• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do thought waves exist?

El_Spectre said:
If we're gonna disect the joke (why?) nonverbal communication takes a lot more forms than just body language... I read somewhere that 90% of communication is supposed to be nonverbal.

Kinda makes forums like this a bit thin, no?
Click to expand...
We need t odissect the joke, or at least Kumar's answer. I suppose you, being new here, are not familiar with Kumar's track record, but unless that is done, Kuamar is going to come back later claiming that you agreed that thought waves was what transferred information when looking at somebody cute. Actually he may very well do that anyway, but we can try ;).

Certainly a lot of communication is non-verbal. Body language, gestures, dressing style, tone of voice, scent, and other things. Add to these the many kinds of non-worded messages that can be incorporated in verbal comminucation. Whether it is any particular percantage can probably be discussed forever. Anyway, it depends on the subject being communicated. If you are talking about a math problem with somebody, I would think it is almost totally verbal, if you are communicating with somebody you are in love with, it may be almost entirely non-verbal.

Thin here? Perhaps. But then, that is more a blessing than a curse, sometimes ;).

Hans
 
Ever hear the expression that great minds think alike?

Yes. Almost always in a joking manner.

Ever hear or read up about synchronistic coincidences (syncronicity)?

Yes. I believe the term was coined by Jung, to describe two events which have no connection and which don't seem connected to most people, but which are assigned personal significance by an observer.

Ever invent something only to learn it's been recently invented and you didn't know that?

Sure. Many times. That's why when you are engaging in a field of research or submitting a patent application, the first thing you're supposed to do is a literature search to learn that your idea has been explored many times before. It happens to virtually every idea. Then what you do is figure out what you're doing that's different.

Very few papers with "new ideas" omit the section up front with "here's a bunch of people who had similar ideas and what they did".

I recently posted a topic or two in the religion forum here at JREF.The other day I had to do an inspection of a building whose siding has been under attack by woodpeckers. The apartment house is to be sold and an inspector is coming tomorrow. The woodpeckers have been on my mind. I thought that it sure is strange to have some creature that could evolve? so that it can beat it's head senseless without harm. And then I thought I'd be silly and start a thread entitled 'Woodpeckers prove the existance of God". Here, minutes ago, I go to the religious forum, and someone posted this very thing for a thread topic!!!! What?

It is definitely an illustration of something the psychics take advantage of: We remember the coincidences that work out, and forget the vast number of times they didn't work out. People at JREF have reported on studio tapes where they see someone guess 20 letters in a row successively, all wrong, before finally hitting with "Is the letter R important to you?". Yet the people in the studio audience remember that the psychic zeroed in on that R. Amazing!!!

This "more than coincidence" thing is a very powerful illusion, but it's pure illusion. We seem to be hard-wired to fool ourselves this way for some reason.

My wife and I find it romantic when she calls me just as I am holding the phone to call her. We can remember many incidences when this has happened. But the skeptical side of me will point out the much larger number of times when I am calling her for hours, unable to locate her because she is out of the house and has her cell phone switched off. Somehow I suspect the latter outnumbers the former by just about the proportion you'd expect from pure chance.

What is the odds of this?

Nonzero. Large enough that it's extremely unlikely that it won't happen sooner or later.

Yesterday, millions of people thought of animals that DIDN'T show up in a conversation or discussion group anywhere. You think they remembered that, took special note of it?
 
What is the odds of this?
Click to expand...
The odds against THIS PARTICULAR coincidence are great, but the odds against ANY coincidental event happening are zero. It would be strange, no, more like miraculous, if there were NO coincidence in your life.
 
Once when I was a kid I slept over my cousin's house. We played some game in his bedroom until his parents came in, announced it was bedtime, and turned out the lights. Then they went to bed. Of course, we wanted to keep playing but didn't dare turn the lights back on for fear of being detected, so we turned on my cousin's little portable TV with the sound off and played by the light of the picture. We managed to play a while without getting caught, so we got a little bolder and turned up the TV's brightess. Unfortunately I got hold of the wrong knob and turned up the volume instead. I instantly turned the sound back off again, but not before two words (and *only* two words) blasted out: "WAKE UP!!"

Now what were the odds of that -- the two words we most didn't want my sleeping aunt and uncle to hear being shouted out in that fraction of a second the volume was turned on? Pretty slim I'd say, perhaps as slim as thinking about evolving woodpeckers and then reading about same. And yet there it is -- but I can't imagine any explanation for it (paranormal or otherwise) other than sheer, utter coincidence. Weird things just seem to happen in this world for no apparent reason at all, without the help of brain waves or anything else.
 
Iamme said:
I recently posted a topic or two in the religion forum here at JREF.The other day I had to do an inspection of a building whose siding has been under attack by woodpeckers. The apartment house is to be sold and an inspector is coming tomorrow. The woodpeckers have been on my mind. I thought that it sure is strange to have some creature that could evolve? so that it can beat it's head senseless without harm. And then I thought I'd be silly and start a thread entitled 'Woodpeckers prove the existance of God". Here, minutes ago, I go to the religious forum, and someone posted this very thing for a thread topic!!!! What?
Click to expand...
You were posting in R&P, yes? And still thought it strange that some creature can beat its head against a tree? What do you think R&P threads are?

Re: "thought waves" vs. EEGs...I would not label what EEGs measure "thought waves". A "thought", as the metaphorical noun representing a process of thinking, has introspectively a perceived quality of unity--as in "I was thinking about you" or "I had an odd thought" or "A particular thought came over me"...this "thought" is treated as a functional unit experientially. In terms of how it is processed within the brain, however, there may be separate pathways for emotional valence, visual imagery, logical relationships, verbal representation...this experientially unified "thought" is nowhere close to being represented by a particular "thought wave". The EEG can tell us something, but it would be much like reading the electric meter on your house in order to find out what message you are typing on your laptop. As someone here said, the signal does not stand out from the noise. I would suggest (and I would love someday to be proven wrong) that this is not merely a technical problem solveable by more sensitive EEGs, but that the complexity of the brain is enough to make EEG the wrong method (if there ever could be a right one) by which to "measure thoughts".
 
PixyMisa said:
Which means... What, exactly?
No.
Click to expand...

Which means that a given message goes far beyond the concept involved. Physical stance, eye contact, word choice, volume, inflection gesture and proximity all contribute to our understanding of the message. Hence, when you ask a friend how they are and they respond "fine!" cheerfully, the message (that they probably are doing ok) is much different from when your wife sullenly responds 'fine." to the same question (you are probably in trouble with this one). The words are only part of the meaning.

This is why people attempt to feign some of these nonverbal cues online (emoticons or smileys exists for just this reason). The plain text just doesn't communicate as well. This is probably why (in addition to anonymity) many internet conversations get heated unnecessarily.
 
MRC_Hans said:
We need t odissect the joke, or at least Kumar's answer. I suppose you, being new here, are not familiar with Kumar's track record, but unless that is done, Kuamar is going to come back later claiming that you agreed that thought waves was what transferred information when looking at somebody cute. Actually he may very well do that anyway, but we can try ;).
Hans
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't know this person or his record. Since I don't, I'll give the guy some slack. We were just sharing a bit of humor. Eh, if someone tries to twist my words later and get into an argument, screw 'em. I get myself into enough trouble on my own anyway :)
 
El_Spectre said:
Which means that a given message goes far beyond the concept involved. Physical stance, eye contact, word choice, volume, inflection gesture and proximity all contribute to our understanding of the message. Hence, when you ask a friend how they are and they respond "fine!" cheerfully, the message (that they probably are doing ok) is much different from when your wife sullenly responds 'fine." to the same question (you are probably in trouble with this one). The words are only part of the meaning.
Click to expand...
10%? Or maybe 12%? Or perhaps 17%?

We all know that the choice of words in spoken language only carries part of the message. But the claim that 90% of communication is nonverbal is about as meaningful as the one that 90% of the brain is made of tapioca.

Well, you know the one I mean.
 
PixyMisa said:
10%? Or maybe 12%? Or perhaps 17%?
Click to expand...

Sure, the number is questionable. The point was that much more is communicated by the nonverbal than just the words.

I'd imagine whoever came up with the 10/90 split had some way of quantifying 'signals'. Perhaps a gesture is twice as meaningful as a pitch change, I don't know :)
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, that has nothing to do with thought waves. It is communication through language, in this particular case, body language.

Hans
Click to expand...

You mean by EM & M.Waves or these are some new/other types of waves as "thought waves". Are these are some newly found/researched type of waves OR is an modification of older waves? What can be the science of undertanding/reading by body languages? What can be the science of sense by eyes & ears?

Where there is any interaction within two objects/person--waves/energy-atoms/molecules interactions should be there.
 
El_Spectre said:
I'd imagine whoever came up with the 10/90 split had some way of quantifying 'signals'. Perhaps a gesture is twice as meaningful as a pitch change, I don't know :)
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that they just made the numbers up, and it has as much basis in reality as the tapioca quote. Sounds good, doesn't mean much.

Yes, there are nonverbal cues used in spoken language. But written language differs significantly from spoken language precisely because those cues are absent. At least it does for anyone with any experience in communicating through the written word.
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, that has nothing to do with thought waves. It is communication through language, in this particular case, body language.

Hans
Click to expand...
I communicate by wiggling around pieces of meat.

And so does everyone.
 
PixyMisa said:
I'd imagine that they just made the numbers up, and it has as much basis in reality as the tapioca quote. Sounds good, doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

I see no reason to think that 'they' just invented the numbers. The quote was from a college text I read years ago. The study of communication is fairly sophisticated.

Of course, a quick negative quip sounds better.
 
El_Spectre said:
You're right, I don't know this person or his record. Since I don't, I'll give the guy some slack. We were just sharing a bit of humor. Eh, if someone tries to twist my words later and get into an argument, screw 'em. I get myself into enough trouble on my own anyway :)
Click to expand...
Mmm, I suggest you make a search for "Kumar" and read some of the treads. This might enlighten you on a few things about this forum. For instance it may show you that we do actually go to great lengths in order to be educational, instead on just "swatting" people. It may also show you why we are sometimes impatient, and why we are indeed sometimes overcome by the urge to just "swat" somebody, when some old nonsense is brought up again for the umpteenth time.

Hans
 
More Kumar nonsense. I was talking about body language. For your information, Kumar (I'm petty shure everybody else knows), body language is gestures, facial expressions, posture, blushing, etc.

Kumar said:
You mean by EM & M.Waves or these are some new/other types of waves as "thought waves".

Thought waves are the electrical signals in the brain. They can be measured by electrodes on the scalp, and since all electrical signals give rise to EM fields, they can also be detected by very sensitive equipment a short distance from the head (a few inches). So, they are EM waves, nothing new about them. They have been known to exist for more than half a century.

Are these are some newly found/researched type of waves OR is an modification of older waves?

No, there is nothing new about them. They have been used for research and diagnostics for half a century. It is called EEG, ElectroEncephaloGraphy.

What can be the science of undertanding/reading by body languages?

I would think it comes under behavioural research.

What can be the science of sense by eyes & ears?

Partly physics, partly biometrics.

Where there is any interaction within two objects/person--waves/energy-atoms/molecules interactions should be there.

Lightwaves, for seing, sound waves for hearing. Molecular interaction requires very close interaction, typically sexual.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Mmm, I suggest you make a search for "Kumar" and read some of the treads. This might enlighten you on a few things about this forum. For instance it may show you that we do actually go to great lengths in order to be educational, instead on just "swatting" people. It may also show you why we are sometimes impatient, and why we are indeed sometimes overcome by the urge to just "swat" somebody, when some old nonsense is brought up again for the umpteenth time.

Hans
Click to expand...

We have a fundamental disagreement on this subject, and I'm trying to walk away from it, OK?
 
El_Spectre said:
We have a fundamental disagreement on this subject, and I'm trying to walk away from it, OK?
Click to expand...
By all means, if that is your solution. I was just trying to educate you ;).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom