Thank you for the response Trekkin. You have raised some very good counterpoints which..is good for the debate, I suppose.
you are right, if I am to define a theory under which telepathy may be possible, I should do so completely and concisely first, shame on me for forgetting the scientific method..So, to reply to your second paragraph-The way I think of mathematics is wildly different from most people, so that may be an possible reason for the miscommunication. So if we want to define things quantitatively most times, is your suggestion this;to instead define it qualitatively? Honest question.
Next, on to the 'mathemetical sum of said equation part'. I did not mean to imply this, but I did, my apologies. What I meant by that was that the supposed sum of such an equation wouldn't be native to the current, state-of-the-art even human understanding or psychological understanding. We wouldn't be able to for a long time, unless we shortened such a timeline by another alternative. Next, when you say 'greater predictive power', I may interject that that the whole technique, theory, thesis IS to an extent 'predictive power' in and of itself. There could be a million other explanations of the data, but it leads to the same thing-a natural or learned ability to predict things to a certain extent, but there are so many factors that go into that, that the variables themselves couldn't(or just havn't, and should be)be quantified, or maybe even the qualitative variables too.
Next, that is precisely what I'm saying as well, this supposed phenomena would be easier understood in a group of conceptual factors, rather than put into 0's and 1's, or variable, or what have you. as far as your third point-Your right, calculating the sample size would be impossible at this point in time. The 'effect size' is something that I don't know if would be a proper term for this scenario-or the signal-to-noise ratio. So here is a small, short basis that I propose-
The human brain has scientifically to operate on certain frequencies, which range widely and have different variable effects on the human psychology and physiology, at the very least. Now, it is a scientific fact(correct me if I'm wrong) that everything in the universe 'vibrates' or 'oscillates', as well as meaning it does so on a certain frequency, or wavelength. My theory is that when you naturally or learn to align your frequency through muscle or neuroplasticity based methods, to the other individuals, then that is what creates the basis for everything further along in the theory. Make your counterpoints, if you would.
Finally, the well-known explanation of the phenomena you speak of is true, but by proxy would you agree, or disagree that the explanation itself that you just provided is a proof of the probability factor of the theory? But as I said earlier and as you mentioned-we may be talking quality-wise, not quantity.
Just thought I would take the time to actually type an educated to the best of my ability response.
Well, since you asked:
1. Making your points concisely has nothing to do with the scientific method. It's just basic argumentation. In what's going to become a running theme here, if people can't understand what you're saying they can't respond to it -- and that doesn't mean they aren't smart enough to understand, just that you've garbled things beyond all hope of comprehension. I could easily claim that telepathy works because of a random jumble of woo buzzwords and people would shrug and move on because there's nothing worth falsifying therein.
2. Quantitative definitions are much to be preferred, given the choice; I meant only that even if we assume this theory of yours is somehow "beyond mathematics", provided it's reproducible (meaning
if it works in any meaningful sense at all) it could still be tested. How we define the theory has no bearing on the data generated.
3. The ability of people with your supposed telepathy to predict things is totally different from the predictive power I was referring to; I refer simply to whether or not your telepathy is a better explanation for your allegations than everyone else's nonverbal communication. What I mean, in layman's terms, is this:
4. What you are describing is not telepathy, much like bending a spoon with your hands is not telekinesis. It is a perfectly mundane operation requiring no mystical explanation whatsoever. We don't need telepathy to explain it; the phenomena you describe can be accounted for perfectly by well-known psychological phenomena.
5. Even setting aside all of that, your theory has four main problems: first, de Broglie waves (the everything-in-the-universe sort of wave) are not at all the same kind of wave as neural oscillations. You can't "align the two" any more than you can tune an audio speaker to emit light. Second, you can't get neurons to oscillate at anything comparable to the frequency one would logically expect to correspond to the de Broglie frequency of anything at the macroscale anyway. It is not physically possible for nerves to fire quickly enough to set up a wave of that frequency; the ions can't diffuse fast enough. Third, big things (meaning most things the size of a macromolecule or larger) don't have single de Broglie wavelengths; neurons certainly don't. Fourth, the de Broglie wavelength would only tell you the momentum of the neuron, not its state, which is what actually does the thinking.
So the basis of your entire theory is that people can train their neurons to do something physically impossible in order to establish an arbitrary equivalence to a property neurons do not meaningfully have in order to transmit completely irrelevant information through a medium you haven't defined to a receiver that cannot be sensitive to it and has no way of decoding the information sent even if it were meaningful.
And, as proof, you posit that people can communicate without speaking if they train themselves for an extended period of time, for which there already exists an explanation perfectly compatible with neurology and physics and logic: you're moving in some small way the receiver is perceiving, and after a long enough time trying you've trained yourselves to correlate those movements to numbers. This isn't telepathy any more than sign language is telepathy; it requires no extraordinary understanding whatsoever, let alone all the mysticism you've tacked on to it.
If you had something that worked -- reproducibly, mind you, and statistically significantly more frequently than would be expected by chance -- without the receiver observing the transmitter in any mundane way, then you might have something that could credibly be called telepathy if proven to work.
Author
Topic: Conspiracy Theories: The Reread The Civility Clause Thread (Read 46543 times)