How does Telepathy work?

The reasonable discussion we were having in chat got cut short so I was hoping to continue it in a thread.

First of all if you don't know much about the research, I made a list to summarize what's being understood.

Spoiler for Youtube Video List:

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about telepathy. What do you think is going on? Do you agree with Rupert Sheldrake's conclusion or do you agree with his opponents? What do you think is happening in a physical sense? What is the science going on?

I didn't watch the videos right now, but basically what I believe is that there are cords of energy that some people may be connected through and through those cords of energy feelings and ideas are shared. and our thoughts and emotions fill the air around us and can be picked up on unconsciously or consciously..

I'll be back to discuss this I haven't watched these vids and I want to before I post my thoughts on telepathy, and thanks for making this a post :) Our conversation got cut off yesterday and bummed me.

i'm not watching all that. lol

this is what telepathy is: a visual cue picked up by the subconscious, then translated into a specific thought that will fit the broadest of meanings. Once this happens enough times between 2 people then thoughts no longer need to be present for the trick to work, the link will become entirely external. Also, very spooky.

It only appears to be supernatural.

And that is why you need to watch the videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And that is why you need to watch the videos.

---

Am I wrong?

Your explanation does not sufficiently explain the phenomena as it has been researched.

So you think it's supernatural, then?

supernatural |ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl|
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: a supernatural being.
• unnaturally or extraordinarily great: a woman of supernatural beauty.

Yeah I believe that it would be supernatural, by both definitions.

Well I watched 20 minutes of the videos, and he makes a lot of odd claims in my opinion. 'Remote viewing' is fascinating, and I wish more research was done. Perhaps try placing someone inside a faraday cage and see if the phenomenon still occurs.

Since I'm already relativly familiar with the scientific litrature about telepathy, I can watch the videos later.
Ok so we know that the phenomena seems independant of space and time. This points towards the direction of a quantum resonance.
Roger Penrose's and Stuart Hammeroff's Orch-Or model of conciousness postulates that that these tiny cylinderic protein structures called microtubules inside all cells (including neurons) not only are capable of computation but that each tubilin (the structural subunit of microtubilin) is able to act as a quabit. The theory is looking stronger experimentally then ever despite being crititized heavily and not yet definately proven.

The problem with applying this to telepathy is how would a state of quantum entanglement exist between such disparate places.
A possible solution is that a shared emotion, focus or thought could lead to different brains having tubulin having a high number of shared tubulin states. The greater the number of tubulin states, the greater the exchange of quantum information between the minds. I have more to expand on but I'm sleepy right now so it will have to wait.

Night

I thought there was never any indication at all that microtubules have anything to do with computation. All knowledge of the brain indicates it functions via macroscopic waves of ions in a network.

I believe there are some rudimentary organisms where the neural basis of all their behaviour is understood. The fact that they have microtubules in their neurons too, which are seen to be unnecessary, suggest that in general they aren't used in neural computation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

I didn't watch the videos right now, but basically what I believe is that there are cords of energy that some people may be connected through and through those cords of energy feelings and ideas are shared. and our thoughts and emotions fill the air around us and can be picked up on unconsciously or consciously..

---

It is interesting to me that you define telepathy as "cords of energy". I recently had a LD where I was practicing telepathy and telekinesis. To read someone's thoughts, I would send out a cord of energy from my mind to theirs and would then be able to hear all their thoughts (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Since I'm already relativly familiar with the scientific litrature about telepathy, I can watch the videos later.
Ok so we know that the phenomena seems independant of space and time. This points towards the direction of a quantum resonance.
Roger Penrose's and Stuart Hammeroff's Orch-Or model of conciousness postulates that that these tiny cylinderic protein structures called microtubules inside all cells (including neurons) not only are capable of computation but that each tubilin (the structural subunit of microtubilin) is able to act as a quabit. The theory is looking stronger experimentally then ever despite being crititized heavily and not yet definately proven.

The problem with applying this to telepathy is how would a state of quantum entanglement exist between such disparate places.
A possible solution is that a shared emotion, focus or thought could lead to different brains having tubulin having a high number of shared tubulin states. The greater the number of tubulin states, the greater the exchange of quantum information between the minds. I have more to expand on but I'm sleepy right now so it will have to wait.

---

Hmmm. It's been awhile since I brushed up on my quantum mechanics, so my understanding is probably pretty limited, but I like where this is going. I've always wondered if telepathy could be related to quantum entanglement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I thought there was never any indication at all that microtubules have anything to do with computation. All knowledge of the brain indicates it functions via macroscopic waves of ions in a network.

I believe there are some rudimentary organisms where the neural basis of all their behaviour is understood. The fact that they have microtubules in their neurons too, which are seen to be unnecessary, suggest that in general they aren't used in neural computation.

---

Explain to me how a paramecium is able to compute without the use of microtubles then, considering a complete absence of a neural network. These structures stretch and undergoe inticrite transformations that practicaly run the whole process of both mitosis and meosis. One common feature of microtubule behavior is something called "thread milling". This is when a microtubule starts disintegrating from an end with its individual monemers of tubulin floating freely for a moment before begining to reconnecting to each other to reform the microtubule. However neuron cell microtubules are capped to prevent these cycles. This gives neurons the major disadvantage of making further cell division impossible. Why do neurons place keeping these microtubule networks completly stable above their own procreation? (keeping in mind that this ban on procreation also extends to replacing dead cells)

Stuart Hammeroff has done a pretty good job of showing how a microtuble would be able to compute and compute exceedingly well in this pdf (warning: >8 mb file).

The shortcomings of the neural network model are already pretty well documented online. If you want, I can give my own take on them later.

What do you mean by 'compute'? It's performing functions in a blind fashion according to genes and chemical signals, just like many other biological macromolecules do, to help the cell do what it needs... that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the hallmarks of thought however, such as symbol representation and manipulation.

The neurons thing is not an argument... there are very good reasons that the neurons stop dividing. In fact it's a basic feature of the way the mind develops and functions, which is essentially by creating large blank sheets, very loosely of 'possibility', which are then honed by experience into something useful for conceptualising reality. In what way is it a disadvantage? If they kept replicating there's no reason (with the current understanding) to think the brain could work at all.

I would like to hear of some of these shortcomings; I haven't heard of anything that caused serious consternation for the current scientific paradigm of neurons connected by dendrites which via action potentials of ions deliver inhibitory and excitatory signals. And indeed, it seems to be producing the most fruitful results in AI... I'm not sure what kind of computation microtubles are supposed to do or what if any successes that approach has seen in AI.