Quote:

Telepathy (Greek τηλε, tele meaning "distant" and πάθεια, patheia meaning "to be affected by",) is supposed to be the transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means other than the five senses (See Psi). The term was coined in 1882 by the classical scholar Fredric W. H. Myers, a founder of the Society for Psychical Research, specifically to replace the earlier expression thought-transference. A person who is able to make use of telepathy is said to be able to read the thoughts and stored information in the brain of others. Telepathy, along with psychokinesis forms the main branches of parapsychological research, and many studies seeking to detect, understand, utilize telepathy have been done within the field.
There is no accepted mechanism by which telepathy can work, and there is no definition which unambiguously distinguishes it from a number of other related concepts such as clairvoyance, so the concept is not accepted by the scientific community
Telepathy is a common theme in modern fiction and science fiction, with many superheroes and supervillains having telepathic abilities. Such abilities include sensing the thoughts of others.

---

Quote:

Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. Different models have been proposed for the definition of EI and disagreement exists as to how the term should be used. Despite these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability EI and trait EI models (but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful applications in different domains.

---

Quote:

Telepathy (Greek τηλε, tele meaning "distant" and πάθεια, patheia meaning "to be affected by",) is supposed to be the transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means [gradient:#067016,#]other than the five senses[/gradient] (See Psi).

---

Poid said:

I can hear voices.

---

Quote:

birds do it to me alot, they'll fly close when i'm on the right thought and some will leave when my thought goes "offtrack" you sure animals don't have telepathic abilities?

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

birds do it to me alot, they'll fly close when i'm on the right thought and some will leave when my thought goes "offtrack" you sure animals don't have telepathic abilities?

---

Demonstrate that you can communicate with birds telepathically and win a million dollars -

or

you can write a dozen posts explaining why you kknow it's real, but won't take the challenge.

---

giza said:

i believe i can percieve telepathy just not allowed to communicate

---

Poid said:

If you can't communicate telepathically, what makes you think that a less intelligent creature can?

---

Poid said:

giza said:

i believe i can percieve telepathy just not allowed to communicate

---

Can you please elaborate?

---

Poid said:

Maybe what you think you understand is incorrect, and you are just ignored because they have no desire to speak with you.

---

Poid said:

The only way to be closer to finding out the truth about this is by thinking about the situation over and over using rational logic!

---

giza said:

Poid said:

The only way to be closer to finding out the truth about this is by thinking about the situation over and over using rational logic!

---

yes i do that alot

---

For your sake, I hope you do, but to be bluntly honest, I don't believe that you do.

OrgoneConclusion said:

So far, 3 of the 12 predicted sputtering posts that 'explain' why his telepathy is not telepathic - or whatever.

---

He's just a
, give him some time.

giza said:

even if i bump my toe i think it's becausse i was thinking a 'bad' thought or i did something to deserve the pain in my toe

---

But do you have any proof for this? What if shit just happens.

Poid said:

giza said:

even if i bump my toe i think it's becausse i was thinking a 'bad' thought or i did something to deserve the pain in my toe

---

But do you have any proof for this? What if shit just happens.

---

giza said:

well when something happens to you do you automatically come up with a reason why?

---

giza said:

I don't know if being like this is good or bad?

---

giza said:

is telepathy the ability to talk without sound if so i am part-telepathic

---

giza said:

so you can only communicate telepathically if you both have the same knowledge?

---

giza said:

isn't the ability to notice suffering or joy a telepathic trait?

---

giza said:

even if i bump my toe i think it's becausse i was thinking a 'bad' thought or i did something to deserve the pain in my toe

---

giza said:

well when something happens to you do you automatically come up with a reason why? I don't know if being like this is good or bad?

---

Poid said:

From Telepathy - Wikipedia:

Quote:

Telepathy (Greek ôçëå, tele meaning "distant" and ðÜèåéá, patheia meaning "to be affected by",) is supposed to be the transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means other than the five senses (See Psi). The term was coined in 1882 by the classical scholar Fredric W. H. Myers, a founder of the Society for Psychical Research, specifically to replace the earlier expression thought-transference. A person who is able to make use of telepathy is said to be able to read the thoughts and stored information in the brain of others. Telepathy, along with psychokinesis forms the main branches of parapsychological research, and many studies seeking to detect, understand, utilize telepathy have been done within the field.
There is no accepted mechanism by which telepathy can work, and there is no definition which unambiguously distinguishes it from a number of other related concepts such as clairvoyance, so the concept is not accepted by the scientific community
Telepathy is a common theme in modern fiction and science fiction, with many superheroes and supervillains having telepathic abilities. Such abilities include sensing the thoughts of others.

---

The telepathy theory implies that one organism can literally perceive the perceptions (e.g.- the thoughts) of other individual organisms, and seeing that perceptions are a function of the brain, it is impossible for one organism with its own brain to be able to perceive any of the perceptions experienced by any other organism; even if an organism's brain state exactly mimicked that of another organism, it would still be the former organism experiencing reality via its own individual perceptions.


I would say that, instead of being telepathic, individuals who claim to have telepathic powers are actually more likely to have a high emotional intelligence.
From Emotional Intelligence:

Quote:

Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. Different models have been proposed for the definition of EI and disagreement exists as to how the term should be used. Despite these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability EI and trait EI models (but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful applications in different domains.

---

---

Quote:

Most scientists will admit there is plenty we do not know.

---

Quote:

Mimicking is still communication.

---

Grapefruit said:

That is totally ridiculous. You are basically saying "because we have not found a way in which it is physically possible then that must prove that it's not.". Most scientists will admit there is plenty we do not know.

---

Grapefruit said:

As a side note I believe society at large would say telepathy is any form of communication between two brains not through the known senses.

---

Grapefruit said:

Mimicking is still communication.

---

Sure, but it's not telepathy!

OrgoneConclusion said:

Demonstrate that you can communicate telepathically and win a million dollars -

---

whatever test that would win me a million dollars

Quote:

The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

History of the challenge
In 1968, James Randi was working on a radio program with his friend and parapsychologist Stanley Crypter. During one of the programs, a caller challenged him to "put his money where his mouth is", and Randi offered $100 of his own money (even though he wasn't sure if he had $100 at that time[citation needed]) to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal. Eventually[when?] this grew to $1,000 and then $10,000. Later, Lexington Broadcasting wanted him to do a show called the "$100,000 Psychic Prize", so they added $90,000 to the original $10,000 raised by Randi. Finally, in 1996, one of his friends, Internet pioneer Rick Adams donated US $1,000,000 for the prize. As the prize fund grew, the rules that surround claiming the prize became more official and legal.

To claim, one must agree to a protocol for testing, must show in a preliminary test before a foundation representative that they are likely to succeed, and finally make a demonstration in a formal test in front of independent witnesses. To date, over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed a preliminary test, which is set up and agreed upon by both Randi and the applicant.

In the conditions and rules governing the one million U.S.-dollar challenge, Randi plainly states that both parties (himself and the party accepting the challenge) must agree in advance as to what conditions of the test constitute a "success" and what constitutes a "failure." He also refuses to accept any challengers who might suffer serious injury or death as a result of the test they intend to undergo.

Since April 1, 2007 only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic are allowed to apply for the challenge. The resources freed up by not having to test obscure and possibly mentally ill claimants will then be used to challenge high-profile alleged psychics and mediums such as Sylvia Browne and John Edward with a campaign in the media.

Dennis Rawlins claimed the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out". Others, noting this magazine article grew out of political infighting among the members of CSICOP, believe this quote is being misapplied, and that it refers to the fact that Randi employs safeguards against cheating. Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation. Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!" which carries a quite different meaning. Randi claims that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat, and others have interpreted it to mean that Randi regards the chances of him having to pay out as zero due to his a priori assumption that so-called "paranormal phenomena" do not exist. On Larry King Live Randi stated that if such phenomena did exist and someone accurately demonstrated it, he would give them one million dollars. So far, only about a thousand people have taken the challenge, and none have been successful.

On Larry King Live, March 6, 2001, Larry King asked Sylvia Browne if she would take the challenge and she agreed. Randi appeared with Browne again on Larry King Live on September 3, 2001 and she again accepted the challenge. However, she has refused to be tested and Randi keeps a clock on his website recording the number of weeks that have passed since Sylvia accepted the challenge without following through. In an appearance on Larry King Live on January 26, 2007, Randi challenged Rosemary Altea to take the one million challenge. On Altea and Randi's June 5, 2001 meeting on the same show, Altea refused to take the challenge, calling it "a trick". Instead Altea, in part, replied "I agree with what he says, that there are many, many people who claim to be spiritual mediums, they claim to talk to the dead. There are many, people, we all know this. There are cheats and charlatans everywhere."

Randi has recently challenged David R. Hawkins to win the prize with Hawkins' "arm-pressing technique" (applied kinesiology), suggesting it would only take thirty minutes of easy work, but believing that Hawkins would not even attempt to apply for the challenge for "obvious" reasons.

As an April Fool's prank on April 1, 2008 at the MIT Media Lab Seth Raphael and James Randi performed a demonstration of Seth Raphael's psychic abilities which was awarded the prize.

Judging the results
The official Challenge rules stipulate that the participant must agree, in writing, to the conditions and criteria of their test. Claims that cannot be tested experimentally are not eligible for the Challenge. To ensure that the experimental conditions themselves do not negatively affect a claimant's ability to perform, non-blinded preliminary control tests are often performed. For example, the JREF has dowsers perform a control test, in which the dowser attempts to locate the target substance or object using their dowsing ability, even though the target's location has been revealed to the applicant. Failure to display a 100% success rate in the open test will cause their immediate disqualification. However, claimants are usually able to perform successfully during the open test, confirming that experimental conditions are adequate. According to the JREF, despite success in these open tests, no claimants have yet been able to successfully demonstrate evidence of their claims while blinded under otherwise identical conditions. Some participants have stated afterwards that the threat of disqualification is the main factor in their apparent success in the open test. Randi has said that few unsuccessful applicants ever seriously consider that their failure to perform might be due to the nonexistence of the power they believe they possess. The discussions between the JREF and applicants were at one time posted on a public discussion board for all to see. Since the resignation of Randi's assistant, Mr. Kramer—and subsequent changes to challenge rules requiring applicants to have demonstrated considerable notability—new applications are no longer logged, but the JREF continues to maintain an archive of previous applicants.

Another objection made by critics of the challenge is that the rules prohibit independent judging, making the success or failure of the challenge dependent on whether Randi agrees that the test has been passed. While acknowledging the prohibition of independent judges, JREF staff and affiliates point out that the nature of the experimental design makes subjective judging of results unnecessary. Since claimants agree to readily observable success criteria prior to the test, results are unambiguous and clearly indicate whether or not the criteria have been met. Critics have also claimed that Randi's degree of control over the conditions of the challenge discourages serious applicants from applying, due to a perception of bias. Randi has said that he need not participate in any way with the actual execution of the test, and he has been willing to travel far from the test location to avoid the perception that his anti-paranormal bias could influence the test results. Additionally, claimants are able to influence all aspects of the testing procedure, including location and participants, during the initial negotiation phase of the challenge.

Additional criticisms of the test and its rules include:

Randi rejected applicant Rico Kolodzey, stating in the rejection letter that the applicant was "a liar and a fraud." The applicant in question claimed to survive without food via Breatharianism.
Randi's response to criticism of his handling of the Kolodzey application raised by the Alternative Science website was somewhat inconsistent. For example, Randi and the JREF explained their outright rejection of Kolodzey based on a policy to reject any applicants who put themselves in grave physical danger. However, this clause was not added to the official Challenge rules until years after the incident.
However, on May 19, 2006, Randi made a special exception to that rule due to all of the "raucous fuss" and began private negotiations for testing with Kolodzey. After 100 days of negotiations a test procedure still could not be agreed upon by both parties. In response to the stalled negotiations, Randi publicly commented that Kolodzey was retreating from testing after strenuously objecting to the rejection of his initial application.
As of January 2005, no offers to conduct a formal test have yet been extended by the JREF to an applicant.
No offers to conduct a formal test have been extended because the rules require that a claimant must first pass a preliminary test, which no applicants have yet passed. According to JREF, over 1,000 applications have been submitted for the Challenge. Of the first 650 applications (through 1982), fifty-four preliminary tests were carried out (Randi 1982:252). Most applications do not result in preliminary testing because they fail during the negotiation of experimental protocols.
Critics have also referred to case of Yellow Bamboo, who claimed that he could knock down attackers by shouting. A volunteer was actually knocked to the ground during a test, but this was not accepted by the JREF as they had already severed all ties with the Yellow Bamboo group before the test was carried out. The JREF also pointed out that the test was not conducted according to the proposed protocol, with multiple flaws in the execution including being carried out at night. Upon viewing a set of still shots from the incident, several people experienced with stun-guns suggested that an electroshock weapon could have been used.
Some claim the one million dollars does not exist, or is in the form of pledges or promissory notes.
The JREF has stated that the million dollars is in the form of negotiable bonds within a "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" and that validation of the account and the prize amount can be supplied on demand. The money is held in a Goldman, Sachs & Company account. A copy of the JREF investment statement is viewable at SkepticReport, and the foundation has repeatedly mailed this evidence to high-profile claimants.

Example of a test (dowsing)
In 1979 Randi tested four people in Italy for dowsing ability (Mr. Fontana, Dr. Borga, Mr. Stanziola, and Mr. Senatore). The prize at the time was $10,000 of Randi's personal money. The conditions were that a 10 meter by 10 meter test area would be used. There would be water supply and a reservoir just outside the test area. There would be three plastic pipes running underground from the source to the reservoir along different concealed paths. Each pipe would pass through the test area by entering at some point on an edge and exiting at some point on an edge. A pipe would not cross itself but it might cross others. The pipes were 3 centimeters in diameter and were buried 50 centimeters below ground. Valves would select which of the pipes water was running through, and only one would be selected at a time. At least 5 liters per second of water would flow through the selected pipe. The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. Additionally, the dowser must demonstrate that the dowsing reaction works on an exposed pipe with the water running. Then one of the three pipes would be selected randomly for each trial. The dowser would place ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he traces as the path of the active pipe. Two-thirds of the pegs placed by the dowser must be within 10 centimeters of the center of the pipe being traced for the trial to be a success. Three trials would be done for the test of each dowser and the dowser must pass two of the three trials to pass the test. A lawyer was present, in possession of Randi's $10,000 check. If a claimant were successful, the lawyer would give him the check. If none were successful, the check would be returned to Randi.

All of the dowsers agreed with the conditions of the test and stated that they felt able to perform the test that day and that the water flow was sufficient. Before the test they were asked how sure they were that they would succeed. All said either "99 percent" or "100 percent" certain. They were asked what they would conclude if the water flow was 90 degrees from what they thought it was and all said that it was impossible. After the test they were asked how confident they were that they had passed the test. Three answered "100 percent" and one answered that he had not completed the test.

When all of the tests were over and the location of the pipes was revealed, none of the dowsers had passed the test. Dr. Borga had placed his markers carefully, but the nearest was a full 8 feet from the water pipe. Borga said "We are lost"; but within two minutes he started blaming his failure on many things such as sunspots and geomagnetic variables. Two of the dowsers had "found" natural water before the test started, but disagreed with each other about where it was, as well as with the ones who found no natural water.

New qualification rules
In April 2007, the JREF made several changes to the testing procedure in an effort to streamline the process and refocus it to target high-profile and professional paranormalists. The foundation now requires a demonstrated media profile as well as the support from some member of the academic community before it will discuss the challenge with claimants. The foundation has also stated that these qualifications can be essentially met by anyone who can win any of the smaller and more regional skeptics prize challenges.

Randi and his associates have stated two primary reasons for the change:

In the opinion of the JREF, the vast majority of the applicants for the existing challenge appeared to be either mentally ill or unable to demonstrate their powers even to their own satisfaction. Many were unable to successfully fill out the application forms or coherently and consistently describe their alleged abilities. The foundation has stated that treating these applications seriously has both required an immense amount of time as well as doing a disservice to the applicants.
The true intent of the challenge has always been to aggressively pursue the most prominent paranormalists and force them to subject their claims to scientific scrutiny in a controlled setting. Randi said that this mission had been sidetracked by the complicated and costly application process, and the foundation wished to refocus its promotional and rhetorical approach to aggressively pursue top psychics in the media, making it difficult for them to be evasive or provide an adequate reason for not accepting the challenge.

Discontinuation and resumption
On January 4, 2008 it was announced that the prize would be discontinued on March 6, 2010 in order to free the money for other uses. In the meantime, claimants are welcome to vie for it. One of the reasons offered for its discontinuation is the unwillingness of higher profile claimants to apply.

However, at The Amaz!ng Meeting 7, it was announced that the $1 Million Challenge prize would not expire in 2010. This was also confirmed in the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer, where Randi is additionally quoted as saying: "It was going to terminate... but now it will continue." The Foundation issued a formal update on its website on July 30, 2009 announcing the Challenge's continuation, and stated more information would be provided at a later date on any possible changes to the requirements and procedures.

The Amaz!ng Meeting
Since 2003, the JREF has annually hosted The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM), a gathering of scientists, skeptics, atheists. Perennial speakers include Christopher Hitchens, Penn & Teller, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and Julia Sweeney.

Richard Dawkins and Joe Nickell appeared at the 2005 TAM 3.

TAM 4 in 2006 saw ACLU president Nadine Strossen, planetary scientist with the Voyager program Carolyn Porco, MythBusters Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, The Skeptic's Dictionary author Robert Todd Carroll and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann.

TAM 5, held January 18, 2007 – January 21, 2007, included regulars Michael Shermer, Penn & Teller, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Wiseman, MythBuster Adam Savage, and Phil Plait. Also presenting were Eugenie Scott, Peter Sagal, Neil Gershenfeld, Nick Gillespie, John Rennie, Lori Lipman Brown and Margaret Downey. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone also made an appearance.

The 2008 meeting was held at The Flamingo in Las Vegas from June 19 to 22. Speakers included Neil DeGrasse Tyson (the keynote speaker), PZ Myers and Richard Saunders, all of whom debuted at this TAM, and regulars such as Phil Plait, Penn & Teller and the cast of the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast.

On February 2, 2009, JREF President Phil Plait announced that TAM 7 would take place from July 9 to 12 of that year. He also announced TAM London, the first ever TAM held outside the US, which took place on October 3-4 of 2009.

On July 12, 2009, Phil Plait announced that TAM 8 would take place from July 8 to 11, 2010 at the Southpoint Casino in Las Vegas.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

I am sure they would not consent to an illegal activity though.

---

Poid said:

A creature is able to perceive because of its functioning brain, and the telepathy theory asserts that one individual creature can perceive the perceptions (e.g.-thoughts) of another individual creature; since perception is a function of the brain, in order for two creatures to literally perceive each others' perceptions, their physical brain would have to merge.

---

What if perception is not a physical process but a mental one- not of the brain, but the mind? Would it not be possible for some connection to exist between them, as it would no longer be necessary for two physical objects to merge?

Perhaps that would be taking it into the realm of metaphysics..


I'm undecided whether telepathy exists or not, that is not my point in argueing- but rather with the certainty that you make this claim. You may state a decent case that most people who claim to be telepathic are simply high in emotional intelligence, but you do nothing to completely disprove the possibility of telepathy.

shivas.wisdom said:

I also will have to dissagree with your statement, poid.

First off, we know senses, other than the 5 humans have, to exist. An example will be how many animals can sense electromagnetic fields.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

What is to say that other senses exist, or may develop, that we are not aware of now...

---

shivas.wisdom said:

that would allow telepathy?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

What if perception is not a physical process but a mental one- not of the brain, but the mind?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Would it not be possible for some connection to exist between them, as it would no longer be necessary for two physical objects to merge?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

I'm undecided whether telepathy exists or not, that is not my point in argueing- but rather with the certainty that you make this claim. You may state a decent case that most people who claim to be telepathic are simply high in emotional intelligence, but you do nothing to completely disprove the possibility of telepathy.

---

Quote:

it is impossible for one organism with its own brain to be able to perceive any of the perceptions experienced by any other organism

---

Poid said:

Quote:

What if perception is not a physical process but a mental one- not of the brain, but the mind?

---

You have to prove that the mind exists after death.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Quote:

it is impossible for one organism with its own brain to be able to perceive any of the perceptions experienced by any other organism

---

This seems to be your only reason for proving telepathy is a physical impossibility.

---

There are probably more reasons, but that's reason enough; Occam's Razor

shivas.wisdom said:

But why are you so certain that we perceive with our brains- where is your reasoning for this?

---

I've been to a few funerals, seen videos of people getting their brains blown out by a gun, and have researched the history of the guillotine.

shivas.wisdom said:

Do you believe thought/perception is made of physical matter, or a different substance?

---

It's not a tangible substance, but it's a phenomenon that is generated by a tangible substance; this is sort of like how heaters (which are made of tangible substances) generate heat (a phenomenon that is not made of any sort of substance).

shivas.wisdom said:

Poid said:

Quote:

What if perception is not a physical process but a mental one- not of the brain, but the mind?

---

You have to prove that the mind exists after death.

---

Why is it necessary for the mind to be deathless for it to have the ability to perceive during life?

---

What the fuck are you talking about?

shivas.wisdom said:

Do dead bodies need the ability to perceive too, according to you?

---

Fuck no, not according to me; what in the hell gave you the idea that I would believe such nonsense?

shivas.wisdom said:

I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate a bullet proof debunking of telepathy.

---

The scientific community considers telepathy to be pseudo-science, and so do I.

shivas.wisdom said:

Or perhaps, despite the rationality of your thought process (and I admit, it is good- if we perceive with our brains then, as it stands now, I would agree with you) the conclusion you draw- namely, that telepathy is impossible- is over stepping the actual conclusions: that two physical objects (ie two brains) cannot exist in the same state, while still remaining separate. Which is really nothing new.

---

Even if two humans' brain states were exactly identical, it would still mean that each of them are perceiving their own perceptions; the telepathy theory asserts that one individual can perceive the perceptions of another individual.

Poid said:

A creature is able to perceive because of its functioning brain, and the telepathy theory asserts that one individual creature can perceive the perceptions (e.g.-thoughts) of another individual creature; since perception is a function of the brain, in order for two creatures to literally perceive each others' perceptions, their physical brain would have to merge.

---

Poid said:

shivas.wisdom said:

But why are you so certain that we perceive with our brains- where is your reasoning for this?

---

I've been to a few funerals, seen videos of people getting their brains blown out by a gun, and have researched the history of the guillotine.

How did this lead you to understand that we perceive our brain? I don't see the logical connections you must have made.

shivas.wisdom said:

Do you believe thought/perception is made of physical matter, or a different substance?

---

It's not a tangible substance, but it's a phenomenon that is generated by a tangible substance; this is sort of like how heaters (which are made of tangible substances) generate heat (a phenomenon that is not made of any sort of substance).

Well, heat is simply the movement of atoms and is therefore a physical property of these atoms.
But regardless of that example, once again what leads you to your certainty that thought is something 'generated by a tangible substance' (the brain I assume?) and that this phenomenom then shares the same properties as the substance that generated it?

shivas.wisdom said:

Poid said:

Quote:

What if perception is not a physical process but a mental one- not of the brain, but the mind?

---

You have to prove that the mind exists after death.

---

Why is it necessary for the mind to be deathless for it to have the ability to perceive during life?

---

What the fuck are you talking about?

If you did not find it necessary for the mind to be deathless, why ask me to prove it exists after death?

shivas.wisdom said:

Do dead bodies need the ability to perceive too, according to you?

---

Fuck no, not according to me; what in the hell gave you the idea that I would believe such nonsense?

See above.

shivas.wisdom said:

I'm sure the scientific community would appreciate a bullet proof debunking of telepathy.

---

The scientific community considers telepathy to be pseudo-science, and so do I.

But the scientific community does not claim to have completely disproved the possibility- just acknowledges skepticism of the concept.

shivas.wisdom said:

Or perhaps, despite the rationality of your thought process (and I admit, it is good- if we perceive with our brains then, as it stands now, I would agree with you) the conclusion you draw- namely, that telepathy is impossible- is over stepping the actual conclusions: that two physical objects (ie two brains) cannot exist in the same state, while still remaining separate. Which is really nothing new.

---

Even if two humans' brain states were exactly identical, it would still mean that each of them are perceiving their own perceptions; the telepathy theory asserts that one individual can perceive the perceptions of another individual.

What is impossible about perceiving others perceptions? It may be contained within the context of the telepaths mind, but does not necessarily mean that what we do perceive is not what the other person perceived.

---