. Why would it mean throwing out everything we already know? I really believe that natural remedies that are effective are simply intuitive ideas from when people didnt know any better. Knowing both sides of it can surely only strengthen it. As an example of a natural remedy that works, snorting salt water for chronic sinusitis. When I was denied acess to my hard drugs during pregnancy, this was the only thing that I could use, and it did work.

By saying that, Im not saying I believe in all natural remedies and Im not claiming they all work either, I just want to know why some of them proving to work would mean throwing out everything we already know. I understand 'homeopathy' as wholistic approach, yes, involving energy but not solely based on it.

 

[Kleonaptra]

The thing is, the experiment was designed in such a way as to remove opinion as far as possible . The experiment was merely whether Therapeutic Touch (TT) practitioners could detect her aura (as they claimed to be able to). They were unable to do better than chance.



....and yet still you believe in telepathy.



So despite all the evidence that there is no such thing as telepathy, despite all the failed studies you are still going to persist in the belief.

Tell me, what evidence could convince you that telepathy does not exist ?

Sorry I didnt reply to this earlier. I've been thinking about it all day, and I cant answer your question. We'll have to wait and see.