Okay if that is the way you believe.

But what you don't understand about what I am saying is that facts are only true because a group of people got together and looked at the evidence and believed it, through what ever testing they did, and came to a conclusion, which was an agreement, and then they called it a FACT.

SO belief and agreement are what determine your facts.

Also, consider that some so-called 'facts' have been disproved in the past, therefor to disallow any new perspectives or beliefs surrounding a so-called 'fact' is closing the door to the finding of new facts.

I don't "miss your point" Billy. I get it very clearly. You depend on outside approved of authority for your beliefs. You depend on their 'facts.'

If the philosophy and science forum is not the place for me on this club, then there is no place for me on this club.

The hope and desire to witness supernatural events, or the fear of being afraid seeking help, and other emotions we naturally have lead to such things as wanting deeper answers.

Herein these words I mention above lies the key to understanding these phenomenons we all seek in our short lived lives. Life is contingent and filled for many with uncertainties, the most frightening of which is the manner, time, and place of our own demise. For a parent such as I it is even worse to fear a death of my child let alone to even think about it, which makes those who have suffered such a loss especially vulnerable to what "psychics" offer. Under the pressure of reality, we become credulous.

We seek reassuring certainities from fortune-tellers and palm readers, astrologers, and psychics. Our critical faculties break down under the onslaught of promises and hopes offered to cure life's great anxieties.

Wouldn't it be marvelous if we did not really die? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could speak with our lost loved ones again or to be able to mind read people's thoughts to ensure a brighter future. Of course many would love to even those who don't admit it.

Skeptics are no different from believers when it comes to such desires. This is an ancient human drive, something I wish I knew why it has become and why it is still desired.

We live in a world where one's life was as uncertain as the next meal, our ancestories all over the globe developed beliefs in an afterlife and spirit world. If it be the Sumerians or the Ancient Egyptians all the way to the Scandinavians believing in Odin.

So, when we are vulnerable and afraid, the provider of hope has only to make the promise of an afterlife and offer the flimisiest of proofs to achieve notability.

This hope is what drives all of us - skeptics, and believers alike to be compelled by unsolved mysteries such as knowing if mind reading is possible, or to seep spiritual meaning in a physical universe, desiring immortality, and wishing that our hopes for eternity may be fullfilled.

It is what pushes many people to spirtualism, new age gurus, and even television psychics who can read minds or explain the future. They offer a bargain and in return of exhange they give a mild answer to keep the believer calm for the moment.

But hopes springs eternal for scientists and skeptics as well. Logical people who don't believe in the supernatural so easily are regardless fascinated by mysteries and awed by the universe and the ability of humans to achieve so much in so little time. We seek immortality through our cummalative efforts and lasting achievements; they too wish that their hopes for eternity be fulfilled.

So in the end what do we actually know. I am afraid we don't know much of anything to tell you the truth when it is compared to the vast milky way systems and galaxies beyond or scope to see.

Yet it hasn't stopped mankind for seeking knowledge and understanding on those great mysteries we haven't grasped a certain hold of yet.

May everyone share their knowledge and experience on this thread so we can learn from one another of the possibilities of mind reading.

This shows how much you do not understand. What I do, think, or believe does not change the facts as you present them, and should not be a part of the discussion. You make each and every single one of these discussions personal by doing just that.

BTW, facts are facts, there should be no "your facts", "my facts" if a fact is only valid for a single person, its not a fact.

Bushido is thinking of tacos right now. It just came to me in a flash. Am I right?

You got it Zaz!

I think what is happening Jeanniebean and Bushidolbillyclub is that you both do not agree on the subject in matter.

One is skeptical that mind reading is possible and the other shows their individual experience that mind reading is possible.

The problem within this is proof to show skeptics otherwise.


Now what is Skepticism? I am sure you both know what this is, but let me continue if I may.

Many believe it is a person who is close minded and cynical.

That is not the case though.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering date to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and have failed the tests often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false.

Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigoursly applying the methods of science.

Now this goes against those who have witnessed supernatural events but cannot prove or show it again later. Do we believe they can mind read? Should we take their word for it?

So the question is can mind reading be convincing enough for the scientific community to embrace, or is it non existent like some claim here on this thread?

No, what you think and believe does not change the "facts" that you have been conditioned to believe and accept.

That's because the scientists and authorities who labeled these 'facts' don't care about your belief or opinion, just as you don't care about my belief or opinion.

But if all you want to do is grapple over or argue about what this community of scientists have decided is 'fact' then I will stay out of your boring discussions.

You said that if a fact is only valid for a single person, then it is not a fact. That proves that facts are agreements.

Also perhaps you are assuming that nobody in the entire world but me has experienced telepathy. That would be wrong.

They already have from what I have heard. But I don't think, and I am hoping they don't succeed to learn to read minds via technology. That is just wrong.

So is bulldozing millions of square miles of rain forest, but you can't stop "progress".

You are completely missing the point.



I am willing to listen to anything and try to find a way to test it to determine its validity, so I find this statement to be derogatory.

This is what I mean, you go after the messenger. You make these claims about what I do or do not accept, and how I accept or do not accept it, this is inappropriate and should always be avoided in ANY discussion unless I was asking for advice on how to change something in my life that I admitted to you was a problem. This not the self help forum, its the science and philosophy forum and I have never asked for your help with my personal life.

You don't seem to understand how to disconnect personal from a public discussion of a topic.

This thread should be about the topic, not the participants. (its even in the forum rules)(I myself have fallen into this trap, and will be doing my best to avoid it, I hope you can see that and understand why its important and do your best to try along with me)


When you describe a method of attaining data, and I say that is not rigorous to meet validation (and explain why) you then attack me personally, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

When I say something a long the lines of, "hey we can test that", you then conclude that it is I that need to test things, that I do not have belief and that is why this does not work for me, as if this has anything to do with the topic of science and philosophy regarding the topic at hand, IT DOES NOT HELP US ACHIEVE VALIDATION.

You see me as someone who stands in the way of these "truths" what you should see me as in a way to validate scientifically these "truths".

The problem is you must participate.

Wow imagine this! I mean I have heard of it that governments are actually spending money in trying to learn how to use mind reading to spy on nations. I don't know the details exactly. It is very vague information to find for some reason.

This post is for J-Bean and CreativeSoul:



J-Bean, We haven't met, but from what I've read you seem like an intelligent and usually open minded person. I absolutely agree with you that it is possible to know what someone else is thinking, without them speaking it. There are some examples you give in this thread which are very familiar to me in my experience. From my experience, there are also activities a person can do (often labeled as 'spiritual practices') which influence that persons degree of ability in this area. Many scientifically minded people make the mistake of over-generalizing from their tests, research, observations - and they are too quick to dismiss peoples experiences. And we all have the problem that words and phrases mean different things in different times, to different people, in different context.

In the past, it seems likely you've heard/read opinions from supposedly 'objective' or 'scientific' type people who are obviously clueless in their dismissal of your experiences. I'm sure you know that just because they are wrong doesn't mean you are completely right. If I had more time, I would eagerly explore all the reasons and experiences from which you arrive at your current beliefs, to more fully understand what you really mean with your statements, and also to see if you are open to alternative ideas for how and why you've had your experiences.

I see, though, that CreativeSoul is making some of the same observations I would make. I truly think that you are both right, and the appearance of disagreement is due to attachment to phrases like "mind reading is possible" and "mind reading is not possible". What does it even mean? Have we given allegiance to an words, ideas, dogmatic statements? *What* kind of mind reading are we talking about, and under what circumstances?

i may not log in again for a few days or weeks, but I'm hoping you two have a great discussion

How do scientists test mind reading?

One person just sits on a chair as the others sit opposite and ask, "What am I thinking? You have three chances!"

So the nervous man concentrating on what these scientists are thinking and comes up with this.

"You are all wondering if I can read your minds."

The Scientists looked bewildered at each other and say," That is correct!"

Now of course this is my dry humor as usual but I wonder how the test is actually conducted or even if it can be done?

Good one!

To be serious it depends on the claim.

Its rare we get even a claim in these threads, usually we just get the kind of back and forth character attacks we see these last few pages.

Id love to just get a clear claim that we then could create protocols for testing and actually have someone follow through.

Are you running a lab or are you in somekind of scientist environment to do such tests? Not that I could imagine that there would be much needed to do so unless one is hooked up on wires of somekind?

I mean you might find one that is willing to go through the process. I doubt there will be any positive results, yet nevertheless perhaps something will happen. You never know until you try that is for sure.

Which brings another question.

Would one have to be present when the testing happens or could one do this over the internet? I guess both are possible.

What it is worth I am sure this test has been done many times before across the world. I don't think anything significant has happened, yet there are many who claim they can actually read minds. If this is true where they studied and given a chance to show the scientific community on how it is done?

I mean there has to be a explanation that sounds convincing enough for the majority to believe as a theory or even factuality.

Okay then first I would like you to tell me if you think there is a difference between the idea of 'mind reading' and the idea of telepathy. If so, what are the differences?

Also, you 'should' adopt the idea that it might be possible, instead of taking a firm stance (like Creative does) saying that it is impossible...which is his opinion.

The only way I can change my view of it is to consider that my personal experience was just my 'imagination.' (Since I am not a practicing scientist, my personal experience is all I have to go on.)




I don't recall attacking you personally. I just did not appreciate you telling me that I should not post in this forum if I did not want to follow what you think the guidelines should be for posting here.

I am not equipped with the resources to set up a lab and conduct acceptable scientific experiments, so your rigorous standards are unacceptable. It appears you are just attempting to get me to back down and shut up with my claims if I cannot back them up with my own scientific verifiable experiments.

Also, if two people can do telepathy, that does not mean that the average person off the street can do it, so setting up testing with a number of average subjects and repeating that experiment can easily fail, but that does not prove that telepathy is not possible. It just proves that not everyone can do it.

I could do a search for experiments that have been done in this area but then you could easily do the same thing and I guess I just don't feel like it is all that important to me to prove to you or anyone else.



I do my own testing, all the time. I guess what I believe is all that makes a difference in my life. Call that selfish if you wish, but then I am an artist, not a scientist.




No I don't. If you have a valid and scientific experiment in mind and the facilities to conduct it and the resources to fly me to the lab, let me know... but

I truly think that these things are being tested by people much better at it than me.

It is not one of my priorities, nor would I choose to make an occupation out of it. (or be the subject of such on-going experiments.)

Just because it happened to me several times in my life, does not mean that I am an expert 'mind reader' or that I can do telepathy on command. I can't. There are better people at it than me.

So there, you have my opinion is all you have. I have no proof of my claims to offer to the scientific world.

Is it possible that you experienced exactly what you experienced, and it was not 'merely your imagination', yet no one has put forth the 'real' explanation for it yet? (And I don't mean 'the real explanation for the experience of telepathic phenomena in general', but simply for your particular and specific experiences, since I believe that many different kinds of experiences people have get brushed under the umbrella term.)

Now we are getting somewhere JB.



That has always been my stance. I try to make clear that I am open to anything being possible, when someone puts forward a "how" is when my knowledge of physics kicks in and I can conclude that one way or another is possible based on what has been tested, and what we can determine from technology, logic, and science.

The "this is happening, and my experience tells me so" is different from the "how".

As far as testing goes, there are many kinds of tests that achieve different information.

A super easy test to setup would control for things such as body language, facial recognition of emotions, and thoughts. This kind of test while not rigorous and wouldn't prove anything would at least satisfy the first phase for any skeptical person.

If you have a double blind test that controls for these kinds of issues then you can at least gain a statistical relevance.

If a person claims to be telepathic but only scores 10% or less for hits then Id remain very skeptical that any real data transfers are taking place. If a person is scoring 20-30-40-50% then id want to refine our tests double check for possible ways the test is being invalidated then try again, if the person is scoring 60-100% on the test Id do the same things, but then you would certainly have peeked my interest.

Again what the test entails depends on the claim. However most tests to determine hit miss ratio are so easy they can be setup in most people's living rooms.


When I thought I had these kinds of powers I could not rest until I had scientific validation. Now that I understand how to verify information the few times I had these experiences remain mysterious, but I remain skeptical due to the fact that no good testing was done at the time and hindsight being 20-20 I decided to learn how . . . science is the only path to true knowledge and even then science never claims certainty, new data can always change what we see as acceptable theory.


This is exactly how we should look at all experience.

We know our senses have given us data. What the conclusion is about that data's significance can be very flawed.

That is why science is so successful it gives us methods to take experience and test it to discover the nature of any data.

I think telepathic communication works 'better' between people who have a strong bond to each other, but the strength of the sender (sending signal) is a big part of it.

The transmitter must develop a skill to focus and send said message to a particular person. That person does not even have to be aware that they are about to receive the communication. The one I got took me by surprise, but I knew who it was from. It was in the form of words inside my head, that were not my own words. I did not hear a 'voice' saying the words, I just 'thought' the words. And I just 'saw' or felt the face or person sending the message.

I do not claim that I am a skilled transmitter. I don't know if I even have that skill at all to transmit a powerful signal or message to someone at a distance like that.

But I have done experiments on transferring thoughts and ideas to a sleeping person who was in my presence. It worked amazingly well! For a few days, that person looked at me very strangely and even asked me what I had done "to him."

When I asked him why he would ask such a question, he said because for the last few days, he had been thinking "like me" and he "did not want to think like me." His 'thoughts' were not his own. (It was like temporary hypnosis, or a spell of some sort.) He shook it off after a few days.

So I am quite sure thought transference and telepathy are possible. It takes a strong focus and sometimes emotion helps to transmit the message.

Now we just need someone who feels confident in being able to send thoughts in a reproducible manner.

Your experience is interesting, but without FMRI and other such modalities we would be hard pressed to determine any kind of change in mind state for the other person. It could be done however. Just not by me.