/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2671824]

What does /sci/ think of telepathy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_investigation_of_telepathy

[sage No.2671834]

sage

[bump No.2671846]

>>2671834
bump goes in all fields

[Anonymous No.2671860]

Crush the Germans with your mind!

[sage No.2671861]

>>>/x/
sage

[bump No.2671869]

bump for interest

[Anonymous No.2671872]

>>2671860
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.2671877]

It's about as realistic as OP's heterosexuality.

[Anonymous No.2671910]

> Many meta-analyses performed on multiple Ganzfeld experiments returned a hit rate of between 30% and 40%, which is significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance

So yall think this is not evidence enough for further investigation?

[Anonymous No.2672526]

No, because it's hardly a significant percentage. Once you crack the 50% mark (I would not investigate anything less then 75, maybe more) it's not worth wasting money on.

The problem with telepathy is strictly that of transmission and reception. Somehow, one persons brain must be able to not just detect another persons brain waves, but interpret them in the exact same way as the target would.

The Target's thoughts must be transmittable. we know this is not possible because the signals in the brain are all self contained, and don't produce enough of an energy pulse to be detected by anything but electrodes placed on the scalp.

The theoretical signal, assuming it can be sent, must be then interpreted. This is assuming everyone's brain interprets the world the same way, and it magically goes to the right place in the brain for interpretation.

So, no. Telepathy is the biggest piece of bullshit sci fi ever came up with.

[Anonymous No.2672531]

Telepathy exists, its called talking, and the medium of transmission is air, modulated with pressure.

[Anonymous No.2672547]

>>2671910
>significant
depending on the sample size, 5-15% more is not nearly significant

[Anonymous No.2672562]

It's bullshit like every other paranormal retardedness that's fucking up my SciFi channel (refuse to call it SyFy).

[Anonymous No.2672693]

>>2672526
So it's logical to assume that only a small percentage of the people are telepathically "compatible" so that might be one of the main reasons why it's hard to find direct proof of it

[Anonymous No.2673154]

>>2672693
No. It's logical to assume that the people trying to find it are either certifiably insane, desperate for money, or are hopped up on illegal drugs... possibly all three.

Another silly bullshit theory is the "Xavier" style of telepathy, which is to say, he "gets in your head".
This displays another problem, specifically with transmission of a gestalt consciousness developed from the rapid actions of an incredibly complex organ.

First, you would somehow have to transmit your consciousness into another beings mind. Obviously the first problem is transmitting a gestalt process in the first place.
The other issue is that of hardware. The other mind may not have the proper complexity or processing power to contain two intellects, much less process one that may be leaps and bounds stronger then the other.

[Anonymous No.2673188]

So we can break the issue down to several major barriers preventing telepathy from ever existing.

1. Transmission. There is no way to transmit information from one brain to another without hardware.

2. Translation. There is no way to assure that the brain impulses will be translated in the correct region of the brain, or if they can be translated at all.

3. Hardware. The brain is not set up for transmission or reception of brainwaves outside the body.

4. Compatibility. There is no guarantee that one mind can function in the same conditions as another (aka.. a smaller frontal lobe will still be small if someone else has taken over)

5. Stability. The ability to read another beings mind would be traumatizing to say the least, and who is to say that they would only read human minds? do you really need to know the thoughts of termites in your wall? Insanity is more likely to develop before genius.

Anatomy: the proper hardware to transmit and receive data from another brain would require either implants of some kind, or the development of a new organ/lobe in the brain. The body may not be able to accommodate either, resulting in damage, death, or cancer.

In the end, dream on, not gonna happen, ever.

[Anonymous No.2673192]

>>2672547
Depending on the sample size, 1% more alone is significant.

But it's a moot point because we have never found statistically significant evidence of telepathy ever.

[Anonymous No.2673198]

>>2673192
if that 1% was able to pass tests 100% of the time, it would be viable. right now we have some people who can occasionally beat the odds and get 40% correct on the tests, which means probability worked in their favor, once.

[Anonymous No.2673201]

If people with telepathy and telekinesis exist, why haven't they done Randi's million dollar challenge?

[Anonymous No.2673222]

>>2673198
No, take a statistics course. The theoretical mean success rate for your test individual and your control individual should be the same if telepathy isn't real. You take, say, a million samples from each individual and say the split is 26%-25% in favor of the test group. So you find the likelihood of getting this result if the true success rate is supposed to 25% for both. If it is extremely unlikely to get 26%, you say the result is statistically significant.

But again, we have never found statistically significant evidence for telepathy.

[Anonymous No.2673305]

>>2673222
you can wax statistical all you like
I am talking physics and biology. Statistics does not develop telepathy, you need to use the laws of the physical world to make it work, and we don't have the glitter to make it work

[Anonymous No.2673332]

>>2673305
You are talking about religion. Statistics are evidence. When evidence contradicts the physical model, we either throw out the evidence or we change the model. When we have overwhelming evidence, we must change the model. We determine what the laws of the physical world are by what we observe, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.2673345]

This comedy sketch best reflects my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDNgmdGMpuY

[Anonymous No.2673357]

>>2673201
Why can't you hit a bulls-eye on every shot?

[Anonymous No.2673364]

In the extremely tiny number of studies that have shown support for psychic phenomena, they have been statistically significant but not psychologically significant (i.e. effect size too small to warrant concern).

There are huge volumes of investigation into psychic phenomena that never get published because they don't show anything notable and the people who are on a mission to prove that it exists don't publish non-significant results.

Psychology uses a standard alpha of .05 for tests of significance, which means that 1 in 20 studies will be a false positive on average for this alpha. Given hundreds of studies, we should actually expect MORE significant results than we have now, purely from statistics.

[Anonymous No.2673367]

>>2673332
... are you insane? The world does not give two shits about us, we simply exist in it. If we change the laws of physics, the world does not change with it.

There is zero evidence supporting this

Also, science is not religion, you should know this by now

[Anonymous No.2673401]

>>2673367
I know there is zero evidence supporting this. I've said this twice already. That is not the point. The point is that if we were, hypothetically, to discover statistically significant evidence for telepathy, we must acknowledge it. To do otherwise would be undue adherence to dogma.

[Anonymous No.2673422]

>>2673367
Holy shit dude. I'm not the guy you're replying to, but you just went full retard and missed his point.

By "determine what the laws of the physical world" he means change what we perceive as the laws of the physical world, you fucking aspie. You know, the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.2673421]

>>2673364
.05 is more like a rule of thumb than a scientific benchmark. Good for practical purposes but not for meaningful claims.

[Anonymous No.2673435]

>>2671824
Are we talking about fantastic crap now? How the hell do I get back to /x/?

[Anonymous No.2673550]

What I find humiliating about this topic of discussion isn't the fact that it is brought up, but at how many reel away from it.

The idea of humans having super powers is, in fact, silly.
But the idea of human beings having some kind of perceptiveness to one another's presence, and intentions is obviously prevalent enough that the question is brought up repeatedly, through generations, across cultures.

But no.
You are biased by stereotypes which you have already adopted to your own disposition.
This bias is reinforced knowing that to question it otherwise means to be ridiculed and ostracized.

And that makes you bigoted cowards.

You are a coward, and it is not these parapsychologists who are truly damaging to any kind of endeavor, but YOU.


Are you so full of pride, and hubris in thinking that every model we use to describe natural phenomena is fact. To say that there is absolute certainty in anything is a fool's promise; there are no true facts, only axioms.

You know where the theory of relativity came from?
The theory which led to the breakthrough of nuclear energy, birthing our greatest sources of power, our most horrific weapons, and more?

Because somebody made the conjecture that energy must travel through "ether" of some kind.
Ether.

You choose the easy way out by means of conforming to popular conventions, and in doing so you kill the very spirit of scientific endeavor.

[Anonymous No.2673574]

>>2673550
tl:dr

[Anonymous No.2673584]

>>2673550
>i suck cocks

[Anonymous No.2673587]

>>2673550
I thought your post was very intelligent, but I have to go check my thetan levels.

BRB to support you.

[Anonymous No.2673597]

>>2673550
But to argue that something is true when there's no evidence at all is rather foolish.

We give ear to the idea of telepathy, but we dismiss it, because there is no significant evidence that supports it.

[Anonymous No.2673610]

>>2673597
Because nobody gives it serious, non-biased study.

It's either somebody who's out to prove it, or somebody is out to disprove it.

[Anonymous No.2673615]

plausible but we havent mass evolved it yet.

[Anonymous No.2673619]

>>2673610
This is a more fair statement.

[Anonymous No.2673628]

>>2673597
We need to discover something else first, something like another dimension, new sensing technology, etc..

[Anonymous No.2673633]

>>2673628
how would we discover new sensing technology without observing it in the natural world first

think, man

[Anonymous No.2673675]

>>2673633
but how can you observe something new without new technology?

[Anonymous No.2673683]

>>2673675
What came first, the psychic or the scientist?

[Anonymous No.2673680]

>>2673675
l2platonicheaven n00b

[Anonymous No.2673690]

>>2673683

fraud definitely predates intense unbiased investigation

[Anonymous No.2673691]

>>2673628
It could be that we already have technology capable of measuring it, but then it's a matter of how do you configure that technology and then put those measurements into quantifiable form.

[Anonymous No.2673707]

>>2673690
>intense unbiased investigation
>this is what science majors actually believe

[Anonymous No.2673719]

>>2673691
but with current technology, every supposed evidence of paranormal/supernatural events could be explained as natural phenomena.

[Anonymous No.2673724]

>>2671824
>/sci/
>telepathy

Telepathy is pseudo science bullshit that belongs on /x/. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.2673800]

>>2673719
>explained as natural phenomena

As if there existed any other.

[Anonymous No.2674378]

I am an expert.

[Anonymous No.2674379]

>>2674378
Are you Hal Thompson?!

[Anonymous No.2674384]

>>2674379
I am all and I am none.

[Anonymous No.2674396]

Stay out of my head, Charles.