Telepathy - it works or maybe not?

[questionposter]

[/size][/font]

Sharks cannot tell what the fish is thinking. Telepathy would need the ability to tell the difference between ALL different neuronal interactions, not just 'see' electric fields. It is entirely different from seeing colors. It would be more like only seeing colors that bounce off certain objects even at a single wavelength.

 

Except I'm basing telepathy off of the mutations of sensitivity to electrical fields or magnetic (or both?) fields, and animals can distinguish between those and other just fine which is what your arguing against.

 

 

That is like saying we shouldn't be able to see because we give off light in our visible spectrum. They don't actually see the heat, they see the infrared spectrum given off by the heat.

 

In order for our bodies to "give off" optical light we'd need to be heated up to like at least 1000 degrees F. Even black bodies only emit infrared at around the boiling point of water, no way we are "emitting" optical light. Animals can see in infra-red light and their bodies give off infra-red light yet they can see fine.

Edited September 2, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

There's also other animals which see infra-red light or the primary carrier of heat here on Earth, but those animals also have physical bodies which constantly give off heat themselves (or infra-red light) yet they can see just fine.

Not only that, but what about those fish still? A shark can sense electric fields generated by many other fish yet their bodies generate an electrical field themselves, but they are still able to hunt other fish using the sense of electrical fields.

 

Fine!

 

But so far medical science has not discovered any receptors that can detect electric fields in human skin, and rather a lot of detail is known about the structure of human skin.

 

Also air is a very poor conductor of electricity compared to water anyway. So even if we did have electro-receptors in our skin, the stimulation due to electric fields given off by other living things would be vanishingly weak. Hence they would be a little or no evolutionary value.

 

Animals can see in infra-red light and their bodies give off infra-red light yet they can see fine.

 

Animals see only the infrared radiation that travels into the receptor from another object.

 

Unless they have an infinite density, as in a black hole, and can cause infrared radiation emitted by their bodies to curve back around and into their receptor, they cannot see it.

 

Any infrared radiation emitted by their bodies will strike other objects and be absorbed rather than reflected.

 

Hence they can only see the infrared radiation generated within the bodies of other animals through metabolism or other objects that have been previously heated by the sun or what ever.

[Ringer]

Except I'm basing telepathy off of the mutations of sensitivity to electrical fields or magnetic (or both?) fields, and animals can distinguish between those and other just fine which is what your arguing against.

 

What are you even talking about. What can they distinguish between? You have not yet said anything about how to distinguish between neurons. To reiterate, all neurons give off the same electrical signals which are going off millions at a time. How would telepathy be able to distinguish which are important for telepathy? This is not different colors, this is equivalent to seeing through objects that give off the same wavelength of light as the ones you want to see. You just choose to see through the other one because it's not important.

 

In order for our bodies to "give off" optical light we'd need to be heated up to like at least 1000 degrees F. Even black bodies only emit infrared at around the boiling point of water, no way we are "emitting" optical light. Animals can see in infra-red light and their bodies give off infra-red light yet they can see fine.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by give off. I mean that the electrons in molecules of animals bodies are given a bit of energy by the metabolic energy we naturally produce. These electron excitations are then emitted as photons in the infrared spectrum after the electron goes back into a lower energy state. The same way we 'give off' visible' light by absorbing certain wavelength electron excitation, etc.

[OneWithEnki]

I deffinatley think Telepathy is possible most of us only use about 10% our brian to functions and look how amzaing we are I can only imagine what we could do if we actually used 80% or even 90% of our brain.

[Ringer]

I deffinatley think Telepathy is possible most of us only use about 10% our brian to functions and look how amzaing we are I can only imagine what we could do if we actually used 80% or even 90% of our brain.

 

If that's so, would you be so kind and donate the 90% you are not using for research?

[Dekan]

I deffinatley think Telepathy is possible most of us only use about 10% our brian to functions and look how amzaing we are I can only imagine what we could do if we actually used 80% or even 90% of our brain.

 

You're right - human brains probably use only a fraction of their potential. For example, every normal person has the potential, to learn to read and write. This ability is built into our brains. Modern people use this innate ability, to become literate.

 

Yet the prehistoric people who lived 10,000 years ago, were illiterate. They didn't read or write. Was this because their brains lacked something? No - their brains were as good as modern brains. The prehistoric people just didn't use the "literacy" potential of their brains. They didn't know how to.

 

The potential was there - it just wasn't used.

 

Couldn't it be the same with telepathy?

[Ringer]

You're right - human brains probably use only a fraction of their potential. For example, every normal person has the potential, to learn to read and write. This ability is built into our brains. Modern people use this innate ability, to become literate.

 

Yet the prehistoric people who lived 10,000 years ago, were illiterate. They didn't read or write. Was this because their brains lacked something? No - their brains were as good as modern brains. The prehistoric people just didn't use the "literacy" potential of their brains. They didn't know how to.

 

The potential was there - it just wasn't used.

 

Couldn't it be the same with telepathy?

 

Actually reading is very unnatural to our brain. Try learning to read fluently in a new system that uses completely different symbols than what you are use to and you will find exactly how unnatural it is. Here's a good book on the subject. In short we probably use an old system of object recognition an use it to read. But that system has to be trained for years to become able to read at all, let alone well.

[Dekan]

Actually reading is very unnatural to our brain. Try learning to read fluently in a new system that uses completely different symbols than what you are use to and you will find exactly how unnatural it is. Here's a good book on the subject. In short we probably use an old system of object recognition an use it to read. But that system has to be trained for years to become able to read at all, let alone well.

Many thanks for the link, Ringer. Dehaene's book looks fascinating. Inexpensive copies seem to be available, I'm getting one.

 

Isn't it amazing what a huge expanse of ideas, modern Science has spread out to encompass? A new idea is becoming hard to find - someone's already written a blasted book about it!

Edited September 3, 2011 by Dekan

[Athiril]

The other portion of your brain that is "not" being used is being used, it's there for repair and rebuilding pathways, but in a more complex way that I can state to you.

 

Let's say telepathy and other such abilities exist in some people somehow somewhere.

 

 

I do not think you should be deciding how they function and looking for what could support them based on existing knowledge of completely different functions unrelated to humans.. how do I say it... it's coming up with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it, rather than gathering evidence and making a conclusion which you continue to update as you can obtain more evidence.

 

I don't think you have any evidence for such a conclusion.

 

 

I don't believe such abilities cannot and do not exist. I think it's fine to make some research into such fields, but do it with a more sound/solid approach.

[Ringer]

Many thanks for the link, Ringer. Dehaene's book looks fascinating. Inexpensive copies seem to be available, I'm getting one.

 

Isn't it amazing what a huge expanse of ideas, modern Science has spread out to encompass? A new idea is becoming hard to find - someone's already written a blasted book about it!

 

Yeah, I have the book and found it extremely well written (though I may be biased because I want to study neuroscience in grad school). He also has a book about mathematics that is also a good read, but it is a little bit dated.

 

There are always new ideas to be had and exciting things to be discovered. We all stand upon the shoulders of giants, hopefully we can all see further by doing so.

[Greg Boyles]

I deffinatley think Telepathy is possible most of us only use about 10% our brian to functions and look how amzaing we are I can only imagine what we could do if we actually used 80% or even 90% of our brain.

 

Evolution does not generate a brain of which only 10% of its capacity is used for something. That would be a collosal waste of energy and resources and contrary natural selection.

 

Don't know of precise measurements but the 10% may refer to conscious thought, with the 90% refering to subconscious functions that we are not immediately aware of.

 

Consider how much computing power it takes for robots to carry out rudimentary functions like face and voice recognition, successful navigation of real world spaces and even just walking up stairs etc. And yet the human brain can do these things with consummate ease and so much more.

 

I re-iterate.......there is a great deal more going on inside you brain, during the simplest of tasks that you carry out, than you are ever immediately aware of.

 

Actually reading is very unnatural to our brain. Try learning to read fluently in a new system that uses completely different symbols than what you are use to and you will find exactly how unnatural it is. Here's a good book on the subject. In short we probably use an old system of object recognition an use it to read. But that system has to be trained for years to become able to read at all, let alone well.

 

 

It is difficult for the adult brain to do this but extremely easy for a child brain to do so. Consider how easily very young children pick up a foriegn language compared to adults. Ergo the human brain has a particular natural penchant for language, both written and verbal.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Ringer]

It is difficult for the adult brain to do this but extremely easy for a child brain to do so. Consider how easily very young children pick up a foriegn language compared to adults. Ergo the human brain has a particular natural penchant for language, both written and verbal.

 

Language yes, reading, not at all. An average child at the age of 12 has been reading about 6-8 years and still cannot read with proficiency; while a child that is 6-8 years can speak very fluently in it's given language. Reading in itself has no natural relationship with language.

[questionposter]

What are you even talking about. What can they distinguish between? You have not yet said anything about how to distinguish between neurons. To reiterate, all neurons give off the same electrical signals which are going off millions at a time. How would telepathy be able to distinguish which are important for telepathy? This is not different colors, this is equivalent to seeing through objects that give off the same wavelength of light as the ones you want to see. You just choose to see through the other one because it's not important.

 

 

That neuron thing isn't a problem. Many many many animals distinguish between the electrical and bio-magnetic fields between their bodies and the bodies of other animals, it's not a problem at all. It would be that on top of feeling your own feelings, you could feel what other people felt. Or on top of hearing your own thoughts, you could hear other people's thoughts. Although right now I don't think there's really developed telepathy, more like weak telepathy.

 

 

 

You misunderstand what I mean by give off. I mean that the electrons in molecules of animals bodies are given a bit of energy by the metabolic energy we naturally produce. These electron excitations are then emitted as photons in the infrared spectrum after the electron goes back into a lower energy state. The same way we 'give off' visible' light by absorbing certain wavelength electron excitation, etc.

 

 

And that isn't a problem. The electrons in the bodies of infra-red seeing animals give off infra-red light all the time and they have no problem seeing. Another way which nature finds a solution. This I assume is because the retinas are like a one way mirror, infra-red light doesn't pass through the back of the retinas as well so the animal only see's the infra-red light in front of it, and since the eyes are usually on the head, this works out fine.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

Language yes, reading, not at all. An average child at the age of 12 has been reading about 6-8 years and still cannot read with proficiency; while a child that is 6-8 years can speak very fluently in it's given language. Reading in itself has no natural relationship with language.

Although written and verbal language 'data' arrive at Wernicke's and Broca's areas of the brain via different routes, it is still processed by these two areas. So there is no fundamental difference between written and spoken language as far as the human brain goes.

 

Google it and see for yourself.

 

That neuron thing isn't a problem. Many many many animals distinguish between the electrical and bio-magnetic fields between their bodies and the bodies of other animals, it's not a problem at all. It would be that on top of feeling your own feelings, you could feel what other people felt. Or on top of hearing your own thoughts, you could hear other people's thoughts. Although right now I don't think there's really developed telepathy, more like weak telepathy.

 

Once again, medical science has not uncovered any electro and magnetic receptors in the human body. So your idea is invalid.

 

You need to look to more sensible and ways that telopathy might be possible that are based in current accepted science.

 

The reading body language thing is one such idea.

[questionposter]

Once again, medical science has not uncovered any electro and magnetic receptors in the human body. So your idea is invalid.

 

You need to look to more sensible and ways that telopathy might be possible that are based in current accepted science.

 

The reading body language thing is one such idea.

 

Uhhhhhh, when did I say it was proven that it occurs in humans? I said it occurs in other animals and since humans have similar DNA to those animals that it might be possible to have humans mutated genes that allow them to sense electro and/or magnetic fields, although is there a difference between that and brain waves?

Edited September 9, 2011 by questionposter

[kitkat]

There are too many examples of people that state, "a person that they have not thought of in awhile pops into their head and that person calls them soon after that."

[Greg Boyles]

Uhhhhhh, when did I say it was proven that it occurs in humans? I said it occurs in other animals and since humans have similar DNA to those animals that it might be possible to have humans mutated genes that allow them to sense electro and/or magnetic fields, although is there a difference between that and brain waves?

 

Yes the ability to detect electric fields and vibrations are present in fish. But fish ad humans are seperated by hundreds of millions of years on the evolutionary tree and we do not share those abilities wish them. Apart from the fact that sea water, and even fresh water, is a far better conductor of electricity than is air.

 

The only way humans can detect brain waves is by attaching wires to the surface of the skull via a conductive gel. Brainwaves can not propagate from one brain to another through poorly conductive air and we no not have receptors to detect them anyway.

 

Come one mate leave out the science fiction and deal with the science fact only.

 

There are too many examples of people that state, "a person that they have not thought of in awhile pops into their head and that person calls them soon after that."

 

PLEASE!

[Ringer]

Although written and verbal language 'data' arrive at Wernicke's and Broca's areas of the brain via different routes, it is still processed by these two areas. So there is no fundamental difference between written and spoken language as far as the human brain goes.

 

Google it and see for yourself.

 

With this logic I can also conclude that since both chess and face recognition, as well as reading before it reaches Broca or Wernicke's area, use suclus between the temporal lobe and the occipital lobe chess is just as natural as recognizing faces.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Ringer

[John Cuthber]

There are too many examples of people that state, "a person that they have not thought of in awhile pops into their head and that person calls them soon after that."

Unless you can calculate how many such cases there should be, you cannot say there are "too many".

[kitkat]

Unless you can calculate how many such cases there should be, you cannot say there are "too many".

 

I do not have to calculate anything, I base this on personal experience and by asking other people if this has happened to them and the answer is always "yes!"

[John Cuthber]

I do not have to calculate anything, I base this on personal experience and by asking other people if this has happened to them and the answer is always "yes!"

How often does it happen?

How often should it happen simply by chance?

Until you can answer those, you are not doing science.

[kitkat]

How often does it happen?

How often should it happen simply by chance?

Until you can answer those, you are not doing science.

 

When you put it that way, my response cannot be commented on by science minded individuals since its not something that can be studied in the first place.

[John Cuthber]

When you put it that way, my response cannot be commented on by science minded individuals since its not something that can be studied in the first place.

Yes it can.

It's possible to come up with an estimate of the probability of the event based on chance and to compare that to the observed incidence.

If you do I rather suspect that you will find that the best explanation is coincidence.

You might see if you can track down a copy of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)

[iNow]

When you put it that way, my response cannot be commented on by science minded individuals since its not something that can be studied in the first place.

John is absolutely right. It can be studied, quite easily, in fact. You are talking to 3 or 4 local friends or relatives and assuming that their response is an adequate representation of the entire population. That's a very inappropriate manner by which to draw conclusions.

 

Further, you must recognize the effect of the confirmation bias. You're going to over-remember those encounters which reinforce (or confirm) your existing thinking and you're going to under-remember those encounters which show no effect at all.

 

So, using your example... Let's say a "friend pops into our head and then the phone rings." We remember that instance, and it happens maybe once per year. However, what about all of the times that a "friend pops into our head" and then the phone does NOT ring? That happens a LOT... Probably several hundred or even thousands of times per year. Yet, you don' t remember those. You only remember the times it reinforces your preconception... You have a confirmation bias.

 

If you were to look at the numbers like John is suggesting (and which I concur is absolutely possible to do, despite your claims to the contrary), you'd probably see that 99.7% of the time nothing happens when a friend pops into our head, and that only 0.3% of the time they do... and that this is in no way better than chance alone would dictate.

 

And yet... here you are... and several people just like you... putting forth an assertion that somehow that incredibly tiny and miniscule effect which is hardly an effect at all is somehow a massive issue not being paid enough attention.

 

Look at the numbers. You're fooling yourself if you think there is validity in this. If it's possible, there is a mechanism. If there is a mechanism, it can be detected. If you haven't detected it yet, then you're wasting your time arguing about something that is solely in your imagination.

[swansont]

So, using your example... Let's say a "friend pops into our head and then the phone rings." We remember that instance, and it happens maybe once per year.

 

In addition, we also tend to expand the time of this — "I was just thinking about you" sometimes means today, but also can mean yesterday or in the last week. That changes the probabilities dramatically.