Evidence proving telepathy does not exist. (poll as well)

Nope. Got nothing.

I have been witnessing many posts where telepathy is claimed to exist (even my own), but I'd like to see some plausible explanations or proof to the contrary.

If you already are "open-minded" about its possibilities then I am not asking for proof "for telepathy". I would like to know what bars the possibility.

any takers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course its possible. Not very probable, however. Given the amount of investigation and research into the subject that has come up empty. I'm speaking here, of course, about "psi," esp, remote viewing, etc.

Intuition is something else entirely. this is merely the natural human capacity to recognize patterns and anticipate effects. This is how we do well driving in heavy traffic, for instance. There is a distinct pattern to the traffic and deviant anomalies get our attention. We anticipate the behavior of other drivers and plan accordingly, etc. Some of us are better than others and we're better sometimes than others -depending on our level of attentiveness and alertness.

Intuition, therefore, is more than just possible -it is a very probable condition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We first need clarification.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To falsify telepathy instead of attempting to prove a negative, you should provide an alternate hypothesis to explain telepathy (prove another alternate positive)......in other words provide an alternate explanation for how so called telepathic experiences and events occur that doesn't require telepathy.....

 

We already know it exists, the question is whether it work on the macro-scale as opposed to simply within the quantum domain, or to be alittle more percise if we can pin it down in a laboratory setting.
Atm its more of a word-of-mouth/inter-personal proof thing, ive spoken to quite a few identical twins who are absolutely positive that they know when their twin is experiencing pain (and can pin-point the area) or simply knows when their twin is in danger.
Given that at one stage in their development they were simply a mass of entangled particles it really isnt that far-fetched that they would continue to share that synergy once born and seperated out from each other. It's just action at a distance on a more complex scale.
However again, would be nice to pin something like that down within controlled conditions.

 

i think maybe our minds can pick up on certain things subconsciously, its unlikely that what we think of as telepathy exists though.


but i do think that our minds subconsciously send signals and pick up on certain things, im not quite sure about any of this 100% but i once thought it was an evolutionary trait built into our survival instinct but now i dont think thats true,

something tells me dreams and telepathy are connected in some way but i dont know i havent thought about this in a long time,


peace.

 

oh and about intuition, i seriously never thought it was thought of as false by anyone, intuition is a constant reality to me anyway,

are we thinking of the same intuition here? or have i got confused along the way soemwhere?

peace.

 

a reasonable position I think Skin walker.

However i question just how much computation is required by a person driving in heavy traffic [ using your example ]to not only avoid collisions but drive smoothly, talk on a cell phone and plan that weekends activities.

I would guess that even our biggest super computers would fail miserably at the task. especially given the huge number of possible variables external to the driver that woud have to be considered as part of any computation. [ not just what is happening but also what is not happening around the driver]

Not only do we have to process all incoming light signals constantly as our field of vision shifts we have to compute all our senses simultaneously.

The brain is pretty good I must admit but hey even though it is a miracle in itself it aint that miraculous.

Drive and manage the Autonomic functions of the body and brain , compute all light and sensory data constantly recalculating and interpreting...think about teh past and future .sheesh!!! no wonder I am tired after getting home from work....ha.

Question: How many neurons are needed to change a light bulb?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

May be some one should try to work out how many ziga-bytes processors would be needed to just deal with light info alone then multipy that to accomodate all the other senses and then work out the same for predictive and memory fuctions....not to mention creative aspects such as improvisation.

I think you will find that it would be not only impossible for the human to function normally but that it would be a gross ignorance of oscas razor to think that evolution would be so stupid and inefficient. [ given the infinite nature of all those variables ]

I did an exercise once trying to work out the most efficient way of designing a collective of pseudo humanoid robots [non- self creative rigid programing and randomness functions] in a fixed environment and the amount of processing needed was astonomical if each robots internal information was kept isolated from the other. As soon as each robot had insight into the others state and position from with in the other robot via radio waves the amount of processing required dropped hugely to the point of practicable application even using todays Information technology.

I'll see if I can dig up the files and post later

 

human nature a defaulto

 

Basically what I am saying with the above is that it would not be too hard I feel to prove that the human mind body would not function in a collective as it does if we maintain the notion of non-psychic interaction.

It would be impossible for our own existance without the psychic interaction occuring and doing so in ways that are productive, thus our psychic nature is proven by default and because of necessity.

 

It's quite "simple", really. There are many every-day occurances (such as saying things at the exact same time, or knowing what the other is thinking) which happen far more then random chance dictates.

Of course, this ignores things like body language, or perhaps circumstances, but there are many times where you just "know" things that are about to happen, and watch as events unfold (at least, for me. I know some of you probably had similar experiences).

In this way, it's probable to assume both telepathy and some sort of precognitive "guessing" exist (simply by observing what happens around you). But i am disappointed with the science community at large, as it has blatantly refused to do any honest work in the field. Those that have, are quickly branded as "nutjobs" or whatever else.

all in all, I merely wish there would be some major scientific attempt to prove, once and for all, whether or not such a phenomenon is capable by human beings. And I'm referring to the scientific, not spiritualistic, aspect of it.

 

I think maybe like having the same information, they might have close enough thoughts to be considered telepathic by times,

 

Intuition is a definite!

 

People not knowing immediately upon seeing me that I'm a virgin, that's the thing that really proves it can't exist.. and believe me when they find out they're all like "oh what you don't have a gf, omg" and they never wanna date me themselves, so :shrug:

 

I think there's generally two distinct meanings of 'intuition' - one being extra-rational reasoing, or perhaps a more visceral form of reasoning.

The other meaning i think simply equates intuition with something like common sense, 'intuitively i know that effect follows cause' for instance.
Although as science frequently shows us what we intuitively know to be true, is really just the sum total of our assumptions about reality that we've formed by our early teens.

 

i didnt know that,


peace.

 

Interesting idea. How would you prove this though? Attempts to prove psychic ability have not gone so well so far.

Why would it be impossible? Why aren't our known senses enough to explain this?

 

We only remember the coincidences. While it may appear that these surpising occurrences happen regularly when you think of all the events that happen in a day it really isn't that suprising that there are a few coincidences now and then.

There has been many attempts to prove it once and for all. The evidence has not been very convincing so far which is why we still debate the issue. It does not matter how many tests are failures, people just "know" that it must be true so testing will continue.

 

Read: I said with such a high rate it's improbable to be by chance or coincidence.

And these tests are where?

 

I have a small telepathic ability to feel my relatives.