[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 296 KB, 900x900, 1290392079889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2308809 No.2308809 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think is the scientific plausibility of ESP? Of human precognitive (i think that's the correct word) abilities, things like future predictions? What about mind reading or the ability to contact to people through the mind (i forgot the word)? Or what about more advanced things, like telekinesis, psychokinesis, and other related abilities? Do you think we, as humans, have the potential for such things? Or that we can develop ways to use abilities like this?

I'm very intrigued by the scientific side of this, as opposed to the paranormal aspect, and I'd like to discuss it.

>> No.2308824

Well it's possible that certain people are able to observe (not interact with) the fourth dimension in more advanced ways than normal humans. It's entirely possible, but at the same time most people who claim to have ESP are frauds.

>> No.2308826
File: 58 KB, 417x520, 1284172783073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2308826

Here I'm listing below a reference list of the seminal papers regarding extra sensory perception which have concluded that claims of such phenomenon are legitimate.

>> No.2308836

>>2308826
>forgot to add his references

>> No.2308840

>>2308836
>thatsthejoke.jpg

>> No.2308844

>>2308840
ah.

>> No.2308848

>>2308840
>trolled into replying

>> No.2308853

>>2308824
If this was true, which it could be, those people that have the ability to do so, would probably not know they have it.

>> No.2308858

actually theres an esp study trying to be published in some psychology journal right now. something about guessing which computer screen porn pops up on. im guessing op's.

>> No.2308862

for further discussion, do you think that it's scientifically possible to test for such abilities?

>> No.2308863

Since there's no obvious mechanism for it, we'd need strong evidence to establish it. Fortunately, if an experiment showed that humans could predict the future, even statistically, it could be demonstrated with little room for doubt by simply using the abilities to predict a random future event outside the experimenter's control, such as lottery numbers. Experiments like the Bem study (which >>2308858 refers to) that claim to show precognition are lacking in this regard. If you think you're so psychic, then why aren't you rich?

>> No.2308881

And as for why it should still be possible to predict lottery numbers even if the subjects are right only 51% of the time, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem

>> No.2308892

>>2308881
thank you but...i hardly understand it at all, hahaha. care to tl;dr for me?

>> No.2308923

slightly psychic science student here.
I have had a few visions of things before they happen, but so far they have only been rather pointless crap like who is about to walk out the door and do something etc. Shows up like a movie in my mind exactly the way it later happens.

sometimes i have blurrier impressions of things that appear to be what will happen in people's futures, like where they will end up etc.

and i have plenty of small things a lot of people get, like knowing who is about to call me etc.

next time i get a vision ill try to tell someone all the details before it can happen.

>> No.2308941

>>2308923
not sure if troll....

>> No.2308954
File: 49 KB, 600x725, 2008-09-25-15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2308954

Edge, H. L., Morris, R. L., Palmer, J., & Rush, J. H. (1986). Foundations of parapsychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does Psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.

Alcock, J. (2003). Give the null hypothesis a chance: Reasons to remain doubtful about the
existence of Psi. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 29–50.

I just searched up ESP on psychinfo.
These three articles should contain quite a varied range of views on the methodology that would be required to adequately test esp powers legitimately

>> No.2308962

>>2308923
Confirmation bias.

It's likely you have visions of lots of things, most of which don't happen, and are simply more likely to remember the ones which actually came to pass.

>> No.2309083

>>2308954
this is the site?
>psychinfo

>> No.2309088

>>2308962

no its not this. when i have visions of things, it is a very different expereince to me sitting there having random stuff pop up in my head. far clearer and more detailed than my own little imaginings, its like a high definition movie someone plays in my head when im not expecting it. the first time it happened i was surprised and confused and thinking 'wtf was that' for a few moments, and then the exact thing i'd seen happened. Even though i'd been doing psychic development exercises for a while, and expected results of some sort, i really didn't expect something like that. usually when i've heard people claim visions etc i think it is a bunch of shit too.

>> No.2309090

>>2308923
you may be schizophrenic

seek professional help

>> No.2309096

>>2309088
>psychic development exercises

hurr herp te terp te teedly tum terp

>> No.2309099

>>2309088
nothing against you personally, but i don't believe you myself at the moment (no matter how much i want to). it'd be VERY hard to prove this to anyone, and nearly impossible here on the internet

>> No.2309111

This was just published the other day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
Yeah, it's the NY Times, but whatever.

>> No.2309124

what i (the op) am really interested in, though, is if we have the capability to push, move, and otherwise have an effect over objects.

>> No.2309151

>>2309088
I am going to post one of the following symbols after your reply, what one is it? $, %, @, &.

And yes, I already have it chosen out.

>> No.2309182

>>2309124
yes we do, they're called limbs faggot.

>> No.2309197

>>2309182
i meant psychicly and you knew that

>> No.2309199

>>2309099
Not that guy, but I have similar experiences, and I don't expect anyone to believe me. At the same time, the normal skeptical explanations given haven't worked for me. Weirdness abounds.

>> No.2309202

>>2309151

dude, if i could just turn it on whenever i wanted to predict things, i would be winning lotteries and such. also with only 4 symbols, getting it right is pretty meaningless. ilol take a pure guess if it makes you happy though- @.

if i had a decent way to prove anything, i would be doing it already. im hoping that by studying science and continuing to mess around with and read about paranormal stuff, i'll eventually be able to provide impressive evidence of something etc. but as things are, i know perfectly well that i can't provide any real evidence. all i have to offer you guys is my experience which i claim to be true, and i wouldn't beleive me if i was you either. but im saying it anyway. Visions= happened.

>> No.2309216

>>2309202
Good point...

>> No.2309368

I've been trying to figure out how these abilities work, and it's not very easy. There are no physical laws saying these things are impossible, but the mechanics of them are unintuitive to our thinking.

Precognition seems to tie in with quantum mechanics. I've learned that the main theories about quantum mechanics are only partly true - we are falling through a series of situations, but they are not random. They're governed by deeper systems.

The way it works is incredibly complicated and I don't know all the details, but your mind 'tunes into' one situation after another, either consciously or subconsciously. When you're asleep, you tune out of your current situation and tune into others. And if you tune the right way, you can see events in your local timeline that haven't happened yet

>> No.2309382

>>2309368
Also it defies all scientific testing. Which is, to use the technical term, kind of a bummer. As soon as a double blind experiment appears, all such abilities vanish.

>> No.2309448

I think that visions or precognition may be plausible. I have has an experience once myself but it isn't very strong evidence for me because the situation could still be predicted by me without precognition. I've had some intuitive feelings about how it could be possible. In my ESP case I was driving home one day very high and I had a feeling that I was going to die that night. A very weird feeling because i felt as if some type of instance was going to kill me, and then an image of a deer crossing in front of me was going to be the cause. It was even stranger because I had music classical music playing in the car. I was driving for a while down the road and I saw the place where I thought the deerm would come out in front of me. The music grew more intense and out of no where a deer bolted out in front of my car. the music was going insane right now and my heart was racing. The deer crossed the other side but was running down the side of the road slightly in front of my car. The music was very epic at this point as if it was a battle of like and death. The dear then bolted back accross the street in front of my car, and then left into the woods. The music died down almost immediately after and became a victorious orchestral piece. As I got to my neighborhood the music finished with a bang aas if I had conquered my destiny andb beat fate. This instance will always stick with me and caused me to contemplate precognition for a long while afterward.

>> No.2309462

>>2309382
The way they work isn't unintuitive to human thinking, it's unintuitive to modern scientific thinking.

>> No.2309518

>>2309382
Obviously the double blind experiment can't disprove observed fact, but my theory about precognition could be wrong.
What part of the double blind experiment would debunk my theory? I've always heard there's a lot of uncertainty in the experiment

>> No.2309570

no such thing as ESP, all claims tested and proven false. most claims are from liars like Sylvia Browne. some are from mentally disturbed. the rest are from people that attribute to much to coincidence and less to statistics.
I think the interesting part of ESP, the "real" part is how some people use their existing senses consciously or more importantly subconsciously to gain insight and improve their chances statistically.

>> No.2309597

>>2308809
> What do you think is the scientific plausibility of ESP?
Perception outside of sensory input? Very doubtful. Even if some forms of quantum effects would be in play in the human brain, it's still doubtful, but those supposed quantum effects have been proven to be highly unlikely/not exist. I maintain the view that the brain is mostly deterministic.
> Of human precognitive (i think that's the correct word) abilities, things like future predictions?
I consider one of the neocortex's main emergent functionality to be predicting the short-term future (see: predictive states), but this is nothing special, it's just the evolved behaviour which is the basis of our intelligence. Read "On Intelligence" for more on this view and why it's very plausible (see the author's more recent projects involving high-level modeling of neocortex-like structures for further hints). However, just because imagination/intuition/memory recall is so efficiently implemented in the neocortex does not mean we can make random predictions about the far future, we can only make educated guesses, either consciously (expressed as an internal thought) or not (subconsciously: have the thought, but don't express it).

>> No.2309599

>>2309597
>What about mind reading or the ability to contact to people through the mind (i forgot the word)?
I don't see how it would be possible given how our brain works. If you could figure out all the encodings to the input that comes into someone's neocortex and be able to capture all data exactly and in real-time, you could technically read all kinds of conscious thoughts, but that would require very invasive procedures and given the stochastic variability present in biological organisms, merely the act of figuring all the inputs could take entire lifetimes of work tracing the pathways which are unique to humans, even those which would be perfect clones (same DNA) since nervous systems develop quite freely prenatally and in further years (no two persons are the same). That said, this is just very difficult technologically speaking, but not impossible. I'd imagine in the future when we have fast enough general AIs and much better scanning tech, it would be more doable.
> Or what about more advanced things, like telekinesis, psychokinesis, and other related abilities?
I don't even see how some of these would be physically possible. Frankly, if we ever go into a transhuman future, I'd like to extend my sensors to see into the electromagnetic spectrum much more deeply, and possibly extend the depth of the neocrotex's hierarchy, thus allow much more advanced thoughts. One could also consider adding maybe some motor functions which allow one to mess with the electromagnetic spectrum, which could for example allow levitation in a city specifically built to be navigated in such a way (see: maglev). Other interesting things are also possible

>> No.2309603

>>2309599
> Do you think we, as humans, have the potential for such things?
Non-augumented humans? Highly unlikely. There is no proof whatsoever that it would be possible.
> Or that we can develop ways to use abilities like this?
Those which are physically possible and would not require immense computational resources, sure, but it would require modifying us by quite a bit.
I think if we want to see stuff like mind reading/sharing thoughts, we should move further from the biological human as it's too random to be easily decoded (possible, just takes way too much time).

>> No.2309624

If you think an observed fact is not plausible, that's all we need to know about you

>> No.2309659

>>2309624
How is precognition an observable fact? Pretty much all cases where I've been able to successfully predict future up to some 20-30minutes were just my intuition working well given the inputs it received. I knew for sure exactly what would happen because I've had prior experiences and I knew enough facts to make educated guesses about possible futures. Want true precognition? Have a computer generate random data using data read from quantum states or other sufficiently random sources. Make that random data sufficiently large. Ask a person to correctly reproduce that data without having any access to it. Even better if the data is located somewhere far far away from that person (just so if this "precognition" is real, it should also involve crazy nonlocal effects (faster-than-light communication)). Have person repeat experiment more than a few times with positive results. Then I'll believe it's possible and I would be interested in research into this being, but things like 51% success rates and shoddy experiments about guessing a 1 or a 0 are hardly precognition. Most actual "precognition" in the real world is just a working neocortex making smart educated guesses from the input.

>> No.2309672

ok i remember reading something about how although we experience time in a linear way, it is actually all exists at once like an animation or something sort of. is that right? if so it seems like it would be plausible that people could access other parts of time somehow.

>> No.2309676

>>2309672

It is plausible that you are literally retarded.

>> No.2309709

I think it's plausible that people have a sense like animals do and are capable of foresight and a subconscious sense of things that aren't visible or detectable by our five senses.

>> No.2309728

>>2309672
Time may be an emergement construct from the underlying physics of our universe and it's not entirely clear if the time fourth dimension actually exists, however that doesn't mean that macroscopically time doesn't exist, and not even when you're concerning yourself with microscopic entities. I like to think of the planck time as the "time" it takes to transition the universe from one state to another. Wether the previous state still remains is unknown, however its results do remain (hence progression of "time"). Or if you want it in a more mathematical way:
Let X be a function which describes the physical laws of the universe, and t - "time", U0 - the initial state of the universe and f a function which gives the current state of the universe given a time.
f(0) = U0
f(n) = X(f(n-1)), n from N*.
Of course, f doesn't actually have to exist, it may be that one state replaces the other destructively and no previous state remains, however we can still reason about the concept of time as it's useful to us in countless ways. Of course, my idea of linear time that I described up there may very well be a lot more complex (depending on the meaning of X) and various "branches" that come from quantum effects may be in play (only if MWI is true).

>> No.2309732

>>2309728
> continued

Either way, I don't see how people could "access other parts of time", there is no proof as far I know that the temporal dimension is real. The only thing we know to be real is the passing of time, not that time is a dimension like the spacial ones through which you can walk/navigate. There are however some very interesting relativistic effects when it comes to time, which can allow you to "peek" into the past (distant light from other galaxies, etc). There's also some rather strange constructs such as black holes and if possible, maybe even wormholes (possible in general relativity, never encountered in real life) which could allow faster-than-light travel, but they're rather different beasts, and I don't think they contract what I said earlier about the progression of the universe (of course, I could be wrong about it).

>>2309709
You mean hightened intuition as all the animals are exposed to is the natural world, and they don't spend their resources with speech or other abstract concepts.

>> No.2309742

>>2309728
>>2309732

thanks for bothering to give an intelligent and interesting answer.

>> No.2309746

>>2309659
I wasn't talking about you and your experiences

>> No.2309760

>>2309746
I haven't really encountered other people with plausible experiences either, and most studies are highly inconclusive (51-53%?). Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible, just I don't see how it could be possible given everything I've come to know about the human mind and our universe.

>> No.2309773

>>2308809
I'd say its entirely plausible, but as a disclaimer I'm a pure mathematician, so don't take what I say about all this namby pamby physics nonsense too seriously....

That said, I don't see we shouldn't be able to look forwards in time in a similar way to that in which we look backwards (memory), I've always wondered why people can't remember the future, but not enough to bother looking into it, so as I said, my opinion sucks. I'm sure physicists have come up with some of their nonsense to explain what differentiates the past and future, but they're probably wrong anyway, they usually are. (No offense to physicists, but in all science most people are usually wrong.)

>> No.2309809

>>2309760
We're conditioned by the school system to put a true/false statement on everything we hear, and that statement has to be given immediately, based on conditioned response without further investigation.

I'm not completely certain how precognition works either. Maybe all the stories are made up, everyone's just lying. The heaping mass of predictions of 9/11 were extreme coincidences, the book "The Wreck of the Titan" was an extreme coincidence, the success of military psychic ops is an extreme coincidence or hoax, and all the ancient foretellings were false or re-written texts.

You'll just have to excuse me if I don't bet my ass on it.

I just study the information I see, that's all. If parts of it turn out to be false, big whoop. I'm not going to fight reality with beliefs

>> No.2309821

>>2309809
I don't put false/true statements on things immediately.

I tend to think of them for a while and assign probabilities based on facts. While I don't think precognition is completly impossible, it seems highly unlikely (given research into the human brain's functionality as well as physics research) in that I will believe that it's false, and will do so until I'm proven othewise by evidence. There is nothing wrong about thinking something is false if all evidence is pointing that there is no reason it should be true, however there is no shame in being proven wrong if you've done your homework right - it might be a very interesting surprise!

>> No.2309854

Bravo, /sci/. This thread didn't deteriorate into an argument about god! I'm impressed and was actually interested for once.

>> No.2309864

>>2309821
Jesus fuck

>> No.2309982

If those kinds of abilities do exist, then maybe there wouldn't be a way to observe them, given the quantum nature of events and how they react to observation.

>> No.2309986

>>2309982
observe them as in having a third party watch over them. who knows, i'm just throwing stuff out there.

>> No.2309995

>>2309982
The question OP posed was wether they existed in humans. If someone posses an ability, it should be possible to demonstrate it in some way, right?

>> No.2310144

/sci/ - too cool for observed facts

>> No.2310439

>>2309809
see, it's things like what this guy mentioned that keep me from totally disbelieving in such abilities, or at least having my skepticism even higher. there are coincidences, and then there's things that can't be explained as a coincidence.

(op here, by the way)

>> No.2310480

Well OP I think their is possibility in creating such effects through interfacing with technology but I just don't think our brain has enough energy by itself to pull of the claims that are made.

>> No.2310488

when you tell people you have esp, they think something is wrong with you, and rightfully so.

However, that doesn't mean I don't have esp, it just means other people can't accept that some humans are more evolved.

>> No.2310511

>>2310488
no...they are wondering when you are going to attempt to crack open their skulls and feast on the warm goo inside.

You would know that if you had ESP

>> No.2310515

1. There are substantial incentives for people who possess these abilities to demonstrate them. Unsurprisingly, no one has come forward.

2. Such abilities frequently violate (theoretically, obviously, since they do not exist) well confirmed scientific theories.

3. This translates into a low prior plausibility for any of these claims, meaning that highly significant, repeated studies are required to change a rational person's belief on this matter.

4. Meaning that a p value of <5% in a single study with questionable methodology constitutes "good evidence" only for retards who like to indulge in confirmation bias.

>> No.2310560

>>2310511
honestly, I don't care what secrets people have to hide, I am an empath, who senses things, also I hear random thoughts, and predict future events, but don't usually realize until they happen.

Such as the fish in new zealand, or the mail bombings that happened recently.

>> No.2310589
File: 704 KB, 2816x2112, 1245335641428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2310589

>>>/x/

>> No.2310613

>>2310560

yeah...well...anyhow welcome

this is a place where you can rest assured to never be troubled by such things.
we have no secrets to hide as you can see.

This can be your "quiet place"

>> No.2310622
File: 50 KB, 472x480, 1261444388667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2310622

>>>/x/

>> No.2310626

>>2310560
empath you say? Mirror neurons I say
Random thoughts? Fucking congrats you like all people have random thoughts
Predict future events? throw a dart at a board enough you'll get a bullseye. Or you are remember the prediction after you see the event, false memory.

>> No.2310636

I think you should pray to Jesus. A lot. It is almost like ESP

>> No.2310668

>>2310515
>There are substantial incentives for people who possess these abilities to demonstrate them. Unsurprisingly, no one has come forward.

On the other hand, If such abilities exist, and no one is coming forward to demonstrate them in scientific tests, maybe there's a good reason not to. Though I'm not convinced that they would be scientifically demonstrable anyway.

>> No.2310693

>>2310668
intensives...yes...so many to be had

FOR YOU!

like anyone who could read minds wouldn't know they are about to be turned into a government lab rat for the rest of their life and then have bits of their corpse spread across 20,000
tiny glass slides and specimen jars after that

oh, the opportunities...why would anyone pass it up?

>> No.2310813

>>2310668
>Though I'm not convinced that they would be scientifically demonstrable anyway.

I hope you are aware what this would imply about their usefulness and reliability.

>> No.2310821

>>2310813
I disagree with what I think you are implying about their implied usefulness and reliability.

>> No.2310827

>>2310668-"Though I'm not convinced that they would be scientifically demonstrable anyway."

like, God, the Easter bunny and pink unicorns...

if they're not demonstrable they don't exist, end of story.

>> No.2310840

>>2310827
You are welcome to end your story wherever you wish. Scientific empiricism is not the be-all-end-all of everyone else's inquisitiveness and thought processes.

>> No.2310856

>>2310827
>>2310827
Not all science is Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Conclusion

Try to keep in mind that there are other sciences like observational sciences that do not follow scientific method yet are considered equally valid.

>> No.2310857

>>2310693
The thing about mind reading is that when you actually understand how conscious thought works, you'll realize that it's an incredibly difficult task to perform even using invasive and complex hardware. I can't see how a human mind could do it non-invasively and only using the capacity of one's brain. Yes, it's a lovely concept, but I just don't see it working in practice, given what we know of brains and of the physical universe.

>> No.2310863

>>2310840

well I know where there's a million bucks collecting interest for the last 30 years that says it is the end of the story.enjoy the rest of your life trying to bend spoons with your mindz :p

>> No.2310872

>>2310857
Actually I'd suspect that a human mind would be better suited to read another human mind, much more so than a computer that was put together differently. If (and I'm not saying this is how it happens) thoughts carry beyond the skull through some yet unknown medium, picking them up with your own brain could be kind of like radiowave transmission interference that occurs when you have electronic gadgets too close together. And almost certainly a receiver built by the same process and design as the transmitter (a brain) should be better at interpreting those signals than any kind of information-manipulation device built in a completely different way.

>> No.2310910

>>2310856

it isn't even about the scientific method. it's about demonstrating ANY effect in a controlled setting. hasn't been done.
people who make claims are either outright frauds perpetrating a crime against your intelligence, or confused people who can't explain it or subsequently repeat it, but have simply deluded themselves into "believing" what they did or saw was "extraordinary".
how many times do you have to be taken advantage of or shown how you've overlooked something before you learn?
seriously, there's a million bucks waiting for anyone to claim and it hasn't been claimed. that's enough incentive for even God to show up and change some water into wine (without adding grapes and waiting 24-60 days)
but don't let reality get in your way...

>> No.2310945

>>2310872

humans don't have the ability to detect brainwaves though. there is no mechanism. there is however schizophrenia and the documented belief in that ability. it's much more plausible that you're temporarily experiencing the effects of a known mental disorder than suddenly doing something humans don't have the capacity to do isn't it???

>> No.2310969

>>2310910
Hey man I'm a determinist and a rationalist but some of the "science bravado" some people have on /x/ and /sci/ annoys me.

>> No.2310982

>>2310945
The fact is if such an ability was possible and reliable. We probably would have evolved it as a way to share information ect...

However since speech is a much more reliable (and existant) method thats how we communicate.

>> No.2310991

>>2310872
Even assuming that would be somehow plausible (not saying it is), and you could get, let's say clean signal from the auditory cortex's input projections into your auditory cortex's input neurons, why would the inputs from another brain match yours at all? As far as we know, the actual inputs and sizes of each area vary from person to person, and if there are lesions or other damage, nearby areas can repurpose to handle those functions. The only way this could reliably work is if the same persons encoded everything the same (same neurons, same inputs, etc), but we know that even given identical DNAs, nervous systems develop rather stochastically and only follow general connectivity patterns, such as inter-layer organization. Which leaves one with a few possibilities: either both persons sharing the thoughts have to have the exact same configuration of neurons/synapses as far as inputs are concerned, or maybe there would be some sort of transitionary layer which translates from one encoding to another (possibly some specially trained neural tissue), it's either that or the one reading someone else's thoughts would have to completly re-learn hearing, and eventually be able to hear the same as the other person, however by doing so, he'd forget how to hear with his own auditory organs (assuming they're not connected at the same time)... This gets really messy if one only considers un-modified humans, however I do think that sharing some types of thoughts should be possible if one is allowed to modify the human brain, but I don't expect such a thing to be easy since our "input/output" interfaces develop biologically and no organism has them the same, there's no real "standardization" of interfaces like in the electronics world.

>> No.2311029

i know this for a fact. it contradicts my notions of determinism and time, but i am keenly aware that doesnt matter

>> No.2311046

>>2310910
The argument only holds if the effect is subject to controlled replication, which it may well not be. Even if that weren't the case, there could be severe complicating factors as >>2310693 points out.
>>2310945
I wonder about that sometimes. But ultimately, I cannot just change my cognition to match that of other people just because there are more people who think like you than who think like me. I can only work with what I have. As I said earlier, I don't expect people to believe me.
>>2310991
Sure, but they are much, *much* more similar to each other than they are to circuitry and artificial intelligence algorithms.

>> No.2311087

>>2311046

if it isn't demonstrable or even replicable then it's a god damned miracle dude. you have to admit that to yourself and you have to realize the implications of such a "belief".
there's freedom of religion in this country, but there's no way I'm going to allow people to confuse it with science. what you are describing is a miracle. deal.

>> No.2311089

>>2311046
I'd actually imagine an AI based on the human brain would have a much easier time sharing thoughts with a human or another AI as the connectivity of inputs is entirely within your control. When it comes to humans, each specific input is only an input for something because of what it's connected to (specific inputs from sensors), and the rest of the neural network is trained from those specific inputs. If you were to randomly connect the prediction inputs from the auditory cortex(internal thoughts) from one neural networking to the equivalent of the same thing in another network, if the inputs don't actually match similar connectivity as the inputs delivered by the organs, you'd just end up with the network having to re-learn to hear, and this would be for every person it tried to "read" its thoughts (or share them). Which is why I think some intermediary interface to allow translating from one encoding to another would be preferable, especially if one wants to keep their original hearing sense intact.

(I don't particularily regard neurons as anything too special that can't be emulated "good-enough" with some suitable electronics hardware (some neuromorphic architecture), however of course there are certain biological functions that might have to be reduced...)

>> No.2311225

>>2311087
This is just not true. If the thread's still up when I get back, I will explain why.

>> No.2311739

How do I learn to tell the future?

>> No.2311856

>>2310515
>There are substantial incentives for people who possess these abilities to demonstrate them. Unsurprisingly, no one has come forward.

if you take a lot of movies and comics into consideration, bad things usually happen to anyone who comes out and says they have powers. i know if i did, those things would convince me to keep my mouth shut

>> No.2311862

>>2310589
i asked here because i wanted to know the *scientific* side of this

>> No.2311893

>>2311856
...and real life physical attacks and persecutions. I wouldn't go anywhere near the Randi challenge even if I thought I could win it.

>> No.2312183

>>2311893
>>2311856

lol, right. I am supposed to believe someone is withholding a demonstration of the greatest scientific finding in human history because you believe the comic book version of how it would go down. OK.
I can think of a million ways to prevent anyone from being subjected to your science fiction scenarios. Not to mention there are what, like a million palm readers already claiming they have such powers. None of them have been "black vanned" by a secret section of the government. Instead of scamming paranoid old ladies worried about dying out of their life savings they could sit down for an afternoon, do what they do every day, and walk away with a million bucks in cash.
You aren't kidding anyone bro. Scared my ass. This is the worst, most childish and nonsensical excuse in the world.

>> No.2312366

>>2312183
It's actual historical fact that people considered to have paranormal powers are persecuted, sometimes lethally. Hell, in the US people get beaten to death for being gay. You think it's somehow going to be better once its proven that there are people who can read minds? You idiotic naive fuck. Go back to your video games. You're not ready to deal with reality.

>> No.2312592

>>2312366

lol, what are you talking about? you're comparing gay sex to precognition or mind/matter manipulation? your boyfriend must love you.
first of all you're talking about ancient history, in many cases mass hysteria or obvious charlatans and frauds.
I wish we could have a Sylvia Browne burning, but alas times really have changed, these days our "witches" get afternoon talk shows.
Your full of false dichotomies, urban legend and fantasies. There are plenty of modern day people carrying on like they have ESP but refuse to submit themselves to scientific testing. If they came out, got tested and proved themselves they would be heralded as Gods, not burned at the stake. Your full of nonsense and irrational thinking, the true sign of a "believer".

>> No.2313230

>>2312592
>they would be heralded as Gods, not burned at the stake

he actually believes this!

laughingwhores.png

>> No.2313241

We already have precognition. It's called fear. We are afraid in dangerous situations because we can foresee pain, which is unpleasant.

As far as mind-reading, we're on the way to that. Ever hear of an EEG?

As far as a biologic entity mind reading; maybe, but people sure as shit can't do it.

>> No.2313246

If it wasn't already posted.

http://www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakersetal_subm.pdf

>> No.2313264

I know for a fact that there are connections between minds; connections that are invariable at any distance. I don't know how to explain it scientifically. If "scientific plausibility" means how explainable something is with existing theory, then these things are extremely scientifically implausible, but nevertheless true.

>> No.2313271

I only have one word for this thread.
Its a real field of science that has made quantifiable measurements of supernatural phenomena.

Noetic Science

>> No.2313297

>>2313271
that appears to be a couple of dozen words...

>> No.2313336

>>2313241
what's an eeg?

>> No.2313609

>>2313271

1 word- woo

>>2313230

paranoi much? yes, the reason people (with obvious paranoid schizophrenic behaviour) don't sit down and demonstrate their powers of ESP is because "everyone is out to get them".
how far down the rabbit hole have you already gone? you'd have to be a newb to not know where this discussion goes from here. it invariably leads to you giving this paranoid conspiracy theory about "them" and how "they" the government or the illuminati or some secret society would cover it up or abduct anyone with ESP.
meh, instead of me explaining how it would go down in reality, perhaps you could explain how it would go down. I think that would be more entertaining. A guy passes the preliminary round of a local skeptics challenge, which usually comes with a $50K reward or better, and a promotion to the $1mil challenge. For curiosity sake, what happens next in your mind? What's the person's power? Is it extraordinary like telekinesis or is it mundane like dowsing? Does the press run it as a headline or is it page 3? Man or woman? Young or old? You tell me what you figure is most likely to happen, why and how it all goes down. I'm genuinely curious how people who believe in this see it going down. Is there division among the scientific community? More skepticism? Do the religious freaks unite or do they denounce it as an abomination? Is there consensus or chaos? Is the person an American? Or are they Chinese? Do the rest of them, the ones you seem to be implying are hiding, come out of the woodwork? Go further into hiding? Give me the skinny!

>> No.2314791

>don't sit down and demonstrate their powers of ESP is because "everyone is out to get them".
That's all we need to know about you, thanks

>> No.2314826

ever heard of the morphogenetic field?
the theory is that we all are connected mentally by a somewhat hivelike field. all our memories are stored in this field, and our brains are antennas that pick up the frequencies which are translated to our minds. this theory is used to explain dissociative disorders, schizophrenia etc. which would be one shell, person, whose brain (antenna) picks up multiple personalities.
quite interesting, if you were to think of where you are at right now, you are surrounded by waves and frequencies, tv fields, internet fields, cell phone provider's fields etc., invisible information and data all around you, all you need is an antenna to pick it up like a phone or wifi....or brain.