http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qttI6oytqpw
Flaming telepaths in my mind. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qttI6oytqpw
Flaming telepaths in my mind. lol
Originally posted by alltoomany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MhQ6v0y3o8
The forer effect and the need to belong are two very good reasons that people are cotinually conned and shammed into believing in unscientific stuff such as "indigo" and "crystal" children.
It is almost as bad as selling "healing water" to people because some people may have actual problems that need to be addressed rather than being "indigo" people.
Czarina was a poster that believed in that stuff. Oh the days...
Originally posted by Mindship
What do you mean by a "true" telepath? How would it manifest?And what would reading the future by "testing" mean?
Seems to me you may be comparing what we think true telepathy ("mind-reading"😉 is (based largely on fictional notions), and tech-based precognition ("seeing the future" via laws of physics).
A true telepath would be someone who can scan thoughts and memories or such.
A person who reads the future is someone who can see what happens in the future in a consistent basis.
We assume that this phenomena -technologic or otherwise- are going to be tested in order to find out if they exist, by a series of questions/answers or whatever. The point I was trying to pass is that a person who reads the future can falsify most of the telepathy tests you can get, since he will be reading the results of the tests instead of the thoughts themselves.
So I was wondering if there is any definitive tests that could prove telepathy over some other non-physical manifestations.
Originally posted by Bentley
A true telepath would be someone who can scan thoughts and memories or such.A person who reads the future is someone who can see what happens in the future in a consistent basis.
We assume that this phenomena -technologic or otherwise- are going to be tested in order to find out if they exist, by a series of questions/answers or whatever. The point I was trying to pass is that a person who reads the future can falsify most of the telepathy tests you can get, since he will be reading the results of the tests instead of the thoughts themselves.
Basically, any sentience significantly developed, could deceive any lower sentience into believing it is clairvoyant. Our universe is very deterministic. If a sentience could be “aware” enough, it could weigh all potential variables and come to a conclusion with the highest probability of being “correct”. The more aware of all variables in the set that concerns that decision, the closer to correct it would be every time. In a perfect system of “awareness”, the computer would never be wrong about anything. It would achieve, for all intents and purposes, god-like sentience.
Then, at that point, we could ask it: is there a "god"? AHA! 😆
Originally posted by Bentley
So I was wondering if there is any definitive tests that could prove telepathy over some other non-physical manifestations.
I don't understand the question, as an island. In your post, contextually, your question seems easy to answer: just set up the test to be "unknowable" through observation and look for your results being less than your p-value.
What does that mean? Well, most people that say they are telepathic are just really observant and know the "game". Making it impossible to "observe" enough of the test to extrapolate corrects answers enough to make their results "significant" is one way to prove telepathy.
I believe some use Faraday cages and electromagnetic shielding to accomplish more control in their studies (but how effecitve is that?). Use a computer to have people guess which image will display. Have the person guess when it will be displayed. Have the person they are supposed to be 'reading' right next to the person, but unseen and unheard...that way they could "read" the person. You could have the person in a shielded and sound proof room, sitting behind the "telepath". They then guess which image (say...four possible images) will be displayed, establish your control, establish your p-value, establish your null hypothesis, and go to town.
That's just off the top of my head and it probably has some problems, but it controls for visual cues that some "smart" people may be able to pick up on and it allows for the telepathy to work through their supernatural means. I think a test like that has already been setup. Proved that the "telepaths" were just as good as the control groups at guessing the image/symbol.
Agreed on the first part.
The second -just to clarify- was just meant to say that without a decent way of testing, we can get all sorts of conclussions without really proving a premise that seems "simple". god-like calculations and predictions are more feasible than telepathy in our current model of experimentation, and thus, assuming one over the other without any decent proof, would be unscientific. I was just wondering if a testing that actually confirmed telepathy could be devised.
Originally posted by BentleyUnderstood.
The point I was trying to pass is that a person who reads the future can falsify most of the telepathy tests you can get, since he will be reading the results of the tests instead of the thoughts themselves.
This reminds me of "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray. That diner scene, eg, where he's telling the female reporter what he knows about each person: what can come across as telepathy or even precognition (eg, the waiter dropping the dishes) was really only a surface difference, ie, a difference to everyone else who couldn't "see" what Phil (the Murray character) could "see" (ie, the repeating day). To Phil, all these "different" phenomena were really based on a single, simple mechanism.
I suspect that if we do one day prove that telepathy, precog, clairvoyance, and even PK exists, we will invariably discover that they are all based on a single, simple process, something more quantum-based (Groundhog Day hinting at this), and not Newtonian based (ie, the "psychic" is sending/receiving energy which travels from point A to point B through spacetime).