Big Name Neuroscientist Announces Telepathy as Proven Fact!

it has amazing potential to do good or evil. i've been extremely hungry, extremely sick, extremely thirsty, in intense pain, in sudden acute pain and nothing is worse than going slowly insane from a brain infection. nothing's worse.
for something like this to be good would require we all be in optimum physical, mental and emotional health, and for that to happen, the definition of health in each instance would have to be agreed upon by all. and therein lies the problem. what if your idea of health of these types is not the same as someone else's and they decide, in order for you to be allowed access to the group mind you must match or meet their requirements of health. if you don't qualify, you aren't useful, and if you aren't useful, you're just a carbon emissions emitter. i dunno, it sounds like genocide waiting to happen. solve two problems, create a whole bunch more.
it hasn't been my personal experience that people, when given a great deal of power over your life, will consistently use it wisely, i mean even as individuals we will occasionally realize we didn't use power over our own lives, wisely.

i like it but also think it sounds like it would create as many if not more problems than it would solve.

I don't believe we can achieve full telepathy when we're still in human form. Humans have yet to conquer duality(or to put it simply, control bad thoughts), and it would just be weird if you can read other people's minds and they were having say, certain fantasies. It would also be a violation of free will, as someone mentioned.

Fortunately, the Creator knew this, so he has made it so that if you want to communicate with someone from a distance, you can do it through the heart instead. The problem is that at this point, I'm still in the process of finding out what and what information you can send through the heart. All I can say so far is that if you want to send your energy to someone, and if you "think of the right reasons" and send those through your heart, then it will work.

Somehow, I believe that quantum entanglement is just the scientific name for telepathic connection.

reply to post by doomedtoday


Why should you, as a master psychologist, think anyone would find it unusual that you might be interested in this subject when psychology itself is a subjective pseudo science.

As a psychologist wouldn't it be negligent to completely disregard this subject matter anyway?

Originally posted by WWu777
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a distinguished biologist and author, has also conducted noteworthy telepathy experiments that have confirmed the existence of ESP. In his books, such as "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home" and "The Sense of Being Stared At", he has documented telepathic experiments involving animals knowing in advance when their owners were coming home, and humans who were able to demonstrate consistent above chance that they could sense when they were being stared at. His findings were so airtight and irrefutable in fact, that arch debunker James Randi could do nothing but use cheap ad hominem attacks on him and his research.

Dr. Sheldrake believes that a “morphic resonance field” exists between humans and animals, which account for the existence of telepathy. You can learn more about Dr. Sheldrake’s research and books on his website at www.sheldrake.org...

(bolding and underline, mine)

Hello WWu777,

To begin with: I think that it would be "nice" if these claims were true, but until proven concretely and unfalsifiable, a skeptic viewing of these claims should be adhered to.
Therefore:

Do you happen to have a source for these attacks allegedly made by James Randi?
I would be curious to see what they were and why he made them.
He (JR) usually just asks the claimant to participate in a controlled experiment and if proven correct he will be awarded the $1M prize!

Also the "believes" statement regarding a “morphic resonance field”?
Is there any substantial and/or irrefutable proof of said field?

I "believe" that this video with Michael Shermer should be required viewing by all ATS posters prior to starting any thread:

With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation and bogus claims, and get to the truth?
Inspired by Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine lays out a "Baloney Detection Kit," ten questions we should ask when encountering a claim.

The 10 Questions:
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Thanks for your time in answering my questions.

Best regards,
Tom

reply to post by tomdham


you had me there till you posted that video. that's not a very nice video. it asks you to suspend disbelief as long as the topic is what it's presenting and then tells you not to suspend disbelief when what the person is saying follows a certain set of circumstances. then he gives examples like alternative energy, telepathy, anti-global warming, etc. he's selling a bill of goods, that he hopes is mainstream enough that most people will support it just because so many others do. i wonder if he has ever asked himself if common consensus is that stable of an indicator of reliable evidence.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by tomdham

 

you had me there till you posted that video.

I thought it was relevant to the asserted claims of:

Big Name Neuroscientist Announces Telepathy as Proven Fact!

that's not a very nice video.

The video is very basic and clear in it's message and I thought it was a "nice" video!

it asks you to suspend disbelief as long as the topic is what it's presenting and then tells you not to suspend disbelief when what the person is saying follows a certain set of circumstances.

Would you be more specific? I don't see this. I think it is the other way around: suspend belief until proven "scientifically" and/or "rationally" otherwise.

then he gives examples like alternative energy, telepathy, anti-global warming, etc. he's selling a bill of goods, that he hopes is mainstream enough that most people will support it just because so many others do.

I cannot speak for Michael Shermer but I think he uses these examples because they are common (i.e.: popular) areas of misconception, also known as, unproven, unrepeatable and sometimes blatant lies, phenomena or claims.

i wonder if he has ever asked himself if common consensus is that stable of an indicator of reliable evidence.

Again, I cannot speak for Michael Shermer, but I for one KNOW that common consensus is definitely NOT an indicator of reliable evidence unless you are speaking of verifiable, repetitive testing with similar results as is the scientific method.

OK, here is a radio show with Dr. Carl Sagan. There are 6 videos (talking) each is about 9.5 minutes long and I think they are

nice

, informative and quite refreshing.
You don't have to listen, just thought you might enjoy them.

American astronomer Carl Sagan discusses (on one of his last public addresses) issues regarding Science, superstition, religion, faith, education, skepticism, and Humanism.
Also UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, NDEs (near-death experiences), spiritualism, and other superstitious inclinations.

Thank you for your response and look forward to your reply.
I still don't really "believe" that telepathy is "proven" even after watching the OP video and reading the other information provided.

Best regards,
Tom

And for the OP another video:

What does it mean to be skeptical?
What does it mean to cast doubt on something you feel is not right, despite popular consensus?
What does one refer to when judging whether or not something is real?
The following is a crash course on common claims that have failed under proper scientific scrutiny.

unless you are speaking of verifiable, repetitive testing with similar results as is the scientific method.

reply to post by tomdham


well here we go with one example that bugs me:

the process of information gathering in the scientific process requires things like prior findings. now if we follow that trail, all the way back to the inception of science as a field of inquiry, we find that initially, their findings were tied into many scientific and historical misunderstandings, mistakes or just flat out errors. it's to be expected that they will make mistakes as they are after all, only in the constant process of discovery. however this is not how it's presented. it's presented as fact, and if you disagree at any level whatsoever, you have a problem. it's not that you might have a point. nope. because if your disagreement doesn't support their findings, it's an agenda. it's always an agenda unless it agrees with their position. haven't you figured that out yet? everyone's got an agenda.

it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that human beings cannot be created in any fashion other than via sexual congress and vaginal delivery. then they found evidence that some children were delivered from time to time, throughout history, via crude c-sections. then it was discovered that inception could take place in a test tube and artificially inseminated into the mother and artificially removed via c-section. then it was discovered that animals could be cloned. and then the science was available to reach the goal of cloning humans. by the time the dust cleared, their initial statement that humans couldn't be created via any other fashion than sexual congress and vaginal delivery, turned out to be flat wrong.

if they say it, it's science. if an ancient text says it, it's a fairy tale. why? science doesn't become science once you discover some property of it, after all, it was there before you found it, in fact, it's been there for a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time. just that alone irritates me. you already have evidence that ancient history has instances, in many ancient texts from all over the planet, that things that were called unscientific, were called so because science didn't know how to do it AT THE TIME.

it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that human beings cannot fly in any fashion other than jumping off a building, out of a tree, from a mountain top or launched in a catapult. the wright brothers say hi.

it was suggested (no, make that "Determined") that we would never be able to travel to other planets, that lifeforms cannot exist in extremely hostile environments, that entire cities can't be wiped out with a single weapon, that people cannot be resuscitated once dead, that troy never existed, that ancient greeks couldn't write, and that gilgamesh never existed, and on and on.

these things had to FIRST be determined via scientific inquiry, whether they were scientifically possible or not, before they were labelled fairy tales. that was 300 years ago. 300 year old science is telling you that science is not possible and you believe them because they taught you to believe you can't prove it. it's mind boggling logic. of course you can prove it. just go in a maternity ward for a few days or a cloning facility. go to a freakin' airport or visit kennedy space center. those rockets are going somewhere, and there are people in them.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL, OH NO, THAT IS NOT ALL.

a dig site is dated. later, an archaeology team comes in and begins to excavate the site. they find bones they find a beer can they find some forged metal they find a spoon they find a shiny rock with some scratches in it. they pull out the documentation on the date of the site and start pitcihng out anything that doesn't match the date, as contaminated evidence. they don't put it thru any further tests because they've already decided that some items would not be found in the geological layer at the date specified. so what was that about "verifiable, repetitive testing"?

now i'm not saying there aren't shysters out there and people not willing to ask enough questions before they believe something, in fact, i'd suggest this is true for the scientific community as well. so i don't get the high brow, condescending sneer. it's like an exclusive club membership which pretends it can do no wrong when everyone else knows they are human beings like the rest of us, and perfectly capable of not only making mistakes, but also ignoring evidence, jumping the gun, providing false evidence to make a case because the alternative was not acceptable, ripping people off by claiming something was scientifically valid when it wasn't, poisoning people with radiation because it was thought uranium was actually good for you, and on and on.

sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings
.

This actually is pretty interesting. A scientific approach to the paranormal. Combine them long enough and you'll get fact out of the unexplained and it won't be paramormal anymore. Just plain normal.

But it looks like people here are confusing the "problem with the issue" so to speak. Some people see it as being able to read minds word for word, while others see it as feeling others' emotions. Those 2 are not the same. One is specific and one is general. If the right person looks at me at the right time, when I'm being overly emotional about something, they too will be able to pick up on my emotion.( They won't however be able to read my mind word for word) Whatever that emotion might be. It dosn't matter how much of a poker face I keep. I think it has to do with the LEVEL of emotion one person is putting out. Kind of like the amount of electrical currents that the human touch can feel and what it can't.

People picking up on others' emotions is nothing new. What I'd like to know is what sets off a seemingly random connection between 2 people. Do 2 people have to be on the same "wavelength" so to speak? And what puts them there? Have they ALWAYS been there? Does one person then have to send out a stronger than usual "signal" to attract the other? Why is it that some people can connect is this way while others can't? Why is it the term "when sparks fly" (referring to 2 people who hit it off before they even know each other personally), was coined long before anybody gave any serious thought to the "electrical" connection between people? Did we subconciously know this all along?

What this guy did was show how it's done so it can be scientifally proven. Without that kind of concrete and formally accepted truth, further research can't be done. So yes, I believe he's opening up quite a few doors here. Are we ready psychologically to go through them? Some of us and some of us aren't. But if 2 people are on the same wavelength, and they know it, I believe they're ready to know HOW it all works whether they realize that they're ready or not. ( If THAT makes any sense. )

Interesting topic.

reply to post by WWu777


It was only a matter of time before scientists finally figured this out. It only took them this long because of the tiny box scientists have confined themselves to. They often think they know how reality functions without even testing those assumptions. It's the most unscientific train of thought to claim something isn't real without actually knowing it for a fact. To start with each of us emit electromagnetic brainwaves that could easily be picked up by other people. Secondly, we have yet to understand the entire nature of quantum mechanics and things such as quantum entanglement properly. Most of all, we have yet to really understand the nature of sentient consciousness. Reality is so much more complex and amazing than most scientists can comprehend.

Dr. Michael Persinger is a man after my own heart. He is what all scientists should be.

This is great news.

ALS

Originally posted by cuervo
The possibilities of utilizing these results are insane. Emitters could be placed around the world like a grid and actually create a direct and organic internet. The empathy required to digest this sort of brain functionality would force people to actually feel and experience the injustices they are responsible for.

This, combined with (near) free energy sources, would completely end all conflict and greed.

I feel we are actually approaching a fully ethical society that many have been predicting. Or... it will just be used to advertise pharmaceutics and McDonalds.

Yes, but I see a more sinister use for these new public monitoring devises, imagine the scene in the not too distant future we have your organic internet grid as suggested in all major populated cities, we also have a Mind Reading Grid

Researchers have demonstrated a striking method to reconstruct words, based on the brain waves of patients thinking of those words. The technique reported in PLoS Biology relies on gathering electrical signals directly from patients' brains. Based on signals from listening patients, a computer model was used to reconstruct the sounds of words that patients were thinking of. The method may in future help comatose and locked-in patients communicate. Several approaches have in recent years suggested that scientists are closing in on methods to tap into our very thoughts; the current study achieved its result by implanting electrodes directly into a part of participants' brains.

When this is perfected units will read the thoughts and also if required see your thoughts and relay them to a computer system for cross reference and possible use as evidence against future crimes and or previous so called violations of law, this is like a mind reading cctv network, this may be utilized as small mobile units or as fixed or mobile checkpoints in specific locations in the city of high security were people are direct too by Sound Weapon

Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent. Some sonic weapons are currently in limited use or in research and development by military and police forces. Others exist only in the realm of science fiction. Some of these weapons have been described as sonic bullets, sonic grenades, sonic mines, or sonic cannons. Some make a focused beam of sound or ultrasound; some make an area field of sound. Although many real sonic and ultrasonic weapons are described as "non-lethal", they can still kill under certain conditions.

Whole cities will also be surrounded by these pointing towards areas of containment this weapon is also used for keeping unwanted guests away and dispersal of insurgent radical groups and protest movements.

Take into account the fact that we already have the network in place for the first phase, Mobile phones, internet, CCTV, RFID, Social networks etc etc, are all live and doing their thing. Add to this the Big Brother Pill

UK – Pills that can monitor the reaction of a patient to their current medication and subsequently send resulting data to their mobile phone or PC should be available in the UK this coming autumn. The Helius pills, a “digital health product” which have been developed by Proteus Biomedical, a US company with headquarters in California, will be sold through Lloyds Pharmacy, possibly from September, to people with chronic health issues. The pills have a soluble microchip and are taken along with a patient’s prescribed medications; this has a reaction with stomach acid causing it to emit an electrical pulse duly received by an adhesive patch applied to the patient’s skin. The transferred data shows respiratory and heart rate, and body temperature.

This is just the tip of the ice berg I could go on and on but I wont I will finish this with the Prophet Arnold and the scary accurate vision of our future in 2017. watch the title and look at how people are treated in the city like prisoners. Its a great film I recommend watching

Some of the comments that I've read so far are interesting to me for the fact that they make mention of knowing when someone gets into an accident or gets killed, because such a thing has recently happened for me. Please allow me to relate my experience here, as I wasn't sure which of the related threads I should share in, if any. On January 17, 2012, a dear friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. I was not told of his death until nine in the morning. I did not start crying immediately, in fact I really let it out when I was able to see his body a few days later after autopsy, I think that my reaction was due, in part, to my experiences before his death. I was told that he had been hit around 1:30 am, I was awake at this time. In fact, before that time I was outside smoking a cigarette in the company of my dad when I heard what sounded like several snowmobiles racing when I was filled with fearful frantic anticipation. When I heard this I actually blurted out, "Somebody's gonna get bumped!" A few seconds later I blurted out the name of my friend. I was shocked and confused at myself since I dislike when other people make statements like that and therefore refrain from making such hasty declarations myself. I went into my house with a deep sense of dread, I felt like I was losing my mind, partly because I was feeling panicky for my friend, and so I asked God not to let my friend be hurt. I knew without knowing that he would die, I asked that he wouldn't feel any pain, from what I heard, he was struck at about 120 mph with a snowmobile. That night I was overcome with the thought that there was something I should do, that there was no time to waste, I felt like calling up his mom but had no proof of anything to convince her of what I was feeling. The feeling waned and I went to sleep at around 2:30am or so. When I say I felt like I was losing my mind, and gave only part of the reason, that's because about a week or so before these events I had a disturbing dream. I drempt that I was in a place of white light all around, walking, wondering, "What the heck! Where am I? Have I died? What's going on?" then in my dream my friend walked up to me. I said, "____ what are you doing here!?" The first thing he told me was that he was going away. I knew what he meant, deep down inside I knew. "Where are you going?! AVTEC?! Are you going to Job Corps?! What do you mean?!" He didn't bother telling me what he meant, he knew I knew. I'm not sure exactly what he told me next. I think he told me to pray and expect and to visit him before he went. He gave me a hug, reiterated what he told me to do, and as I was leaving, I think he said, "You're next, ya know." My reaction was, "Oh!......yeah, okay." nodding my head, knowing what he meant immediately and accepting it. As I went futher along walking away, just before I woke up, I told God, "I want one weeks notice!" He knew I meant that I wanted a weeks notice before my own death, to try to prepare or something, somehow. When I woke up I was perplexed, amazed. I couldn't get it out of my mind and was left with a feeling that things were about to change soon. I saw my friend about a week before he died at the store, before we parted after we chatted, I had a strong feeling that I should tell him about my dream, I didn't know what to think, all I could do was hope that it was just a dream and nothing more. I gave him a hug and told him to be careful and jokingly said, "Don't get hit by a snowmachine." I just used it as an example, I didn't actually think he'd get hit. I just said it to keep him mindful of any risks or dangers that could be possible in this area. I had myself convinced that it was a dream, I had no tangible proof but a dream, a feeling, a conviction in my heart. I had denied what I knew in my heart, for the sake of supposed logical reality and not to seem any more crazy that I already do because I have several strange experiences I've told my family about they have berated and ridiculed me for them so I've learned that it's up to an individual to go with their own convictions, they would deny me for the same reason I initially denied myself. My friend's brother and sister told me that a few days before his passing that he said, "When I die, I'm going to take my puppy with me." Sure enough the puppy died not long after my friend. His sister responded, "Don't talk like that." Remember when I said I wanted one weeks notice? Well, I think I got it, I had a dream a couple weeks ago that I was told the date of my death by two already deceaced people I knew. The thing is, I can't remember who they are exactly, but that I knew them, and one or both of them was a girl. When they told me I was trying to cheer myself up, thinking that the date was neat. 02,12, 2012. I only remembered the date on the fifth. So now I'm not sure what to think. I told my sister and my dad about it. They don't believe me. I'll just have to wait and see, I've got three more days left to find out

Good, so lets organize and set up one of the first companies offering Telepathic services. Any takers?

reply to post by undo

it has amazing potential to do good or evil. i've been extremely hungry, extremely sick, extremely thirsty, in intense pain, in sudden acute pain and nothing is worse than going slowly insane from a brain infection. nothing's worse.
for something like this to be good would require we all be in optimum physical, mental and emotional health, and for that to happen, the definition of health in each instance would have to be agreed upon by all. and therein lies the problem. what if your idea of health of these types is not the same as someone else's and they decide, in order for you to be allowed access to the group mind you must match or meet their requirements of health. if you don't qualify, you aren't useful, and if you aren't useful, you're just a carbon emissions emitter. i dunno, it sounds like genocide waiting to happen. solve two problems, create a whole bunch more.
it hasn't been my personal experience that people, when given a great deal of power over your life, will consistently use it wisely, i mean even as individuals we will occasionally realize we didn't use power over our own lives, wisely.

i like it but also think it sounds like it would create as many if not more problems than it would solve.

I agree with you completely, and stated such earlier. Further, with a computer interface involved, I am not sure how much manipulation and inducement may be going on, without being able to track it....telepathy or techepathy, I would call it if such IS going on. It's not really that I don't believe telepathy is possible, but once you involve the extraneous to "prove" it, especially via means that does actually induce and manipulate the brain and emotional states, I become suspicious. Seems, in fact, like a way to "sell" the mind controlling tech to people who might otherwise reject it, by spinning it to show them something they find more acceptable, even comforting, as it reaffirms and vindicates those who have already experienced this, while science argued, supposedly, that nothing like that existed. It can be seen here happening in people's responses to this, as though it will be an answer to what's been happening so far, when what is used to "prove" and detect this, may, in fact, have been and be the cause of what's been happening so far.
Many believe we have a sentient AI already, perhaps already a kind of technological singularity. If we did, then this may not be telepathy at all.
This is the way to the "hive" mind, if it isn't reality already. Someone else mentioned we are supposed to get rid of our "pesky egos" to progress, leaving behind aggression, violence, etc. But those "pesky" things are inherent to our survival, also. It's how we perceive pain, self preservation, danger, threat, etc...

reply to post by GreatScot


Thanks for all that. Agree completely. Not sure we aren't really already there to some extent, for if you can find info about it, usually it means it's been there far longer.

"a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states."

Religious states? A helmet can make someone who uses it religious?

Originally posted by Vandettas
"a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states."

Religious states? A helmet can make someone who uses it religious?

There is a part in our brain that is designated to religion. Well...they call it religion but I've suspected for a long time that the religion part in our brain is actually the part that gives us that invisible social cohesion or telepathy. No, this is not copyrighted, feel free to spread the news before the scientists find out ;-)

Originally posted by Vandettas
"a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states."

Religious states? A helmet can make someone who uses it religious?

I remember reading something about it a while ago. Apparently he was able to prove that there is a part in our brain designated to religious states of mind (as the poster above explains), it's this part of our brain that makes us sometimes believe that there is a higher power. If I remember correctly, he claimed that some people make use of this part of their brain much more than others. This part of the brain is basically our 'spiritual' center, and it's not just related to religious states of mind, but basically most spiritual frames of mind, so I'm not surprised to see that this has led to this discovery. PS -I am not religious but I'm a fairly spiritual type of person. I guess some people use this part of their brain in different ways.

mindblown, i feel like my brain is awakening more and more, and the whole "mind is racing" thing is like when your brain has detangled some of the mess and it now makes sense. The truth is so pressed down, hidden, blocked,distorted on purpose by technology and ruling people that the feeling of freedom is amazing, when you actually feel like you've found a piece of the jigsaw and are actually starting to realise and research the true path, and not the path that is forced upon us.