Is it theoretically possable for telepaths to exist?

[tsg]

What would carry our signal?

At the risk of giving the woos some ammunition[1], it could be some phenomenon of which science is as of yet unaware. I'm imagining some technical sounding term possibly uttered by Geordi La Forge on Star Trek....

[1]This does not, however, negate the fact that, if there were such a thing, the effect could be measured even if we aren't sure of the mechanism by which it works.

 

[Tricky]

The question touches on an important point: What exactly is telepathy?

How about this for a working definition:

Telepathy - the ability to communicate or transfer data without mechanical assistance over a significantly longer distance than would be possible using the known senses.

 

[tsg]

How about this for a working definition:

Telepathy - the ability to communicate or transfer data without mechanical assistance over a significantly longer distance than would be possible using the known senses.

I would think that two people in the same room transferring thoughts directly would qualify.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

We have sense organs that work on direct contact (skin, taste) and those for remote detection (eyes, ears, nasal membranes). In each case the sense organ has a clear layer of nerves that receive the signal, and are wired into the brain.

Just where is the supposed sense organ for telepathy? I know your woo-woo types will say it's the brain, but why is there nothing internal to it like a directed sense organ, for gathering signal? Where is the separate wiring? If we receive signals at all from other brains, there has to be some sort of cells that react to them, and natural selection (you'd think) would push them to become larger, or more sensitive, or at least (is it too much to ask?) somehow discernable from other cells. You know?[/quote
Good point. For telepathy I assume you would need an organ to transmit the signal with and an organ to receive the signal.

LLH

 

[Tricky]

I would think that two people in the same room transferring thoughts directly would qualify.

That would be using "unknown senses" then, right?

 

[Hellbound]

Good point. For telepathy I assume you would need an organ to transmit the signal with and an organ to receive the signal.

Maybe they're there, but we each only get one or the other. Thus, most of us are transmitters (but can't recieve). Those guys you see wandering down the street with a bottle of booze, seeming to have an argument with themselves? They're the recievers.

 

[brodski]

b

How about this for a working definition:

Telepathy - the ability to communicate or transfer data without mechanical assistance over a significantly longer distance than would be possible using the known senses.

the problem with that definition, within the context of this tread, is that we are talking about an entirely different life-form, for which we have no "known senses", as I hinted at above, if we encountered an alien species which had no concept of sound, speech would be considered very much as we consider "telepathy", if we remove any reference to our 5 senses, the concept of telepathy becomes meaningless.

Fortunately the fact that the concept of "telepathy" can be easily rendered meaningless, is unlikely to adversely affect our lives in any way whatsoever.

 

[Tricky]

the problem with that definition, within the context of this tread, is that we are talking about an entirely different life-form, for which we have no "known senses", as I hinted at above, if we encountered an alien species which had no concept of sound, speech would be considered very much as we consider "telepathy", if we remove any reference to our 5 senses, the concept of telepathy becomes meaningless.

That's specifically why I wrote it that way, to incorporate the limits of whatever senses the individuals of any species have. For example, if you had eyes like an eagle and could read lips (or lets say, "decipher communication", since eagles don't have lips) at a distance of half a mile, that might be considered telepathic in humans, but not in eagles. Similarly, noseless radioaliens might consider olfactory signals telepathic, but not self-contained EM signals.

 

[brodski]

That's specifically why I wrote it that way, to incorporate the limits of whatever senses the individuals of any species have. For example, if you had eyes like an eagle and could read lips (or lets say, "decipher communication", since eagles don't have lips) at a distance of half a mile, that might be considered telepathic in humans, but not in eagles. Similarly, noseless radioaliens might consider olfactory signals telepathic, but not self-contained EM signals.

so essentaily what you are saying, (if I understand you correctly) is that telepathy is only telapthy if it is impossible?

If so, I agree, but it does make the OP very easy to answer.

 

[Gwrando]

Power output

Obviously, it doesn't seem like telepaths exist among humans, but imagine there's an sentient alien species out there, is it possable that a brain could develop with telepathic abilities? Maybe some sort of bio-radio transmitter and reciever. And if so, if we found those aliens we would likely be able to pick up those signals on our own equipment, or develop the equipment to do it. That would be interesting.

From a purely radio point of view, a biological radio seems unlikely. The human brain runs on about 40 Watt of power. If this was translated into radio power, you'd have a useful but not particularly powerful transmitter - but no power left over for processing the message.

The antenna would need to be omnidirectional (using the usual scenario of 'contact anywhere') and so power would fall with distance according to the inverse square law.

Only frequencies lower than about 30 MHz has any over-the-horizon capability, and antennas for this needs to be large to be efficient.

In any case communication through the earth (or any rocky or watery planet) would be impossible.

In short, if there was a biological radio, it would have about the performance of a walkie-talkie or a cellphone.

 

[Tricky]

so essentaily what you are saying, (if I understand you correctly) is that telepathy is only telapthy if it is impossible?

If so, I agree, but it does make the OP very easy to answer.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Otherwise, why even give it a different name? If it's within the species norm to see that far, then it's the sense of sight. If it's within the species ability to brodcast/recieve EM, then it's the sense of bioradio, or whatever.

And you are right, the whole purpose of this definition is to keep telepathy within the bounds of paranormal. If normal is different, then paranormal has to be different too.

 

[Tricky]

From a purely radio point of view, a biological radio seems unlikely. The human brain runs on about 40 Watt of power. If this was translated into radio power, you'd have a useful but not particularly powerful transmitter - but no power left over for processing the message.

The antenna would need to be omnidirectional (using the usual scenario of 'contact anywhere') and so power would fall with distance according to the inverse square law.

Only frequencies lower than about 30 MHz has any over-the-horizon capability, and antennas for this needs to be large to be efficient.

In any case communication through the earth (or any rocky or watery planet) would be impossible.

In short, if there was a biological radio, it would have about the performance of a walkie-talkie or a cellphone.

Hmm... maybe there is something to be examined about whether or not telepathy works better when the body is carrying a static charge. We should test reputed telepaths by comparing their abilities before and after they walk over a wool carpet in leather shoes.

And welcome to the forum Gwrando. Good first post.

 

[uruk]

In the SF vien:
There is an anime movie and series called Ghost in the shell where everybody has nanotechnological brain implants called a "cyber-brain" that can allow two or more people to communicate with audio or visuals via RF as well as link to computers and soforth. Kind of like having an internet connection directly to your brain/mind.

 

[tsg]

That would be using "unknown senses" then, right?

I was more concerned with the distance requirement.

 

[epepke]

The methods used for communication in animal species (sound, visual signals, pheromones) are all detected by the sense organs used to detect the world around the organism. For these senses to evolve, it was necessary for the things being detected (i.e. sounds, light and chemical scents) to exist in the environment. Unless there was an evolutionary advantage to the aliens in being able to detect radio waves, they would not have evolved this ability.

I can think of one advantage to detecting radio waves: weather prediction. Thunderstorms generate a lot of noise at low frequencies, and some of this can be picked up at the low end of an AM radio. The trouble with this is that it seems the creature would have to be quite long to chance upon it.

 

[NeilC]

It's possible if it utilises some phenomena we are unaware of. It is possible gods exist. It is possible ghosts exist. Anything is possible.

 

[lister]

Lawrence Krauss writes an interesting section about this in his "Beyond Star Trek" book. He examines whether it is theoretically possible for (human) telepaths the exist. The answer is basically "no". (surprise surprise).

If telepaths used established mechanisms (eg electromagnetic waves) then of course we could pick them up with technological equipment. He also examines many other possible "carrier particles" such as neutrinos etc but none of them are eligable (neutrinos are too small to interact with matter in any meaningful way for example).

It was an interesting read with a different take on the subject. He also touches on several other woo topics in the book.

 

[NeilC]

Yes but he fails to take into account the POSSIBILITY that there are things we cannot perceive using our normal senses and technology made using those sense. It is possible that consciousness itself is a product of such phenomena and that it is possible to interact on this basis. Dare I say quantum mechanics!?

I think it's obvious that telepathy as reported does not use any known mechanism.

 

[lister]

Yes but he fails to take into account the POSSIBILITY that there are things we cannot perceive using our normal senses and technology made using those sense.

Well, I admit I'm going off memory, but I'm sure he does contemplate the possibility. I had a feeling he gave some logical reasons why this couldn't be so but I cannot remember. I will have to look it up when I get home.

 

[Ririon]

I think it's obvious that telepathy as reported does not use any known mechanism.

Telepathy as reported does not use any mechanism (known or unknown) as it does not work. If it did it would be one of the easiest ways of making a quick million dollars.