OK your right, but you missed my point...
You still need some clue from any of the five senses, whether it be sound, vision, touch etc...
You cannot emphasize with someone you dont even know is present in the same room!
Empathy
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
OK your right, but you missed my point...
You still need some clue from any of the five senses, whether it be sound, vision, touch etc...
You cannot emphasize with someone you dont even know is present in the same room!
"Why not say in my opinion? The word 'opinion' also has multiple meanings based on context. It ranges from accepting something as true to mere speculation. The word 'belief' doesnt appear to share that speculatory definition. If you really meant speculation then my bad 
(no foul, just no so clear language)."
Belief simply implies what a person believes, a person can believe in God or E=mc2. Some things are provable by the methods of science others are not. Just because something is not provable by the methods of science does not mean that it is untrue.
"I would however point out that the very definition of telepathy is communication via some mechanism other than sensory perception. I haven't seen evidence of ants effectively communicating without physical antenna touch and smell."
Yes you have, ant colonies work as a single organism. There is not one ant that is deciding to emit the same pheromone that the other ants then act on. All ants know at the same time what the colony will do, in other words it is more appropriate, as far as I can tell, to think of the ant colony as an individual organism (much the same way we regard our bodies as a single organism though its made up of different parts). But the "mind" or "force" or whatever you want to call it that "connects" the ants is self-evidently telepathy.
"On a side-note, I noticed that you had mentioned that you want people to know which side you fall on. There is a human tendency to polarize into exactly 2 camps on any particular issue. The reality is that there are often additional positions (some of the most infrequent ones being 'I don't know' and / or 'I speculate that')."
True.
"Quite correct and I agree. Due to the inherent nature of this sub-forum I want to explain something (which you might be very well aware of). When something is 'unexplainable' by science, people whom are inclined to 'believe' tend to fill that lack of knowledge hole with various attractive fantasies. A common (and quite fallacious) argument arises that because science hasn't explained something that is proof that magic exists."
What you say below is that you even though science cannot explain ant behavior that it "real perception must be required." Aren't you just, in your own words, filling that "lack of knowledge hole with various attractive fantasies." Why does it have to be "real perception"? Science is a method of testing and observation, there have been no tests that prove that ant behavior is caused by "real perception", but if one observes ants it is obvious that they are operating as one-unit, this is "impossible" since ants are supposedly separate from each other. In other words, this is observable proof that the dogmatic scientific materialist view must discount by simply stating "real perception is required," this stance dogmatic viewpoint is direct opposition to the scientific method which bases its assertions on testing and observation. Again, my claim that if one observes ants they appear to be governed by "one mind."
"It was a wild guess indeed and an incorrect one."
I'm glad I finally found someone that knows about ants. I hope I can learn some things from you about a fascinatng phenomenon.
"I've looked at many points of evidence concerning how the 'mind' of an ant colony works. At present, I don't know (I don't even have any decent speculations at the moment). I will however assert that in order to achieve it, real sensory perception is required (i.e. no magic)."
If you don't have decent speculations, why are you making assertions?
(no foul, just no so clear language)."Belief simply implies what a person believes, a person can believe in God or E=mc2. Some things are provable by the methods of science others are not. Just because something is not provable by the methods of science does not mean that it is untrue.
"I would however point out that the very definition of telepathy is communication via some mechanism other than sensory perception. I haven't seen evidence of ants effectively communicating without physical antenna touch and smell."
Yes you have, ant colonies work as a single organism. There is not one ant that is deciding to emit the same pheromone that the other ants then act on. All ants know at the same time what the colony will do, in other words it is more appropriate, as far as I can tell, to think of the ant colony as an individual organism (much the same way we regard our bodies as a single organism though its made up of different parts). But the "mind" or "force" or whatever you want to call it that "connects" the ants is self-evidently telepathy.
"On a side-note, I noticed that you had mentioned that you want people to know which side you fall on. There is a human tendency to polarize into exactly 2 camps on any particular issue. The reality is that there are often additional positions (some of the most infrequent ones being 'I don't know' and / or 'I speculate that')."
True.
"Quite correct and I agree. Due to the inherent nature of this sub-forum I want to explain something (which you might be very well aware of). When something is 'unexplainable' by science, people whom are inclined to 'believe' tend to fill that lack of knowledge hole with various attractive fantasies. A common (and quite fallacious) argument arises that because science hasn't explained something that is proof that magic exists."
What you say below is that you even though science cannot explain ant behavior that it "real perception must be required." Aren't you just, in your own words, filling that "lack of knowledge hole with various attractive fantasies." Why does it have to be "real perception"? Science is a method of testing and observation, there have been no tests that prove that ant behavior is caused by "real perception", but if one observes ants it is obvious that they are operating as one-unit, this is "impossible" since ants are supposedly separate from each other. In other words, this is observable proof that the dogmatic scientific materialist view must discount by simply stating "real perception is required," this stance dogmatic viewpoint is direct opposition to the scientific method which bases its assertions on testing and observation. Again, my claim that if one observes ants they appear to be governed by "one mind."
"It was a wild guess indeed and an incorrect one."
I'm glad I finally found someone that knows about ants. I hope I can learn some things from you about a fascinatng phenomenon.
"I've looked at many points of evidence concerning how the 'mind' of an ant colony works. At present, I don't know (I don't even have any decent speculations at the moment). I will however assert that in order to achieve it, real sensory perception is required (i.e. no magic)."
If you don't have decent speculations, why are you making assertions?
Belief (unlike opinion) doesn't have a speculation contextual definition. If a person believes in 'God' or E=mc^2 then they are accepting those things as true.
You sound like you might be an Entomologist and if you are and have access to some real colonies then let a long trail go out to some food source and then at some point attack the queen. Observe if the ants all the way at the food source immediately know that the queen is being attacked.
I agree that ants are quite unified... appearing to 'act as one'. I'll speculate this is a result of a strong bi-directional feedback network rather than a nebulous 'telepathic' network.
Actually I was saying that when science doesn't have an answer people tend to fill that empty void with fantasy. It tends to be a human behavior to want to provide an answer regardless of whether or not it is true.
Take a look at what people have claimed for as long as recorded history. 'Telepathy' exists, 'Telekenesis' exists, 'Demons' exist, 'Souls' exist, etc. To date there as never been a shred of evidence for any of these claims and the process of science has yielded alot of knowledge that contradicts many of these claims. That should be a red flag to anyone even entertaining a thought about 'Telepathy'. It is in the category of fantastic claims and to show that such a phenomena exists, equally fantastic evidence will be required.
I agree with the first part and I am not aware of all entomological experiments performed so I cannot agree or disagree with the second part; however, if the experiment I have outlined is performed then I would wager that the results are not going to support your assertion of telepathy.
This is the point where you might be getting hung up in falacy... declaring something as impossible and then declaring something fantastic as the reason. Why not back up and say, its very real that ants are exhibiting a behavior and I don't know how they do it? Then you have the opportunity to use science as a means to ask reality that 'how' question. Due to limitations in human technology it may take a long time to get the answer and we may not even have the right technology to 'see' important information concerning the answer.
The interpretation of what I was saying is not the one I intended. Let me try again. I pretty much agree with the WHAT of your claim... as reality says its true. Ants appear to act as one.
The 'believed' HOW part is the part where no evidence has been provided (i.e. telepathy... i.e. communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception).
Ants are awesome and being in California I have the pleasure of having next to no variety because of Argentine ants (although I do love their working queens... they are too cool). I don't know what you might learn from me about ants in general, but I do hope that I can share better ways to think about information.
The assertion is based on existing information reality has provided (i.e. magic doesn't happen). To make it easier to deal with you can even call it a theory; therefore, it can adapt should evidence be found that says otherwise.
While I was writing this I came up with an idea... it's so weak that it's not even a speculation, let alone, a hypothesis, theory, or absolute conclusion. I would label it a creative idea with zero assertion of truth. Small particles naturally replicate and can sustain their multiple instance-ness for varying amounts of time. This WHAT has been observed many times in double-slit experiments with anything from photons to carbon atoms. The HOW is all hypothetical at this point so I wont even venture into that territory. Small particles can also become entangled (i.e. they can behave identically and instantaneously regardless of distance). The HOW is hypothetical, but what is known about the how is that its a relationship of some kind that allows the behavior to occur (not some form of information transmittal); hence, the reason why the entagled particles do the same thing instantaneously. I wonder if ants might have some physiological process that causes and makes use of various combinations of particle duplication and entaglement to achieve the 'we are one' behavior they seem to exhibit?
-That's intersting about the quantum physics thing you brought up (I know what phenomenon and experiment you are talking about). Essentially what that proves is that two separate things separated by space can exhibit the exact same properties (for lack of a better word), something believed by science to be impossible prior to this experiment. So, if we are then speculating that a similiar phenomenon is occuring with biological creatures to account for them apparently to have the same thing going on in separate brains, can't you see that that is just telepathy by a different name?
-Instead of disproving telepathy that argument provides a plausible scientific explanation for its existence.
-Instead of disproving telepathy that argument provides a plausible scientific explanation for its existence.
The one described above is called Qunatum Entaglement and particle A behaves exactly like particle B...n in every respect + instantaneously. It's quite cool. I wasn't aware that scientists thought such a thing was impossible prior to it's discovery. For the other thing... the double slit experiment, I don't recall if that classifies as a superposition or not... meh.
If some kind of neuron entaglement could be established and maintained that would be quite interesting indeed; however, like I said its merely a creative idea. I'm fairly certain the results of the experiment I proposed would invalidate such an idea in an instant.
Well it's not really an argument. It's an idea and IMO the results of that experiment I proposed would likely utterly invalidate it.
It's also interesting how threads Morph. One moment the subject is Empathy and the next it's Ants and Entaglement
I thought you couldn't send information via entanglement, since that would violate the speed of light limit?
I've heard that the body's nervous system can be considered as an antenna, although a small, inefficient one. According to some websites 'psionic theory' claims that most so-called paranormal abilities can be explained that way, with chakras actually corresponding to nerve bundles, etc.
But when they say 'theory', I don't think they mean it in the scientific sense.
I've heard that the body's nervous system can be considered as an antenna, although a small, inefficient one. According to some websites 'psionic theory' claims that most so-called paranormal abilities can be explained that way, with chakras actually corresponding to nerve bundles, etc.
But when they say 'theory', I don't think they mean it in the scientific sense.
It's totally dependent on if you mean Subatomic Entanglement or just Molecular Entanglement. Suggestibly Duality states of subatomics obviously breaks the lightspeed barrier because two locations are referencing each others movement, while placed a distance apart.
Last edited:
Article I found on the web hypothesizing about insects and entaglement:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503136.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503136.pdf
Technically entagled particles aren't transmitting information to each other. They simply share a relationship. Also the speed of light limit only applies to matter / energy moving through a vaccum. On Earth, physacists have moved light itself at 2x and 3x the speed it moves in a pure vaccum. Additionally, the universe (i.e. space-time) can expand faster than the speed of light.
Yeah, I would agree that the 'theory' is at best a speculation.
Looks like my random idea was someone elses as well and they explored it a bit further. Pretty neat stuff.
To provide an explanation for something means that the *something* in question is observable. I don't think Telepathy qualifies. Even in the case of ants, we don't know how they do that voodoo that they do so well.
Many people have observed telepathy. That doesn't mean that what they did observe is definitly telepathy and not just chance. And even if what they did observe was definitely telepathy their observations don't meant that anyone who hasn't directly observed it themselves are obliged to believe their observations. On the other hand, just because science hasn't proved something exists does not mean that it is proof of it's non-existence (a mistake many skeptics seem to make).
Finally, I didn't claim that the physicist proved telepathy exists. I was merely pointing out that the scientist believes entaglement could provide a physical explanation of how telepathy works (If it exists, which he makes no claims on either for or against).
Just because you have not observed something does not mean it does not exist.
Finally, I didn't claim that the physicist proved telepathy exists. I was merely pointing out that the scientist believes entaglement could provide a physical explanation of how telepathy works (If it exists, which he makes no claims on either for or against).
Just because you have not observed something does not mean it does not exist.
I agree with some of what you stated. I agree that just because science hasn't proved something exists that it does not. I agree that you didn't claime that physicist claimed telepathy exists. I agree that people can utterly misinterpret their obsevations.
When a person issues a statement such as "Hey that would explain telekensis". What the statement is saying is that Telekensis exists and something can explain it.
Normally when a claim of existence (Telepathy in this case -and brother is it claimed by alot of people-) is present for a long period of time and there is no evidence for such claims, that absence of evidence over that period of time becomes evidence of absence.
If telepathy was an observable phenomena then I can guarantee someone would have claimed that 1 million dollar Randy award and won a nobel prize.
It seems that speculation would be much more valuable in cases like this than implications or assertions of empirical phenomena.
Well, many people do claim that science has proved telepathy. Huge meta-analyses have been done on telepathy which show a very small but statistically significant indication that the right guesses are occuring more than chance alone would predict. A surprising thing to me is the number of skepitcs who claim they don't believe in telepathy but have never looked at the data (this is even funnier since they often times think they are dismissing telepathy out of rationality and science). Most of the stuff I've read or experienced suggests that telepathy is in most people very, very low and extremely difficult to control. If that is the case then that would be very hard for an individual to duplicate in a lab or do for some guy that will give away a million bucks. But if it is difficult to control or low your not going to walk in there and tell him what number he is thinking three times and get them money. In other words, we're talking about a phenomenon that occurs in everyday life that consists of things that are way to weird to simply be coincidence, that does not lend itself well to being duplicated in the lab.
I can understand how a rare, complex, and / or inconsistent phenomena could be hard to measure in a lab; however, we are dealing with a population of claimers over a long period of time. In theory that should guarantee results. I've seen analysis' similar to whats being described and I (and others) have found fault with the experiments and evidence supporting things other than the premise. What I do know is that in every single double blind study I have come across, the results of Telepahy have not yielded positive results.
Right now Telepathy is on the same level of credibility as 9th-dimensional spirit monkeys living in the anuses of Jews. That might change... who knows... but if it does it's going to be the result of real supportive evidence.
Everything I've read seems to say that the speed of light applies to information too. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement:
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theorem:
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Of course, telepathy could be useful even if it was at sub-light speed, but the no communication theorem seems to say that you'd need a classical information channel (e.g. beaming lasers out of your head onto optical sensors on other people's heads) in addition to the entanglement to do anything useful.
I don't understand the maths yet so I'm just going by the commentary in the articles
Everything I've read seems to say that the speed of light applies to information too. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement:
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theorem:
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Of course, telepathy could be useful even if it was at sub-light speed, but the no communication theorem seems to say that you'd need a classical information channel (e.g. beaming lasers out of your head onto optical sensors on other people's heads) in addition to the entanglement to do anything useful.
I don't understand the maths yet so I'm just going by the commentary in the articles
I would tentatively agree that the speed of light appears to apply to information. What I was asserting was that two entagled particles don't transmit information to one another. They have a relationship.
No doubt telepathy would be useful. Think of the implications for human learning and the legal system.