Psychedelics & Telepathy

[EgoTripper]

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.

My terminology was unclear. I meant that there was no evidence that would lead to an observation of telepathy; i.e., to an interpretation of our observations as 'telepathy'. It was clunky, I apologize. Rephrased, what I meant to say was: No scientific or logical evidence would lead to us scientifically identifying what we're seeing as 'telepathy.'

You can argue that people invent the observation.

Not only that; there is also a psychological phenomenon at work here... I'll call it 'selective memory' because I can't remember a more accurate definition. Basically, if something happens that is cool or remarkable (i.e. a coincidence that resembles telepathy), you're more likely to remember it than an example of that same phenomenon failing (i.e. every time you're unable to read someone's mind). Looking back at a later date, you'll recall a whole lot of examples where it worked (coincidentally) and none of the examples where it didn't, and conclude that telepathy is valid.

It's not deceptive, just mistaken, and that, I am sure, is where most of our anecdotal evidence for telepathy is coming from.

So the only valid scientific argument against telepathy is "demonstrate it exists in a controlled context"

That would apply to scientific concepts. For a concept to be scientific, it cannot be arbitrary. Telepathy is arbitrary and, thus, not scientific. It is not rejected because it has not been demonstrated in a laboratory (though that's a valid point against it). It is being rejected because it is an empty statement with no logical or scientific link to reality and, thus, not scientific to begin with.

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.

You're right, because demonstration in a controlled context would serve to provide that logical/scientific link to reality. That demonstration would provide the scientific evidence necessary to elevate telepathy to the status of 'scientific concept,' and enable it to be evaluated as such.

With your approach to science, we would never improve our scientific models because we would throw out any observation that disagrees with them.

Where did you get the idea that I'm tossing out scientific observations? I'm not -- there aren't any scientific observations to toss out when it comes to telepathy!

DarthMom:
When you are making claims about the world, you have to do so with an eye to the world; in other words, you cannot invent theories out of thin air and scrutinize them to the same degree you scrutinize theories that flow naturally from observations. As we enter this world with no knowledge about it, we must gather our knowledge with care so we are not led astray by falsehood. We have to adopt systems of evaluating claims, logical models for assimilating evidence and deciding what is 'true' and what is 'false.' Science devotes itself entirely to ferreting out those most accurate methods, and so we must trust science as the final arbiter of true and false (at least, in the context of objective facts about reality).

Once again, telepathy is technically possible in that there is nothing about it that is necessarily impossible -- but the same is true of an invisible leprechaun dancing on your head. There is no basis to dismiss one and not the other; if you accept telepathy, then the same logic you use to do so must force you to accept invisible leprechauns in the exact same way. That's the key to understanding this whole thing: There is NO BASIS to accept one arbitrary claim and not another, by the very definition of what it means to be arbitrary.

 

[Rasclatt]

I can't find the proper study report, but here is an overview of a robust study on telekinesis that has stumped alot of psychologists for a while;

Doctor Genady] Sergeyev has conducted several years of intensive lab research on the outstanding PK psychic in Leningrad, Nina Kulagina...Sergeyev postulates that the "bio-plasma" of the human body must interact with the environment to produce PK. Sergeyev emphasizes when target objects are placed in a vacuum, Kulagina is unable to move them... Reportedly, Kulagina has caused the movement of a wide range of non-magnetic objects: (under strict scientific control) large crystal bowls, clock pendulums, bread, matches, etc. In one test, a raw egg was placed in a salt solution inside a sealed aquarium six feet away from her. Researchers report she was able to use PK to separate the yoke from the white of the egg. Observations by Western scientists of Mrs Kulagina's PK ability has been reported with verification of her authentic ability. These same Western scientists have reported that as of February 1971, they have not been able to visit or observe Mrs Kulagina. A veil of secrecy has been placed on Sergeyev and Mrs Kulagina for some unknown reasons

Heres where its from

If anyone can find the actual study I'd be interested, I heard about it from a psychologist lecturer who is incidentally married to a professional psychologist. Slightly off topic but still interesting.

 

[gloggawogga]

My terminology was unclear. I meant that there was no evidence that would lead to an observation of telepathy;

Your still being clunky. Evidence does not lead to observation. Observation is evidence. In this case, the observations appear to be subjective, and have not been demonstrated very objectively i.e. in a manner subject to peer review. But that doesn't prove something doesn't exist. It may just be elusive to our collective awareness.

Not only that; there is also a psychological phenomenon at work here... I'll call it 'selective memory' because I can't remember a more accurate definition. Basically, if something happens that is cool or remarkable (i.e. a coincidence that resembles telepathy), you're more likely to remember it than an example of that same phenomenon failing (i.e. every time you're unable to read someone's mind). Looking back at a later date, you'll recall a whole lot of examples where it worked (coincidentally) and none of the examples where it didn't, and conclude that telepathy is valid.

Thats your subjective analysis of another persons subjective experience, which you didn't even have. Talk about being slippery.

It is not rejected because it has not been demonstrated in a laboratory (though that's a valid point against it). It is being rejected because it is an empty statement with no logical or scientific link to reality and, thus, not scientific to begin with.

If something can be demonstrated in a controlled context, observable by many, and subject to peer review, then its scientific fact whether or not a model exists to explain it. For example, there are medical diseases for which the cause is not known. But it is still a fact that they exist. If telepathy can be proved in a controlled situation, with peer review, then it would be a fact, regardless of whether you can explain it.

A scientist does not revise observation in order to fit it into his world veiw.

 

[EgoTripper]

These same Western scientists have reported that as of February 1971, they have not been able to visit or observe Mrs Kulagina. A veil of secrecy has been placed on Sergeyev and Mrs Kulagina for some unknown reasons.

Typical of pseudoscientific claims, the rock solid scientific evidence that does exist is cloaked in a veil of ominous Russian secrecy (always flavored with KGB overtones), or otherwise inaccessible to peer review. It's an attempt to inject PK with reasonability by giving it its own Area 51. Please note the time period of these claims, as well -- it coincides remarkably with the escalating cold war between Russia and America, and matches up with CIA interest in the potential of psychic ability (around $20 million was spent on studies of psychic phenomena over a period of twenty years during the cold war). Does it surprise you that there may have been some political motivation behind this carefully controlled evidence?

Let's be reasonable. We have a professed single case of a female psychic, able to do such remarkable feats as move 'a wide range of ... objects' and separate eggs with her mind... and nothing more. Where are other people like her? What sort of unprecedented power just springs into being in a single person, never to be seen or heard from again?

It's illogical.

If PK were truly scientific, then it would not be limited to a single case. There have been countless multitudes of professed psychics and telekinetics, none of whom stood up to (or consented to) scientific evaluation. To ignore that fact as if it is not compelling evidence for the idea that PK is either imagined or fabricated is intellectually dishonest.

Your still being clunky. Evidence does not lead to observation. Observation is evidence.

And you are focusing on trivial semantic ambiguities. Observation can be evidence if it is scientifically credible; that's the point I was making, and the only distinction that is relevant to this discussion. Current observation of telepathy is not scientifically credible, and so it does not serve as scientific evidence of telepathy. My already admitted clunkiness was because I followed this statement by clumsily flipping it around: I tried to say that the available scientific evidence does not allow us to scientifically identify our observations of 'events that resemble telepathy' as observations of 'telepathy.' Get it? For science to classify these observations as 'observations of telepathy,' science would have to accept telepathy. Science rejects it based on an analysis of the available evidence, and so, it cannot classify those observations in such a way.

The evidence doesn't affect our observations, but it affects how we identify those observations.

Untangling my error is confusing enough; hopefully you get the point I was trying to make without having to dwell on this further. This is not a dishonest attempt to manipulate this discussion; it was a clumsy use of the English language on my part, and hopefully you can get past my error and understand that the point I was trying to make is valid.

Thats your subjective analysis of another persons subjective experience, which you didn't even have. Talk about being slippery.

Not at all -- it is a recognized and documented psychological phenomenon that is used to explain the risks of relying on anecdotal evidence. The classic example of this phenomenon is the widespread belief among ER personnel that there are more accidents on nights with full moons. They remember only the nights where the two events coincide (full moon + lots of accidents). If it's busy on a night where there isn't a full moon, it's 'just another busy night' and is quickly forgotten. If it's a full moon and it's quiet, then it's unlikely the ER employee would even notice the phase of the moon. This phenomenon also applies to people who believe Asians get into more car accidents (a popular stereotype where I live), or to any other statistical claim based on observation. I'm not subjectively analysing anything; I'm merely quoting a known and well understood flaw of anecdotal evidence to explain why it isn't considered scientific.

If something can be demonstrated in a controlled context, observable by many, and subject to peer review, then its scientific fact whether or not a model exists to explain it.

I am not discussing models or explanations at all. I am not saying that scientific evidence must explain the observations, just that there must be some scientific evidence of the observations. Laboratory demonstration of telepathy would count... a forum poster telling me that he 'just knew' it was his Grandma calling when the phone rang would not. I'm not demanding a scientific model -- I'm demanding scientific evidence of any sort at all. In the absence of scientific evidence, a claim is arbitrary and necessarily rejected.

It impresses me how masterfully people are sidestepping my more compelling arguments to focus on trivial errors and sub-points. Without scientific evidence of telepathy, how can you distinguish it from any other unscientific, arbitrary claim? What would you be saying if our positions were reversed, if I presented as "possible" a different claim with no scientific evidence, such as mind-controlling aliens on Venus or a tapdancing invisible leprechaun on your head?

The purpose of any claim about reality is to better understand reality. Thus, all claims about reality must be rooted in facts of reality -- and the only procedure to reliably trust in the acquisition of facts of reality is science. Thus, all claims about reality must be rooted in scientific fact -- otherwise, they are not connected to the reality they describe and cannot be considered valid (read: scientific).

 

[gloggawogga]

And you are focusing on trivial semantic ambiguities.

No. I am focusing on the role that Observation plays in Scientific Method.

I am not discussing models or explanations at all. I am not saying that scientific evidence must explain the observations, just that there must be some scientific evidence of the observations.

What you are saying is there needs to be peer review and repeatability of the observations themselves, so we can get a grasp on what exactly we are talking about. If we can't do that, there is no real point in going to the next step: hypothesis.

Not at all -- it is a recognized and documented psychological phenomenon that is used to explain the risks of relying on anecdotal evidence.

So then thats just your hypothesis to explain the anecdotal reports of telepathy. I have a simpler one. Personally, I feel like can read my wife's mind, and she feels like she can read mine. Why? We know eachother deeply and we both know how the other thinks. In some situations, I can even predict my wife's thoughts before she even thinks them, and she can do the same with me. Why? Because we know each other that deeply. And thats all it is with trip buddies, IMHO. You connect with each other deeply enough, or think alike deeply enough, to know what the other this thinking in a specific situation. At least, those are my only experiences of "Telepathic communication while tripping", or otherwise. I don't think people, in these cases, are fabricating memories. They are just reaching for the term 'telepathy' to try to explain something they have no other way of explaining.

Thats my hypothesis, anyways. But like I said above, there's no point in making a hypothesis until we know more concretely what it is we are talking about. And no, the relationship between my wife and my self is not up for peer review

 

[EgoTripper]

I am focusing on the role that Observation plays in Scientific Method.

This is an issue we both agree with, and one that I made clear the moment you called me on my error. Pursuing the issue further was indeed focusing on trivial semantic ambiguities instead of the discussion at hand. Regardless, we seem to be on the same page here now, so we can move on.

What you are saying is there needs to be peer review and repeatability of the observations themselves, so we can get a grasp on what exactly we are talking about. If we can't do that, there is no real point in going to the next step: hypothesis.

Not necessarily; observations that have yet to be repeated or otherwise reviewed by other scientists can still be scientific observations if they are made in a scientific context (i.e. a direct, scientific observation of the phenomenon with other, already known to be valid explanations ruled out). This is trivial though; we both get the general idea that a scientific claim must be based on scientific evidence, which telepathy lacks.

So then thats just your hypothesis to explain the anecdotal reports of telepathy.

Not really. This phenomenon is one that will inflate the weight of anecdotal evidence for any phenomenon that could result from statistical coincidence. It's a natural (and omnipresent) influence, the absence of which would, in fact, be notable (i.e. what is stopping these people from accepting the good anecdotal evidence and rejecting the bad, as they are naturally inclined to do?)

I am not hoping to explain anything; I am merely saying that, because of this known phenomenon, anecdotal evidence loses credibility. Given that our only evidence of telepathy is anecdotal, then obviously this phenomenon applies to an evaluation of that evidence -- regardless of whether or not I'm suggesting that a certain percentage of the evidence is the result of this phenomenon or something else.

I can even predict my wife's thoughts before she even thinks them, and she can do the same with me. Why? Because we know each other that deeply. And thats all it is with trip buddies, IMHO.

You and I are on the same side, it seems, we just haven't figured it out. You're not hurting my condemnation of anecdotal evidence -- you're just presenting further reasons why such evidence lacks credibility. Whether or not the anedotal evidence is the result of random coincidence, 'selective memory' or (very likely) the natural intuition based on personal closeness you describe, the fact remains that it is unreliable, unscientific and necessarily dismissed.

We are left, as I've noted, with zero scientific evidence for telepathy. It is as likely as an invisible leprechaun, scientifically speaking, and must be considered at the same level as that claim.

 

[gloggawogga]

Not really. This phenomenon is one that will inflate the weight of anecdotal evidence for any phenomenon that could result from statistical coincidence. It's a natural (and omnipresent) influence, the absence of which would, in fact, be notable (i.e. what is stopping these people from accepting the good anecdotal evidence and rejecting the bad, as they are naturally inclined to do?)

I am not hoping to explain anything; I am merely saying that, because of this known phenomenon, anecdotal evidence loses credibility. Given that our only evidence of telepathy is anecdotal, then obviously this phenomenon applies to an evaluation of that evidence -- regardless of whether or not I'm suggesting that a certain percentage of the evidence is the result of this phenomenon or something else.

Its still all guesswork about poeple's personal experience which you have not experienced. Its rather arrogant to tell poeple they are fabricating their experiences when you weren't even there.

You and I are on the same side, it seems, we just haven't figured it out.

Well my wife and I have figured it out, at least to our satisfication

you're just presenting further reasons why such evidence lacks credibility.

But experiences like those of my wife and I don't lack credibility. Anyone who has been married for a long time and has experienced this will believe it. So if you get what I'm saying, it isn't that the evidence lacks credibility, its that the evidence is misunderstood.

Look at the first post in this thread. I don't think the poster is lying. And I don't think the similarity of their experiences is just a coincidence. I simply think the poster doesn't understand how deeply he and his friend think alike, and therefore reacted to the drug in a very similar way.

 

[surfa_gal]

hi kenny :D hahaha sexy babe lol

 

[Winding Vines]

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.

I see you are rather smug with the idea of what science lays in front of us is the be al end all. Just to clarify and end your ideas of "sticking words in my mouth", I never stated that telepathy even exists, i mearly said that there are things humans expierence that go against what science states.


"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. "


I wasnt inventing any such thing, you are so stuck on making the idea of communicating on a different level with a person, you are placing ideas in my mouth. THERE IS OBSERVATION, from any person that says any communication seperate of vocalizing words and sounds, its true, it is. And i never once, NEVER ONCE said that telepathy is "real", and i recall I even said that terminology of "telepathy" is unreasonable. I only described communication on a different level, say what oyu want but its a natural sense that we all have that just convey things to other people or people we know without words.

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?

DO NOT CONDESCEND my statement, you can answer it with a yes, becuase its true. Just becuase you feel that your level of thinking is in some way more superior to mine in the matter of anecdotal evidence, dont even compare my statement to a leprechaun.
BTW: A new human species was found, and maybe what is described as what the lepraucan folklore descended from becuase this species lived during and probubly met modern human

.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

You ever just walk around someone and get a feeling of whether you wanted to talk to them or not, or finish someone else's sentense. I think you are looking into the words that I say too much. As I said before, sometimes the simple answers suite best from such a trivial agrument. I can say that there are bonds much deeper than what science can prove, becuase science is just a means of gathering these "proposed ideas" of what is "real" and what "isnt", but thats what i say. I could be crucified by science by what i feel, but i do know that many friends, family members, and partners have felt the same with me.

And maybe you should read this journal article that explains how the "power of prayer" has be scientifically proven to be an actual force in nature.

Regardless, you are going to see what you want to see, and thats what evidence you have seen, you want to see what cant exist, and thats fine. But just remember, some people only have what they believe, and science cant take that away.

 

[fastandbulbous]

quantum wavelengths

?? Get it right dear boy (women don't tend to have 'ego' issues nearly as badly), I'm saying nowt about quantum entanglement, Einstein-Rosen bridges or anything like it; just talking about simple EM propagation and resonance. Read some stuff about RF transmission, reception and propagation before trying to pull that idea apart (RF receivers can be built from incredibly simple things like dustbins, copper pipe and crystals of lead sulphide. Did you bother to look at this link? For every component there is a biological/neural equivalent). If you bring up a pertinant point that discounts it, I'll be the first to conceed the idea is invalid, but until such time, your just making flapping noises and poo-pooing the idea. I'm not saying yea or nay on the existence of telepathy (and not psychokenesis as you keep going on about. As I've already said, that requires production and transmission of levels of energy that are unfeasable for a structure like the brain), but people who are nay sayers, while a possible theory to explain how such things may exist - pending a demo of their existance - are the sort that don't believe in intuitive leaps, just like scientists who said that travelling at speeds in excess of 60mph would destroy the human body (early Victorian) or that sustained, controlled nuclear fission was impossible. As I also pointed out, even visionaries like Einstein sometimes get it horribly wrong. I may be wrong, but to discount ideas without understanding the basic principals behind them (I gather your not an electronics geek/ham radio enthusiast) is the sort of short sightedness that is usually only found in bodies like the Catholic church

 

[stoned_baby]

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

Would you care to elaborate this some more? If it was a trick, id love to understand how he tricked me.

And i really find it amusing reading you people being so dead sure that this thing is impossible, ridiculizing the idea. As have been stated, our scientific understanding have by no means reached its end point. There is a lot going on that we are still groping in the dark about.

Healthy scepticism is recommendable, but dont close your door to all that cant be explained in perfect detail by todays scientific standards. Remember that Einstein for example fought the idea of quantum physics bitterly. To him it was a violation of his way of understanding the world. Thereby he closed himself off from scientific developement and lost his cutting edge. Learn from that!

 

[EgoTripper]

gloggawogga:

Its still all guesswork about poeple's personal experience which you have not experienced.

Actually, it is the reasoned appraisal of a certain type of evidence, based on precedence and psychological understanding. Anecdotal evidence is often wrong due to the exact reasons I've described. This fact, all things being equal, discredits anecdotal evidence as being compelling support for a remarkable idea. This is a fact; it has nothing to do with individually accusing people of lying. They are not -- their experiences would be genuine. They are simply underestimating, due to unreliable memory, the number of times telepathy didn't work, which would in turn hurt their ability to see their 'evidence' for what it is: Coincidence.

This only applies to those observations of telepathy that are simply coincidental, and not to what you're describing -- a second explanation for the evidence of telepathy, further support for the idea that it is not, in fact, psychic communication. As you say, subliminal communication or predicting what someone will say or do is possible based on the intimacy of a close bond -- evidence that anecdotal evidence, not being scientifically controlled, is more vulnerable to misinterpretation.

Whatever percentage of the anecdotal evidence for telepathy owes its existence to each of the above possibilities (or others, of course) is irrelevant -- the fact is, for the reasons above (and many more like them), anecdotal evidence is not compelling support for a scientific claim. Can we agree on this, please? I think we do agree here, and I don't know why we're unable to reach common ground.

But experiences like those of my wife and I don't lack credibility.

Ahhhh, I see where some of the confusion might be. All I mean by credibility is 'trustworthy support of the presented claim.' The presented claim is telepathy and, so, experiences like those of your wife and you do lack credibility in terms of supporting evidence for telepathy.

I'm not implying that your experiences didn't happen, of course, just that they are not compelling evidence for psychic ability.

I understand that you are not arguing in favor of telepathy. I am perceiving, though, that you are arguing that telepathy should be taken with some seriousness as a scientific claim (however ultimately incorrect). In scientific terms, telepathy has equivalent evidentiary standing with an invisible leprechaun; certainly, not a claim to be taken seriously.

So if you get what I'm saying, it isn't that the evidence lacks credibility, its that the evidence is misunderstood.

I do understand what you're saying; I think we mean the same thing when we say 'lacks credibility as evidence of telepathy' and 'misunderstood.

Look at the first post in this thread. I don't think the poster is lying. And I don't think the similarity of their experiences is just a coincidence. I simply think the poster doesn't understand how deeply he and his friend think alike, and therefore reacted to the drug in a very similar way.

Exactly. Either way, not compelling, credible evidence for telepathy as the poster suggested.

We need a clearer language. I hear Dutch has a few less words?

Winding Vines:

I see you are rather smug with the idea of what science lays in front of us is the be al end all.

It is, at least with respect to knowledge about reality.

i mearly said that there are things humans expierence that go against what science states.

No, there aren't. There are things humans experience that science doesn't understand, but nothing that goes against science. Regarding those things science can't understand (i.e. dreams), it then follows that we can't understand them and so we shouldn't start trying to identify them (i.e. prophetic dreams, memories of past lives, collective thought, etc).

say what oyu want but its a natural sense that we all have that just convey things to other people or people we know without words.

Of course -- body language, the other person knowing you so well that he or she begins to predict what you'll say or do, even things like pheromones and subtle, subconscious methods of carrying yourself or affecting the tonality of your voice. These are only poorly understood by science, but nothing that would require the acceptance of something as profound as telepathy. I have no problem with that; these things have been studied scientifically, and there is definitely something to them.

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?

Entirely; but you'd need to present some scientific evidence of it if you wanted to suggest it as an explanation.

Just becuase you feel that your level of thinking is in some way more superior to mine in the matter of anecdotal evidence, dont even compare my statement to a leprechaun.

I made no disparaging remarks about your level of thinking, so please don't make it look as if I'm being confrontational. The leprechaun counter-example is deliberately absurd because it illustrates what an arbitrary claim is -- it's a claim that is possible but has no evidence to support it. The same is true of telepathy, and so, the two claims are analogous: To critically consider one, you have to critically consider the other in the exact same way.

I can say that there are bonds much deeper than what science can prove,

How can you say that? Where is your evidence? Science should be right alongside you when you're making claims about the world; whatever evidence that you have in support of these deeper bonds can be two things: Scientific, or "dismissable with contempt." If it's the former, then science will draw the same conclusions you do. If it's dismissable, then... you can't draw any conclusions from it at all.

becuase science is just a means of gathering these "proposed ideas" of what is "real" and what "isnt"

You should be a political speech-writer. You've managed to trivialize what is mankind's one and only way of learning about reality as 'just' a means of gathering 'proposed ideas.'

I could be crucified by science by what i feel, but i do know that many friends, family members, and partners have felt the same with me.

And if you lived in Galileo's time, you'd be behind persecuting him for using science to contradict something you, your friends, your partners and your family members all would have felt: That the sun rotates around the Earth, which is at the center of the galaxy. Me? I'll trust science, the one method that actually produces new knowledge about what is real -- nothing else does.

And maybe you should read this journal article that explains how the "power of prayer" has be scientifically proven to be an actual force in nature.

I have read of that study. No, the 'power of prayer' has not been 'scientifically proven' to be an 'actual force in nature.' There is, however, evidence that people who believe they were healed by mystics do show greater recovery rates, and even remission rates of cancers. Before leaping to the idea that God is doing it (which would be illogical, given that he seems willing to let a whole lot of other people begging for his help die), however, they have presented the idea that the strong mental conviction of knowing you've been healed can have a strengthening effect on the body's health and vitality.

Regardless, you are going to see what you want to see,

No, actually. Scientists see what's there, regardless of what they want; that's how science works. It's the other mystical worldviews that let people 'see what they want to see' -- because they have no means of judging right from wrong, real from unreal.

But just remember, some people only have what they believe, and science cant take that away.

Those people deserve pity, not deferential respect.

fastandbulbous:

?? Get it right dear boy (women don't tend to have 'ego' issues nearly as badly),

I've actually been diagnosed (Hare PCL-R, Likert Mach IV) as a socialized psychopath, so I have Superego issues, not Ego issues. The name comes from the reason I'm here -- to 'egotrip' with psychedelics as a form of self-therapy. Empower the superego, develop a conscience, not turn into an Enron exec.

Hey, you had to know you'd meet weird people on a psychedelics board

I may be wrong, but to discount ideas without understanding the basic principals behind them (I gather your not an electronics geek/ham radio enthusiast) is the sort of short sightedness that is usually only found in bodies like the Catholic church

Nice dig with the Catholic church reference -- someone knows how to push my buttons. I have an undergraduate degree in Engineering Physics, the 'Engineering' part containing many electronic engineering, signals and systems, solid state devices and electromagnetism courses. So I do know this stuff. Perhaps I was a little excessive when I condemned RF transmitters as so absurdly unlikely; I was addressing the other theory of quantum communication at the same time. Regardless, my main point holds: Until you have evidence of it, turn the page and move on from what is an arbitrary claim.

stoned_baby:

And i really find it amusing reading you people being so dead sure that this thing is impossible, ridiculizing the idea.

Had you actually 'read us people,' you wouldn't have found anything nearly as amusing as what you've imagined: No one is claiming telepathy is impossible. I'm claiming it's arbitrary, and the others are either presenting alternate explanations for evidence of it, or supporting it through scientifically feasible conjecture as a valid scientific possibility.

 

[fastandbulbous]

I've actually been diagnosed (Hare PCL-R, Likert Mach IV) as a socialized psychopath

As such, that'll mean that empathy is a bit of a stranger to you, so I can see why you'd be disbelieving of the idea (telepathy being like a direct form of empathy, not processed through all the psychological constructs mechanisms, but directly applied to the neurological structures). I'm glad you got the RF connections (it's my hobby, my degree and masters is in biochem and structural p/cology).

PS. Don't let the condition get in the way of seeing things; I'm bipolar but it took me a while to realize that not everybody makes big intuitive leaps and has things suddenly drop into place on a large scale, but once I did, I stopped losing people when talking pharmacology/organic chem (well, most of the time).

Yes, lots and lots of weird fuckers here (and all the better for it)

 

[gloggawogga]

Actually, it is the reasoned appraisal of a certain type of evidence, based on precedence and psychological understanding.

No. Its arrogant judgement of others.

I'm not implying that your experiences didn't happen, of course, just that they are not compelling evidence for psychic ability....
I do understand what you're saying; I think we mean the same thing when we say 'lacks credibility as evidence of telepathy' and 'misunderstood.

But your missing the point. When you tell people they are fabricating their experiences, instead of misunderstanding them, they are just going to shun you, and thats not going to lead to more understanding. A better way is to give them a rational explaination of their experience, not a condescending judgemental one.

Exactly. Either way, not compelling, credible evidence for telepathy as the poster suggested.

Nonetheless, you claimed their experience was fabricated. I gave a rational explaination for their experience.

 

[Beenhead]

Ive had this effect while on Acid but I always discounted it to the fact that when somebody says something and Im like "I was thinking the same thing", my brain is just hearing what was said and making a connection to that thought, therefore I thought I was thinking that but I may or may not have been. in a strangely similar way, When Im Tripping on Acid I can carry on a conversation for somebody for hours and neither of us will make any sense but to us it does. I have found that while on Acid my friends have actually made up words and I could completely understand what they were saying, like that word is in my Dictionary already. I just cannot see how a chemical can actually make people communicate with each other in the subconcious.

 

[fastandbulbous]

I just cannot see how a chemical can actually make people communicate with each other in the subconcious.

You don't need a chemical, it's called non-verbal communication (like body language), what's up for discussion here is something beyond even that

 

[Winding Vines]

Actually, it is the reasoned appraisal of a certain type of evidence, based on precedence and psychological understanding.

There is no psychological understanding. The mind, the human emotion, the human state of being will never be fully understood by science. And i personally prefer it that way. You completely missed my point on how science has too many fine lines when it comes to the human mind, and yet you still would rather define it purely as fabrication.

I am glad you arent my psychologist.

 

[nuke]

I can't say I've ever experienced this, but I guess maybe if you're hallucinating enough you might think you can "hear" the thoughts of others.

Then again, anything could be possible, but I haven't noticed it and none of my friends have ever.

 

[Talisman]

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

There's a rather good amount of evidence for the existence of psi. Read The Conscious Universe. If you accept the cited papers as evidence, then it makes sense to discuss possible mechanisms by which psi might work. If not, that topic was rather pointless for you to bring up, hm?

postulating biological radio transmitters operating on quantum wavelengths would have to be fantastically intricate.

You might want to brush up on your QM. Saying that something operates on "quantum wavelengths" is meaningless.

 

[stoned_baby]

Had you actually 'read us people,' you wouldn't have found anything nearly as amusing as what you've imagined:

Well, the comparison with invisible leprechauns i suppose was meant to amuse. For example.
And i believe youre a bit arrogant to tell me i didnt read before posting.