What would be interesting to know and perhaps I missed it on one of the posts is how exactly could telepathy or better said how can information without verbal contact leave the brain and make it to the receiver?

Is it thoughts that somehow travel in light speed in a energetic wave that hits the receiver?

I could imagine that this is what scientists would like to figure out if it is possible to send a message from one human being to another and in what form or how exactly. Most would agree it would be somekind of energy, yet as Bushbillyidol once mentioned we can only produced 12 watts of energy anyway. Wouldn't the signal be to weak. If so then perhaps we need to see this in a different perspective all together if we are to ever believe mind reading or telepathy is ever possible.

Or is it just another sense we don't know about. A type of sixth or even seventh sense so to say?

I actually "thought" I had answered your original (or at least later) questions by suggesting that you read up on the "mind brain connection". This is a field of study that focuses on that leap from "meat computer" to consciousness and self awareness. The website I posted is pretty good.

There must be a standard, or else the brain itself would not know what its thinking.

To hand off an image to the conscious portion of the brain would require a consistency, its not whether this will work, its if we have the right modality to determine the brains standard language. (The difficulty really only arises in that each brain is slightly different)

We can watch the brain processes images, then we see them get handed off to the frontal cortex and at that precise moment it becomes a conscious thought. (tested based on when a person has an image in mind vs when the image is displayed)

____________________________________

*** This is not a direct response to any one post, but I felt it would help.

One thing to note here briefly, is that we do not think in language, we think we do, but we do not. Even when what we are thinking about is language we still think in concepts that get translated into language, we can watch this take place inside the brain. We have studied people with fresh brain damage, and there brain works just like normal until it gets ready to hand off the information to the language centers and bam dead end.

I think creative you should do some more research into where we are at in neuro science. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

That is what I have been saying for a long time. We do not think in language. We think first in feeling, and images and other sensory perceptions that come into our awareness.

I once heard someone claim that if a child can't talk, then he can't think. How ridiculous is that? If the child can't think, he would never learn to talk.

Good example JB.



_________

I think to understand how the brain maps its own concepts and how memory functions and is recalled is going to be one of the hurtles that will need to be placed squarely in the "known" category before we can have some kind of "mind reading" apparatus.

This has not happened yet, and so we are missing a piece that will allow our software to turn 80% based on a small matrix of possibilities and change it into a 100% based on any choice.

Now the software would have to analyze all of the physical pathways of the brain and be able to update when new pathways are created or restored.

I see this as a MAJOR hurdle considering how much processing power would be needed to do this.

It may require quantum computing before we can get chips powerful enough small enough, but its well within the realm of possible, when is a whole other story.


Also this would be very expensive . . . . how much you want to bet that when the first one comes out its application will be a military one?

What comes to my mind is holographic image projection.

A person visualizes an event or thing in a three dimensional space he creates in his mind. (Just the same way he does when he dreams.)

In telepathy, this visual image is 'presented' to the receiver as it is 'created' by the sender. The sender acts as a holographic projector of the image.

Now if you went into a museum and were looking at a holographic projected image with your friends, do you think they would all see the same thing or something different?

I think they would all see the same thing pretty much, but from whatever angle they were standing.

I don't know how a telepathic transmission is sent from one person to another, but I would be willing to bet that it gets there in tact the way it was created by the sender.

____________________________

I once met a person who could watch a movie one time and it was permanently stored in his memory down to the credits. He worked at a boring factory job and while he worked, he could call up this memory and reply the entire movie from beginning to end.

_____________________________

I agree, but would like to add that one of the sources of confusion, I feel, in this thread, is that we each have a slightly different idea of what qualifies as 'mind reading'. One could argue that we already have machines capable of rudimentary 'mind reading', and one could also argue that (given a diminishing return on our efforts) we may never -completely- read a persons mind with machines.

I know its generally a bad idea to say 'never' with regards to technological advancement, but, it will likely come down to money and practical results. Do we *need* the machine to be able to detect that i had a slight preference for the texture of my third molar over the texture of my second molar as I cleaned my tongue with my teeth just now? Most of us have such a tremendous multitude of irrelevant, transitory thoughts... and there are so many places where we accept mediocrity (and embrace cost-effectiveness) in our technology, I think mind reading machines would be the same way.




Exactly! For that 'level' of 'mind reading', at least.

Nice discussion here...

Kudos to all!!!



Jeremy,

I have a question regarding this...



I, as you may know, have always held firm to the notion that we as humans do think in our given language - that thought itself is nothing more than that unspoken language. Although I am able to substantiate this notion in several ways, I believe I would much rather delve into a different perspective concerning this. I am open for a change in thinking, be it a warranted one. With that in mind, the example given does not necessarily warrant the notion that we do not think in language. It does show that thoughts cannot be verbalized in that case. It is not conclusive that the thoughts themselves are not understood by the thinker in his/her own given language, just that the verbalization capability has been hampered.

Is there perhaps another avenue possible with this line of thought, while keeping in step with the progress of the thread? If the direction and acuity of the discussion are compromised, then perhaps another time, because the exact content is not important now.

I do not remember the initial source for this research, but I think I found the initial mention of it in Dan Dennet's consciousness explained, I would have to reread it to get his source.

This discussion - as of late - has began to point out the differences between our individual understandings of exactly what constitutes 'mind reading', while simultaneously highlighting the significance regarding the practical role of fMRI. Again, I would like to thank everyone participating in this enlightening topic.



I think it is safe to say that all brain function and the thermal mapping of it is not necessarily a reflection of conscious thought and it's patterning but one of the different areas of the brain being used. Therefore, 'mind reading' in this manner has distinct boundaries. Reason itself should not dismiss the significance of this tehnology though because of the potential to learn so much about the complex networking of the brain itself.

I think we all agree that 'pure' and complete mental telepathy, or rather the exchanging of complete ideas through conscious thought alone remains an unsubstantiated claim.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and hope it continues...

For me its akin to a network of computers. We can watch the traffic without knowing what is being sent, we can extrapolate the basic's of the message by knowing which processing centers are being used. This makes it easy to form a distinction between functionally different data, but the data that is functionally the same would appear as the same network traffic. So yes, what we need to is decode the language of the brain, and setup a receiver that would pass thought the info but make a copy to be examined.



I agree.

As are most claims made on these forums....

Jb,

Being one that has expressed a belief that telepathy is possible, could you explain how it is that you have arrived at that? Others here have all given evidence for their assertion/belief, perhaps the direction could travel towards your persepctive for a while.

Except for the claims about the Draconians. Those are facts!

I would venture to assume that many people have had experiences which could be classsified as telepathic in some way. The feelings often attributed to intuition of some sort come to mind. Can these things be effectively framed in a more logical or scientific way?

At our root, I believe that we are all quite logical creatures, it is ingrained into our nature. The hinge propositions which support our belief structure's entirety are always without grounds though, and this not only emphasizes the importance, but also gives ground to those who live with doubt regarding what can be known.

Perhaps you have not read the entire thread. I base my belief and opinion on personal experience. I have experienced telepathy as both a receiver and a sender. You did ask me to 'explain' how I arrived at that. I have no other evidence.

I would ask you how you would define or explain just what 'intuition' is and if it exists, what is it?

Psychics today are leaning towards calling their abilities 'intuitive' rather than 'psychic' now simply because of the negative and sometimes combative resistance and reactions they get from using the term 'psychic' around such skeptics.



We are all 'logical' within your own belief structure. After reading a lot of material about aliens, and listening to credible eye witnesses, my logic tells me that they do exist. Last night on the History Channel was a very interesting show about flying saucers being studied and reverse engineered at area 51. Either there is some truth to that or someone is purposely trying to make the public believe in aliens for who knows what ulterior motive.

Some suggestions have been a conspiracy or plan for a massive fake invasion of aliens using these UFO's that would bring together all the countries of the world (for the completion of the New One World Government) in order to successfully defend the earth against invaders. A good plan, and of course it would be engineered so that we would appear to have won the battle against the invaders.

Upon reading the "Report from Iron Mountain" rather fake or real, it ends with the conclusion that the only way that a government can maintain its control over the masses is the idea that there is some outside threat that needs to be dealt with. The report even goes so far as to suggest ".. as an invasion from an alien life form upon the earth..."

But the truth may be, it would all be faked, and that the "real invaders" are already here and doing the organizing of the whole scam, in order to get the world under one government and one leader.

If there is no truth to any of this at all, whatsoever, what the hell is going on -- in your reality? Why are they putting shows like this on the HISTORY CHANNEL? Just for ratings? That seems a ridiculous idea. Is it true or a lie? They are claiming it is true. So what IS going on? What does your logic tell you?

A massive conspiracy, real aliens, a scam, a lie, or the truth?

Perhaps you have not read as many reports and stories and eye witnesses as I have. Perhaps you don't pay any attention to these things. I do.

My idea comes from reading from many different sources and considering all information in an attempt to glean the bits of truth from it. I have my own theory. In fact, I have two theories that contradict each other. Either this is going on..... or this.

Which theory is true hinges upon whether or not non-human life forms (aliens) exist or not.

Right now, according to my logic, the evidence and information point more towards the notion that they DO INDEED EXIST.

I read something awhile back about the 'Star baby' I think it is called. It is a skull they found in Mexico that shows how the structure of the skull shows how close the eye sockets where together and how much huger its brain compacity is compared to a human skull. The team went all over the place with this skull to show to experts in the field. In the end they said that the possibility is that it was a hybird. The DNA shows that the mother was indeed human but it couldn't show what the father was. Its DNA couldn't be identified. Therefore the chances are is that perhaps this skull they found and claim is 900 years old through carbon dating is half human and half gray alien or maybe less of a percentage.

They also went to experts on the possibility that perhaps the skull was of a human that was deformed. They ruled that out also.

So if anything perhaps this alien race that landed on this planet many thousands of years ago where highly intelligent with modern technological idealogies that had helped build exact perfect structures such as the pyramids without a minor mistake. In the end what they are saying is yes the humans built it with the help of the aliens.

Also they say that there thin bodies (grays) looked like it couldn't hold its own heads weight. What experts indicate is that perhaps where they came from there was less gravity allowing them to sustain their unusual light and lanky body forms to hold up their large heads.

With this being said they have also mentioned the possibility that the grays where specific aliens sent out for certain tasks in hand by a more superior race of aliens. Sort of like a droid in the classic Star Wars epic movie just that they aren't robots but real living aliens.

So in the end if aliens did come here perhaps they have mixed with humans and we are in the end part alien without even knowing it.

Of course there are many ideas of what is possible. Then of course we have many who say that this is all a hoax and there is no such things as aliens on our planet for there is no substantial evidents.

I wonder if this, again, is a matter of semantics. If you define 'thinking' a certain way, you come to this conclusion, and as such its a sound one. But is it the only worthy concept for 'thinking'? Would that not mean that the wordless creation of symphonies and sculptures are not counted as 'thinking'? In my experience, the hardest engineering, math, and physics problems usually require a wordless moment of insight. If I go out to the garden and pick a juicy, ripe, tomato (without inner monologuing), should we not call that thinking? I made a choice based on my senses and experience. The practice of archery, martial arts, dance? The wordless enjoyment of sunsets?

I'm not really interested in arguing over the best definition for 'thinking', i only assert that there are important and valuable mental processes which can occur separately from 'unspoken human language'.

This book changed my life. Everyone needs to read it!