Telepathy works but where is scientific evidence?

1. Vinko Rajic is talking about in his videos on YouTube that he can use telepathy all the time and 100% correct on few kilometer.
Uri Geller could give evidence for telepathy at Stanford University.

2. At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
The Edinburgh University Koestler Lab could never confirm if telepathy works but they never did any experiment on Vinko Rajic
or Uri Geller, maybe they do not want to find that what are they looking for.

3. James Randi offer 1000000$ for any paranormal evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?

4. CIA's "remote viewing" , "Stargate Project", the ability to psychically "see" events, sites,
or information from a great distance.
Actually there is not evidence that this would be possible. Telepathic people like Vinko Rajic never know who is
sending to them. Human brains have not any number and is maybe impossible to know from which head you are receiving and to
which head you are sending. Theoretical this is impossible to localize someone on very long distance and connect it.

5. Grigori Rasputin , "the Mad Monk". There is evidence that he could use paranormal mind control.
Rasputin's influence over the royal family was used against him and the Romanovs by politicians and journalists who
wanted to weaken the integrity of the dynasty, force the Tsar to give up his absolute political power and separate the
Russian Orthodox Church from the state.
On November 19, 1916, Purishkevich made a rousing speech in the Duma, in which he stated,
"The tsar's ministers who have been turned into marionettes, marionettes whose threads have been taken firmly in hand by Rasputin
and the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna , the evil genius of Russia and the tsaritsa .

6. What is Schizophrenia? Schneider's symptoms of the first rank:

- Audible thoughts
- Voices heard arguing
- Voices heard commenting on one’s actions
- The experience of influences playing on the body
- Thought withdrawal and other interference with thought
- Diffusion of thought
- Delusional perception
- Feelings, impulses and volitional acts experienced as the work or influence of others

Using telepathy you can create most of "Schneider's symptoms of the first rank" on Vinko Rajic.

Why they do not do research on Vinko Rajic or on some other telepath and publish that?
Also telepathy is possible???????????

If you want something to work so badly for you.You think it does because that is what you want or imagine but you really don't do it.

I know it works, I have been using it since Xmen 1 in the 60's

Rasputin wasn't telepathic - if he lived today he would be making billions of dollars in advertising and public relations. It's called BEING A MANIPULATOR.

He just wouldn't die when they tried to kill him - He had two poison-laced brownie type things, both with enough poison to kill ten men. Then he was stabbed, and shot, and set on fire, but he finally died from drowning.

Oh yeah, and he was a pedophile. "Healing" the youngest grandson of Her Celestial Highness the Tsarina gives you a lot of points, especially if you're given full run of the castle afterward.

The point about James Randi's prize is a good place to start.

If someone could actually do telepathy, for real, the 1 million would be a drop in the bucket compared to what they'd make because of their talents. They would completely revolutionize our understanding of the mind, and introduce forces we're unaware of. Randi's prize is a joke, useful only to show that no one has actually been able to prove such phenomena. Interestingly, Geller and others have been invited to take Randi's test, which Randi himself does not oversee (they outsource the testing to avoid accusations of bias). Geller has refused, as have most high-profile supernaturalists. And the reason is simple: they're already lucrative and don't want to be proven wrong.

As it is, you're absolutely right, no actual evidence exists. I'd recommend Randi's books as a good starting point. Besides being a dogged debunker of Uri Geller (among others) his works explain how we are duped by such phony "psychics" and explains the tactics they use...which is usually a combination of statistical likelihood combined with adept improvisational and deception skills. Hell, or google "how to become a psychic" and you'll probably find instructions on how to employ the same tricks.

Telepathy isn't possible. Appeals to "science doesn't know everything" are in vain here. We've reliably tested thousands of these occurrences to know that it's a hoax. If anything like telepathy were to exist, it is different than how anyone you named is doing it.

So be careful with wording phrases like you did for this thread's title. You're assuming something exists without proper evidence. It should work the other way around.

Originally posted by Digi
...his works explain how we are duped by such phony "psychics" and explains the tactics they use...which is usually a combination of statistical likelihood combined with adept improvisational and deception skills. Hell, or google "how to become a psychic" and you'll probably find instructions on how to employ the same tricks.

Reminds me of the Southpark episode where they made fun of "John Edwards: Crossing Over."

Good times.

Originally posted by Digi
Telepathy isn't possible.

Now now...don't go making such sweeping generalizations. 😄 If there's one thing I take from science...it's that "impossible" is the only thing that is routinely proven wrong.

Yesterday's Psionics could be today's wireless data. We may, one day, be able to "read" eachother's thoughts. It would be, for all intents and purposes, telepathy. Just not the magic kind (well...not magic to us).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now now...don't go making such sweeping generalizations. 😄 If there's one thing I take from science...it's that "impossible" is the only thing that is routinely proven wrong.

Yesterday's Psionics could be today's wireless data. We may, one day, be able to "read" eachother's thoughts. It would be, for all intents and purposes, telepathy. Just not the magic kind (well...not magic to us).

"telepathy" is impossible

creating technology that simulates those functions, while still highly improbably, is not the same as telepathy being possible

us building planes makes humans no more capable of flight, in the literal sense. for-all-intents-and-purposes it might be, if, of course, you aren't debating someone in the literal sense. The OP has made it clear we aren't talking about future tech or some type of trans-humanism, they are talking about literal direct "non-local" communication between brains given some type of "natural" or "biological" function that exists today.

Originally posted by inimalist
while still highly improbably,

That statement, to me, is every bit as hokey as what psychics do.

Like....how do you know it's highly improbable? It seems to me to be much more probable than not.

Originally posted by inimalist
is not the same as telepathy being possible

I disagree.

I think it's the same exact thing.

Using your example, "humans flying" was thought impossible.

We still can't fly. We use machines to fly. So that's not what I was talking about.

The equivalent comparison would be gene manipulation or remote "avatars" that look like we do but have additional "goodies" which enable what looks like biological flight.

Meaning, there will be a point when two brains can communicate to each other through thoughts. Sure, there may be some facilitation, but it's every bit "telepathy" as our "magic" use of the term.

I consider the line you're drawing to be meaningless and more of a word game that useful.

If I read your minds correctly you disagree on this ladies.

Oh wise one...how you know our minds. 😄

mind-machine-mind telepathy. Or, synthetic telepathy. It's still telepathy. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
That statement, to me, is every bit as hokey as what psychics do.

Like....how do you know it's highly improbable? It seems to me to be much more probable than not.

neuroplasticity and the heterogeneous configurations individual brains suggests otherwise. There are a number of reasons why you should be highly skeptical of this type of technology, if you are really interested I'll see if I can whip something up. Its complicated neuroscience though /shrug

The biggest issues, though, would be that many "regions" of the brain are defined only by function, and much of the processing is not done in structural locations, but in distributive networks based on immediate and task context. You would require a piece of technology more complex than a brain for each individual subject with the communication instrument. Like, be as doe-eyed about future tech as you want, this is not a insignificant task. the fact that "time" will occur does not really suggest this type of thing is possible, as it would represent a milestone in human technology we haven't even begun to approach.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

I think it's the same exact thing.

Using your example, "humans flying" was thought impossible.

We still can't fly. We use machines to fly. So that's not what I was talking about.

The equivalent comparison would be gene manipulation or remote "avatars" that look like we do but have additional "goodies" which enable what looks like biological flight.

Meaning, there will be a point when two brains can communicate to each other through thoughts. Sure, there may be some facilitation, but it's every bit "telepathy" as our "magic" use of the term.

I consider the line you're drawing to be meaningless and more of a word game that useful.

ok, but that is entirely irrelevant to the debate. You can call them the same if you want, but the OP is clearly not talking about technologically based telepathy

Originally posted by inimalist
neuroplasticity and the heterogeneous configurations individual brains suggests otherwise.

Now, didn't I bring that up to you in another thread about a year ago? 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
There are a number of reasons why you should be highly skeptical of this type of technology, if you are really interested I'll see if I can whip something up. Its complicated neuroscience though /shrug

It actually does not exist (REAL technologically based telepathy) yet.

We are getting there such as mind controlled machines, measuring brain activity and mapping it to "known" patterns, and so forth.

But that's a far cry from what we need to actually "make" telepathy happen.

Originally posted by inimalist
The biggest issues, though, would be that many "regions" of the brain are defined only by function, and much of the processing is not done in structural locations, but in distributive networks based on immediate and task context. You would require a piece of technology more complex than a brain for each individual subject with the communication instrument.

And not to mention, how "predictive" the brain is. I am not saying that we can predict the brain's actions...but rather, that the brain predicts. That's how it works. We have yet to fully understand that.

The next big hurdle would be actually interfacing with the data stored on our neurons.

Originally posted by inimalist
The fact that "time" will occur does not really suggest this type of thing is possible, as it would represent a milestone in human technology we haven't even begun to approach.

Yeah, that's not true at all. You can stop pretending this is great big mystery that we can't hope to understand, at any time you want. Sure, there's quite a few mysteries about the brain, still. Neuroscience is still quite "new". But don't pretend that this is some giant "unknown" or mystery. That really does insult all the work done in neuroscience and belittles neuro-scientific discovery.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, be as doe-eyed about future tech as you want, this is not a insignificant task.

Could you possibly be any more irritatingly smug? 😬

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that is entirely irrelevant to the debate.

There's a debate?

Did I miss something?

Originally posted by inimalist
You can call them the same if you want, but the OP is clearly not talking about technologically based telepathy

It's definitely not. But go back and read what I quoted and responded to. "impossible" is the idea.

your argument doesn't seem to be anything more than "because time will happen we have to be able to accomplish it"...

what am I missing?

Originally posted by inimalist
your argument doesn't seem to be anything more than "because time will happen we have to be able to accomplish it"...

what am I missing?

More like, "we can't say it's impossible. In fact, it's more than likely to happen."

You must ask yourself why I think it's more than likely to happen?

Because I'm pretty much a giant materialist: there's nothing in the material world save we can know it (context is important).

If you believe in something super-natural about the brain (mind) and how it works, then, sure, we may not ever unlock its secrets because some of it "sits" outside of the natural world making it impossible to touch. But I don't really believe that.

Is that your angle? Do you think we have souls and our brains interface with memories stored on our souls or something? Because I could have sworn you were arguing the opposite a few months back. Again, I don't necessarily believe that. Sure, I believe in a soul...but I don't think memories are the souls' function.

Originally posted by dadudemon
More like, "we can't say it's impossible. In fact, it's more than likely to happen."

You must ask yourself why I think it's more than likely to happen?

Because I'm pretty much a giant materialist: there's nothing in the material world save we can know it (context is important).

If you believe in something super-natural about the brain (mind) and how it works, then, sure, we may not ever unlock its secrets because some of it "sits" outside of the natural world making it impossible to touch. But I don't really believe that.

Is that your angle? Do you think we have souls and our brains interface with memories stored on our souls or something? Because I could have sworn you were arguing the opposite a few months back. Again, I don't necessarily believe that. Sure, I believe in a soul...but I don't think memories are the souls' function.

God... I defend my thesis proposal in an hour... can't get sucked into this...

anyways, no, obviously I'm not saying "the brain can never be known"

but you are adding a layer on top of simply understanding how the brain works. You are talking about something that, for each person no matter how non-typical their neurological structure is, no matter how variant neurological structure is in the first place, no matter how variant neurological function can be for nearly identical tasks given minutia of local context within individuals, etc etc etc, we will, no matter what, be able to design something that can input and output data from this system (which is designed through neuroplasticity and evolution to have incredibly specific inputs and no coherent output), such that we can recreate telepathy. The easiest example I could think of would be an input to the cochlea and an output from M1 going to the muscles of the throat... however, even if that were possible (and it might be, actually), it would be less practical than a smartphone, and we aren't even factoring in things like transmission, selecting recipients and things of that nature.

I don't think appealing to the fact that we will know more about the brain in the future covers those obstacles at all. A lot of what we do know about the brain suggests that this will be a very, very difficult task.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think appealing to the fact that we will know more about the brain in the future covers those obstacles at all. A lot of what we do know about the brain suggests that this will be a very, very difficult task.

There's nothing to get sucked into.

edit - Meh, deleted everything.

We can talk about it later.

YouTube video

Originally posted by inimalist
God... I defend my thesis proposal in an hour...

...hope it went well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now now...don't go making such sweeping generalizations. 😄 If there's one thing I take from science...it's that "impossible" is the only thing that is routinely proven wrong.

Yesterday's Psionics could be today's wireless data. We may, one day, be able to "read" eachother's thoughts. It would be, for all intents and purposes, telepathy. Just not the magic kind (well...not magic to us).

Context and audience. Your rebuttal doesn't take into account my full statement, nor the fact that I was addressing the OP's idea of telepathy, not you.

Originally posted by Digi
Telepathy isn't possible. Appeals to "science doesn't know everything" are in vain here. We've reliably tested thousands of these occurrences to know that it's a hoax. If anything like telepathy were to exist, it is different than how anyone you named is doing it.

I think everything I said is completely justifiable.

As with many of our discussions, if you want to be absolute about it, I'll just go ahead and concede your Kurweilian fancies, because they don't really interest me. I'm much more interested what people believe already exists, not in hypothetical suppositions of what could someday be.

Originally posted by Digi
Context and audience. Your rebuttal doesn't take into account my full statement, nor the fact that I was addressing the OP's idea of telepathy, not you.

I don't consider my statement a rebuttal, at all. More like, "let's avoid extreme language" because of the uncertainty of what we may discover and alternate avenues that "self fulfill".

Originally posted by Digi
I think everything I said is completely justifiable.

As with many of our discussions, if you want to be absolute about it, I'll just go ahead and concede your Kurweilian fancies, because they don't really interest me. I'm much more interested what people believe already exists, not in hypothetical suppositions of what could someday be.

I didn't want a concession at all. Just wanted to be clear that we can't really make absolute statements. Who knows? Maybe magical/psionic telepathy really DOES exist. Extremely unlikely...but making an absolute statement about it either way can't really be done. By our current understanding, it's a safe bet on it NOT existing.

And that would be "Kurzweillian". 😄 And Kurzweil isn't the end all be all of the future of technology predictions...but we can be sure that some of his science based predictions will come true. Some were even self-fulfilling. Some were flat out wrong and some were vague enough to be right no matter what.

But is Kurzweil all about this telepathy thing? I don't believe I've ever read anything about him having a boner for technology facilitated telepathy (brain-machine-brain interfacing, basically).