Developing Telepathy

[Crunchy Cat]

You are wrong. You think the words refer to what you see in a hollywood movie. All of those words were invented to describe human beings with certain traits.

Like 'tetsusaiga'? It translates to 'iron crushing fang' and is a sword with 3 modes of long distance attacks. Hardly a human being with certain traits, thus this point is contradicted.

There are zombies. I see zombies everyday. Not flesh eating guys with parts falling off. Brain dead and damaged people are zombies. I got lots of pictures if you are interested.

Brain dead and damaged people are more correctly described by the final cognitive result... ex 'vegetable', 'retarded', 'synesthesia', etc; however, I can see the word 'zombie' as an alternative adjective. It's most popular definition is reanimated dead (through voodo).

All of those words are meant to describe a human being with specific traits. They do not describe a separate animal species that possessess the describe traits.

'Phraint' does not describe human beings. The assertion is contradicted.

Just like I said. You Crunchy, the superior westerner, know more than the entire Japanese culture. And the Chinese culture. And the Thai culture.

If you say so.

I should find that news clipping for you. The one in which a top Thai government official said "we read people's minds".

The statement is probably taken of context if a top govt' official is stating that... or if not, we have a claim and there should be evidence of the claim no?

Of course to you, he is a crazy top government official. He is not a dignified, capable man of high status who is telling the truth.

Wow, I never read the content of the article and you seem to know that I would judge him and how I would judge him. Wasn't someone just stating something about superior knowledge?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That makes me wonder too.

Crunchy and Skin. What is it that prevents you from acknowledging the truth?

Assuming there is a situation we haven't, it would likely be 'belief'... at which point it should be pointed out so we can remove it. we do have a criteria for even remotely considering something to be true. It's called EVIDENCE... something very lacking in this thread. EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE. Repeate after me... EVIDENCE. Come to the table with a fantastic claim? Expect to provide EVIDENCE.

I said it was fear. You are afraid someone will read your mind and found out you stole a candy bar when you were a kid. People denied fear was a reason.

I actually don't care if anyone in the world knows anything about things I have done in the past. If someone read my mind and knew I saved people's lives then I don't care. If someone read my mind and knew I took people's lives, then I don't care.

What other emotion can provide so much energy that you can deny reality consistently for months on end?

Between the three of us, only one person is denying reality. The answer to the question is a thought process (not an actual emotion itself... although emotion is no doubt employed as part of the process). That thought process is called 'belief'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

and whati is saying isss. how do you know your questions aren't limited. reverse back to pre QM, right? you know te story i presume. weren't te classical scientists asking questions from a limited perspetive? that is what i have learnt. and tis is why what they began inding out disturbed many of the pioneering physcists so much. still does.
So compare then with now. we are years into QM aren't we. is thaty it? how do you see things going??

I don't know the questions aren't limited until I have the ability to ask questions whose answers show the limitations of previous questions. That's part of what happened from newtonian physics to quantum mechanics today.

i have already informed you that THE BIG QUESTIOn now for philosophy, cognitive sciene and QM is CONSCIOUSNESS. do you not believe me? think i am making this up. or is your emphasis in explorng consciousness from a materilistic point..of view? you seem to. but how can you be so sure?

Philosophy doesn't have a means to ask reality questions beyond a psychology and conceptual scope. Science does and is thus a much better tool to explore conciousness with.

I suspect Science will be tempered with philosophical guidance (after all, if we figure out how to make conciousness tomorrow then we might inadvertantly make it suffer... and philosophy can help guide our actions in that regard).

 

[duendy]

CC, ifi remember right, in tother reply to me you agred you too wee shaky regarding the'science' used by themetal health movment regarding 'mental illness'. isthat correct?

if so, that is a HUGE step. for te mental heath movment 'scientific' propaganda against 'mental illness' is THE main corner stone of materialistic science paradigm............did y hear what i just said??

so for example. notonly heere. but lso throughtout the history o psychiatry, andone sharing they have experienced experience not deemed acceptable by either the Church nor mscience has been accsus of being demonized and/or mentally ill. even so-called real rligious characters from the past have been tus daignosed, even Jesus and Buddha, etc. tis is true

so, can you not see, that if you sway in rthe direction of seeing thru that scam, then you surely must begin to open up more to peoples unexplinable experieces?

if not, what you gonna do. call them 'mentally ill'?

 

[Happeh]

Months? How about years? And include me in that group also.

You don't realize how stupid you sound here Happeh. If there really WAS such a thing as telepathy, how could fear and being afraid stop someone from reading your mind??????

Didn't you ever watch Star Trek? The intial pilot of the original Star Trek, which was not shown on TV for years, tells you right to your face.

Strong emotion interferes with telepathy.

 

[Happeh]

Like 'tetsusaiga'? It translates to 'iron crushing fang' and is a sword with 3 modes of long distance attacks. Hardly a human being with certain traits, thus this point is contradicted.

Nope. You took one word out of the group, disproved it, and claim that disproves the claim for all words in the group. That is not science.


You really believe all that word jumping makes you clever huh? It just makes you tiresome. I wonder how many people you drive away because you will not just talk to them?

 

[Happeh]

I actually don't care if anyone in the world knows anything about things I have done in the past. If someone read my mind and knew I saved people's lives then I don't care. If someone read my mind and knew I took people's lives, then I don't care.

This is the problem with you guys. You refuse to acknowledge reality. "I don't care if anyone reads my mind". This is foolish. We all know that if someone starts talking about how you slept with the bosses wife or how you robbed a bank, you would be uncomfortable.

Between the three of us, only one person is denying reality. The answer to the question is a thought process (not an actual emotion itself... although emotion is no doubt employed as part of the process). That thought process is called 'belief'.

So you are saying your belief that telepathy does not exist is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge reality?

 

[SkinWalker]

We musn't forget those that refuse to beleive anything unless you hold them down, staple their eyes open, and force them to look at the evidence until they stop lying and admit they have no idea what the reasons are for what they are looking at.

The problem is, we don't appear to be "looking" at anything. Every time 'telepathy' is "looked" at in a laboratory, it doesn't exist. Whenever controls are applied to those that claim they are 'telepathic' or have 'remote viewing' ability, they fail. They fail because they don't have access to normal human intuition or communication. They are unable to get subtle visual/audio cues from those around them to produces results.

So the truth is, apparently, that those who claim that they have telepathy are either lying or deluded. Those that cling to fantasies the way you do, are truly pathetic. The irony is, I want things like 'telepathy' and 'psi' to exist. I'm just not about to place my belief in something that isn't supported by evidence. A belief populated by people who are fantasy-prone, gullible, or simply willing to take those who are fantasy-prone and gullible for a ride to get their $14.95 for a book.

The eyes of critics and skeptics of nonsense like 'telepathy' need not have their eyes stapled open. They worked very hard to replicate claims of 'telepathy' and 'remote viewing' -they wanted these claims to be true. But they were't. They were bunk. Researchers like Targ and Putof (1974) claimed they found it and demonstrated. Closer looks at their methodology and the replicability claims (Marks 1981; Marks & Kammann 1978; Marks & Scott 1986) revealed that their research design was seriously flawed and, when double-blind controls are enforced, the alleged abilities disappear.

Marks and others found that the infamous study by Targ and Putoff was not only flawed, but scientifically unethical in its approach to research. There existed direct cuing of the judges, nonindependence of judges, and a general failure to provide adequate control conditions.

Ironically the apparent scam artist mentioned by candy above, Joe MacMoneagle was one of the subjects that Targ and Putoff 'tested' and he was no better at finding a target than anyone else. Neither MacMoneagle nor Targ and Puthoff have ever took James Randi up on his $1 million challenge -a feat that should have been easy to do if proper controls were used and if the abilities were real, providing considerable funding for more of their research if it were legitimate. But it isn't. They're conducting pseudoscience.

The truth is that there is no evidence for the reality of nonsense like 'telepathy.' But ther is plenty of truth for the fantasy that exists in the pathetic minds of those that cannot bring themselves into reality. The truth is there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the even more pathetic scam artist that seeks to take advantage of those that are so easily influenced by fantasy.

References:

Marks, D. (1981). Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments. Nature, 292(5819), 177.

Marks, D. and Kammann, R. (1978). Information transmission in remote viewing experiments. Nature, 274(5672), 680-681.

Marks, D. and Scott, C. (1986). Remote viewing exposed. Nature, 319(6053), 444

Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.E. (1974). Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 251(5476), 602-607

 

[duendy]

Didn't you ever watch Star Trek? The intial pilot of the original Star Trek, which was not shown on TV for years, tells you right to your face.

Strong emotion interferes with telepathy.

heh...well i dont agree with that. i have heard more than one case where the danger and/or even death of a loved one HAS telepathically communicated itself to another

as we know. danger and death involve extremely strong emotions

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CC, ifi remember right, in tother reply to me you agred you too wee shaky regarding the'science' used by themetal health movment regarding 'mental illness'. isthat correct?

if so, that is a HUGE step. for te mental heath movment 'scientific' propaganda against 'mental illness' is THE main corner stone of materialistic science paradigm............did y hear what i just said??

My assertion is that psychiatry has made an immense amount of mistakes (and even continues to do so). Those mistakes come at a very high price unfortuantely. Is the field improving? Definately. Is it anywhere near the quality of other science-related fields? Not even close (I am very dissappointed with it in fact).

so for example. notonly heere. but lso throughtout the history o psychiatry, andone sharing they have experienced experience not deemed acceptable by either the Church nor mscience has been accsus of being demonized and/or mentally ill. even so-called real rligious characters from the past have been tus daignosed, even Jesus and Buddha, etc. tis is true

so, can you not see, that if you sway in rthe direction of seeing thru that scam, then you surely must begin to open up more to peoples unexplinable experieces?

if not, what you gonna do. call them 'mentally ill'?

I think the message I am sending is being confused. I am not calling 'telepathy' a mental illness. I am saying that evidence has not been produced to suggest it even exists.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nope. You took one word out of the group, disproved it, and claim that disproves the claim for all words in the group. That is not science.


You really believe all that word jumping makes you clever huh? It just makes you tiresome. I wonder how many people you drive away because you will not just talk to them?

There was more than one word in the group that contradicted the asserton. Tetsusiaga was just one of them. The point was that a claim was made and I showed evidence that contradicted the claim. You always had the option to remodel it and instead chose to express frustration. Bottom line is that people on this forum are going to hold you accountable to your message.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This is the problem with you guys. You refuse to acknowledge reality. "I don't care if anyone reads my mind". This is foolish. We all know that if someone starts talking about how you slept with the bosses wife or how you robbed a bank, you would be uncomfortable.

Maybe the message wasn't clear. I don't care if someone 'reads my mind'. If they find out what they consider to be some deep dark secret about me then that's a-ok. If they find out some deep success about me then that's ok. If they intentially attempt to exploit me based on the information then I will hold them accountable for their actions. Anyone whom could read my mind would consequently know very quickly that I would treat them very well and help them share and understand such an important ability.

So you are saying your belief that telepathy does not exist is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge reality?

Nope, I am saying that nobody has produced evidence that telepathy exists. This is reality.

 

[duendy]

My assertion is that psychiatry has made an immense amount of mistakes (and even continues to do so). Those mistakes come at a very high price unfortuantely. Is the field improving? Definately. Is it anywhere near the quality of other science-related fields? Not even close (I am very dissappointed with it in fact).

me))))))IF you mean, bio-psychiaty is improving, i very much disagree. For the very notion of mental illnss being a biological disease is bogus, and more and more children, whose ages get even younger are its victims!!


I think the message I am sending is being confused. I am not calling 'telepathy' a mental illness. I am saying that evidence has not been produced to suggest it even exists.

i understand that, but aren't you aware of many of the responses to people both here, and mentioned from other researches into extraordinary pheomena, have been called 'crackpot' 'woo woo', and mentally ill, nd liars, etc. this reaction is commensurate with te reactions of the mental health movement against pople who behave in ways deemed unacceptable by the tenets of the mental health regime

THEIR'evidence' is to call that behaviour, which will include confessions of 'paranormal experience' biological illness. This judgement is a result of the materialistic ideology which clims all is mater, and thus experiences which are subjectively significant are seen to be an illness

What then do you FEEl and think about people who report exceptional experiences, if not 'mentally ill'. what are they doing in your opinion?

 

[(Q)]

Happeh clearly dazed:

This is the problem with you guys. You refuse to acknowledge reality.

Didn't you ever watch Star Trek?

Oh no! You mean Captain James Kirk ISN'T William Shatner?

 

[candy]

If you are really interested in the work of Russell Targ I suggest reading
The Mind Race: Understanding and Using Psychic Abilities (1984)

As I recall Puthoff and Targ did the Stanford study that gave new insight to remote veiwing and the right way to observe and interpret psi phenomenia.

 

[candy]

I think that intense emotion is usually cited as a psi trigger; stress is what is usually cited as inhibiting psi phenomenon.

 

[duendy]

I think that intense emotion is usually cited as a psi trigger; stress is what is usually cited as inhibiting psi phenomenon.

ey?? stress involves intense emotions

 

[candy]

As I understand the concept stress is thought of more as a state of worried thought where as the strong emotions are feelings of love or fear where the emotion is more in control than the thinking process. That is the best way I can explain what I have read to explain how psi works that is that psi seems to be more emotion based than cognitive.

 

[SkinWalker]

If you are really interested in the work of Russell Targ I suggest reading
The Mind Race: Understanding and Using Psychic Abilities (1984)

As I recall Puthoff and Targ did the Stanford study that gave new insight to remote veiwing and the right way to observe and interpret psi phenomenia.

If you would have noticed, I cited the SRI study that Targ and Puthoff published in Nature, the study for which Targ's novel regarding 'remote viewing' is based. In addition, several researchers have attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's work and have examined the methodology, which is very seriously flawed. I cited that literature as well. Indeed, the follow-up research by independent investigators seems to show that Targ and Puthoff began with a conclusion then sought out only those data which supported it. They designed their research so that it couldn't be falsified. They failed to use appropriate control measures; they didn't use independent judges and experimentors on the subjects; etc.

They are frauds.

 

[leopold]

I know wikipedia mentions 'techlepathy' but most of google's results on 'synthetic telepathy' look a bit ... erm ... conspiracy-theory oriented.

i believe it is a planted story, not a conspiracy