Do you believe in telepathy?

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not believe in telepathy, but I think atelepathy is real.

 

[The Hammer]

Do you believe in telepathy?Yes or No?.I do.

I don't 'believe' in it, but I don't disbelieve either.

 

[VoidCat]

I don't know.

 

[Heyo]

Yes and I believe it has been shown in controlled testing too (Link here).

Do you also have links to peer reviewed scientific journals? I find it suspicious that there are non in the text. (And I know that Rhine has published in psychology journals. Only that his results were just below the significance threshold.)

 

[George-ananda]

Do you also have links to peer reviewed scientific journals? I find it suspicious that there are non in the text. (And I know that Rhine has published in psychology journals. Only that his results were just below the significance threshold.)

No, I don’t have links at my fingertips. I’d have to look into it but I have a good layman’s understanding. Telepathy tests and their results are not hard to understand.

I understand too that there are some that will stubbornly not accept positive results and will challenge into infinity. At some point the layman has to judge which side is trying to be the most reasonable with the facts. I’ve listened hard to the arguments of both sides.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Do you believe in telepathy?Yes or No?.I do.

I don't know. You tell me!

 

[Wandering Monk]

Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my right hand. - Steven Wright.

 

[Heyo]

I understand too that there are some that will stubbornly not accept positive results and will challenge into infinity.

I understand that there are some who will stubbornly insist that it exists and exaggerate results or relay anecdotal evidence.

At some point the layman has to judge which side is trying to be the most reasonable with the facts. I’ve listened hard to the arguments of both sides.

If it were useful, somebody would use it.

 

[George-ananda]

I understand that there are some who will stubbornly insist that it exists and exaggerate results or relay anecdotal evidence.

That's why I listen closely to both sides before forming an opinion. Fortunately there is nothing very complicated in telepathy testing as the experiments are not intended to uncover the mechanism of telepathy. They just show results not explainable by any known cause.

If it were useful, somebody would use it.

All I said is that I believe it is real. Whether it is strong enough to have practical application is a different issue. I believe in general telepathy is a weak but real human ability. That there must be a framework to allow it to happen is the momentous thing.

 

[HonestJoe]

It has been studied and tested.

What has been tested exactly? What is the hypothesis? What is the proposed process or mechanism involved?

Could it be that what you're describing are set of observed effects followed by an definitive assertion of a single cause for those effects?

 

[savagewind]

Yes. It is possible.

 

[Heyo]

What has been tested exactly? What is the hypothesis? What is the proposed process or mechanism involved?

Could it be that what you're describing are set of observed effects followed by an definitive assertion of a single cause for those effects?

Afaik telepathy has never left the phase of phenomenology. I.e. proponents of it say "there is something" but have no idea what it is nor have they formulated a testable hypothesis.
The only one who comes near a testable hypothesis is Sheldrake with his Morphogenetic Field (which is not specific to telepathy).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I had the ability of telepathy, I would do my best to see too it that no one believed it existed.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Maybe it was the stuff, but when you see trees glowing so bright with a dense aura of communication around it, I would reckon i am a telepath.

 

[joe1776]

What has been tested exactly? What is the hypothesis? What is the proposed process or mechanism involved?

The question is --- do telepathy and precognition actually exist?

Here's the problem: Experiences like the one I described with my daughter are anecdotal. I can't prove it actually happened. If you don't want to believe it, you can think I'm either a liar or delusional. Even if my daughter and I had been tested with positive results, the test could be, and certainly would be, challenged on one thing or another.

One successful test of telepathy in ordinary people, the ganzfeld, was later designed to be run entirely by computer, the autoganzfeld, to eliminate challenges of leakage of information, intentional or unintentional, between sender and receiver. The positive results of the autoganzfeld were then challenged on the math, a challenge that went back and forth for a couple of years before it was left unresolved.

Could it be that what you're describing are set of observed effects followed by an definitive assertion of a single cause for those effects?

This is my own pure speculation: The brain is obviously divided into two hemispheres, connected only at the corpus callosum. There's limited communication between the two sides. The conscious self is located in the left brain and is unaware, for the most part, of what's going on in the right brain. I suspect that the right brain, the unconscious, is connected to a greater reality, the entire universe, where there's lots of strange stuff going on.

 

[HonestJoe]

The question is --- do telepathy and precognition actually exist?

And that question (technically those questions) can't be answered unless and until those terms are formally defined.

Here's the problem: Experiences like the one I described with my daughter are anecdotal.

Experiences always will be which is why this can't only be about experience. The proposed causes and mechanisms for these experiences are at least as important. That way, tests for those hypothesised causes and mechanisms could be established independently of any personal experiences.

Unfortunately, most proponents for so-called "paranormal" or "supernatural" effects don't seem interested in taking this standard approach. It is worth noting that there are various things that were once believed to be "supernatural" that, once formally studied and understood, are recognised as entirely natural (lightning, mental illness, seizures etc.).

 

[joe1776]

And that question (technically those questions) can't be answered unless and until those terms are formally defined.

Defining them isn't a problem. They are effects that can be easily described but the causes are unknown.

Experiences always will be which is why this can't only be about experience. The proposed causes and mechanisms for these experiences are at least as important. That way, tests for those hypothesised causes and mechanisms could be established independently of any personal experiences.

You're mistaken. Science can only begin with an observed effect. Ordinarily, effects are obvious. They are not in doubt. THEN science tries to find causes.

With precognition and telepathy, the problem is proving that these effects actually happen. Mainstream scientists deny them because they haven't had such an experience.

 

[HonestJoe]

Defining them isn't a problem. They are effects that can be easily described but the causes are unknown.

The only actual effects we're talking about here are that some people sometimes appear to gain knowledge without any immediately apparent means for them to know it. Telepathy implies a specific process, the transfer of information from one place or person to another. If you can't define and demonstrate that transfer process, you're not necessarily demonstrating telepathy.

That is the core problem here. Something unexplained or unaccounted for is (apparently) observed and some people immediately start leaping to conclusions about how it happened. Those assumptions bias any further scientific study.

 

[Bird123]

Do you believe in telepathy?Yes or No?.I do.

Sure, telepathy exists somewhere in the universe. On the other hand, could you stand to have telepathy yourself? Could you really read what everyone else is thinking and not have your feelings hurt at some time?

I would say few people on Earth would be able to stand it without changing how they relate to others. On the other hand, there will always be those who could.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[joe1776]

The only actual effects we're talking about here are that some people sometimes appear to gain knowledge without any immediately apparent means for them to know it. Telepathy implies a specific process, the transfer of information from one place or person to another. If you can't define and demonstrate that transfer process, you're not necessarily demonstrating telepathy.

That is the core problem here. Something unexplained or unaccounted for is (apparently) observed and some people immediately start leaping to conclusions about how it happened. Those assumptions bias any further scientific study.

You don't understand the problem. You wrote: The only actual effects we're talking about here are that some people sometimes appear to gain knowledge without any immediately apparent means for them to know it.

Mainstream scientists do not admit what you wrote. In fact, they sully the reputations of scientists and universities who try to show that the effects actually exist. A test 60 years ago at Duke was successful. Not only did the test come under fire, but the university took heat as well. Duke hasn't funded a similar experiment since. They now do a lot of pharmaceutical drug studies.