Developing Telepathy

[ellion]

he is a showman. he would not admit to telepathy if could use it. IMO

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Oh! if this info was documented and I missed it did then it's completely my error and I apologize. I'll see what I can do to attain the correct replay software. Thanks for catching my error.

 

[(Q)]

ellion

i propose that it is highly likely there are emenations that we are not fully aware of.

sorry. i am hopeless with science stuff

Please note the relevance of those two statments and ask yourself how it is you can make such a proposition? And then ask yourself from which standpoint you make that proposition?

 

[ellion]

noted:

the question has been dealt with long ago, but i see waht your problem is.

 

[mr. kavu]

Huh. That Randi thing sounds too good. Why hasn't it been done yet? (and no one say it's because parapsychology does not exist.)

I suppose Happeh needs some support on this. There don't seem to be many with that view around here.

I'll see if I can get that money! Later, of course, I'm not very good right now.

 

[duendy]

That's correct duendy, no known contradictions. People don't budge knowledge... all the emotion in the world can be thrown at it and it wont budge. Knowledge would budge knowledge in an instant. A 'conviction' consequently doesn't have the possibility of change and it is the wrong word to use in this case.

me)))))hmmm welll, one starin me in the face right now is the one that believes it have consciousness sussed yet dont know they don't KNOW consciousness


Not at all... on a science forum there are more than enough visitors that would have ensured a real demonstratable claim would have achived the highest degree of importance (probably end up as a sticky). I've also helped others try to prove their claims on this forum and all have failed to do so.

me))))hpw have you tested Happeh?




The quick answer is I cant (personally). All the examples provided are variants of pleasure and likely have different chemical-electrical reactions. There is no reason to think these reactions couldn't be measured and this is the point.

me))))i dont think it is the point i am meaning. rthis is covered in overview of hard problem. ie., tat there is ways to test chemical, elterica reactions of brain, and beahavourism, but to measure te FEELINS, the 'qualia' is impossible



As emotionally satisfying as the statement may have been to write, it doesn't have a coherent message behind it. What is 'my depth' and how is it being denied?

me)))))))i dont know wat your depth is as you dont know mine of the dogs or the tree etc.....what i am implying is..if you are matrerialist, then you make a mental choice to be unconscious of more swifter subtlesensuality etc.....or if you have a taste as wirth eg psychedelic experience, you then translate the experience in areductionist way

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))do you distrust emotional feeling?



That statement was chalk full of conclusions which my previous statement didn't even remotely support. It's a problem that manifests itself from wielding 'belief'... a cigar is presented, we have evidence a cigar exists, belief kicks in, the conclusion is the cigar is evidence that rocks have gay relations with toasters. It's an interpretation problem and while I can't solve it for others I can suggest to start using reality as a source to compare interpretations to. In the cases where reality disagrees, that should serve as a strong message that there is a problem with the interpretation and serves as an example that could be used to improve.

mePPPPare you not a fan of the surreal?


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)))so you separATE 'TRUTH' FROM 'EMOTION'?



Where did I admit I got emotional? Regardless, I am human and therefore and emotional creature. We have different emotional intelligence and maturity. That difference allows me to not take things personally. I shared this because you do take things personally and have repeatedly shown that it's an experience that you don't like. Similarly, I am not sure if it is recognized... nearly all your posts send negative emotional message to the correpondant. I would be happy to audit this thread to help you identify what they are and why; however, I would only undertake the work if:

m)))inam just frank is all. i love to explore shit. and if someone gives me dissin and will eite ignore or refelct their tone. usually people who dosame deny their own actin as antagpnist...its funny

A) This interests you
B) You commit to using the feedback to improve and explain how this is going to be done.



Because:

* One is a thought process of truth acceptance and the other is awareness. * They are two different words with tw

 

[candy]

Does anyone have proof that Randi has the money to pay?
Have funds been placed in a verifiable escrow account?
I would check on the money before deciding to try to meet his test.

 

[ellion]

yeah

i wouldnt believe any one whore lies on financial rewards.

 

[ellion]

duendy your post is only half complete love.

 

[Happeh]

Oh! if this info was documented and I missed it did then it's completely my error and I apologize. I'll see what I can do to attain the correct replay software. Thanks for catching my error.

Are you saying you think some authority gave there seal of approval that this video shows energy? No. That is not what it is. It is a video that supports the concept of human beings having energy. If you know what you are looking at.

 

[mr. kavu]

Does anyone have proof that Randi has the money to pay?
Have funds been placed in a verifiable escrow account?
I would check on the money before deciding to try to meet his test.

Yeah, I will check, if I try this. I'll have time, I need to develop by abilities more.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Are you saying you think some authority gave there seal of approval that this video shows energy? No. That is not what it is. It is a video that supports the concept of human beings having energy. If you know what you are looking at.

The words I used can't produce this interpretation in any combination using the agreed upon meaning found in a dictionary.

To provide clarification, the words I did use expressed an apology for apparently not reading the whole message correctly concerning the software requirements to view the video.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That's correct duendy, no known contradictions. People don't budge knowledge... all the emotion in the world can be thrown at it and it wont budge. Knowledge would budge knowledge in an instant. A 'conviction' consequently doesn't have the possibility of change and it is the wrong word to use in this case.

me)))))hmmm welll, one starin me in the face right now is the one that believes it have consciousness sussed yet dont know they don't KNOW consciousness

I didn't understand that statement. Could it be remade?

me))))hpw have you tested Happeh?

I've offered to twice and he hasn't responded favorably or at all.

me))))i dont think it is the point i am meaning. rthis is covered in overview of hard problem. ie., tat there is ways to test chemical, elterica reactions of brain, and beahavourism, but to measure te FEELINS, the 'qualia' is impossible

We don't know that chemical and electrical interaction isn't what feeling actually is. If it turns out to be something different then how would it become impossible to measure? In other words, if we don't know enough about a subject, how can we make conclusion of impossibility about it already? We can't. What we can do is take what we've learned about reality and this tells us that anything that exists has the possibility of measurement.

me)))))))i dont know wat your depth is as you dont know mine of the dogs or the tree etc.....what i am implying is..if you are matrerialist, then you make a mental choice to be unconscious of more swifter subtlesensuality etc.....or if you have a taste as wirth eg psychedelic experience, you then translate the experience in areductionist way

I don't know if classifying me as a 'materialist' would be accurate... regardless, I love really awesome and subtle experiences and I've had plenty. I am certainly not 'unconcious' of them and I understand them based on evidence that reality provides... not how I feel.

me))do you distrust emotional feeling?

As a means to understand reality? Most definately. What anyone feels to be true in reality typically has absolutely nothing to do with truth. As a means to understand people? I have great trust in emotional feeling.

mePPPPare you not a fan of the surreal?

I find the surreal very attractive and attractiveness doesn't equate to truth.

me)))so you separATE 'TRUTH' FROM 'EMOTION'?

Not quite. I avoid using emotion as a means to understand reality.

m)))inam just frank is all. i love to explore shit. and if someone gives me dissin and will eite ignore or refelct their tone. usually people who dosame deny their own actin as antagpnist...its funny

There is evidence it goes far beyond frank and it doesn't sound like there is interest to what I proposed.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Here is a short video that proves the existence of energy.

http://www.happeh.com/Videos/Energy.avi

I say this video supports the idea that human beings have energy.

I agree, this video is a great example that proves the existence of energy. There were great examples of kinetic and potential in the forms of light, chemical, mechanical, heat, electric, & sound.

My emotional center also recognizes the message conveyed by the facial expressions and body language of the two fighters. Competition, desire, fear, fearlessness, anxiety, excitement, hope, courage, etc.

What this video doesn't provide evidence for is the existence of that nebulous 'spiritual energy'.

 

[shaman_]

me)))))))))))))))it IS so when itpokes its nose where it sholdn't. into the realm of HUMAN and ANIMAl and ORGANISmtic feeling. take Rene Descartes--a huge influence on materialic science. he and his believes A C T U A L L Y tortured animals! it is NO excuse they err 'dine know what ttheyt were doing'. they DID it! so fukin wake UP. you'll are party to a very cold unfeeling dehumanized religion yes. Urgent!

No it is not a religion and you show yourself to be ignorant when you say this.

Actually I don't know if Descartes did any torturing himself but that is irrelevant. He certainly had some wrong ideas about animals.

This is just another desperate attempt to discredit science. Just because scientists have done something wrong in the past therefore science is wrong, therefore everyone should get on the mushrooms. Right? No. As Ophiolite pointed out, ancient people sacrificed animals (even shamen I believe) for spirital reasons. Does that mean spirituality is evil?

me)))of lordy, but thats what yus doin HERE. you'll callin people crackpots etc for sharing experinces you DO NOT U N D E R S T A N D. see it!!

Nonsense. What we are seeing in this thread is people confidently claiming that telepathy exists even though no one seems to actually have telepathy. When asked for evidence or one person to demonstrate this skill there is much excuse making and wriggling.

So if telepathy exists why can we not test for it? ?

in this world shaman_,'Uneducated' is a BLESSING not a curse!

A foolish notion. Knowledge is power. Where are the cures for diseases going to come from? The uneducated? No. Where are imroved energy sources going to come from? An uneducated person taking mushrooms? I don't think so.

 

[leopold]

ellion
you stated that you experienced telepathy
you also said that you do not believe in it
can you expain this?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe it would be worth clearly defining what exactly is meant by the word "telepathy".
Exactly what are we talking about?

Is it the transmission or reception of just images or is it feelings or is it impressions or is is vocal as in audio dialogue, or is it written [visual]diaglogue.....

 

[ellion]

leopold:
believe is something akin to not knowing for sure but having strong rationalised reasons for accepting. this is as true for disbelief as it is for belief.

 

[ellion]

QQ:

i would suggest that anything that can be considered as mental content could be transferred.

feelings are emotional content and so fall into the classification of empathy.

i would say that a skilled empath could read mental content through emotional content
but it would not be telepathy proper.


edit] the transferrence of mental content from organism to organism while remaining as only mental content; that it the act of telepathy.

 

[duendy]

That's correct duendy, no known contradictions. People don't budge knowledge... all the emotion in the world can be thrown at it and it wont budge. Knowledge would budge knowledge in an instant. A 'conviction' consequently doesn't have the possibility of change and it is the wrong word to use in this case.



I didn't understand that statement. Could it be remade?



I've offered to twice and he hasn't responded favorably or at all.




We don't know that chemical and electrical interaction isn't what feeling actually is. If it turns out to be something different then how would it become impossible to measure? In other words, if we don't know enough about a subject, how can we make conclusion of impossibility about it already? We can't. What we can do is take what we've learned about reality and this tells us that anything that exists has the possibility of measurement.




I don't know if classifying me as a 'materialist' would be accurate... regardless, I love really awesome and subtle experiences and I've had plenty. I am certainly not 'unconcious' of them and I understand them based on evidence that reality provides... not how I feel.



As a means to understand reality? Most definately. What anyone feels to be true in reality typically has absolutely nothing to do with truth. As a means to understand people? I have great trust in emotional feeling.



I find the surreal very attractive and attractiveness doesn't equate to truth.



Not quite. I avoid using emotion as a means to understand reality.




There is evidence it goes far beyond frank and it doesn't sound like there is interest to what I proposed.

you asked me to restate my first reply which was the irony of your situation is that that you dont see the contradiction your in....ie., you dont realize--in my opinion--your depth of consciousness. you tinkyou do but dont know you dont know.
It is a case you your not realizing how consciousnes cannot measure itself. YES there CAn be measure, but there comes to a place where measure becomes limited. but you are stuck-in my eyes- with he idea that we eventually will be able to measure...wellll simply, EVERYthing
but rathe see how your way of thinking work dualistically--you are for example creating a dualism of measure vs IMMeASUREABILITY....ORDER VS CHAOS

but say with ecstasy--not te drug, but te feeling of being ecstatic--the whole meaning of the experience is that you are not in measuring mode, but in wonder. and in that state the very notion of measuring it or anything is hillariously absurd. where would one even begin

but there is absolutely no way i'm ever onna get thru to you. you seem VERY stuck in the wool physicalist

one thing. my way finds it easier to accomodate peoples extraordinary experiences than yours seems to. you seriously believe, a do your mates here, that simply EVERY ever ever experience that has ever been reported since forever ever hasbeen false. and that isjust preposterous, and an insult to peoples intelligence. you me dear crunchy cat is fundamentalist. lot of em about