Interspecies Telepathic Communication

[jambo372]

The Mighty Thor
I have heard of The Psychic Barber , I sometimes read his column .

 

[Interesting Ian]

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?

An assumption? Is it an assumption that we are conscious? Do you know you are conscious? Do you believe you are a self? To have an enduring self you must believe that whatever you experience, you still are the same self, even though experiences mould your attitude and behaviour.

I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. If you do not believe that you are a self who can experience various moods and feel differently on a day to day basis, depending upon your experiences and other factors, then there is nothing left to say.

The alternative is to say that you are not a self, that you are nothing whatsoever. That every infinitesimal fraction of a second "you" cease to exist to be replaced by an exact duplicate. But there is no "you" which persists. Do you really believe this??

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

If all sensory channels are closed off, then they are all closed off. Magicians/conjurers have to set up the environment for themselves so that trickery can take place. At the end of the day they cannot produce the miraculous. But still, I think it is extremely important that they are involved in any parapsychological research and in appropriate areas of the paranormal.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

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 .

That is a most forthright and interesting set of answers, jambo 372. I'd like to know how you got interested in Nina. By coincidence, I was watching

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: The KGB Psychic Files
Channel: SCI FI

this very night, and they showed some film of Nina. I wish I had known and I would have taped it to look at the psychokenesis in more detail.

What was implied in this documentary was that Stalin and the KGB had an interest in 'psi' phenomena which they thought might be used as a weapon against the West. But it was all speculative and based on anecdotes. There was no evidence offered for any of this.

Now, you make a good point about why should Nina have continued when it was apparently making her ill.

*In the USSR at that time, if you came to the attention of the authorities for some reason, you would have little choice but to comply.

*She would have had a desire to please her investigators by producing phenomena.

*The stress she appeared to suffer could be caused by the unusually strained movements and tenseness, by hyperventilation etc.

*The stress (high heart rate etc.) could equaly be caused by FEAR OF BEING CAUGHT OUT. If found to be cheating, this could have had very serious consequences for her. The gulags were very horribly real.

*The knowledge of how dangerous proven exposure of fraud on her part would be to Nina may well have led the testers to 'give her the benefit of the doubt'. As you do, they might have felt sorry for her. I am told that the relationship between ordinary citizens of the USSR and the State was: 'We pretend to work, while they pretend to pay us." So, people were often protective of their 'right to believe' in the supernatural. And the 'Rasputin factor' was still at work even in the USSR of post-revolution. (Now there is an interesting character -- given your 'experience' -- Rasputin, the Mad Monk!)

I was once very seriously ill, fevered, and strongly medicated, and I could not even begin to tell you the hallucinations and nightmares I had. I remember most of them to this day -- the most frightening things I could ever imagine!

So, your fever explanation is a reasonable one for seeing something strange in your room. Also, there are hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations that some people have just before going to sleep, or on first waking up. In these, people feel unable to move, feel a 'presence' in the room or see a figure, and experience feelings of terror.

These can be explained (and replicated) by neuroscience. (Look up Michael Persinger, if you want to find out more about how the brain can produce these weird effects.)

http://laurentian.ca/neurosci/_people/Persinger.htm

Anyway, how did you become interested in Nina Kulagina?
And have you ever seen Invisible Thread?

 

[Mercutio]

An assumption? Is it an assumption that we are conscious? Do you know you are conscious? Do you believe you are a self? To have an enduring self you must believe that whatever you experience, you still are the same self, even though experiences mould your attitude and behaviour.

Is this all that a self is? This comes down to memory, doesn't it? Is that all a self is? Recognising that, in some sense, I am the same person who remembers being me at age 5? If that is all there is to it, maybe I have a self...although I don't see the need for an additional label; sure it may be convenient at times, but it also adds to the confusion, as we have seen again and again around here.

I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. If you do not believe that you are a self who can experience various moods and feel differently on a day to day basis, depending upon your experiences and other factors, then there is nothing left to say.

How is this any different from being an organism (yeah, specifically a human) which experiences these things? My physical body is, near as I can tell, perfect capable of such achievements. Is the self just my body? If not, why not?

The alternative is to say that you are not a self, that you are nothing whatsoever. That every infinitesimal fraction of a second "you" cease to exist to be replaced by an exact duplicate. But there is no "you" which persists. Do you really believe this??

In a sense, yes. In others, no. As William James said, one cannot step in the same river twice. Although there is a sense in which I am the same person I was when I was five, there is also a sense in which I am not the same person I was when I started writing this post.

I do not see how you dichotomize between being a self and being nothing at all...do you really believe this? Why do you think this dichotomy is necessary?

 

[jj]

[Is this all that a self is? This comes down to memory, doesn't it? Is that all a self is? Recognising that, in some sense, I am the same person who remembers being me at age 5? If that is all there is to it, maybe I have a self...although I don't see the need for an additional label; sure it may be convenient at times, but it also adds to the confusion, as we have seen again and again around here.


Hey, how do you know you weren't created 15 seconds ago, "after" you "wrote" that, with all memories placed there artificially?


How is this any different from being an organism (yeah, specifically a human) which experiences these things? My physical body is, near as I can tell, perfect capable of such achievements. Is the self just my body? If not, why not?


More to the point, Ian has alleged various forms of evidence, and I'd like to see his evidence that the self is more than just the function of the wetware.


In a sense, yes. In others, no. As William James said, one cannot step in the same river twice. Although there is a sense in which I am the same person I was when I was five, there is also a sense in which I am not the same person I was when I started writing this post.


Everything with memory changes. Memory can be evidenced in many ways, even a rock has memory as the glacier scratches gouges in it.

Ian's argued that the self can't change, effectively. I think he needs to explain what it is, and how and what shows that it is invariant, before we go any farther. We need EVIDENCES! Show us the EVIDENCES, Ian.


I do not see how you dichotomize between being a self and being nothing at all...do you really believe this? Why do you think this dichotomy is necessary?

How does he justify the gradual evolution of a baby from something not quite able to self-express to a fully functional human being. When did the self enter here?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

If all sensory channels are closed off, then they are all closed off. Magicians/conjurers have to set up the environment for themselves so that trickery can take place. At the end of the day they cannot produce the miraculous. But still, I think it is extremely important that they are involved in any parapsychological research and in appropriate areas of the paranormal.

How do we find out 'if all sensory channels' were indeed cut off? As with Mrs Piper et al., there are many conjuring methods that can be used to produce one effect. Many of these techniques are kept secret by the performer and may never be revealed to the lay public or even other to magicians.

If Nina's tricks can be duplicated by magicians, what is the most likely explanation?

1. Nina used trickery as well.
2. Nina had real paranormal powers.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
An assumption? Is it an assumption that we are conscious? Do you know you are conscious? Do you believe you are a self? To have an enduring self you must believe that whatever you experience, you still are the same self, even though experiences mould your attitude and behaviour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this all that a self is? This comes down to memory, doesn't it?

Absolutely not! A self has memories. A self is not itself memories.

Is that all a self is? Recognising that, in some sense, I am the same person who remembers being me at age 5?

Again . . .

Absolutely not.

If that is all there is to it, maybe I have a self

No no no! "You" do not have a self, rather you are a self.

...although I don't see the need for an additional label; sure it may be convenient at times, but it also adds to the confusion, as we have seen again and again around here.

{shakes head sadly}

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've said this many times, but I'll say it again. If you do not believe that you are a self who can experience various moods and feel differently on a day to day basis, depending upon your experiences and other factors, then there is nothing left to say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is this any different from being an organism (yeah, specifically a human) which experiences these things? My physical body is, near as I can tell, perfect capable of such achievements. Is the self just my body? If not, why not?

A self is a being. It is the author of conscious experiences. The self has perceptual experiences, but it is not itself a perceptual experience. Rather it is an experiencer or, to employ modern terminology, an experient. Perceptual experiences do not constitute a self. I see a table, but that table is not a self. I see a pint of beer, but that pint of beer is not a self. I see someones body, but that body is not someones self. Rather the self is that which animates/moves that body. The self is not experienced like a table, or pint of beer is. Rather it is inferred from ones bodily movements. You must learn to distinguish an experiencer from his/her experiences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The alternative is to say that you are not a self, that you are nothing whatsoever. That every infinitesimal fraction of a second "you" cease to exist to be replaced by an exact duplicate. But there is no "you" which persists. Do you really believe this??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a sense, yes. In others, no. As William James said, one cannot step in the same river twice. Although there is a sense in which I am the same person I was when I was five, there is also a sense in which I am not the same person I was when I started writing this post.

In what sense are you the same person as when you were 5?? Surely because you are the same self.

 

[Interesting Ian]

How do we find out 'if all sensory channels' were indeed cut off? As with Mrs Piper et al., there are many conjuring methods that can be used to produce one effect. Many of these techniques are kept secret by the performer and may never be revealed to the lay public or even other to magicians.

All we can do is get people, who know their stuff, to observe these mediums. Mrs Piper was exhaustively investigated, and never found involved in any trickery

{Shrugs}

But maybe she was anyway. In a way that no-one could ever figure out.

Do you see the problem here . . .

At what point do you conclude that something paranormal is going on?

Serious question.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Note to self.

No more notes.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
At what point do you conclude that something paranormal is going on?

When there is evidence for it. Lack of evidence for a mundane explanation does not lead me to conclude there must be a paranormal explanation. Occam and all.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Absolutely not! A self has memories. A self is not itself memories.

Again . . .

Absolutely not.

No no no! "You" do not have a self, rather you are a self.

A self is a being. It is the author of conscious experiences. The self has perceptual experiences, but it is not itself a perceptual experience. Rather it is an experiencer or, to employ modern terminology, an experient. Perceptual experiences do not constitute a self. I see a table, but that table is not a self. I see a pint of beer, but that pint of beer is not a self. I see someones body, but that body is not someones self. Rather the self is that which animates/moves that body. The self is not experienced like a table, or pint of beer is. Rather it is inferred from ones bodily movements. You must learn to distinguish an experiencer from his/her experiences.

In what sense are you the same person as when you were 5?? Surely because you are the same self.

Funny, actually. The way you describe the self--"a self has memories", "you are a self", "it is an experiencer", etc...is exactly how I would describe the body. But, you specifically deny that.

I do agree with you 100% on one point though. The self is inferred from one's bodily movements. I need to re-read some of your stuff, though, because I would not have thought you would say that. I keep learning, I suppose...

 

[Ipecac]

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 .

Why not? You don't have to be rude or nasty to your Gran about it. A simple, "Did you feel it when your brother died?" If she believes she had a telepathic link, a revolutionary discovery to say the least, it's pretty important.

Of course, you know your Grandmother and I don't so you have a better idea how she would react. But claiming she has this empathy/telepathy and then shrugging it off by saying you won't talk to her about it pretty much leaves us with nothing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Absolutely not! A self has memories. A self is not itself memories.

How do you know that?




No no no! "You" do not have a self, rather you are a self.

Agreed


A self is a being. It is the author of conscious experiences. The self has perceptual experiences, but it is not itself a perceptual experience. Rather it is an experiencer or, to employ modern terminology, an experient. Perceptual experiences do not constitute a self. I see a table, but that table is not a self. I see a pint of beer, but that pint of beer is not a self. I see someones body, but that body is not someones self. Rather the self is that which animates/moves that body. The self is not experienced like a table, or pint of beer is. Rather it is inferred from ones bodily movements. You must learn to distinguish an experiencer from his/her experiences.

But that distinction may be just one of definition. A camara cannot record itself (well except through a mirror), but that does not make it qualitatively different from any other object. Likewise, the fact that the self cannot perceive itself directly does not prove that it is qualitatively different from the surrounding world.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

All we can do is get people, who know their stuff, to observe these mediums. Mrs Piper was exhaustively investigated, and never found involved in any trickery

{Shrugs}

But maybe she was anyway. In a way that no-one could ever figure out.

Do you see the problem here . . .

At what point do you conclude that something paranormal is going on?

Serious question.

Serious answer: With some paranormal claims it may be impossible. Those are, however, unfalsifiable claims.

Hans

 

[Dr Adequate]

As the same philosophical discussion seems to be going on in this thread and the one about life after death, but with a slightly different cast, I have posted a new thread called "There is no self underlying the constituent parts of a person... discuss." where we can talk about it. This will at least save Interesting Ian from having to explain the same thing to two sets of people, and will leave this thread clear for discussing the more empirical aspects of animal psi.

 

[alfaniner]

...

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?

...

Ever see David Blaine do his levitation trick? He always pretended to be severely affected by it.

 

[jambo372]

Yes many magicians can copy the Kulagina phenomena - but that's my point - they use threads & magnets & say that's how they think she does it - but she was repeatedly tested for this type of fraud .

 

[Operaider]

Ever see David Blaine do his levitation trick? He always pretended to be severely affected by it.

This is true, and it's done for a good reason. One of the cardinal rules of magic is that you never do the same trick twice. Anyone who has done a trick well knows that the first thing they want is for you to do it again, so they can catch how it’s done. This is also why you never do the trick they want you to do. Uri was an expert at this You hand him a spoon and it just wouldn't bend, but at the same time you'd find that your ring was bent.

Well, you can’t do the trick twice if you tell them
"That takes allot out of me. I feel drained. I'll need to rest. No more magic tricks today."

 

[Operaider]

Yes many magicians can copy the Kulagina phenomena - but that's my point - they use threads & magnets & say that's how they think she does it - but she was repeatedly tested for this type of fraud .

Perhaps, but not by people who know what to look for. This is the same reason why scientists aren't called in to help stop computer hackers. While they may be very smart, they do not have the expertise in the field needed to catch the culprit. They are experts in things like mathematics and laser technology (Targ, and Puthoff). They are not experts were it counts.