Interspecies Telepathic Communication

[tim]

WOW!! Lucky you. Do you therefore have identical personalities? If not then why not?

Ian, despite being annoyed at you I'll try to answer your question.
Simon and I are genetically identical, it is true. At some point in our lives external stimuli started to affect us - it may have been in the womb, it may have been later.
Initially we stayed very much alike - we were, after all, rarely seperated and received the same imput. When we went to
school things started to change because the stimuli changed for each of us.
As time went on pretty much everything changed. Diet, friends, amount of exercise and so on. Simon became epileptic at 21, I became diabetic at 45. He's thinner than me.
We still share some of the same interests though. Archaeology, history, science. He's retired now, and writes books. I still work as a private investigator and occasional thug.
A couple of Simon's books -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...2952/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_10_4/202-5441320-8663064
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...2952/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/202-5441320-8663064

So whilst we were born identical everything that happens subsequently will change what the personality becomes.
That's the best I can do - I'm on holiday for a week - no phone, no tv, no radio. And no computer!

 

[MRC_Hans]

The notion that materialism posits that identical twins should have identical personalities is one of the common strawmen presented by dualists etc. But of course, materialism posits nothing of the kind.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Besides, DNA is not everything. In the reproductive process, there are other elements present that need not be identical in identical twins. And from the moment of conception, random mutations will probably make tiny differences even in the DNA of the twins.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Experience or learning cannot possibly constitute the self. Whether I decide to have eggs and bacon, or porridge for breakfast, will not alter or influence my self one iota.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operaider
Example: take someone who is overweight. To someone like that, what they ate for breakfast greatly influences their mentality. If they eat a healthy breakfast it can make them feel better about themselves, and provide a springboard for the rest of their day. That small accomplishment can mean everything to their self. Where as if they chose a plate of greasy bacon for breakfast, they can become disappointed in themselves and lethargic due to their poor diet. While this might have a lesser effect on you, it still has an effect.

Clearly even something as simple as breakfast can effect someone’s mentality. It may not have a major impact on your "self" but it will have an influence. No matter how small. Small decisions add up, and can have major influences on your life. Those influences eventually shape who you are. [/B]

No, this merely changes how the self feels, it does not change the self itself. But here we just hit a brick wall. You and other materialists on here think that mind states determine the self, so that differing mental states literally mean differing selves, where as I believe that one and the very same self can be in various mental states eg a good mood, bad mood, happy, miserable, a knowledgeable self, ignorant self etc etc.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Even if the second sentence was true, it would not show the first one to be correct. However, the self you have is created by an iterative process where past experiences influence present decisions.

Otherwise, II, in YOUR opinion, what constitutes the self? I know you beleive the self to be an immaterial entitiy acting through the physical body, but what shapes THAT entitiy? How did the immaterial or spiritual self become shaped like it is?

(Sorry for contributing to the derail, but I sense the thread is doomed to go out a tangent anyhow )

Hans

We are not talking about shaping the self. The self can be shaped by experiences, but it is not constituted by experiences.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Experience or learning cannot possibly constitute the self. Whether I decide to have eggs and bacon, or porridge for breakfast, will not alter or influence my self one iota.

I just want to stress my agreement with other posters here and go on to note that this is one of the most brainless statements that Inane Ian has made, not including the identical twin one. It starts with a typical groundless pontification and follows with a senseless non sequitur.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The notion that materialism posits that identical twins should have identical personalities is one of the common strawmen presented by dualists etc. But of course, materialism posits nothing of the kind.

Hans

OK, I agree that differing experiences will effect our overt behaviour, but intrinsically they must be the same. They must be one and the very same self. Just the same self with differing experiences. Otherwise materialism is refuted.

 

[Ashles]

Ian why do so many of your posts consist of illogical arguments ending with something along the lines of "If what you say is true then materialism is refuted"?

Environment, upbringing, parental influence etc. have all been shown time and time again to be major influences in the development of an individual's personality, traits, self, identity whatever you will call their personality characteristics.
Twin studies are a huge part in demonstrating this

Then, from this you immediately jump to "Well if that's true then materialism is refuted". That makes as much sense as if I say "This means that dualism is refuted, or gravity is refuted".
In the sense that, no, it doesn't.
You are for some reason assuming identical twins will have the same personality. Why? You must know that identical twins aren't actually really identical in every way.

You are staring your argument from a illogical assumption.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We are not talking about shaping the self. The self can be shaped by experiences, but it is not constituted by experiences.

It is constituted by experiences, plus the physical properties of our brains.

OK, I agree that differing experiences will effect our overt behaviour, but intrinsically they must be the same. They must be one and the very same self. Just the same self with differing experiences. Otherwise materialism is refuted.

Why must they start the same? We do not have identical brains, not even at birth. Not even identical twins.

Hans

 

[sackett]

Calling jambo. Reading you numbah ten, over.

. . . this is one of the most brainless statements that Inane Ian has made . . . . It starts with a typical groundless pontification and follows with a senseless non sequitur.

Hey, c'mon, Jeff, don't sugar-coat it. Tell us frankly what you think of II.

jambo372: Are you still there? Please don't go off in disgust at this pointless derail. The origins of your beliefs are of interest, and your frankness in talking about them is like a cool breeze on a hot day.

 

[jj]

WOW!! Lucky you. Do you therefore have identical personalities? If not then why not?

We've been over this, Ian.

First, there is no reason for even identical twins to grow exactly identical neural nets before birth.

Second, there is no way that they won't diverge radically immediately after birth, just due to different view points.

Third, even if they shared all experiences, from exactly the same viewpoint, which is impossible since they were born at different times, QM would force differences to eventually happen and then diverge rapidly.

Why do you continue to insist that there must be some magic going on, but you won't show any evidence. Show us some EVIDENCE, Ian, EVIDENCE!

 

[jj]

If it is not ones genetic makeup which constitutes the self, then what is it?

We've been over this, Ian, genetic makeup is a blueprint that gets followed by a set of processes for which everything, including the breeze in the room, has some effect on.

We dismissed this kind of lame notion of genetic predestination long ago. Genetics DOES have a huge influence, of course, but the processes it impliments are not absolute, and can't be, thanks to basic chemistry, which is at its heart QM, something that you just can't seem to grok the implications of.

 

[jj]

Experience or learning cannot possibly constitute the self. Whether I decide to have eggs and bacon, or porridge for breakfast, will not alter or influence my self one iota.

So you claim. Now prove your extraordinary asssertion. Until you can, I'll have to regard it as you speaking through your hat. I suspect I'll have quite a bit of company, too.

Evidence, testable, verifiable, confirmable evidence, please.

 

[jj]

OK, I agree that differing experiences will effect our overt behaviour, but intrinsically they must be the same.


So you assert. Please show evidence that supports your unproven, unsupported conjecturew.


They must be one and the very same self.


Unproven conjecture. Ditto.


Just the same self with differing experiences.


Unproven conjecture. Ditto.


Otherwise materialism is refuted.

Non-sequiter.

Please account for the function of QM in brains, something that ensures that even if two brains start out in exactly the same state, and have exactly the same inputs, they will diverge solely to the properties of material.

QM is not part of memory, is not anything special in this regard, it just and only shows that all decisions must have a random component, and that there is no way to avoid it. There may be a SMALL random component, for instance, you may very rarely turn down a glass of Fosters, but there is SOME random component.

The statement I just made, above, is fully supported by basic physics.

Please cope with it.

 

[jj]

Curtains, nothing I can see on that site supports anything better than odd methods, leaping to conclusions, perhaps some evidence for better sensory abilities in other animals (something that has been long known, but is not extrasensory in any telepathic sense), some misinterpretation, and some unfalsifiable reports.

In short, I'm sorry, I see nothing convincing. If you'd like to focus on one thing that impresses you, point me to it, please.

 

[alfaniner]

No point in arguing with Ian. He just likes to argue. Never interested in learning something new, or seeing another point of view.

 

[Operaider]

OK, I agree that differing experiences will effect our overt behavior, but intrinsically they must be the same. They must be one and the very same self. Just the same self with differing experiences. Otherwise materialism is refuted.

Let’s assume that you took 2 identical twins. One you send to live with a caring and loving family who raises him well. The other you send to live with an horrible family that is mentally and physically abusive. Clearly these two would grow up to have very different past experiences, personalities, and lives. According to you they would still be essentially the same, despite all outward appearances. But, how can you possibly tell that the self doesn't change when you can only see the “overt behavior”.
Is this an assumption on your part?

 

[Ipecac]

Yes , thankfully she is still with us but her brother died a few years ago .

I would think the death of her brother might have disabused your Gran of the telepathy notion. I mean, if she could "feel" him when he was getting hit with the belt, wouldn't his death affect her to a far greater degree?

 

[jambo372]

Ipecac
I never said she didn't feel it - I don't know how it works - I wouldn't want to quiz her about something like that .

The Mighty Thor
The reason I believe in Nina Kulagina's power but not in Uri Geller's is ... well there is more than one reason .

URI GELLER :
Was tested and plenty of proof has been found against him , not only by professionals but by neighbours & friends . He is an OK magician though with impressive sleight of hand .

NINA KULAGINA (NELYA MIKHAILOVA) :
Was tested repeatedly by parapsychologists for evidence of fraud & none was found . Now I know most of you have said that magicians / conjurors would have been much better suited to the job than parapsychologists - perhaps you're right - but when you ask skeptics even professional conjurors like Randi " How do you think she does it ?" , they always give the same answers - threads , magnets , static , air - currents & mirrors . This is all very basic trickery a five year old could be taught within an hour - surely you don't need to be a qualified magician to expose someone attempting this - surely the parapsychologists can't have been that stupid. These are the very first methods of fraud you think of when seeing these phenomena . So am I expected to believe that over 40 international scientists couldn't uncover a pathetically simple act like this given no less than 10 years to test the subject as they pleased ? They did actually test for the above methods of fraud & found nothing . Another thing is that Nina became seriously ill when using her power - Would you deliberately make yourself violently sick repeatedly for 10 years just to put on a trick ? You would get fed up with it and this isn't even necessary for a trick - did Geller fake illness during his feats? Unlike Uri Geller who has a very exhibitionistic attitude towards what he does , Nina Kulagina was very sensitive , shy & retiring about her power . Nina also affected many more objects with her power than other telekinetics like Uri did . To sum it up I believe in Nina Kulagina's power because no one has ever done anything but accuse her of fraud or suggest methods of fraud - no one has actually given proof against her - James Randi actually said to me that threads can 'CLEARLY' be seen in the kulagina film , but I think he is a liar because I've seen the film myself & I couldn't see any threads - and while I'm on the subject , the picture quality was so poor you can only just make out what Nina is doing never mind see a tiny thread . Randi might need to clean those glasses of his - then maybe he'd see 'CLEARLY'. Even if Nina was fake , she'd still be my favourite magician . I also have sympathy for her - I mean how would you like to be treated like a lab rat for 10 years of your life ?

About my experiences
I accept there could have been one rational explanation for the apparition I mentioned earlier . I was ill with a chest infection & was taking paracetamol and an anti-biotic , but I still don't think it was very likely that this was the cause . It only saw it from the back - it looked like a nun or monk from the back . I was very scared - I looked away - in about 10 minutes I looked back and it was gone , but I have actually saw other things as well - this was just the most memorable one .

 

[jambo372]

Operaider
I have been attending spiritualist churches for a few years . I have been interested by the paranormal for years but I was very young when I first became interested .