A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy"

[artisticsolution]

Okay

I'll give a little help it is the the form "adjective noun" - no verbs, or pronouns.

Fuck you!

[chaz wyman]

Okay

I'll give a little help it is the the form "adjective noun" - no verbs, or pronouns.

Fuck you!

I said no VERBS!!! Especially not imperative verbs.

4/150

[converge]

I'll give a little help it is the the form "adjective noun" - no verbs, or pronouns.

3/150

Keep going!![/color]

"Silly superstition"?

[chaz wyman]

I'll give a little help it is the the form "adjective noun" - no verbs, or pronouns.

3/150

Keep going!![/color]

"Silly superstition"?

Nope - that is ... yes, but not what I was thinking about! Or was it???? SPOOOOOOOOOOKY

but no. My thesis had nothing to do with superstition - or telepathy for that matter.
5/150

[Bernard]

Is telepathy a physical phenomenon that it can be so proved by science? If you want to know and learn about such things you have to go into sorcery 101, as Carlos Castaneda used to say. It's as demanding and rigorous a path of learning as anything can be. The Chaz challenge is a shot from the rational hip and is useless. Rationality doesn't have telepathy as a function within its processes - processes that our senses are bound to. Quantum physics goes to where rational processes begin to break down, and glimpses of other possibilities are had, but all too briefly and chaotically to be of any use. There are endless possibilities of perception, but a real interest to explore them is necessary in order to get manageable results. You have to give up a lot of what you do in daily life permanently and give it substantial amounts of time and real work. Most people are happy not to explore like that in our day. And its not about staring at a spoon 9 to 5 trying to get it to bend. Its infinitely more sophisticated, varied and enjoyable than that.

Sorry but rationality is not useless at all.

Of course not, why would you think that? My point is that you are firing of rational arguments against something which I contest has no rational basis.


If telepathy is non physical communication from a distance it is perfectly reasonable to demand that such a thing can be demonstrated.
It is ridiculous to assert that the possibilities of perception are limitless when it is completely clear that perception is limited to physical presence, and that telepathy is the question that this thread is begging!
So - put up or shut up!
If telepathy is true then show me the money.

[Arising_uk]

And not much sign of the phenomenon either, if you mean this 'reading anothers thoughts from a distance' kind of thing.

[chaz wyman]

Is telepathy a physical phenomenon that it can be so proved by science? If you want to know and learn about such things you have to go into sorcery 101, as Carlos Castaneda used to say. It's as demanding and rigorous a path of learning as anything can be. The Chaz challenge is a shot from the rational hip and is useless. Rationality doesn't have telepathy as a function within its processes - processes that our senses are bound to. Quantum physics goes to where rational processes begin to break down, and glimpses of other possibilities are had, but all too briefly and chaotically to be of any use. There are endless possibilities of perception, but a real interest to explore them is necessary in order to get manageable results. You have to give up a lot of what you do in daily life permanently and give it substantial amounts of time and real work. Most people are happy not to explore like that in our day. And its not about staring at a spoon 9 to 5 trying to get it to bend. Its infinitely more sophisticated, varied and enjoyable than that.

Sorry but rationality is not useless at all.

Of course not, why would you think that? My point is that you are firing of rational arguments against something which I contest has no rational basis.


If telepathy is non physical communication from a distance it is perfectly reasonable to demand that such a thing can be demonstrated.
It is ridiculous to assert that the possibilities of perception are limitless when it is completely clear that perception is limited to physical presence, and that telepathy is the question that this thread is begging!
So - put up or shut up!
If telepathy is true then show me the money.

SO you agree that telepathy has no rational basis? Fine, then why are you wasting your time?
It seems also pretty clear that there is no evidence for it. That means it cannot be demonstrated. it is not evident. It is not part of the observable universe.
So to summarise: it is unreasonable and not evident.
This is true of nothing else than fantasy.

[Bernard]

There is, I believe, other ways to cognize and apprehend reality other than through rationally.

[converge]

Sounds like the Aleister Crowley escape clause.

[chaz wyman]

There is, I believe, other ways to cognize and apprehend reality other than through rationally.

Me too. Looking and seeing; hearing and listening; smelling and touching, and reading.

I am not even claiming to understand telepathy rationally. I simply demand that it ought to be demonstrable.
If you can't show it exists, then you have no reason to think it does.
If you can't show it exists, then even if it does exist, as it appears not to exist then it is of no use.

What is on your mind?

[Mike Strand]

I'll guess "cell phone", but only to introduce my comments, not to claim this is what chaz is thinking.

Who needs "mental telepathy" when we have cell phones? This provides enough communication (almost too much) among individuals as it is. From a distance. Without seeing each other. Share thoughts, either verbally or by posting text. Nice thing, though about cell phones -- you can "forget" to take them with you. Can you do this with mental telepathy?

If any two people ever discovered they had the gift of mental telepathy, they would probably have to get a license from some government entity to avoid interference with radio stations and cell phones, etc. After all the effort they've put into just being able to communicate through thought, now they have to learn how to tune it into a secure and unique frequency! Then if the "security agencies" of government found out about these magicians, they would pay them for the secret and develop eves-dropping devices.

[Bernard]

As I said earlier, you've got to do the work to experience the phenomenon. That means rebuilding cognition and perception. Or it will come by itself, through need - Crowley or no Crowley.

[converge]

Chaz - I will save you the trouble.... Bernard is talking about magic, using the new-age occult explanations for why it might actually be real despite the fact that it never actually works and is impossible. The general idea is "Magic is real, but in order to understand you have to do lots of work and it's really hard and I know it's real but you never will because you're lazy and I'm not but oh don't ask me for any specifics because it's all very secret and complex and you wouldn't possibly understand without reading these fifty books first and maybe giving a bunch of money to some cult somewhere." Crowley and company would sometimes philosophize around the idea that maybe their crazy spells would work if you decided that things like evidence and science and reason weren't allowed to be used to think about their magic (Typist would approve) but in the end they never would get specific, it was important to always couch it in the theme that the real answer is secret and occult and could only be known by spending all your time and money at your local new age book store.

[Typist]

that maybe their crazy spells would work if you decided that things like evidence and science and reason weren't allowed to be used to think about their magic (Typist would approve)

Another apparently deliberate misstatement of my views, # 12,983 I think.

[converge]

that maybe their crazy spells would work if you decided that things like evidence and science and reason weren't allowed to be used to think about their magic (Typist would approve)

Another apparently deliberate misstatement of my views, # 12,983 I think.

Don't worry, I'm sure Crowley (and maybe Bernard!) would say I was misinterpreting them as well! And Crowley would certainly agree that naive unbelievers like me are just unable to grasp the complexity of his philosophy and the obvious proof that he doesn't need proof to prove that his particular brand of magic is real.