Telepathy Has Been 'Scientifically Proven' to be Real... Again

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by BlueMule
 


I so want this to be true.

But I have been disappointed so many times in the past.

If humans can do telepathy, then why is it SO DIFFICULT for the average person?

I would LOVE to have the ability to use telepathy on a reliable basis, every day.
But will that ever be possible, ...for an average person like myself?

One has to ask these questions.


I experience a strange connection to something that is intelligent and very annoying. We as a human race were not given true telepathy for a reason, it would drive us insane or delude us of our true intended purpose. As long as whatever exists that communicates this way with me, i recommend forgetting about the subject and go live your lives properly.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthermantwo

I experience a strange connection to something that is intelligent and very annoying. We as a human race were not given true telepathy for a reason, it would drive us insane or delude us of our true intended purpose. As long as whatever exists that communicates this way with me, i recommend forgetting about the subject and go live your lives properly.


NO.

Burying our collective head in the sand is not the answer. Knowledge is power. We need the courage and the knowledge to face up to parasociological forces. We must not give in to the temptation to hide behind the lies of debunkers.

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


You are a narrow minded hypocrite:

1) You dismiss science as "scientism dogma" yet you desperately try to twist science to validate your beliefs. Are you that insecure about your beliefs that you need some pseudo-scientific lip service to validate them? Why are you so scared from having your beliefs analysed under the scientific microscope?

2) You accuse anyone who disagrees with you as "closed minded" yet you open your post with "Don't listen to the debunkers. They don't know squat. They are just regurgitating dogma". You persist with attempting to shut down any debate or any dissenting voices that conflict with your personal belief system. That's closed minded and arrogance wrapped into one handy package.

3) You accuse others of being "negative" yet EVERY response to anyone who disagrees with you has been a baseless ad hominem attack. You spam these boards with your "global consciousness project" nonsense yet, when challenged to substantiate your claims, you resort to petty insults and sticking your fingers in your ears.

But let's have a look at this "proof" from "science", shall we? Some dodgy meta-study published in some dubious fringe journal in an attempt to overload the "pseudo-skeptics" (you still haven't looked that word up in the dictionary, have you?) with reams and reams of meaningless jargon and fluff in the most glorious display of Gish Galloping I've seen in a long time. Let's look at some other... *ahem* "papers" from this oh so credible "journal":

Psi-Lines, Chaos, Spirals, Magnetism, and Entanglement
Synchronicities of Carl Jung Interpreted in Quantum Concept of Consciousness
A Two-Year Investigation of the Allegedly Anomalous Electronic Voices or EVP (lol!)
A Sideways Look at the Neurobiology of Psi: Precognition and Circadian Rhythms
On Dark Chemistry: What’s Dark Matter and How Mind Influences Brain Through Proactive Spin

...and many, many more! Looks like some real legit "science" you've got yourself there, pal


But hang on a minute... science = bad, yet this is supposed to be... science to validate your personal beliefs? Surely if science = a load of rubbish then using it to validate your beliefs means your beliefs are a load of rubbish, right? But hey, hypocrisy has a way of cementing in a logically inconsistent belief system.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Telepathy is part of the human software. But researchers have it mostly wrong. You are asked to identify particular details which mean nothing to your soul like Zener cards. The score will drop after a while because Zener cards are deadly boring.
Too bad nobody has figured out how to use it in gambling, like poker. You could make lots of money if you knew your opponents hands, which doesn't sound boring.


Have you watched much professional poker?

I swear those guys have something going on with them, and it has very little to do with math. Sure, you could say it's all about the reads and intuition, but if you're willing to entertain the notion that ESP may exist, the line seems to become blurry in some situations. Watching a room full of professional poker players is one of those situations.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Telepathy is part of the human software. But researchers have it mostly wrong. You are asked to identify particular details which mean nothing to your soul like Zener cards. The score will drop after a while because Zener cards are deadly boring.
Too bad nobody has figured out how to use it in gambling, like poker. You could make lots of money if you knew your opponents hands, which doesn't sound boring.


Well, psi is much easier between people who know each other well and have affection toward each other. That would probably rule out most of my poker buddies. :p



edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

In other words you are doing what Derren Brown can do, read people. I have not seen anything paranormal that Derren Brown can't do.

That said they now have machines that are starting to read dreams. If those machines can pick up signals without being in contact then you clealry have the potential for telepathy.

So as far as I am concerned, it may be possible but everything so far can done by Derren Brown so its not real yet.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

It could totally just be intuition.


"Just" be intuition?

Nothing is "just" anything.


Non-local intuition in entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: results of two experiments using electrophysiological measures

Abstract:

Non-local intuition is the body's perception of information about a distant or future event that is not based on reason or memories of prior experience. This work reports the results of two pilot experiments testing the measurement efficacy of two computer-administered experimental protocols for studying non-local intuition in entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Conducted on a small sample of repeat entrepreneurs from the Cambridge Technopol, UK, and a US sample of non-entrepreneurs, both experiments employed electrophysiological measures (skin conductance response and beat-to-beat heart rate) to detect non-local intuition, as used in previous studies. The results are promising: the use of conservative statistical procedure - random permutation analysis - found evidence of non-local intuition in both entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. These results may constitute the first evidence in a population of entrepreneurs that electrophysiological measures appear able to detect intuitive perception of a future event.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

In other words you are doing what Derren Brown can do, read people.


No, but you are doing what pseudo-skeptics do - they make assumptions, jump to conclusions.

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Telepathy is part of the human software. But researchers have it mostly wrong. You are asked to identify particular details which mean nothing to your soul like Zener cards. The score will drop after a while because Zener cards are deadly boring.
Too bad nobody has figured out how to use it in gambling, like poker. You could make lots of money if you knew your opponents hands, which doesn't sound boring.


Have you watched much professional poker?

I swear those guys have something going on with them, and it has very little to do with math. Sure, you could say it's all about the reads and intuition, but if you're willing to entertain the notion that ESP may exist, the line seems to become blurry in some situations. Watching a room full of professional poker players is one of those situations.


I wonder how good Derren Brown is at poker?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

In other words you are doing what Derren Brown can do, read people.


No, but you are doing what pseudo-skeptics do. Make assumptions, jump to conclusions.

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

And you are doing what everyone with Cognitive Dissonance has - denial. You are also making assumptions, the assumption that being able to read someone is due to telepathy and not simply the ability to "literally" read people as Derren does. When you state this is easier with family and friends this send out alarm bells that it is not telepathy but familiarity ie easier to read using normal psychological methods. Hence Derren Brown.

Many people can do what Derren does but don't realise it, these are people with natural ability to pick up on the signals, ie twitching eyes, use of language , smiles , looking left when lying due to the side of the brain that kicks in when you lie !! Some of these natural readers will no doubt think they are psychic and hold peoples palms whilst sitting in front of a glass ball.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by unityemissions

It could totally just be intuition.


"Just" be intuition?

Nothing is "just" anything.


Non-local intuition in entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: results of two experiments using electrophysiological measures

Abstract:

Non-local intuition is the body's perception of information about a distant or future event that is not based on reason or memories of prior experience. This work reports the results of two pilot experiments testing the measurement efficacy of two computer-administered experimental protocols for studying non-local intuition in entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Conducted on a small sample of repeat entrepreneurs from the Cambridge Technopol, UK, and a US sample of non-entrepreneurs, both experiments employed electrophysiological measures (skin conductance response and beat-to-beat heart rate) to detect non-local intuition, as used in previous studies. The results are promising: the use of conservative statistical procedure - random permutation analysis - found evidence of non-local intuition in both entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. These results may constitute the first evidence in a population of entrepreneurs that electrophysiological measures appear able to detect intuitive perception of a future event.



Big red flag for quackery: papers published in journals of absolutely no relevance. Such as... ooh, I dunno, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

In other words you are doing what Derren Brown can do, read people.


No, but you are doing what pseudo-skeptics do. Make assumptions, jump to conclusions.

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

And you are doing what everyone with Cognitive Dissonance has - denial. You are also making assumptions, the assumption that being able to read someone is due to telepathy and not simply the ability to "literally" read people as Derren does. When you state this is easier with family and friends this send out alarm bells that it is not telepathy but familiarity ie easier to read using normal psychological methods. Hence Derren Brown.

Many people can do what Derren does but don't realise it, these are people with natural ability to pick up on the signals, ie twitching eyes, use of language , smiles , looking left when lying due to the side of the brain that kicks in when you lie !! Some of these natural readers will no doubt think they are psychic and hold peoples palms whilst sitting in front of a glass ball.


You seem to have quite a hard-on for Derren.

Sorry, but the shenanigans of showmen have little to do with the body of parapsychological evidence. Very rarely does parapsychology use famous people in experiments. Most of the time its just everyday ordinary people who participate in experiments.

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
I wonder how good Derren Brown is at poker?


He's got skill and reputation, so I'd guess he could level up pretty quickly.

Would he make it to the top? I don't think he believes so, else he'd be a regular.

He makes enough monies as is.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Coxy023
I don't think these kind of studies will ever get a place in factual science. Psychology hasn't long been classed as a science, and even within psychology, paranormal studies are kept on the sidelines. Although biological facts do cross over, they are still kept distinct for data obtained by qualitative studies, and paranormal studies will always have too many variables to produce acceptable data. at least for now anywyay


Naw. The truth will always have a place in essential science.

The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal Is Bringing Science and Spirit Together

"Tart reviews essential science, which applies reason to experience; and then he distinguishes between a properly skeptical scientific approach and an improperly pseudoskeptical scientistic approach, the latter being a false belief system or “neurotic defense” mechanism. At this point, a long list identifies the intellectual traps to which humans are prone. The main part of the text follows: the “big five” are discussed, that is, the psi phenomena whose “veridical” nature (veracity) science has validated; these are telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing."



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


That story has been proven false.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryom
 



In any case, I don't see how all this violates materialism. When something is proven through scientific means, it is automatically defined as materialistic.


Perhaps the process and conclusion was, but the subject of study is not.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
To everyone wondering why we haven't learned telepathy yet:

A UFO crashes in a field. The military claims it. People reveal they can astral project. They are taken by the military. We develop AI. The military calls dibs on it.

If we were to master telepathy, do you really think we'd only use it for peaceful purposes? Haha, give me a break.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Did you guys catch the cowardly uproar over Daryl Bems research?

"A key objective of parapsychologists has always been to gain acceptance of the existence of psi from mainstream scientists. Crucial to that effort is support from prominent scientists in mainstream fields. In recent years, the most important of these allies has been Daryl Bem, a distinguished social psychologist who recently retired from Cornell. Bem burst on the scene 17 years ago when he authored with Charles Honorton a report of a series of successful ganzfeld experiments conducted at Honorton's laboratory (Bem & Honorton, 1994). The article was published in a major psychology journal, Psychological Bulletin.

Then earlier this year, Bern (2011) published a successful series of precognition experiments in another prestigious psychology journal, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP). In both cases, critical responses were published in the same issue of the journal. However, much more so than the ganzfeld paper, the precognition paper led to a firestorm of other negative comments from the "establishment." The intensity of the comments suggests that certain segments of the mainstream scientific community feel threatened by the publication of Bem's results.

For example, the normally tactful Ray Hyman, who had refereed and approved the publication of the ganzfeld paper in Psychological Bulletin, was quoted by Carey (2011) in the online New York Times as proclaiming the publication of the precognition paper to be "... craziness, pure craziness. I can't believe a major journal is allowing this work in. I think it's just an embarrassment to the entire field." A consistent theme in these commentaries has been the danger that the publication of Bem's research posed to science generally. I can think of two reasons why scientists would be more threatened by the precognition experiments than the ganzfeld experiments. First, Bem conducted the precognition studies himself. Second, he employed a research methodology modeled on a procedure widely adopted in mainstream psychology.

[...]

I will close this editorial by combining my points about physics theories and Baysean statistics as they relate to psi. In my opinion, the strongest philosophical or theoretical reason mainstream scientists and philosophers reject psi is that they see it as incompatible with our well-grounded theories of the physical universe. I expect many scientific critics of parapsychology would attach an astronomically low a priori probability to psi simply on the grounds of its incompatibility with these theories. Such an action would strike me as profoundly misguided.

The fact that physicists have been unable to come up with a credible "theory of everything" in over a hundred years of inquiry (to paraphrase critics of parapsychology) strongly suggests that the totality of events in the universe are caused not by a single fundamental process, but rather by multiple such processes that are incommensurate with one another. Therefore, I conclude this editorial with the bold statement that in estimating the a priori probability of psi (or any other fundamental class of events in nature), the weight that should be given to its alleged incompatibility with currently accepted theories of physics, either individually or collectively, is zero."


Source: www.thefreelibrary.com...

Here is Bem on The Colbert Report for those who missed it.

Time-Traveling Porn

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Its all advanced logic which leads to predictive models that replicate reality.

It really is that easy.


No, it really isn't that easy...

The evidence is against your theory.

"Recently, journalist Steven Volk was surprised to discover that leading skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for telepathy is so good that "by the standards of any other area of science, [telepathy] is proven." Mr Volk goes on to write, "Even more incredibly, as I report in Fringe-ology, another leading skeptic, Chris French, agrees with him." "

Source: Does Telepathy Conflict with Science?

edit on 4-1-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Considering the fact that cells have demonstrated the ability to communicate via frequencies, is it so far-fetched to think that perhaps these frequencies can be transmitted outside of the body, replicating internal responses in an outside medium?

Just like a LAN network communicating with another LAN network on the other side of the globe.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Okay, let's say it's real...

Any guesses on what it is or how it works?





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join