I do not believe that any agreement is possible whether that be definitions, object of discussion nor methodology of process.
Which begs the question why you bother discussing it?
I have I feel clearly stated that a different approach to this subject of psychic/telepathic communication may yield productive results.
You have stated - but stating doesn't make it so.
I have already stated that the nature of freewill of self animated objects disallows scientific inquiry using the scientific method.
For which you are wrong: the scientific method remains applicable to human actions - and if something is not repeatable then no conclusion can be drawn, regardless of personal or individual interpretation.
You have chosen as is your unpredictable right to ignore what I have already stated.
It's actually quite predictable that I ignore claims that have no substantiation.
Science can not claim either it exists or non-exists as a phenomena. However any person who has had psychic experience CAN legitimately claim it exists regardless of what science says that it can't assess or quantify.
Yes - people can and do make all sorts of claims.
Which I might add may be the main reason why typically some online forums are plagued with these sort of questions and receive the same typical "dribble" from science.
If you don't like the "dribble" you get from science then stop posting the drivel in the first place.
And then answer me how a claimed "foolproof" methodology should not be open to scientific enquiry and rigour?
Until a proper approach is worked out that allows for the unpredictability and non repeatability of any self animated willed object no head-way will be made.
Headway has been made despite claims unsupported by science, and lo and behold we have things such as medicine, as technology, and we are not governed by superstition.
But yes, anyone can claim anything they want - and if they get enough people to believe them they could even make a living out of it... heck, even a religion!
A mechanism exists that can allow such communication as I have already stated. Science already has shown this to be "Fact" every time it refers to universality of laws and constants of gravity and inertia.
The exact nature of the mechanism may not be known to science but the sheer fact that the entire universe appears to be entangled to provide those constants [including invariance] provides a clue as to how two or more independent bodies of mass can communicate regardless of distance of separation.[Whether those masses be human minds, hearts or pencils sitting on your desk is actually irrelevant at this juncture.]
So you claim such things are unable to be assessed by science, yet you want to quote science as providing explanation?
Unsurprisingly the things you refer to can be demonstrated repeatedly.
If you want to argue that the same things are behind the mechanism of "telepathy" - that you can pass information via such things - then you need to demonstrate it or just have it considered a theory, or even just the unscientific hypothesis that it is. But don't expect any credence in what you claim.
Are you able to accept that the mass of your brain is in a communicative relationship with the mass of my brain? Or are you going to say that your brain is somehow aloof to the laws of this universe as stated by science's use of universal constancy and universal application of the laws of physics?
Note : I am not talking about utility or even usefulness of that communication. I am simply referring to the fact that your brain and mine is in a communicative relationship as described by the laws of physics.
Do I need to simplify my proposition any better than I already have?
What definitions do you need?
What are the weaknesses of my proposition?
I think you are being rather liberal in your usage of the term "communicative".
I would not say that our brains are in a communicative relationship. They certainly obey the same laws - but that does not mean that the matter of your brain communicates with mine in any way. I obey the laws of my country, as do many other people who I have never communicated with - just to give an analogy.
Universal constancy and application of laws does not necessitate communication between matter.
You seem to feel that the laws of physics prove or require this... but you're going to have to expand on that.
Secondly, you are relying on a dumb process and extrapolating it as evidence for an intelligent one - where actually useful information is communicated. This is another flaw.
Thirdly, you general approach is to quote science as supporting your hypothesis, and yet arguing at the same time that your hypothesis is outside the scope of science. All you are therefore asking people to do is accept you on your word... because you say so... which is nothing but faith.
Telepathy has never been adequately demonstrated. Ever.
And yet you fail to address the simple matter in this thread that the OP describes a methodology that "always works" - that is open to scientific enquiry - yet dismisses every failure as being "impossible".
Believe in it if you want.
Take peoples' interpretation of what they experienced at face value if you want.
Just don't expect rational people to accept it as truth, as anything other than unsubstantiated claims.