|
|
Post by paul on Oct 23, 2011 19:05:30 GMT 9.5
Quod est Inferius est sicut quod est Superius, et quod est Superius est sicut quod est Inferius www.tree.org/b1d.htmIt seems pretty clear that the isomorphism goes both ways - hence my surprise that you allowed direct emotional connections but not mental. Given the very wide spread experience of telepathy, there must be strong theoretical grounds for denying direct mental connections between humans. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 23, 2011 20:59:00 GMT 9.5
It seems pretty clear that the isomorphism goes both ways - hence my surprise that you allowed direct emotional connections but not mental. Yes it goes both ways, up and down, not across. I allowed for the possibility of emotional connection, but suggested it may rely on observational ques (as in the contagion of yawning). I guess one could argue that ideas can be similarly communicated by speech or other conventional communication (but with ideas we have more choice in the range between acceptance or rejection, than we appear to have with emotions). "Experience," no: "Perception," yes. There is no proof (Regard Randi's Reward). As for theoretical grounds, Alan nailed it: ... a leaf on the vine is only connected to another leaf via the vine... |
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 24, 2011 2:58:00 GMT 9.5
There is no proof (Regard Randi's Reward). Oh Tamrin, you are quoting Randi again as if he is infallable and if everyone is motivated by impressing him and getting his million. As we have discussed before seeking hismillion is not the be all and end all for everyone. Anyhow re Randis credibility I was a bit shocked when I read on here www.skeptic.org.uk/component/content/article/541 that Randi has been alleged to do some quite in my opinion unbecoming things. Quite frankly Tamrin, if there is even an ounce of truth in that article you will never impress me by quoting Randi. Funny Tamrin but I has more regard for Randi before your constant harping on about him made me dig deeper. Mind you I am still amazed that you think that everyone is motivated by money, and by the fame that winning Randis million would undoubtedly bring. Dont get me wrong Tamrin, I would love a million (I would prefer 100 million) but I can see absolutely no reason why anyone would want Randis million, which like you I think is pretty safe, though I do appreciate that many do try. Added: Again if true this is a shocking testimony as to Randis behaviour and claims www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 24, 2011 5:43:39 GMT 9.5
"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape. " www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.htmlThis rather reminds me an account about Freud. A colleague had come to him with a particularly difficult case. Freud explained it immediately. The colleague asked how he could do that without ever seeing the patient. Freud replied that he had seen a thousand like it. His colleague then replied: I suppose that you have now seen a thousand and one. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 24, 2011 6:14:09 GMT 9.5
Anyhow re Randis credibility I was a bit shocked when I read on here www.skeptic.org.uk/component/content/article/541 that Randi has been alleged to do some quite in my opinion unbecoming things. Quite frankly Tamrin, if there is even an ounce of truth in that article you will never impress me by quoting Randi. Thanks Stewart. Great stuff (I guess Sheldrake would say that, wouldn't he). I especially liked Randi's rebuttal (you need to click on "next" at the bottom of the page), and then the editorial summation. I urge everyone to read BOTH sides. I'll keep referencing Randi but, even, if you're not impressed by him there still remains the matter of PROOF, so lacking among true believers. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 24, 2011 8:55:44 GMT 9.5
We have spent some time discussing whether humans do not experience telepathy - not really the topic of the thread.
Perhaps we can now return to the topic of the thread.
For those humans that do consider that they experience telepathy, how do you distinguish incoming thoughts from home-grown?
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 26, 2011 9:50:02 GMT 9.5
About 10 years ago I was walking along a city street not taking much notice of anything when I quite clearly had the thought: That is a nice bum.
There was no one immediately in front of me but when I turned around there was a young woman immediately behind me. I smiled at her but said nothing.
I could tell that it was not one of my thoughts because:
- I do not use that sort of terminology
- I was not looking at any person or having any image that might trigger the thought
- the thought was in words and I usually do not think in words (unless writing text or rehearsing ritual)
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 26, 2011 10:26:36 GMT 9.5
That's never happened to me ;D (must diet)
But have made a mental note to check its veracity if we ever meet in person ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 26, 2011 10:46:56 GMT 9.5
- the thought was in words and I usually do not think in words (unless writing text or rehearsing ritual) That's pretty strange, I think in words all the time... |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 26, 2011 10:52:42 GMT 9.5
So can you think about matters for which words have not been invented?
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 26, 2011 10:57:23 GMT 9.5
Quod est Inferius est sicut quod est Superius, et quod est Superius est sicut quod est Inferius www.tree.org/b1d.htmCerte, toto, sentio nos in cansate non iam odesse.  |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 26, 2011 10:58:30 GMT 9.5
So can you think about matters for which words have not been invented? Oh come on! |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 26, 2011 11:05:51 GMT 9.5
I will rephrase the question:
- Do you consider that thinking in words may limit the range of possible thought or predispose thought to go where the words are well known?
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 26, 2011 11:33:07 GMT 9.5
I think in images for the main part. So if you explain something to me I will probably respond to you by saying "I see what you mean" or "I see what you are saying". Common response.
On the other hand people who function on sound will be more likely to respond "I hear what you mean".
Then we have "I feel that what you say is ... "
Teachers use all of the senses when teaching, because of the way different students learn.
Apart from all that - how often do we hear people say things like..
words cannot express..
it is hard to put into words..
words fail me..
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 26, 2011 11:40:23 GMT 9.5
So can you think about matters for which words have not been invented? Oh come on! Love is a good word... Try explaining different types of love using just one one substitute word. ie What one word would you use to describe the love one recognises (?) when one meets a soul mate, it having to be a different word to the one you would use from that used to describe the love for a child or parent or humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 26, 2011 11:46:52 GMT 9.5
I will rephrase the question: - Do you consider that thinking in words may limit the range of possible thought or predispose thought to go where the words are well known? Do you mean words like Satan Lucifer Solomon Jerusalem |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 26, 2011 11:48:22 GMT 9.5
Aliens
Orbs
Angels
Sun
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 26, 2011 11:55:52 GMT 9.5
It does seem that word-based naming tends to put thoughts into pre-made packaging.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 26, 2011 21:25:00 GMT 9.5
It does seem that word-based naming tends to put thoughts into pre-made packaging. Words are descriptors that we use to classify and communicate concepts so that we may be able to communicate those concepts to others from a common frame of reference. Would you prefer we simply grunted to one another? Try to beam thoughts at each other in the hope that the other person can read our minds? Of course we have thoughts that are abstract - that is what the subconscious does, after all. But that being said, the thoughts are ours, not being put in our heads by outside entities (before we go down that rabbit hole once again). |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 26, 2011 21:40:53 GMT 9.5
... that being said, the thoughts are ours, .... I have yet to see anyone provide evidence for that. It seems to be an act of faith - or perhaps an implanted thought. |
|
