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

[Kerrie]

Any mother is constantly worried about the health and the safety of her children. So mothers have hundreds of intuitions every day, most of them unpleasant. When nothing bad happens, the mother simply forgets the intuition. But bad things happen all the time, so when one of them happens to your child, you will certainly remember you had an intuition about it. This is what is called selective thinking, you keep the thoughts that confirm your preconceived ideas and forget the ones that don't.

Any mother? Choose your words carefully regarding mother's intuition, especially if you are not a mother yourself...I don't appreciate you discounting my experiences so carelessly, or any parents experiences for that matter. Stating your opinion as fact lends you little credibility. No where in my post did I imply my intuition was "magical", but something that our current accumulation of knowledge (especially yours) may not yet explain.

Of course I spend a lot of time and effort with my children, so that bond I have with them strengthens my intuition with them, and not just when bad things happen. Just the other night my 5 year old son awoke in the middle of the night from falling asleep very early in the evening. He laid in bed quietly since he knew everyone else was sleeping, and didn't make a sound to wake anyone. At the same time, I awoke very suddenly with the concern that he could wake up any moment hungry since he slept through dinner. I gently peeked into his room, and there he was lying in his bed quietly and I asked him if he was hungry. For the next couple of hours, we hung out, had hot chocolate and then fell back asleep on the couch. Now tell me, is this a bad thing? Or just my mother's intuition that understands my children that you discount as unpleasant?

I get very irritated with those who are determined to think one way without taking into account some credible experiences that are the catalyst for some innovative ways of understanding our world and ourselves better. To be skeptical is one thing, to be stubborn in your ways of thinking is not being skeptical.

 

[fileen]

sgt,
my horse until this time has never been sick at all. I honestly have never been afraid for her safety. bear in mind I am with her all the time and personally assure that there are as little risk to her safety as possible. obviously if other horses at my farm were sick, or there were new horses in the barn I would take extra care, but my mare does not come in contact with any other horse unless I know about it. as a show horse she is worth a lot of money, as well as being my best friend. she has the best of every thing, I am a very good horse owner. again there was no reason for me to consider it. she was in good hands. I saw to it personally. I don't worry about my horse. this was not normal. I knew there was something wrong. I had no doubt. this has never happened before. call it mothers intuition or esp or whatever, but its unexplainable. I experience lots of abnormal things. sometimes out of no where I just look up and say "grandmas calling" or something and then the phone rings. and no, I don't ever say "grandmas calling" and the phone doesn't ring, so give it up.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now tell me, is this a bad thing? Or just my mother's intuition that understands my children that you discount as unpleasant?

If you read what SGT said again, it is clear he was saying that mothers constantly worry whether or not their children are experiencing anything unpleasant, in order to be ready to alleiviate it:

Any mother is constantly worried about the health and the safety of her children. So mothers have hundreds of intuitions every day, most of them unpleasant.

You were, indeed, worried that your son might be hungry, which would be unpleasant for him. That is all SGT was saying in his use of the word "unpleasant".

 

[Kerrie]

If you read what SGT said again, it is clear he was saying that mothers constantly worry whether or not their children are experiencing anything unpleasant, in order to be ready to alleiviate it:
You were, indeed, worried that your son might be hungry, which would be unpleasant for him. That is all SGT was saying in his use of the word "unpleasant".

When nothing bad happens, the mother simply forgets the intuition. But bad things happen all the time, so when one of them happens to your child, you will certainly remember you had an intuition about it.

I think the "selective thinking" is coming into play here also...I took SGT's whole post as a negative reference to mother's intuition, not just certain parts..."bad things" and "unpleasant things" are subjective terms.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is a classic example of trying to raise the odds of a 'normal' explanation.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Criticizing the Skeptical take on a matter because it's the skeptical take, in a forum called "Skepticism and Debunking" is like criticizing the physics explanation of a matter because it's the physics explanation in a forum called "Physics."

I don't expect anyone to buy the Skeptical take lock stock and barrel under any circumstances if they feel they have a good reason not to buy it.

I am still confused about why anyone is posting anything in this forum if they don't even want to risk hearing the skeptical take.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the "selective thinking" is coming into play here also...I took SGT's whole post as a negative reference to mother's intuition, not just certain parts..."bad things" and "unpleasant things" are subjective terms.

Hmmmmm...I can't say that I find SGTs post to be a "negative reference" to it. If there is anything wrong with his post, the only thing I can say is that he neglected to pay attention to how intensly you are feeling about it, and that his response came off as, not so much negative, as dismissive.

The kind of mistake he is describing, where a person contantly suspects a particular thing might occur, and then congratulates himself for having had an "intuition" about it, if it eventually does occur, forgetting that he had the same intuition a thousand times with no result, is a real, chronic mistake that people make all the time. I have done it myself. For two weeks straight I might experience a "feeling" that today is the day I'm going to get a letter or phone call from a particular person. When it happens, I think: "I KNEW it!" and conveniently fail to remember all the times I suspected it without it coming to pass.

I think if you think back, there are probably plenty of times you looked in on your kids and they were sleeping soundly. That particular example, where you woke up worried, looked in, and he was awake, isn't so convincing to me of mother's intuition.

I happened to be thinking in detail about earthquakes the day before the big quake in San Fransisco a few years back, and, at the time wrote a letter to one of my sisters seriously suggesting I must have had a psychic premonition, because it seemed to me that I must have. How else can you explain it? I was thinking in detail about earthquakes, and by God, the next day there was a huge, destructive earthquake, only a few hundred miles away from me, up the coast.

Well, SGT is actually right. I started paying attention to how often I think about earthquakes in detail, and, living here on the west coast, and having been through a couple small ones, I actually think about them about three or four times a week. Am I psychic?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You are making an assumption based on what you believe to be true. I have walked this path two, four, or six times a night for most of ten years. This particular situation was unique which is why I mentioned it.

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

A few months ago I began to sense that something was right out there; just beyone the light. I would shine the light in this direction and that, up the hill into the trees and down into the pasture, but I didn't see anything for several weeks. Then, one night...

 

[PIT2]

You say this like it's a bad thing. Criticizing the Skeptical take on a matter because it's the skeptical take, in a forum called "Skepticism and Debunking" is like criticizing the physics explanation of a matter because it's the physics explanation in a forum called "Physics."

I don't expect anyone to buy the Skeptical take lock stock and barrel under any circumstances if they feel they have a good reason not to buy it.

I do not criticize it because it is skeptical, but because i disagree with the likelyhood of it as an explanation. Wherever did u get the idea that i hate skepticism?

Its just not really objective thinking to assume the opposite of what the data indicate. Of course its wise to consider these kinds of explanations, but the idea that a 'skeptic' somehow someway knows the experience a person had better than that person him/herself, is of course false.

Lets take that above case for example. Is it likely that Jileen had experienced this feeling 'my horse is in trouble' thousands upon thousands of times before (so that the odds are raised enough to allow a freak coincidence) and undertook steps to find out if something was wrong with the horse, subsequently forgetting all about it?

I certainly do not think so, but who knows. (actually, we do know now, since she adressed this issue in above post)

Furthermore i described an experience i had just 2 days ago, in which such an explanation is not even applicable. I know it must appear now that i made this experience up just for this topic, but for what its worth, i didnt.

I am still confused about why anyone is posting anything in this forum if they don't even want to risk hearing the skeptical take.

Im afraid u misunderstand my posts. Just because i dissagree with certain skeptic explanations, does not mean that i am somehow deaf to any arguments. This is simply what a discussion is like. One person says one thing, the other disagrees and says something else, etc. I don't see any problem?

 

[SGT]

I think the "selective thinking" is coming into play here also...I took SGT's whole post as a negative reference to mother's intuition, not just certain parts..."bad things" and "unpleasant things" are subjective terms.

Well, the interpretation zoobieshoe gave to my words is the correct one! My first language is not English, so I may not use it in the proper way. Thinking in one language (mine is Portuguese) and writing in another may lend to bad phrasing. I apologize for that, but since this is an international forum you should be more complaisant with mistakes non English speaking people do.
And I am not saying mother's intuition is a bad thing. Children are in constant danger, real or imaginary. A bad dream is very stressful to a child, so a mother checking for her child well being is a positive trait. Even if you check ten times with nothing menacing your child, but in the eleventh time your child is awake and sorry, your mother's intuition has worth its existence. That's probably why evolution kept this trait in human beings, specially in females.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I do not criticize it because it is skeptical, but because i disagree with the likelyhood of it as an explanation.

Actually you said:

This is a classic example of trying to raise the odds of a 'normal' explanation.
Just state that the event has happened many times, but that the person just forgot about it.

Again, you are, to all outward appearances, criticizing his offering a "normal" explanation as if there's something wrong with offering a "normal" explanation.

You say later you actually disagreed because you didn't think his explanation was the right one in this case, but where was your "right explanation" in favor of the horse telepathy? You didn't make one.

Furthermore i described an experience i had just 2 days ago, in which such an explanation is not even applicable. I know it must appear now that i made this experience up just for this topic, but for what its worth, i didnt.

Don't worry. I don't think you made it up. I have the exact same politician story.

 

[PIT2]

Actually you said:

Again, you are, to all outward appearances, criticizing his offering a "normal" explanation as if there's something wrong with offering a "normal" explanation.

Its just an explanation that i have seen many times and with which i often dissagree.

You say later you actually disagreed because you didn't think his explanation was the right one in this case, but where was your "right explanation" in favor of the horse telepathy? You didn't make one.

My explanation is what the data suggests: that there is some kind of knowledge on Fileens side about the wellbeing of the horse. How this knowledge comes about, i wouldn't know. Perhaps in cases of actual telepathy, like u mentioned somewhere earlier, it has to do with nonlocal quantum effects.

But another normal explanation in this horse case, could be that fileen had subconsciously seen the disease affecting the horse, before she even went on the weekend trip. Of course it is easy to blame everything on the vaguely known workings of the sunconscious or instincts and intuition.

 

[Evo]

I can't agree completely with sgt's post, that only explains some instances.

I have a very strong link with my younger daughter. I hate getting phone calls, so I usually keep the phone unplugged. There have been a number of times that she tried to call me and the phone wouldn't answer and she got very upset. I could feel her being angry and knew she was trying to call me, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up, I would rush to the phone, plug it in and it would immediately start ringing, I'd answer and she'd be screaming, why haven't you been answering? Once it woke me out of sleep and I banged my knee rushing to the phone to plug it in. Not ONCE did I plug in the phone and it didn't immediately ring and she was angry. NOT ONCE. That's why it's so eerie.

Just last night I was driving home and I got that feeling and knew she was trying to call me (she's out of town on vacation). I got inside and the phone was ringing, it was her, she'd been trying to reach me.

Maybe there were times she tried to call and I didn't "get the message", so maybe I don't always get what she sends, but when I do get the feeling, it's 100% accurate.

Since she's not around when these things happen we aren't reading body language or facial expressions as sgt suggested.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Its just an explanation that i have seen many times and with which i often dissagree.

Why do you often disagree with it?

My explanation is what the data suggests:

The data? I completely missed the data.

But another normal explanation in this horse case, could be that fileen had subconsciously seen the disease affecting the horse, before she even went on the weekend trip.

Something along these lines also occurred to me as a possible avenue to explore. She might have picked up on one or two unusual things, and later realized that they might have been indications of health problems.

Of course it is easy to blame everything on the vaguely known workings of the sunconscious or instincts and intuition.

This goes back to what I was saying to Kerrie in my first post to her: It is clear to me that people are much more observant than they realize.

Often, though, we have so many observations in play that it isn't clear which ones connect to which other ones to mean something we should be paying attention to. Once in a while everyone has a "gut level" realization, and puts the right facts together without doing it in their conscious, verbal thinking.

This happens to me now and then. Without thinking too much about it I blurt something out that stops people in their tracks because they don't understand how I could have known it. Part of this is just happening to remember random things someone once said that they'd forgotten about telling you, and the rest is often a matter of knowing other facts that happen to apply.

This is what I think happened with your politician.


Actually, I'm more impressed with the telephone thing fileen mentioned: always knowing when her grandmother was going to call. If, as she says, she has a 100% track record, then how do you explain it without something like mind to mind communication over distance?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I can't agree completely with sgt's post, that only explains some instances.

True, but since it does indeed explain some instances very well, I am still insistant that no one should take umbrage because it was the first explanation he offered. 90% or more of the times I used to think I had a psychic intuition about something, his explanation would have actually applied perfectly.

I could feel her being angry and knew she was trying to call me, the hair on the back of my neck would stand up, I would rush to the phone, plug it in and it would immediately start ringing, I'd answer and she'd be screaming, why haven't you been answering?

I remember, now, you've told this before. This is a pretty amazing story. It's pretty much impossible to explain except by telepathy, and stories like this are why I'm open minded about it.

Have you ever had anything like this happen with anyone else?

 

[Evo]

True, but since it does indeed explain some instances very well, I am still insistant that no one should take umbrage because it was the first explanation he offered. 90% or more of the times I used to think I had a psychic intuition about something, his explanation would have actually applied perfectly.

Yes, it would explain most of the instances.

Have you ever had anything like this happen with anyone else?

Not where I feel like I'm being yanked and feel the sense of urgency and know someone's trying to call. I'll be wrapped up watching a tv show and I'll just be yanked out of it.

It seems it's only when her frustration builds and her anger becomes focused on me that it happens.

I do have a very high accuracy for knowing who's calling. I don't always get an impression of who's calling, but when I do, it's always right. For example, I don't get the impression that it's my ex-husband and then it's not him, if I think it's him, it's him. My kids were amazed by this and asked me how I always knew it was their dad on the phone, I jokingly told them it was because the ring sounded evil.

There was a 6 month period when I was 14 that I always knew that the phone would ring. It got to the point that when I announced the phone was about to ring, someone in my family would walk to the phone because I was always right. The ability stopped as abruptly as it started. I always wondered if I was picking up on some electrical thing. I think everyone has experienced picking up the phone to dial and there was someone already on the line that was calling them, but the phone hadn't rung yet. The electrical connection is made just before the ring starts.

 

[Kerrie]

Evo explains the "link" very well that I am trying to explain. Not trying to make my experiences out to be "pyschic" by any means, but more of that sixth sense we are all CAPABLE of having, but discount that sense because science has yet to "prove" it with its boundaries.

Of course its wise to consider these kinds of explanations, but the idea that a 'skeptic' somehow someway knows the experience a person had better than that person him/herself, is of course false.

Bingo...many skeptics default to this way of thinking, and it is certainly not what skeptiscm is meant to be. These personal experiences can lead to asking the question of "why", and getting those answers that science helps us retrieve.

I started paying attention to how often I think about earthquakes in detail, and, living here on the west coast, and having been through a couple small ones, I actually think about them about three or four times a week. Am I psychic?

Again, I don't think this discussion is about being pyschic, but more that one is paying attention and aware more, thus opening up that channel we label as telepathic. Shortly before St. Helens erupted again this past March (I am 50 miles from the mountain), I told my husband that I have a feeling some good activity was going to happen. Of course, I was basing this on the fact that I check the earthquake site and web cam for the mountain constantly.

My own personal label for this awareness-from having the feeling of a natural disaster happening, to the link parents have with their childre- is simply called Logical Intuition. Animals use it all the time, they don't have the complicated lives to focus on like we do.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not where I feel like I'm being yanked and feel the sense of urgency and know someone's trying to call. I'll be wrapped up watching a tv show and I'll just be yanked out of it. It seems it's only when her frustration builds and her anger becomes focused on me that it happens.

Just pretty amazing is all I can say.

I always wondered if I was picking up on some electrical thing... ...The electrical connection is made just before the ring starts.

I'm not sure but I think the delay is only a split second. Not enough time to even say "The phone is going to ring." Sounds more like you sensed them actually dialing.

 

[PIT2]

Why do you often disagree with it?

Depends of the case we are talking about.

The data? I completely missed the data.

The data is what she told about her experience.

This happens to me now and then. Without thinking too much about it I blurt something out that stops people in their tracks because they don't understand how I could have known it. Part of this is just happening to remember random things someone once said that they'd forgotten about telling you, and the rest is often a matter of knowing other facts that happen to apply.

This is what I think happened with your politician.

So the explanation is that this person had told me about the event earlier, but we both somehow forgot about it. This was not the case. (of course how would i know if i forgot something ) All i can say is that i am 100% sure of it. The time span between him seeing the politician and us meeting the next evening ruled out us having any conversation inbetween and forgetting about it. We did communicate through email, but my inbox does not contain any messages about him seeing a politician(nor would he ever mention such pointless drivel through email anyway).

 

[PIT2]

I don't know if someone has already mentioned this in this topic, but Sheldrake has done some experiments with this 'telephone telepathy':

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/index.html

 

[Evo]

Again, I don't think this discussion is about being pyschic, but more that one is paying attention and aware more, thus opening up that channel we label as telepathic. Shortly before St. Helens erupted again this past March (I am 50 miles from the mountain), I told my husband that I have a feeling some good activity was going to happen. Of course, I was basing this on the fact that I check the earthquake site and web cam for the mountain constantly.

My friend in Sicily can sense when an earthquake is about to hit. 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. He gets a distinct feeling and nausea about a minute before the quake. It's happened all his life. Last year it woke him up and he had just enough time to run to his mother's room before the quake started.

 

[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.