Telepathy

[dlorde]

Recent events and displays of well researched data has indicated to me, that 'telepathy' or the ability to extend one's consciousness beyond one's cranium is a real measurable phenomena, that has its basis in natural selection...

Still waiting for the citations.

Prey animals who can sense being watched, OFTEN look in direction of their stalker.

Prey animals have a vested interest in scanning their environs for predators, particularly the directions and areas from which predators are likely to attack (downwind, nearby scrub, etc). One would be surprised if they did not often look in the right direction.

If you look at the back of someone's head, more often than not they will turn and look right at you.

Not so, as the research actually cited in this thread shows. However, neuroscientist Mario Sigman says that the sensation of being watched that makes us turn our heads results from specialised neural maps that trigger on unusual or unexpected sensed peripheral activity; these triggers are subconscious and trigger the diversion of the focus of attention, so becoming conscious.

Animals and humans who could identify the direction of an incoming predator were and are more likely to escape.

Very probably; this will be why we are so sensitive to peripheral activity and would account for the HADD (Hyperactive Agency Detection Device) that likely also accounts for superstitious beliefs in spirits, faeries, little people, angels, gods, etc.

It also occurs to me that if such a remote sensing capability had evolved between prey and predator, the resulting evolutionary 'arms race' would have made it outstandingly obvious.

Fish and birds 'might' be using a single conscious rather than local physical inputs to alter direction.

No reason to think so - basic flocking & shoaling behaviours require only 3 simple rules. Don't disturb Bill Ockham, he's shaving.

When we see...light bounces off an object, is received by our retinas, flip-turned-right side up, and a picture is formed. But is that picture in our heads, or is it projected outward, outside of us, and by simply observing it, can we alter or change it, without touching it...?

A very crude neural activity 'image' is formed in the visual cortex, mainly used to update and correct the seemingly detailed internally generated model that we think we 'see'.

As for mechanism, only electromagnetism has the range and strength to be relevant but is still totally inadequate; there's a reason even the most sensitive EEG requires electrodes in direct electrical contact with the scalp - the skull and associated brain wrappings are very effective insulators. EM signals strong enough to penetrate either direction would be easily detectable and we'd be disturbingly swamped with EM radiation from the multiple electrical and electronic devices that saturate the urban environment.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Corresponding energy?

Quite the contrary; mismatched socks. The Pauli exclusion principle expressed on the macro scale.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Right. I did research.

Go do your own.

So no evidence, then. Got it.

 

[theprestige]

If you are so sure that telepathy is actually real, then do not bother with Forum posts and/or skeptics.

Instead, simply go to Vegas, play blackjack, and make oodles of money using your telepathic powers.

Blackjack is no good. It's played against the house, and the dealer never looks at his cards. Mind reading won't help you at all. You want poker.

 

[Loss Leader]

Faker. You're just using your precognition to make it appear like you're telepathic.

Dave

WRONG!

I happen to be using clairvoyance to read what someone else has written in Finland.

 

[carlitos]

*********** Finns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rincewind]

*********** Finns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should read it - it's very funny!

 

[arthwollipot]

Btw, Instead of spending time and energy in this and that, yes and no, can't we check each and every possible interaction scientifically? What a person can transmit to other, scientifically?

The "Demand for an Impossible Test" should be added to the crackpot index

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Have we had any evidence yet?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Have we had any evidence yet?

I'm broadcasting the answer to that question to you telepathically now.

 

[jadebox]

Have we had any evidence yet?

Don't put the horse before the cart! First we have to enumerate a long list of ridiculous explanations for how it might work. Once we have completed that Herculean task, then we can look for evidence that it works.

 

[Crossbow]

Have we had any evidence yet?

There sure is a good bit of crap evidence which shows that telepathy is and at the same time there is exactly zero good evidence which shows that telepathy is a real thing.

Considering the tens of thousands of years that humans have been around then one should think that if telepathy is actually a real thing, then by now we should have some good evidence to show that telepathy is actually a real thing.

But instead, all that we have to show that telepathy is a real thing is nothing stupid, crap evidence which is completely useless.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Odd, I would have assumed a clear, unambiguous and scientifically sound test and accompanying protocol would have been established by now.

Bah, What am I worried about, Surely it's being written up at this very moment.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm broadcasting the answer to that question to you telepathically now.

Yeah, that plus a whole load of other stuff I really didn't need to know about you.

Focus, man, focus!

 

[Imhotep]

Blackjack is no good. It's played against the house, and the dealer never looks at his cards. Mind reading won't help you at all. You want poker.

The dealer has to check for blackjack. That's the little mirror thing in the table that they slide the cards over.

 

[Imhotep]

I have a set of protocol ready in my mind. Just use ESP to get it!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Nothing was proven. It didn't happen and anyway it was night and I was wearing sunglasses.....

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you look at the back of someone's head, more often than not they will turn and look right at you.

If course, if you're not looking at someone's head, you have no idea where they're looking.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

If memory serves? I thought you had found lots of convincing documentation. Now you're saying you can't even remember for sure.

Now, I'm no G.I. Joe, but I've never heard of any kind of version of unarmed combat or take-downs that stress not to focus on the back of someone's head in case they sense it. That's just odd.

 

[MikeG]

..........If you look at the back of someone's head, more often than not they will turn and look right at you.......

Twaddle. Twaddle, twaddle, twaddle and bollocks.

Can you think of any way of testing this such that you would have the slightest evidence in support of your claim, instead of plucking this nonsense straight out of your backside?