I think it's our responsibility to help people like Happeh understand the difference between reality and fantasy and at the same time open the door for anyone to provide evidence for a fantastic claim.
Developing Telepathy
- Thread starter Lomion
- Start date
"...But, beliefs about the natural world may serve another purpose: if people have a stake in certain beliefs regarding the natural world, they will be negative toward other beliefs due to the closure operant in most belief systems.
If one is familiar with the power of belief, then the natural philosophical position to take is skepticism: "accept nothing unless proven or verified." While the Greek philosophers thought skepticism meant suspension of belief or agnosticism (admitting that one really did not know anything), many modern 'skeptics' are really 'debunkers' or 'disbelievers.' That is, rather than choosing to suspend belief in X, they choose to believe in not-X, often with a lack of criticality that they ascribe to believers in X. While skepticism is closely linked with empiricism - one should base all epistemological precepts on induction, observation, and experience - the two concepts are not identical. The skeptic realizes that both his reason and his senses can fail him at times, so both rationalism and empiricism are insufficient. Skepticism is based in the critical method: question and challenge all authority and all prevailing ideas. Scientific "skepticism" is limited in that it refuses to question its own radical privilege over other modes of comprehending the world, or its own possible insufficiency. The true skeptic (zetetic) has no stake in any discourse/belief-system, religious, scientific, mythic, or otherwise, but he may borrow from any system the concepts he chooses to assimilate into a personal worldview.
Most academic scientists have not progressed beyond the emotional-territorial phase: most of their arguments are based on the perceived need (like alpha male primates) to stake out and defend intellectual "turf" and maintain that in various "turf wars." Few have activated the circuits beyond the dextero-symbolic, which views the world in terms of puzzle-solving and piece-assembling. Anyone who has read Martin Gardner's mathematical recreations column in Scientific American has witnessed the academic way of reducing the world to a mathematical problem to be solved. But those who may have engaged their hedonic or transegoic circuits begin to realize that it may be best to treat the world as a Zen riddle or koan , and appreciate the qualities of subtlety, irony, ambiguity, and unexpectedness that make the universe so precious. Those who have made it to this stage know the inappropriateness of belief (such as Charles Fort: "I accept no facts, concepts, or theories, as I have no truck with something so slippery as the products of minds") and the necessity of communicating this understanding to others."
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/belief-enemy.html
Evidence for Quantum Brain Fluctuations
If one is familiar with the power of belief, then the natural philosophical position to take is skepticism: "accept nothing unless proven or verified." While the Greek philosophers thought skepticism meant suspension of belief or agnosticism (admitting that one really did not know anything), many modern 'skeptics' are really 'debunkers' or 'disbelievers.' That is, rather than choosing to suspend belief in X, they choose to believe in not-X, often with a lack of criticality that they ascribe to believers in X. While skepticism is closely linked with empiricism - one should base all epistemological precepts on induction, observation, and experience - the two concepts are not identical. The skeptic realizes that both his reason and his senses can fail him at times, so both rationalism and empiricism are insufficient. Skepticism is based in the critical method: question and challenge all authority and all prevailing ideas. Scientific "skepticism" is limited in that it refuses to question its own radical privilege over other modes of comprehending the world, or its own possible insufficiency. The true skeptic (zetetic) has no stake in any discourse/belief-system, religious, scientific, mythic, or otherwise, but he may borrow from any system the concepts he chooses to assimilate into a personal worldview.
Most academic scientists have not progressed beyond the emotional-territorial phase: most of their arguments are based on the perceived need (like alpha male primates) to stake out and defend intellectual "turf" and maintain that in various "turf wars." Few have activated the circuits beyond the dextero-symbolic, which views the world in terms of puzzle-solving and piece-assembling. Anyone who has read Martin Gardner's mathematical recreations column in Scientific American has witnessed the academic way of reducing the world to a mathematical problem to be solved. But those who may have engaged their hedonic or transegoic circuits begin to realize that it may be best to treat the world as a Zen riddle or koan , and appreciate the qualities of subtlety, irony, ambiguity, and unexpectedness that make the universe so precious. Those who have made it to this stage know the inappropriateness of belief (such as Charles Fort: "I accept no facts, concepts, or theories, as I have no truck with something so slippery as the products of minds") and the necessity of communicating this understanding to others."
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/belief-enemy.html
Evidence for Quantum Brain Fluctuations
Last edited:
You do realize that the brain reacts to the situation at hand. The thoughts you have during meditation, are certainly not the same in content or intensity as the ones you'd have in the middle of a civil war or even when navigating a car through the chaotic mess that is called Paris.Happeh said:
You assume here that life is a static given. It is not. Our brains are continuously shaped by the exposure to daily life. I do learn new stuff every day, and perhaps early childhood memories fade away due to lack of reinforcement. Every dawn, I awake a little bit different.
I can't negate this, because I'm not an expert of meditation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that no mind can ever be called blank without being called dead as well.
No. Some thoughts only arise given a certain experience. I can not predict what thoughts would surge through me when I'm confronted with my own death. Would I fear it, fight it, or perhaps even welcome it? No meditation can teach me every response for every situation, considering the fact that I change each and every day.
The sudden rise of a thought can be due to many reasons. The brain is more than complex enough to be non-deterministic in the practical sense of the word. The notion of stealing may be aroused from a book you've read, a movie you've seen, who knows?
It must be obvious now that it's my opinion that no one can possibly know what resides in his or her own mind or of what thoughts it is capable of thinking. I'd even go as far as stating that it is a theoretical impossibility - the knowledge that you know everything what's in your mind would change it. Then, knowing that you have the knowledge that you know everything what's in your mind would change it once more. You can see where this is leading.
If telepathy could be a result of meditation, well known and practiced globally, I think the evidence for telepathy should be overwhelming. Yet, it isn't. Why?
The mystics I know usually seek attention in order to exploit their "gifts" for their own commercial benefits. Hardly the solitary types.
It should be blindingly obvious that the fact that people have talked about it, doesn't make it necessarily true.
This is a science board duendy, if you are offended by people who adhere to scientific method then go find a fantasy board where people pat you on the back for talking nonsense.duendy said:
See above comment.duendy said:
I think I will be ok.duendy said:
Animals being tested on? Don't talk rubbish duendy. The test does not have to be in a lab.duendy said:
This just sounds like the same excuses I have been hearing from the others. - That telepaths are definitely there and could be tested but because they are offended by people who question their abilities they keep it a secret. That is a very weak excuse.
Ophiolite said:
See how easy it is to predict what you will say? I don't even have to be telepathic to know you would say that.
Ophiolite said:Meditation is a wonderful thing. If telepathy existed meditation might logically be a path towards developing it. So far you have produced no evidence that it does exist. Which is why....
....I resort to attacking your spelling and your grammar. And your grasp of basic facts. Was it not you who thought Galileo had been burnt at the stake?
You know guys, Happehhazard is showing us to be idiots. We are arguing with someone who thinks Galileo was burnt at the stake, and when called on it replies "I could really care less. None of that is going to improve my life or my families life." Someone who is a bonified (sic) believer. What fools we are.
Ha ha ha. I don't understand people. I am trying to open your eyes. You just want to make fun of me. You are blinded by experts and grammar and spelling and straight lines and boundaries.
You know. I could care less about spelling. I used to be very uptight about it. Then I realized, I am going to die one day. And when I do, do you think I will regret spelling mistakes? No. It is more important to me to talk. A reasonable and friendly person will overlook the spelling and grammar and everything else and see thru to what I am getting at. A person that wants to be trouble will pounce on the spelling.
In a way, the spelling is like a warning system for me. I can find out who people are. People that jump on the spelling and make fun of me are not nice people. If I deal with them, they will always be trouble. That is who they are. If the people overlook my spelling and talk to me, I know that they have some idea of what is really important in life. They are not wasting time looking for periods or comma's in people's speech. They are looking for the meaning, the messages, that the person is trying to get across. They will be worthwhile people to invest time in if I choose to.
Crunchy Cat said:
You guys really need an imagination. Your life will be more exciting and pleasant.
Don't all those rules and all those laws make your butt tight? Did you know that is the origin of the word "uptight"? Uptight is describing a person whose butt hole is up and tight. It puckers up because they are so tense and rigid and rule oriented. That is not healthy for you. Your butt hole should just kind of float there and relax.
mouse said:
You guys just ask to be kicked. Or maybe it is just me. I can't stand obtuseness. It really irks me.
Why do you think telepathy is not known and practiced globally?
You are in the wrong......dimension, social strata, culture, whatever you want to call it. You hang out with people like you. Rigid people who have to be hit over the head to believe anything.
If you left those people, and found new people, how do you know that these new people will not tell you that telepathy is known and practiced globally?
You are blinded by western superiority. You are gullible for authority. Oh this is so aggravating to repeat all the time. There are people who lie to you and everyone else to make you powerless and weak. They do this so you present no challenge to them or their families for money, status and power.
Doesn't Africa have all kinds of legends of this and that? Spirits, magic, witch doctors etc? What does the western world say? That is superstition. What if it wasn't superstition. What if superstition was a lie?
Didn't they burn witches in Salem in USA history? People today say that was persecution. What if it wasn't? What if they were witches? What if the stories about persecution are part of the lies to make you weak and powerless?
What if all the stories that are labeled superstition, are really true? Then telepathy or magic or whatever is known globally and practiced world wide. It is just you that is one of the few people that doesn't know this.
Be honest. What kind of people do you hang out with? Are you white and you only hang out with white people? Are you a rich yuppie scientist and you only hang out with other rich yuppie scientists? Have you ever looked into any other cultures to find out what they beleive?
Happeh said:
The wrong questions are being asked. How about this one... if you wanted to, could you support the claim that telepathy exists?
Happeh, all the pejorative comments and derisive remarks in the English language won't change the fact that just because the supernatural and paranormal is fun to imagine doesn't make it true or even possible.
You deride the rules and boundaries of science and question the truth of its methods, but if we were in a plane at 32,000 feet over the Atlantic, you would accept the truth of science and the boundaries of physics quite well -all the while hoping that the engineers got their sums right.
Can you support the claim telepathy exists?
You deride the rules and boundaries of science and question the truth of its methods, but if we were in a plane at 32,000 feet over the Atlantic, you would accept the truth of science and the boundaries of physics quite well -all the while hoping that the engineers got their sums right.
Can you support the claim telepathy exists?
Skin and CC can I ask you a question?
Do you believe in the existence of a photon? What I mean by photon I mean a free ranging particle /wave that is independent of it's reflector. [ reflector being a mirror, an object of mass, the eye, or measuring equipment.]
Is the evidence of light merely the evidence of a reflector or is it evidence of a photon?
Now you may laugh at the question and say that the photon has been proved to exist in countelss experiments. But I ask you are you just observing it's effect on a reflector or are you observing the photon itself?
If you would care to show any evidence to support the existence of a photon as a particle or wave that can be observed independent of it's reflector I will rest my case.
The point being that pseudo science is often claimed to be rubbish and bunk. Well I make the same claim as to the photon as commonly described in science.
Light is an effect not a substance and that's my contention.
Now science is declaring the existence of a photon. Yet I fail to see any evidence to prove it's existence except by it's effect on a reflecting mass. [ including measuring equipment.]
I am not saying that science is all bunk etc. What I am saying is that even science has it's religious overtones and espouses many things yet to be determined as fact, as fact. It is true that it has utility and that our current understanding of light pheno is useful, but it may yet prove to be the greatest observational mistake yet.
Light has never to my knowledge been observed in transit. It has never been observed to actually travel, however it effect suggests that it does, but is this actual evidence of a phton or just merely an effect of energy.
Most physics theories are premsed on the notion that light travels from A to B and yet no one has actually proved conclusively that this is the case. It has not been observed to travel as the particle /wave model we use.
So prove to us that the photon exists as an object independent of a reflector. That it travels accordingly and we have something to declare as the fact that science wants us to believe. And just about all of science can rest in the knowledge that it isn't thoroughly deluded in it's understanding of how the universe works.
I must ask the same question for our photon?
Can you support the claim that a photon exists?
Do you believe in the existence of a photon? What I mean by photon I mean a free ranging particle /wave that is independent of it's reflector. [ reflector being a mirror, an object of mass, the eye, or measuring equipment.]
Is the evidence of light merely the evidence of a reflector or is it evidence of a photon?
Now you may laugh at the question and say that the photon has been proved to exist in countelss experiments. But I ask you are you just observing it's effect on a reflector or are you observing the photon itself?
If you would care to show any evidence to support the existence of a photon as a particle or wave that can be observed independent of it's reflector I will rest my case.
The point being that pseudo science is often claimed to be rubbish and bunk. Well I make the same claim as to the photon as commonly described in science.
Light is an effect not a substance and that's my contention.
Now science is declaring the existence of a photon. Yet I fail to see any evidence to prove it's existence except by it's effect on a reflecting mass. [ including measuring equipment.]
I am not saying that science is all bunk etc. What I am saying is that even science has it's religious overtones and espouses many things yet to be determined as fact, as fact. It is true that it has utility and that our current understanding of light pheno is useful, but it may yet prove to be the greatest observational mistake yet.
Light has never to my knowledge been observed in transit. It has never been observed to actually travel, however it effect suggests that it does, but is this actual evidence of a phton or just merely an effect of energy.
Most physics theories are premsed on the notion that light travels from A to B and yet no one has actually proved conclusively that this is the case. It has not been observed to travel as the particle /wave model we use.
So prove to us that the photon exists as an object independent of a reflector. That it travels accordingly and we have something to declare as the fact that science wants us to believe. And just about all of science can rest in the knowledge that it isn't thoroughly deluded in it's understanding of how the universe works.
I must ask the same question for our photon?
Can you support the claim that a photon exists?
Last edited:
Chanelière et al (2005) have demonstrated that, not only can a single photon be observed, but it can be altered and stored to be retrieved again later with that alteration being observed. Creating a primitive form of quantum communication -the photon being the quantum.
So yes, a photon can be observed, tested, and predicted.
I don't see that progression of discovery being applied to the esoteric term 'telepathy.'
Is telepathy possible? Certainly. But has never been demonstrated, nor is it very probable.
Anyone that tells you they are telepathic is either lying or delusional (or some combination thereof).
Reference:
Chanelière, T.; Matsukevich, D. N.; Jenkins, S. D.; Lan, S.-Y.; Kennedy, T. A. B.; Kuzmich, A. (2005). Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memories. Nature, 438 (7069), 833-836.
So yes, a photon can be observed, tested, and predicted.
I don't see that progression of discovery being applied to the esoteric term 'telepathy.'
Is telepathy possible? Certainly. But has never been demonstrated, nor is it very probable.
Anyone that tells you they are telepathic is either lying or delusional (or some combination thereof).
Reference:
Chanelière, T.; Matsukevich, D. N.; Jenkins, S. D.; Lan, S.-Y.; Kennedy, T. A. B.; Kuzmich, A. (2005). Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memories. Nature, 438 (7069), 833-836.
The reason why it is important is that science will have us all believe in not only a lack of simultaneity, that nothing communicates faster than that photon and yet they can not prove conclusively that it actually travels.
Yet we have particle entanglement screaming out at us all saying "hey look at me I am faster than light"
The question to ask is how fast is telepathic communications if they exist. Is the communication instantaneous or is it restricted to Einstein Minkowsky space time.
How does particle entanglement demonstrate the possibility of FTL commmunications that may exist between persons with out our current realisation of it?
To scream "lier lier" at a believer in telepathy yet ignore some of sciences most intriguing discoveries strikes me as being a little harsh don't you think.
I think we need to re-assess what we believe to be fact and allow for the possibilities of more to be learned before we claim that someone is lying about their personal experiences.
So describe the mechanics of particle entanglement and it's ramifications on commonly held scientific beliefs before accusing someone of lying and self delusion. After all science has been deluded for nearly a century and has been lying about many things thought to be known as facts and proved later to be BS.
The hole in our ozone layer being one good example of misguided confidence in what they believed.
Yet we have particle entanglement screaming out at us all saying "hey look at me I am faster than light"
The question to ask is how fast is telepathic communications if they exist. Is the communication instantaneous or is it restricted to Einstein Minkowsky space time.
How does particle entanglement demonstrate the possibility of FTL commmunications that may exist between persons with out our current realisation of it?
To scream "lier lier" at a believer in telepathy yet ignore some of sciences most intriguing discoveries strikes me as being a little harsh don't you think.
I think we need to re-assess what we believe to be fact and allow for the possibilities of more to be learned before we claim that someone is lying about their personal experiences.
So describe the mechanics of particle entanglement and it's ramifications on commonly held scientific beliefs before accusing someone of lying and self delusion. After all science has been deluded for nearly a century and has been lying about many things thought to be known as facts and proved later to be BS.
The hole in our ozone layer being one good example of misguided confidence in what they believed.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
That is so often the case: hindsight is 20-20.Happeh said:
No, you are doing a perfectly good job of that yourself. My modest goal is to drive your inanities from any public forum, or at least to highlight the insanity of your inanity.Happeh said:
I think you will find the more conventional expression is "I could not care less about spelling". Stating you "could care less" explicitly means you place some significant level of importance on spelling. Your susbsequent statements suggest this is not so.Happeh said:
The value of good spelling and careful grammar is that it facilitates the communication process. It is also a gesture of respect towards the reader.
I see exactly what you are getting at: it is thoroughbred nonsense. I shall attack it directly and indirectly; explicitly and implicitly;with logic and evidence; sarcasm and irony; and in the process, if I can make you also look ridiculous, and thus further devalue your arguments, so be it. You see, I am very reasonable, but to a nonsense promoter like yourself I am not friendly.Happeh said:
I guess you fail to see the problem with this statement?
If someone says that telepathy is proven when it isn't could be said to be as stated but has any one so far stated that telepathy has been proven to your satisfaction? I think not.
So how exactly are they lying?
They claim to have had experiences of a telepathic nature. Surely this falls within the possibility of telepathy even if unproven or provable.
and I quote"
So all you are saying is that you doubt that it will ever be proved. Well I see good reason for that doubt but does that make that doubt valid? Neither invalid or valid,....... it is just your opinion.
I could just as easilly say " I believe that telepathy will be proven in the next 10 years" and have as much credibility.....just an opinion...you know?
You are saying that I am lying to myself, that my expereinces are invalid and the object of pure imagination. Yet you have no idea what imagination is in physics.
But of course this is just an opinion just like me saying that it will probably be proved in the next 10 years. To state it as a fact that I am lying and deluded is the problem because it is not a fact that you can determine.
So the only person stating a lie here is you skin not any one else.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Flawed logic.
If those speaking in favour of telepathy were saying something like the following, then they would not reasonably be accused of lying or being delusional.
"There is some evidence that suggests the possibility of telepathy. Here (X, Y and Z) are examples of this evidence. While recognising that evidence is not proof, I find these evidences persuasive. I believe that further research will eventually confirm the reality of telepathy. The latter is of course an opinion, but it is based upon my reading of the evidence and is at least as valid as the counter position."
However, QQ, that is not what we are hearing from the pro-telepathy lobby. Their statements are more like. "Telepathy exists. It is obvious. You just don't want to believe it. The reason you don't see the evidence is (choose one only) that telepaths are quite sensibly very reclusive, to avoid being murdered by those who fear their talent; that telepaths cannot perform in the presence of intense sceptics; that you are too bloody minded and stupid to perceive the truth."
With arguments like that it is quite appropriate to say that those on this forum who have expressed a belief in telepathy are either lying or delusional.
If those speaking in favour of telepathy were saying something like the following, then they would not reasonably be accused of lying or being delusional.
"There is some evidence that suggests the possibility of telepathy. Here (X, Y and Z) are examples of this evidence. While recognising that evidence is not proof, I find these evidences persuasive. I believe that further research will eventually confirm the reality of telepathy. The latter is of course an opinion, but it is based upon my reading of the evidence and is at least as valid as the counter position."
However, QQ, that is not what we are hearing from the pro-telepathy lobby. Their statements are more like. "Telepathy exists. It is obvious. You just don't want to believe it. The reason you don't see the evidence is (choose one only) that telepaths are quite sensibly very reclusive, to avoid being murdered by those who fear their talent; that telepaths cannot perform in the presence of intense sceptics; that you are too bloody minded and stupid to perceive the truth."
With arguments like that it is quite appropriate to say that those on this forum who have expressed a belief in telepathy are either lying or delusional.
Ophiolite, In the main I agree with what you are saying. I in fact, even use the same criteria my self. Applying rigourous demands on myself and others when the issue of proof and evidence is raized. I would never expect anyone to believe anything just on the say so of someone else. Evidence must be reasonably available to support any belief whether that be about our humble photon, religious or belief that England won the last test [cricket]Ophiolite said:
However where I differ is that it is up to the critique to ensure that not all persons are tarred with the same brush. Making global statements that have the potential of offending those who have genuine interests in this field, whether from personal experience or spectator interest alone.
For example for any one to particpate in a study into telepathy is by Skins logic also self deluded and lying. To even entertain the notion of possibility is in his opinion an excersise in the ridiculaous. This of course is also offensive to those who have or do or will entertain the notion of psi.
There are many possible reasons why IMO telepathy has not been proven, conclusively. One being the significance of just what telepathy is.
For example , knowledge paranoia is a real problem. We all have secrets that we would be mortified if someone else found out about. We have security issues such as bank account numbers, pin numbers, our mistresses phone number and for the girls their toy boys etc.....So there is much knowledge we would be terrified of leaking out into the public domain. So to be able to perform not only must a telepath over come his own fears of disclosure he must over come every one elses. And this is why it is virtually impossible to do as per will and only occurs at what appears to be random moments.
This fear alone is enough to shut down any useful telepathy. Keeping in mind that telepathy must by necessity involve at least two persons and who is to decide who the other person is when it is a global "universal" issue and not just a personal one.
I think Nameless said that we are all one mind thus instincts are not an issue, and in a way he is correct about the one mind but we are definitely more than one body and that is where the problem lies.
There are many reasons for why telepathy can not be proved but there is no reason to globally state that persons who discuss such things are deluded and lying to themselves.
Last edited:
Ophiolite said:
Agreed!!!
If the proponents of telepathy could offer some (any!) kind rational approach in an attempt to establish their belief as fact, it would be completely different. But the problem is that most of the believers are generally somewhat irrational in both their thinking AND their presentation. It often includes emotions and clearly paranoia is a common factor in many cases (the telepath "fears for his life").
Another thing which the believers choose to ignore is that fact that if telepathy actually existed - or was was wide-spread as many seem to claim - it's effects in society would be clearly obvious. Millions of dollars would be ripped from bank accounts daily (by knowing people's PINs), military and industrial secrets would be trading like stocks and bonds, thousands - if not millions of people would be undergoing blackmail, and the list is practically endless!!! It would be VERY apparent if there were true telepaths among us.
And there is another side issue to all this that causes me a little concern. The believers always appear outraged, or at the very least more than mildly annoyed, whenever anyone asks for evidence. They are willing to accept - without question - the flimsiest of evidence (if you can even call it "evidence"). So my concern is what happens when one or more of these people appear in the jury box? They are quite likely to accept and believe even the thinnest of evidence. It goes without saying that critical thinking isn't their strong point.
Actually Light, in most cases the believer is more afraid for his sanity than anything else.
It has been my belief for some time now that most persons suffering paranoia type illnessess such a schizophrenia [ sorry Duenby I know you hate these terms...but as they say ...when in Rome.....] are caught up in a psychic nightmare, most complain of similar paranoia's most experience similar symptoms and most ineveitably fail to function "normally" in society because of it.
Unfortunately people just don't understand what it is that they are messing with when they play with these sorts of pseudo mental abilities.
I was lucky in a way because I came to understand the total gamut of what so called telepathy entailed and I found out that in most cases it relegated it's proponents onto the fringe of society with little ability to ground their experiences in any practical way. Thus leading to delusional and irrational behaviour and claims of proof when there are none other than personal experience. This of course is only what I have personally come to understand and at present until the inter-connectedness of our minds is proven and understood there is not much help for those less knowledgable or wise.
I believe that one day we will come to realise just how connected we are and when we do we will be able to offer the appropriate help to those who stumble into the labyrynth of psychic pheno and can't find their way out again.
It has been my belief for some time now that most persons suffering paranoia type illnessess such a schizophrenia [ sorry Duenby I know you hate these terms...but as they say ...when in Rome.....] are caught up in a psychic nightmare, most complain of similar paranoia's most experience similar symptoms and most ineveitably fail to function "normally" in society because of it.
Unfortunately people just don't understand what it is that they are messing with when they play with these sorts of pseudo mental abilities.
I was lucky in a way because I came to understand the total gamut of what so called telepathy entailed and I found out that in most cases it relegated it's proponents onto the fringe of society with little ability to ground their experiences in any practical way. Thus leading to delusional and irrational behaviour and claims of proof when there are none other than personal experience. This of course is only what I have personally come to understand and at present until the inter-connectedness of our minds is proven and understood there is not much help for those less knowledgable or wise.
I believe that one day we will come to realise just how connected we are and when we do we will be able to offer the appropriate help to those who stumble into the labyrynth of psychic pheno and can't find their way out again.
Yes, QQ, there is great deal of truth in what you just said. Life inside the mind of someone with clinical schizophrenia is truly terrifying. Thankfully, only rarely is the disorder that advanced. And those with milder forms are, as you say, only moderately functional. Very benign things - like someone simply saying "good morning" can cause them distress because they loose themselves in trying to figure out "what the person REALLY meant" by saying that.Quantum Quack said:
And you also pegged a certain individual and others correctly. It's that inner turmoil that causes them to be be incoherent at times and to always expect the worst from anyone that disagrees with them, no matter how insignificantly they do so. And because of that they eventually alienate every single person they come in contact with - friends, family - everyone.
They would actually be pitied and accepted much better if it weren't for the fact that they attempt to project their paranoia on everybody else. That makes them rude and obnoxious and, of course, hastens their becoming distant from society. No only do they withdraw into their shells, eventually no one wants to have anything to do with such an individual.
However, I have to disagree with a part of your final sentence because it appears that you think there may be some sort of "collective consciousness." If so, that simply isn't true - there's no evidence for it whatsoever. And that's precisely why training is so heavily emphasized in team sports. Since minds do not "connect" on some superior level, the moves and plays have to be practiced over and over until the become almost completely automatic. Much like a ballet.
Having said that, in the event I've misread you and you're talking about interpersonal relationships instead, then I agree. Even though it is very difficult, we can learn tolerance and practice some degree of acceptance of those troubled minds. But I cannot stress enough how difficult it really is. And that's because they see tolerance and acceptance as false motives designed to catch them off-guard so as to gain an advantage over them. The true situation is much sadder than most ordinary people can imagine.