Collective Conscious

[florduh]

While it is a valid point to say that it isn't true based on many failed experiments, to make such a bold statement that it is a foolish belief or wishful thinking, is , in my opinion, foolish.

 

If it is valid to conclude it isn't true based on decades of failed experiments or for any other reason, then it would follow that continuing to believe anyway is indeed wishful thinking.

[gall]

 

Anything is possible. A continuing lack of evidence after decades of study makes a thing very improbable. If one still wishes to believe in something improbable, one must take the route of other religious apologists and claim Phenomenon X is real but is not able to be detected. That is tantamount to nonexistence for us mere mortals and more of an exercise in wishful thinking.

But herein is where your argument is weak. There is some evidence that it is possible. Is it definitive? maybe not. But the fact that there is something that leads researchers to look for more answers indicates that there is at least some surface evidence. Just because there has not yet been an established way to verify it, doesn't mean that it isn't real. Numerous theories abounded that were unprovable until instruments were created to verify them and validate them. The same may be true about esp and telepathy. Just because many experiments have not yielded anything as of yet does not mean that it doesn't exist.

I find it ironic that one of the staples of the scientific community is the willingness to concede the possibility that things are possible. Despite failed experiments, people continue to test and research things always allowing for the possibility that it could be true. But I have noticed that many people on this forum are very closed minded and skeptical. While it is a valid point to say that it isn't true based on many failed experiments, to make such a bold statement that it is a foolish belief or wishful thinking, is , in my opinion, foolish. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but to make assumptions that because other people believe  something is possible is a foolish proposition on your part. In this particular case, you have written off esp and telepathy where science has shown that there is promising evidence. While they have not verified it in is entirety, scientists feel there is enough to continue researching it with more studies. I choose to be open to its possibility. If you choose the opposite, so be it.

 

 

Be open but don't be so open that so called proofs taht actually are circumnstantial and questionable in credibility should sway you to call out someone who actually seems to be very open minded on these forums.

 

I am very skeptical of these things and am always willing to read and look at so called evidence. That does not mean I should assume that it is real of false.

 

The most important concept in science is NOT "I find it ironic that one of the staples of the scientific community is the willingness to concede the possibility that things are possible." It is the ability to say the phrase "I do not know" and actually mean it. One could say anything is possible based on that statement and I would not think any reasonable person would conclude that. They may say "Anything can be considered but we must do so skeptically as to make sure that we are not biased".

 

People here are not as closed as you act here in your post in fact many people are are willing and waiting to consider your "proof" of which I see none here. No study, paper, professional work linked for us to consider. Do not expect us to do the work to make your claims fact, that burden is on you.

 

Until I see proof of this concept in more than words on pages as ideas I will remain skeptical that it exists.

[Voice]

There is great confusion around subjects of telepathy, empathy and collective consciousness, I think for two reasons: largely because there is no clear definition of exactly what KINDS of events we're supposed to be looking at which would allow us to have an intelligent conversation about it; and second, because most people don't actually do any calcs to prove or disprove whether things can even be documented or not.

 

As to 'years of failed experiments,' yes, we have those, but we have experiments that are not failed.  Our military is not stupid enough to allow a continuing budget for something like telepathic research if it didn't have some kind of potential - unless it's a front for something else less stupid, which I wouldn't put past them for a second.

 

For this post I want to define an "event" as something like two people calling each other at the same in a manner that seems random, obscure, unlikely.  There are many ways things like this can happen other than phone calls.  You know what I'm talking about, you've all seen them.  What do you calc the chances of us all having seen such an event to be a coincidence?  Do you realize how many of us there are?  Mathematically it doesn't work out as coincidence.  But again we have to more clearly define what kinds of events we're talking about.

 

After I worked through a bunch of probability calcs for this stuff (very long, laborious process), I found the following things documentable, repeating, and showing on the charts to not be coincidence:

Certain people exhibiting participation in more "events" than other people.  And I had a list of people, one guy spiked way high.  Others pretty high, 3 or 4.

For those who experience events once or twice in a lifetime, the events commonly are health related, trauma related, family related.

For those who experience high numbers of events, events are common, day-to-day, mundane things.

 

I found the following:

A property similar to if not identical to quantum entanglement between people which promotes connectivity/parallel thought.  Causes for it seem variable.  Could be shared emotional experience, could be random.  I haven't found much on what causes it, I've just observed and taken notes on it.  New lovers often will experience it strongly.

The amount of data needed to do these calcs requires collective contribution.  They can barely be accurate if just one person is relied on to provide event data.  The nature of the studies demands they be collective.

 

 

It's important that I address the subject of pseudo-science as someone mentioned it and I'm sure I'm accused of employing it by at least someone.  Just to understand the definition, I think it means you have a hypothesis which you make studies to support, despite mounting evidence against the hypothesis; yet you maintain the hypothesis.  Is this correct?

 

Science, is a method, and most appropriately employed when there's a practical need for it, or discovery or market value.  

State a hypothesis that's based on findings and evidence, gather data, prove or disprove the hypothesis, revise hypothesis according to new data, repeat.  Through proper scientific method, the hypothesis, the model updates, supposedly improving to allow better understanding of things.

[Storm]

Be open but don't be so open that so called proofs taht actually are circumnstantial and questionable in credibility should sway you to call out someone who actually seems to be very open minded on these forums.

 

I am open and I admit that I do not know with any amount of certainty that Telepathy is real. However, even a cursory internet search can find legitimate scientific studies that have, on at least a surface level, valid conclusions of studies that indicate that there is some truth that telepathy exists. Just a couple months ago, Duke University released findings about telepathy in Rats. Other animals in nature seem to show telepathic type behaviors. We are not talking about god or religion in this instance, but an actual real possible occurrence. Something that can actually be tested, if the right test were able to be created. While I agree that there are many studies that are questionable, there are some that indicated that their results indicated that the possibility of telepathy is a distinct possibility above the threshold of chance.

In the particular instance of what I believe, which is that under certain circumstances, humans can somehow transmit an immense need to others using a non standard means of communication. I am not saying that people can necessarily read another person's thoughts, but that some type of non standard communication can be transmitted between people that conveys some innate need that the person receiving the communication can somehow meet. Much like the situation I mentioned earlier. We hear stories of someone having superhuman strength and lifting something very heavy, which in normal circumstances would not be possible, and saving someone's life. I've never questioned it and I have no reason to doubt it. I understand what adrenaline can do.The human body can do extraordinary things that amaze people all the time. This particular scenario is highly unlikely to duplicated in an experimental setting due to the numerous factors that would be present in a real emergency type situation. So, based on the logic that is presented in this thread, I should just dismiss it because its not repeatable and I have not ever seen it with my own eyes. I believe that my hypothesis regarding telepathy is a similar situation. Having a legitimate need and the circumstances that occur in that type of situation are not something that I believe can be duplicated in a lab or in any type of organized study, because, again, the circumstances and pressures of that particular situation are not the same in a controlled environment as in real life. So, truthfully, I doubt that my hypothesis would ever be legitimately studied and that evidence would ever be found to support it or refute it. So, I choose to believe that it is a legitimate possibility based on things I have seen and heard about. Many others, of which you and florduh are a part, choose to not believe. That is fine.

 

 

I am very skeptical of these things and am always willing to read and look at so called evidence. That does not mean I should assume that it is real of false.

 

People here are not as closed as you act here in your post in fact many people are are willing and waiting to consider your "proof" of which I see none here.

I would agree that I made an overgeneralized statement, however, one thing that is very obvious is many people exhibit pessimistic attitudes towards things. While in many cases this is understandable given the subject matter often discussed, which is religion, and often justifiably so with many of the posters in this forum having had very negative experiences with religion and religious people. The problem I have is that in the dissent regarding a particular topic, you all basically make it out that whatever the person believes is just malarkey and that they are morons for believing it. That is what I see. Regularly. That is what I have a problem with. I understand we are humans and I also understand that I am relatively new here in these forums, and that florduh is a moderator and he sees this all the time and likely this has become normal for him. (btw, I have no beef with you florduh, I enjoy your candidness and you are a sharp ol man () and I appreciate that you push me the way you do. I have reexamined many thoughts I have had because of some of the replies you have made.). I also understand that as humans, when others don't see things as clearly or definitively as you do, its easy to face palm and react accordingly in the next post. I get it. Maybe I am just venting. It is just what I see.

 

 

The most important concept in science is NOT "I find it ironic that one of the staples of the scientific community is the willingness to concede the possibility that things are possible." It is the ability to say the phrase "I do not know" and actually mean it. One could say anything is possible based on that statement and I would not think any reasonable person would conclude that. They may say "Anything can be considered but we must do so skeptically as to make sure that we are not biased".

I disagree. To study something, you must try to see every vantage point or see every pro and con. You hypothesize and make a statement that tries to prove or disprove something. Either A is true or B is true or neither is true or both are true. You have to be open to all realms of possibility. That is what I don't know means. To be open and honest means to be willing to accept whatever outcome may present itself. That is what I am referring to. To be skeptical is unwarranted and can show bias even before any experiment begins. To be skeptical by definition is to show doubt. Science isn't necessarily about doubt. It is about testing hypotheses and examining the results. Doubt doesn't necessarily have anything to do with experimentation or the evidence. It is perfectly fine to be skeptical about something after having consistently negative results, but doubt isn't necessary. If you exhibit doubt before conducting an experiment, you can be so biased in what you look for that you may miss something that is relevant.

[gall]

 

Be open but don't be so open that so called proofs taht actually are circumnstantial and questionable in credibility should sway you to call out someone who actually seems to be very open minded on these forums.

 

I am open and I admit that I do not know with any amount of certainty that Telepathy is real. However, even a cursory internet search can find legitimate scientific studies that have, on at least a surface level, valid conclusions of studies that indicate that there is some truth that telepathy exists. Just a couple months ago, Duke University released findings about telepathy in Rats. Other animals in nature seem to show telepathic type behaviors. We are not talking about god or religion in this instance, but an actual real possible occurrence. Something that can actually be tested, if the right test were able to be created. While I agree that there are many studies that are questionable, there are some that indicated that their results indicated that the possibility of telepathy is a distinct possibility above the threshold of chance.

In the particular instance of what I believe, which is that under certain circumstances, humans can somehow transmit an immense need to others using a non standard means of communication. I am not saying that people can necessarily read another person's thoughts, but that some type of non standard communication can be transmitted between people that conveys some innate need that the person receiving the communication can somehow meet. Much like the situation I mentioned earlier. We hear stories of someone having superhuman strength and lifting something very heavy, which in normal circumstances would not be possible, and saving someone's life. I've never questioned it and I have no reason to doubt it. I understand what adrenaline can do.The human body can do extraordinary things that amaze people all the time. This particular scenario is highly unlikely to duplicated in an experimental setting due to the numerous factors that would be present in a real emergency type situation. So, based on the logic that is presented in this thread, I should just dismiss it because its not repeatable and I have not ever seen it with my own eyes. I believe that my hypothesis regarding telepathy is a similar situation. Having a legitimate need and the circumstances that occur in that type of situation are not something that I believe can be duplicated in a lab or in any type of organized study, because, again, the circumstances and pressures of that particular situation are not the same in a controlled environment as in real life. So, truthfully, I doubt that my hypothesis would ever be legitimately studied and that evidence would ever be found to support it or refute it. So, I choose to believe that it is a legitimate possibility based on things I have seen and heard about. Many others, of which you and florduh are a part, choose to not believe. That is fine.

 

 

I am very skeptical of these things and am always willing to read and look at so called evidence. That does not mean I should assume that it is real of false.

 

People here are not as closed as you act here in your post in fact many people are are willing and waiting to consider your "proof" of which I see none here.

I would agree that I made an overgeneralized statement, however, one thing that is very obvious is many people exhibit pessimistic attitudes towards things. While in many cases this is understandable given the subject matter often discussed, which is religion, and often justifiably so with many of the posters in this forum having had very negative experiences with religion and religious people. The problem I have is that in the dissent regarding a particular topic, you all basically make it out that whatever the person believes is just malarkey and that they are morons for believing it. That is what I see. Regularly. That is what I have a problem with. I understand we are humans and I also understand that I am relatively new here in these forums, and that florduh is a moderator and he sees this all the time and likely this has become normal for him. (btw, I have no beef with you florduh, I enjoy your candidness and you are a sharp ol man () and I appreciate that you push me the way you do. I have reexamined many thoughts I have had because of some of the replies you have made.). I also understand that as humans, when others don't see things as clearly or definitively as you do, its easy to face palm and react accordingly in the next post. I get it. Maybe I am just venting. It is just what I see.

 

 

The most important concept in science is NOT "I find it ironic that one of the staples of the scientific community is the willingness to concede the possibility that things are possible." It is the ability to say the phrase "I do not know" and actually mean it. One could say anything is possible based on that statement and I would not think any reasonable person would conclude that. They may say "Anything can be considered but we must do so skeptically as to make sure that we are not biased".

I disagree. To study something, you must try to see every vantage point or see every pro and con. You hypothesize and make a statement that tries to prove or disprove something. Either A is true or B is true or neither is true or both are true. You have to be open to all realms of possibility. That is what I don't know means. To be open and honest means to be willing to accept whatever outcome may present itself. That is what I am referring to. To be skeptical is unwarranted and can show bias even before any experiment begins. To be skeptical by definition is to show doubt. Science isn't necessarily about doubt. It is about testing hypotheses and examining the results. Doubt doesn't necessarily have anything to do with experimentation or the evidence. It is perfectly fine to be skeptical about something after having consistently negative results, but doubt isn't necessary. If you exhibit doubt before conducting an experiment, you can be so biased in what you look for that you may miss something that is relevant.

 

 

I had some witty response and then decided just not to. We are all entitled to our own ideas. I see yours here and accept you have them. I wish I had time to go further right now. Maybe next time I can log on sorry.

[Storm]

 

 

I had some witty response and then decided just not to. We are all entitled to our own ideas. I see yours here and accept you have them. I wish I had time to go further right now. Maybe next time I can log on sorry.

I am glad you are challenging my assertions. I have no ill will against you. I admit I do not know everything. I will admit when I am wrong. I enjoy constructive criticism. I want to be the best I can be. (insert army commercial here)(smirk). Please challenge me. I am not afraid to respond. Have a good rest of your day.

[VacuumFlux]

 

Be open but don't be so open that so called proofs taht actually are circumnstantial and questionable in credibility should sway you to call out someone who actually seems to be very open minded on these forums.

 

I am open and I admit that I do not know with any amount of certainty that Telepathy is real. However, even a cursory internet search can find legitimate scientific studies that have, on at least a surface level, valid conclusions of studies that indicate that there is some truth that telepathy exists. Just a couple months ago, Duke University released findings about telepathy in Rats. Other animals in nature seem to show telepathic type behaviors. We are not talking about god or religion in this instance, but an actual real possible occurrence. Something that can actually be tested, if the right test were able to be created. While I agree that there are many studies that are questionable, there are some that indicated that their results indicated that the possibility of telepathy is a distinct possibility above the threshold of chance.

In the particular instance of what I believe, which is that under certain circumstances, humans can somehow transmit an immense need to others using a non standard means of communication. I am not saying that people can necessarily read another person's thoughts, but that some type of non standard communication can be transmitted between people that conveys some innate need that the person receiving the communication can somehow meet.

 

The Duke thing, if I've found the right study, isn't exactly telepathy in the sense we're discussing in the thread. It's still pretty neat, though.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/two-rats-thousands-miles-apart-cooperate-telepathically-brain-implant-1C8608274

 

 

In the latest "mind-reading" experiment, both lead and follow rats went through a series of training phases. The leader rat was trained to use a lit light bulb to choose which of two levers to press. The second rat was trained to receive and act on gentle zaps of electrical stimulation in its brain. Once the two were wired up together, the second rat received signals from the leader rat's brain indicating which lever to choose. When the follower pressed the right lever, it was rewarded with water, and the leader was rewarded as well.

 

The leader rat eventually figured out that the clearer he was with his “instructions,” the better his chances of getting a double reward. Frostig pointed out that this training was crucial to the success of this series of demonstrations.

 

While the link between the rats seems telepathic to casual observer, the rats don't necessarily know the other exists, Nicolelis explains. The follower rat feels a tingle in its brain and discovers that interpreting it one way rather than another leads to a reward.

 

So there wasn't information being transmittied directly from one brain to another; there was still a learning period while the second rat had to learn a new "language" based on the inputs it was getting.

 

If there is some sort of telepathy out there, I'd guess it would work that way - translating the information coming through some intermediate medium, not direct mind-to-mind data transfer. Our neurons are just too directly wired to the peculiarities of our own bodies and life history for that direct of a thought transfer to seem plausable to me. And then the information we'd get would be just as subject to misunderstanding as any other form of human communication, or perhaps moreso if it's something we use less often than we use speech and writing and thus don't develop the necessary skills.

 

As I kid, I loved the idea and kept wanting to have telepathy and maybe telekenesis. I loved the stories about people bonding telepathically with an animal, and then they'd never be alone again and always be loved. Eventually I realized that I was spending so much time yearning for something I wasn't going to have that I was missing out on the life I did have available. So now I try not to daydream about telepathy too mush so that I don't retreat into my personal fantasy world again and have trouble connecting with my real life, trouble "settling" for mere face-to-face conversations with flesh and blood humans and all the messy miscommunication that entails.

[Storm]

Was just reading through this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Maybe this is more in line with what I am thinking.

[miekko]

Here, scientific literacy is an important thing: if you show an article like that to someone who isn't scientifically literate, and tell them the article says they've found that rats are telepathic, lots of people will think that's what the article says. And that's quite a problem - there's way too much stuff in circulation among both the credulous and the slightly skeptical that is based in a fifth-hand retelling of a misunderstood article.

[Storm]

Here, scientific literacy is an important thing: if you show an article like that to someone who isn't scientifically literate, and tell them the article says they've found that rats are telepathic, lots of people will think that's what the article says. And that's quite a problem - there's way too much stuff in circulation among both the credulous and the slightly skeptical that is based in a fifth-hand retelling of a misunderstood article.

True enough and fair enough. I made an assumption that everyone reading this is on a specific academic level. I was unable to access the actual published article, as is true with many of the articles I have tried to read because they want you to pay for access. I may head over to my local university and see if I can conjure up some good articles. I think wiki is a viable source, but it is not perfect. But it tries. Numerous people reference it in these forums, so I suspect it has validity in some circles.

[kolaida]

I don't know about telepathy, but I have heard of people sensing stuff.  The day my aunt died, I got a really horrible feeling at work and I wasn't even particularly close to her.  However,   I knew she'd been sick (throat cancer) and had been kind of expecting it.  It had been talked a lot about in my house, so I wasn't too sure what I was unsettled about, but I remember thinking of her.  I think it was just that I was more attuned to what had been going on in my life.  I do think people can be more attuned to the going ons in the world and sometimes sense something is gonna happen, but not to the point it's considered telepathy, I'd just call it intuition.  Because, as Ralet pointed out, I have had other times where I got a bad feeling and nothing bad at all happened. 

[miekko]

 

Here, scientific literacy is an important thing: if you show an article like that to someone who isn't scientifically literate, and tell them the article says they've found that rats are telepathic, lots of people will think that's what the article says. And that's quite a problem - there's way too much stuff in circulation among both the credulous and the slightly skeptical that is based in a fifth-hand retelling of a misunderstood article.

True enough and fair enough. I made an assumption that everyone reading this is on a specific academic level. I was unable to access the actual published article, as is true with many of the articles I have tried to read because they want you to pay for access. I may head over to my local university and see if I can conjure up some good articles. I think wiki is a viable source, but it is not perfect. But it tries. Numerous people reference it in these forums, so I suspect it has validity in some circles.

 

Even worse, you actually misrepresented what it said, or got that wrong in the first place - the first of which is somewhat of a no-no on academic levels, and the other can be a bit less so, but in the latter case, on academic levels the original source is generally what counts if you're going to quote someone as support for a claim. It was not about telepathy, it was about brain-machine interfaces. The original actual paper NEVER mentioned the word 'telepathy', nor did it imply anything remotely like it. Science reporting is generally shit, and it doesn't help that the science reporters use words with such connotations.

 

The original paper, if you're interested, can be found at http://www.nicolelislab.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SREP-12-04012-5e86523b-1562-41b8-bcd1-c83506e6b9bc.pdf

 

There is further a bit in the paper that seems rather suspect: they claim a bunch of brains interconnected with this technology maybe could solve things Turing-machines cannot solve (but it clarifies that this is nothing but speculation.)

[Storm]

 

 

Here, scientific literacy is an important thing: if you show an article like that to someone who isn't scientifically literate, and tell them the article says they've found that rats are telepathic, lots of people will think that's what the article says. And that's quite a problem - there's way too much stuff in circulation among both the credulous and the slightly skeptical that is based in a fifth-hand retelling of a misunderstood article.

True enough and fair enough. I made an assumption that everyone reading this is on a specific academic level. I was unable to access the actual published article, as is true with many of the articles I have tried to read because they want you to pay for access. I may head over to my local university and see if I can conjure up some good articles. I think wiki is a viable source, but it is not perfect. But it tries. Numerous people reference it in these forums, so I suspect it has validity in some circles.

 

Even worse, you actually misrepresented what it said, or got that wrong in the first place - the first of which is somewhat of a no-no on academic levels, and the other can be a bit less so, but in the latter case, on academic levels the original source is generally what counts if you're going to quote someone as support for a claim. It was not about telepathy, it was about brain-machine interfaces. The original actual paper NEVER mentioned the word 'telepathy', nor did it imply anything remotely like it. Science reporting is generally shit, and it doesn't help that the science reporters use words with such connotations.

 

The original paper, if you're interested, can be found at http://www.nicolelislab.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SREP-12-04012-5e86523b-1562-41b8-bcd1-c83506e6b9bc.pdf

 

There is further a bit in the paper that seems rather suspect: they claim a bunch of brains interconnected with this technology maybe could solve things Turing-machines cannot solve (but it clarifies that this is nothing but speculation.)

 

I actually made no misrepresentation of anything. The article is in fact entirely about telepathy. I think you need to look up what telepathy actually is and not confuse it with mind reading. The article is not about mind reading, its about rats being able to communicate with each other about making specific choices in a non standard form of communication. In this particular case, they used a brain interface to communicate. It appears that you are making assumptions about what I hypothesized about and I would suggest that you reread my hypothesis that I made earlier in this thread. Once you have that down, I am more than willing to have a discussion. 

[miekko]

 

 

 

Here, scientific literacy is an important thing: if you show an article like that to someone who isn't scientifically literate, and tell them the article says they've found that rats are telepathic, lots of people will think that's what the article says. And that's quite a problem - there's way too much stuff in circulation among both the credulous and the slightly skeptical that is based in a fifth-hand retelling of a misunderstood article.

True enough and fair enough. I made an assumption that everyone reading this is on a specific academic level. I was unable to access the actual published article, as is true with many of the articles I have tried to read because they want you to pay for access. I may head over to my local university and see if I can conjure up some good articles. I think wiki is a viable source, but it is not perfect. But it tries. Numerous people reference it in these forums, so I suspect it has validity in some circles.

 

Even worse, you actually misrepresented what it said, or got that wrong in the first place - the first of which is somewhat of a no-no on academic levels, and the other can be a bit less so, but in the latter case, on academic levels the original source is generally what counts if you're going to quote someone as support for a claim. It was not about telepathy, it was about brain-machine interfaces. The original actual paper NEVER mentioned the word 'telepathy', nor did it imply anything remotely like it. Science reporting is generally shit, and it doesn't help that the science reporters use words with such connotations.

 

The original paper, if you're interested, can be found at http://www.nicolelislab.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SREP-12-04012-5e86523b-1562-41b8-bcd1-c83506e6b9bc.pdf

 

There is further a bit in the paper that seems rather suspect: they claim a bunch of brains interconnected with this technology maybe could solve things Turing-machines cannot solve (but it clarifies that this is nothing but speculation.)

 

I actually made no misrepresentation of anything. The article is in fact entirely about telepathy. I think you need to look up what telepathy actually is and not confuse it with mind reading. The article is not about mind reading, its about rats being able to communicate with each other about making specific choices in a non standard form of communication. In this particular case, they used a brain interface to communicate. It appears that you are making assumptions about what I hypothesized about and I would suggest that you reread my hypothesis that I made earlier in this thread. Once you have that down, I am more than willing to have a discussion. 

 

... The article you quoted indeed talks about telepathy, but that is not a good representation of the original paper. Using the word "telepathy" automatically brings along a bunch of misleading baggage, and the absolute majority of readers will think you're saying something else than what you were trying to say. Clarity is helpful, and you failed clarity big time.

[Deva]

I'll start a separate thread to discuss UFOs and my other wacky opinions that way it will not derail this discussion of collective consciousness.

 

Good. Looking forward to it. 

[Deva]

As I kid, I loved the idea and kept wanting to have telepathy and maybe telekenesis. I loved the stories about people bonding telepathically with an animal, and then they'd never be alone again and always be loved. Eventually I realized that I was spending so much time yearning for something I wasn't going to have that I was missing out on the life I did have available. So now I try not to daydream about telepathy too mush so that I don't retreat into my personal fantasy world again and have trouble connecting with my real life, trouble "settling" for mere face-to-face conversations with flesh and blood humans and all the messy miscommunication that entails.

 

 

Have you read Rupert Sheldrake's book "Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home.."?  I think you would really be interested in it.

[Storm]

I want to make a specific definition of Telepathy before any further discussion. I propose the following Definitions:

 

Being- any animal or creature that is capable of communicating using the 5 known senses

Non Standard Communication- any communication that does not use any of the 5 known senses

 

Telepathy- the transfer of information between two or more beings using non standard communication.

 

I hope this clarifies any discussion that may proceed and I have assumed this definition in my previous posts.

[Storm]

Continuing the discussion on Telepathy…

 

In the published rat article, the authors make the following quote in the Discussion section:

 

     “As far as we can tell, these findings demonstrate for the first time that a

      direct channel for behavioral information exchange can be established

      between two animal’s brains without the use of the animal’s

      regular forms of communication. Essentially, our results indicate

      that animal brain dyads or even brain networks could allow animal

      groups to synchronize their behaviors following neuronal-based

      cues.”

 

This is telepathy in its entirety. I know that it was accomplished with help, but it is actually telepathy. If you want to classify it as electronic telepathy or assisted telepathy, I have no issue with that.  To me, this may very well open the door to science being able to encode or figure out more about how memories and logic and decision making are made. Humans made an interface that was able to translate motor cortex information made from one rat and it was sent to, and translated by, another rat. They further stated in the discussion section:

 

     “We speculate that the description of the complex system generated

      by the dyad transferring information and collaborating in real

      time, will reveal fundamental properties about the neural basis of

      communication and social interactions.”

 

What implications this will have in the future is still yet to be determined, but it excites me. I am currently having a hard time coming up with a feasible scenario in general daily life where telepathy might be useful, but I could see its usefulness in a military application. Regardless, this is the first step in a process that can help us understand more about decision making and thought processes and many other things regarding the brain and communication.

 

I’m going to get on my soap box here for a minute and make a few statements. I find it amazing that the level of skepticism exists about non-assisted telepathy. This is something that can actually be tested for and can potentially be studied. I understand that there are a lot of problems in the testing of this particular subject. A generally recognized standard does not yet exist as to what constitutes the criteria of what is trying to be determined. No clear definitions of telepathy and ESP and Clairvoyance and Precognition and other types of nonstandard communication exist and therefore attempting to prove them comes with much confusion and skepticism. Rightfully so. If there were to be agreed upon standards and, thereafter, more credible testing standards and methods, there exists the possibility that it could be verified under the right circumstances. It is entirely feasible to believe that we may not yet possess the technology to test it or that we are asking the wrong questions or testing the wrong things. That is the great thing about using scientific methods. You can propose a hypothesis, do a study, run experiments, publish the findings, receive feedback, review the hypothesis, make any changes, retest it and continue the cycle. I want to stress that failure to prove anything as of yet does not mean that it does not exist. While numerous studies failed to provide significant evidence of proof, many of those same studies were deemed to be scandalous, or had too much bias, or failed in other aspects. That doesn’t necessarily mean that this has been disproven. It is an obstacle that will be significant to overcome, but I think that it can be done. I whole heartedly agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. My optimism may ultimately be proven wrong. I can accept that. But as of this point in time, I fail to see that it has ultimately been proven to be untrue.

 

As I look through my own known world, I have read about and seen videos of people with extraordinary “superhuman” abilities. People like Liam Hoekstra, Isao Machii, Wim Hof, and Ben Underwood. There are people who have variations of this ability. Others who have amazing mental abilities possibly due to Autism or some other brain defect, tumor or anomaly such as these people.  I see this and I am amazed at what they can do and then I begin to ask myself, is it really that far-fetched to think that it is possible that telepathy can and does exist? My immediate answer is no, not really. As I have mentioned previously, I believe that something happens to us when we are stressed about things or are in some type of serious need. I believe that in these situations, humans, in some way shape or form, are able to communicate outside the five known senses . Do these communications always succeed? Certainly not. Just because you can yell “I Need Help” doesn’t mean that someone will hear you, or even act on it. Likewise, your brain may send out a signal, and maybe only one person among many can pick up on it. Who knows?

 

There are many human actions that have yet to be solidly explained, such as yawning, and why is it that when one person yawns, it seems like everyone else follows. Theories exist and it appears that multiple ones have validity. There is so much about the brain that we do not know (article here) that to make such a definitive statement such as this:

 

miekko, on 15 Aug 2013 - 4:59 PM, said:

 

My genuine intuition on this is that believing in telepathy is as retarded as believing in Christianity, tbh. 

 

Seem to be, at best, premature. As I mentioned earlier, Telepathy actually does exist.

 

In these forums I hear regularly some variation of the argument that if it is improbable, then it should be dismissed. Well, it’s highly improbable that anyone would ever win the lottery, but people win it all the time. It’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning, but it happens. It took Thomas Edison more than 2000 types of filaments before he found the best one. Improbability can be a weak argument to dismiss something. It is a good thing that some people march to the beat of their own drums, because if they listened to the nay-sayers, we wouldn’t likely have many of the cool electronic gadgets we enjoy now, or understand medical phenomenon, or some of the beautiful structures and pieces of art that exist. I choose to believe. If you do not, that’s ok. I am excited about the future and what it holds. I hope you are too.

[florduh]

Why do so many people act as if this stuff has never been studied? I guess even more study is needed; experiment until you get the result you want. If you're holding your breath, you're already dead because the results have been negative for half a century now.

[Storm]

Why do so many people act as if this stuff has never been studied? I guess even more study is needed; experiment until you get the result you want. If you're holding your breath, you're already dead because the results have been negative for half a century now.

"Tom, Lets stop testing filaments because the first 1500 didn't work very well."

Lets stop testing evolution because we've got enough evidence to prove it.

Lets stop working towards improving our lives because things are just fine the way they are.

I never said it wasn't studied. I know it has been studied. I just don't think it has been done properly. I am unsatisfied with the results, not because I am wanting to beat a dead horse hoping it will come to life, but because I don't think it has been studied properly and too much corruption, bias and unscientific methodology has been bringing it to poor credibility. Apparently, many other aren't satisfied as well.  So why stop?

String theory is a popular theory and it has serious problems and will be very difficult to prove, so why bother continuing to study it? ( Before anyone blasts me on this, I do not claim to know much about it, just what I've read on this wiki site)

[florduh]

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

 

Science has never gotten a positive result where pseudoscience abounds with "proofs."

 

During the most recent heyday of the psychic phenomena craze, all kinds of phenomena were seriously studied for years by various universities and governments. The US invested a lot of time and money into "remote viewing" in particular because of its military applications. They have all abandoned the research, having determined it would always lead to a dead end. Of course, there is always a new generation to carry on the hope. Perhaps the government or major university has once again been tempted to invest money in the dream, I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. Keeping an open mind is important to new discoveries, but for most there comes a point where you recognize failure and move on. Others are more persistent. Actually, I, too, would love to live in a magical world; it would be so much more interesting. I sincerely say good luck to the psychics and spirit people. I just wearied of a lifetime of waiting for results.

[Deva]

I haven't read much about the government experiments, but what I have read indicates the Soviets were doing it and the motivation was to beat them in everything - that was the whole man on the moon, space race incentive. There were statistically significant results with the experiments. The fact that they couldn't find a practical way to make telepathy work the way they wanted it to doesn't mean telepathy doesn't exist.

 

I am glad people like Rupert Sheldrake have continued to study this area. I just wish there were more of them.

[Storm]

I would also argue that it would be foolish to abandon it all due to unsuccessful proof when we know that there is an incredible amount of stuff that we do not know about the brain and how it works. When we know all and when we have exhausted all resources, then it can be definitively proven or unproven. Until then, I am not willing to make an official declaration. 

[Deva]

In these forums I hear regularly some variation of the argument that if it is improbable, then it should be dismissed. Well, it’s highly improbable that anyone would ever win the lottery, but people win it all the time. It’s highly improbable that someone will be struck by lightning, but it happens. It took Thomas Edison more than 2000 types of filaments before he found the best one. Improbability can be a weak argument to dismiss something. It is a good thing that some people march to the beat of their own drums, because if they listened to the nay-sayers, we wouldn’t likely have many of the cool electronic gadgets we enjoy now, or understand medical phenomenon, or some of the beautiful structures and pieces of art that exist. I choose to believe. If you do not, that’s ok. I am excited about the future and what it holds. I hope you are too.

 

I agree. I see it as a certain world view that is threatened and therefore the phenomenon is dismissed because it cannot be explained within the framework of said world view.

 

Even though these phenomenon cannot be presently explained by science, perhaps one day they will, but that might require another revolution in science comparable to the discoveries of Einstein. I personally think it is exciting that there is so much evidence that telepathy exists. 

[florduh]

I see it as a certain world view that is threatened and therefore the phenomenon is dismissed because it cannot be explained within the framework of said world view.

 

It would be an exciting new field for science to pursue, but evidence hasn't been forthcoming. Most people, even scientists, want answers. The people with a world view to protect seem to be those other than the scientists. That's not to say that some researchers don't fight to hang on to their pet theories.

 

I personally think it is exciting that there is so much evidence that telepathy exists. 

 

If there was "so much evidence" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps you are referring to personal anecdotes.