I can't work out if you're flat-out lying or if you seriously still haven't read the article in your own first post beyond its title.
I can't work out if you're flat-out lying or if you seriously still haven't read the article in your own first post beyond its title.
Let's get this straight.
Quote:
SCIENTISTS claim they have found a 'sixth sense' which can detect light without the use of sight
^ It doesn't make sense.Quote:
They implanted detectors for invisible infrared light into the part of rats’ brains that control tactile feeling.
Their "sixth sense" is artificial. Without the mechanical detector, their sense WOULDN'T EXIST.
Even if that sixth sense was real, it has nothing to do with telepathy.
I'm lying?? on what? and i did read the article, it's about an existence of sixth sense which is on my post and it read and spoke about telepathy.
If you are here to ruin my thread then it's best to move on, i didn't post this to say that I have evidence, i posted this to say that a "scientist" proved something. If you want paper as poof go ask the scientist not me. Go and debate somewhere else that likes your kind of debate.
Yet AGAIN, i am not mad at people here i just said lastly that i am mad at this article and why scientist say they prove something and keep the evidence.
But if you think i am mad at people here, then you are out of it really.
Look, nobody has any idea what you're talking about. Scientists have electronically connected the brains of two mice, and shown that they can learn to communicate using the connection. What do you have such an issue with here? In what sense have these scientists "proved something and kept the evidence"?
What claim did i make?Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
I just posted the link and story. Go ask the scientist. Oh sorry they left you high and dry, making you doubt it, which that's what they want.
They aren't going to give you evidence when it's critical to their jobs and discoveries within their jobs. They want mula.
Well despite this thread not having much merit, it does remind me of a monologue from a certain J. Cavil...
" I saw a star explode and send out the building blocks of the universe, other stars, other planets, and eventually other life, a supernova, creation itself. I was there. I wanted to see it, and be part of the moment. And you know how I perceived one of the most glorious events in the universe? With these ridiculous gelatinous orbs in my skull. With eyes designed to perceive only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum, with ears designed only to hear vibrations in the air.
...
I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to — I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more, I could experience so much more, but I’m trapped in this absurd body. And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way."
And for heaven's sake I'm not trying to make any kind of point at all, it's just a neat monologue.
This whole experiment is actually really cool, I think it's pretty awesome what they've done. As long as they take it in the right direction, I can only imagine what else they might achieve from this.... Thanks for posting that.
That being said, yeah, this has absolutely nothing to do with telepathy. :T It's a great technological advancement, but it doesn't prove the existence of anything. I really hope that these views don't spread, because they're just going to drown out what it actually is, which is something pretty great in its own right.
I'm sorry, Hathor, but you simply misunderstood the article.
Have you heard about robotic prosthetic limbs? They can be controlled by the wearer, by surgically implanting transmitters into the brain, which power the limbs.
We also now have the technology to control drones and other radio-controlled machines using our brainwaves:
In the above cases, scientists have created the technology for humans to control machines with their minds. They haven't discovered an innate ability that humans have, to control machines with their minds.
The 'discovery' (or rather, 'breakthrough') you posted is the same thing, except they have implanted the technology that allows the rat brains to 'feel' light. That's all. They haven't discovered that rats have telepathy. They have engineered a way for them to have it.
It's still an awesome breakthrough, but please don't get your ideas crossed.
[Edit:]
By the way, it's really not your fault, as the article itself seemed to completely blow the idea out of proportion. This one is a little more informative:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/ne...l-for-infrared
[/Edit]
Oh I didn't know that you are claiming there is an immaterial reality that is observable by science. That is exciting!Quote:
Ya, you don't know how science works. It doesn't need to be a 'material phenomenon'. It just needs to be observable, which is an extremely reasonable request to make of a claim.
Are you sure?
I don't know what a precise definition of 'immaterial' would be, and I doubt you could give one, either. Are wavefunctions 'material'? Is the relativity of physics 'material'? Are lucid dreams 'material'? Anyway, the fact is that science is simply about observation. Telepathy by any normal definition, if true, is observable. You can observe that two people have communicated telepathically. So yes, it's in the domain of science.
You tell me: are dreams material? Relativity is a relationship between material things. Can science observe awareness? Or only perception (which is material)? energy is material, waves of energy are material. Can anything immaterial be observed? Name ONE THING immaterial that can be observed. Can anything immaterial have an effect on the material world? I don't know what you guys are arguing with me for, I am basically saying the same thing you are. That science has not observed telepathy! Basically because for telepathy to be a material phenomenon it would have to be transmitted through some kind of field or vibration, and of course there has been no observation of a vibration traveling through a field from one brain to another, I am assuming. I think the electromagnetic field of the hearts interact though. But of course the heart doesn't think if thought is a material phenomena.
But basically that article was all full of shit. There are way more than 5 senses. We have the sense of balance, the sense of hunger, the sense of thirst, to name a few. These are actually considered separate senses. And so we have all these sense streams coming in to the brain, and the brain takes these sense stream data and converts it into an experience of a separate self living in the world based on what the brain 'thinks' is out there based on this data. This holographic experience in the brain should be a seamless whole, but for some reason it is split into a subject and an object for most people. This is an optical illusion of consciousness. This optical illusion is all centered around thoughts and conditioning. We are not born with this split. It is argued that we need this split to function in the world, but that is not true. Oh.. wait I am going off topic here...
Of course there is a lot of common subjective experiences that science probably has never observed. Like awareness! Like thoughts! Like feelings! Etc. Of course science has observed brainwaves, brain chemistry etc... and that is great. So we know that there is a connection between certain brainwave frequencies and amplitudes and certain states of mind. How interesting. And of course the brain chemistry and psychiatry is very interesting and useful.
No you weren't, you were saying that science couldn't observe telepathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut
How are you defining telepathy?
If something can't be observed then by definition it's meaningless. If something existing has the same impact on your senses as it not existing, why would you ever think it's there? Your definition of immaterial appears to be the same thing as "non existent".Quote:
Name ONE THING immaterial that can be observed.
What does this have to do with anything? You don't need to observe the mechanism for telepathy to observe telepathy. Science does not require a 'material phenomenon' to establish something as scientific truth, we've just been through this. It just needs to observe two people engaged in telepathy.Quote:
Basically because for telepathy to be a material phenomenon it would have to be transmitted through some kind of field or vibration, and of course there has been no observation of a vibration traveling through a field from one brain to another, I am assuming. I think the electromagnetic field of the hearts interact though. But of course the heart doesn't think if thought is a material phenomena.
Well, I would say something that is immaterial is something that is not made out of any material, including energy. Even a field has a material cause. So yes, it would be veritably 'non-existent' as far as science is concerned. Such as awareness or love or possibly a thought. But nobody can deny awareness, yet people do get it mixed up with perceptions. It is bound to be mixed up with perceptions though, since that is how we know that we are aware. Descartes said "I think, therefor I am" but I would say that "I perceive, therefor I am." But of course perceptions are material. So that is why science cannot observe it, because it is 'non-existent' as far as science is concerned. Just like the soul. Science cannot observe the soul, it never will.
Why would media and scientists even put the name telepathy in this article? And it's still deemed not part of telepathy at all from the experiment?
(i should keep reminding myself not to read media ever again of such things and other things as well) It's either bullcrap or something is being hidden from us.
ARRGGGG :horse::horse::horse::horse::horse: GGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
The media is bullcrap in this story. Everything is a story. There is no "true explanation". For this story, the true explanation is they could possibly simulate telepathy in the future by implanting sensors in our brains and controlling it via a central broadcaster and control all of our minds. It isn't about natural telepathy.
OZ, I must say that Brain Controlled UAV Was pretty amazing!
Headlines are usually extreme exaggeration and misleading to get people to click through and see the ads/popups on the article page.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
Are you for real? "the ego ones?" Most brilliant scientists are ego ones, and that's precisely why they WILL reveal what they have. Nobel prize.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
So you make a ridiculous claim due partially to shoddy journalism, and partially to your own bad thinking, and when people point out the obvious problems with your claim, you respond with conspiracy theories. Classy.Quote:
Like come on, do you EVER think this? They don't want to reveal certain things because God knows what, it might be the most epic proof ever? But still kept things hidden, who knows if governments want these things to tested on us in various ways, like tv, internet, cell phones, mind chips.
Don't you people ever think such things and things like these can be bought out for $$$$?
Yes, it was! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phased
Seriously, how much time do you spend formulating your opinions before you post them? You seriously think the scientists who performed the experiment co-wrote that article? You're living in a bizarre, paranoid world. The word 'telepathy' is in the article because the experiment was vaguely reminiscent of telepathy, and that's a buzzword which will attract viewers. It happens all the time in journalism; bending the truth to make something more interesting. It's not a bloody scientific conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
What else of an excuse you got for shoddy journalism? Gimme something better, other than conspiracy theories. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
Not all scientists are egoistic. Please don't tell me it's because of shoddy journalists, that is a really lame answer because nowdays all journalists aren't doing good stories, and you know why, they are being controlled on what not to and how to make stories.
I think it's best for anyone who thinks i am dumb, better back off now, and accept my last post about the article with the dead horses.
I apologize if I came off saying you're dumb. "Bad thinking" doesn't mean "stupid person" - it's just a bad process.Quote:
Originally Posted by hathor28
I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "what else of an excuse you got?" thing.
You specifically said earlier, "Why would media and scientists even put the name telepathy in this article?"
I don't recall a scientist putting the name "telepathy" into the article. That article was NOT written by a scientist. Very early in this thread, the "shoddy journalism" thing was covered, when Patrick pasted the abstract from the ACTUAL scientific paper, and explained how it had nothing to do with telepathy, and how scientists said nothing about telepathy in the paper.
So yes, taking a basic scientific paper about how the brain reacts to signals that are artificially sent in, by making new and useful neural pathways, and construing it as "proof of telepathy" is bad journalism. I don't necessarily blame the specific journalist, though. The news company needs to sell its product, and the editors are usually responsible for twisting everything around like that.
Again, I have no idea what the question is. Is this the same question about an excuse for something? Excuse for what?Quote:
Please don't tell me it's because of shoddy journalists, that is a really lame answer
I really think this is a prime example of why you should try to validate your sources before posting new and astounding discoveries. It has happened to me before where I get really excited about something and forget to check how reliable what I have just read actually is and then I feel like an idiot for going along with it. Just forget the conspiracy theories for a moment and try to remove yourself from the situation and look at your posts from the perspective of another.
At first, you claim that "Scientists prove existence of sixth sense as form of telepathy" because of the article that you read. Other people have tried to explain to you that the actual research paper involved engineering an artificial sense rather than actually discovering a "sixth sense" that naturally belongs to the rats but you just dismiss it as a conspiracy theory and the scientists are just trying to keep the existence of telepathy from us. Thinking logically about this, why would the scientists try to hide such a ground breaking discovery that could put them in the history books forever? Something even stranger to think about would be to ask yourself how the journalist of this article somehow knows the truth of the results from this experiment despite the fact that the scientists are hiding it from us? If you claim that they are one of the scientists who did the experiments that gave the alleged positive results for the existence of telepathy, why would they risk exposing the truth without being assigned any credit for the discovery?
It's just important sometimes to remember that it is possible to be misinformed and "shoddy journalism" is definitely on the rise. Don't believe me?
This is a video from MSN news/ITN classed as breaking news that was posted in the last 30 minutes:
Ghosts haunt Japan's tsunami ravaged coast on MSN Video
This video does not prove the existence of ghosts or show that exorcisms is real or anything like that, it's just a video to attract views. It isn't even a major news story.