August 12th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I am Neurology student , today I get email from one person that can use telepathy.
Is it possible that telepathy works on the distance of few kilometer?
I can not find any document on any existing person today that can use telepathy
but I found Vinko Rajic and Uri Geller and they are talking that they can use telepathy.
Why they do not make research on it? Many Schizophrenic are coming with similar story.
Can it be that some Schizophrenics are just receiving from some other head?
Victor, telepathy is not something that seems to happen, if at all, in a reliably repeatable fashion. It is therefore not something that can be proven to be a phenomenon that exists in fact.
I choose to believe psychic phenomena may occur...then again it may not occur. My experience with such leads me to believe it will never be proven to exist, if it really exists...or if out brains are just really that good at extrapolating the future from known events, and extrepolating what the people around us are thinking from knowing those people.
Yes, I am saying I have had such experiences...at least perceptually. Reality? I do not know.
Uri Geller is a fraud
I do not recommend you study this in any serious way or talk about this among your professional peers.
A neurology student who studies telepathy & schizophrenics and who just happens to literally sound like Vinko Rajic going by the name of Hedman? It would be like me going by the name of Mr. Doubtful. Maybe it's the skeptics like myself who are nuts and everybody else is normal.Originally Posted by VictorHedman
OK, than you have to watch Vinko's video. What is he talking about could be real story Evidence for Telepathy - thought transmission - YouTube .Victor, telepathy is not something that seems to happen, if at all, in a reliably repeatable fashion. It is therefore not something that can be proven to be a phenomenon that exists in fact.
I choose to believe psychic phenomena may occur...then again it may not occur. My experience with such leads me to believe it will never be proven to exist, if it really exists...or if out brains are just really that good at extrapolating the future from known events, and extrepolating what the people around us are thinking from knowing those people.
Yes, I am saying I have had such experiences...at least perceptually. Reality? I do not know.
Uri Geller is a fraud
I do not recommend you study this in any serious way or talk about this among your professional peers.
No I don't.
Something someone posted on youtube doesn't qualify as credible evidence IMO.
Telepathy is not something you should spend your time on. Many scientists take the 'dark road' trying to study pseudosciences and non repeatable phenomena and all it does is affect your credibility in the scientific community.
As a neurology student you should understand at least some of the limitations of the human brain. Our current understanding suggests that telepathy is not viable, and no matter how many videos are posted on youtube of the matter, that will not change. The video just shows a guy describing delusions. He says he hears people speaking to him, classic symptom of schizophrenia.
The Supernatural BBC science doc has a segment on telepathic fish:
[h=1]Supernatural (BBC)[/h]
Dolphins that use ultrasound to see human embryos lizards that can walk on water telepathic fish cryogenic frogs and bacteria that can make gold.... ; ; The sequel to Supersense made 11 years later that unravels the extrasensory feats and near-paranormal powers of animals combining state-of-the-art filming techniques with the latest research into animal senses.
Why they do not make test on Vinko and Uri? Both are talking that they are telepathic.
Vinko can use telepathy.Why they do not make test on Vinko and Uri? Both are talking that they are telepathic.
October 9th, 2011, 04:39 PM
I am medicine student , today I received email from one person that "can use telepathy".
Is it possible that telepathy works on the distance of few kilometer, correct and all the time?
I can not find any official document on any existing person today that can use telepathy
but I found Vinko Rajic and Uri Geller and they are talking that they can use telepathy.
Why they do not make research on it? Many Schizophrenic are coming with similar story.
Can it be that some Schizophrenics are just receiving from some other head?
James Randi offer 1000000$ for evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?
There is not scientific evidence for telepathy. Why this telepathy madness?
At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
Vinko maybe can give evidence for it but why they do not make an experiment with Vinko or Uri Geller?
Why are Schneider's symptoms of the first rank for Schizophrenia exact the same as Vinko's telepathy?
Is CIA's remove viewing project just a bluff because telepath's like Vinko can never find out who actually
is sending to them , also receiver or sender can never localize each other.
I think it is in interests of science and human kind to make some really research on Vinko and Uri.
New "Mad Monk" like Grigori Rasputin can happen again, some pararanormal people are very dangerous.
]
so why have they not done empirical tests on them and put out a peer reviewed paper of the findings?
why are you starting a new thread when you already have one on the exact same subject in a different subforum??
James Randi, a professional stage magician, has made a special study of Uri Geller. Randi has learned to repeat every single one of Geller's 'psychic' acts using trickery. Randi has challenged Geller to appear with him on TV for a showdown, and Geller repeatedly refuses. There is no doubt that he is a total fraud.
James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff - YouTube
To the best of my knowledge, so is every other person who claims to have psychic powers, except for those who are simply insane.
Professor Richard Wiseman is a scientist who has spent a big part of the last few decades researching so-called psychic powers. His conclusion is that they simply do not exist, and that they are the result of either outright fraud or self deception.
Richard Wiseman
Why did your friend bother to email you?
"Possible" like there could be Martians that control me through the antenna most people mistake for two errant hairs growing off the lobes of my ears. Possible but pretty unlikely.Is it possible that telepathy works on the distance of few kilometer, correct and all the time?
There's no credible evidence that telepathy even works a couple feet, much less a few km.
What about Vinko Rajic and Rasputin?
Victor
There is not a single so-called psychic who has been properly tested by scientific means, with stage magicians back-up to detect trickery, who has proven to be kosher. The whole bloody lot of them are either self-deluded or outright frauds and swindlers.
There are currently numerous prizes available for anyone who can prove any psychic ability, from James Randi's $ 1 million, to the Australian skeptics $ 120,000 and others. None has ever been claimed, for the simple reason that the people testing are not fools and cannot be swindled by cheap tricks, unlike the rest of us idiots.
Agree Lynx, up to a point. There is no scientific evidence for telepathy, but much
anecdotal evidence of it between people with a very strong emotional bond with each other.
I personally know of one event, a family friend, asleep at 2am, suddenly awoke in a sweat
and panic. Her husband 100 miles away, had been badly hurt in a road accident at that time.
No Lynx, cant explain it, but I always keep an open mind.
nokton.
Or maybe some people who claim to be telepathic are just schizophrenic. They think the voices they hear are other people's thoughts but actually they are just hallucinations.
So why aren't they millionaire's then?James Randi offer 1000000$ for evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?
Because people like to believe this sort of nonsense.There is not scientific evidence for telepathy. Why this telepathy madness?
And found ... ?At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
Perhaps because they do not want to be found out for the frauds they are?Vinko maybe can give evidence for it but why they do not make an experiment with Vinko or Uri Geller?
Because Vinko has schizophrenia? Which is more likely? After all, we know schizophrenia exists while there is no evidence for telepathy.Why are Schneider's symptoms of the first rank for Schizophrenia exact the same as Vinko's telepathy?
What about the millions of times someone has woken up in a sweat and panic and .... nothing happened.
I would be happy with coincidence + confirmation bias.No Lynx, cant explain it, but I always keep an open mind.
Uri doesn't want to be shown up as a fraud because then he couldn't make so much money from his stage magic tricks.
Vinko? Either the same reason or he is insane; you tell me.
Mods: Is there anyway to get this thread and victors thread in the New Hypothesis section merged? http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...-thoughts.html
Also they should prob be moved to pseudo.
Why did he bother to send you an email?
does anyone mention that brain has frequency? i think brain frequency could explain abit more about telepathy
Before you set out to explain something, you should probably make sure that the thing you're trying to explain is real. It can be embarrassing to come up with an elaborate and sciencey-sounding explanation for something only to have someone else demonstrate that the thing you're trying to explain is nonsense. It makes you look gullible. Being made to look gullible is never good for your scientific career.
Evidence for telepathy and psycho terror on Vinko Rajic iz organized in Sweden and Norway but people working on that
telepathic torture show are some dirty Croats: SWEDISH POLICE - YouTube .
YouTube is not evidence. Well, apart from evidence that half the population is below average intelligence.
Evidence for telepathy and psycho terror on Vinko Rajic iz organized in Sweden and Norway but people working on that
telepathic torture show are some dirty Croats: SWEDISH POLICE - YouTube .
Why do I have this weird feeling of deja-vu? Dumbtube still isn't evidence.
Please explain what you mean by "dirty Croats."
And why hasn't this thread been merged with the duplicate one in the pseudo area????
It's been merged.
I don`t know what about telepathy as mind reading but ineed some interesting psychic phenomenon"Possible" like there could be Martians that control me through the antenna most people mistake for two errant hairs growing off the lobes of my ears. Possible but pretty unlikely.
There's no credible evidence that telepathy even works a couple feet, much less a few km.
could be found in everydays life.For example,how do you explain ``sense of the look`` phenomenon?
It happened to me few times in life when I felt somebodies close look at me or somebody felt mine.
It happens even if you look at somebodies back and do not recover your presence in any other way.
I know from literature that other people also experienced such thing.``I felt his heavy look at my back``
is quite known expression.From my own experience I know it is quite plausible.
Confirmation bias. If you do a properly controlled trial the effect disappears.
Could you express yourself in clear terms or stop to carry a bull...t?Confirmation bias. If you do a properly controlled trial the effect disappears.
OK. Going back to the example nokton raised in post #18, if you experience a feeling of dread or expectation and then something significant happens, you will connect those two things and, importantly, remember. If you get the feeling of dread and nothing significant happens, you won't remember it. If you don't have the feeling of dread and then something significant happens then you won't think of it as a counter example.
Similarly, sometimes you think someone is looking at you, you turn round and they are! Of course, some days you think someone is looking at you, you turn around, there is no one there so you shrug and forget about it. And then some days, someone is looking at you and you are completely unaware of it (so you can't count them even if you wanted to).
This is an example of confirmation bias: remembering the data that reinforces a hypothesis and forgetting/discarding/not seeing the data that doesn't.
If you do a properly controlled experiment with variable conditions like there is someone behind you or not, they are staring at you or not, etc. and the "staree" notes when they think they are being stared at .... there is no correlation (other than what one would expect by chance) between their impression and when they are actually being stared at.
This is why we rely on the scientific method rather than "common sense" or anecdotes.
I suppose I should try and dig out a reference to support this "extraordinary" claim... if I have time later...
Your post prompted a chain of thoughts that may relevant to those readers who are inclined to believe in telepathy and the like. If you are someone like that you probably get annoyed that the sceptics denounce claims without considering them properly. They appear to dismiss them offhand and that can lead to the counterclaim that scientists are just followers of dogma. The reverse is generally true.
Stanley, you asked for Strange to express himself more clearly. For me, the words confirmation bias were as clear as it gets. I have studied reports of telepathy and clairvoyance and psychokinesis and so forth for close to half a century. I've read popular works, I've read the claims of the afficionados, I've read the debunking works in the mainstream and in scientific journals. Based on that, confirmation bias sums up the question you ask perfectly - for me. So when I reject the 'sense of look' phenomena I do so not casually, but on the basis of careful examination of the facts, not as a slave to dogma. Yet giving that, the most likely explanation, will cause some to cry out 'you have a closed mind'. Really?
What he said.
No!I would not forget about it because if I would have sense of somebodies look,turn around and there is nobody, I would be concerned because I would think I got mental desease!To think that somebody may look at you and have actual sense of look is totally different things.Probably not all people experienceSimilarly, sometimes you think someone is looking at you, you turn round and they are! Of course, some days you think someone is looking at you, you turn around, there is no one there so you shrug and forget about it.
it.You have to be a sensetive person.Some people with strong abilities could almost ``see you through``.You got feeling of it.If you don`t believe there is many such expression in literature.Usually it happens when you are in special state of mind and mood.You have to be resambling deeply thinking about something.Then you give heavy look at the back of some person and he/she may notice it.Similar case happened to me not too long ago.I felt your look!-Told me a relative.I don`t claim that this phenomenon proves mind reading and thoughts reading.But what concerning the last there seem already appeared some new technologies on verge of it.
'Mind-reading machine' can convert thoughts into speech - Telegraph
And take into account that secret technologies are alway ahead of those that publicly known.
Last edited by Stanley514; November 14th, 2011 at 09:51 AM.
The human brain is an truly an amazing thing. Another effect that I wasn't aware of is that people can subconsciously detect patterns in pseudo random data and this can bias the reuslts: CSI | The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization
That is actually more impressive than the supposed psychic abilities being tested for!
Which part of "anecdotes don't count as evidence" did you not understand.
Ah, I see. So as well as being too closed-minded I am not sensitive enough. I am beginning to feel like a failure.Probably not all people experience it.You have to be a sensetive person.
Of course, this is yet another reason we use the scientific method: to account for the differences between subjects.
That has got so little to do with telepathy it is quite scary that you think it is relevant.But what concerning the last there seem already appeared some new technologies on verge of it.
'Mind-reading machine' can convert thoughts into speech - Telegraph
Which takes us right back to the paranoid ravings of the guy who started this thread.And take into account that secret technologies are alway ahead of those that publicly known.
p.s. if you really think you have the ability to detect when people are looking at you then you can make a million: Challenge Info
I thought that thoughts reading with help of technical means could be directly relatedThat has got so little to do with telepathy it is quite scary that you think it is relevant.
to the word ``telepathy``. What is concerning more advanced and more secret advances of this
technology it is not paranoia but quite plausible assumption based on common sense.For example
it could be easily made to work on certain distance.Some organic microimplants could serve as a
sensors on your head.And send signal to a receiver.I don`t claim that such technology is already in use
but just think that under current level of technologies it could be principally created.
The expanation that you/somebody provided regarding ``sense of look`` explanationThe human brain is an truly an amazing thing. Another effect that I wasn't aware of is that people can subconsciously detect patterns in pseudo random data
is very doubtful from purely statistical point of view.Could you imagine how often some person should
turn around falsely feeling somebodies look and there is nobody that ultimatly it would become true just by coincidence?A person who falsely turns around at least few times a day while there is nobody at his back whould be classified by some as paranoic and asked to consult psychiatrist.From my personal experience I would tell that feeling of somebodies look is practically never wrong.
Last edited by Stanley514; November 14th, 2011 at 03:38 PM.
Stanley, you have not studied these matters. You have not conducted experiments. You have not worked the statistics. Others have done so. Your incredulity is your problem, not the problem of science. You are free to continue to delude yourself, the mark of a truly closed mind, or you can waken up and smell reality.
Well Mythbusters from Discovery Channel conducted thousands of different experiments and they believe that remote hypnosis is plausible.Stanley, you have not studied these matters. You have not conducted experiments. You have not worked the statistics.
``Enough pre-existing scientific evidence exists regarding hypnosis for the Build Team to call the myth plausible.``
MythBusters Episode 52: Mind Control
How do you explain that?
Mythbusters is an entertainment program. I would take much of what they do with a pinch of salt. I've seen myth's supposedly debunked where their experiment was poorly constructed and the conclusion was invalid.
However, to the case in point they consider it plausible that: Remote, nonconsensual mind control can be achieved by remote hypnosis.
You have seen the program. I have not. I understand, based upon your link, that remote hypnosis means hypnotising an individual at a distance over a phone or video link. Is that correct? If so that would hardly be a surprise. If not, what was their full argument to support the plausibility of the claim.
No.From what I understood from this episode under remote hypnosis they mean telepatic suggestions with which one person is trying to influence other person located in isolated room.Well,most of this episode was directed rather in joke manner andI understand, based upon your link, that remote hypnosis means hypnotising an individual at a distance over a phone or video link. Is that correct?
they obviously didn`t reveal all the info and knowledge they have.But the Mythbusters don`t seem to be people who will push some nonsense without having some info on the subject.
Sorry Stanley, this completely fails as science. As I pointed out Mythbusters is primarily entertainment. Now on those occassions when I have watched it they do a passable job of being objective and setting up experiments. There heart is in the right place, but frankly their approach is not rigorous and rarely systematic. They arrive, for the most part, at what are probably the correct answers, but there procedures would not be adequate, when written up, to get into a peer reviewed publication - just too sloppy.
So in this instance you say they were being quite jokey and - if I understand you correctly - they were commenting on other research which they did not explore in detail, rather than a test they had themselves conducted. Without a view of that research I'm afraid your observations on this are worse even than personal anecdote.
Stanley, I think I understand the enthusiasm and interest you have in the subject. I would like nothing better than it turn out that telepathy is real. What wonderful doors it would open, but the evidence simply isn't there, just a lot of wishful thinking. Still, I live in hope, but the your Mythbusters report does nothing to advance that hope.
Even if advanced telepathy as human ability does`t exist,possibility to read thoughts with help of technical means
is already publicly and scientifically recognized and this is not less astonishing.
Once again, anecdotes don't count. For example: from my personal experience I would say that the sense of being stared at is non-existent.
Oh no! Contradictory personal opinions! What are we going to do!
I know, let's use "science"; let's run some controlled tests using objective measures and see what happens...
If you have doubts that many people experienced such sensation and that there exist peoplefrom my personal experience I would say that the sense of being stared at is non-existent.
how could nearly see you inside through from your back, just read memories of people who visited Josef Stalin...
The plural of anecdote is not data.
I don't care how many people think they have experienced something; I want to measure it.
So what? You imply that because we are approaching a means of 'reading' thoughts as an outgrowth of millions of hours of research and development in a structured, scientific manner, that stories and opinions from amateurs somehow become more believable. This just isn't so.
| « Fibre Optic particle accelerator | Origin of the mass. By Espinoza » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
