elte
Valued Senior Member
I appreciate how you said you agree. I would even agree that telepathy existed if we could use such a non-standard definition as it is a guess that turned out to be correct about what someone is thinking.
A simple proof of common telepathic connectivity
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I appreciate how you said you agree. I would even agree that telepathy existed if we could use such a non-standard definition as it is a guess that turned out to be correct about what someone is thinking.
I am not trying to be silly or overly critical when I ask:
That's an interesting take on it. Where did you dig that one up?
do you have a link or some sort of reference?
elte
Valued Senior Member
Well there is the problem that people too often think we offer consent or validation by not speaking against an assertion they are making. Too often we have had misleaders take people who were mistaken down some wrong path, so it can have bad consequences if we don't question claimants.
One of my the few friends that I have had got very upset and broke off friendship largely because I wouldn't agree with his belief in crystals as having powers like being able to heal.
but were you failing to see that you are not allowing him to have the beliefs he chooses to have?
Were you saying to him that he was a fool for believing what he believed?
Am I saying that you are a fool for believing that a belief in the reality of telepathy is state of delusion?
the question comes down to this:
Do you believe that others have just as much right to believe as they choose to, as you do?
If you answered yes, my guess is you would probably still have your friend as a friend...
or alternatively ask the same question of your ex friend.
edit:
Ever heard of a company called Swarovski Possibly if you are interested do some really deep research into the activities of this company and you may be surprised by what you find about crystals [A lot more than mere jewellery]
elte
Valued Senior Member
That's just my summary of how we exist from a physiological perspective. It's based on my years of observation and evaluation.
elte
Valued Senior Member
I'm not saying that he or you are fools. Just very likely mistaken.
I can't choose a belief. My mind evaluates the evidence and the conclusion just comes. I can't reject it and choose to believe something else.
accepted...
with out doing the work needed to support your opinion...why do you think that I am most likely mistaken about the issues raised in the OP for example?
remember the OP is not about Elte or me, but about an observation and experience that I am suggesting that many persons have made and had. [but never seriously considered how it happened before.]
elte
Valued Senior Member
thanks
I've long been interested in and evaluated these types of things. However, the burden shouldn't be on me to try to support claims of occurrences that other people make about paranormal things going on.
but it's not...
I do question though : "Why do you think you are being called upon to support it?"
When the OP clearly states:
So far no "critical thoughts" have been offered. Only defensive emotional and egoistic hubris instead.
I personally believe that a proper scientific study could be designed and carried out which would provide some very interesting results. However due to the emotional reactions to any issue regarding psychic connectivity this is unlikely to happen any time soon.
elte
Valued Senior Member
Oh OK, my thoughts, though critical, aren't considered relevant to what you wanted in the conversation and they weren't critical of the position, according to you. I gave you what you asked. If anybody has shown hubris, it is the person claiming to have special powers. That wasn't me in this thread.
Do you believe other people are experiencing this pheno as suggested in the OP on a common and mundane basis or not?
What makes you think that there is a claim for "special powers" as you put it? [When the OP refers to it as a mundane and common every day occurrence.]
Have I claimed that people have special powers? [remember "mundane and common"]
Does the reality of peoples mundane and common experiences have any say in this what so ever?
With regard the OP.
Just as we know from visual clues when someone is no longer paying attention, so we can often tell from purely audio clues.
Especially when the audio is the only thing we have to go on.
When conversing on the phone there is a natural pattern to the conversation that the brain picks up on.
Subconsciously.
And when that pattern gets broken, such as a very slightly longer pause than expected, then we pick up on it.
This is not telepathy.
This is just the brain focussing on patterns and reacting to when the pattern breaks.
It may not even be pauses but the tone of the person's response.
Or slight hesitations etc.
Anytime there is visual or audio connection between two parties, trying to argue for telepathy rather than just subconsciously picking up on non-telepathic signals, becomes rather difficult, IMO.
I certainly see nothing of telepathy in the example in the OP.
Just as we know from visual clues when someone is no longer paying attention, so we can often tell from purely audio clues.
Especially when the audio is the only thing we have to go on.
When conversing on the phone there is a natural pattern to the conversation that the brain picks up on.
Subconsciously.
And when that pattern gets broken, such as a very slightly longer pause than expected, then we pick up on it.
This is not telepathy.
This is just the brain focussing on patterns and reacting to when the pattern breaks.
It may not even be pauses but the tone of the person's response.
Or slight hesitations etc.
Anytime there is visual or audio connection between two parties, trying to argue for telepathy rather than just subconsciously picking up on non-telepathic signals, becomes rather difficult, IMO.
I certainly see nothing of telepathy in the example in the OP.
thanks for posting and indicating that you grasp the issue presented in the OP.
You are quite correct and I agree that in most rapid or normal banter type discussion this is the case, audio clues are very handy and indeed informative.
However it is the longer spanning explanations etc, the ones that take more than a few words to express that have to be silently listened to be understood etc that are the primary concern of the OP.
To exemplify the issue I ask the following questions. [ they re not directed at you and are directed at no one in particular]
How many times have you realized half way through a long sentence that the "silent" listener on the other end of the telephone line has tuned out, causing you to change what you were going to say in an attempt to maintain interest?
How many times have you baited a person you are talking to when realizing they have tuned out with totally irrelevant information?
for example:
Me: "Hey mom, I couldn't come over for lunch because I had to go down to the store and buy those books I wanted *** and elephants that are pink can't fly but blue ones can..."
Mom: "Yes dear, and by the way how's your father?"
This sort of fiasco happens all the time in sometimes very subtle forms. The (***) indicating the moment of realization [with no visual or auditory clues available]
Also this is very common when dealing with broadly classified "Dementia" patients and especially during the very early stages where the ability to hold "effective telephone conversations" deteriorates significantly as the need for visual and auditory clues becomes more and more essential for function. ["To talk with mom or dad you have to do it face to face, the telephone is hopeless" sort of situation] If I can I will dig up the research to support the above...and post it here if necessary.
To me this is what I refer to as "evidence of the negative outcomes of psychic-social disconnection" which leads to significant isolation with it's inherent loneliness, as the person ability to "listen to the listener" drops off.
In other words what I am suggesting is:
The ability for "older" persons who may be suffering from various degrees of "Dementia" to use a telephone for effective communication, reduces significantly due their reduced capacity to "listen to the listener" [which is a key symptom of Dementia]
Possibly the best way to test for dementia is to carry out a medical interview using a telephone as the medium [ between two isolated interview rooms] and assess the ability to communicate in this manner and the emotional outcomes as well. [As anger and intolerance as a way of covering up and coping with the failure are very common]
Abstraction:
So, evidence of telepathic connectivity can be found IMO, by finding appropriate level/degree "Dementia" patients, that qualify according to the following criteria:
1] CAN communicate effectively when face to face.
2] CAN NOT communicate effectively using a telephone or other electronic medium that offers no auditory nor visual clues.
and do the stats and analysis...and identify why the loss of visual and auditory clues has such a profound effect.
The control group for the test:
"People who CAN communicate effectively using a telephone and face to face are considered to be a normal, healthy psycho socially connected individuals"
The massive global telco industry is testimony to that fact.
Defining the range of "Effective Communication" would be essential of course.
Also the difference between comprehending pre-recorded information and "live" information could be studied as well.
So, evidence of telepathic connectivity can be found IMO, by finding appropriate level/degree "Dementia" patients, that qualify according to the following criteria:
1] CAN communicate effectively when face to face.
2] CAN NOT communicate effectively using a telephone or other electronic medium that offers no auditory nor visual clues.
and do the stats and analysis...and identify why the loss of visual and auditory clues has such a profound effect.
The control group for the test:
"People who CAN communicate effectively using a telephone and face to face are considered to be a normal, healthy psycho socially connected individuals"
The massive global telco industry is testimony to that fact.
Defining the range of "Effective Communication" would be essential of course.
Also the difference between comprehending pre-recorded information and "live" information could be studied as well.
The definition of telepathy says none of the "recognized" senses.
You either feel it or you don't.
Facial expressions, behaviors, and the like give rise to what another is thinking about. Most of that information is processed subconsciously by most individuals responding to it. If we recognize "feeling" itself as a form of sense and input an regular extraordinary idea into someone head for the first time, they are going to think upon this idea subconsciously for a long time. When a person re-imagines this idea we see the same behaviors without them speaking words. We have read their mind. Now apply that concept to the theory of intelligence and how it cycles similar behaviors for similar thoughts in any person, and reading someone's mind becomes a product of the information within just as much as the information we provide them.
So sensory deprivation is the opposition to telepathy. It requires all senses to function and it is just an extreme form of basic human conversation.
You either feel it or you don't.
Facial expressions, behaviors, and the like give rise to what another is thinking about. Most of that information is processed subconsciously by most individuals responding to it. If we recognize "feeling" itself as a form of sense and input an regular extraordinary idea into someone head for the first time, they are going to think upon this idea subconsciously for a long time. When a person re-imagines this idea we see the same behaviors without them speaking words. We have read their mind. Now apply that concept to the theory of intelligence and how it cycles similar behaviors for similar thoughts in any person, and reading someone's mind becomes a product of the information within just as much as the information we provide them.
So sensory deprivation is the opposition to telepathy. It requires all senses to function and it is just an extreme form of basic human conversation.
Your post is interesting thanks..
.....a definition made by those who are intensely skeptical of it's existence no doubt.
Unfortunately the whole area of definition is terribly confused IMO because the notion of telepathy falls under a class of experience that is considered by those doing the defining as hallucinatory and essentially make believe. And as mentioned elsewhere there is a strong vested interest in ruthlessly destroying the credibility of any one daring to suggest that telepathy is not only "real" phenomena but common place as well. [this destruction of credibility is a way of destroying any competitive advantage that one may gain from his/her telepathic experience.]
Determining what are recognized senses, depending on how deep you wish to go is no easy task.
For example the inner ear is incredibly capable of listening to your own thoughts. Are inner listening senses considered as recognized senses? To those who study the dis-abilities associated with Autism they certainly are.
Is hearing or listening to your own thoughts a telepathic experience or does it fall under "recognized senses"?
How is it that we can "hear " our own thoughts?
No easy answer as science does not even know what thoughts are.
Is the act of thinking a telepathic experience one has with one self?
So along comes some smart arse like me and say "Proof of telepathic phenomena is demonstrated by your ability to hear your own thoughts" and "dream your own dreams" it requires no second person to be evidenced.
and to be honest they will say but there is no evidence of telepathy....well duh!
Last edited:
I really enjoyed the part about our own thoughts. I'm not so much skeptic as I am not an extremist If that makes sense.
I'm quite positive that if someone were to be asked to think of a color and we were to associate colors with emotions, You could guess the color choice based on the facial expression. blue or grey if they seem down, red if they were angry, green if they were content, yellow if they were happy. Black If they looked like they were trying to confuse you.
The information our mind perceives is far greater than the words we use to describe events, so something obvious to the self is often not represented in "word thought" by the information we gather. There is just too much. Therefore our subconscious mind takes in all the excessive information and adjusts it to fit our environment.
I'm quite positive that if someone were to be asked to think of a color and we were to associate colors with emotions, You could guess the color choice based on the facial expression. blue or grey if they seem down, red if they were angry, green if they were content, yellow if they were happy. Black If they looked like they were trying to confuse you.
The information our mind perceives is far greater than the words we use to describe events, so something obvious to the self is often not represented in "word thought" by the information we gather. There is just too much. Therefore our subconscious mind takes in all the excessive information and adjusts it to fit our environment.
It is so difficult to discuss these issues in a clinical fashion and in a way that makes sense when in the background all sorts of "fearing of potentials" is running.
A bit like walking though a crowded shopping center carrying a vial of Sarin Gas and having a private [unheard] discussion about how the gas is going to effect people if you ever released it with the person you are walking with...
Yesterday I had the unenviable task of picking up a unmarked and wrapped package of "funeral ashes" from the local post office. I then had to spend time shopping in the crowded shopping plaza/center carrying the remains of a "deceased relative" all the time in a post office carry bag. The "intuitive" looks and behaviors that I got were really worth recording. A pity there wasn't a camera man filming the reactions and I am sure my deceased relative would have thought it rather amusing if he were able to watch...
this was an interesting bit of writing... could you explain it or expand on your thoughts a a little?
In order to know or guess what someone is thinking you have to be aware of all the senses. Your own emotions for example play a huge role in the thought of the person your speaking with. Now this isn't a sense per se as it is more of an awareness. Let's say you were to study depriving all but one sense in an experiment. It would strengthen not only that sense but you would be more aware of the other senses after deprivation. So later If we were to deprive you of all the senses you could be more aware of an observers thoughts based just upon your own emotions and what a person might think of when they were bored in that environment. A person could passively display this idea in themselves and have trouble trying to recreate it in another.
Smell is the most subconscious of senses, though all of them are able to connect to another's emotional state, because when we feel a certain way our pheromones express that emotion to those around us. We say we have smelled this before and understand the experience collectively. As opposed to "I am making my thoughts transfer into your mind" it becomes "we are sharing the same thoughts because we both understand our respective emotional states".