Developing Telepathy

[Quantum Quack]

any way the point i was going to make but never: is the human body radiates subtle emanations (apart from pheromones) such as Light, Heat, Chemical, Electric and Magnetic energy possibly others that we have no idea about as yet.

so it is a possibility that these emanations of the body could carry with them information about the body.

it is als a possibilty that another sensitive body is able to interpert the information. this is an extension of QQ's pheromone theory though closer to the subtleties of consciousness than the olfactory senses (even the professor here has figured out we don't think in smells.)

anyway its a possible mecahanism for the transference of information between unconnected bodies.

well said......[ do I hear the door creaking on it's hinges a little?]

 

[ellion]

seeing myself as a spirtual entity whose physical form is only a vehicle for expereince of the more meaningful qualities of human existence, i dont need this mechansim to understand my expereince but for those who do i present it as a possibilty

 

[Ophiolite]

anyway its a possible mecahanism for the transference of information between unconnected bodies.

I usually just talk, phone or e-mail. While these are open to misinterpretation or error, I have found them to be more reliable than telepathy.

 

[ellion]

was that a joke?

 

[ellion]

it seems the door is creaking on its hinges. as telepathy has now been accepted as a possibilty by Ophiolite albeit one that is inferior to his phone and his email system.

 

[Ophiolite]

The creaking you hear is not the door, but your atrophied powers of objective thought struggling to move into action.

 

[ellion]

oh right! thanks for that!
do you have anything to say about the mechanism for possible communication between two unconnected orgaisms or is this where you start your insults and ridicule again.

i do say this under the presumption that the above post was not an attemt to ridicule or critise my reasoning ability.

 

[Ophiolite]

do you have anything to say about the mechanism for possible communication between two unconnected orgaisms .

Yes. I have conveyed it through the use of irony in an earlier post.

Communication between distant organisms can take place via one or more of the senses, (specifically sight, hearing, touch and smell) potentially aided by a tool of some nature.

The form of the communication may be:
Language
Chemical
Expression (e.g. body language)

The tools may function in one of the following ways:
Amplification of the primary signal (e.g. Using binoculars to lip read)
Coding/Decoding of the primary signal ( e.g. radio)

I am aware of some poor quality evidence for telepathy. I am aware of significant evidence against telepathy. I am aware of nothing that remotely constititues proof for telepathy.

or is this where you start your insults and ridicule again.

I shall engage in insults and ridicule from time to time, until you retract your unwarranted accusation of lying. You have four options that I can think of:
1) Attempt to have me banned.
2) Ignore me.
3) Respond in kind.
4) Retract your unwarranted accusation of lying.

i do say this under the presumption that the above post was not an attemt to ridicule or critise my reasoning ability.

I believe your reasoning ability is sufficient to realise this is almost exactly what I meant. [I say almost, since I was attempting to criticise, rather than attemting to critise.]
You really should consider option 4.

 

[ellion]

your post covers already established methods of comunication not the mechanism for possible communication via means other than the standard 5 senses.

when you say significant evidence against telepathy, do you mean that there was no evidence to suggest telepathic communication rather than actually disproving telepathic communication? in short, no study has been able to reproduce the phenomena.

 

[duendy]

Do you think there are no deluded people duendy?

of course there are...world's FULL of them. what i am specifically pointing out is this: the DIAGNOSERS IGNORE THEIR OWN DELUSION....yes?
for a kick off, the very term 'schizophrenia' being used to stigmatize those ehere wanting to explore about phenomena WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND......it is a huge umbrellaa term the mental health establishment use to stigmatize people THE dont inderstand. thereis no specific knowledg of what so-called shizophrenia IS..... it is not an organic disease, and thus the term is used SUBJECTIVEL by an oppressive mindset to stgmatize others, be they of a different coloured skin, different ethnic grop, different 'class', and thse who do NOT AGREE WITH ESTABLISHED BELIEFS
this doesn't mean to say there do not exist people who feel the TV is speaking to them, or feel particularly persecuted by others. but the people who claim to understand this behaviour are deluded thmselves when they puport to explia it, when they are unaware of the mental illness myth. it becomes a farce. an insidious farce of the blind leading the blind, where the latter usually get the shitty en of the stick
The illustration of what i am speaking about is clearly seen from the above 'diagnosis of a person who is simply sharing ideas not ACCEPTABLE to the self-appointed diagnoticians
THISis the mainstay of fascistic-materialism as demonization ws themainstay of patriarchal religion!...it allows your delusion to be maintained via these oppressive tactics.....AND CAUSESthe distress you then further stigmatize

 

[Ophiolite]

your post covers already established methods of comunication not the mechanism for possible communication via means other than the standard 5 senses.

Correct. I do not think it likely such a mechansim exists. I have heard of no plausible mechanism for such communication.

We should not confuse coincidence or deduction with actual communication.

when you say significant evidence against telepathy, do you mean that there was no evidence to suggest telepathic communication rather than actually disproving telepathic communication?

In instances where telepathy has been claimed to exist, it has not been demonstrated. It was therfore disproved for those instances. In other instances evidence has simply been lacking or of poor quality.

 

[duendy]

You may be convinced of your limitations by your own belief systems but I certainly arenot convinced that your limitations apply and are not also a form of delusion. You believe so striongly in your conscious limitations that the potential you have is so severely suppressed your delusions of limitations are as real to you as my delusions of the less limited are to me.

VERY much agree with that QQ.

was gonna start a post about it but u got here frst.....
thing is, there seems to be assumptions for materialistically-indoctrinated people that..........'we lost potential powers millenia back-----that we are natrual aggresors---------' etc.

---these kinds of social darwinist views have their effect. this is wat in-doctrine-ation MEANS. you are indoctrinated by what the education systems has imposed on you. for those who believe the so-called education system is benevolent should study about the figgin education system, checkout its instigators and what they were about, and the purpose of it. dont be so naive....already.

There is a deliberate intention to indoctrinate you

of course it dulls you and dumbs us down, BUT this doesn't have to be permanent. at any ime tou can excercize....refresh, reawaken sensuality. but you have to see it first. which means seeing THRU indoctrination. thisis an ongoing exploratory process

 

[ellion]

I have heard of no plausible mechanism for such communication.

i have just provided a possible mechanism for discussion, one which i thought plausible, it is an extension of QQ's pheromone theory and it can be read at the top of the page. quoted in QQ's response. do you see anything wrong with this as a possible mechanism for communication via means other than the standard 5 sense?

 

[ellion]

of course it dulls you and dumbs us down, BUT this doesn't have to be permanent. at any ime tou can excercize....refresh, reawaken sensuality. but you have to see it first. which means seeing THRU indoctrination. thisis an ongoing exploratory process

but duendy these indoctirnated people have learned about how so many nutty fruitcake woo woo's want everyone else to believe in fairys, and pink shaggetti monsters, it i important for them to be uber critical in order to protect themselves form such evil.

 

[duendy]

but duendy these indoctirnated people have learned about how so many nutty fruitcake woo woo's want everyone else to believe in fairys, and pink shaggetti monsters, it i important for them to be uber critical in order to protect themselves form such evil.

You are spoton ellion. it is a fear of evil--ofbeing engulfed
modern conscious research ala Dr Stanislav Grof has highlighted this fear, from a huge amount of experiential data............for example, in deep atates of experiece, eiter faciliated by psychedelic or non-psychedelic means, rthe experiencer goes through stages. one is fear of being engulfed....it is apparently this deep fear of universal engulfment

i believe the racist has it--regarding fdear of being 'taken over'/engulfed by black folks, or ethnic folks'----the middle classes, and upper fear theeir being taken over by the 'riff raff', the
homophobe by the 'faggots'.....and the materialistic-mindset by the 'woo woos'

according to the book Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda, by Dan Russell, theoroginal 'scapegoat', from where the term and fear originated, was the 'woo oo'--the wise woman, shaman, people who were attuned to the deeper mysteries of Nature. tis occured--according to author's research, due to the patriarchal subjugation of COMMUNAL ecstatic expression
An interesting side note. Wilhel Reich's theory in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism is that it is the suppression and repression of sexual orgamsic release which causes sadism. i agree. but i also add , the suppression and repression or ORGIASTIC forms of expression

 

[ellion]

i believe the racist has it--regarding fdear of being 'taken over'/engulfed by black folks, or ethnic folks'----the middle classes, and upper fear theeir being taken over by the 'riff raff', the
homophobe by the 'faggots'.....and the materialistic-mindset by the 'woo woos'

i have it too, mine is the fear of psychadelic mushroom peddlers. :bugeye: lol.
but sereiously i think you have the same complex about the patriarchal elite.:bugeye: not lol.

 

[ellion]

duendy: do you have e thread going about the split between spirit and matter? i had some questions about it to put to you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

me]]]]]]]]THAT very assumption has a history. it is positivism.

I would call it a well supported model. There are no known contradictions; however, if any can be provided then I am certainly willing to revise.

me]]]]]]]]obviously there are, otherwhise therer wouldn't be any discussions here , right. of events you lot cannot measure or describe. what are te odds that if even just ONE 'non-ordinary' event is true it demolishes your surieites of 'measurement'?

I wound't even begin to use the word 'obviously' in this case. All the 'PSI' claims encountered in this subforum have had no demonstrable effect as of yet. What doesn't exist can't be measured. If but a single 'PSI' event could be shown to exist, I guarntee it would change understanding and thinking.

me]]]]]]]yes you are right at first part of what you say, but ten fall back on your religious dependence of measurement. you are lost--in limboland less you feel you can measure. you have never really left Newtonian science have you?

Measurement is something that works in reality, whether it's space, time, frequency, etc. I am not aware of any situations where measurement is not a possibility and if examples can be provided then I am willing to revise my understanding.

me]]]]]]]]WHY would you love to believe in them? to say such a thing implies you feel something missing in your life.........and you lot claim us lot are 'believers'--as tho you aint solidly beliving in your myth. no, we , ori am an explorer. i am flexible and listen to people who tell me thingsi dont understand without resorting to constantly insulting them. even when yu dont know what yer talkin about!!! (not that you have, but you seem to belong to their camp)

It's a fair interpretation of the implication and it's incorrect. I would love to believe in them because they are attractive. I like to look a attractive things, I like to listen to attractive things, and I certainly would like to believe in attractive things; however, attractiveness doesn't equate to truth and I value the latter far more.

The delineation I make between 'believers' and 'non-belivers' is simply to categorize very distinct thought processes used to understand reality. 'Believers' tend to use emotional criteria to accept something as true where 'non-believers' tend to use evidence. There are situations of crossover between the two 'camps' and there is certainly dominance in thought process. The threads in the forum suggest that 'believers' tend to take things personally more often than 'non-believers'; a possible consequence of being engrossed in emotional criteria. I can only suggest not letting it get to you and be an example of how you want to be treated by consistently treating others in that manner (even if it's not reciprocated).

me]]]]]]]]]yes, as usual you seem to notice Happehn's defensive gestures, but CONVENIENTLY are Unconscious about the utter hostility, even including 'daignoses' of mental illness-no less--from your comrades in arms. selctive or what????

I never said that there wasn't hostility in both directions (both intentional and unintentional). Again, I can only suggest putting the emotions aside and being consistent about how to treat others (regardless of how it comes back). I've flat out told Happeh that I think he is delusional (based on evidence). I did let him know that I would and could suspend judgment if he was willing to commit to providing evidence of his claims (I even offered to help him). It may have felt insulting to him when I asked for evidence, pointed out evidence supporting a choice of delusion, and offered to help. I value truth above emotion, and I suspect many 'non-believers' do as well; hence, this type of feedback should be expected.

me]]]]]]]]who is the'you' keeping 'it' in check?? you admit you dont understand consciousness right, yet sit there assuming 'you' cn 'keep itin check'.....you have no idea no idea of the complexity, really. the games people play on themselves....

I am keeping my 'belief' in check... not my conciousness. They are very different concepts (one is a thought process of truth acceptance while the other is awareness).

me]]]]]]oh god. see whati mean. look, try and just read an overview ofthe hard problem (David Chalmers), because it is painfully obcious CC you know notof what you speak.

My observations aren't based on philosophy duendy, they are based on experimental results. IMO, there is not enough data to firmly model a theory; hence, I use the phrase 'suggests'. Regarding the external link ('spirit'), no matter how well David Chalmers explores the philosophy of the subject, there is just no evidence to even suggest such a thing exists. One thing to keep in mind is the phrase 'I don't know' doesn't open a void to be substituted with an attractive concept (ex. 'spirit'). It's an opportunity to hypothesize, observe, experiment, and model... basically get closer to the truth.

me]]]]]]]see above. you are confusing objective examination of brain with subjective feeling of consciousness. as said...if you REALLY are srious about exploring this, its important you realize WHAT te Hard Problem MEANS, no?

I understand the concept. We're talking about the whole individual experience of concioussness. Thought, emotion, sensation, potential, etc. There is evidence to suggest this is all a result of the interaction between a large and complex infrastructure of matter and energy (chemicals and electrical current in the human brain for example). What the details of that interaction could be is far beyond my scope of knowdge & understanding at present and there are people with full time careers exploring this.

A really attractive implication could be that the structure of reality is predisposed to conciousness and that would open the door to simulation and discovery of how to look for other forms of conciousness that aren't amino-acid based.

me))))))buyt iam notMEANING 'mystical'. 'mystical' is part of te same sorry mindset i am going on about--that psychologically separates matter-energy from 'spirit'/consciousness......

I understand, and there's no evidence at present to suggest that such a seperation even exists.

b ut dont you yet see, CC, it is your CRITERIA for ' solid evidence' that IS your IMPASSE to understanding about whats being said. you are asking the wrong questions
you have to greeatly broaden your field of research to begin exploring about all this!

I see things differently. If I have a question about reality then what better source is there to ask then reality itself? Sometimes the question isn't good, sometimes the answer is misinterpreted, and many times we just get right to the truth.

 

[duendy]

i have it too, mine is the fear of psychadelic mushroom peddlers. :bugeye: lol.
but sereiously i think you have the same complex about the patriarchal elite.:bugeye: not lol.

alright...fair challenge. do i?...is a slave justified the feeling of engulfment when at any time he can be beaten to death forlookin at hir master in th eyes and/or in the 'wrong way'? for example?......how different is THAT feeling than from a fairly comfortable middle clssian who fears engulment from the 'undercass' cause he's seen propaganda about tem on every corner wiating to mug hir from the media?

 

[duendy]

duendy: do you have e thread going about the split between spirit and matter? i had some questions about it to put to you.

ask it hereee...?