Is Belief In Telepathy Unscientific?

Rigorous experiments seem to suggest that ESP and mental telepathy are real, yet these phenomena are rejected as hoaxes by mainstream science, because belief in mind reading would contradict the most basic laws of our understanding of reality. Or would it? Via Reality Sandwich, Chris Carter argues that telepathy and quantum physics go hand-in-hand:

Like Price and Hebb before them, both Wiseman and French hold that the claim of telepathy is so extraordinary that we need a greater level of evidence than we normally demand. Why should this be so? Most people believe in the reality of telepathy based on their own experiences, and are puzzled by the description of telepathy as “extraordinary.”

Psychologist James Alcock recently wrote that the claims of parapsychology “stand in defiance of the modern scientific worldview. That by itself does not mean that parapsychology is in error, but as the eminent neuropsychologist Donald Hebb pointed out, if the claims of parapsychology prove to be true, then physics and biology and neuroscience are horribly wrong in some fundamental respects.”

However, a number of leading physicists such as Henry Margenau, David Bohm, Brian Josephson, and Olivier Costra de Beauregard have repeatedly pointed out that nothing in quantum mechanics forbids psi phenomena. Costra de Beauregard even maintains that the theory of quantum physics virtually demands that psi phenomena exist. And physicist Evan Harris Walker has developed a theoretical model of psi based upon von Neumann’s formulation of quantum mechanics.

Ray Hyman’s 1996 argument (in the Skeptical Inquirer) that the acceptance of psi would require that we “abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations” is thereby shown to be nonsense. Contrast Hyman’s statement with that of theoretical physicist Costa de Beauregard, who has written “relativistic quantum mechanics is a conceptual scheme where phenomena such as psychokinesis or telepathy, far from being irrational, should, on the contrary, be expected as very rational.”

Psi is certainly incompatible with the old scientific worldview, based on Newtonian mechanics and behaviorist psychology. It is not incompatible with the emerging scientific worldview based upon quantum mechanics, the neurosciences, and cognitive psychology.

, , , , ,

  • okOkay

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but in my opinion “belief” and “science” just don’t go together. Period.

  • okOkay

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but in my opinion “belief” and “science” just don’t go together. Period.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      “belief” and humans always go together. Naturally, humans doing “science” will always involve “belief”….

    • http://twitter.com/nihiofkdi nihi

       Trivially, knowledge is what is believed that is true.  Though truth is a difficult concept.  (I say trivially as if someone believes something but is mistaken, but then something happens without their knowledge that causes the situation to change so that they are no longer mistaken, then they cannot be said to have the knowledge of that something even though they would then believe something that is true.

    • http://twitter.com/nihiofkdi nihi

       Trivially, knowledge is what is believed that is true.  Though truth is a difficult concept.  (I say trivially as if someone believes something but is mistaken, but then something happens without their knowledge that causes the situation to change so that they are no longer mistaken, then they cannot be said to have the knowledge of that something even though they would then believe something that is true.

    • http://twitter.com/nihiofkdi nihi

       Trivially, knowledge is what is believed that is true.  Though truth is a difficult concept.  (I say trivially as if someone believes something but is mistaken, but then something happens without their knowledge that causes the situation to change so that they are no longer mistaken, then they cannot be said to have the knowledge of that something even though they would then believe something that is true.

    • Ted Heistman

       If you are telepathic ITS NOT A BELIEF! if you aren’t telepathic…well I guess I really don’t care if you believe in it or not.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        You’re right that it isn’t belief. To you it’s Knowledge. But to others, its pseudo-knowledge, or knowledge through faith, which is not sufficient to them to accept it as truth. 

        • Ted Heistman

           Right, which is why like I said, I don’t care if they ever get on board. But it would be interesting to see some rigorous work being done by people not starting from the lowest common denominator of a debunker mindset.

          My sense is the Pentagon does stuff like that or has in the past.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Yeah. I personally have no faith in the existence of telepathy, as I’ve had no personal experience with anything of the such, but at the same time, its one of those fuzzy issues where, as you said, if you have a debunker mindset, you will easily find your established criteria to convince yourself that you’ve debunked it.

            This is much the same way that an extreme skeptic will most likely not be able to be hypnotized, despite its verification in other participants.

            But I do understand their attitude about the stuff, you spend 5 minutes watching a video/TVshow of amateur ghost hunters, and it makes you very skeptical of anything filed under “supernatural”.

          • Ted Heistman

             I have a type of telepathy that lets me know when some one has responded to me by e-mail or on a website like this. It works the same way these types of software notifies people. Which I don’t have any kind of thing that pops up like that because it happens in my head.

            Except I feel it while people are writing a response. So if I check it too quick I don’t see anything.

            I am being serious. That’s my experience. So to me its not bullshit and I am interested in it because of that. I am curious why for some people its really important for them to come up with logical explanations of why its impossible. Like why do they care so much?

            I mean they really put their best foot forward trying to debunk it. Like they are arguing about politics and are worried that the opposing candidate will destroy the country if they don’t convince this one internet poster not to vote for so and so.

            Why is that?

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Ego?

            I mean really, its just about how rigid one’s reality tunnel is. Everything must be a capital T Truth, or completely discarded, no exceptions. It doesn’t leave room for uncertainty.

          • Ted Heistman

             Yeah, its probably ego by definition.

          • Ted Heistman

             Yeah, its probably ego by definition.

        • Ted Heistman

           Right, which is why like I said, I don’t care if they ever get on board. But it would be interesting to see some rigorous work being done by people not starting from the lowest common denominator of a debunker mindset.

          My sense is the Pentagon does stuff like that or has in the past.

    • Havin’ a laugh

        Galileo Galilei: I believe in Copernicus’ theory that Earth revolves around the sun. I wonder if I   should do some scientific…

        Unimaginative Stranger: “Belief” and “science” don’t go togehter.

        Galileo Galilei: Oh, never mind then…

      I’m not saying telepathy is real, but can we drop this silly fundamentalism over words at some point? No? Alright…

      • okOkay

         It seems like I really struck a nerve here… what I was really trying to get at (but failed miserably in my attempt to express my thoughts in the form of words) was that, IMO, a belief is not a science and vice-versa. They are two separate, distinct things that should be differentiated. You’re absolutely correct though, we should test beliefs scientifically, and in that sense they do “go together”.

        • Havin’ a laugh

          No, you didn’t struck a nerve, not with me anyhow.. I was just trying to point out  that terminology isn’t necessarily the thing to get uppity about. People put all kinds of meanings to words and use all kinds of words even as a figure of speech. And these kind of conversations sometimes get so serious, that people should maybe take a step back and consider that there is no one objective point of view to start with.. Am I making any sense? Maybe not..Anyway, I didn’t mean to come off like I’m trying to bite your head off or run my mouth..Basically I agree with you, I just look at this from a different angle..  

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.leonard.3538 Kevin Leonard

      I’m sorry, but have you never heard of  scientists who refuse to examine evidence that doesn’t fit with their “proven” theories? It typically goes something like,”Well this new evidence that is staring me in the face must be a hoax because it would make everything I’ve based my career on up to this point false.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.leonard.3538 Kevin Leonard

      I’m sorry, but have you never heard of  scientists who refuse to examine evidence that doesn’t fit with their “proven” theories? It typically goes something like,”Well this new evidence that is staring me in the face must be a hoax because it would make everything I’ve based my career on up to this point false.”

      • Artor

        That person wouldn’t be much of a scientist, but someone who blindly accepts evidence contrary to proven, working models isn’t much of a scientist either.

  • lucifer69

    I am semi- telepathic.

  • Ted Heistman

    Why is it so important to prove things like this scientifically? I’m psychic and I have met other people who are psychic. Its not all “cold reading” some people are psychic. I’ve been to some really good ones and they told me I was also psychic. My mother has had the same experience.

    So some people are born blind Some people are born deaf. It might be cool to try to explain sight and sound to them, but why argue with them about it?

    That’s how I look at it. I feel like psychic ability is a less developed, less reliable sense that is atrophied in most westerners. Personally I don’t think its that well developed but in certain situations It comes out more, usually in situations where I pay attention to it more due to necessity. Also When really entrained with another person at times we can “hear” each others thoughts.

    I once stayed at a persons house and “overheard” their kind of negative inner dialogue as they were getting up to start the day.

    • http://mattpacey.com Matthew Arnold Pacey

       Hey, want to make a quick million?
      There’s this guy named James Randi who’s offering a million dollars to anyone who can show evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. If you can show evidence of your ability, it’s yours!
      http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

    • David Howe

      are you sure you didn’t “overhear” them sighing or crying?

      • Ted Heistman

         Are you sure you want to suspend disbelief long enough to have a conversation? If not I won’t elaborate. Because I don’t care about convincing anyone.

      • Ted Heistman

         Are you sure you want to suspend disbelief long enough to have a conversation? If not I won’t elaborate. Because I don’t care about convincing anyone.

    • David Howe

      are you sure you didn’t “overhear” them sighing or crying?

  • Ted Heistman

    Telephones are similar to telepathy. 

    • Artor

      Care to elaborate on that? Telephones work using known principles of science & technology, and more importantly, they work. There is no known mechanism for telepathy, and it hasn’t been shown to work. I don’t see much similarity.

      • Ted_heistman

         How is your brain like a diaphragm?

        • Artor

          Huh? Not in any meaningful way I can think of, but my ear & my phone both have an actual diaphragm in them.

          • Ted Heistman

             Try thinking harder.

            Yes, the phone and your ear both have diaphragms, but with no brain, would you hear any sound? Would you be able to interpret the sound?

          • Artor

            You’re making some random analogies, but you’re not explaining how a telephone is in any way similar to telepathy.

          • Ted Heistman

             That’s because You won’t play along and now I am too bored to keep posting to you.

            You have to suspend disbelief sometimes in order to understand another point of view.

            But anyway things absorb energy, vibrations etc. they have memory and they can then transmit that energy. . And you for some reason you find that threatening.

            You associate it with “the supernatural”

          • Ted Heistman

             That’s because You won’t play along and now I am too bored to keep posting to you.

            You have to suspend disbelief sometimes in order to understand another point of view.

            But anyway things absorb energy, vibrations etc. they have memory and they can then transmit that energy. . And you for some reason you find that threatening.

            You associate it with “the supernatural”

          • Artor

            You’re making some random analogies, but you’re not explaining how a telephone is in any way similar to telepathy.

          • Ted Heistman

             Try thinking harder.

            Yes, the phone and your ear both have diaphragms, but with no brain, would you hear any sound? Would you be able to interpret the sound?

          • Ted Heistman

             You have never had an experience of something impressing itself upon you? or a person “impressing you?”

            Why do you think people use language like that? Have you ever felt that a person’s mood was “dragging you down?”

            Some people have a knack for numbers and drafting and graphs and things like that. They tend to take everything literally. I tend to think they are set up a certain way, their synapses have mapped themselves out to focus on certain things and filter out other things.

            For some reason they get all persnickety when people mention these things they filter out and then want to argue about it. Asserting that everyone is only imagining things that, they, by habit, have come to ignore.

            Its like a blind person asserting, “unless you can convince me through texture that the color gold is real, I will have to conclude that you must be deluded.”

          • Ted Heistman

             You have never had an experience of something impressing itself upon you? or a person “impressing you?”

            Why do you think people use language like that? Have you ever felt that a person’s mood was “dragging you down?”

            Some people have a knack for numbers and drafting and graphs and things like that. They tend to take everything literally. I tend to think they are set up a certain way, their synapses have mapped themselves out to focus on certain things and filter out other things.

            For some reason they get all persnickety when people mention these things they filter out and then want to argue about it. Asserting that everyone is only imagining things that, they, by habit, have come to ignore.

            Its like a blind person asserting, “unless you can convince me through texture that the color gold is real, I will have to conclude that you must be deluded.”

  • Artor

    “Psychologist James Alcock recently wrote that the claims of parapsychology “stand in defiance of the modern scientific worldview. That by itself does not mean that parapsychology is in error, but as the eminent neuropsychologist Donald Hebb pointed out, if the claims of parapsychology prove to be true, then physics and biology and neuroscience are horribly wrong in some fundamental respects.” ”
    This is a true statement, but if your hypothesis turns over centuries of proven work in physics, biology & neuroscience, you have to have some pretty compelling double-blind peer-reviewed tests & incontrovertible evidence to back up your claims. Because we know those fields pretty well, and if someone wants to re-write them, fuzzy unsubstantiated claims aren’t going to cut it.Why is it important to prove these claims scientifically? Because the human mind has an enormous capacity for self-delusion. If we want to know what’s true, we need to test it.
    People can claim they’re psychic until the cows come home, but unless I see credible proof, I don’t buy it.

  • Artor

    “Psychologist James Alcock recently wrote that the claims of parapsychology “stand in defiance of the modern scientific worldview. That by itself does not mean that parapsychology is in error, but as the eminent neuropsychologist Donald Hebb pointed out, if the claims of parapsychology prove to be true, then physics and biology and neuroscience are horribly wrong in some fundamental respects.” ”
    This is a true statement, but if your hypothesis turns over centuries of proven work in physics, biology & neuroscience, you have to have some pretty compelling double-blind peer-reviewed tests & incontrovertible evidence to back up your claims. Because we know those fields pretty well, and if someone wants to re-write them, fuzzy unsubstantiated claims aren’t going to cut it.Why is it important to prove these claims scientifically? Because the human mind has an enormous capacity for self-delusion. If we want to know what’s true, we need to test it.
    People can claim they’re psychic until the cows come home, but unless I see credible proof, I don’t buy it.

    • Ted Heistman

       People use it to their advantage already. George Soros is psychic. Think about that for a second. I think its good to test it with yourself, to make sure you aren’t falling prey to wishful thinking yourself, but I’d rather see a bunch of people with a certain base line of experience already, working on problems together, than this reinventing the wheel stuff, of trying to get people on board, who have no ability whatsoever, or that are so frightened of the implications that they unconsciously shut out all psychic input.

      I tend to think a lot of people aren’t even on board with quantum physics. People like Dawkins seem to prefer Newtonian physics.

      • Artor

        Seriously? How do you know Soros is psychic? Did he say so? Did he demonstrate by reading your mind?  Making an intuitive leap and predicting the stock market just requires that you be smart, experienced, or lucky, not psychic.
        Try reading up on subjects like confirmation bias, subjective validation, & other cognitive biases. With an honest appraisal, I’ll wager that you find you’re not nearly as psychic as you think you are. And that’s not me being psychic.

        • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

          Well from what I’ve experienced of the phenomena I’d guess intuition and empathy are pretty much central to the whole thing working at all. I mean, if it’s not so farfetched to believe that it’s possible to feel another person’s emotions, than how is the idea of those senses developing into being able to pick up more complex signals from other people so radical? 

          • Ted Heistman

             Yeah, that’s how I look at it. It is tied into empathy. Emotions come through strongest and then sometimes words.

            If you were to set up a test and just have two people, unemotionally saying words in their heads to each other. I think the results would be pretty dissapointing.

            Now as far as a woman wanting a guy to know, telepathically that she wants to have sex with him. That comes through LOUD and CLEAR.  I am not saying this happens to me all the time. But it does happen and I bet its happened to other people here.

          • Ted Heistman

             Just so everyone knows and doesn’t get the wrong idea, I reality test the hell out of that type of thing by talking, ect. striking up a conversation, or often the feeling isn’t mutual and I just ignore it.

            Women are better at picking up that type of message from men and actually get bombarded.

            Also many people pick up on this stuff unconsciously.

          • David Howe

             I’ve had quite the opposite experience countless times.  Sometimes people take my common courtesy as a come-on or as an invitation to start touching me and grabbing me.  explain that.

          • Ted Heistman

             I don’t have to explain your experiences.

          • David Howe

            No need. I already explained that you are completely wrong.

          • Truth_Lover

            No you didn’t. You made ASSUMPTIONS based on what you THOUGHT he was attempting to communicate to you, and made completely unnecessary connections to irrelevant things like people not respecting other people’s free will or taking time to build up a relationship with someone, which have nothing to do with anything he had said or implied thus far.

          • TedHeistman

            Yeah, I had a feeling that would be misinterpreted. Anyway i am not talking about a “voice in my head” I am talking about sensing sexual energy being directed at me.

            I am pretty sure most women know what that experience is like.

            Anyway its not license to grope. Its just a form of non-verbal communication.

          • Ted Heistman

             I don’t have to explain your experiences.

          • David Howe

             I’ve had quite the opposite experience countless times.  Sometimes people take my common courtesy as a come-on or as an invitation to start touching me and grabbing me.  explain that.

          • David Howe

            lol, actually, no it does not come through LOUD and CLEAR all the time.  that’s why we have Date Rape.

          • Ted Heistman

             See, I knew you’d go there. That’s because you are all amped up about this topic. Which given some introspection, you might question why that is?

            Isn’t it frustrating having all these emotions just outside your purview when you would prefer there to be only hard concise logic?

          • Artor

            And this is why the subject is important. If a person can convince himself that the voices in his head are real, he can be dangerous to have around in society.
            “Really officer! She told me LOUD & CLEAR that she wanted to have sex with me. Not out loud, but…”

          • Artor

            And this is why the subject is important. If a person can convince himself that the voices in his head are real, he can be dangerous to have around in society.
            “Really officer! She told me LOUD & CLEAR that she wanted to have sex with me. Not out loud, but…”

          • Ted Heistman

             No, that’s not what I’m talking about. You probably know on some level what I am talking about its just unconscious to you. But hey touche’ if you want to win an argument make them out to be a crazy sex offender why not?

            Fucking douchebag.

          • David Howe

             You KNEW I’d go there?  Classic psychic trick of counting only the hits.  What else did you KNOW I’d say but you were wrong about (those would be the misses).

            There is only hard concise logic.  Period.  Clearly your emotions tell you nothing useful, certainly not on a date!

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            You’re an idiot, that’s a colloquialism.

          • Ted Heistman

             See, I knew you’d go there. That’s because you are all amped up about this topic. Which given some introspection, you might question why that is?

            Isn’t it frustrating having all these emotions just outside your purview when you would prefer there to be only hard concise logic?

          • David Howe

            lol, actually, no it does not come through LOUD and CLEAR all the time.  that’s why we have Date Rape.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

            Hmm I’ve been thinking about that test, I had an experience where I was thinking something in my head and my friend responded to me as if I’d said it out loud. Something like that is pretty hard to ignore on the personal level. The problem I considered about that was however much I would love to duplicate those results to prove the legitimacy to witnesses, an outside observer would need to be able to know the exact wording and images within the thoughts of the people in the test and well… by the time we could do that we’d have already made a machine or validated psychics anyway. Which raises some interesting questions about the dimension of interaction that the phenomenon occurs in? If you get me.

          • Artor

            I don’t believe there needs to be a supernatural mechanism for feeling someone’s emotions. Humans are very adept at non-verbal communication, often on an unconscious level. It doesn’t take a psychic to tell if someone is sad or upset.

          • David Howe

             very true…and yet our perceptions are not very reliable unless they are communicated with words…

          • Calypso_1

            How utterly wrong you are.

          • David Howe

             very true…and yet our perceptions are not very reliable unless they are communicated with words…

          • Ted Heistman

            Is electricity “supernatural” ? 

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            are we talking today? or 300 years ago?

            Hell “dark matter” might even take a few steps into the field of “supernatural” by the loosest of definitions. (at least attempting to explain things with dark matter)

          • Ted Heistman

             yeah, that’s kind of my point. Centuries ago it was supernatural.

          • Artor

            Dark matter is a part of the natural world. We can’t see it, but we can detect it by noting it’s gravitational influence. It might be completely different than what we imagine, but we know for a verifiable fact that there’s SOMEthing out there with alot of mass, and until we know more about it, we’re going with the name, “dark matter.”

            Ted is trying to conflate “supernatural” with “unknown.” We can see electricity and feel it’s effects, so we know it’s real, even if we didn’t know it’s nature. We can’t see psychic phenomena, and every example has alternate, more likely explanations.

          • Ted Heistman

            No you were the one conflating the two earlier. Basically, not that you really give a shit about having a conversation about something you are interested in, but I think it comes down to ones theory of consciousness.

            I have one theory. I am inferring you have another, opposing theory. You find my theory scary. So you get all up in arms. Your theory is that the brain cranks out consciousness like your pancreas cranks out insulin. So that’s reassuring to some people.

            My theory is that consciousness is the base line reality that permeates everything. It is in us and We are in it.   This is the only reality. Its just a big empty void, everything we consider solid is just…like a phantom.

            To me this makes perfect sense of quantum physics. Your theory meshes best with Newtonian physics and “niave materialism” “scientism” etc.

          • Artor

            He we have an excellent example; Ted thinks he understands what I am thinking; that I find his theory scary. In some situations, he might convince himself that he came by this knowledge through his “psychic” sensitivity, which he can use to validate and reassure himself. It feels good to be right, huh? 
            However, Ted is pulling conclusions out of his butt. I’m not scared or threatened in any way. I think it would be cool as hell if magic was real, and I’d be training my psychic powers intensively if I thought it would do any good.
            But I’ve found that using logical fallacies leads a person to do and believe things that are unproductive at best, and deadly dangerous sometimes. (Burn the witches!)
            So I like to call out fallacies when I see them, and an argument that relies upon them doesn’t have much merit.

          • Ted Heistman

             OK, so if I am reading you wrong, set me straight. What is your theory of consciousness?

          • Artor

            This is too small a box to write in, so I’m responding in a separate post up top.

          • Artor

            This is too small a box to write in, so I’m responding in a separate post up top.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            The concept of “supernatural” is a fallacy. By the current definition of “natural”, IF there is a god, it is natural; IF there is telepathy, it is natural; IF there are aliens, they are natural; and, as you said, whatever form “dark matter” takes, it is natural.

            With an older definition of natural, say, randomly… 1000 years ago, electricity and magnetism would easily be considered super natural. (lightning? fury of the god(s), lodestones? magic, whatever…)

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            The concept of “supernatural” is a fallacy. By the current definition of “natural”, IF there is a god, it is natural; IF there is telepathy, it is natural; IF there are aliens, they are natural; and, as you said, whatever form “dark matter” takes, it is natural.

            With an older definition of natural, say, randomly… 1000 years ago, electricity and magnetism would easily be considered super natural. (lightning? fury of the god(s), lodestones? magic, whatever…)

          • Artor

            Well, god has been getting chased further & further from the natural world as we come to understand the universe better. Since there seems to be no physical evidence to indicate the existence of any gods, anyone defending such beings insists that they live somehow “outside the universe.” That’s supernatural.
            If something exists in nature, it will have real-world effects which we can detect and measure. If it doesn’t do that, it’s supernatural, which is another way of saying magic. Except magic, if it existed, would also have real-world effects. Which it doesn’t seem to. Hmm…

          • Ted Heistman

             Well, believe it or not, many spiritual people don’t see things in that paradigm. There is no “god of the gaps” that keeps shrinking away. That’s apples and oranges.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Well you basically completely missed my point, but i won’t labor on it. You already have very strong preconceived  notions (straw-mans) of  what god, or magic might be. So strong that in your mind they eclipsed what I was talking about.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Well you basically completely missed my point, but i won’t labor on it. You already have very strong preconceived  notions (straw-mans) of  what god, or magic might be. So strong that in your mind they eclipsed what I was talking about.

          • Calypso_1

            Dark matter has never been detected 
            (Though there are some candidates). 
            It has been calculated. It was “discovered” to make the current level of mathematical understanding correlate with observed nature. 
            There are those who believe those calculations simply to be wrong.
             

          • Artor

            Of course not, and it wasn’t supernatural centuries ago either. Are you suggesting that there’s some particle, wave, or medium in which we can transmit & receive thoughts, emotions & premonitions? What might that be, and why isn’t it detectable by science? What organs are involved in this mysterious ability? By what mechanism does it operate?
            I’m not the first person to ask these questions, but somehow, nobody has managed to answer any of them even after hundreds of years of inquiry. Since most explanations require tossing out much of what we know to be true, without offering a superior model that answers more questions than it raises, the logical conclusion has to be that psychic phenomena are mostly bullshit.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Did the first man to build fire know the precise mechanisms of the chemistry of combustion? Did he need to?

          • Ted Heistman

             ”Are you suggesting that there’s some particle, wave, or medium in which
            we can transmit & receive thoughts, emotions & premonitions?”

            um..YEAH!!!

            We are doing it right now. You just skip the consciousness aspect of the equation. But really there is an energy signature being transmitted here.

            Take away the computers and the internet and the energy is still there and can still be transmitted, but there are fewer place holders for your mind to grab hold of.

          • Ted Heistman

            That was actually a reply to artur

          • Truth_Lover

            I don’t believe that accepting the truth of psychic phenomena would require a tossing out of anything known to be true. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. You know we have this little word ‘and’ as well as ‘or’, right?

            And, are you seriously suggesting that just because we haven’t (yet) come up with instruments to detect or measure a particular substance, that that automatically means that it doesn’t exist? Really? Because that’s certainly not logical!

            You ask: “why isn’t it detectable by science?”
            You mean: “why haven’t scientists come up with a way to detect it yet?”
            Just because they haven’t detected it yet, doesn’t necessarily mean it is not detectable. Maybe they haven’t yet built the instruments that they need in order to detect it (which, I think would be fairly difficult to do since they don’t know what it is in the first place. How do you build an instrument to detect something that you don’t even know exists? Seriously, think about that for a minute. How would you actually go about doing that?)

            And then, of course, there’s the assumption that in order for something to exist it has to be physically measurable. That assumption completely precludes the possibility of non-physical phenomena being real in the first place. If you insist that you must be able to physically measure non-physical phenomena to prove they are real, you are not only being very irrational; you are ensuring that you can never accept any evidence of their existence at all.

            And of course, if you do manage to physically detect and measure the stuff, then you can say that you’ve explained it away, that it’s not ‘psychic’ (which of course would be another assumption, but I could be here all day trying to fully explain all the faults with your arguments so I think I’ll leave it there for now).

            Scientists are just fallible human beings running around trying to find ways of understanding things, and using imperfect methods for doing so. Sure, they come up with some useful information, but if you think they are the highest authority on everything, you have much to learn about science, logic and truth.

          • Truth_Lover

            I don’t believe that accepting the truth of psychic phenomena would require a tossing out of anything known to be true. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. You know we have this little word ‘and’ as well as ‘or’, right?

            And, are you seriously suggesting that just because we haven’t (yet) come up with instruments to detect or measure a particular substance, that that automatically means that it doesn’t exist? Really? Because that’s certainly not logical!

            You ask: “why isn’t it detectable by science?”
            You mean: “why haven’t scientists come up with a way to detect it yet?”
            Just because they haven’t detected it yet, doesn’t necessarily mean it is not detectable. Maybe they haven’t yet built the instruments that they need in order to detect it (which, I think would be fairly difficult to do since they don’t know what it is in the first place. How do you build an instrument to detect something that you don’t even know exists? Seriously, think about that for a minute. How would you actually go about doing that?)

            And then, of course, there’s the assumption that in order for something to exist it has to be physically measurable. That assumption completely precludes the possibility of non-physical phenomena being real in the first place. If you insist that you must be able to physically measure non-physical phenomena to prove they are real, you are not only being very irrational; you are ensuring that you can never accept any evidence of their existence at all.

            And of course, if you do manage to physically detect and measure the stuff, then you can say that you’ve explained it away, that it’s not ‘psychic’ (which of course would be another assumption, but I could be here all day trying to fully explain all the faults with your arguments so I think I’ll leave it there for now).

            Scientists are just fallible human beings running around trying to find ways of understanding things, and using imperfect methods for doing so. Sure, they come up with some useful information, but if you think they are the highest authority on everything, you have much to learn about science, logic and truth.

          • Ted Heistman

            Is electricity “supernatural” ? 

          • Truth_Lover

            Just because it doesn’t always take that, doesn’t automatically mean that it is not also possible. And it is possible. It does happen. And nothing that you say (or that any other subscriber to ‘scientific’ dogma says) can convince someone who actually knows for a fact that it does. Imagine me trying to tell you you’re delusional because you believe you have arms, or skin. You would surely dismiss my claims because you know better through your own direct experience, right? Well, that’s all I’m doing right here.

          • Raybutlers

            I’ll be happy to address that analogy.  The existence of my arms or skin can be objectively understood.  In fact, I don’t need any direct experience of either of these things in order to confirm that they exist.  A person may or may not be delusional, but the existence of arms and skin are objective facts.  Measurable. Observable. They take up physical space and can be proven to materially exist.  I could deny them both, but that would have no bearing on whether or not they exist. 

            If you were to tell me I was delusional because I have observed that I have arms and skin, it’s pretty clear where the delusion lies.

          • Raybutlers

            I’ll be happy to address that analogy.  The existence of my arms or skin can be objectively understood.  In fact, I don’t need any direct experience of either of these things in order to confirm that they exist.  A person may or may not be delusional, but the existence of arms and skin are objective facts.  Measurable. Observable. They take up physical space and can be proven to materially exist.  I could deny them both, but that would have no bearing on whether or not they exist. 

            If you were to tell me I was delusional because I have observed that I have arms and skin, it’s pretty clear where the delusion lies.

          • David Howe

             except that nobody feels another person’s emotions.  they feel their own in the same situation.  that’s why it’s called empathy.  and yes it’s “radical” (or rather irrational) to make that leap to “more complex” signals.  “signals” is the key word here and that’s all a psychic has to read.  it’s a trick, honey.

          • Ted Heistman

             I think you are talking about making an inference about what you think your emotion would be if you were in that persons situation and calling that “empathy”

            But really that’s probably because you live inside your head. Its not a purely mental exercise for a lot of people.

            To some people Others emotions kind of bleed out onto them and then they pick up on it like a contagion almost.

          • David Howe

             ”almost” is the key word

          • Truth_Lover

            How is ‘almost’ the key word?! He used the word ‘almost’ to indicate that he was using an analogy, and not a perfect description. The fact that he did so does not prove or disprove anything. It has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he or you are making. (Talk about deflection, sheesh!)

          • Truth_Lover

            How is ‘almost’ the key word?! He used the word ‘almost’ to indicate that he was using an analogy, and not a perfect description. The fact that he did so does not prove or disprove anything. It has nothing to do with the actual arguments that he or you are making. (Talk about deflection, sheesh!)

          • David Howe

             The burden of proof for the veracity of psychic powers lies with those that assert they are true.

          • David Howe

             The burden of proof for the veracity of psychic powers lies with those that assert they are true.

          • David Howe

             The burden of proof for the veracity of psychic powers lies with those that assert they are true.

          • Ted Heistman

             I think you are talking about making an inference about what you think your emotion would be if you were in that persons situation and calling that “empathy”

            But really that’s probably because you live inside your head. Its not a purely mental exercise for a lot of people.

            To some people Others emotions kind of bleed out onto them and then they pick up on it like a contagion almost.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

            Empathy is “felt”, using emotions, irrational by definition. What you are doing there is “thinking”, with a rationalisation. Honey.

          • David Howe

             it’s still a trick

          • Truth_Lover

            Nope. What you’re talking about does happen as well, absolutely – people project their own feelings onto other people, and sometimes think that they are feeling the other person’s emotions. But some of us also sometimes directly pick up other people’s emotions, often completely ‘out of the blue’ – without necessarily having had any conscious intention of doing so – we might even be miles away from the person and not thinking of them at all, wrapped up in thinking about something that has nothing to do with that person, and that would not arouse those emotions in us, and suddenly we feel these feelings ‘coming at us’ and we know clearly that it is another person’s emotions that we are feeling as it is a different ‘quality” of experience, and we know quite clearly that it is not our own personal reaction to anything in that moment.

            You have 3 main options in how you respond to what I’ve just told you:

            1. Assume that I am making things up or deluded, or some combination of the two, and therefore that what I’m telling you is BS, because it doesn’t fit with your ‘understanding’ of how things are.

            2. Believe what I’ve said, because you don’t have any real reason to disbelieve me, since you know nothing about me, and therefore have no proof that I am delusional or that I like to waste my time and energy lying to random strangers on the internet.

            3. Assume nothing, believe nothing. Consider the possibility that maybe I am telling the truth about my experiences and that they are real, but of course don’t take it as fact because you don’t actually know it’s true. Open your mind to the possibility that these things are possible and that you just don’t understand how yet… like many other things that scientists once thought ‘impossible’ (or true or untrue) based on what they ‘knew’ based on the evidence that they were aware of, and then later found out they were wrong about.

            I recommend number 3 if you’re sincerely interested in truth, but it’s up to you.

          • Truth_Lover

            Nope. What you’re talking about does happen as well, absolutely – people project their own feelings onto other people, and sometimes think that they are feeling the other person’s emotions. But some of us also sometimes directly pick up other people’s emotions, often completely ‘out of the blue’ – without necessarily having had any conscious intention of doing so – we might even be miles away from the person and not thinking of them at all, wrapped up in thinking about something that has nothing to do with that person, and that would not arouse those emotions in us, and suddenly we feel these feelings ‘coming at us’ and we know clearly that it is another person’s emotions that we are feeling as it is a different ‘quality” of experience, and we know quite clearly that it is not our own personal reaction to anything in that moment.

            You have 3 main options in how you respond to what I’ve just told you:

            1. Assume that I am making things up or deluded, or some combination of the two, and therefore that what I’m telling you is BS, because it doesn’t fit with your ‘understanding’ of how things are.

            2. Believe what I’ve said, because you don’t have any real reason to disbelieve me, since you know nothing about me, and therefore have no proof that I am delusional or that I like to waste my time and energy lying to random strangers on the internet.

            3. Assume nothing, believe nothing. Consider the possibility that maybe I am telling the truth about my experiences and that they are real, but of course don’t take it as fact because you don’t actually know it’s true. Open your mind to the possibility that these things are possible and that you just don’t understand how yet… like many other things that scientists once thought ‘impossible’ (or true or untrue) based on what they ‘knew’ based on the evidence that they were aware of, and then later found out they were wrong about.

            I recommend number 3 if you’re sincerely interested in truth, but it’s up to you.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            The third way is my favorite (but its definitely too fuzzy for some people)

          • TedHeistman

            Yeah, number 3 is my idea of a good conversation.

          • David Howe

            all i need is proof. there isn’t any. all objective testing of this “phenomenon” has come up negative.

          • David Howe

             except that nobody feels another person’s emotions.  they feel their own in the same situation.  that’s why it’s called empathy.  and yes it’s “radical” (or rather irrational) to make that leap to “more complex” signals.  “signals” is the key word here and that’s all a psychic has to read.  it’s a trick, honey.

          • Artor

            The radical part is imagining an extra sense that doesn’t seem to correspond to any known organs, to pick up on signals we can perceive perfectly well with our normal senses. I can see a person, hear them, smell them maybe, feel their skin, etc. and get all sorts of clues from that to tell me about their state of mind, what they’re feeling, and if I’m really intuitive, maybe what they’re thinking sometimes. This doesn’t require six senses, only five.

        • Ted Heistman

           Yeah, he did say it. Try googling it. I am unmotivated to google it myself because I don’t care if you believe in psi stuff.

          Its like what do I win if I convince you? I don’t need your approval, I mean conversations are cool. But there is nothing in it for me to debate you. But sure anyone can do what George Soros does right? Its totally reproducible, and billions of billionaires do it everyday.

          • David Howe

             you are engaging in a wealth of logical fallacies

          • David Howe

             you are engaging in a wealth of logical fallacies

          • Artor

            I can draw a picture like you will never be able to in your life. Does this mean I have some magic ability? No, it means I have a talent, and I’ve practiced it. Soros has his talent, which he’s practiced alot, and he gets lucky too. Hardly a case for psychic powers.

          • Ted Heistman

            I can actually draw some pretty bad ass shit. 
            I actually use my psychic powers to draw. It may be better explained as proprioception, though, and possibly I utilize my mirror neurons. Like for example if I were to draw a big cat, I channel the energy of big cats and feel in my body how they feel and then I draw a picture of that. 

          • Artor

            I feel like we’re arguing past eachother. What you’re describing here doesn’t sound “psychic” to me at all, so I’m confused as to why you are using it to support your position.

          • Ted Heistman

             yeah, that’s obvious. You want me to argue a point and you want to point out my logical fallacies, and I never agreed to argue any point. I am just speaking of ancedotals, wondering how your explanation would fit my experience. Like for example, I can tell when people are staring at me. Even if I can’t see them. Its been tested. Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book about it.

            To me its a no-brainer. It happens all the time.Why should I pretend other wise? What advantage is there to screen out experiences like this?

          • Truth_Lover

            “What you’re describing here doesn’t sound “psychic” to me at all”

            Consciously feeling the energy of another being (or even of our own being) is a ‘psychic’ experience. What’s not to understand? Maybe you associate the word ‘psychic’ with predictions and ‘mind-reading’ only? There are many psychic (or ‘subtle’, or ‘deeper’) senses, just as there are many physical senses. I, for one, have felt, smelled and tasted energies. I have correctly predicted (intellectually) that a particular person was about to leave the part of the house they were in and enter the room I was in because of suddenly feeling/smelling their energy (with no other cues like sounds or anything). This has happened so many times now that it is becoming quite a familiar experience. (Incidentally, I have also had unexpected experiences of feeling ‘big cat’ energies, so I can relate somewhat to Ted’s experience, but without the art part.)

            So-called ‘predictions’, if and when they are claimed to be ‘psychic predictions’, are often (though maybe not always) based at least partly on an intellectual interpretation of a psychic or semi-psychic experience. An intellectual interpretation of an experience often includes meaning projected onto that experience in the process of trying to understand it. (For example, someone might see an event play out in their mind’s eye – completely unexpectedly and uninvitedly, and without any conscious manipulation of the content of the vision – and assume that means the event is going to actually happen, when that might not be the case, there might be a different meaning for them to extract from it… or it could be one possible way things could go, which could be altered by free will.)

            That doesn’t necessarily mean that the actual psychic experience they had isn’t real; it just means they don’t fully understand it. And of course, it is rare for a person to ever really fully understand any experience – psychic or not (I don’t even know if it’s possible).

            (Another person – or the same person at another time, might possibly see an event play out in front of them, and KNOW clearly that it IS going
            to happen – or is currently happening… because they happen to be tapping in to that particular kind of knowledge at that particular time. I’ve certainly heard many anecdotes about people having those kinds of experiences and later having their knowledge externally verified. I don’t automatically believe those stories when I hear them (even though I have had a couple of them myself). I don’t automatically believe everything I hear, but neither do I automatically disbelieve everything I hear that doesn’t fit with my ideas of what seems possible… because each of those attitudes is as illogical and naive as the other.)

          • Truth_Lover

            “What you’re describing here doesn’t sound “psychic” to me at all”

            Consciously feeling the energy of another being (or even of our own being) is a ‘psychic’ experience. What’s not to understand? Maybe you associate the word ‘psychic’ with predictions and ‘mind-reading’ only? There are many psychic (or ‘subtle’, or ‘deeper’) senses, just as there are many physical senses. I, for one, have felt, smelled and tasted energies. I have correctly predicted (intellectually) that a particular person was about to leave the part of the house they were in and enter the room I was in because of suddenly feeling/smelling their energy (with no other cues like sounds or anything). This has happened so many times now that it is becoming quite a familiar experience. (Incidentally, I have also had unexpected experiences of feeling ‘big cat’ energies, so I can relate somewhat to Ted’s experience, but without the art part.)

            So-called ‘predictions’, if and when they are claimed to be ‘psychic predictions’, are often (though maybe not always) based at least partly on an intellectual interpretation of a psychic or semi-psychic experience. An intellectual interpretation of an experience often includes meaning projected onto that experience in the process of trying to understand it. (For example, someone might see an event play out in their mind’s eye – completely unexpectedly and uninvitedly, and without any conscious manipulation of the content of the vision – and assume that means the event is going to actually happen, when that might not be the case, there might be a different meaning for them to extract from it… or it could be one possible way things could go, which could be altered by free will.)

            That doesn’t necessarily mean that the actual psychic experience they had isn’t real; it just means they don’t fully understand it. And of course, it is rare for a person to ever really fully understand any experience – psychic or not (I don’t even know if it’s possible).

            (Another person – or the same person at another time, might possibly see an event play out in front of them, and KNOW clearly that it IS going
            to happen – or is currently happening… because they happen to be tapping in to that particular kind of knowledge at that particular time. I’ve certainly heard many anecdotes about people having those kinds of experiences and later having their knowledge externally verified. I don’t automatically believe those stories when I hear them (even though I have had a couple of them myself). I don’t automatically believe everything I hear, but neither do I automatically disbelieve everything I hear that doesn’t fit with my ideas of what seems possible… because each of those attitudes is as illogical and naive as the other.)

          • Truth_Lover

            A clarification on something in that last paragraph: “even though I have had a couple of [those experiences] myself” – I didn’t mean to imply that I had actually had the experience of consciously knowing that I was seeing a future event – I just saw it and then later had it play out and recognized it. (just lost concentration and didn’t express myself clearly enough – I don’t want to misrepresent my experiences and mislead anyone, hence the correction, which probably nobody really cares that much to read anyway.)

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        a lot of people misunderstand quantum physics as a way of describing how the universe works rather than a meaningful way to mathematically understand a universe that is non-understandable due to physical limits on perception.

        Of course the possibility of things not being understandable are scary to people like Dawkins.

    • Ceausescu

      You’re cute.

      You think your opinion really matters :)

    • Ceausescu

      You’re cute.

      You think your opinion really matters :)

      • Artor

        You’re ignorant. You think opinion has a place in scientific inquiry.

        • bobbiethejean

          I think you’re quite intelligent, impressively articulate, and make logically sound, interesting, thoughtful arguments…. whatever my opinion counts for. 

          • Artor

            You are obviously very perceptive, with an impressive & accurate ability to judge people. It’s almost like you’re psychic!

        • bobbiethejean

          I think you’re quite intelligent, impressively articulate, and make logically sound, interesting, thoughtful arguments…. whatever my opinion counts for. 

      • Andrew

        Whereas you’re under no illusions that yours does.

  • Haystack

    Science doesn’t reject telepathy out of any fear of having to rethink basic laws of reality; it’s just that the evidence isn’t that good. The best psi experiments are only able to report positive findings of roughly the same magnitude as the ordinary “noise” effect one finds in any scientific experiment. Moreover, these are merely the reports published; nobody prints the scores of negative findings that psi researchers get before they are finally able to show a study with statistical significance. 

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      one could say the same kinds of things about many drug trials. (Am i defending telepathy? or attacking drug trials? hmm…)

      • David Howe

         whatever you’re doing, you’re deflecting, an irrational act.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          whoever said i was rational? I sure as hell didn’t.

          Maybe I just want people to think more.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            The T word is dangerous.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

            The Moving Goalpost

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            you might wanna touch up on your logical fallacies, just pulling a random one outta the bag doesn’t make you sound smarter

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

            ad hominem

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            ad hominem requires me to use your stupidity as evidence for a claim. Idiot.

          • Calypso_1

            Oh sweet Son of the Morning! : D. Lolol

          • Stephen Reichman

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.
            While I agree with your sentiment on the matter, you are wrong – You are arguing a claim, that Ray’s statement about the moving goalpost is incorrect. 

          • Stephen Reichman

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.
            While I agree with your sentiment on the matter, you are wrong – You are arguing a claim, that Ray’s statement about the moving goalpost is incorrect. 

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            insult does not equal ad hominem. I am insulting as a conclusion, not a premise. Ad hominem requires you to say “your are stupid, therefore you are wrong”. however I am saying “you are wrong and therefore [i believe]* you are stupid”

            Just because our goalposts start at different places does not mean I am going out of the way to move them. Moving the goalposts first requires for an agreement upon where the goalposts stand in an argument. In fact, I was very much not moving the goalposts because, the purpose of moving the goalposts is to claim that their argument was false, because it did not meet the criterion of new goalposts. However, I fully accepted his claim of my irrationality. As the fallacy was out of the blue in my view, I created an assumption of his attempts to sound smarter (and failing) by using logical fallacy talk.

            I began questioning his intelligence when he made a nonsense claim of a moving goalpost, and finally concluded with him being an idiot when he made the same mistake that you are making about ad hominem.
            *just to be clear, all arbitrary insults have the caveat of “i believe” but it seems that every single detail needs to be spelled out when talking to people who believe in the “fallacy talk”
            **edit: Also i noticed it seemed you thought i was saying “i’m not making a claim” but this is not the case. I am saying that I am making a claim, but it is not ad hominem because as i said in the first paragraph, the insult is the conclusion, not the premise (but now i’m repeating myself)

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            insult does not equal ad hominem. I am insulting as a conclusion, not a premise. Ad hominem requires you to say “your are stupid, therefore you are wrong”. however I am saying “you are wrong and therefore [i believe]* you are stupid”

            Just because our goalposts start at different places does not mean I am going out of the way to move them. Moving the goalposts first requires for an agreement upon where the goalposts stand in an argument. In fact, I was very much not moving the goalposts because, the purpose of moving the goalposts is to claim that their argument was false, because it did not meet the criterion of new goalposts. However, I fully accepted his claim of my irrationality. As the fallacy was out of the blue in my view, I created an assumption of his attempts to sound smarter (and failing) by using logical fallacy talk.

            I began questioning his intelligence when he made a nonsense claim of a moving goalpost, and finally concluded with him being an idiot when he made the same mistake that you are making about ad hominem.
            *just to be clear, all arbitrary insults have the caveat of “i believe” but it seems that every single detail needs to be spelled out when talking to people who believe in the “fallacy talk”
            **edit: Also i noticed it seemed you thought i was saying “i’m not making a claim” but this is not the case. I am saying that I am making a claim, but it is not ad hominem because as i said in the first paragraph, the insult is the conclusion, not the premise (but now i’m repeating myself)

          • David Howe

            you don’t know what a goalpost is.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            You’re right that I don’t know what your goalposts are. But this, I do not care about.

            I decided to use something akin to whatever your bible of logical fallacies is, RationalWiki, to make you understand why your argument is nonsense.

            “Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.” (emphasis mine)

            Your arbitrary goalposts mean nothing in an argument. We must first agree upon standards of which we both define as the goalposts. This never happened. Secondarily(and tertiarily), I must arbitrarily change them once they have been met. The nonexistent goalposts could never have been met. And finally, again since they do not exist, I had no ability to move them even if I wanted to.

            I suppose if i had a goal here it would be only to make this point: if you are going to talk of logical fallacies, at least use them correctly, because not doing so always devolves into this sort of mess.

            Edit: I was rumbling around on that rationalwiki website, and found somthing that seems to apply so very well to this situation: read up: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

            “That’s not right – that’s not even wrong: The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even seem to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.”

          • Calypso_1

            I suppose next you’ll tell us you’ve never eaten an egg.

          • Calypso_1

            I suppose next you’ll tell us you’ve never eaten an egg.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            That’s not right……… That’s not even wrong!

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            That’s not right……… That’s not even wrong!

          • Calypso_1

            It would be if you have eaten eggs, because we all know that serpents eat eggs and serpents are purveyors of lies. Therefore, you would be a liar.

          • Calypso_1

            It would be if you have eaten eggs, because we all know that serpents eat eggs and serpents are purveyors of lies. Therefore, you would be a liar.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            ad hominem requires me to use your stupidity as evidence for a claim. Idiot.

          • Calypso_1

            Moving the goalpost is necessary to zero in through feedback towards a precise location.
            By its nature a goal is not yet truly demarcated as it has not been arrived at.  Targeting the goal is an adaptive cybernetic process. 
            If you want to play games on a rhetoric field go join a team.  Otherwise, learn that thought is a far more, extensive, systematized, dynamic and rewarding endeavor than the level you are currently manifesting.  Move your goalpost.
             

          • Calypso_1

            Moving the goalpost is necessary to zero in through feedback towards a precise location.
            By its nature a goal is not yet truly demarcated as it has not been arrived at.  Targeting the goal is an adaptive cybernetic process. 
            If you want to play games on a rhetoric field go join a team.  Otherwise, learn that thought is a far more, extensive, systematized, dynamic and rewarding endeavor than the level you are currently manifesting.  Move your goalpost.
             

          • Calypso_1

            Moving the goalpost is necessary to zero in through feedback towards a precise location.
            By its nature a goal is not yet truly demarcated as it has not been arrived at.  Targeting the goal is an adaptive cybernetic process. 
            If you want to play games on a rhetoric field go join a team.  Otherwise, learn that thought is a far more, extensive, systematized, dynamic and rewarding endeavor than the level you are currently manifesting.  Move your goalpost.
             

          • David Howe

            you are in way over your head

          • David Howe

            you are in way over your head

          • Calypso_1

            That statement demonstrates neither relative context nor underlying insight.

          • Calypso_1

            Perhaps you did not (to your credit), but you are one of the most rational individuals on this board.
             

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            I prefer to be rational to the extent that it is useful. There comes a point where rationality is irrational.

          • Calypso_1

            : )  Indeed, and a level were irrationality is supremely fun!  (And quite challenging if you’ve ever tried your hand at Dadaist exercises for any extended period) 

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

             How convenient

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            you have no idea.

          • Calypso_1

            I fear this new breed of ‘rationalists’ are rapidly filling the same niche as bible thumpers who always have a chapter & verse to overide any thought outside of the limited set of poorly understood prescriptive dogma that is elevated to the realm of holy ordinance.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

             You sound like a bible thumper, actually. You’ve confused faith and facts.  Very sad.  We’re through here.

          • Calypso_1

            Thank Darpa! Holy Raytheon bringer of Light!

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            this seems to be the philosophical equivalent to the rise of the Nu-Atheists. But you never know, ideas in the world of religion and spirituality ironically got catalyzed by the nu-atheists, and maybe these nu-rationalists can do the same thing for philosophy. Proponents “ordo ab chao” always forget about “chao ab ordo”

          • Calypso_1

            Aphorisms? Really? ; )

            …and they usually have so very little understanding about controlling chaos through low-periodicity anticontrol fixpoint manipulation of manifolds.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            He’s pretty good at League of Legends, too.

            Much better than me, but that’s not saying much…

          • Calypso_1

            Heh. I don’t have a comparison to draw on as I am not a gamer. I am fairly useful in a tac situation though, so I’ll extrapolate that this is adulation of prowess that only adds a keener edge to the already demonstrated intellect.

          • Calypso_1

            Heh. I don’t have a comparison to draw on as I am not a gamer. I am fairly useful in a tac situation though, so I’ll extrapolate that this is adulation of prowess that only adds a keener edge to the already demonstrated intellect.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Hey, practice makes perfect. admittedly you could say i’ve had way too much practice :-P. Some day I’ll pick a new cure for boredom.

            Haven’t seen you on in a while, I’d be willing to make a new account to play against lower players to not get discouraged, the way the matchmaking works, its not exactly fair for you to play against the higher levels with me.

          • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

            I’ve been surprisingly busy these past couple of months and “on the road”.

            I’m almost never on an internet connection that I consider fast and stable enough to even attempt LOL. (Though I do admit that Fios has me a bit spoiled.)

            When the lure of hearth and home brings me back into town I’ll make sure to practice my |33t Morgana skills (Ha!) and we can terrorize Summoner’s Rift again.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          whoever said i was rational? I sure as hell didn’t.

          Maybe I just want people to think more.

        • Calypso_1

          Deflection is not irrational.  It is part of systems control modulation.

        • Calypso_1

          Deflection is not irrational.  It is part of systems control modulation.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

             oh my

        • Calypso_1

          Deflection is not irrational.  It is part of systems control modulation.

      • David Howe

         whatever you’re doing, you’re deflecting, an irrational act.

    • Truth_Lover

      “The evidence isn’t that good”? Well, anyone who has had even one clear, direct, highly conscious experience of telepathy, and had it verified, has all the evidence they need to know that it is possible… though having numerous experiences would probably be more convincing, even to the person themselves (since we are trained to doubt these things and it can be hard to undo that kind of training). They needn’t wait for ‘scientists’ to catch up with them and prove the reality of their own experiences to them before they can accept their experiences as real.

  • Andrew

    My bias is towards believing that people don’t read others’ minds, they write them.

  • http://newageamazon.tumblr.com newageamazon

    I agree with the claims that in order to prove it scientifically, we need harder scientific evidence.

    HOWEVER: I don’t believe that the idea of having to “abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations” equals an impossibility.  Crazy idea: maybe we DON’T understand reality or quantum mechanics as well as we think we do.  Maybe as we grow as a species and culture, our grasp of our world does too, and theories we’ve held before as solid turn out to be a little…well, not watery, but maybe a bit melted?  Point is: skepticism is good, but I think to outright reject any possibility is a bad plan.

  • http://newageamazon.tumblr.com newageamazon

    I agree with the claims that in order to prove it scientifically, we need harder scientific evidence.

    HOWEVER: I don’t believe that the idea of having to “abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations” equals an impossibility.  Crazy idea: maybe we DON’T understand reality or quantum mechanics as well as we think we do.  Maybe as we grow as a species and culture, our grasp of our world does too, and theories we’ve held before as solid turn out to be a little…well, not watery, but maybe a bit melted?  Point is: skepticism is good, but I think to outright reject any possibility is a bad plan.

    • Artor

      Yup. We could be completely mistaken about our concepts of relativity & quantum mechanics, but we’ve been using Einsteins equations for over half a century now, and they’ve been working perfectly. So any new explanation will have to encompass all that AND explain how psychic activity works. That’s a pretty high hurdle.

    • Artor

      Yup. We could be completely mistaken about our concepts of relativity & quantum mechanics, but we’ve been using Einsteins equations for over half a century now, and they’ve been working perfectly. So any new explanation will have to encompass all that AND explain how psychic activity works. That’s a pretty high hurdle.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

      false. some possibilities – like mindreading – can be rejected because they don’t make any sense.  the point of logic.

  • Gergith

    Holy logical argument flaw Batman! Belief in ANYTHING is unscientific, including science. Belief in science is unscientific. The act of belief itself is unscientific, regardless of the belief in what. Be it gravity, the earth revolving around the sun, etc. If you have only read and been told the earth revolves around the sun, how do you know? Have you seen the transitions of the zodiac with your naked eye? or certain planets moving in specific ways that would be expected with the theory? If not, then isn’t the basis of your knowledge more faith based belief, then scientifically held knowledge?

    • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

      I just commented on much the same point you’re making here. Every person should have to take a Liberal Arts Course in Rhetoric … it’s a fucking travesty that they don’t and it makes conversation impossible. It’s more of a fundamental teaching of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic every time I bring myself to comment here.

      • Gergith

        I agree. My FAVOURITE phrase I’ve found to test peoples ability to digest logic/grammer/rhetoric is the following: Monkey’s will eat sand if you make them. Anyone who argues with the sentence itself just doesn’t get the logic and words involved. I’m never saying I support said forced sand eating, nor do I really think it’s possible. But ANYONE will do ANYTHING if you make them, because you’ve made them!

        • Ted Heistman

           Some times there is a larger point that gets missed when you focus too much on minutiae

          • Gergith

            Correct. Like human understanding through clear concise language. When people no longer speak english with proper grammar and logic then there is no point in talking at all.

          • Ted Heistman

            hee hee. I’m picturing you saying that to somebody on the street and getting jacked. 

          • Gergith

            All the best to you too good sir! …

          • Ted Heistman

             I just thought it would be a funny thing to say in that situation. No offense

          • Gergith

            It’d be funny in a hypothetical situation where I get jacked for saying it? But no offense? Again… All the best to you too good sir! :) Way to look past the details ;-)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/LK3HJKTKO35QLP3P4VGVQYEEKM Al-Khafid A. I. A. Walker

            hey can i ask you a question?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/LK3HJKTKO35QLP3P4VGVQYEEKM Al-Khafid A. I. A. Walker

            hey can i ask you a question?

          • Gergith

            You just did! What’s the  question?

          • Gergith

            You just did! What’s the  question?

          • Gergith

            It’d be funny in a hypothetical situation where I get jacked for saying it? But no offense? Again… All the best to you too good sir! :) Way to look past the details ;-)

          • Ted Heistman

             I just thought it would be a funny thing to say in that situation. No offense

          • Gergith

            All the best to you too good sir! …

          • Ted Heistman

            hee hee. I’m picturing you saying that to somebody on the street and getting jacked. 

          • Truth_Lover

             Gergith… marry me!

          • Truth_Lover

             Gergith… marry me!

          • Truth_Lover

            A possibly more appropriate request: may I quote you (on your first comment which very articulately points out the belief in science)? It’s something I’ve been meaning to point out to certain people using my own words, but you just said it so well…

          • Gergith

            Both sound good to me! ;p To be PERFECTLY honest I’ve paraphrased it from SOME documentary I’ve seen before. Most likely someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson. If I were to guess, I’d say it was from his lecture at a religious type conference when he was looking into not why there is such high percentage of atheists as engineers, but why there were STILL 30% who believed in god AFTER all that training. It was very good. I’ll try and find it as I can’t find it instantly with Google. I looked earlier so I wouldn’t have to paraphrase, but I couldn’t find the source lecture.

          • Nunzio X

            “It is like a finger pointing to the moon; don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”

            —Bruce Lee

      • Calypso_1

        It in no way makes a conversation impossible.  That is a limitation you have set upon yourself. 

      • Calypso_1

        It in no way makes a conversation impossible.  That is a limitation you have set upon yourself. 

        • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

          Case in point.

        • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

          Case in point.

          • Calypso_1

            Point to the case.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

             aphorisms?  really?

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

             aphorisms?  really?

          • Calypso_1

            Fer really, really?
             
            Casein pointillism.
             
            Ill conceived which points not to the first return
            Ars antiqua or ars nova ordem?
            Nouveau organum stratums fostered hyperchaotic attractors
            For in it she gives what is housed in her
            Foreign yet benign
            For time eyes ergodic, apotropaic, apporhoia.
              
            Remove mine platonically commensurate with fire
            Be they that which will forget itself
            pondering sacred adjustments
            Hacked out of the young
            Or hocket epicures effluence upon
            splinters of genuflection
            And helices invaginated towards stoichiometric reflection
            Pneuma of stoic hegemony
            Excited by the air of the pupil

            Polymorphism unbound in true doors of hyperintension
            Tenso endosis nox intempesta
            Beyond this there is much to hear in a gaze.
             

          • Calypso_1

            Fer really, really?
             
            Casein pointillism.
             
            Ill conceived which points not to the first return
            Ars antiqua or ars nova ordem?
            Nouveau organum stratums fostered hyperchaotic attractors
            For in it she gives what is housed in her
            Foreign yet benign
            For time eyes ergodic, apotropaic, apporhoia.
              
            Remove mine platonically commensurate with fire
            Be they that which will forget itself
            pondering sacred adjustments
            Hacked out of the young
            Or hocket epicures effluence upon
            splinters of genuflection
            And helices invaginated towards stoichiometric reflection
            Pneuma of stoic hegemony
            Excited by the air of the pupil

            Polymorphism unbound in true doors of hyperintension
            Tenso endosis nox intempesta
            Beyond this there is much to hear in a gaze.
             

          • Calypso_1

            Fer really, really?
             
            Casein pointillism.
             
            Ill conceived which points not to the first return
            Ars antiqua or ars nova ordem?
            Nouveau organum stratums fostered hyperchaotic attractors
            For in it she gives what is housed in her
            Foreign yet benign
            For time eyes ergodic, apotropaic, apporhoia.
              
            Remove mine platonically commensurate with fire
            Be they that which will forget itself
            pondering sacred adjustments
            Hacked out of the young
            Or hocket epicures effluence upon
            splinters of genuflection
            And helices invaginated towards stoichiometric reflection
            Pneuma of stoic hegemony
            Excited by the air of the pupil

            Polymorphism unbound in true doors of hyperintension
            Tenso endosis nox intempesta
            Beyond this there is much to hear in a gaze.
             

          • Calypso_1

            Fer really, really?
             
            Casein pointillism.
             
            Ill conceived which points not to the first return
            Ars antiqua or ars nova ordem?
            Nouveau organum stratums fostered hyperchaotic attractors
            For in it she gives what is housed in her
            Foreign yet benign
            For time eyes ergodic, apotropaic, apporhoia.
              
            Remove mine platonically commensurate with fire
            Be they that which will forget itself
            pondering sacred adjustments
            Hacked out of the young
            Or hocket epicures effluence upon
            splinters of genuflection
            And helices invaginated towards stoichiometric reflection
            Pneuma of stoic hegemony
            Excited by the air of the pupil

            Polymorphism unbound in true doors of hyperintension
            Tenso endosis nox intempesta
            Beyond this there is much to hear in a gaze.
             

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4TPAVUSVIZPKGK57G5HLMD2SUI Casey

        Yeah, if you haven’t read Latour and Derrida and Kenneth Burke, it’s really hard to communicate.  That’s my experience.  

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4TPAVUSVIZPKGK57G5HLMD2SUI Casey

        Yeah, if you haven’t read Latour and Derrida and Kenneth Burke, it’s really hard to communicate.  That’s my experience.  

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4TPAVUSVIZPKGK57G5HLMD2SUI Casey

        Yeah, if you haven’t read Latour and Derrida and Kenneth Burke, it’s really hard to communicate.  That’s my experience.  

    • Stephen Reichman

      “Belief in ANYTHING is unscientific” – Fail. Science is predicated on belief. You cannot have science without belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories All of the theories in the list were “believed” to be true at one time, as well as current scientific theories. Modern science may have raised the bar on what evidence is necessary for a theory to be believed, but it is still belief.

    • Stephen Reichman

      “Belief in ANYTHING is unscientific” – Fail. Science is predicated on belief. You cannot have science without belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories All of the theories in the list were “believed” to be true at one time, as well as current scientific theories. Modern science may have raised the bar on what evidence is necessary for a theory to be believed, but it is still belief.

      • Gergith

        Actually belief is for the theory you are putting forth to scientific scrutiny. Belief itself has NOTHING to do with science. Sure it may be a source of ideas. Einstein had a belief in an idea, but until it is actually tested it is just that. A belief and nothing more. It is only through the scientific scrutiny of actual testing the belief do you actually have science. Whether you believe the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, both are beliefs. One is more scientific then the other because it holds up against scientific testing and data. It is this repeatable testing that is at the heart of science. Things aren’t true or spread in science based on a belief. They are brought forward based on there scientific merit. Proof. This is why people’s belief in aliens, however “Scientific” doesn’t make it actually true or real science. There are no repeatable experiments for this belief to actually be proven. So yes, at one point, ALL of science was just a theory. But the way it LEFT that point was through rigorous testing and experiment. Things that can be verified all over the world with different people conducting the same experiment. THAT is science. Not shared beliefs. Otherwise the belief in God would be a scientific one if belief was all that was required. Hell, Creationism would be scientific for the same reason… But neither are…

      • Gergith

        Actually belief is for the theory you are putting forth to scientific scrutiny. Belief itself has NOTHING to do with science. Sure it may be a source of ideas. Einstein had a belief in an idea, but until it is actually tested it is just that. A belief and nothing more. It is only through the scientific scrutiny of actual testing the belief do you actually have science. Whether you believe the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, both are beliefs. One is more scientific then the other because it holds up against scientific testing and data. It is this repeatable testing that is at the heart of science. Things aren’t true or spread in science based on a belief. They are brought forward based on there scientific merit. Proof. This is why people’s belief in aliens, however “Scientific” doesn’t make it actually true or real science. There are no repeatable experiments for this belief to actually be proven. So yes, at one point, ALL of science was just a theory. But the way it LEFT that point was through rigorous testing and experiment. Things that can be verified all over the world with different people conducting the same experiment. THAT is science. Not shared beliefs. Otherwise the belief in God would be a scientific one if belief was all that was required. Hell, Creationism would be scientific for the same reason… But neither are…

        • Gergith

          Put another way, for science to work, belief is NOT required. I don’t NEED to believe ANYTHING scientific you tell me, I can PROVE it with experimentation so belief is not required. It’s knowledge at that point. How do you know gravity exists and isn’t just a theory? You can drop an object.. Further more you can drop objects and measure there rate of drop in order to calculate the rate of acceleration from gravity. It’s not that the theory is widely believed. It’s that the theory held up to rigorous scientific experimentation and was never once proven wrong… If you don’t understand all of that, you clearly don’t get it at all…

          • Calypso_1

            well said

          • Calypso_1

            well said

        • Gergith

          One GREAT example with Einsteins theories was our use of, I believe, Hubble telescope to view planets directly behind the sun using gravity lenses (gravity bending light around a planet). So his theories could be tested and tested over and over. as soon as they fail ONE test, they are completely wrong. That’s how science works. No amount of belief will alter the results of tests.. Sorry to keep ranting. I’m done now for real ;)

        • Gergith

          One GREAT example with Einsteins theories was our use of, I believe, Hubble telescope to view planets directly behind the sun using gravity lenses (gravity bending light around a planet). So his theories could be tested and tested over and over. as soon as they fail ONE test, they are completely wrong. That’s how science works. No amount of belief will alter the results of tests.. Sorry to keep ranting. I’m done now for real ;)

  • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

    Belief is in and of itself unscientific, it doesn’t matter what said belief may be.

  • Ted Heistman

    OK, so here is an example of everyday telepathy.

    Drug users finding dealers. Closeted gay guys finding each other. Happens all day everyday.

    Psychic communication: when talking is dangerous. 

    • Artor

      That’s your standard of evidence? Wow. There’s not much I can say to someone that delusional.

    • Artor

      That’s your standard of evidence? Wow. There’s not much I can say to someone that delusional.

    • David Howe

       hold on.  I have experience in each of these areas.  Though I am not a drug user, I am frequently approached by drug dealers.  I’d say the drug dealers chat up everyone in their desperation to make a sale (they are usually addicts who need the money badly).  Additionally, they are probably pretty good at spotting loiterers (who loiters besides drug dealers, prostitutes and their customers, huh?) and other addicts.  As for the gay thing, we have “gaydar”, which is a jokey way of saying we notice each other (or “catch” each other) checking out others of the same gender.  There’s nothing magic or psychic about it.  Sit in one place sometime and watch people – you’ll notice people of all genders and persuasions checking out other people that they find attractive. 

      Oh, and you don’t get out much because gay guys aren’t generally in the closet and drug users get their shit delivered.  Desperate people hanging out on the sidewalk looking for sex or drugs are just that.  Desperate.  Urban Legends do not impress.

      • Ted Heistman

         Actually you don’t sound like you know much about it.

      • Ted Heistman

         Actually you don’t sound like you know much about it.

      • Ted Heistman

         I bet you think you can’t tell if people are checking you out unless you have them in your line of sight. I bet you don’t even allow yourself to acknowledge that you can tell if a person is staring at you.

        I bet you say to yourself “I must have seen them staring at me out of the corner of my eye. yes, that’s the only logical explanation.”

        But really you probably can tell without seeing them. It just bugs you that you can’t explain it.

        • Andrew

          I’m not sure that saying it’s psychic is explaining it.

        • Andrew

          I’m not sure that saying it’s psychic is explaining it.

          • TedHeistman

            Well What is it then? Eyes in the back of your head?

          • Andrew

            I don’t need to have a label with which to name something in order to point out that a label is not an explanation.

          • Andrew

            I don’t need to have a label with which to name something in order to point out that a label is not an explanation.

      • Ted Heistman

         I bet you think you can’t tell if people are checking you out unless you have them in your line of sight. I bet you don’t even allow yourself to acknowledge that you can tell if a person is staring at you.

        I bet you say to yourself “I must have seen them staring at me out of the corner of my eye. yes, that’s the only logical explanation.”

        But really you probably can tell without seeing them. It just bugs you that you can’t explain it.

    • David Howe

       hold on.  I have experience in each of these areas.  Though I am not a drug user, I am frequently approached by drug dealers.  I’d say the drug dealers chat up everyone in their desperation to make a sale (they are usually addicts who need the money badly).  Additionally, they are probably pretty good at spotting loiterers (who loiters besides drug dealers, prostitutes and their customers, huh?) and other addicts.  As for the gay thing, we have “gaydar”, which is a jokey way of saying we notice each other (or “catch” each other) checking out others of the same gender.  There’s nothing magic or psychic about it.  Sit in one place sometime and watch people – you’ll notice people of all genders and persuasions checking out other people that they find attractive. 

      Oh, and you don’t get out much because gay guys aren’t generally in the closet and drug users get their shit delivered.  Desperate people hanging out on the sidewalk looking for sex or drugs are just that.  Desperate.  Urban Legends do not impress.

  • Gergith

    Everyone talking in here know about mirror neurons when assuming we have telepathy as a mechanism for empathy? :p Just saying…

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      I’m glad someone said it, but I was having fun watching them walking around it.

      • Ted Heistman

         OK. so explain how they work. A lot of people think that knowing a name for something that throw out there by way of explanation means they know how to works. A common example is “its genetic.”

        • Gergith

          If you actually care to learn, look on youtube for one of MANY explanations. There are also many books on the topic. Here’s a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzMqPYfeA-s
          Are you saying you’ve looked into the topic already and believe the established evidence to be incorrect? That’s fine of so. Please state which parts specifically you disagree with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

            I couldn’t watch the video but I found an article on sciencedaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106123725.htm

            From what I can gather they suspect mirrors are responsible for empathy, but according to the quote: “Other findings show that mirror neuron activity is instrumental for interpreting the facial expressions and actions of others but may not be sufficient for decoding their thoughts and intentions.”

            There’s also a heavy emphasis on the fact their function is based on movement. I’m just trying to look for more recent stuff right now, but I’m not seeing how this proves anything for or against telepathy, it seems to be unravelling just one thread in a spaghetti mess. I’m quite interested in finding possible physical parallels in the brain for some of these phenomena although what is termed as ‘psychic experience’ is such broad collection of things I don’t think any one scientific theory has the power to debunk all of it.

            edit: ooo I found this also (still back from 2006 tho) and thought it too good not to share: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html

          • Ted Heistman

             Yeah, wikipedia implies its controversial and that people are making claims that might be unsubstantiated.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          I do agree with you, in some sense here. Dismissal of things as “genetic” is a copout for saying, its long term entity, and for most it means its a core, permanent aspect of a person/lifeform.

          Explaining mirror neurons depends on your perspective. They can easily be defined as the neurons that fire in empathy with another person. But the argument on HOW they get activated is the same argument you and Artor et al. are having. The reductionist perspective claims they are activated by subtle cues from our standard senses, and your perspective undoubtedly claims they are activated telepathically. As I said before, I’m unconvinced one way or the other, yet open to convincing (and you and I both probably know the convincing isn’t going to happen in text format over the internet).

          • Ted Heistman

             yeah, probably so. Its just that I can’t get in the headspace of not believing in psi phenomenon because its part of my daily experience. I am open to the possibility that there could be scientific explanations for this stuff and i think there probably already is its just that a lot of people that gravitate to science are reductionists. So they are philosophically, even emotionally, invested in their point of view.

            Its not really scientific in the pure sense to have an idea a priori that everthing must be reductionistic/materialistic.

          • Artor

            I think you misunderstand science. It relies on evidence, because making conclusions without evidence is a recipe for delusion. Science is the best method of interpreting that evidence. If you’re making up evidence, or not interpreting it logically, then you’re not doing science.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            The skeptic’s answer to you’re not being able to not believe in psi phenomena is to look at fundamentalist christian’s inability to leave their worldview. Some of them, according to themselves, have direct contact with Jesus, and angels, and there’s no convincing them otherwise.

          • Ted Heistman

             I think they experience some form of psi phenomena which they then personalize into a diety.
            which might be a useful thing to do for them, in many cases. I think possibly peoples hemispheres communicate with each other and this is interpreted as “the voice of God” and the reason these messages have a lot of credibility is because our minds can possibly perceive much more than we think we can. Our rational waking minds filter out a lot.

            So the experience is of the voice of God telling them something they don’t think they could have otherwise known. So then some skeptic isn’t going to tell them otherwise.

    • Ted Heistman

       I mean explain how they work in regards to the discussion such that things perceived as telepathy are actually the case of mirror neurons functioning in such and such a way.

      Otherwise you are simply saying-Its not telepathy its Greek Gods. Appeal to authority. That’s all it is. You haven’t offered an explanation.

      • Gergith

        I have. I have given the proof that mirror neurons are responsible for empathy, not telepathy. That’s the only argument I made, and I have followed it up with proof. It may have been removed, but I posted a youtube link explaining how mirror neurons works. So that’s both how they pertain to the argument specifically in the case of empathy (all I was speaking about in my initial comment anyways).

        • James DePaulo

          Your right. The mirror neurons give us the capacity to understand other
          people’s point of view, how they will respond in a given situation
          prevents us from having the crap beat out of us. If you don’t catch
          the shirt made of the Confederate war banner, visible skin festooned
          with NAZI symbols and riding a tricked out Harley would NOT be
          someone with whom to argue gun rights and restrictions. Should you
          do so your mirror neurons have shorted out or you are one mean
          citizen.

  • Contact

    i was going to post something but you already know what i’m thinking.

  • Contact

    i was going to post something but you already know what i’m thinking.

  • MadHierophant

    I love it when people that have actual scientific evidence and logic on their side forget to not be smug, self-righteous assholes about it and then  wonder why their opposition don’t listen to them. They act like seem to know everything except how to deal with people…

  • MadHierophant

    I love it when people that have actual scientific evidence and logic on their side forget to not be smug, self-righteous assholes about it and then  wonder why their opposition don’t listen to them. They act like seem to know everything except how to deal with people…

    • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

      While I happen to share your sentiment, I don’t really think that it’s fair of you to launch such an unprovoked attack on Colby Hess.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/SDGHYKRODBXAIPWTZPPUUMCOAI Ray

      O Lord it’s hard to be humble

  • Artor

    For Ted: Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the complexity of a neural net. More neurons = greater capacity for consciousness. Sure, our brains generate electrical patterns and various waves, but you notice that in a lab, detecting those requires big scanners or close-fitting electrode skullcaps. We as humans, can’t even detect EM outside the visible spectrum, let alone magnetic fields or brainwaves. How can we possibly transmit abstract thought that way?
    What some people interpret as mind-reading is better explained by subconscious & non-verbal communication, (body language & tone & such) sometimes self-deception, sometimes conscious fraud.

    • Ted Heistman

       Emergent phenomenon=Magic.

      Because you can’t explain it.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      there are many things in the human body that are detectable by a human and directly reacted to, yet no conscious knowledge of this perception or reaction are there.

      In fact, “We as humans, can’t even detect EM outside the visible spectrum” is blatantly  false in this sense as our skin directly reacts chemically to UV radiation. Is it completely impossible to imagine that there are subtle effects that do have reactions albeit subconscious? We already know that our diet has direct effect on the gastrointestinal nervous systems that can effect mood. You cannot dismiss subtlety as nonexistence.

      However one hurdle for Ted here is that a LOT, (but certainly not all) EM radiation is kept out of the brain by the skull. Maybe he has a low bone density or thin skull…. :-P. Maybe you have a really thick skull?

      • Ted Heistman

         Ha ha!

      • Ted Heistman

         seriously though I think its quantum entanglement and that our consciousness is  non-local.  But then some how we construct all this stuff in a logical way. So there are logical rules for everything, but then some shit bleeds through the cracks. Our connection to other people is what bleeds through. Because the logical construct we create sees everyone as completely discrete entities.

        But really we are not discrete. Consciousness is a field. We all tap into this field.The best part of us is the field. So we are all connected. We have self awareness. Self awareness is awareness of awareness. Its a duality.

        So one side of the coin is individual ego consciousness. It can’t perceive the field. But you can realize you are self aware and thats a clue.

        • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

          Hehe, yea. Sounds like something you have to have direct experience with to believe though.

          • Ted Heistman

             well its not hard to get there. Meditation, psychadelic drugs, pondering.

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Yup, so I hear. Obviously I either don’t have the mind for it, or I haven’t done enough, cus I’ve tried some of them it all.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    we live in the telepathic age
    with globally instantaneously available information
    from omnipresent esp devices

    the fact the people don’t notice this
    is part of the problem of modernity

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    we live in the telepathic age
    with globally instantaneously available information
    from omnipresent esp devices

    the fact the people don’t notice this
    is part of the problem of modernity

    • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

      Information is available in higher quantities today and with a broader reach… but at a much lower quality.

  • Ted Heistman

    I think anyone enjoying the discussion would enjoy this:

    http://duncantrussell.com/joe-rogan-in-pope-jizz/#/vanilla/discussion/embed/?vanilla_discussion_id=0

    Duncan Trussell and Joe Rogan discussing consciousness!

  • Ted Heistman

    I think anyone enjoying the discussion would enjoy this:

    http://duncantrussell.com/joe-rogan-in-pope-jizz/#/vanilla/discussion/embed/?vanilla_discussion_id=0

    Duncan Trussell and Joe Rogan discussing consciousness!

  • Ugly Guy

    I’ve experienced a handful of incidents I would not hesitate to classify as psychic.  Based on these experiences, and what I’ve learned from other people who’ve had similar experiences, a major obstacle to testing or “proving” them, is that the experiencer is not in control of them.  They just happen.  It’s not consistent.  It’s not predictable.  It’s not something I can “do”.  It’s something that happens to me.  Whatever it is we need to be measuring, in my opinion, it’s not the human being per say.  It’s something we as yet don’t have a good common word for.  Unless you’re comfortable with basic starting points such as Implicate Order, or World of Forms…. which somehow, occasionally, interacts in irregular ways with our brains.  Or what if consciousness is somehow non-local?  Who knows?

    This behavior, however, of castigating this or that as “unscientific” has undertones of historical persecutions of heretics.  It’s a violent and primitive impulse, proven again and again to itself be entirely irrational.  It smacks of ideological bigotry, frankly.  It’s beneath the spirit of Science itself.

  • James DePaulo

    When I see a controlled demonstration of Telepathy that is repeatable by a number of other researchers I will stand numb with the realization that it’s fact with drool rolling off my chin. I don’t see me drooling .over it in the future – that doesn’t mean I won’t necessarily be drooling, just not over that..
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

  • todd southern

    One of the problems with anything that is in the realm of remarkable is pseudo-skepticism.  When you look at how a scientific claim is factored. The burden of proof is on the claimant. They must provide a hypothesis and use the scientific method, share their research and data, and have others cosign their results through replication.  Simple enough.

    The problem is that so-called skeptics do not provide any such proof for their hypothesis to the contrary. The true skeptic simply states that the burden of proof was not met, they can leave it right there.  There is no reason to suggest anything to the contrary.  Proof was not offered, end of conversation.  The pseudo-skeptic on the other hand presents an equally untestable hypothesis based on perceived notions.  If they provide actual evidence, then they are not a pseudo-skeptic.  

  • todd southern

    One of the problems with anything that is in the realm of remarkable is pseudo-skepticism.  When you look at how a scientific claim is factored. The burden of proof is on the claimant. They must provide a hypothesis and use the scientific method, share their research and data, and have others cosign their results through replication.  Simple enough.

    The problem is that so-called skeptics do not provide any such proof for their hypothesis to the contrary. The true skeptic simply states that the burden of proof was not met, they can leave it right there.  There is no reason to suggest anything to the contrary.  Proof was not offered, end of conversation.  The pseudo-skeptic on the other hand presents an equally untestable hypothesis based on perceived notions.  If they provide actual evidence, then they are not a pseudo-skeptic.  

  • http://twitter.com/KESHAXXKULT Hipster Jesus

    You can’t have a discussion about psychic powers without having a discussion about Consciousness—a topic still shrouded in mystery.

  • http://twitter.com/KESHAXXKULT Hipster Jesus

    You can’t have a discussion about psychic powers without having a discussion about Consciousness—a topic still shrouded in mystery.

  • Magnum Carnage

    The people here arguing in defense of  psychic powers, clearly lack an objective viewpoint, and may even lack common sense.

    For all it’s worth, you may as well be talking about god.  Your “proof” just doesn’t hold weight in the real world of non-believers.

  • rtb61

    A mental state, is a bio-electric field in motion. To read some ones mind is not vodoo it is simply the measuring of changes in the bio-electric field. Just because it is not generally known how to do it, does not make it impossible. It is most definitely logically possible,

  • rtb61

    A mental state, is a bio-electric field in motion. To read some ones mind is not vodoo it is simply the measuring of changes in the bio-electric field. Just because it is not generally known how to do it, does not make it impossible. It is most definitely logically possible,

  • Marco

    Read the book “The Conscious Universe”, it is a compilation of statistical information regarding the psi research for the last 100 years or so. 

    A quote: “Skeptical British psychologist Mark Hansel proposed the following recipe for ‘how much evidence’ would be required to convince him that something was going on:

    If a result is significant at the .01 level [that is, odds against chance of 100 to 1] and this result is not due to chance, but to information reaching the subject [by psi], it may be expected that by making two further sets of trials the antichance odds of 100 to 1 will be increased to about a million to one, thus enabling the effects of ESP-or whatever is responsible for the original result-to manifest itself to such an extent that there will be little doubt that the result is not due to chance.

    …Hansel would be pleased to know that this has been achieved dozens of times, in numerous of categories of psi experiments.”

    There is evidence out there, it has just been mocked and derided by the high priests of modern science…

  • Marco

    Read the book “The Conscious Universe”, it is a compilation of statistical information regarding the psi research for the last 100 years or so. 

    A quote: “Skeptical British psychologist Mark Hansel proposed the following recipe for ‘how much evidence’ would be required to convince him that something was going on:

    If a result is significant at the .01 level [that is, odds against chance of 100 to 1] and this result is not due to chance, but to information reaching the subject [by psi], it may be expected that by making two further sets of trials the antichance odds of 100 to 1 will be increased to about a million to one, thus enabling the effects of ESP-or whatever is responsible for the original result-to manifest itself to such an extent that there will be little doubt that the result is not due to chance.

    …Hansel would be pleased to know that this has been achieved dozens of times, in numerous of categories of psi experiments.”

    There is evidence out there, it has just been mocked and derided by the high priests of modern science…

  • TruthMonger

    Wow, what an information-free article. Since when does conjecture pass for news?

  • TruthMonger

    Wow, what an information-free article. Since when does conjecture pass for news?

  • Alan M Davies

    Start with a meme-based premise that lacks evidence, build a view and an argument.  Arse.  My sheep dreams kites.  Are the kites real?

  • Alan M Davies

    Start with a meme-based premise that lacks evidence, build a view and an argument.  Arse.  My sheep dreams kites.  Are the kites real?

    • Alan

      My sheep said they were true, whilst I was in a cave trying hard and eventually reaching his highness the VGU, telling me what I am and will be.   This may be strange, but I had a spiirit visit.  I had a zinger, never behat a cat.

      Ask, anything!  I despair.

      • Alan

        And this will be true because it has already happened.  Why ask why?  Please believe in me, I have easy answers.  Please debate my cat.

      • Alan

        And this will be true because it has already happened.  Why ask why?  Please believe in me, I have easy answers.  Please debate my cat.

  • Valdas Virbilas

    IT IS FUNNY ABSOLUTELY..?!
    Any one can to find THE PROOFS OF TELEPATHY of 2007th, placed in
    Yahoo group Telepathy.
    Human with human case, where actions mechanic in Youtube could be vusible to
    any one. …2007′th and this can be easy proven, that it is no
    false.
    Yahoo group Telepathy. Message’s subject: <>
    More simpler Internet’s search is with using of two keywords. <>.
    What is it in Your version..?! Jokers text about telepathy’s dreams AFTER
    6 EARS, WHEN IT IS ALREADY VISUALY PROVEN FACT.

  • Valdas Virbilas

    IT IS FUNNY CONFUSELY ABSOLUTELY..?!
    Any one can to find THE PROOFS OF TELEPATHY of 2007th, placed in
    Yahoo group Telepathy.
    Human with human case, where actions mechanic in Youtube could be vusible to
    any one. …2007′th and this can be easy proven, that it is no
    false.
    Yahoo group Telepathy. Message’s subject: The touch through body and the
    doubts
    More simpler Internet’s search is with using of two keywords. SYMBIO TELEPATHY
    What is it in Your version..?! Jokers text about telepathy’s dreams AFTER
    6 EARS, WHEN IT IS ALREADY VISUALY PROVEN FACT.