Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Unified Thought

  1. #1 Unified Thought 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Awhile ago, I came up with a hypothesis that we share and transmit brain waves. What type of experiments would be able to be conducted with our current equipment that could prove or disprove this notion?


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Place two strangers in two adjacent rooms. Give one a picture to study of a public figure that both would recognise, but is not one that is found in the media often. Ask that one to study the picture and think of this person's role in whatever he does. Ask the person in the second room to think of a field (the same one as the guy in the picture is involved in. Then ask them to think of a person that is involved in this field and name him/her. Obviously it should be conducted with as many subjects as possible and using double-blind practices. Effort should be made to keep participants away from each other for the duration of the experiment.

    Different things should be tested. Like, have one look at a card with a shape underneath an almost opaque cover, so the subject would have trouble making out the shape. Give the second one a clean card of the same colour, but tell him/her that there is something it should be seeing. Have both of them draw the shape they think they see on a separate piece of paper.

    Etc...


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm not talking about direct telepathy. More of a very sublte ability that helps the process of thought or understanding and communication that is entered into a subconciouis.
    This would explain why two people would be thinking about the same sort of thoughts.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I don't see why Kalster's suggestions wouldn't apply - it's basically testing how often two random people have the same thoughts.

    In all it would be a difficult thing to test since your definitions are kind of nebulous - exactly how is this ability supposed to effect other people, what types of thoughts are being targeted, etc etc.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    If your shared brain waves are something like EM waves you could try and mimic them and broadcast them to a "psychic" individual, and see if that's statistically different from a control.

    Like, one version involves a person thinking something
    Another involves random static
    another involves recorded EM transmissions (or whatever sort of wave psychic waves use) from a subject
    And the final control is absolutely nothing going on.

    Do it all double blind and see what you end up with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I don't see why Kalster's suggestions wouldn't apply - it's basically testing how often two random people have the same thoughts.

    In all it would be a difficult thing to test since your definitions are kind of nebulous - exactly how is this ability supposed to effect other people, what types of thoughts are being targeted, etc etc.
    With what I am wondering, they aren't direct telepathic thoughts, but they are able to shape your thought pattern. I am not talking about directly effecting what others are thinking, but a type system where it shapes peoples thoughts around you. make more sense?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I'm not talking about direct telepathy. More of a very sublte ability that helps the process of thought or understanding and communication that is entered into a subconciouis.
    This would explain why two people would be thinking about the same sort of thoughts.
    are you sure you're not talking about body language?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm talking about a force that assists with communication. No, not body language.. But something that acts as a support cause for communication.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Synchronicity? Well of course. You could put subjects into separate waiting rooms and see if they begin to fidget around the same time. Maybe lay out some time-killer activities and see if different people go through the same sequence.

    In terms of communication, that's easy. Have people watch a comedy routine employing a lot of comic timing. See if laughter breaks at the same moment in a pause. Actually I've wondered recently if laughter communicates "I thought something but can't express it." Why the rudest comedy tickles the unspeakable.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I'm talking about a force that assists with communication. No, not body language.. But something that acts as a support cause for communication.
    Perhaps the best design for testing unconscious communication could be inclusive of dream content. Subject "A" could be given the task of being a dream sender to subject "B", while subject "B" (unknown to "A" and the researcher and oblivious to the test parameters) is surreptitiously queried about odd dream experiences. If "B" reveals an dream experience suggestive of sender "A" contact, an argument for unconscious communication could be made. "B" would have to be selected at random and also live outside the social parameters of "A" and the researcher--just a thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Verzen, do you postulate that this is a general ability held by all people, or a particular ability held by a few? In the case of the latter, testing would be difficult - in tests like those being described in this thread, the few random positives that might appear in the sample would probably not raise a statistically significant signal. In that case you'd need to identify possible candidates and more directly test the possible mechanism involved.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I just have to skim the newspaper to realize that the 'hypothesis' put forward in the opening post, can go straight to the trash bin.

    There is no indication that people have unified thought.

    There is no indication of a possible mechanism (known to science).

    Those two characteristics make a poor foundation for any wannabe hypothesis.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I think Verzen means something normal, not paranormal like telepathy. He means something like sympathy... which does have neurological basis we're beginning to understand. He needs to be more specific.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    There is no indication that people have unified thought.

    There is no indication of a possible mechanism (known to science).

    Those two characteristics make a poor foundation for any wannabe hypothesis.
    Then thank goodness verzen is merely asking how one would test such a hypothesis, and not trying to state unequivocably that such a phenomenon exists.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10
    Well... there is an experiment where two one egg snail "twins" were brought to different locations far away. In the moment the researcher touched one snail with a needle, the other snail reacted too. I never red this publication, I remember the story about this experiment from biology lessons in school. I believe that the scientists were wondering about the way how the information about pain came to the second snail and if this information truly did travel from one snail to the other, then the speed of it could be higher than the speed of light.

    I remember this story because it seemed very interesting. By the way, let's try to find it in Google...!
    Latvian ice hockey team - next world champions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    There is no indication that people have unified thought.

    There is no indication of a possible mechanism (known to science).

    Those two characteristics make a poor foundation for any wannabe hypothesis.
    Then thank goodness verzen is merely asking how one would test such a hypothesis, and not trying to state unequivocably that such a phenomenon exists.
    You can't test something for which there is no mechanism thinkable.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Of course you can. You can predict the existence of a certain pattern and test whether or not that pattern actually exists. No mechanism required. Coming up with the cause of that pattern is of course a whole other kettle of fish.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    This may be a bit off topic, but I read a book on statistics that stated how people came to be thinking the same thing at the same time, and how you controlled that process. This was do to conservations increasing the probability of someone thinking a certain thing, it wasn't too impressive though. ("condom" ha ha I made you think about sex, I control your mind!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Of course you can. You can predict the existence of a certain pattern and test whether or not that pattern actually exists. No mechanism required. Coming up with the cause of that pattern is of course a whole other kettle of fish.
    You can't. Without a mechanism there is no prediction of pattern possible.

    Otherwise:

    I recorded that on tuesdays there are always two butterflies on the red flower, but never on fridays.

    You can of course, but it something that will be rejected during peer review since it is irrelevant without a mechanism.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Of course you can. You can predict the existence of a certain pattern and test whether or not that pattern actually exists. No mechanism required. Coming up with the cause of that pattern is of course a whole other kettle of fish.
    You can't. Without a mechanism there is no prediction of pattern possible.

    Otherwise:

    I recorded that on tuesdays there are always two butterflies on the red flower, but never on fridays.

    You can of course, but it something that will be rejected during peer review since it is irrelevant without a mechanism.

    Two points:

    What you're really talking about is how well the results of a given experiment might actually contribute to the development of scientific theory. And yes, some experiments most certainly do that better than others. Some experiments you can draw more meaningful conclusions from than others, and it probably is important for verzen to understand that just because he may or may not find a pattern predicted by a hypothesis of "unified thought" doesn't mean that's what it is until he researches it more.

    However, verzen is not a practicing scientist and unless I am mistaken he's not taking anything to a peer review board any time soon. He's a member of an internet forum who's curious about something. And one can conduct a perfectly valid statistically rigorous test that isn't interesting to anybody in the scientific community - but that doesn't negate the validity of the test. He just has to be careful about what he can and cannot conclude based on his test.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •