Possibility of telepathy information theory (theory of)
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
category of superstition, though a very extended one. Most people have
lived at one time or another the `meaningful coincidence` experience
that leads to the belief in direct mind to mind communication; on the
other extreme there is the people who actually hear voices
continuously and who we consider `mentally ill`, or shizophrenics. Of
coursse there are serious teams around the world applying the
scientific method to the study of telepathy, with aparently little
results, though it is rumored that the military complex has also
performed research on the matter, with results being, of course,
classified.
People usually resort to mystic beliefs to explain telepathy, while it
is argued that there is no physical support for it. I believe
otherwise. Brains are composed of interconnected `simple` information
processors that use and generate electric fields to propagate their
signals. The resultant field is so powerful that we can even measure
it *through* the crain to obtain an EEG. The measured signal is
however quite undifferentiated, even though we know there is an
underlying order to it. On the other hand we know that electric fields
do have an effect over other fields... If we live in a continuous
reality we can safely assume that a given signal will diminish
continuously over time, evetually integrating in the background noise
but without losing its caracteristics. It simply becomes too weak to
be distinguishable, though it will affect the whole electric field
that surrounds us.
So it is just a matter of asking: has the brain enough computing power
to distinguish the effect on its own (generated) field caused by the
signals of other brains? We certainly go through life without
listening to others thoughts, but this may well be a learned
(evolutively or environmentally) response, maybe brough about by the
developmentof language. Sound is certainly a better, more reliable
information carrier than weak electric field interactions and so we
rely on it, but it is possible given the plasticity of the brain that
under certain circumstances groups of neurons `learn` to accept and
interpret this interactions and give them `meaning`, for instance, if
the individual is gradually losing aural acuity. It is even possible
to speculate on the organizaion of `resonator groups`, groups of
neurons that learn to fire when certain (analogous) signals affect the
brain`s field. This ability may well be the cause of the development
of certain forms of schizophrenia, like those that develop late in an
individual`s life, though it wouldn`t explain all schizophrenic cases.
We can even speculate that certain forms of schizophrenia become a
problem due to the `storm` of thoughts received and the inability of
the individual to deal with the new source of information. In fact,
many individuals may actually enjoy the benefits of telepathy without
suffering the ill consequences of schizophrenia because they are able
to process the increased quantity of information received through this
channel. I doubt telepaths would be anxious to tell the whole world
that they hear voices (sort of a secret society...), though many
psychics and entertainers around the world give this kind of shows.
The relation between the strength of the signals and the necessary
computing power to interpret and whether the brain can provide it is
amenable tom formal calculus. It may well be that Earth`s electric
field is more charged with meaning than what we usually think...
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message ws:<mp57u1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
>
> There's also the little issue of power: the human brain
> is reputed (and AFAICT it's a good estimate) to use 19%
> of the 125W or so of a healthy adult young male's power.
> (The value is more normally expressed in the units
> 'kilocalories/day':
> (125 Watts) / (1 (kcal / day)) = 2 581.26195
> )
> 19% * 125W = 23.75W.
>
The signal must be very weak, though a trained brain, i.e., a brain
using the `unused` capacity should be able to generate stronger
signals. But even the weakest signal, in a totally continuous Reality
(infinite within) can be distinguished from the rest of the signals
(noise), given enough computing power. So power is not an issue,
though propagation certainly takes time; in a sense no signal is ever
lost, only becomes infinitely weak as time passes.
> This wouldn't be too hard to detect were it broadcast
> in a standard carrier wave from a considerable distance
> (with a conventional dish antenna), but it's far from
> clear how the human brain could receive such a signal.
>
I envision something akin to the magnetization of iron by a strong
magnetic field, though I am interested in the computing power needed
vs the strength of the signal.
> The brain is also not a particularly organized transmitter;
> one can contemplate a human brain as consisting as a large
> number of minute spark gaps.
Those sparks are actually spread at least in two dimensions; I
_assume_ they would radiate like `ripples` in the surrounding
electromagnetic field, much like sound does, though I am not an expert
in this kind of phenomena.
> It is barely possible to contemplate a pair of "tuned
> brains" right next to each other sharing a thought, but
> that's about as far as telepathy can go; the brain cell
> that has the right frequency to broadcast "Aaah, pizza's
> coming" in brain 1 might be received by brain 2 as "Oh oh,
> my foot's being invaded by space aliens" for all I know.
Except there is a point in common which is language...
> (And that's assuming a single brain cell is responsible
> for that thought; my guess is that the thought "Aaah,
> pizza's coming" involves the synchronized firing in a
> certain sequence of various neurons
The signal is certainly temporal, a series of activation patterns
`radiating` outwards toward infinity (?), or modifying by their simple
existence the whole state-of-the-world of the electromagnetic fields
surrounding us...
>including those in
> the smell/taste region of the brain, the thought that the
> delivery man came up in a truck (hearing), and perhaps
> the logo and/or general shape of the pizza (visual).
> With that hypothesis the receiver's firing pattern will be
> hopelessly scrambled; the rest of the brain will probably
> discard the signal as random noise.)
Even though specialized sensory brain centers may be involved in one
thought we can at least assume there is a common mapping among
individuals when it comes to language so that is the only part of the
signal we need to take into account, and very likely the structure of
the activations for any word or phrase should be roughly similar from
brain to brain; if this is true we would transmit and _receive_
thoughts only in the language or languages we actually practice, and
both the beginning and ending of the signals would be blurred until
there is a match between the pattern of the signal received and the
set of neurones trained to distingush the signal. Since spoken
language is composed of characteristic sounds, some words would be
easily transmited and received, while others would be hardly
distinguished. I suppose a trained brain would develop resonator and
amplifier clusters whith activation paterns deepening with practice,
specialized in `tuning` basic (phoneme? morpheme?) patterns before
sending them to the `language understanding` centers. I imagine these
centers analogically, like kind of key-keyhole pairs.
But this is going too far already. The issue is whether a brain can
dedicate and does have the computing power in terms of activations to
process the signals given that they must be very weak.
Assuming a human brain has enough computing power to `analogically`
process the influence on its own activity of the signals emitted from
other brains, and the existence of areas devoted to receive and
process those signals, that telepathic reception would be far more
potent when a) there`s people around and b) the individual is in a
closed environment.
In case a) the weak signals can `resonate` among brains, for the most
part unconsciously, to generate a stronger signal more easily
transmitted. This is equivalent to say that the fields of electric
activity of each individual`s brain get `aligned`, gnerating a
stronger signal. This stronger signal would be the sum of the original
`ambient` content of information and the results of the processing by
the brain. The more sensitive individual would experiment the net
result as a perceived sound or as an idea. This kind of phenomena may
lie behind the usual `coincidences` when two persons start talking at
the same time and say the same phrase (notwithstanding other
psychological or situational explanations), particularly after a few
minutes of keeping silence (how many would-be lovers end long
embarrasing silences this way?). In other words, people would act like
anthenas. This hypothesis may point to modifications in current
parapsychological experimentation.
As for b), closed environments would isolate many random disturbances,
makin it easier for the brain to process the modulation in the signal,
both in the case of direct electromagnetic perturbances as in the case
of other sensorial extractions.
Is it possible to prove telepathy exists? I believe not, unless
telepaths want to show it possible. A good experiment would involve
the coordination of spatially distanced individuals, making some noise
after a command is given telepathically. For instance: `All telepaths
say ok!` And then hearing lots of oks... The probability of many
people saying ok at the same time without coordinatio is so small that
it would prove the phenomenon beyond doubt, but it would need
cooperation, very difficult to obtain given the inclination of humans
to persecute whatever exceeds the normal capabilities of an
individual.
As to the evolution of telepathy, seen as a problem of computing power
against strength of signals it is very likely it can only be observed
in humans and maybe some big brained animals, like elephants and
dolphins. If corroborating telepathy in humans is a difficult problem,
doing so in other species looks like an impossible problem. It has to
be observed here that many problems of synchronization that are
popularly presented as evidence of animal telepathy are actually the
expression of global effects of local rules, like the ordering of
animals in flocks.
What should be evident is that, as a communication channel, it has
very low advantages over hearing, for instance, as it has no obvious
spatial relationship. If proximity were an element, it would be
superseded by hearing and sight, so it wouldn`t develop. And as a
remote sense, since it would be impossible to know the source, and
what`s more, to know whether the messages are tru or false, a lead or
a mislead, the information content would tend toward zero.
At most it is a phenomenon that develops as a side effect of brain
size, if at all. (To be honest, I was expecting somebody to offer the
calculus). But if it exists, then schizophrenia would acquire a new
meaning, as the neurosis of people who didn`t learn how to integrate
their disembodied messages with everyday life.
Imagine a telepathic individual who identifies signals meant for him
(people thinking of him), and he suddenly goes famous, lots of people
think of him. He not only would receive lots of messages but also,
given human`s inclination to jealousy, many evil thoughts. That
individual would experiment a cacophony, that may leave him unable to
cope with everyday affairs, a severe schizophrenia. This hypothesis
can be tested. Severe shizophrenics must be well known in their
communities, while mild schizophrenics would be almost unknown and
lonely individuals. I think of the moovie picture `A Beautiful Mind`.
This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.
Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message ws:<mh82m0lh2vrchpgfq...@4ax.com>...
> The test would need to separate cause from effect.
> The schizophrenics that I know all displayed schizophrenic tendencies
> before they became well known.
> Their fame/infamy was mostly due to to their bizarre behaviour.
>
> Schizophrenia leads to being well known.
>
This is really very interesting. Seeing the problem mechanically, we
would indeed be interested in causes and effects. But the hypothesis
is not that becoming well known is the cause of schizophrenia, only
that both circumstances occur simultaneously.
At some point there must be an innate or induced (drugs as triggers of
telepathy) telepathic ability. IF, from the outset, due to education,
character or innate (IQ) factors, the individual is _not_ able to cope
with telepathy, we would exhibit bizarre behaviour. Then he is well
known. Then his behaviour is even more bizarre. Etc. A classical
example of positive feedback, the system reinforces itself until the
individual`s behaviour is so bizarre that he can no longer live in a
social environment. He is excluded from society. Eventually as he is
forgotten (family size would be another factor: the more relatives
worried, the less the telepathic individual`s opportunty to recover,
[unless he learns to separate both sources of informatio, telepathy
and everyday life]), schizophrenia would diminish, making the
individual more `adapted to reality`.
What would be needed is a good numeric indicator (maybe a scale? would
be less effective as would involve human judgement) to relate both
factors, severity and social life (distinguishing now between society
in general and family).
Note that a particular individual may be `tuned` to other telepaths
*outside* of his immediate social circle, so there could be an
unaccounted residue, maybe from the very start of the adaptation
process. Because once started it becomes a process to which the
individual must adapt.
> How would you eliminate this factor from any tests?
It would recquire a more elaborate correlation model, a dynamic one,
taking into account the story of the individual. I don`t know if
clinic notes are complete enough to be useful as input to this dynamic
models. I do assume that initial correlations must be strong enough to
warrant more careful testing with volunteers (no medication, early
detection/treatment/studies, social deprivation, for different age
brackets).
And the models must contain at least age, social interaction, family
size and drug use as variables.
> >This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
> >schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
> >be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.
>
> That makes the wild leaping assumption that there is such a thing,
> well before it has even been sufficiently established, let alone
> proven.
>
The fact is that alternative therapies using this hypothesis as their
basis, if successful, would support the statistical correlation
method. Both research lines can be followed concurrently and reinforce
each other.
Note too that the *content* of the voices may acquire a new meaning
and lead to new testable hypothesis if seen as communication (signal)
rather than as noise.
Also, about telepathic ability triggers, it may well be that extreme
circumstances can enhance the innate ability to commune/perceive
thoughts. It would provide a certain survival advantage, particularly
while the human brain was evolving subjected to the pressures of
social interaction and the development of the faculty (how to call
it?) to murder.
A candidate substance would be adrenaline. It may well be that
sporting types may develop telepathy. There should be a correlation
too between exercising as a constant practice and schizophrenics. A
good percentage of schizophrenics were also good athletes. And,
supposing that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence
and the propensity to do sports (nothing indicates it should be so, it
would have no survival advantage, on the contrary, though the practice
of sports definitely competes in term of time with the development of
the `brain muscle`), the reason they develop schizophrenic is because
they lack the necessary intellectual tools to cope with the new
information (like, for instance, dwelling in endless arguments without
sense).
Of course, once the correlations begin showing, successful telepaths
would have an incentive to accept their ability without being
stigmatized (and `incarcerated`) as schizophrenics or people having
mental health issues...
Since signals must be weak and difficult to distinguish from noise, or
in other words, since noise is always present (composed from the sum
total of signals of all emissors) and signals are comparatively brief
and burst-like, the brain must be able to ignore the noise while being
receptive of signals. Resonators would have this capacity to
`resonate` or be triggered the moment noise matches the patterns gor
which it has been formed. It must be very difficult to receive and
interpret random signals, these must match in some form what the brain
already expects. Except for very strong broadcastings, pure thought
reading must be nearly impossible unless it is formulated in a form
that is already mapped by the resonators. Language, visions, emotions
would share this characteristic; also particular thoughts directed
*at* the individual would be relatively easy to pick up. The same way
doves and other birds are able to orient themselves in the magnetic
field of earth, as if they had an absolute positioning system, signals
may contain within themselves the information needed to distinguish an
individual or a group of inividuals. This is equivalent to the
hypothesis that even if we are not aware of it, our sense of position
in the world, and at least the notion of particular other individuals
is present in our brains in a distinguishable way. Should this
hypothesis be true, based on the computing power of the brain to
distinguish arbitrarily small signal to noise ratios, our uniqueness
as individuals can be expressed in a unique way by our thoughts, while
at the sme time we can be aware of our position in relation to other
individuals. We can identify individuals uniquely simply by thinking
of them, and once a link is established (a particular signal pattern
has been matched and anticipated) a connection may be permanent and
sef reinforcing in terms of plasticity of neural activations This
would explain why schizophrenics (who can be een as unadapated
telepaths at least for those individuals who do not contain real brain
damage [dificult to explain, besides, as it woud mean a set of nerons
clamped in perpetual self-activation, though with enough variation as
to simulate whoe strains of converstaion, hardly the product of a
truly damaged mind {multiple personalities, possible by partitioning
if the brain, usually are unaware of each other}], engage in long
conversations, which would mean a link has been established and
reinforced. Notie that according to the assumptios, the thoughts
(signals) exchanged must be recognizable by the receptive individual:
foreign languages, unknown words, notions, concepts and ideas would be
difficult to commuicate through this medium. This can be further
refined in terms of particular architectures of neural activation.
See also the thread `Schizophrenia as neurosis` for further discussion
of statistical proof.
robert j. kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
> can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
> category of superstition,
And for good reason. No one has ever proven there is such a phenomenon.
Bob Kolker
Sam Wormley
> Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
Telepathy is considered bogus. Double blind studies show NO evidence
of such an effect.
http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=telepathy
http://www.csicop.org/skeptiseum/Psychics.html
robert j. kolker
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
>
>> Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
>> can offer no explanation...
>
>
> Telepathy is considered bogus. Double blind studies show NO evidence
> of such an effect.
So called "evidence" of telepathy is similar to the "clever Hans"
scenario. Hans (or Clever Hans) was a horse that presumably knew how to
count and understood German perfectly. What it was, was that Hans was
picking up clues from his handler and when Hans (the horse) and his
handler were separated, Hans was dumber than a bag of rocks. So much for
"clever Hans". So much for telepathy. When someone can demonstrate that
it is a genuine effect or phenomenon, perhaps some scientifically minded
people can find out how it works (if it exists).
Now personally I think my wife and I are telephathically linked or
something like it (say a Vulcan Mind Meld). But I would not presume to
say I have proven the connection in anything like a scientific manner.
So I leave the matter in suspense. There is no reason whatsoever that
anyone should take my word on the matter.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
[snip 360 lins of trolled crap]
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
mike3
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2v2girF...@uni-berlin.de...
So then why not research it, to prove/disprove it's existence? Now THAT's
what I call science. Or has it already been disproven conclusively?
mike3
And if it does exist, and somebody tries to prove it, they'll be blasted
into oblivion. No wonder no-one has, 'cause they aren't ALLOWED to!!!!!!!
What if some top scientists decided to conduct in-depth research into the
phenomenon to once and for all prove/disprove it's existence and settle
the matter? Essentially you are saying that if something isn't proven then
it
can't be researched -- but science is about attempting to find proof or
disproof of something. That's not advancement -- that's stonewalling.
robert j. kolker
mike3 wrote:
>
> So then why not research it, to prove/disprove it's existence? Now THAT's
> what I call science. Or has it already been disproven conclusively?
Isolation and controlled studies have indicated there ain't no such
thing. It has been investigated and found wanting.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
mike3 wrote:
>
> And if it does exist, and somebody tries to prove it, they'll be blasted
> into oblivion. No wonder no-one has, 'cause they aren't ALLOWED to!!!!!!!
Not true. Careful studies have shown no telepathy.
Bob Kolker
Les Cargill
(Gad, this thing is crossposted to hell and back, but...)
The problem is that there is no possible communications medium
for these signals to be written on. It sorta points back to
the Luminiferous Aether, which was embarassingly deprecated
in what, 1930? 1906? (too lazy to look it up) by Michelson/Morley.
There was a historical move to prove the Great Beyond,
beginning about the time when people missed those lost in
the Civil War (dunno why Europe followed),
which is still sorta with us. All attempts to measure it or
exploit it resolve to embarassment for the participants.
Since the Universe has a sense of humor, we cannot
categorically prove a negative. So any hypothesis
founded on A Miraculous Finding is doomed in
resonable discussion, unless you show lab measurements
hinting to the immeasurable. *Dis*proof is an
infite series of windmills, barring contradiction of
something relativelty non-fundamental. We have remarkably
good and comprehensive fundamentals.
Rail as you will, the skepctics won.
--
Les Cargill
Morituri-Max
> So then why not research it, to prove/disprove it's existence? Now THAT's
> what I call science. Or has it already been disproven conclusively?
Why not research whether a blue shirt with green stripes scares away striped
pink elephants better than a red shirt with yellow stripes?
jmfb...@aol.com
They should study mothers and their kids when the kids are
trying to do something associated with a "NO!".
I know it's not telepathy but it sure seemed like that when
I was growing up. We all knew when my youngest sister was
doing something--she got quiet for a long time.
/BAH
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
robert j. kolker
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> I know it's not telepathy but it sure seemed like that when
> I was growing up. We all knew when my youngest sister was
> doing something--she got quiet for a long time.
Good point. Subliminal clues have often been confused with telepathy.
That is why so-called telepathic communication fails when the
participants are isolated from each other by physical barriers. When
they cannot see, feel, hear or smell each other, telepathy seems to
vanish. I wonder why.
Bob Kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
Well, radio waves do move through the `aether`. Though EEG waves are
between 1H and 50Hz, they *do* have an impact on Reality (cause and
effect), they can be detected THROUGH hard bone and hair. And given
that neurons are couted by billions and their *interconnections* are
an even bigger magnitude, and given that networks of neural computers
are universal computers (can comute any computable function), it all
boils down to how much computing power we need to to distinguish this
minimum, arbitrarily small effect of brain waves in the surrounding
electromagnetic spectrum to be able to make a match (mapping) against
the millions or more neurons that can process that really small signal
and turn it into meaningful messages.
robert j. kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
>
> Well, radio waves do move through the `aether`.
What ather? Radio waves are particles (photons) that fly through empty
space. There is no evidence whatsoever of a light carrying medium. None.
Zero. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. K'duchis. The mainline physical theories
predict very well and they do not assume aether.
If aether does exist and carries transverse electromagnatic waves it
must be more rigid than steel. How do planets move through it without
loosing energy and apiraling into the sun?
Ather is dead and buried. It is nonsense, just like telepathy.
As to telephathy the brain does not have enough energy to broadcast
through skull bone.
Telepathy has been tested again and again. As soon as sending person and
receiving person are well isolated the "effect" seams to disappear. The
pro-telephath folk claim that all those scientific precaustions are
inhibiting the sender or causing the reciever to block. Yup! Sure! How
convenient.
As to telekinesis, The Amazing Randi has duplicated all of Uri Geller's
tricks. But Randi says he is using trickery. So telekinesis cannot be
empirically distinguished from trickery. How about that!
Bob Kolker
The Ghost In The Machine
<new...@sendarico.net>
wrote
on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:39:41 GMT
<xsZid.21939$tL5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
And here I thought it was striped tigers and finger-snapping.
Hey, it's worked for decades here... :-)
Personally, I think ESP is a bit bunkish, if only because the
brain only has about the power of a 20-25 W broadcaster, and
is a very poor radio receiver unless augmented by what
happens to be a variant of a galena crystal (e.g., a
filling might rectify a strong radio signal nearby, and
maybe cause the owner thereof to hear music).
There's also no carrier wave to throw at a diode or FM discriminator.
I suppose one might hear a lot of popping noises (the
neurons conducting the signals are after all a sort of
small radio antenna) if the gain's turned up enough.
I could see a "bed of nails" attached to the visual cortex,
but that's about it; the effects would be interesting but
it would probably require quite a bit of research before we
can even hope to replace the computer monitor and speaker system... :-)
One issue at mass ESP screenings, though. A common test is the
5x5 card test: star, circle, wavy lines, square, and cross are
(IIRC) the traditional ones, and there are 5 of each. The
expected number of hits given pure chance is 5, but there is
a well-defined probability curve for fewer and for more hits,
during the experiment. Suppose we filter out those who hit more
than the average for further testing -- "oops, it's vanished, such
a random ability, this ESP, it only happens when we're not looking
for it"...
Might as well give everyone a fair penny and have them call and
flip it. Those that match, get to stay, and flip again;
the rest hit the parking lot and sit in traffic for awhile.
After about 16 iterations a few guys in a stadium (to be
precise, 2^16 = 1 out of 65,536) might have "coinflip prediction"
abilities.
Magic.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
several animal species given that it is the number of interconnections
what gives computing power and even small brains, provided they have
the necessary `hardware` (resonators), can exhibit this roperty. This
can be one of the reasons why few animal species have more than very
basic `languages` (more like codes). One interestng speculation is
that dolphins and whales may have very elaborate thought
communication, given that water transmits electrical signals more
efficiently than water (can somebody test this idea?). That would
explain why despite their big brains they don`t have more articulate
languages. This fact is linked to the lack of complex manipulators,
which supposedly were instrumental (pun) in the development of the
brain language areas. Though some phenomena can be explained by
uncoordinated, autoorganizative control (anarchy seems to be able to
create perfect orders), where each unit proceses individually
information according to local rules, some of these phenomena may be
the result of this unseen communication. The development of the
neocortex and its ability to elaborate the complex world-models needed
to control the manipulation possible by the hand (always in a setting
of simultaneous determination), would have led to the atrophy of the
telepathic ability, despite its survival advantage. As evolutively
acquired abilities tend not to be lost but just go dormant, extreme
experiences can lead to the waking up of these latent ability. It can
be tested statistically by a strong correlation of soldiers, secret
agents or common people developing schizophrenia-like symptoms after
going through a life threatening situation.
robert j. kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> It is worth noticing that the telepathic ability may be present in
> several animal species given that it is the number of interconnections
> what gives computing power and even small brains, provided they have
> the necessary `hardware` (resonators), can exhibit this roperty. This
> can be one of the reasons why few animal species have more than very
> basic `languages` (more like codes). One interestng speculation is
> that dolphins and whales may have very elaborate thought
> communication, given that water transmits electrical signals more
> efficiently than water (can somebody test this idea?).
This is all very speculative and there is no conclusive evidence to
support it. If telepathy is an electromagnetic effect, the skull bones
of most mammal will block any signal from being transitted or recieved
skulll to skull. There is no reliable evidence for telephathy. None,
Nada, Zip, Zero, Bupkis. K'duchus.
There is as much evidence for telephath as there is for ghosts and
spirits, which is to say, none.
Bob Kolker
JM Albuquerque
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:2v4clrF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> What ather? Radio waves are particles (photons) that fly through empty
> space. There is no evidence whatsoever of a light carrying medium. None.
> Zero. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. K'duchis.
Light is a strange thing. The wave-particle duality clearly shows that
nobody has a clear picture about what light is.
> If aether does exist and carries transverse electromagnatic waves it
> must be more rigid than steel.
Now you are talking about waves and light cannot be a particle and a
wave at the same time.
It could be that light is just the reaction of the medium to the action that
causes light to be created. Something new, to be discover later.
robert j. kolker
JM Albuquerque wrote:
> Now you are talking about waves and light cannot be a particle and a
> wave at the same time.
> It could be that light is just the reaction of the medium to the action that
> causes light to be created. Something new, to be discover later.
Or maybe not. In the meantime there is no conclusive evidence for the
existence of aether. None.
Bob Kolker
>
>
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
> In sci.physics, Morituri-Max
> <new...@sendarico.net>
> wrote
> on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:39:41 GMT
> <xsZid.21939$tL5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
> > mike3 wrote:
> >
> >> So then why not research it, to prove/disprove it's existence? Now THAT's
> >> what I call science. Or has it already been disproven conclusively?
> >
> > Why not research whether a blue shirt with green stripes scares away striped
> > pink elephants better than a red shirt with yellow stripes?
> >
>
> And here I thought it was striped tigers and finger-snapping.
> Hey, it's worked for decades here... :-)
>
> Personally, I think ESP is a bit bunkish, if only because the
> brain only has about the power of a 20-25 W broadcaster, and
> is a very poor radio receiver
What counts is the computing power to process the signal, and the
possibility of the brain of acting like a receiver.
> unless augmented by what
> happens to be a variant of a galena crystal
Interesting, some substances may have the same effect in the brain,
and there special receptors...
>(e.g., a
> filling might rectify a strong radio signal nearby, and
> maybe cause the owner thereof to hear music).
>
> There's also no carrier wave to throw at a diode or FM discriminator.
> I suppose one might hear a lot of popping noises (the
> neurons conducting the signals are after all a sort of
> small radio antenna) if the gain's turned up enough.
>
Can the gain be turned up by `digital` processing? We have plenty of
processing in the interconnected network of the brain (the
hypothesis).
> I could see a "bed of nails" attached to the visual cortex,
> but that's about it; the effects would be interesting but
> it would probably require quite a bit of research before we
> can even hope to replace the computer monitor and speaker system... :-)
Sure, but it depends on how much money we throw at it, too...
>
> One issue at mass ESP screenings, though. A common test is the
> 5x5 card test: star, circle, wavy lines, square, and cross are
> (IIRC) the traditional ones, and there are 5 of each. The
> expected number of hits given pure chance is 5, but there is
> a well-defined probability curve for fewer and for more hits,
> during the experiment. Suppose we filter out those who hit more
> than the average for further testing -- "oops, it's vanished, such
> a random ability, this ESP, it only happens when we're not looking
> for it"...
>
Yes, but then I envision correlations, not probability distributions
(see Schizophrenia as neurosis)
Rick Russell
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore <fbons...@beethoven.com> wrote:
> Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
> can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
> category of superstition, though a very extended one.
Telepathy falls far behind other superstitions; things like astrology
and numerology are much better known, and more frequently believed, by
the general public.
> Most people have
> lived at one time or another the `meaningful coincidence` experience
> that leads to the belief in direct mind to mind communication
Evidence for this claim?
> If we live in a continuous reality we can safely assume that a given
> signal will diminish continuously over time, evetually integrating
> in the background noise but without losing its caracteristics.
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Signals diminish over
distance. The brain (or a radio transmitter) will continue to produce
signals over time, as long as power (biological or electric) is
applied.
I'm not sure if brain signals get weaker with age, but it's an
interesting question.
> So it is just a matter of asking: has the brain enough computing power
> to distinguish the effect on its own (generated) field caused by the
> signals of other brains?
It only becomes an issue of computing power if you can demonstrate
that the effects occur in the first place: that a non-trivial signal
is received and has an effect on the brain.
Rick R.
mike3
To once and for all see if it is/isn't real. Isn't that what the point
of investigation is? But it seems taht whenever any SERIOUS attempt to
investigate this stuff is carried out, BAM! You're ridiculed and
flamed into oblivion -- and that is being very closed-minded -- you're
making assumptions and treating them as gospel -- without doing any
RIGOROUS investigation -- and whenever it's attempted, BAM!
So, if you ever want to get to the truth of ANY matter -- ANY matter
-- you HAVE to allow rigorous investigation no matter what
prec-ocncieved notions & beliefs you may have.
mike3
>
> > "robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:2v2girF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>
> >>Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> >>
> >>>Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
> >>>can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
> >>>category of superstition,
> >>
> >>And for good reason. No one has ever proven there is such a phenomenon.
> >>
> >>Bob Kolker
> >>
> >
> >
> > And if it does exist, and somebody tries to prove it, they'll be blasted
> > into oblivion. No wonder no-one has, 'cause they aren't ALLOWED to!!!!!!!
> >
> > What if some top scientists decided to conduct in-depth research into the
> > phenomenon to once and for all prove/disprove it's existence and settle
> > the matter? Essentially you are saying that if something isn't proven then
> > it
> > can't be researched -- but science is about attempting to find proof or
> > disproof of something. That's not advancement -- that's stonewalling.
> >
> >
>
> (Gad, this thing is crossposted to hell and back, but...)
>
> The problem is that there is no possible communications medium
> for these signals to be written on. It sorta points back to
> the Luminiferous Aether, which was embarassingly deprecated
> in what, 1930? 1906? (too lazy to look it up) by Michelson/Morley.
>
So why not just conduct the expirement, despite the lack of PRIOR
evidence (even though the test ITSELF might provide the evidence you
want)?
> There was a historical move to prove the Great Beyond,
> beginning about the time when people missed those lost in
> the Civil War (dunno why Europe followed),
> which is still sorta with us. All attempts to measure it or
> exploit it resolve to embarassment for the participants.
>
> Since the Universe has a sense of humor, we cannot
> categorically prove a negative. So any hypothesis
> founded on A Miraculous Finding is doomed in
> resonable discussion, unless you show lab measurements
> hinting to the immeasurable. *Dis*proof is an
> infite series of windmills, barring contradiction of
> something relativelty non-fundamental. We have remarkably
> good and comprehensive fundamentals.
>
> Rail as you will, the skepctics won.
In other words, you **ASSUME** that it doesn't exist, and say to
anyone who attempts to see if that is CONCLUSIVELY true OR false to a
SUFFICIENT degree, that they're crazy.
You're so CLOSED-MINDED. The point is -- you HAVE to be willing to
allow people to do RIGOROUS tests -- flaming them to oblivion because
it goes against your beliefs is not acceptable. Even if it goes
against your preconcieved ideas and other shit.
So, why not just investigate away, and once and for all lay these
issues to rest?
What if something exists? YOU'LL NEVER FIND IT BECAUSE OF YOUR SHITTY
LITTLE BELIEF THAT IT DOESN'T DUE TO YOUR INSANE IDEA THAT IT MUST BE
'MAGIC' OR OTHER 'UNKNOWN X', AND *NOT* TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT 'X' IS
OR IF 'X' EVEN EXISTS, BECUASE YOU ASSUMPTIONS LIMIT WHAT YOU CAN
TEST!!!!!!
Science is a method. It can be applied to ANYTHING.
What if I went and attempted to SERIOUSLY research this phenomenon
with SCIENTIFIC methods?
mike3
<snip>
> As to telekinesis, The Amazing Randi has duplicated all of Uri Geller's
> tricks. But Randi says he is using trickery. So telekinesis cannot be
> empirically distinguished from trickery. How about that!
>
> Bob Kolker
In other words, he ASSUMED it was a hoax at first due to some bitchass
preconcieved notions because of his stone skull, and then prcoeeded to
show how it could be hoaxed -- without ANY proof that Uri Geller was
actually conducting a hoax!!!!!!!!!! To test Uri Geller's claims ONCE
AND FOR ALL, we must do the following protocol:
1. Have ZERO preconcieved bullshit about 'oh it must all be hoaxes'
and expect
this. We should be oepn to new discoveries.
2. Put Mr. Geller in a totally isolated room -- with nothing but a
spoon and
a high-resolution camera. In addition, we should have him wear
clothes
that we KNOW cannot contain any hidden devices and use spoons that
we KNOW
cannot be rigged.
3. Analyze the video footage, and the bent spoon.
If Randi did that he has once and for all demolished the claims of psi
power.
mike3
And without any evidence for/against it -- then we cannot draw any
conclusions
-- and furhter investigation might finally settle the case. But that
can't happen with everyone saying 'fad'!
mike3
So the studies have shown everything to be equal to chance -- which
means that it's okay to do mor experiments and you won't be stopped --
but you'll probably just get more of the same result -- equal to
chance.
mike3
But we can test it (have you?). And we wouldn't be roiled on for that.
If the
tests show that the claims are not occuring, then we've dis-proven
them. For instance, the 'electric transmission' theory with dolphins
could be tested as follows:
1. Get a dolphin tank.
2. Expose the dolphins to various stimuli.
3. See if any sort of electricity radiates through the water, or
patterns appear
and disappear with repeated stimulaton, etc. indicating
transmission of
information.
4. If, after a lot of rigorous testing, this is found most of the
time, and
is not attributable to anything known about dolphins, then we've
found a
new effect. If so, then it probably doesn't exist. Further tests
would
probably seem to confirm this -- and thus people should be free
to do them.
See?
ZZBunker
That is impossible in moron science.
Since a signal is by definition nontrivial
iff it is a cocaine-driven jazz fusion of a star trek
repeat and a Higg's Bison Boson Burger.
So telepathy is already to only exist
in spaces that pathy->0 asymptotically as
e^-Ax^2. Where A is any universal
constant that is orthogonal to the
fine structure constant.
>
> Rick R.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
You are talking basic experiments of card reading and forecasting. I
am talking full fledged telepathy as possible due to the computing
processing of the brain, some basic brain chemistry and working facts
and observation of schizophrenics and other people in real life
situations. But remember that as people don't like to expose the
amount of money they have in the banl, willful volunteers to telepathy
experiments very probably want to deceive themselves as to having such
'power' more than show ther actual ability, while unsuccessful
telepaths very probably are suffering their lack of control and
showing the signs of what we usually call schizophrenia, though I have
made several interesting observations in real life in homeless
shelters... To prove this ability we need to take into account social
and psychological behaviour. But the theory is sound.
robert j. kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> shelters... To prove this ability we need to take into account social
> and psychological behaviour. But the theory is sound.
No theory is sound until it makes testable quantitative predictions
which are supported by experiment. All attempts to establish the
existence of telephath as a phenomenon have failed. The is no
experimental evidence (worth anything) that such a thing even exists.
What you have are Uri Geller tricks all of which can be reproduced by
James Randi who will tell you up front what he is doing is bogus trickery.
Bob Kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
trying to prove the existence of a secret society and quantify their
actions. But maybe you haven`t read the thread Schizophrenia as
neurosis.
robert j. kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Problem here is that the experiments deal with people. It is like
> trying to prove the existence of a secret society and quantify their
> actions. But maybe you haven`t read the thread Schizophrenia as
> neurosis.
That stuff is unfalsifiable unscientific nonsense and dreck. Neurosis is
something in the eye of the beholding psychiatrist or psychologist.
Psychology is a psuedo science and pscychiatry is highly suspect.
Bob Kolker
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
>
> But we can test it (have you?). And we wouldn't be roiled on for that.
> If the
> tests show that the claims are not occuring, then we've dis-proven
> them. For instance, the 'electric transmission' theory with dolphins
> could be tested as follows:
>
> 1. Get a dolphin tank.
>
> 2. Expose the dolphins to various stimuli.
>
> 3. See if any sort of electricity radiates through the water, or
> patterns appear
> and disappear with repeated stimulaton, etc. indicating
> transmission of
> information.
>
information content from random noise, as we don`t know the form the
signal takes, thatis, we don`t know the brain activation patters code.
That is why I opted to approach it as computing power against signal
to noise ratio. The channel and the specific code are irrelevant as
long as we can show there is enough power to distinguish even very
small (lots of noise) signals. Do we have instruments sensitive enough
to gauge the effect of a dolphin`s brain effect on surrounding
electromagnetic fields? And it may be that the channel is not
electromagnetic at all, but as long as the computing power is enough
there is the possibiity of te phenomenon.
> 4. If, after a lot of rigorous testing, this is found most of the
> time, and
> is not attributable to anything known about dolphins, then we've
> found a
> new effect. If so, then it probably doesn't exist. Further tests
> would
> probably seem to confirm this -- and thus people should be free
> to do them.
>
need a different approach to test telepathy among `irrational` beings.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
schizophrenia can be considered a form of neurosis or misadaptation of
true telepaths unable to mix immediate input with telepathic input,
ignorance and a lack of intellectual tools can lead to `weak` minds
being `directed` or, more graphically, sucked, by a stronger,
morepared and sophisticated mind. This can explain the phenomenon of
sects and mass suicides. Adepts, either through drugs or rituals
(deprivation, extreme situations), get opened to the ideology of the
leader and repetition of ide and thoughts lead the minds to become
synchronized. This can be explained and justified through the
mechanical statistics concept of magnetized fields if we consider that
brains are, y analogy, biological magnets.
Once minds are synchronized and subjected to the more sophisticate,
elaborate verbal construction of the leader and his/her goals,
individuals lose individuality and become more like members of an
anthill. For a human is a tragedy. It would be very difficult to know
whether mass suicides occur because the leader orders it or because
the situation is unbearable, though it can be observed that mass
suicides occur in small sects, small groups, not in big groups, and
also among ignorant people. Even without the hypothesis of total
telepathy, the sharing of an ideology can have the same effects.
This phenomenon can be contrarrested through education. A society of
wll educated and intellecutally oriented telepaths would not be prone
to the effect of synchronization, as each mind would be strong enough
to contrarrest the monothinking, a reason why religions mistrust
intelligence and individualistic education. Reading is essential.
This phenomenon may be known by governments and kept as many secrets
are kept. It would also explain the ferocity with which sects are
persecuted, as the loss of individuality is a very serious threat to
the individual`s survival. This event may be one of the real causes of
psychosis: the individual loses touch with reality because he is
synchronized to events occurring someplace else, therefore the context
of actions and words is missing. There *is* a single Reality, but the
individual is reacting to a subset of reality beyond its immediate
self, like somebody preparing for a tornado happening on the other
side of the world.
This text links with Masterminds, Theory of beliefs, Alive and Human,
Sterens and Guilt of Atonement.
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore
is assumed to be oneof the results of drugs, except perhaps cocaine,
which seems to be totally harmful and other chemical drugs that affect
the levels of serotonin), the prohibition of drugs is in esscence and
ultimately a form of repression, as this ban prohibits humans from
developing another level of communication. In fact, the ban is a
danger, since it is broken by very poor people, criminals and very
rich people, leaving the middle classes, the `decent` people, out of
the conversation. This fact may be the single reason of the
debilitating effects of schizophrenia, as the conversations would have
little or no point of contact and be performed by people of very low
culture. This should be obvious from the discussion of the thread for
those who have been following this thread since its inception in 2002.