Telepathy is not illogical...

[forufes]

@tar: you hit the spot in explaining unconscious perception through a medium we're aware of.

"magic" is what you called unconscious perception through a medium we aren't even aware of..that's my telepathy.

AND I'M NOT SAYING IT EXISTS..

 

@padren:

i really liked the following part, and i approve of it a 100%, including the (weak) part..:

Why would thinking create a 'trail' and in what medium would this exist? Does it 'radiate out' from the thinker or hang in the air where they stood at the moment they thought it? Does it float on the breeze?

Do you understand how weak that theory is - you already reduce it to 'the atomic level' because you know nothing has detected any such thing in any easy to measure scale... what exact manipulation of the 'atoms' do you think occurs as a result of thought? How can the complexity of data of a thought be embedded in atoms? How can it then be picked up? Where does the energy to manipulate these atoms occur?

 

i agree with the rest enough for my laziness to stop me from pointing out the minor things i disagree upon..also:

Honestly I don't understand your dedication to this theory: It's untestable, every theory seems to become more convoluted so as to explain why it hasn't been detected with instruments yet - all to explain something that is more easily explained with a sampling bias and selective memory.

i don't know how i ended up here either, i was never a fan of telepathy or anything of the sort, didn't hold a special interest in the subject or knowledge, but a mere thing i put in my "mysteries of life" slot..

 

@edtharan:

As this evidence does not exist (even though it has been extensively looked for), and if telepathy did exist this evidence should be easily gathered, I can say that this counts as proof that it does not exist due to the absence of the residual.

this is as i gathered the point you stressed out the most, and gave off many examples for..so regarding the proof on nonexistence..

 

1-you seem to know enough details about to telepathy to know the exact effects it should have and where they're supposed to be found where they weren't found..isn't that a bit odd for something nonexistent?

i think you have a certain model of telepathy which you proved doesn't exist.

 

2-if telepathy is supposed to leave some trails and we do have the tools and know where to look for them yet didn't find them, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because me might have not looked good enough.

 

 

i really rest my feverish case with this post, i've been very argumentative defending something i don't have that much passion for.. i just like keeping the horizon open, i like to say "your logic(or knowledge) isn't 100% correct, knowing that makes your logic 100% correct".. so you either know it and accept it(like me:-D) or you're oblivious to that pigeon shit on your back and i'm gonna make you acknowledge it even if i had to rip your shirt off!.

but due to my lack of knowledge in the relevant fields of science concerning this subject, i have to say i do believe telepathy in any form is further away than i thought it might be.

[Edtharan]

@edtharan:

 

this is as i gathered the point you stressed out the most, and gave off many examples for..so regarding the proof on nonexistence..

 

1-you seem to know enough details about to telepathy to know the exact effects it should have and where they're supposed to be found where they weren't found..isn't that a bit odd for something nonexistent?

i think you have a certain model of telepathy which you proved doesn't exist.

As a computer game designer, I like to examine these things and how people think they work so as to enable me to include the effect in a game design. This is why I have a lot of details of something that I don't believe exists: It makes good fiction.

 

However, I am also interested in discussions, and yes, in challenging my beliefs. Thus, when this thread came up, I decided to look into it and challenge my beliefs and see if someone could prove that "Telepathy is not illogical" (as the thread title states).

 

This means that I won't just accept someone claim that it logical. I will examine their claim with logic to see if the claim is true. If telepathy is not illogical, then it must therefore be logical. Thus, if we examine any claim for logical consistency and that it matches evidence, then I will accept their claim that telepathy is indeed logical.

 

In this thread, the best theory put for is to: remain ignorant of any other possible cause so that you can believe that it exists.

 

This is not a logical argument, and so if this is the only "proof" of telepathy, then this means that telepathy is not logical (which proves the premise of this thread false).

 

As for the non-existence: As I said, the effects telepathy must have on the brain (it must change it in a significant way - on at least equal par with changes that occur naturally in the brain), and because we have been able to detect this level of change for more than two decades and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of scans of this kind has been performed with no evidence of any effect of a scale large enough to account for the effects claimed by telepathy (that any information is being transferred).

 

This same principal is used in many other fields of science. In particles accelerators, they look for the effects of theorised particles. If no effect is found at the required scale for the particle to exist, then it can be said that the particle can not exist (of course, in particle physics there is many different models and so many different expected scales that a particle might exist at, but when these are examined and no effect is found, they have discarded proposed particles because of this).

 

So, my method is well founded in scientific and logical principals. What you have tried to do is apply principals from a completely different method to this (which is in effect a strawman of my argument as the methods you are trying to use are not logically valid in the method I was using).

 

2-if telepathy is supposed to leave some trails and we do have the tools and know where to look for them yet didn't find them, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because me might have not looked good enough.

This is the problem with any proposed telepathic effect. no matter what method is proposed in how it operates, ultimately it has to have an effect in the recipients brain. There has to be some detectable effect of a minimum scale regardless of the mechanism proposed for the actual transmission.

 

I am not looking at the medium or the source. I am looking for an effect on the receiver. There has to be an effect on the receiver, or the receiver could not have been influenced by the source.

 

Regardless of the way the source or the medium work, there has to be an effect on the receiver and it must be of a sufficient strength to illicit a change in the receiver.

 

We have been able to detect effects of these magnitudes for over two decades now and no influence from any source, or medium (known or unknown).

 

In fact, there is a machine called a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator ( Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation ) that can cause changes to the way the brain operate. This means we know the exact strength of an effect that is needed to influence the brain for a certain effect. We have been able to detect these effects for well over two decades (more like 50 years) and we still do not ahve any evidence of an influence on the brain large enough to carry any information from one brain to the other (regardless of the medium - remember we are looking for a specific effect in the brain of the receiver).

 

So, like you said, if Telepathy is supposed to leave some kind of trail, the strength of this trail on the receiver's brain has been well within our ability to detect for nearly half a century. And yet, we still ahve not found any effect like this.

 

Also any information that could be passed directly from brain to brain would be an astronomically advantageous adaptation that it will have become widely spread and highly developed within the gene pool of whatever species that develops it.

 

As no species ever studied (including humans) have ever shown such direct information transfers, then we can conclude that it does not exist.

 

 

We don't need to find the medium, but we do need to find an effect (as without an effect any proposed medium that causes that effect would be a pointless and illogical discussion). The effect, of telepathy, has not been observed. Ever. An effect on the brain from an outside influence (which can not be accounted for by known source, like the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator) has never been observed (or even to convey information).

 

In short, ther eis no logical reason to accept that Telepathy exists, adn as that was the topic of discussion in their thread, then one can propose all the illogical forms of telepathy one wants, but that can never make it logical.

 

i really rest my feverish case with this post, i've been very argumentative defending something i don't have that much passion for.. i just like keeping the horizon open, i like to say "your logic(or knowledge) isn't 100% correct, knowing that makes your logic 100% correct".. so you either know it and accept it(like me:-D) or you're oblivious to that pigeon shit on your back and i'm gonna make you acknowledge it even if i had to rip your shirt off!.

but due to my lack of knowledge in the relevant fields of science concerning this subject, i have to say i do believe telepathy in any form is further away than i thought it might be.

I don't mind someone arguing for something that they don't really believe in (playing devils advocate), as long as they make it clear that they are doing so and do not make personal attacks (which you haven't).

 

These kinds of debates are interesting and I think important, because it helps to challenge beliefs that we hold. As science works on challenging the accepted to see if it stands up to reality, this is an essential part of good mental operation.

 

I believe it will be possible, through technological means, to develop a system that could theoretically mimic the effects of telepathy, but it would not really be "telepathy" like you have proposed, or any other form that has been proposed. It is really just an extension of phone technology (so if you want to call phones a form of telepathy, then you are completely redefining what is meant be it - and if that is the case, then Telepathy can be said to exist ).

[forufes]

o~k....

 

 

 

However, I am also interested in discussions, and yes, in challenging my beliefs. Thus, when this thread came up, I decided to look into it and challenge my beliefs and see if someone could prove that "Telepathy is not illogical" (as the thread title states).

same here:D

 

This means that I won't just accept someone claim that it logical. I will examine their claim with logic to see if the claim is true. If telepathy is not illogical, then it must therefore be logical. Thus, if we examine any claim for logical consistency and that it matches evidence, then I will accept their claim that telepathy is indeed logical.

nice..

well, this pushes me out of the ground of proving telepathy logical, as i don't have a conscise mechanism..but i should pull you from the ground of it being illogical, defending the OP's consistency..

 

so telepathy is not logical, i admit i can't stand up to that.

but it isn't illogical either.

don't exclude the middle gray zone.

In this thread, the best theory put for is to: remain ignorant of any other possible cause so that you can believe that it exists.

what about mine?:

we communicate to each other subconsciously(experience ticks) in a way explained by today's science (normal sensory channels), so we may be communicating to each other subconsciously (telepathy being done ever since) in a way yet to be discovered by science (some physical medium beyond today's tools' sensitivity).

 

This is not a logical argument, and so if this is the only "proof" of telepathy, then this means that telepathy is not logical (which proves the premise of this thread false).

there could be a better one stored in a brain whos owner didn't view this thread yet, or maybe not even born..don't forget the celestial teapot..

 

As for the non-existence: As I said, the effects telepathy must have on the brain (it must change it in a significant way - on at least equal par with changes that occur naturally in the brain), and because we have been able to detect this level of change for more than two decades and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of scans of this kind has been performed with no evidence of any effect of a scale large enough to account for the effects claimed by telepathy (that any information is being transferred).

the first underline:

says who?

 

the second underline:

which are?

 

This is the problem with any proposed telepathic effect. no matter what method is proposed in how it operates, ultimately it has to have an effect in the recipients brain. There has to be some detectable effect of a minimum scale regardless of the mechanism proposed for the actual transmission.

this paragraph effectively dismantles any present ,known (here at scienceforums)theory for telepathy.

it doesn't dismantle the concept, which IMO is not in the "unlikely" realm, but has enough plausibility to be in the 50/50 realm.

you can see that by rightfully removing the underlined word.

 

I am not looking at the medium or the source. I am looking for an effect on the receiver. There has to be an effect on the receiver, or the receiver could not have been influenced by the source.

but the effect could have been assigned to some other medium.

 

emotions traveling in the human voice and dissipating even slightly when recorded, i can't prove their the effect of a new theory unless i find a new mechanism, other wise it can be explained for example by sound fidelity..

 

i can't say telepathy is what moves mothers intuition, unless i can say how..unless i can propose an exclusive mechanism assigned to the telepathic theory, otherwise it could be redirected to experience or electro megnatic waves or any other known medium (which may carry rightfully part of said effect, but might not be the only "carriers"), just like the sound example..

Regardless of the way the source or the medium work, there has to be an effect on the receiver and it must be of a sufficient strength to illicit a change in the receiver.

again, just because there is an effect doesn't mean we have to detect that effect..it's an important point...

 

We have been able to detect effects of these magnitudes for over two decades now and no influence from any source, or medium (known or unknown).

yup, "these magnitudes" for over two decades..

won't "these magnitudes" become "these magnitudes + one or two" in the coming two decades?

can't telepathy be on one of the "+one or two" magnitudes?

 

So, like you said, if Telepathy is supposed to leave some kind of trail, the strength of this trail on the receiver's brain has been well within our ability to detect for nearly half a century. And yet, we still have not found any effect like this.

but you don't know that!

 

Also any information that could be passed directly from brain to brain would be an astronomically advantageous adaptation that it will have become widely spread and highly developed within the gene pool of whatever species that develops it.

you may have been unconsioucly using it scince you were a kid, you and a lot of oher people with special odd abilities science couldn't explain.. but unless the medium is found, we can't yet label it as telepathy, though we can't say it's not telepathy either..

 

As no species ever studied (including humans) have ever shown such direct information transfers, then we can conclude that it does not exist.

mmm..are you sure about this?

what do you mean by direct information transfer?

what about "love from first sight"?

 

These kinds of debates are interesting and I think important, because it helps to challenge beliefs that we hold. As science works on challenging the accepted to see if it stands up to reality, this is an essential part of good mental operation.

glad you don't find it irritating..

[tar]

Forufes,

 

Couple angles here.

 

If telepathy is defined by someone as a magical, impossible, method of communication, then it is not logical.

 

If telepathy is defined by someone as communication between people in ways that are not apparent, then it could be logical.

 

Take "brainwaves" for instance. What do we mean by brainwaves? Electromagnetic waves? On what frequencies? Over what time period. If information is embedded in the infrared pattern that our bodies are emitting, and another body can sense the pattern, and the brain in that body can interpret the message and be aware thereby, of something about the state of the first brain, could that be considered as "direct" communication?

 

Or, what if communication between two brains is acheived by removing or modulating a signal that is normally present and constant. Our equipment wouldn't pick up a signal that was absent. Or might not be tuned to the constant frequency. Our equipment may be looking for an amplitude modulation, when the modulation is in the frequency, or vice a versa. And in anycase, our equipment is operating out of context, looking for a change in a particular one thing, when many things might be changing in ways that another brain can put together, subconciously and become conscious of when the pattern is repeated or unique.

 

Another aspect to consider, in the tests of telepathy, is that in the test, barriers are constructed that might accidentally confound the mechanism. And the information to be passed is usually perceptually based symbolic, specific information, like color and shape. Requiring the receiver to experience the thought of this color and shape, which would require the same set of rods and cones to be stimulated in the same complex manner, which is obviously, not going to happen.

 

Regards, TAR

[forufes]

AWESOME...THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT...

Forufes,

 

Couple angles here.

 

If telepathy is defined by someone as a magical, impossible, method of communication, then it is not logical.

 

If telepathy is defined by someone as communication between people in ways that are not apparent, then it could be logical.

Take "brainwaves" for instance. What do we mean by brainwaves? Electromagnetic waves? On what frequencies? Over what time period. If information is embedded in the infrared pattern that our bodies are emitting, and another body can sense the pattern, and the brain in that body can interpret the message and be aware thereby, of something about the state of the first brain, could that be considered as "direct" communication?

 

Or, what if communication between two brains is acheived by removing or modulating a signal that is normally present and constant. Our equipment wouldn't pick up a signal that was absent. Or might not be tuned to the constant frequency. Our equipment may be looking for an amplitude modulation, when the modulation is in the frequency, or vice a versa. And in anycase, our equipment is operating out of context, looking for a change in a particular one thing, when many things might be changing in ways that another brain can put together, subconciously and become conscious of when the pattern is repeated or unique.

man i'd give you ten rep points if could, but firstly it says i'm supposed to spread some around first (whatever that means) also i'm not sure if i actually have the ability to affect others' rep status..

but you didn't hit the spot this time..this time it's a bull's eye..this is what i talked about in post #79

an english teacher once told us that the body transmits electromagnetic waves based on one's emotions.. how dogs know an earthquake is coming, is the same way they know a human who is facing them with no fear, and one who is scared shitless, albeit their appearances are the same..

but you've got a "magical" way in phrasing things..i'm sure many of my posts seem incoherent to a lot of people(including me sometimes:D)

Another aspect to consider, in the tests of telepathy, is that in the test, barriers are constructed that might accidentally confound the mechanism. And the information to be passed is usually perceptually based symbolic, specific information, like color and shape. Requiring the receiver to experience the thought of this color and shape, which would require the same set of rods and cones to be stimulated in the same complex manner, which is obviously, not going to happen.

or quantum encoding for example, the code is something so fragile and narrow (if i remember correctly it was a thread of single electrons) something sooo miniature and precise that just by attempting to measure it it gets affected and collapses..because any instrument you use would be relatively crude..like dissecting a microchip with a hammer.. and when you

scramble the code, the recipient will notice.

 

Regards, TAR

i take my hat off for you sir..

[Edtharan]

Take "brainwaves" for instance. What do we mean by brainwaves? Electromagnetic waves? On what frequencies? Over what time period. If information is embedded in the infrared pattern that our bodies are emitting, and another body can sense the pattern, and the brain in that body can interpret the message and be aware thereby, of something about the state of the first brain, could that be considered as "direct" communication?

 

Or, what if communication between two brains is acheived by removing or modulating a signal that is normally present and constant. Our equipment wouldn't pick up a signal that was absent. Or might not be tuned to the constant frequency. Our equipment may be looking for an amplitude modulation, when the modulation is in the frequency, or vice a versa. And in anycase, our equipment is operating out of context, looking for a change in a particular one thing, when many things might be changing in ways that another brain can put together, subconciously and become conscious of when the pattern is repeated or unique.

You are focusing on the medium. Before any medium can be inferred, you have to know what the effects are. Since no effect on the target brain has ever been recorded (from any medium not already identified), then there is no effect to propose a medium for.

 

If there is no effect, then discussing a plausible way that non effect can occur is meaningless (illogical).

 

so telepathy is not logical, i admit i can't stand up to that.

but it isn't illogical either.

don't exclude the middle gray zone.

What consists of this "middle gray zone" in logic?

 

Logic is a branch of mathematics, so you should be able to at least describe this grey zone in terms of maths. If you can't describe this zone in terms of maths, then this means that if it isn't logical, then it must be illogical.

 

Now, remember that Logical/Illogical is a binary term, it is either/or. It is one or the other. So mathematically speaking, if something is not logical, then it must (by mathematical definition) be illogical. Also, if something is not illogical, then it must be logical.

 

Using maths again (in a convoluted way, but that is perfectly valid): If something is not, not illogical, then it is illogical (the "not"s cancel each other out and the statement becomes: "telepathy is illogical").

 

Illogical means Not logical. So the statement actually works out to be: Telepathy is not, not, not logical. Two of the "not"s cancel out and the statement reads: "Telepathy is not logical".

 

we communicate to each other subconsciously(experience ticks) in a way explained by today's science (normal sensory channels), so we may be communicating to each other subconsciously (telepathy being done ever since) in a way yet to be discovered by science (some physical medium beyond today's tools' sensitivity).

The qualifier "beyond today's tools' sensitivity" also means "beyond the brains ability to receive it".

 

regardless of the medium, if the signal (even if through a magic medium that science can never be applied to) must have an effect on the receiver's brain. If this signal (regardless of the medium it is transferred with) has no effect on the receiver's brain, then the receiver's brain has not received it.

 

If the receiver's brain has not received anything, then telepathy, regardless of its form, medium or the ability of science to describe anything else about it can not have occurred.

 

Even if everything else about telepathy was logical, if no effect occurs in the receiver's brain, then telepathy has not occurred.

 

Since no effect in a receiver's brain has ever been detected, even though we have long had the sensitivity to easily detect such an effect in the brain, then we can say that telepathy has not occurred.

 

We are not trying to detect any medium of transfer. So there is no need to be concerned about whether or not our devices can detect the magnitude of the signal, or that the medium is or is not currently know (or even if it can ever been known).

 

We can detect the activation of individual neurons (in the lab), but in the brain we can get this sensitivity down to the point where we can detect below the minimum threshold needed for activation (so even if a single neuron fires, we can detect it, but we just can't accurately say which one unless we place invasive devices in the head). But the important thing is that we can detect activation below the threshold of activation.

 

This means, that if any signal is being sent between brains, by what ever means, if it has an effect on the brain, we can detect it. As no effect within the brain has been detected (despite people looking for it and even claiming that they have had such experiences while being scanned).

 

Ergo: Telepathy is not occuring.

 

Remember, if there is no effect, then there is no point in discussing how it might work.

 

You keep saying that you are trying to explain how telepathy might work, but as there has been no effect of telepathy, then there is nothing to explain how it works.

 

It is like trying to explain how the DNA sequence of Unicorns effect the twisting of their horn. As unicorns don't exist, then there is no twisting of their horn that needs explaining.

 

there could be a better one stored in a brain whos owner didn't view this thread yet, or maybe not even born..don't forget the celestial teapot..

No. Because we are not trying to detect the medium of telepathy, but the effects it MUST have on the receiver's brain.

 

As I said. If that celestial teapot would have an effect on something (say that it could be detected by the heat it gave off as it made the tea), then we should be able to detect that heat signature. If 100% of the area it has to be in is scanned and no heat signature is found, then we can say that that teapot does not exist.

 

Unless you can demonstrate an effect in the human brain that is caused by telepathy, then no telepathy is taking place.

 

If I wanted to demonstrate the effect of Leprechauns on pots of gold, I would first ahve to show that Leprechauns (and pots of gold) exist. Without them, there is nothing that needs describing.

 

Ahh, but you say, what if we could not detect Leprechauns?. Well, this is exactly what I am talking about. If we can show that pots of gold exist (the receiver's brain) and then detect any effects on them of sufficient magnitude for Leprechauns, and we eliminate any of those effects caused by know sources, then we can propose Leprechauns as the cause of the effect.

 

But, if we do this and find NO effect of sufficient magnitude for it to be a Leprechauns , then we can conclude that Leprechauns don't exist (or at least interfere with pots of gold - but as that is an essential part of what Leprechauns are, then they must).

 

this paragraph effectively dismantles any present ,known (here at scienceforums)theory for telepathy.

It dismantles any theory of telepathy where by there is a sender and receiver of information that does not rely on senses. In other words it dismantles any theory of telepathy that has direct Mind to Mind communication (of any content).

 

Because telepathy is direct mind to mind communication: by definition, then any form of telepathy is therefore dismantled.

 

but the effect could have been assigned to some other medium.

My disproof of telepathy does not rely on the medium. It can be anything from electromagnetic waves, sound or even fairies. It does not matter the slightest.

 

If no effect is found in the receiver's brain, then there is no effect to be explained. If there is no effect to be explained, then what effect are you trying to explain. It can't be telepathy as there is no effect from it.

 

emotions traveling in the human voice and dissipating even slightly when recorded, i can't prove their the effect of a new theory unless i find a new mechanism, other wise it can be explained for example by sound fidelity..

This is not telepathy. This is non verbal communication. It is not driect mind to mind communication. It is communication through normal, known channels.

 

It would be like saying that: when I type on this forum it is telepathy because information in my mind is being transferred to yours.

 

As it is a form of information transfer that is not direct mind to mind communication, me typing here and you reading it, is not a form of telepathy.

 

i can't say telepathy is what moves mothers intuition, unless i can say how..unless i can propose an exclusive mechanism assigned to the telepathic theory, otherwise it could be redirected to experience or electro megnatic waves or any other known medium (which may carry rightfully part of said effect, but might not be the only "carriers"), just like the sound example..

Again, this can not be a form of telepathy as it is not direct mind to mind communication. As I also said, the medium of transfer is not important, so long as it is direct mind to mind transfer of information.

 

again, just because there is an effect doesn't mean we have to detect that effect..it's an important point...

If it is necessary for there to be an effect of a minimum magnitude, and we can detect effects of smaller magnitudes, and we have looked for these effects and not found them. Then we should ahve picked up the effect if it exists. As no effect has been found, we can say that the effect we are looking for (the effect of direct mind to mind transfer of information) does not occur.

 

yup, "these magnitudes" for over two decades..

won't "these magnitudes" become "these magnitudes + one or two" in the coming two decades?

can't telepathy be on one of the "+one or two" magnitudes?

No. Because the "magnitude" we are looking for must be of a minimum size or it won't have an effect on the receiver's brain.

 

It is like this: If you have two detectors, one that can detect a sound of 10 decibels or higher, and another that can detect a sound of 5 decibels or higher, and you don't detect a sound with the 5 decibel meter, then you won't detect a sound with the 10 decibel meter. If you detect a sound with the 10 decibel meter, then you can be certain that you will detect it with the 5 decibel meter.

 

Compared to our detection equipment, the brain is the 10 decibel meter and our monitoring equipment is the 5 decibel meter. If we have an effect that is strong enough to register with the brain, then our other detectors will also pick up that effect (in the brain).

 

If we don't pick up any effect on the brain, then there is no effect on the brain that will be effecting the brain (because if it is enough to effect the brain we can detect that effect).

 

but you don't know that!

Unless you are proposing a conspiracy theory to suppress the existence of any scientific data relating to the existence of telepathy, then any scientist that had discovered such an effect would be winning the Nobel prize and revolutionising the communications networks of the world.

 

Also, any effect of that magnitude (ie: that had ANY effect that allowed the direct mind to mind transfer of information on the recipient) would have long ago been exploited by evolution to our (or any other species) advantage. As it has no, then the effect (if it exists) does not allow the transfer of any form of information (and so can not be considered telepathy anyway) or telepathy does not exist..

 

you may have been unconsioucly using it scince you were a kid, you and a lot of oher people with special odd abilities science couldn't explain.. but unless the medium is found, we can't yet label it as telepathy, though we can't say it's not telepathy either..

I can't use something that has no effect. Consciously or unconsciously.

 

You can't ride (use) a Unicorn if unicorns don't exist.

 

what do you mean by direct information transfer?

Simply that information is in one brain, and then without the need for known physical medium like sounds, chemicals, light or contact (etc), information is delivered to the recipient. Exactly what it says.

 

If no information is transferred, then no communication has taken place and telepathy has not occurred.

 

what about "love from first sight"?

Umm, key word there: "Sight". It is therefore not telepathy, but vision...

[Baby Astronaut]

Logic is a branch of mathematics....

Isn't logic also a branch of deductive reasoning? --i.e. Sherlock Holmes, i.e. Elementary, my dear Watson?

 

so you should be able to at least describe this grey zone in terms of maths. If you can't describe this zone in terms of maths...

Yet I don't actually recall Sherlock being that dependent on equations and formulas to solve a mystery

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

Since no effect in a receiver's brain has ever been detected, even though we have long had the sensitivity to easily detect such an effect in the brain, then we can say that telepathy has not occurred.

 

If your definition of Telepathy reads "direct communication between brains in an impossible way". Then no tests need be performed. The definition predetermines the outcome.

 

But I am a bit confused by you saying that "no effect" has been found, and talking about "we would see it happening" if it was.

 

When people experienced in fMRI, and knowledgeable of the areas of the brain responsible for and associated with various brain functions and the corresponding kinds of thoughts that are associated with activation in certain patterns, see a particular pattern of activation, in response to certain stimuli, they can say "that person is pleased, or making a negative judgement, or remembering a similar experience." They are "reading" that persons mind. They couldn't make these determinations if they didn't have the ability themselves, in their own brain to be pleased, or make a negative judgement, or remember experiences. And if you showed the same pattern of areas of the brain lighting up to someone not familiar with areas of the brain, and their functions, they might conclude "gee, that's neat." And think the researcher was using some form of impossible magic to think he/she could read the subject's thoughts.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

OK Mr. Mindreader Reseacher. Let me see you read that subject's mind without looking at the fMRI!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/singing/

[bascule]

When people experienced in fMRI, and knowledgeable of the areas of the brain responsible for and associated with various brain functions and the corresponding kinds of thoughts that are associated with activation in certain patterns, see a particular pattern of activation, in response to certain stimuli, they can say "that person is pleased, or making a negative judgement, or remembering a similar experience." They are "reading" that persons mind. They couldn't make these determinations if they didn't have the ability themselves, in their own brain to be pleased, or make a negative judgement, or remember experiences. And if you showed the same pattern of areas of the brain lighting up to someone not familiar with areas of the brain, and their functions, they might conclude "gee, that's neat." And think the researcher was using some form of impossible magic to think he/she could read the subject's thoughts.

 

Now, if only humans contained superconducting electromagnets and large cylindrical orifices we could insert each others' heads into (please excuse the semi-intentional double entendre), we could do the same thing as an MRI machine!

[tar]

Bascule,

 

OK, I'll pull my head out of my fMRI.

 

There is no evidence of any mechanism that would provide for direct brain to brain communication. We work based on real stuff. And the way we think is based on real stimuli coming in. And us processing it, to form our perspective, to form our consciousness and our thoughts.

 

I completely agree that telepathy is illogical. But it is the definition that makes it so. And it points out a weakness IMO in both the thinking of the people that believe in telepathy and the people that know it can not be so.

 

In the following manner. Functionally, we know a whole lot about what other people are thinking, by virtue of the fact that we each are the same collection of stuff, put together in the same arrangement, by our common evolution. The built in functionality repeats itself in your mind and my mind. We both are touched by the sight of a dog mothering a kitten, for the same reasons. The same combination of simple brain mechanisms are firing away in both cases. We both know basically the kinds of things the other is thinking and feeling. We can read each other's mind. Direct communication. With no transfer of energy required. No sender and receiver. Just two minds, experiencing stimuli, and noticing by looking at the smile on the other's face, that we both are getting the same thoughts and feelings from the situation.

 

The barrier constructed during the test of telepathy, takes away the ability to read the other person by all those other ways, body language, pheromones, eye movement, body heat, facial expressions, head tilt and other subtle, subconsciouly noticed clues. The reciever is not allowed to experience the exact situation the other is in. Long distance telepathy is explained by the common knowledge and known focal points. You know Aunt Martha might call because something is happening in the world that would make Aunt Martha WANT to call you and you know she knows you are home and probably have finished dinner. You can even know what the conversation will be about. No magic is involved, but people have a million ways to figure out, consciously and unconciously, what might be going on in another's mind.

 

Believers in telepathy are wrong to think that magical mechanisms are at work.

 

Disbelievers in telepathy are wrong to think we have to understand all the mechanisms, before instant communication can be considered real.

 

Both the believers and the disbelievers are exactly right. There is just a difference on how instant communication is understood. And each group, believes the other isn't getting it.

 

I posted the singing sun link, to point out, that not being a sun, or a planet, we don't know if or how suns and planets think, or what exactly that would mean. They do not have our brains, we do not have their arrangement. But the sun is singing on a time scale we are not familiar with, that we don't normally pay attention to. Doesn't mean we haven't been listening, since the beginning on some level we have not sorted out and understood yet.

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

Edtharan,

 

 

 

If your definition of Telepathy reads "direct communication between brains in an impossible way". Then no tests need be performed. The definition predetermines the outcome.

 

But I am a bit confused by you saying that "no effect" has been found, and talking about "we would see it happening" if it was.

 

When people experienced in fMRI, and knowledgeable of the areas of the brain responsible for and associated with various brain functions and the corresponding kinds of thoughts that are associated with activation in certain patterns, see a particular pattern of activation, in response to certain stimuli, they can say "that person is pleased, or making a negative judgement, or remembering a similar experience." They are "reading" that persons mind. They couldn't make these determinations if they didn't have the ability themselves, in their own brain to be pleased, or make a negative judgement, or remember experiences. And if you showed the same pattern of areas of the brain lighting up to someone not familiar with areas of the brain, and their functions, they might conclude "gee, that's neat." And think the researcher was using some form of impossible magic to think he/she could read the subject's thoughts.

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

OK Mr. Mindreader Reseacher. Let me see you read that subject's mind without looking at the fMRI!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/singing/

Using an fMRI machine to "read people's thoughts is not the same as Telepathy. If using a device built to transmit "thoughts" to a receiver, and the receiver being in possession of a device that allows that signal to be received, is not the same as telepathy, or mobile phones are telepathy (and the Internet is a Hive Mind ).

 

Actually, the fact that we can see such advantage from technological telepathy (phones and stuff), and this has propelled our species to ever greater power over its environment, this just supports my evolutionary argument against "natural" telepathy (if telepathy existed, any organism that had it would be able to out compete other and so the prevalence of it would come to dominate the gene pool of that (those) species.

 

Just look at how fast mobile phones have spread around the world. If you think of it in terms of Memetics rather than Genetic, the Meme of the Phone has been such a massive advantage, people who don't have them are severely disadvantaged. Those that have them have access to the other abilities that they bring (the hive mind of the internet which allows people to get information from around the world and use it in a way that aids them - this is because it has evolved into a more refined Meme set).

 

It is just this very thing that shows that no animal on Earth has yet evolved a natural (non technological) telepathy.

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

It is just this very thing that shows that no animal on Earth has yet evolved a natural (non technological) telepathy.

 

But we evolved the ability to share memes.

 

Although instant mind to mind communication at a distance is illogical, since there is no mechanism to transmit a thought, carry the thought and receive the thought, and there is no way for me to transmit this exact series of characters [hide]k&jjn3hd059[/hide] to anyone elses mind, without using the senses, I don't know if that covers what many people are talking about, when they use the term telepathy.

 

"Apparent communication, without using the senses" leaves some wiggle room, that does not require a fool proof, exact communication mechanism.

 

Functional telepathy is achieved, I would argue, when a thought that is in my head, also is in your head. Sort of prearranged communication. If you become aware of a thought, and I become aware of a thought, and it is a very similar thought, could that be considered "communication"?

 

When a wolf pack hunts its prey, there is a certain strategy that is understood amoungst the pack. When we watch the hunt, there is apparent communication without the use of the senses. Reflexes and actions, instinctual behavior, is built in, prearranged by evolution, and on top of that, the members of the pack have learned their roles by watching others, and take up the role that is pertinent at the moment. They are not communicating with walkie talkies, there is no magical power giving them instant communication. It's built in communication, allowing certain complex behavior to be understood wolf to wolf.

 

Why would we not have some variations on this same facility?

 

Regards, TAR

[JillSwift]

Am I wrong to think this conversation has become a matter of "if we mess with the definition enough, we can get 'telepathy' to mean something that exists"?

[tar]

Jillswift,

 

I thought we had already agreed that telepathy as characterized in the OP was illogical. We agreed that magical, unreal things are not logical. People can not sense other peoples thoughts by magic, without a mechanism.

 

My drift, was to ask if we have accounted for ALL the mechanisms by which we communicate.

 

I know this is goal post moving, but I thought it was consensual.

I made a mistake. Sorry.

 

Regards, TAR

[JillSwift]

Jillswift,

 

I thought we had already agreed that telepathy as characterized in the OP was illogical. We agreed that magical, unreal things are not logical. People can not sense other peoples thoughts by magic, without a mechanism.

 

My drift, was to ask if we have accounted for ALL the mechanisms by which we communicate.

 

I know this is goal post moving, but I thought it was consensual.

I made a mistake. Sorry.

 

Regards, TAR

I'm not berating you, hon. I'm sorry if it came out that way.

[tar]

Jillswift,

 

I had not considered that my line of thought was based more on redefining telepathy than on discussing whether telepathy was logical or not. You just pointed it out to me.

 

I think the arguments and facts and logic, that have been brought up in this thread, make it rather clear, that the physical transfer of a thought in my head, transmitted over some yet to be discovered physical medium, or some aspect of a currently understood medium, and received, intact, in your head, is not possible. Such a coherent signal could be intercepted and decoded by anyone, and there is no evidence that such a signal could exist. It has been looked for and not only has it not been found, but it makes no sense that it would be there.

 

However, I am asking permission to explore the reasons why we do know what other people are thinking. How we accomplish this feat, without an interceptable signal between us. It is not magic. There is an explanation and a mechanism. There has to be, it cannot be happening by magic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

 

So perhaps this discussion in my mind, or the wiggle room I am suggesting, is centered around what a thought is, in the first place. Qualia, or a quale, by their/its very nature, are/is a, private, non-transferrable experiences/experience. If a thought in my head is considered as such, then there is not any way it can "get out", much less be transmitted and reexperienced in its exactitude in another person.

 

I can put myself in your shoes, but I can't have your qualia.

 

I have to have my qualia of what I imagine your qualia is. And this translation is going to be incomplete. Your thought is a JillSwift thought, and a TAR cannot have this quale.

 

I have to piece together all sorts of TAR quale to build a representation of the JillSwift qualia you are experiencing. Its an analogy, built on analogies. TAR to JillSwift, translations.

 

I cannot have your thought, but the question is, can I have a reasonable facimile thereof. Can some functional attributes of JillSwift qualia be reconstructed in TAR's brain, out of TAR quale, and be close enough, for government work?

 

If so, then we can communicate without using the airwaves. I have a local image of JillSwift, built out of TAR quale that I can talk to, and imagine immediately, I can imagine what my image of you would think if you read this or that, and what your response might be. I could be completely wrong, or partially right, it depends on how complete and functionally accurate my analogy of you, is.

 

In anycase, I don't have your qualia, and there is no way I could. And the analogy of JillSwift qualia built out of TAR qualia in TAR's head is no where near the actual qualia that JillSwift is experiencing. Just might have an occasional analogue.

 

Regards, TAR

[Baby Astronaut]

However, I am asking permission to explore the reasons why we do know what other people are thinking. How we accomplish this feat, without an interceptable signal between us.

Ok then, let's give it a shot...

 

Controlled quantum entanglement.

 

It might be that everyone born from another person shares a consciousness entanglement that's activated if you know how to, although some people will just have a knack for activating it. Therefore as everyone shares a common ancestry, humans everywhere have the inherent ability to communicate with each other using telepathy. And if Panspermia is real, then humans can do the same with alien beings from other galaxies.

 

A successfully entangled message involves the relaying of thoughts, in the form of decipherable information.

 

Because of its entanglement at the quantum level, the communication's instantaneous and can't be detected -- except by checking for its appearance in the recipient's mind; nor can the transmission be intercepted or blocked. However, anyone can "listen in" by just adjusting their entangled consciousness in relation to the transmitter...or even to the receiver.

 

And let's say that occasionally vague bits do slip through from one mind to another without conscious effort or realization.

 

That might help explain why similar ideas originate in people who are separated by distant continents, and who never met or communicated by traditional means.

 

So if all people have a consciousness entanglement to all other people, we might simply just need figuring out how to activate it for "instant messaging" in relation to another (specific) person.

Edited October 13, 2009 by mooeypoo
By the request of Baby Astronaut

[tar]

Baby Astronaut,

 

No. I don't think so.

 

If we had that we would already be using it.

 

I think its the real stuff, we already do, and don't give it enough credit. It is so natural and obvious, we don't even consider it as special.

 

Take your example of a bunch of people having the same idea at the same time. Someone can write a book, or have an insight they express to others, or a new discovery can be made, or a certain event can happen that makes the world press, and everybody thinks about it. The new thing immediately becomes part of everybodies thinking. If its real, if it fits, if it explains stuff and makes sense, then it immediately and naturally becomes part of everybodies thinking. Conversations at the dinner table, classroom discussions, op ed pieces, Yahoo headlines, all include the new insight, the new real thing that has come to our attention. Everybody (well a big bunch of people) now has this new thing to integrate into their thinking. It might have an aspect that gives some shoemakers an idea, or some neuro scientists, or some snow boarders, or some ad agents on Madison Avenue, or a social worker. Someone will draw an analogy to their field of work, or an analogy to something they have been thinking about, and WA LA, 6 people come up with the same idea, at the same time. At this point, everybody else says, "well duh, why didn't I think of that." And the next day "well everybody knows that."

 

I think this is how ideas about the real world work. The true things, the facts, don't belong to any one person, they belong to anybody that notices.

And nobody thinks in a vacuum, they have new insights as they learn stuff, but most are not brand new, they are built off the shared insights of other people that came before them, and those that are in their world now. Other people have had the same insight. Drawn the same analogy. Seen the same possibility. And once you have an insight, you cannot easily "unhave" it. It gets incorporated into your thinking, and stays there, as long as it works, and remains true.

 

Interesting however, that certain insights can only be had by people that have had a certain set of prerequisite insights. That have read a certain book, or studied the insights of people in a particular field, or sect, or group.

Very interesting. Shakes one of the tenents of my worldview "that truth is accessible to everyone." Might have to reevaluate that one. Seems that certain insights might not look like truth to someone who has not had the prerequisite insights. Someone who has not been schooled in that field.

 

Thoughts, not everybody can have with the same ease, would be very hard to share automatically.

 

The kind of instant communication possible, between people that know each other, and that have the same background of insights, would not be available, outside that group.

 

Regards, TAR

[Baby Astronaut]

I was just supplying a possible mechanism for your wondering, using telepathy as it's the subject we're focused on.

 

Interesting however, that certain insights can only be had by people that have had a certain set of prerequisite insights.

Now imagine if wayward thoughts on a new idea/discovery entered the mind of another person who's had the necessary set of prerequisite insights beforehand.

[tar]

Baby Astronaut,

 

Well then, I guess I am out of options. We will just agree that telepathy is illogical.

 

And explore how we know what other people are thinking, elsewhere.

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

I thought we had already agreed that telepathy as characterized in the OP was illogical. We agreed that magical, unreal things are not logical. People can not sense other peoples thoughts by magic, without a mechanism.

 

My drift, was to ask if we have accounted for ALL the mechanisms by which we communicate.

I don't see this as shifting the goal posts so much as approaching it from a different angle.

 

Instead of leaving the mechanism as a "black box" of unknown (or un-knowable), you are trying to propose some new mechanism that would allow for telepathy to work. As it is, without a mechanism, you see telepathy as illogical.

 

The problem with this is the same as the one that forufes had trouble accepting: With or without reference to mechanisms, if telepathy works (not how it works, just that it does), then evolution would be able to (and should have) exploited it.

 

But, as we don't see such an effect, then we can say that either telepathy is not advantageous (but I can't see why, especially in a social species - and one that has been social far longer than it has been a single species), or it does not exist (along with all the other reasons why it can't exist).

 

There is no point trying to explain how telepathy works, if you can't actually show it exists.

 

I think the arguments and facts and logic, that have been brought up in this thread, make it rather clear, that the physical transfer of a thought in my head, transmitted over some yet to be discovered physical medium, or some aspect of a currently understood medium, and received, intact, in your head, is not possible.

Then you would agree: Telepathy, as it is defined, is not possible.

 

Such a coherent signal could be intercepted and decoded by anyone, and there is no evidence that such a signal could exist.

Actually, it would be possible to send a secure message through a channel. We do this all the time. Your mobile phone uses a broad cast system where it send out the signal that anyone (with the right equipment) could detect. But decoding that information is much harder (but it can be done).

 

However, just because a signal is broadcast, does not automatically mean that anyone can simply intercept it in a meaningful way.

 

However, I am asking permission to explore the reasons why we do know what other people are thinking. How we accomplish this feat, without an interceptable signal between us. It is not magic. There is an explanation and a mechanism. There has to be, it cannot be happening by magic.

I agree that we can make a guess at what is going on in other people's minds, but this is not telepathy as no information is really being transferred during these sessions.

 

Information is transferred before the session, but then one could argue that foreknowledge is not telepathy. If I read a book once, and then read it again some time later, it is a form of "telepathy" that I can know what the characters are going to do? No, of course not.

 

This is the same as with the scenarios you proposed.

 

Here is another scenario.

 

Imagine that you read the schedule of a friend and find that they are meeting another friend for coffee on Friday at a particular cafe at 17:30.

 

Is it then telepathy if you know that they they are having coffee at 17:40?

 

No. You had knowledge of their activities before hand, so this is not some information transfer from their brain to yours, except through the medium of the person's schedule.

 

"Apparent communication, without using the senses" leaves some wiggle room, that does not require a fool proof, exact communication mechanism.

The problem word here is "Apparent". Unless there is actual information transfer, then you can't actually calim that infomration is sent.

 

There are many things that "apparently" happen, but this is often an mistake by the people involved jumping to conclusions and not basing their conclusions on evidence.

 

Imagine if this kind of thinking occurred in courts of law:

Jury: "We don't need to see any evidence about this case. We believe the defendant to be guilty."

 

What if you were the defendant? Would you want to just accept the conclusions of the court based on assumptions, and not on evidence?

 

But, despite all this, if Telepathy was occuring this way, then it would have a measurable effect of the receiver's brain. This could be determined and conclusive proof of telepathy could be delivered (and then a mechanism for it could be worked out).

 

Unless there is evidence of an effect that needs an explanation, then any explanation is like a solution looking for a problem (and usually when any opportunity presents itself the look promising, the solution will be used, even if it is not the correct solution).

 

So, as soon as anything that even remotely looks as if it could be called "Telepathy" (even if it isn't) comes along, if you have a ready made explanation of telepathy then you will want to use your explanation for it.

 

This is actually exactly what you have done. You are trying to use "telepathy" for such things as foreknowledge, theory of mind (creating a model of what other people might be thinking to try and guess at what they are actually thinking) and other know effects (with known causes) and that are absolutely not telepathy.

 

I can put myself in your shoes, but I can't have your qualia.

 

I have to have my qualia of what I imagine your qualia is. And this translation is going to be incomplete. Your thought is a JillSwift thought, and a TAR cannot have this quale.

 

I have to piece together all sorts of TAR quale to build a representation of the JillSwift qualia you are experiencing. Its an analogy, built on analogies. TAR to JillSwift, translations.

 

I cannot have your thought, but the question is, can I have a reasonable facimile thereof.

And that is precisely what I am talking about.

 

This is what is called theory of mind. It is a known phenomena with a known explanation. We even know the exact neurons involved (mirror neurons) and where they are located in the brain (premotor cortex and the inferior parietal cortex).

 

This is not, in any way, telepathy. If it is, then imagination is also telepathy because the same regions fire when you imagine yourself doing things or being is a situation (I like to think of it as the "Dungeons and Dragons" part of the brain - that we have specifically evolved to play Role Playing Games )

 

Actually, this supports my argument: If telepathy was possible, then as a social species, evolution would ahve exploited it in us. Just look at the level it has exploited the ability to mirror other people's behaviours and map our own motivations to them (a lot of what we consider as typical human behaviours are base on this "theory of mind" / "Mirror Neuron" effect).

 

Being able to even guess at another person's thoughts is of such an advantage in working together that this ability has given us massive advantage. IF we could actually send information directly between minds without the guess work, then this would be even more of an advantage (oh, and humans are not the only species with mirror neurons (other primates, and even some birds have them ).

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

IF we could actually send information directly between minds without the guess work, then this would be even more of an advantage

 

If I have made a certain analogy in my brain and you explore its strengths and weaknesses, after I have relayed the analogy to you, using known mechanisms, you overlay what you know of my thinking, with what you know to be true and you look for the gaps. You hunt for what I have failed to notice, or for what I might have noticed. A great deal of information passes between us. You effect the thoughts in my head, and I effect the thoughts in yours. But its not magic, it's the way we work. The actual information that passes through the computer screen might be meager, a certain amount of characters, represented each by a short series of ones and zeros. But the meaning behind the arrangement the information passes, is best known by me and you.

 

Anybody, or anything can sense the characters on the screen.

But it takes a human brain to recognize the characters as words with meaning behind them.

It takes a human brain, that can read English to notice the meaning of the words.

And one that has read this thread to put them into context.

And one like yourself that knows TAR's brain from experiencing other TAR messages, to determine what information is contained or missing.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

Ok then, let's give it a shot...

 

Controlled quantum entanglement.

 

It might be that everyone born from another person shares a consciousness entanglement that's activated if you know how to, although some people will just have a knack for activating it. Therefore as everyone shares a common ancestry, humans everywhere have the inherent ability to communicate with each other using telepathy. And if Panspermia is real, then humans can do the same with alien beings from other galaxies.

 

A successfully entangled message involves the relaying of thoughts, in the form of decipherable information.

 

Because of its entanglement at the quantum level, the communication's instantaneous and can't be detected -- except by checking for its appearance in the recipient's mind; nor can the transmission be intercepted or blocked. However, anyone can "listen in" by just adjusting their entangled consciousness in relation to the transmitter...or even to the receiver.

 

And let's say that occasionally vague bits do slip through from one mind to another without conscious effort or realization.

 

That might help explain why similar ideas originate in people who are separated by distant continents, and who never met or communicated by traditional means.

 

So if all people have a consciousness entanglement to all other people, we might simply just need figuring out how to activate it for "instant messaging" in relation to another (specific) person.

 

Sorry, but this seems to be just using some buzzwords to attempt to achieve legitimacy. Calling it quantum entanglement doesn't solve any real problems; QE does not transmit information instantly, and does not involve any new methods of interaction.

[Baby Astronaut]

Sorry, but this seems to be just using some buzzwords to attempt to achieve legitimacy. Calling it quantum entanglement doesn't solve any real problems; QE does not transmit information instantly, and does not involve any new methods of interaction.

And how would the following "buzzphrases" achieve legitimacy?

 

 

Ok then, let's give it a shot...

 

Controlled quantum entanglement.

 

It might be that everyone born from another person shares a consciousness entanglement that's activated if you know how to, although some people will just have a knack for activating it. Therefore as everyone shares a common ancestry, humans everywhere have the inherent ability to communicate with each other using telepathy. And if Panspermia is real, then humans can do the same with alien beings from other galaxies.

........

And let's say that occasionally vague bits do slip through from one mind to another without conscious effort or realization.

 

That might help explain why similar ideas originate in people who are separated by distant continents, and who never met or communicated by traditional means.

 

So if all people have a consciousness entanglement to all other people, we might simply just need figuring out how to activate it for "instant messaging" in relation to another (specific) person.

 

I was just supplying a possible mechanism for your wondering, using telepathy as it's the subject we're focused on.

As for instantaneous anything on entanglement, the best I've happened upon on the subject that's easy to grasp (by a layman) is how doing something to one particle immediately affects its other entangled particle, regardless the distance between them. I was only going by things learned on video about science, not trying to be legitimate otherwise I'd have posted elsewhere than in Speculations.

 

Maybe you can point me in a better direction? (Forget the Wikipedia, I didn't grasp much of what the page had to say). That could be more helpful.

[iNow]

Baby A - In addition to the countless times swansont has helped people better understand why entanglement won't work in the way people suggest here in the forums, he's also posted about it on his blog. Here's one example that may shed some light:

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2410

 

 

My understanding is thus: Entanglement only works when you don't know the state of either end (here or there). To send information, you will know the state at this end (by definition), hence it won't be entangled.