Telepathy: Rupert Sheldrake & Evidence from "The Sense of Being Stared At

[zoobyshoe]

We think it might be that he's sensitive to the ultra low frequency wave lengths that researchers have just recently noticed precedes an earthquake.

This is pretty remarkable. It probably would be possible to test him to see if he is reacting to ULF. That makes the most sense, but there might also be electromagnetic effects that are bothering him.

I still have this half-baked notion kicking aound in my head that people are sensitive enough to electromagnetic fields to account for things like dowsing, and maybe even telepathy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, Ivan, you checked "for several weeks":

They are living on and near the property, and have been here [around] ever since. But they were never seen before. So it seems entirely reasonable and consistent with our continued sightings to assume that they had been here for a time, and that this is what I was sensing. And, as I said, I am almost sure, all things considered. To me, based on my first hand knowledge of the events, it seems the most likely explanation in spite of, but also acknowledging the fact that I don't know how this could be possible.

 

[Evo]

This is pretty remarkable. It probably would be possible to test him to see if he is reacting to ULF. That makes the most sense, but there might also be electromagnetic effects that are bothering him.

I still have this half-baked notion kicking aound in my head that people are sensitive enough to electromagnetic fields to account for things like dowsing, and maybe even telepathy.

There seems to be a lot of evidence that animals can feel (or sense) something prior to earthquakes. It could be electromagnetic, or perhaps the combination of the two together is what makes it strong enough for a human to pick up on. He is definitely sensitive enough to be tested. He's also susceptible to slight changes in humidity and barometric pressure. He's a mess.

 

[No-where-man]

Science can't prove such a thing! In reality science does not prove anything. Science observes facts, proposes theories to explain those facts and performs experiments to validate the theories.
If an experiment shows that the theory is not valid, scientists try to improve the theory or substitute it for a new one. If the experiment confirms the theory, this does not prove it, it merely makes it more likely.
If after a great number of experiments all of them verify the theory, the likelihood increases, but it never reaches 1.
Even if scientists where able to show that the Big Bang has likelihood near 1, this would not prove the Big Bang hypothesis and even less the non participation of God. God could have created the Big Bang and all the laws of physics, chemistry and biology so that after 8 billion years after the Big Bang a small planet orbiting a class G star would form and 4.5 billion years after that event evolution (created by God) would allow that intelligent beings would be discussing in this forum.
I don't claim that God exits, I only say that we cannot postulate his/her nonexistence.

Yes,but there too many evidences for support that Big Bang did actually happen,like it or not,you can't say it didn't happen if there is this comsic background radiationć-this radiation had to came from an super-titanic explosion.If science is all theory,how did we manage to reproduce so many cars that work?Reproducing the cars is also some kind of experiment,it proves that even cars are following laws of physics,recently they have made neuron-electric chip(http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/03070...ces_030701.html )
That's the same as try to make an experiment and prove that nature does it on the same way,after all even the experiment works in the same way like the natural process,only you have to have all the elements and parts to succed it,because both laboratory experiments and natural experiments that work by the same laws of physics prove that if they succeed from the non-living matter create bactery,so does can in the process in natureAn experiment does prove that something happens in nature,but only if you have all ingredients.
As for God,like I said if God existed he would already show himself,why everyone forget that?

 

[No-where-man]

Science can't prove such a thing! In reality science does not prove anything. Science observes facts, proposes theories to explain those facts and performs experiments to validate the theories.
If an experiment shows that the theory is not valid, scientists try to improve the theory or substitute it for a new one. If the experiment confirms the theory, this does not prove it, it merely makes it more likely.
If after a great number of experiments all of them verify the theory, the likelihood increases, but it never reaches 1.
Even if scientists where able to show that the Big Bang has likelihood near 1, this would not prove the Big Bang hypothesis and even less the non participation of God. God could have created the Big Bang and all the laws of physics, chemistry and biology so that after 8 billion years after the Big Bang a small planet orbiting a class G star would form and 4.5 billion years after that event evolution (created by God) would allow that intelligent beings would be discussing in this forum.
I don't claim that God exits, I only say that we cannot postulate his/her nonexistence.

This is your problem,you're trying to find God even you say you don't.You're talking about metaphysics,there is no metaphysics.There is no metaphysical God-that kind of God exists only in your brain,what makes you think science will not prove there is no God,it's much like you are talking about primitive neaderthal who thought that lightnings are sent from gods,and there is no way that he will be able to prove that there is no god/gods who send storms-guess what he was TOTALLY WRONG.
Even God's existence obey to laws of physics,to prove its existence God has to do soemthing that obeys laws of nature,but it never happens...
Everything is natural,nothing is supernatural.

 

[SGT]

This is your problem,you're trying to find God even you say you don't.You're talking about metaphysics,there is no metaphysics.There is no metaphysical God-that kind of God exists only in your brain,what makes you think science will not prove there is no God,it's much like you are talking about primitive neaderthal who thought that lightnings are sent from gods,and there is no way that he will be able to prove that there is no god/gods who send storms-guess what he was TOTALLY WRONG.
Even God's existence obey to laws of physics,to prove its existence God has to do soemthing that obeys laws of nature,but it never happens...
Everything is natural,nothing is supernatural.

In the first place, I am not trying to find God. As I said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis, so I don't believe in his/her existence, but I am no more able to prove this then you can prove there is not an invisible gnome peeking over your shoulder while you read this message.
In the second place, metaphysics is a part of philosophy. How can you say that philosophy does not exist? You can agree or not with philosophical principles, but you can't deny the existence of logical thought.

 

[zoobyshoe]

People should probably stick, if not to the subject of Sheldrake, at least to the subject of telepathy.

 

[SGT]

People should probably stick, if not to the subject of Sheldrake, at least to the subject of telepathy.

Agreed. But I am curious to know what connection No-where-man sees between free will and the nonexistence of telepathy. I am completely lost, but may be he has some insight I am too dumb to see.

 

[yaboo]

Why do people say telepathy does not exist ? I think it is just hard to explain, but I always believe it does exist. True. I mean I can, although it is not always correct, "feel" at a certain level for sure that my server guy misses my connections. When i do not connected my computer to the internet for a day, something I can feel at every 17~19 o'clock. This is really true, I just need him to confirm to himself what i say here is right...
I am not joking...

 

[Evo]

Agreed. But I am curious to know what connection No-where-man sees between free will and the nonexistence of telepathy. I am completely lost, but may be he has some insight I am too dumb to see.

But the discussion has nothing to do with this topic, so let's stick to either Sheldrake or telepathy, it is an interesting subject. You two can start a thread in philosophy (although there are already hundreds on that subject), please do not hijack this thread.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. I finally had to close the other thread. Let's not kill this one.

 

[fileen]

on the topic of animals sensing things like earthquakes ahead of time, Id like to know more about this. my grandmothers dog use to go to the shop with her all the time, and there was this man who was a frequent customer, who the dog hated. we use to have to lock the dog in another room when he came in. this otherwise sweet natured docile dog would growl and snap at him. we later discovered this man was abusive to his wife and children, and a suspect for crimes like child pornography and rape.

 

[SGT]

on the topic of animals sensing things like earthquakes ahead of time, Id like to know more about this. my grandmothers dog use to go to the shop with her all the time, and there was this man who was a frequent customer, who the dog hated. we use to have to lock the dog in another room when he came in. this otherwise sweet natured docile dog would growl and snap at him. we later discovered this man was abusive to his wife and children, and a suspect for crimes like child pornography and rape.

This is mainly anecdotal. The United States Geological Survey has studied the subject and has found nothing to support it. This does not mean the phenomenon does not exist, only that there is no scientific evidence of its existence. You can find a good description in this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html.
Animals can get cues from human posture, that could seem psychic phenomena. The most famous example is Clever Hans a german horse in the early 20th century.

 

[fileen]

thats really interesting. we once taught a horse to answer mathematical problems. it was far less complicated though. I would merely touch her shoulder the correct number of times and she would paw that foot as many times as I tapped her. thanks for the links. my seventy five year old coach once told me "horses have senses we know nothing about" he was born into a world of horses. I am sure my horse understands me and I am aware of their extremely sensitive nature. a horse knows when I am angry, sad, excited, etc. perhaps we also get the same signals, perhaps it is not on a conscious level that we understand these signals. maybe that's the secret to much of what we suspect to be telepathy. of course that doesn't explain knowing whos calling before they call or that someone is ill and needs you. just a few days ago my boyfriend rolled a car. I was at the farm and stopped what I was doing and imediately rushed home to find the cops at my door step. I couldn't tell you how I knew something was wrong, but I knew I had to get home. I can't say I have ever just rushed home to find nothing wrong either.

for years I believed my dog was telepathic because she would grow restless and fearful hours before a storm hit. then my vet explained to me that odds are she can hear the storm a long time before we can. simple explanation. makes perfect sense. its hard for me to decide what to believe on this subject. maybe there is a real simple explanation for telepathy.

Im curious if anyone has heard anything about the stories of twins who are separated at birth, and don't even know they have a twin, but somehow or other are telepathicly connected and figure it out when they find each other? seems sketchy to me, but I've heard numerous people talking about it. merely heresay. anyone have any facts?

 

[Happeh]

What science? It isn't physics. It isn't biology.

Don't you realize Sheldrake just made "morphic resonance" up?

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

And don't you realize skeptic sites are science sites?

I thought that Einstein "just made up" his theories. Or at least the people of his time thought that. They weren't as smart as they thought they were and Einstein was.

If you are the first person to begin a new field of science, you have to "make up" words or phrases to describe phenomenon. You are the first one in the field. There is no established vocabulary to work with.

You will find thruout history that many of the great discoveries were ridiculed when they were put forth. Galileo and Copernicus come to mind. I think they even killed Galileo didn't they? One of them was killed for his heretical beliefs. I guess this sheldrake guy should be happy we are only calling him crackpot instead of getting up a lynch mob. ;)

 

[Happeh]

Telepathy is real. The first and most important thing you need to understand though is that if you don't believe it, then it doesn't work. It is common sense if you think about it.

You go to test telepathy and you are thinking, "Oh I miss my Aunt Mathilda. I wonder what she is doing". In your mind, that is you thinking about Aunt Mathilda. But what is really happening is Aunt Mathilda is thinking about you. You pick up her interest and you begin to think about her. Because you do not believe in telepathy, you think the thoughts originated in your brain under your will.

There are levels just like anything else. Some people get feelings about stuff. Some people have conversations. Just like some people are big and some are small. Everyone's abilities are different.

You can develop your sense of telepathy thru any of the well known body changing practices. Yoga, Martial Arts, Dancing of a certain kind, etc. Religions have various practices all designed to increase the telepathic power of a person. Actually they may not be specifically for telepathy. The methods increase the overall health of the body. The telepathy could be just a byproduct of having a healthy body.

The question always arises "why doesn't someone prove it". I think scientist live in a false world. The seem not to be aware of how real society works. Real society is about power. It is about violent men taking power and then directing the society as they see fit. These kinds of men are usually brutal and small minded.

If you pop up and say you can read minds, what is going to happen? You are a threat to the leaders of the society. You could read their mind and find out what crimes they have committed. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? They dealt with Psi powers in a realistic way. The society in the era of Babylon 5 had decided that all telepaths were a threat. They were either killed, forced to take a drug that inhibited their powers, or forced to join the Psi Corp. They were never allowed to live as free people.

That is exactly how reality works. Powerful people don't want competition. They publicy pooh pooh the idea of telepathy. They work to destroy young people that show the talents. Sort of like that King in the bible killing young boys because a prophecy said a young boy would be his undoing.

Lots of young people that go nuts or have emotional problems are either telepaths or empaths. No one told them what is happening or how to deal with what is going on. The pressure of feeling other peoples emotions or hearing other people thoughts drive them nuts so they become troubled kids. There is no one to tell them that it is normal or teach them how to insulate themselves from others. Many loners are loners because they are empaths or telepaths who cannot deal with the input from crowds of people. Staying alone is the only way to avoid the discomfort they expereince in the presence of others.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I thought that Einstein "just made up" his theories.

You either know something about Einstein's theories or you don't. If you do, explain what the Lorentz Transformation equations are, and use the appropriate one to calculate for me the length of a meter rod going past me at .5c as observed from my inertial frame. Then calculate for me the change in time I would observe on a clock being towed by that meter rod if a clock in my inertial frame showed a change in time of one second.

If you can do these two simple relativity problems, then I don't think you'd be saying things like "just made up his theories."

If you can't do them, don't sling Einstein's name around like you know anything about him.

 

[Happeh]

You either know something about Einstein's theories or you don't. If you do, explain what the Lorentz Transformation equations are, and use the appropriate one to calculate for me the length of a meter rod going past me at .5c as observed from my inertial frame. Then calculate for me the change in time I would observe on a clock being towed by that meter rod if a clock in my inertial frame showed a change in time of one second.

If you can do these two simple relativity problems, then I don't think you'd be saying things like "just made up his theories."

If you can't do them, don't sling Einstein's name around like you know anything about him.

Woah horsey! Getting a little elitist there aren't we? What does Lorentz Transformation equations have to do with the points I made? I referred to Einstein in a simple way to make a point about the people in a new field being forced to invent new language.

What does doing your little math problem have anything to do with my point?

I will sling Einstein's name around anyway I please. You wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? ;)

 

[zoobyshoe]

I referred to Einstein in a simple way to make a point about the beginners in a field being forced to invent new language.

Einstein didn't invent any new concepts like "morphic resonance." In fact, his Theory of Relativity is what put the last nails in the coffin of the "morphic resonance" of his day: the aether theory of light, by providing a much more logical alternative.

What does doing your little math problem have anything to do with my point?

You don't even have a basic understanding of Einstein or Galileo, do you? Galileo, likewise, killed the "morphic resonance" of his day: literal interpretation of the Bible.

I will sling Einstein's name around anyway I please.

Thank's for the frank admission.

 

[SGT]

You will find thruout history that many of the great discoveries were ridiculed when they were put forth. Galileo and Copernicus come to mind. I think they even killed Galileo didn't they? One of them was killed for his heretical beliefs. I guess this sheldrake guy should be happy we are only calling him crackpot instead of getting up a lynch mob. ;)

Yeah! They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown. The fact that people laugh at someone does not make their theories true. And as zoobieshoe remarked, it was the church that made galileo to retract, not other scientists.
Scientists will not accept a new theory unless it is supported by evidence. Sometimes they are wrong as happened with the plate tectonics theory, but the reason they rejected the theory was because there was no known mechanism to support it. When that mechanism was discovered by scientists, the theory was immediately accepted.
If someday scientists find some mechanism in support of telepathy, all other scientists will accept it. Until then, nobody with any grasp of what science is will swallow it.
One thing you must understand about science is that there is no inspirational breakthrough in it. Scientists use results found by other scientists to develop their theories. The greatest scientist of all times, Sir Isaac Newton, said that he got so high because he stepped on the shoulders of giants, referring to Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.
Edited to add: Galileo died in his own bed and according to legend saying:Eppur si muove! (And nevertheless it turns!)

 

[Happeh]

Einstein didn't invent any new concepts like "morphic resonance." In fact, his Theory of Relativity is what put the last nails in the coffin of the "morphic resonance" of his day: the aether theory of light, by providing a much more logical alternative.

You don't even have a basic understanding of Einstein or Galileo, do you? Galileo, likewise, killed the "morphic resonance" of his day: literal interpretation of the Bible.

Thank's for the frank admission.

If you want to feel superior to me, that is OK. I don't mind.

I think I made my point. A person in a new field must invent their own words. It is not a sign of failure or error.

 

[Happeh]

Scientists will not accept a new theory unless it is supported by evidence. Sometimes they are wrong as happened with the plate tectonics theory, but the reason they rejected the theory was because there was no known mechanism to support it. When that mechanism was discovered by scientists, the theory was immediately accepted.
If someday scientists find some mechanism in support of telepathy, all other scientists will accept it. Until then, nobody with any grasp of what science is will swallow it.

Just because you don't believe in something does not negate it's existence. I said in that other post a very good reason why no one proves telepathy. The possession of telepathic ability will arouse fear and hatred in others. These others will want to erase that source of fear and hatred by extermination or control.

You will find that as long as you hold your rigid mind set, you will be unable to believe things that are real. It is common knowledge that the brain is divided into sections with different sections performing different tasks. It seems trivial to me that if someone specializes in, say mathematics, to the exclusion of developing the other parts of the brain, the person will be good in math but they will be deficient in other areas.

Think of your brain as a sphere with a center. The center determines which part of the brain is getting energy and working properly. If the center is actually at the center of the sphere, all areas of the brain are being equally stimulated. A person decides to do mathematics. The center of the sphere moves towards the area of the brain associated with mathmatics. Any science guys know all about balance.

If you have a balanced sphere with the center in the center, then you move the center over to the math area of the brain, the brain just went unbalanced. The areas that are opposite of the math part of the brain are not receiving the stimulation they could be receiving. Their share of energy is being diverted to the math section to make it stronger.

This would obviously mean that whatever function of those areas of the brain receiving less energy did, that function would be less than it could be. If the area of the brain opposite the math area is the telepathy area, then a mathmatician will never "get" telepathy. He traded the telepathic area of his brain for more mathmatical ability.

One thing you must understand about science is that there is no inspirational breakthrough in it. Scientists use results found by other scientists to develop their theories.

That seems obvious. Why does that contradict what I said about people inventing words? What about Muon's or Quarks? Those sound like kid's made up words. If you go back to Einstein, he never heard of Muon's or Quarks. He would think you were making stuff up. Somebody building on Einstein's work invented the words out of thin air.

 

[SGT]

Just because you don't believe in something does not negate it's existence. I said in that other post a very good reason why no one proves telepathy. The possession of telepathic ability will arouse fear and hatred in others. These others will want to erase that source of fear and hatred by extermination or control.

You will find that as long as you hold your rigid mind set, you will be unable to believe things that are real. It is common knowledge that the brain is divided into sections with different sections performing different tasks. It seems trivial to me that if someone specializes in, say mathematics, to the exclusion of developing the other parts of the brain, the person will be good in math but they will be deficient in other areas.

Think of your brain as a sphere with a center. The center determines which part of the brain is getting energy and working properly. If the center is actually at the center of the sphere, all areas of the brain are being equally stimulated. A person decides to do mathematics. The center of the sphere moves towards the area of the brain associated with mathmatics. Any science guys know all about balance.

If you have a balanced sphere with the center in the center, then you move the center over to the math area of the brain, the brain just went unbalanced. The areas that are opposite of the math part of the brain are not receiving the stimulation they could be receiving. Their share of energy is being diverted to the math section to make it stronger.

This would obviously mean that whatever function of those areas of the brain receiving less energy did, that function would be less than it could be. If the area of the brain opposite the math area is the telepathy area, then a mathmatician will never "get" telepathy. He traded the telepathic area of his brain for more mathmatical ability.

Wow! I didn't know you were a neurologist. I knew that there areas of the brain dedicated to vision, audition, etc, but I never heard of an area dedicated to mathematics. And never heard that you could divert energy to a specific part of the brain, letting the opposite area lacking energy. Could you please provide a cite for those ideas?

That seems obvious. Why does that contradict what I said about people inventing words? What about Muon's or Quarks? Those sound like kid's made up words. If you go back to Einstein, he never heard of Muon's or Quarks. He would think you were making stuff up. Somebody building on Einstein's work invented the words out of thin air.

The words may have been invented, but not the concepts. Every scientist builds on other scientists work. Sheldrake made up not only the words, but the concepts. May be he is a genius and he had an epiphany, but until someone can replicate his alleged results I keep my skepticism.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you want to feel superior to me, that is OK. I don't mind.

I think I made my point. A person in a new field must invent their own words. It is not a sign of failure or error.

If you discover something new, it is expected that you would name it. The trouble with Sheldrake is that he hasn't discovered anything at all. He just decided "morphic resonance" must exist to account for telepathy. Even if you stipulate the existence of telepathy for the sake of discussion, then his "morphic resonance" is still no different than deciding there must be a "luminiferous aether" to account for light.

In fact, though, no one has ever been able to find this "luminiferous aether".

What is ironic is that you are invoking Einstein in defence of the opposite of what Einstein actually did. Einstein didn't propose any new kind of aether or energy to account for light: his theories did away with the need for an aether.

 

[Happeh]

Wow! I didn't know you were a neurologist. I knew that there areas of the brain dedicated to vision, audition, etc, but I never heard of an area dedicated to mathematics. And never heard that you could divert energy to a specific part of the brain, letting the opposite area lacking energy. Could you please provide a cite for those ideas?

The problem with telling people new ideas is that there is no one to cite. Scientist have a failing. They refuse to entertain any idea without an expert or someone to cite.

I am the kind of person who tries to get people to think on their own. If you can mentally visualize what is going on, why do you need an expert? You are an adult man. You can consider something and make up your own mind. Then you will be absolutley certain your decision is the right one.

Most people think their brain is up in the head and it is doing it's thing. That is an incorrect body view. Your brain is designed to be activated or to grow stronger by being...infiltrated? inundated? with material from your body. If this material from your body enters the brain in an uneven way, the various areas of the brain are stimulated unevenly.

To answer your question about mathematics area of the brain. I was under the impression that psychologists classified the brain into halves with one half being devoted to scientific thinking like mathematics and the other half being devoted to things like music?

 

[Happeh]

If you discover something new, it is expected that you would name it. The trouble with Sheldrake is that he hasn't discovered anything at all. He just decided "morphic resonance" must exist to account for telepathy. Even if you stipulate the existence of telepathy for the sake of discussion, then his "morphic resonance" is still no different than deciding there must be a "luminiferous aether" to account for light.
[/i]

I hope you don't think I was contradicting you and protecting Sheldrake's ideas?

I saw the reference to telepathy and I wanted to say that he is right about the existence of telepathy. The specifics you are mentioning, "morphic resonance", I don't know anything about that.

 

[SGT]

The problem with telling people new ideas is that there is no one to cite. Scientist have a failing. They refuse to entertain any idea without an expert or someone to cite.

I am the kind of person who tries to get people to think on their own. If you can mentally visualize what is going on, why do you need an expert? You are an adult man. You can consider something and make up your own mind. Then you will be absolutley certain your decision is the right one.

Most people think their brain is up in the head and it is doing it's thing. That is an incorrect body view. Your brain is designed to be activated or to grow stronger by being...infiltrated? inundated? with material from your body. If this material from your body enters the brain in an uneven way, the various areas of the brain are stimulated unevenly.

To answer your question about mathematics area of the brain. I was under the impression that psychologists classified the brain into halves with one half being devoted to scientific thinking like mathematics and the other half being devoted to things like music?

You say we should not believe on those stupid scientists, who are not able to have an original idea and believe in your made up ideas?

 

[one_raven]

I agree that Sheldrake's interpretation of what causes/facilitates/explains telepathy, his "Morphogenic Fields" and whatnot is based on nothing but his own fantastical ideas and he offers no real evidence for said "Fields".

That does not, however, speak to the phenomenon he has personally witnessed, gathered evidence on and cited other prominent scientists on.

Leaving his won interpretations aside for the time being, I would like some input on teh actual phenomenon he has been studying.

There are quite a few examples (one notable one was a dog that would react excitedly when her owner was heading for home from much further than it was possible for the dog to hear, in a taxi, when the researchers at the house filming the dog did not know when the owner was going to turn around).

What I am most interested in, however, is the following excerpt from the article found at: http://twm.co.nz/shel_morfields.htm:

In the meantime, the puzzles about memory have grown even stranger. This part of our story will take us to one of the most controversial frontiers of current science, although it actually starts back in 1920 when W. McDougall, a biologist at Harvard, began an experiment to see if animals (in this case white rats) could inherit learning. The procedure was to teach the rats a simple task (avoiding a lighted exit), record how fast they learned, breed another generation, teach them the same task, and see how their rate of learning compared with their elders. He carried the experiment through 34 generations and found that, indeed, each generation learned faster in flat contradiction to the usual Darwinian assumptions about heredity. Such a result naturally raised controversy, and similar experiments were run to prove or disprove the result. The last of these was done by W.E. Agar at Melbourne over a period of 20 years ending in 1954. Using the same general breed of rats, he found the same pattern of results that McDougall had but in addition he found that untrained rats used as a control group also learned faster in each new generation. (Curiously, he also found that his first generation of rats started at the same rate of learning as McDougall's last generation.) No one had a good explanation for why both trained and untrained should be learning faster, but since this result did not support the idea that learning was inherited, the biology community breathed a sigh of relief and considered the matter closed.

Is there any refutation of these particular studies, or alternative scientific theories as to why this was observed?

By the way, Galileo was not put to death by anyone.
He was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and placed on house-arrest for the remainder of his life essentially for agreeing with Copernicus.

 

[one_raven]

One thing we must not forget is not to discard the possibly positive results of Sheldrake's experiments in telepathy because of his apparently miguided attempts to explain them with his unfounded "Morphogenic Fields".
This is a problem that many "Skeptics" have, I think.

His interpretation of the evidence speaks nothing what-so-ever of the validity of the evidence gathered.

 

[Happeh]

You say we should not believe on those stupid scientists, who are not able to have an original idea and believe in your made up ideas?

I didn't say any such thing. Not in the quote of mine you included. Why are you making things up? Ya, on a cursory look thru, I never called anyone stupid. Doesn't sound like me at all.

Which idea is it that I made up? It is only your opinion that it is made up. If you want, I can go to Kinkos and get a real official looking document with stamps and gold leaf that says I am a super wonder expert and you should believe me.

 

[SGT]

I didn't say any such thing. Not in the quote of mine you included. Why are you making things up? Ya, on a cursory look thru, I never called anyone stupid. Doesn't sound like me at all.

You did not say they are stupid, but you said they refuse to entertain any idea without an expert or someone to cite. This to me corresponds to calling them stupid

Which idea is it that I made up? It is only your opinion that it is made up. If you want, I can go to Kinkos and get a real official looking document with stamps and gold leaf that says I am a super wonder expert and you should believe me.

What is Kinkos? Since you provide no source for the weird ideas you propose my only conclusion is that you made them up. If you want to know to what ideas I refer, here they are:

Think of your brain as a sphere with a center. The center determines which part of the brain is getting energy and working properly. If the center is actually at the center of the sphere, all areas of the brain are being equally stimulated. A person decides to do mathematics. The center of the sphere moves towards the area of the brain associated with mathmatics. Any science guys know all about balance.

If you have a balanced sphere with the center in the center, then you move the center over to the math area of the brain, the brain just went unbalanced. The areas that are opposite of the math part of the brain are not receiving the stimulation they could be receiving. Their share of energy is being diverted to the math section to make it stronger.

This would obviously mean that whatever function of those areas of the brain receiving less energy did, that function would be less than it could be. If the area of the brain opposite the math area is the telepathy area, then a mathmatician will never "get" telepathy. He traded the telepathic area of his brain for more mathmatical ability.

and

Most people think their brain is up in the head and it is doing it's thing. That is an incorrect body view. Your brain is designed to be activated or to grow stronger by being...infiltrated? inundated? with material from your body. If this material from your body enters the brain in an uneven way, the various areas of the brain are stimulated unevenly.

Unless you provide some evidence for those ideas, I must conclude that you or someone else made them up.

 

[Happeh]

You did not say they are stupid, but you said they refuse to entertain any idea without an expert or someone to cite. This to me corresponds to calling them stupid

What is Kinkos? Since you provide no source for the weird ideas you propose my only conclusion is that you made them up. If you want to know to what ideas I refer, here they are:

and

Unless you provide some evidence for those ideas, I must conclude that you or someone else made them up.

We have a problem. What evidence will you accept? I can provide you with proof. Proof in my eyes. When I show these proofs to others, the do not agree it is proof. I expect the same reaction from you. I have proof, but no one has the necessary background or open mindedness or capability to observe and correlate it takes to understand.

Can you tell me why my graph paper example means nothing to you? If I move the X,Y axis on a piece of graph paper, the various quadrants change size according to where the X,Y axis are currently located. These quadrant size changes would correspond to different areas of the brain receiving more or less energy. Do our definitions of energy need to be compared to verify we think the same way?

The idea of the "center of the brain sphere" acts exactly like the above description. The forward right and left or the rear right and left quadrants would change in size as the axis was moved. It is more complex because of the z axis. It is the same principle.

I cannot prove that "your brain is supposed to be inudated with other material in order to activate it". You have to go inside of your body and discover this for yourself in order to prove it. I can show you the outward signs, but if you refuse to accept my interpretation, the only way to prove it is for you to do the work yourself with your own body.

Kinko's is the local copy machine chain store. They sell frames and fancy documents. I think they must have a "Guaranteed Expert in ..." blank document I could fill out and have printed out to convince people needing an expert.

I would like to thank you for being courteous. You have stated your disbelief and pointed out where with no derision. Thank you.

 

[SGT]

We have a problem. What evidence will you accept? I can provide you with proof. Proof in my eyes. When I show these proofs to others, the do not agree it is proof. I expect the same reaction from you. I have proof, but no one has the necessary background or open mindedness or capability to observe and correlate it takes to understand.

You are right! We have a problem! There are at least four possibilities for your sight:

• You have really seen it.
• You saw something and you misinterpreted it. In another post I told that I misinterpreted a plastic bag for a pigeon.
• You were deluded.
• You are lying.

There may be other hypotheses I have not thought off and I have no way to distinguish between those hypothesis, so what you say you saw is no proof.
Please don't take offense for the fourth hypothesis. I don't really believe you are lying, but I know some people lie.

Can you tell me why my graph paper example means nothing to you? If I move the X,Y axis on a piece of graph paper, the various quadrants change size according to where the X,Y axis are currently located. These quadrant size changes would correspond to different areas of the brain receiving more or less energy. Do our definitions of energy need to be compared to verify we think the same way?

I am sorry, I really can't understand your analogy from graph paper to the brain.
As for energy, my definition of energy is the capacity to produce work. Energy can appear in several forms: kinetic, potential, thermal, acoustic, luminous...
What does not exist is what new-agers call energy. Something insubstantial that people can absorb through chakras, third eye, etc.

The idea of the "center of the brain sphere" acts exactly like the above description. The forward right and left or the rear right and left quadrants would change in size as the axis was moved. It is more complex because of the z axis. It is the same principle.

As I said above, I can't see the analogy

I cannot prove that "your brain is supposed to be inudated with other material in order to activate it". You have to go inside of your body and discover this for yourself in order to prove it. I can show you the outward signs, but if you refuse to accept my interpretation, the only way to prove it is for you to do the work yourself with your own body.

How can I go inside my own body? This is topologically impossible.

Kinko's is the local copy machine chain store. They sell frames and fancy documents. I think they must have a "Guaranteed Expert in ..." blank document I could fill out and have printed out to convince people needing an expert.

Thank you. Not living in your country I didn't know it.

I would like to thank you for being courteous. You have stated your disbelief and pointed out where with no derision. Thank you.

Only people that have no arguments appeal to derision.

 

[Happeh]

I am sorry, I really can't understand your analogy from graph paper to the brain.

This seems incredibly trivial to me. I am at a loss as to how to make it more simple. EDIT: Did I make it clear that the origin point is the focal point of the energy of the body? What I am saying is that as the origin point moved from it's normal centered position, the focus of the energy moves with it. Whatever part of the brain is under the focal point, that point would be recieiving the majority of stimulation to the brain.

What does not exist is what new-agers call energy. Something insubstantial that people can absorb through chakras, third eye, etc.

You are wrong.
EDIT: I need to say that I probably use energy in confusing ways. There is energy as you describe above. I also use energy to describe the intent of a person. If a person's body was focused on an object, I would describe that as "they are putting their energy on that object".

How can I go inside my own body? This is topologically impossible.

Can you feel your internal organs? Where they are and what they currently this minute feel like? That is going inside of your body. Most western people's awareness resides in the outer layer of their body only.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Can you feel your internal organs? Where they are and what they currently this minute feel like? That is going inside of your body. Most western people's awareness resides in the outer layer of their body only.

I apologize for butting in here but what does it mean to be "western"? I am not sure if I am western or not? I live in Los Angeles and that's on the west coast of the U.S.