Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!decwrl!pyramid!ctnews!gypsy!andrew!KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Telepathy? Message-ID: <248@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Sat, 15-Nov-86 16:00:06 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.248 Posted: Sat Nov 15 16:00:06 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Nov-86 20:12:20 EST Lines: 134 From: "Keith F. Lynch" From: cartan!ucbcad!nike!think!husc6!husc4!hadeishi@UCB-Vax.arpa (mitsuharu hadeishi) }i I believe the original thread of the argument was the evolutionary advantage/disadvantage of telepathy. My point was that the following possibility was being overlooked: since it is only human beings who can report telepathic events through language, we can only say for sure that telepathy is not common in humans. We cannot say the same for animals. We know a lot about animal senses. We know which animals are colorblind, we know that bees see a different set of primary colors than people do, we know that dogs and cats can hear frequencies higher than people can, we know that bats use sonar, that snakes have IR sensors, and that sharks can detect electric fields. We didn't have to converse with any animals to determine this, we only had to observe their behavior under controlled conditions. No such experiment has ever given good evidence for any unexplainable sense, or for anything like telepathy. Saying that animals have telepathy but we can never tell this because they don't speak is about as useful as claiming that oranges are only orange in the light, but are always purple with pink polka- dots in total darkness. My hypothesis was that because of the large differences between the human and animal mind, it may well be that telepathic ability in humans is simply supressed; particuarly because in the current era we have a "common-sense" world view which excludes telepathy as a possibility. Could be. It could be that I could turn lead into gold by staring at it if only I got over my neurotic hangup that it can't be done. But is there any evidence? Perhaps no telepathy is observed because the "common-sense" world view excludes it. On the other hand, perhaps the "common-sense" world view excludes telepathy because it is never observed. Why do you insist on the former view as the only possibility? However, there is a large amount of evidence that ancient cultures and primitive cultures believe in various different accounts of psychic phenomena. I don't doubt it. Most of them also believed in a lot of other things such as their inherent superiority over all other races and nations of mankind, that their religion is the one true religion and that people who disagree with it should be put to death, and that nature is chaotic and incomprehensible to man. Ours is the first culture in human history NOT to have these beliefs. At least most of us don't have these beliefs. I hope. Don't you think we have done pretty well? No amount of mumbo jumbo or human sacrifices or prayer or psychic power has been able to create anything like this network, or the keyboard you are typing at, or electric lights, or central heat, or the four walls around you, or the food you eat, or ANYTHING AT ALL. Despite having been the predominant idea of all mankind for thousands of years. Think about it. My hypothesis was, further, that we have simply forgotten how to listen to our "sixth sense"; I could hypothsize that you are actually a magic alien doggie from Sirius III. Reproducable evidence is what matters, not baseless hypothesis. and that in the past, when we did not rule out the possibility in our world view, people were much more inclined to listen to this "sixth sense." Don't despair, plenty of people still hear voices from God, etc. Many of them can be found in lunatic asylums. Others can be found running for president. This would provide an explanation as to why psychic phenomena do not manifest themselves as often today as they might have in the past. So would the theory that there are no psychic phenomena. I believe you failed to see my point. What I meant was, I was able to detect the unusual nature of the event BEFORE it was verfied to be a "coincidence." ... If you can prove this you will quite likely become famous and win the Nobel prize. Please forgive me for thinking that it is more likely that you are mistaken than it is that physics need be completely rethought. What I don't understand about your attitude is your clinging to your ideas about how the world works as if your life depended on it. The feeling is mutual. I consider myself a lover of truth. I don't like to see things I believe are false stated without counterargument. Would I be dismayed if psychic powers existed? No. I would be quite amazed and somewhat pleased. But I don't think that their existance is likely. People tend to believe things for no better reason than that it pleases them to think so and dismays them to think otherwise. Centuries of horror and tyranny can be blamed on this tendency: o OUR religion is right, hence others must be abolished as leading man astray. o Blacks are suited only for slavery, thus all oppression of them is justified. o We don't need to improve life on Earth because we will all live happily ever after in heaven if we are sure to always obey our bishops. And today: o We don't need to worry about future sources of energy, since cosmic psychic pyramid power will soon produce unlimited electric power and good vibes. o We don't need to worry about medical science, since disease comes only from thinking negative thoughts. o Faster Than Light travel is certainly possible, allowing us to easily colonize other solar systems. o It doesn't matter what happens to Earth since the Second Coming will happen any day now. ... What is clear is that you should not confuse the map with the territory; just because your map doesn't have any symbols for "psychic phenomena" on it doesn't mean they're not out there. My world atlas doesn't have a symbol for Atlantis either. Perhaps it doesn't because there IS no Atlantis. It seems you would assume the wnve~rrse regardless of evidence (i.e. if we haven't found Atlantis it MUST BE simply because those closed-minded map-makers don't put it on the map!) I would personally take a much more skeptical view of my own conception of how the world works . . . to me that is TRUE skepticism. You are not skeptical at all. Whenever anyone suggests that your world view might be mistaken, you start with the ad hominem attacks, and don't bother with reason or discussion. ...Keith