Psychedelics & Telepathy

[ChillMike420]

personally, I believe it is possible. I've always believed that tripping opens up parts of your mind that are normally never used. Abilities foreign to us usually, can sometimes randomly and mistakingly come out while you are tripping, a lot of times depending on how intense the trip actually is and if your using it to your advantage and trying to dive into those abilities or find them. I've had numerous crazy "coincidences" if you will, while tripping, all though, I dont consider them coincidences. I can almost see right through a person normally, sober. When Im tripping everything of my being is intensified to glorious levels, and that includes telepathy. Ill straight up admit it. I believe its definitely possible, and I believe I've used it. It's just something so foreign, that I dont have control over it. When Im tripping, I just sense what is already there, including in other people's minds. And when I discuss it, before I can even finish, they end up being so astonished of how I knew what they were thinking. Obscure abilities while tripping is not uncommon, and personally, I believe, in some aspects tripping can bring our not-as-evolved minds to higher states of consciousness, and might be the key to our minds' evolution. I further believe that each psychedelic chemical out there has its own unique twist on that, and each has its own new knowledge to give. But this is just what I believe. Of course there's no proof of this. Just what I strongly, internally feel. Thus the reason why I am so in love with psychedelics! :D What do you guys think, considering my input?

 

[chucky]

Coincidence. Suggestibility. Communication between the rooms. Pre-trip communication. Post-trip communication. Impaired memory of the actual events.

Hint: there ain't no such thing as telepathy.

Thank you, God.

Having experienced Telepathy, I'll certainly vouch for it. But i wont argue any further than this. reality is subjective. Therefore, YOUR reality is your experience. No amount of books, talking to 'wise' people, etc will be likely to change your mind about anything. Want to believe in something? GO out and experience it.

 

[Rasclatt]

^People go out and experience seeing UFO's in america all the time, that doesn't mean it isn't a load of bollocks.

 

[soul]

Thank you, God.

Having experienced Telepathy, I'll certainly vouch for it. But i wont argue any further than this. reality is subjective. Therefore, YOUR reality is your experience. No amount of books, talking to 'wise' people, etc will be likely to change your mind about anything. Want to believe in something? GO out and experience it.

my thoughts exactly. people are so used to believing in only what they know and not with experience. I'd be depressed to life my life in a bubble like that.

 

[chucky]

^People go out and experience seeing UFO's in america all the time, that doesn't mean it isn't a load of bollocks.

Course it doesn't. But that dont matter. Fact is, if YOU had a ufo/alien/telepathic experience, that was a 100% real to you, you'd damn well think twice about it and dont tell me you wouldn't. But that dont mean you wouldnt be just another crazy person. Fact is, no one would be likely to believe you anyway. Therein lies the problem. Unless you can experience something like this for yourself, you'll have a real difficult time trying to convince yourself its real.

But wether any of it is real or not doesn't mean squat anyway. Just matters what you believe in yourself. Fact is, nobody will ever be able to proove shit anyway, cause we all know that every one of our senses can be fooled (suffer dellusions/illusions) which means even if you see something, hear something, touch something, smell something and taste something, or use whatever other sense you believe you have, doesn't mean it was real. But at some point, you either have to start beileiving in your senses or just go real crazy and paranoid.

Personally, I wouldn't say i really believe or dis-believe in anything. I do however accept my experiences and give trust worthy people the benefit of the doubt. Cause at the end of the day, I can't think of any other way of knowing what to believe and what not to believe.

 

[TrippedOutKid]

Believe what you want it would be hippocritical of me to say you can't. We don't have to agree at all and I respect your opinions. I may say things because I care if I notice flaws so to not have you a slave to a dillusion and regret noone telling you or yourself acknowledging it earlier. Yes too there are some things we may never know about or humanity as a whole will never forget about so you have to move on and don't worry about it so much.

Some people also take a little more than others like something solid as compared to something circumstantial or some just want to believe in something so bad, maybe beacuse it's cool, that they convince themselves. Science-fiction is also good because even if it's not real it can still be fun. Also remember that all things are relative. They all depend on your point of view. One person sees a ghost, another sees a person's reflection on a piece of glass where the other person never was aware of the glass there.

Just be careful and don't start wars and fights over things you aren't close enough to 100% about. Lots of people make themselves fools this way or make problems over something really stupid. Like UFO's, don't sock someone in the face for saying they believe in or don't believe in them. They are also UFO's for a reason. They are UNIDENTIFIED. Personally I don't think they are aliens so much as something else that most people don't even consider that is so obvious to me.

"I believe 'telepathy' is merely 'keen observation'." This is close enough. It's amazing what the senses can do in unison. There's also one term that plays in here if any of you can follow because it's a little advanced for people to think anything of it but crap. Effects to the timeline go in both directions. Something I do now affects something in the past and in the future but not in the most obvious way because obviously that would not support the theory. I can discuss it better one-on-one with someone if they want. Basically sometimes the cause happens before the effect, and sometimes the effect happens before the cause.

 

[Winding Vines]

I feel that as humans we have certain senses that we no longer have needed through evolution. And as a living, breathing, feeling being sometimes parts of our human nature as so unusually because many of us dont tap into those parts of our mind/body/soul.

You could say inuition is a load of crap, you could say a conscious of right/wrong is a load of crap.. You can, but it just proves the fact that humans have become more unhuman, less humanity within. because what we feel makes US, therefore what is in me, is what i feel, and if its there I will never ever disregard it.. Everytime i have, it has seemed to bite me in the future. I say go with your feeling and go within to do what is natural no matter what state of mind.

Why censor yourself to extraordinary and wonderful experiences and than label than as false cognitions. But maybe i find myself more and more intune with these "false" "concepts" of humanity.

 

[EgoTripper]

Telepathy is scientifically absurd; you will not find anyone with an intimate knowledge of the brain and its chemistry who will claim there is some means of direct communication between minds. While the intricacies of the brain are certainly not understood, a lot of people underestimate what we do know about the brain. The "people only use 5% of their brains" statistic is completely untrue; there neither is nor ever has been evidence that would suggest such a number -- and yes, the more common "10%" statistic is equally fictitious.

What is being described by telepathy is none other than the most efficient detector and the most elaborately evolved means of communication known to science. Contrary to popular belief, biological detectors do not shrink as they grow more sensitive: They increase in size. They become extremely elaborate. Sure, a dog has a more sensitive nose than we do -- but his nasal cavity has been expanded to fill his snout to achieve such sensitivity. The primitive radar system used by a shark extends the length of the animal's body.

And you'd like to present, in the face of all that absurdity, the idea that there exists an astronomically sensitive detector that is so efficient, so tiny, so masterfully designed that it has gone completely unnoticed throughout the history of medical or biological science? And not only that, but you also want this neurological miracle machine to directly manipulate frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we can't even touch with the precision required for another device to interpret words and images? Imagine the scale of this thing; imagine the initial intensity of its transmission to be strong enough for reception at the other end. Whatever the transmission strength of the communicator, the receiver would have to be orders of magnitude more sensitive!

As for those suggesting a quantum entanglement theory of telepathy, this is something I know about (... degree in Engineering Physics ...). Firstly, you're either suggesting that our minds can somehow violate the Uncertainty Principle and extract information from quantum states, or that evolution has seated a quantum computer in our brain. While I suppose this latter idea is technically possible, it would be an unprecedented discovery in the history of science, and would completely redefine our understanding of a great deal about biology and evolution. Its complexity and intricacy would, like Adams' babelfish, stand as a fatal obstacle to evolution and the first real evidence-by-improbability of a supreme designer.

I am sure that all of you who believe you've experienced telepathy can also recall many times where you only thought you'd experienced it... only to be shown wrong down the road. Put enough chances for a hit into the mix and you're bound to get one. Then, combine all of these people into a forum about psychedelics and you're bound to get a load of anecdotal evidence. It's a simple sifting machine that gives us the good stuff and none of the overwhelmingly more abundant misses.

And all it would take -- all it would take -- for everyone to change their minds would be for a single mentalist to walk into a university and consistently perform a feat of telepathy in laboratory conditions. One. Single. Person.

The evidence against the idea of telepathy is simple: It doesn't exist. Unless you wish to suggest the existence of spirits, Earth mothers, crystal energy or God, telepathy is easily dismissed because it isn't scientific. Those of you who disagree with science... well, you probably shouldn't be ingesting drugs that "science" says are safe.

 

[EgoTripper]

But maybe i find myself more and more intune with these "false" "concepts" of humanity.

This is an interesting tactic... pull a conceptual 180, identify your own convictions as false concepts and use the scientists' terms against them. Well done!

8)

 

[jimbu]

i tried to speak to my cat telepathically once, whilst on mushrooms. as much as i wanted it to work, it didn't.

... or maybe he was just being his stubborn self.

 

[Winding Vines]

This is an interesting tactic... pull a conceptual 180, identify your own convictions as false concepts and use the scientists' terms against them. Well done!

8)

Well you yourself may feel that life is what science explains it, maybe you are analysing things in a very structured sense. I feel that what you said is very wrong but very true. I accept what science says, I myself enjoy science as well. But science is and isnt the root to the worlds answers. Science in it of itself is very very conceptual, I would list all of the possible answers to many, many issues that cant be proven, but only "possible outcomes". Now by pure devils adovocacy, if science cannot purely define every answer to every question that is asked about here,now, and everything what do you believe assumes its validity?

Just because science is assumed to equal reason, doesnt mean that reason equals science. I feel that the terminology of "telepathy" is unreasonable. But I do believe that there are things about ourselves that happen, may happen, or have happened that just cannot explain.

To exemplify my reasons of science validity within this area of the brain:

Why were my parents abusive?
-Therapist (who studied by ways of research and scientific theory designed to explain how the human works via brain(basically)
Because they were possibly abused themselves or maybe had some sort of disruption in their life that would cultivate feelings of channeling their angst ect ect ect and so on.

But is there any incling that my parents were just assholes and have no appreciation of my emotions or well being?

I dont feel you can cash in your chips on science of the human brain/emotion/state, too many variables, too many things we DONT understand or have anyway of explaining.

Sometimes the simple answers are the only ones that should be said.

Is it possible that someone who may be in the same condition/state of mind/emotional level/familiarity of person(s) in company be able to experience the same as another without discussion of influencial factors, such as communicating feelings during the experience?

I say whatever science says, i dont care, because its true. There isnt always an explaination to everything a human/thing experience, its life and it is just as unpredictable as science, so why not remember that?

 

[stoned_baby]

I never believed in telepathy nor any other new age BS for a very long time. Then it just happened. Me and my ex were tripping hard as fuck from LSD and just happened to have a telepathic exchange. Didnt want to beieve that either, so i just put it down to being fucked up. A couple of years later a guy proved to me he could read my thoughts, he told me to concentrate very hard on five things, wrote them down on 5 bits of paper, and then showed me. He got it ALL RIGHT, except 2 spelling errors. Now i have no choice but to believe.

Anyway, i know this is not convincing you sceptics. I would not have believed it myself. I guess only a personal experience of this can really change a die-hard no-believers mind. I hope youll have one. Its made me see life as more magical than before. There is a beauty in mystery.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Telepathy is scientifically absurd; you will not find anyone with an intimate knowledge of the brain and its chemistry who will claim there is some means of direct communication between minds. While the intricacies of the brain are certainly not understood, a lot of people underestimate what we do know about the brain.

Think again... As you've pointed out

While the intricacies of the brain are certainly not understood

Also

And you'd like to present, in the face of all that absurdity, the idea that there exists an astronomically sensitive detector that is so efficient, so tiny, so masterfully designed that it has gone completely unnoticed throughout the history of medical or biological science? And not only that, but you also want this neurological miracle machine to directly manipulate frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we can't even touch with the precision required for another device to interpret words and images? Imagine the scale of this thing; imagine the initial intensity of its transmission to be strong enough for reception at the other end. Whatever the transmission strength of the communicator, the receiver would have to be orders of magnitude more sensitive!

Do you know much about RF transmission, or the workings of RF electronics? The reason I ask is because RF receivers (like your tv) do exactly what you say is impossible

Whatever the transmission strength of the communicator, the receiver would have to be orders of magnitude more sensitive!

Imagine being able to pull sounds out of 'thin air' using just a coil, variable capacitor and a crystal of lead sulphide. They are capable of turning RF field strengths of microvolts per meter into a sound you can hear in your headphones, and resonant cavity receivers are capable of picking up signals that are much much weaker than that of a crystal radio receiver (if they weren't, satellite tv would still be science fiction, considering the attenuation of SHF frequencies by atmospheric phenomena)

Yes on top of all my other sins, I'm an electronics geek, but it's a useful hobby!

 

[EgoTripper]

I feel that what you said is very wrong but very true.

But science is and isnt the root to the worlds answers.

I say whatever science says, i dont care, because its true.

You do realise that these sentences obliterate themselves with contradicting negatives, yes? By analogy, "A is A," and "A can't be not-A." That's Aristotle, so I'm gonna trust him on his word

Science in it of itself is very very conceptual, I would list all of the possible answers to many, many issues that cant be proven, but only "possible outcomes". Now by pure devils adovocacy, if science cannot purely define every answer to every question that is asked about here,now, and everything what do you believe assumes its validity?

Science is a method of gathering information about the world using the best possible means; every single precept of science is bent upon achieving that single goal. Any means you present that is an effective way of gathering information about the world is, by definition, scientific. Conversely, any means you present that is not scientific is, then, not an effective means of gathering information.

Are we following?

While humans are fallible, the fact remains that this weakness is a constant that would apply to ANY means of gathering information. In other words, regardless of science's imperfection, we must conclude that our other possible methods (i.e. faith, bad science, anecdotal forum stories, etc) are equally flawed -- and science, then, is still the best way of gathering knowledge.

Telepathy, at last check, would count as 'information about the world.' Thus, to gauge its veracity, we turn to that method which exists solely to gather information about the world in the most accurate and precise manner possible.

Is it possible that someone who may be in the same condition/state of mind/emotional level/familiarity of person(s) in company be able to experience the same as another without discussion of influencial factors, such as communicating feelings during the experience?

Yes, it is. It is also possible that an invisible leprechaun could be dancing on your head right now. Or that I don't exist, and you're actually a trained monkey tricked into thinking he's human. These are all technically possible; each has the same weight of scientific evidence (i.e. none), and considering science as our best means of gathering knowledge, we must reject anything that isn't scientific evidence -- in other words, all these little claims are on equal footing.

These claims are arbitrary. As any claim about the world must, obviously, be drawn from observations gathered about the world, a statement that is not based on any scientific observations is empty. It is cognitively meaningless and should be treated as such -- as an empty statement that says nothing useful, with as much of a factual relationship to reality as that of a random collection of words.

In other words, any claims about the world must be subject to science, for science is our best (and only) means of gathering knowledge of reality. Telepathy, when subject to science, is arbitrary (and highly improbable).

There isnt always an explaination to everything a human/thing experience, its life and it is just as unpredictable as science, so why not remember that?

Exactly. So why are you inventing predictions (i.e. telepathy) about such an unpredictable world? Make no mistake; that is precisely what telepathy is -- an invention. There is no scientific or logical evidence that would lead to an observation of telepathy, and so it is necessarily an invention.

The reason I ask is because RF receivers (like your tv) do exactly what you say is impossible

Yes, I know; I never said it was impossible to receive strong signals, I said it was absurdly unlikely for a biological organism to have evolved such a device given our knowledge of the development of conventional sensory/communications organs in other species. Such an elaborate organ within our brains would fly in the face of continuous evolution; it would be the first evidence of evolution 'swimming upstream.'

To postulate the existence of something that would, by necessity, cause fairly big earthquakes in physics, medicine, biology and neuroscience without any evidence whatsoever is absurd. To say "yes, but it might be possible," as if that means anything at all, is akin to supporting the idea of an invisible leprechaun or trained monkey -- there is no way whatsoever to distinguish between the two; if you're going to accept the possibility of one, you have to accept them all.

 

[Talisman]

As for those suggesting a quantum entanglement theory of telepathy, this is something I know about (... degree in Engineering Physics ...). Firstly, you're either suggesting that our minds can somehow violate the Uncertainty Principle and extract information from quantum states, or that evolution has seated a quantum computer in our brain. While I suppose this latter idea is technically possible, it would be an unprecedented discovery in the history of science, and would completely redefine our understanding of a great deal about biology and evolution. Its complexity and intricacy would, like Adams' babelfish, stand as a fatal obstacle to evolution and the first real evidence-by-improbability of a supreme designer.

Quantum entanglement is, in fact, the theory being proposed by the more scientifically sophisticated "psi theorists" today. It's true, nobody can show you today what structure in the brain, precisely, is capable of maintaining quantum coherence, or is able to affect a collapse. But not all theories suggesting this are completely bunk. As mentioned before, Penrose and Hameroff's suggestion that microtubules are able to maintain coherence has not been completely refuted.

In any case, I agree it would be astounding to discover that brains are able to affect collapse of the wavefunction. But I don't think that's any reason to declare psi impossible.

 

[Rasclatt]

, he told me to concentrate very hard on five things, wrote them down on 5 bits of paper, and then showed me. He got it ALL RIGHT, except 2 spelling errors. Now i have no choice but to believe.

That is still a trick, it's not actually 'telepathy'.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Yes, I know; I never said it was impossible to receive strong signals

I'm not on about strong signals (that's why I gave the crystal radio example). It's just a fact of physics that if you have an electrical conductor in a certain shape, it will resonate at a specific frequency determined by the shape (that's the principal behind cavity magnotrons that allowed on plane radar during WW2). Pass electricity through it and it will resonate, expose another identical cavity and the resonance will produce identical electrical currents, much greater than expected for the local field strength (it has to do with reactive impedences - have a look if you're ionterested as it's too long to quickly explain here).

Now consider identical twins, or more to the point, the structure of their brains (made of electrically conducting neurones). For any electrical signal generated by one, the other is going to be sensetive to, because of the shape of the vesicles. I'm not saying that everyone is telepathic but doesn't realize, I think it's something peculiar to very close genetic relations - or copies with identical twins. It's just a quirk of the physics behind electromagnetic waves and their propagation.

 

[gloggawogga]

There is no scientific or logical evidence that would lead to an observation of telepathy, and so it is necessarily an invention

Uhmm...scientific models do not lead to observations. An observation is an observation. Science is a means of recording observations in a controlled context and modeling the world based on those observations to in order predict future observations. In other words, observations about the world lead to scientific models, not the other way around.

In the case of 'telepathy', its an observation people have made that is not explained by our scientifiic models. It doesn't mean poeple didn't make the observation. You can argue that people invent the observation. Thats the reason for using controlled contexts in science to record observations. So the only valid scientific argument against telepathy is "demonstrate it exists in a controlled context", not the lack of a scientific model to expain it. If it is ever demonstrated in a controlled context, then it will be fact whether or not we have a scientific model to explain it.

With your approach to science, we would never improve our scientific models because we would throw out any observation that disagrees with them. Science is not supposed to be blind dogma.

 

[EgoTripper]

I agree it would be astounding to discover that brains are able to affect collapse of the wavefunction. But I don't think that's any reason to declare psi impossible

And I agree that it would be astounding to discover that there's an invisible leprechaun dancing on your head. But I don't think that's any reason to declare invisible leprechauns impossible.

I'm not declaring telepathy impossible; I'm declaring it arbitrary (i.e. random and unlinked to reality). The only valuable information within a concept is that which is linked to reality (otherwise, how can we draw conclusions about reality with that concept?). An arbitrary statement, being random and unlinked to observations about reality, is thus a worthless, empty idea that deserves to be rejected out of hand. Not because it is impossible, but because it is arbitrary.

Now, when I say that there is no evidence for telepathy, I don't mean that people trying to support telepathy can't point to various facts that are in line with such a claim (anecdotal reports, for example). But those facts, taken on their own merits, do not by themselves lead to concluding telepathy; there is no present weight of evidence that does.

Telepathy is arbitrary. If you wish to accept it, then you must accept equally any other arbitrary claim made -- and there are as many of those as there are the imaginings to invent them.

fastandbulbous
I don't quite understand what it is you're trying to do; if you're trying to impress upon me that an organ capable of producing telepathy will not be fantastically intricate and a fatal blow to evolution, you've failed -- postulating biological radio transmitters operating on quantum wavelengths would have to be fantastically intricate.

Regardless -- even if a telepathy-organ were as simple as an elbow joint -- the fact is that telepathy is still arbitrary. Without evidence to scientifically support it, it must be rejected.

One cannot pick and choose selectively amongst arbitrary claims, unless one is religious and making the choice between faiths to follow. If you're religious, then you can believe what you will -- but don't try and assert that telepathy is scientific.

 

[DarthMom]

And I
telepathy is still arbitrary. Without evidence to scientifically support it, it must be rejected.

Bleh. You know the microscope let us see worlds within worlds we didn't know were there. Just because science doens't support something YET doens't mean it never will. I am not a scientist, but I am coming across scientific articles a lot lately that can be possible explanatiions of yet non understood phenomenon such as telepathy. I dont' like getting in over my head in discussions, so don't be too hard on me but take m theory...IIRC in watching Bryan Greens string theory special...basically these "strings" are the fundamental building blocks of everything and are connected and communicate, so why is it beyond belief to think that verbal (or non verbal, signals, whatever) communication is the only possibility? I don't know....that is what I do know. We just don't know everything....and I think it is intellectual suicide and just plain wrong and arrogant to dismsis ideas that aren't understood or scientifically sound yet. But then again, this comes from someoen who has also had strange experiences that go beyond coincedence.

I do think that someoen who dismisses it witha wave of their hand, and a "it is bullshit and not possible" is weak minded. What is the harm in a little mental playfulness in entertaining these ideas, and searching for possible answers?