the telepathy thread

[Rolig Loon]

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

My oddest encounter was in Tennessee, where I passed through a woods just prior to open fields. Orioles were swooping back and forth across the road. I nearly hit one and there were half a dozen bodies on the shoulder. I really should do some Googling to see what prompts that kind of behavior.

Some birds are more territorial than others, and most birds are a bit more aggressive during nesting season than at other times. Blackbirds are territorial almost all the time.  So are many terns. I was once chased back to my car in Iceland by a tern who just didn't seem to like my looks.  The swallows in our barn when I was a kid would get scary when they had babies in the nest.  Swans can certainly get that way.  Around here you learn to keep your distance from swans in the spring.

I have also been buzzed by non-aggressive birds like cardinals and have read that they can get that way if they have been eating berries or other food that makes them feel edgy or a bit loopy.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

1 hour ago, Bagnu said:

Constantly variable.

No. Humans weren't animals before Linnaeus. And Humans were animals after Linnaeus. That hasn't changed since. And it's really very unlikely that definition is going to be change ever again, unless most civilizations are wiped out, all knowledge forgotten and far distant future generations have to rediscover it all again. I'm pretty confident that those people will end up classifying humans as animals again, just like they'll come to the conclusion that the earth is round.

[Update] I found an old picture of a tree of life-ish thing. It's not just plants and animals and fungi and bacteria. It's a lot more complicated than that...

Excuse my Dutch and branches are not to scale or anything. Us animals and fungi are at the top left, on the 'ophistokonta; branch. Plants are on the 'archaeplastida' branch, and algae on the 'chromalveolata' branch. Now this tree definitely is subject to minor changes now and then, because classification on this scale is definitely hard. But humans being animals. No controversy among scientists there, ever.

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[cunomar]

20 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

That's because they can actually smell fear, dogs especially, smell you better than it can see you.

But apparently an insufficient super power to stop the smaller, weaker hoomans from stealing their lunch money.

Or he was just waiting for the right person to surrender to, as is not uncommon for military types with a stick up their .. 

 

 

Could you explain for me the look of horror on my mate's face when I knocked on his back door unsure if I had the correct house , and why he asked "what did you do to my dog" which was still snarling in the corner of his backyard ?

I hadn't spoken or gestured towards it , I simply stared at it for maybe 10 seconds while mentally picturing its gory demise .

Another example is an ex-girlfriends , girlfriend who left my house and died when a car hit her motorbike maybe half mile away .

There is no way she could have , but my girlfriend knew something bad had happened and her concern was enough to have me forbid her to follow while I walked down to be one of the first on the scene . That she had died instantly was very obvious .

How did she know ?

 

[Coffee Pancake]

56 minutes ago, cunomar said:

Could you explain for me the look of horror on my mate's face when I knocked on his back door unsure if I had the correct house , and why he asked "what did you do to my dog" which was still snarling in the corner of his backyard ?

I hadn't spoken or gestured towards it , I simply stared at it for maybe 10 seconds while mentally picturing its gory demise .

Another example is an ex-girlfriends , girlfriend who left my house and died when a car hit her motorbike maybe half mile away .

There is no way she could have , but my girlfriend knew something bad had happened and her concern was enough to have me forbid her to follow while I walked down to be one of the first on the scene . That she had died instantly was very obvious .

How did she know ?

 

Magical thinking is a hell of a drug. Once you make that a possibly, then it's an easy answer to all of life's surprises.

Worrying about someone's personal safety happens all the time, and we ignore and dismiss it as silly when it turns out nothing bad actually happened, except for that one time when it happened coincidentally.

I'd suggest caution about with the dog one though, roll that dice often enough and  sooner or later, one won't "get the message" and decide it can meet your challenge. Certainly don't try it on anything lager than a dog.

[cunomar]

Believe what you like I was there .

It was a fun morning following a fun evening and while two of us were hungry so cooking , the third wasn't and decided to go get the car so we could all go to the carnival and get drunk . Less than two minutes after she left the atmosphere in the house changed instantly over an event that happened far out of sight or hearing distance .

They were about 19 at the time , party animals at that age rarely consider mortality .

Oh and nobody i their right mind chooses to challenge anything with big teeth lol , I was fed up walking around identical houses for an hour searching for the right one when somebody pointed to a back door .

[Rat Luv]

.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Rat Luv

[Innula Zenovka]

37 minutes ago, cunomar said:

Believe what you like I was there .

It was a fun morning following a fun evening and while two of us were hungry so cooking , the third wasn't and decided to go get the car so we could all go to the carnival and get drunk . Less than two minutes after she left the atmosphere in the house changed instantly over an event that happened far out of sight or hearing distance .

They were about 19 at the time , party animals at that age rarely consider mortality .

Oh and nobody i their right mind chooses to challenge anything with big teeth lol , I was fed up walking around identical houses for an hour searching for the right one when somebody pointed to a back door .

The  trouble is, no one, including you, can remember all the times when they think think of someone and hope they're OK, or have an inexplicable (at least to them) feeling that something bad may be about to happen, and then it doesn't, and they forget all about it, whereas if it does, then they tend to remember it, like all the people tend to remember changing their flights at the last minute if the  the plane they would have taken crashes but not if it doesn't.

Unless you can reliably tell when you're about to predict the future, your particular ability seems indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from simply a time when you thought of something and, coincidentally, something happened later that, with hindsight, you think might have been foreshadowed by your feeling or hunch, so while I don't disbelieve you, I don't see how this kind of anecdote proves anything.   

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, cunomar said:

Could you explain for me the look of horror on my mate's face when I knocked on his back door unsure if I had the correct house , and why he asked "what did you do to my dog" which was still snarling in the corner of his backyard ?

I hadn't spoken or gestured towards it , I simply stared at it for maybe 10 seconds while mentally picturing its gory demise .

Another example is an ex-girlfriends , girlfriend who left my house and died when a car hit her motorbike maybe half mile away .

There is no way she could have , but my girlfriend knew something bad had happened and her concern was enough to have me forbid her to follow while I walked down to be one of the first on the scene . That she had died instantly was very obvious .

How did she know ?

 

 

[Chroma Starlight]

Quote

White House defends role in Hunter Biden art sale
BBC News, 3hrs ago

The White House has defended its role in helping to broker a deal that will shroud art deals by President Joe Biden's son in secrecy.

Paintings by Hunter Biden are expected to fetch up to $500,000 (£360,000) apiece at auction this autumn.

Any buyers will be kept anonymous to stop them seeking political influence with the Bidens, the White House says.

But a former White House ethics chief said the arrangement was "very disappointing".

Hunter is currently facing a federal tax investigation, though he has said he is "100% certain" he will be cleared.

Walter Shaub, who served as ethics chief under President Barack Obama, rejected the White House's claim that the arrangement would ensure transparency.

Mr Shaub, who was an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump, wrote on Twitter: "So instead of disclosing who is paying outrageous sums for Hunter Biden's artwork so that we could monitor whether the purchasers are gaining access to government, the [White House] tried to make sure we will never know who they are.

The younger Biden, 51, published a memoir in April detailing his struggles as a crack cocaine addict.

( from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57786303 )

Edited July 10, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The  trouble is, no one, including you, can remember all the times when they think think of someone and hope they're OK, or have an inexplicable (at least to them) feeling that something bad may be about to happen, and then it doesn't, and they forget all about it, whereas if it does, then they tend to remember it, like all the people tend to remember changing their flights at the last minute if the  the plane they would have taken crashes but not if it doesn't.

Unless you can reliably tell when you're about to predict the future, your particular ability seems indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from simply a time when you thought of something and, coincidentally, something happened later that, with hindsight, you think might have been foreshadowed by your feeling or hunch, so while I don't disbelieve you, I don't see how this kind of anecdote proves anything.   

Your a priori assumption about the nature of reality which excludes the possibility of non-material/physical means of connection would not allow any other conclusion would it?  This is not scientific.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, cunomar said:

Less than two minutes after she left the atmosphere in the house changed instantly over an event that happened far out of sight or hearing distance .

I believe it's possible something psychic occurred here. As many pointed out, it's true our minds have patterned ways of responding to the world, and they can fool us in so many ways, but this will never prove your particular experience was not psychic in nature.

Psychology is basically a study of the patterns in our mind. They should be used as possibilities when approaching experiences, and never as proof of our preconceived notions.  We'd have to know much more about your girlfriends previous experiences to even approach applying our theories to her.

 

[Luna Bliss]

6 hours ago, cunomar said:

Could you explain for me the look of horror on my mate's face when I knocked on his back door unsure if I had the correct house , and why he asked "what did you do to my dog" which was still snarling in the corner of his backyard ?

I hadn't spoken or gestured towards it , I simply stared at it for maybe 10 seconds while mentally picturing its gory demise .

I don't see anything psychic going on with this incident, but it's possible.

Imagine someone staring at you while wanting to destroy you -- their eyes and demeanor are pretty creepy and easily detectable by anyone viewing them.

[Innula Zenovka]

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Your a priori assumption about the nature of reality which excludes the possibility of non-material/physical means of connection would not allow any other conclusion would it?  This is not scientific.

Not at all.   I am simply aware of the fact -- so obvious that we tend to forget about it at our peril -- that we tend to remember unusual and surprising things (e.g. we have a premonition that something out of the ordinary might happen and it does) and forget usual and unsurprising things (we have the a similar premonition and it doesn't), and so I'm asking for further and better particulars so I have a clearer picture what happened.

And if you want to demonstrate to me that it's possible reliably to cause electrochemical reactions at a distance in someone's brain with no physical means involved that are so specific they make the subject think of whatever it is you're trying to communicated, then please go ahead.

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Luna Bliss]

5 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Magical thinking is a hell of a drug.

Scientism is also a hell of a drug...

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Not at all.   I am simply aware of the fact -- so obvious that we tend to forget about it at our peril -- that we tend to remember unusual and surprising things (e.g. we have a premonition that something out of the ordinary might happen and it does) and forget usual and unsurprising things (we have the a similar premonition and it doesn't), and so I'm asking for further and better particulars so I have a clearer picture what happened.

And if you want to demonstrate to me that it's possible reliably to cause electrochemical reactions at a distance in someone's brain with no physical means involved that are so specific the make the subject think of whatever it is you're trying to communicated, then please go ahead.

Science is not the only way to understand the world though, but you assume it is, as if your position is the default and only true one.

It's fine if you want to believe this, but it's not fair to expect others to meet your demands. Nobody needs to prove anything to you.

[Rolig Loon]

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

[Chroma Starlight]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

The ancients didn't seem to have much trouble, and personally, I think they were right.

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

When all negotiations have failed, there is only one thing left to do..

 

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

I don't think it's simply a matter of faith...belief in an 'as yet unseen' aspect to reality.

Scientists have been discovering there is more than just the material world for quite a few decades now.  Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger to name a few.

“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”
~ R.C. Henry, Professor of physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

Ain't that a shame? I mean, it's not like we don't have faith in science..

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

When all negotiations have failed, there is only one thing left to do..

 

Don't touch my binky!

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Don't touch my binky!

We get dem cookies and you can haz as many binky as you heart desire! \o/

[Rolig Loon]

20 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

The ancients didn't seem to have much trouble, and personally, I think they were right.

The point is that there's no "right" or "wrong".  We're playing different games, with different rules.  You wouldn't expect to be able to "win" a game in which one person is playing checkers and the other is holding a deck of cards.

51 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's fine if you want to believe this, but it's not fair to expect others to meet your demands. Nobody needs to prove anything to you.

That's one thing that is definitely wrong, though. If you are trying to prove to me that telepathy exists, you must use the rules of science, simply because you are trying to convince me.  If I try to convince you that telepathy exists, I have to use your rules.  We're at an impasse because neither of us will accept a "proof" created by the other's rules.  Faith is not there to be proven by scientific methods, and scientific discoveries are not revealed by faith.  

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Scientists have been discovering there is more than just the material world for quite a few decades now.  Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger to name a few.

Absolutely. And we could point to Newton's formulation of gravity, Curie's explanation of radioactivity, the development of plate tectonic theory by geologists in the 1960s, and all the modern understandings of genetics from Mendel to Doudna.  Our understanding of the universe will never be complete. That's how science grows.  In each case, we make observations, find that they cannot be explained by our current theories, and try very hard to verify that the observations are not flawed. Our job is to test each unexplained observation to be sure that it is not the result of bad methodology or wishful thinking. Those are our "rules" of science.  If someone can explain observations of telepathy by those rules, that's great.  I do not discount the possibility that someone may be able to do that some day.  Until then, the only way to accept telepathy as a real phenomenon is to accept it on faith which, as I said, has its own very good but different rules.

[Luna Bliss]

“Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking in the radio for the announcer.”
– Nasseim Haramein, director of research for the Resonance Project

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.”
–Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918

“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
-Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician. He received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963

“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”
–R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University

[Arielle Popstar]

26 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's no way to debate matters of faith and matters of science with the same rules.

I would agree with that for the ones at either end of the extremes of this:

"For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible."

but I do think there is a fair contingent between those extremes that are more open to the mixing of them.