Talk:Telepathy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent edits and mediation

THB, you've made a lot of edits to this article recently, and most of them I agree with. Your most recent ones I don't agree with, however. This article is supposed to be under mediation, and I've just left a message with our ostensible mediator asking him to become involved. In the meantime, I ask that you hold off on editing at this point. In return I won't revert your latest changes; we can discuss them under mediation. KarlBunker 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Since you have continued to edit, and are apparently afraid to engage in a discussion of this or any other issue, I'll just go ahead and make some edits of my own. KarlBunker 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Davkal, the introduction is looking much better and more balanced. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Status of the Field

The quotation provided here is rather incomplete and in my opinion misleading. I see the same source is cited on the parapsychology page, and now having read both I have come away from the article with an entirely different opinion on the scientific concensus of telepathy. The source actually says:

Does psi exist? Most academic psychologists don't think so. A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &amph; Monnet, 1979). - http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

Currently, this source, through removal of context, is being presented as if it favours telepathy, when the full quote is far more balanced. JammyB 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

kjlkjl,kl,l,ččč.č.č.č.č.jhtgfh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.42.237 (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Theories of telepathy

This section, the most important part of an encyclopedia on telepathy, is almost non-existent--the section on fictional telepathy is larger. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Experiments

The experiments section describes experiments in almost as much detail as they are on their main pages. Perhaps they should be summarized here since they have their own articles elsewhere with a note "for main article see: xxxxx" etc. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Page split

I really must protest the recent page split that happened without any discussion or even a talk page comment. For an article this controversial it's very bad manners, at the least, and could be seen as a POV fork. CovenantD 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Scientific investigation of telepathy is important enough to deserve its own article. I would assume good faith on the part of that editor. Everyone here wants Wikipedia to remain neutral POV. I opened a discussion on that possibility above. The telepathy article clearly refers to the new article. The section on experimentation was almost the sum total of the individual articles on each experiments or group of experiments. -THB 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing the move. I'll do so next time. My reason for splitting the article has pretty much been summed up by THB; you can't have a telepathy article and dwell on the science experiments. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've long said that this article was POV in favor of skeptisism, so I understand your desires, and appreciate that you now understand that discussion first would have been preferable. (For what it's worth, I don't have feelings one way or another on the split itself, just the lack of discussion.). CovenantD 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

how many thoughts that grass is green can you fit into a matchbox

I note the following from the main article "and since the physical components of the mind are all much larger than this". Since nobody has any real firm idea what constitutes the conscious mind and what its physical components might even be (if they exist), let alone what size they are, I think this might need to be described in rather more speculative terms.Davkal 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomic Model Theoreom by Radwan B.

Is this original research? -00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we remove pending some info about sources.Davkal 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -THB 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For External Reference

I would like to propose the following article for an external links:

The Existence Of The Faculty Of Telepathy

Psychic - Clairvoyance Or Telepathy?

Spiritism And Telepathy - Mrs. Leonora E. Piper

Yogi Philosophy - Telepathy and Clairvoyance

Smithville 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

citation

A citation is requested for "these quantum effects must be negligible". I've checked a few sources looking for this, and I haven't specifically found any mentioning that the effects are neglibible, but I have found some saying that it is incorrect to try to account for telepathy using Quantum Mechanics. Will that do? Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy is not real. There is no scientific proof for it. It does not exist. I'm surprised how this article describes it like it's a real thing, or even a possibility. What a shame. Gary84 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gary84, I agree. Yet the NPOV banner was put up with the comment that it's biased against the paranormal! I agree, the opening needs to establish that this is fictional or pseudo before describing it "as real", which is the case of other pages. It sure beats using imperfect tenses all throughout. —Długosz 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Bubba73, I'm of the opinion that telepathy can't be explained by quantum mechanics as now formulated, and I've heard the same thing (though I'd like to see your sources for interest). It should say "some physicists", though, because quite a few really good ones have spoken of QM as a possible explanation for telepathy. But I don't think the sentence is relevant, because no one knows how small an effect could account for telepathy, so a negligible amount might do the trick. Also, I think that it is incorrect that the components of the brain are too large for quantum effects. There are interactions at the ends of ummm... dendrites, the little thingies which stretch out from the neurons, and they don't quite touch, and sparks basically go between them. Martinphi 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Science needs to show that there is some effect in need of explaining before "some physicists" propose explanations for it. At best, it's playful speculation. It is NOT an indication that there is a possibility for it. As for the gaps between nerve cells, they are spanned by large molecules moving between them. To look for specific citations about lack of QM in human cells, I recall seeing that in reaction to Penrose's book. Perhaps searching for things written in response to "Emperor's New Mind" a few years after the book was first published will turn up some hard numbers. —Długosz 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked in some books but couldn't find anything specific - just that QM doesn't allow it. I didn't think about that book, though. I have it and I'll try to have a look in a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe that book isn't the place to look, but responses to it, as you said. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

People need to watch out for NPOV here. You're talking very authoritatively about an aspect of parapsychology, an entire field of science. It won't work to assert your opinion about whether telepathy is real or not. In point of fact, there are experiments which say it is real. The most detailed and authoritative criticisms (for instance, those by Hyman) only go so far as to say that more research is needed. Under these circumstances, this article won't be able push the reader one way or the other as to the reality of telepathy. But, as would be the case in many fields, if the evidence is presented neutrally the reader may go away with the impression that there is telepathy. This is as it should be according to policy. Martin^{phi (Talk|Contribs)} 08:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Woos

I'm looking at the ref in "Scientific Investigation of Telepathy," section where it says

"Detractors counter that Radin is too accepting of studies as "reputable", and that if Radin or anyone else has scientific proof, it is strange that he does not apply for the Randi Prize[7]."

Well, I think we should include a quote from that page, if y'all think it is a good source. Otherwise, perhaps we should find a different, less reputable source. How about this quote?:

"Really? Well, Dean Radin has been remarkably silent in the nine years since his book came out. He’s of course eligible for the million-dollar prize if he can produce one example – from his book or from anywhere else – that proves the case for parapsychology. Why haven’t I heard from him, let alone from Lou Gentile…? Just what can it be that prevents these woo-woos from applying for and winning the prize?"

Now, as someone who thinks that the parapsychologists are onto something, I think this is a great source, and a great quote. I'm just putting it here so the skeptics can have their say. NPOV, you know. Martinphi 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S., the following has appeared in the same section: "However, medical drug testing is an example of the standard of proof to which telepathy studies would have to reach in order to convince skeptics." As I'm sure you all know, Dean Radin uses the example of medical research done to prove aspirin is effective in helping prevent heart attacks, comparing the effects of aspirin to the much greater psi effect. So, I guess you all believe in telepathy. Martinphi 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence of Intro

I restored the last sentence of the intro to

Despite the willingness to believe in the phenomenon, it has never been demonstrated in a rigorous scientific experiment (see Scientific Investigation below).

My reasons are carefully considered and are as follows:

1. Provide NPOV. Telepathy is fictional, but the fact that some people believe in it is a real cultural phenomenon that needs to be covered to present "both sides".
2. The issues of why some experimenters claim positive results is a major issue in itself, and can't be glossed over with one sentence. It deserves its own section, and has one. Content that should go there (including the ref to E.B. if deemed suitable) goes there. The brief intro points to it. This issue (as opposed to all the other information in the article) needs to be in the intro because of the controversial nature. But don't try and explain the controversy with one sentence.

Improving that section is another story.

—Długosz 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously trying to push a point of view. This will not succeed on Wikipedia. My revision was in accordance with the source cited, which is a production of a couple of the primary scientists in the field. It may have been POV in the context though. However, we can come to a compromise which does not push the reader either way. Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary. It has its own section down the page.

Within the field of parapsychology there is really no debate on whether telepathy exists. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, there is really no reason that the articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to genuflect to skeptics even if the skeptics are correct. Of course, skepticism should be covered, as a matter of thoroughness. In fact, because there is so much controversy (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), it should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skeptics need not be given equal time, nor does skepticism need to be part of the definition.

Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site.

However, you are right that the summary here is too brief to cover such issues. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. But, it should be made clear to a casual reader that it is being presented from the worldview of parapsychologists (which is important in this case because it differs from mainstream science) without having to be an expert in the nuances of Wikipedia.

For comparison, the article on Vulcan begins with the phrase, in Roman mythology and then is written (mostly) as-fact. In another article on Vulcan, it begins In the fictional Star Trek universe and continues with prose as-fact. Now we expect the reader to know that mythology (all mythologies other than his own religion anyway) is fiction. But the word fictional is inserted, as a hedge/redundancy, so people don't have to realize that the Star Trek Universe is not the world we live in.

Our article under discussion contains In the field of parapsychology in the middle of the first paragraph, not first. At the very least, I suggest putting a paragraph break there, and reversing the paras, putting the word origin after the overall summary of its meaning. Now people have to know or dig into the issue that parapsychology is real enough to them but at odds with physics and suffers from a credibility problem due to the large amount of pseudo- and junk- science and all the fraud TV acts that pretend to use telepathy and may or may not keep up the pretense off stage. So, some redundant weaseling is appropriate here, just as with Star Trek, I think.

Now, the issue of what is scientifically accepted within the field. How are the references vetted against pseudos (which are not doing science)? Worse yet, what about junk science which is harder to detect and contaminates the knowledge base?

That there is a distinction between the mentalist act and what parapsychologists study is something that would be part of the overall structure of the article.

I hope you find this discussion constructive. I'll hold off making edits until further discussion. —Długosz 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV should be strictly followed and edit wars should be avoided. Repeated reverting accomplishes nothing but escalation and eventual blocking for WP:3RR. There's plenty of information missing from the article (info on theories, telepathists, etc.) that could be focused on instead of one disputed sentence in the introduction. -THB 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's constructive, Długosz. What wasn't constructive was trying to tell the reader what to think.

"But, it should be made clear to a casual reader that it is being presented from the worldview of parapsychologists"

Agreed.

I don't think it is quite accurate to be comparing telepathy to something which is nearly universally agreed upon to be fictional, given that most scientists believe in ESP.

"Now, the issue of what is scientifically accepted within the field. How are the references vetted against pseudos"

I don't think you can vet against pseudo-parapsychology except by looking at whether the sources are published in a peer-reviewed journal like the Journal of Parapsychology (and not in, say, a skeptical source). And by looking at the credentials of the authors. But you can vet.

"That there is a distinction between the mentalist act and what parapsychologists study is something that would be part of the overall structure of the article."

Agreed.

See the current change, I'm putting "parapsychology" in the first sentence.

Please put your responses after other people's, or people might not see it. You had your response above my signature before I changed it.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, in order to present a NPOV on this article, I believe that the article much be written in a netural tone, what is it? What does the word mean? then, discuss why or why not it is believed to exist.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

This is a terribly pushy article. It is written supposing that telepathy is a proven scientific fact. There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that telepathy exists. I've made a simple edit to make this clear.

The article itself needs some drastic improvement. I suggest as follows:

• The intro needs to make it clear that telepathy is not a fact. By failing to do this the introduction does not reflect the subject. By using a defintion, the article pushes the PoV that telepathy does or should exixt and is a real measureable and verifyable phenomenon. It is not.
• Types of telepathy needs clarifying that this is the opinion or belief of those who think telepathy exists.
• The scientific field which studies psi phenomena such as telepathy is called parapsychology. This is untrue. It is not a scientific field of study.
• The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology... pushing PoV. See above. Also, notice that it pushes aside the consensus of the scientific community at large including peer reviewed studies.
• A number of weasle words here - most, some, "classical" (in inverted commas giving it an odd emphasis), no conclusive evidence (implying that eventually it will be supplied whereas in reality there is no scientific evidence conclusive or otherwise), perhaps (Original Research) and many.
• The use of assertion and refudiation by "skeptics" turns the emphasis on the wrong foot. As there is no scientific evidence, the clear statement should be that it is not a fact and that supporters have theories which are not supported scientifically."This lack of reliable reproducibility has led skeptics to argue that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of telepathy at all." Well this says it all but the implication in the way it is written is that science has to disprove the "fact" of telepathy. It is the opposite. It is incredibly pushy PoV to claim that something exists, without evidence, and that science has to disprove this (constant referal to skeptics). You can't make something up and then ask science to disprove it.

Candy 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good essay and good luck in getting most uncritical non-scientists to understand your points (not POV). The last 2 sentences hit the nail on the head but that simple logic is hard for most to understand, unfortunately. This article should expalin what the concept of telepathy is and then another sentence that it doesn't exist. And maybe a section on sci-fi books annd movies that employ it. Sammyj 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Martinphi and other editors are pushing their PoV that telepathy is real and that parapsychology is a field of science. Both are entirely untrue, and this article is not only useless but greatly misleading. Unfortunately a subject such as this is going to attract woo-woos with a vested interest in pushing their PoV and not remaining neutral, so I fear that there is little that can be done to save this article, and Wikipedia.

The most amusing part of this article is "There is a consensus within that field that some instances of telepathy are real" backed up by two citations from - you guessed it - the Parapsychological Association. Good one. JammyB 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So go ahead and take a shot at fixing it. --Minderbinder 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is a consensus within that field that some instances of telepathy are real" Except that this is 100% true, there IS consensus within parapsychology that that some instances are real. This is an indisputable fact. Of course they believe that it is real, they're believers. It's like saying "within the Republican party there is consensus that a republican president is a good thing". - perfectblue 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV-check tag. Main reason is that a consensus doesn't seem to have been reached here regarding neutrality. Personally I don't think the article is too bad regarding neutrality, but it's certainly not perfect. I would recommend:

• Adding links to Scientific investigation of telepathy and to Parapsychology in the controversy section, to guide readers to a more abrangent discussion (after Parapsychology gets a little more organized, the link could go to its controversy section). The lack of a link to Scientific investigation of telepathy in particular hardly seems neutral.
• I think it's important to add something to introduction to make it clear that this is a disputed subject.

(also, I changed the title of the section "future of telepathy")

In a possibly unrelated note, the lack of a section with proposed explanations (physical and biological) for how telepathy is supposed to happen is currently a huge hole in the article. AoS1014 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof of the paranormal

James Randi's 1982 book is cited as a source for a criticism of Dean Radin's assessment of meta-analysis of telepathy experiments. The criticism says: "Detractors counter that Radin is too accepting of studies as "reputable". This is proof of the paranormal because Radin's assessment took place 20 years after Randi's book was written (many of the experiments took place after Randi's book was written). To make the specific criticism attributed to him then, Randi must have precognitive powers.Davkal 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The section on research has also now been changed to suggest that only supporters of the paranormal claim the telepathy experiments have yielded positive results. No one disputes this. The reasons for the positive results are perhaps disputed but even Ray Hyman (in his joint statement with Charles Honorton) said: "we agree that the overall significance observed in these studies cannot reasonably be explained by these selective factors [i.e., "multiple testing, retrospective experiments, ... the file-drawer problem," etc." There is therefore no debate that significant (positive) results have been obtained and very little appeal (anymore) to experimental flaws etc. As Radin put it, people who maintain there is no scientific evidence for telepathy and that sceptics have explained the results as flawed experiments etc., are not only uninformed about the current state of parapsychology, they are uninformed about the current state of scpeticism. Davkal 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see sources in the article backing this up. Do you have a link on the Hyman statement? Are there articles in mainstream scientific publications discussing the acceptance of positive results in telepathy studies? I don't see them, if they exist they would be a good addition to the article. --Minderbinder 12:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, you would do well to consider this as a sub-article of Parapsychology, because that is really what it is. So, look at the sources there. Of course, we have them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources that specifically mention telepathy, I'd recommend adding them to this article. --Minderbinder 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Randi's precognitive criticism of Radin has been reinserted. Anyone like to explain how such a thing is possible. Davkal 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Telepathy in fiction

I have reported this earlier that telepathy is also used in the anime 'Ghost In The Shell'. Plz. some one add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21st CenturyDRAGON (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I added the Carpathians to the example of telepaths in fiction. Jahunta07 09:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The illustrations

I think that the illustrations especially the last one are not pre-empted within the article. There's alot of interesting things going on in those illustrations that need to be talked about.Lighthead 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Five senses!?

This needs some major change. The phrase, "using the usual five senses" is ill-defined and extremely un-scientific. It implies that the oft and incorrect use of the concept of people having 5 senses (which is a hangover of poor teaching from the early and middle parts of the last century) is in fact correct. There are at least 3 further senses and if actually broken down to individual (rather than grouped senses) could easily be counted as more than 20.

Ergo, if anyone still believes we only have 5 senses then I am certain I have extra-sensory perception as I have many more. This sentence needs changing. Candy 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this by linking "five classical senses" to the wikipedia article which describes in more detail what you refer to. If you can find a better way of phrasing this, please give it a go. --Otheus 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedited

Mostly I changed references, parallelism, and removed some extra verbiage. Here is the most useful diff of my copyedits. The subsequent version restored spacing and broke up consecutive references in order to enhance editability.diff. --Otheus 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Topic

Could users please try to remember that the first few lines of the introduction should define the term being used, not the phenomona being discussed.

perfectblue 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename "Notes" section "Cited references"

I feel the "Notes" section should be renamed "Cited references" and the "References" section should be renamed "General references." Or else go back in the History and find out what those nonspecific references refer to; maybe they can be deleted and just have a sole "References" section. A Note is an additional explanatory comment by an author. I don't see any Notes here. These are all cited sources. I'm the main author of the Psychokinesis article, which I've heavily referenced. I'm not a regular editor here at Telepathy, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I just want to throw this suggestion to the regulars in case it seems like a good idea. Thanks. 5Q5 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good- be bold, this article isn't that great anyway. Did some of what you suggest. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Reference?

This sentence-

"An early example of something like telepathy is found in 2 Kings 6, where Elisha is able to tell the king of Israel the Aramean battle plans without physically hearing them."

Is not only questionable, (the verse, within context, gives no explanation for how Elisha knows what he knows, and especially does not give any credence to telepathy within further context), but is clumsy, poorly placed, and somewhat "trivia-ish", and thus useless. I move for erasing it? Lackinglatin 11:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed controversy in lead

Removed the controversy in the lead to the talk page, pending consensus on where to put it.

The existence of telepathic abilities is highly controversial. No evidence for telepathy has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. Skeptics say that all seeming telepathic abilities are the result of self-delusion or fraud.

I believe WP:LEAD says that the lead should generally reflect the article. I think in this instance, that the lead should reflect the article structure as well, rather than what some editors think is more important. The article should be more pop culture, because science pages are already in place, and such pages do not do well in covering the general cultural scene. This is the general consensus on other articles of a similar nature, such as Psychic. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about WP:LEAD, but two or three sentences giving the necessary caveats at the beginning of the article seems very much in order, and are to me much more important than fiction or transhumanism. Michaelbusch 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are right that it is a lot more important, and also that we do need the caveats. But I'd like to get this article focused on pop culture, and then cover the scientific stuff in other articles like Ganzfeld and Psychokinesis. Of course we need the caveats, I just want to keep parapsychology at the end of the article, and only a small section. And since the criticism has to come after parapsychology (cause no one criticizes pop culture), then the order in the lead would naturally be Definition --> fiction & pop culture --> parapsychology and criticism. The only problem with this is that NPOV tells us to seperate parapsychology and criticism, because otherwise we are juxtaposing in a way that makes it seem POV. If we put it in a way that gives the information but doesn't hit things hard like this:

Parapsychology explores the possibility that telepathy may be real, and telepathy, along with telekinesis form the main branches of Parapsychological research. No evidence for telepathy has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community, and skeptics say that all seeming telepathic abilities are the result of self-delusion or fraud.

Then we could have only two paragraphs, and have the above be part of the first paragraph. How would that be? Excuse me if I'm not making sense, I had wine for dinner. I do prefer to have the criticism in the last paragraph of the lead, as is standard with these kinds of articles. I'd compromise on the above. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Demons possess mind control abilities not telepaths

• In article: "Some fictional telepaths possess mind control abilities, which can include "pushing" thoughts, feelings, or hallucinatory visions into the mind of another person, causing pain, paralysis, or unconsciousness, altering or erasing memories, or completely taking over another person's mind and body (similar to spiritual possession). Examples of this type of telepath include the Carpathians from the novels in the Dark Series, the White Queen from Marvel Comics. Characters with this ability may or may not also have the ability to read thoughts."

In normal telepathy: The any telepaths are not possess mind control abilities ... into the mind of another person. The wireless communication are be done through demons. But firstly the telepaths are arranged for this experimentation. This means that the brains of the telepaths must be possessed from demons. Then it start so the wireless communication. So not any telepaths but any demons possess mind control abilities.

Comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afterlife#Why_believe_many_people_an_afterlife.3F

--78.177.191.94 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats logical. i have am processed in the about to reflect this articel to change these changes. Smith Jones (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Telephaty and Television

"A mass ESP test using television" D.Michie and D.J.West Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol.39 No. 693 September 1957

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.93.5 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts or Feelings? Are they not the same?

"thoughts or feelings" in the introduction.

An odd phrase to use as there is no distinction between them. Is there? --Candy (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fine - thoughts are the intellectual side of things, feelings are more emotional. You can't feel "What's the capital of Belgium?" for example. K2709 (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

May be rename article to Telepathy_(paranormal), and set this to redirect to Telepathy_(disambiguation)?

Actually, i don't know how is it ussually done. I've tried to find information about Telepathy framework, i missed lot of time, before i found it here: in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy_(software) :(

I think it is good idea to rename this page to Telepathy_(paranormal) or something like this, and make Telepathy article to redirect on Telepathy_(disambiguation). Of course i understand, that most of people searching "Telepathy", means exactly what they found in this article, and i don't know, if it is ok, to make things such things... Please do it, if it is ok.

P.S. Sorry for my bad English. Rilium (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Technologically enabled telepathy

I think that this section has nothing to do with telepathy, which, as defined in the first paragraph, involves the paranormal. Connecting human nervous systems to computers is a well-known experimental therapy and involves no magic. I suggest deleting this section entirely.Desoto10 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm merging some content here from an AFD

The original article Telepathy and war was heavily edited during its AFD and I placed the remaining content here since the article probably won't pass AFD. Sifaka ^talk 00:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TEEP redirects here

Teep redirects here, while it is also an abbreviation used in measuring Overall equipment effectiveness. I'm not quite sure how to state this, but it ought to be stated here? I believe there's actually a template for this specific purpose... --MooNFisH (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"TEEP" is not an abbreviation for telepathy. It's not listed here: acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TEEP The redirect should be listed for deletion on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page. Anyone with the free time should do so and announce it here. 5Q5 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-consensual telepathic surveillance, techniques for dealing with

It seems to me that my edit adding a link to this page fell victim to selective enforcement of Wikipedia's regulations. I don't see how that site is less "reliable" than other sites listed in the external links section, such as betterhumans.com, which appears to be a blog plastered with lots of affiliate ads.

24.209.234.161 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Anon in Ohio

The argument that other links are unreliable is not a rationale to include another. The betterhumans site has now been removed in accordance with ELNO. Ash (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because I spotted you adding it, and it's not remotely appropriate. Selective enforcement is better than no enforcement! I support removing other links to unreliable pages. Fences&Windows 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Grinberg-Zylberbaum Experiments?

Why is there no mention of these experiments? They are precise, cut-and-dried and bypass human subjectivity. In themselves, they do not prove that telepathy exists but they are tantalizing in that they suggest telepathy is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I googled this and at first sight it is interesting. Its value would depend on the degree to which we could say that a sympathetic response had been obtained, independent of the test apparatus, or effected by it in a clear way. If it could be associated with actual acts of communication confirmed by verbal protocols that would be conclusive. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the best starter link I could find. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I call conclusive for the reported effect. Funny how this stuff get distorted by people with fixed world views, lack of understanding of statistical methods, whatever, as shown so clearly by the statement of the person who said they were involved in the original experiments in the link at the James Randi site above. Also, in this case, the simultaneity of perception, of the actual event in the one location and with the appropriate brain circuitry in the remote location, had it occurred there does as the thread originator notes, obviate verbal protocols. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick study of the abstract shows that the protocol was probably inappropriate. The dual use of "significant" in the same sentence is strong indication that neither use is, well, "significant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Significance" has a well defined meaning in mathematical statistics, not taking the time to give references for it here. I did do a quick look at Statistical hypothesis testing, and it does appear to be a pop culture theme to try to "debunk" this basic mathematics. Again, I'm not taking the time to respond to that other than to wonder at it a bit. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "significance" does have a well-defined meaning, and it is not correct in "significantly higher brain activation". "Significance" applies to entire studies, not to individual effects. The multiple (at least two) layers of "significance" suggest a simplified analysis technique, without apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite! Statistical significance is a property of any result occurring at a calculated probability below a stated threshold. A well-defined attribute of an entire study it is not. A statistical result is "significant"; a study is "important", perhaps, but only "significant" in colloquial use of the term.

I see no major problem with the study beyond reception and believe suitably neutral mention of it would increase the value of the article. 78.147.239.153 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it you mean reception by the "debunkers". I don't have a solution for what to do about people who think mathematics can be "spun". You might be able to spin "with" Mathematics if you were so inclined, but teh Maths theyself? Nopes. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not saying this was done, but by choosing the proper criterion for "significance", any sufficiently complex experiment can be made to produce a "significant" result. The math may speak for itself, but anyone can learn How to Lie with Statistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simple equivocation on "significance" the mathematical property vs. the concept of importance. For the main hypothesis, in a good design, there would be semantic consonance between the two. The higher requirement is the overall cogency of the finding, in which the logic of the statistical inference is normally only a component, presumably having been met in publications in peer reviewed journals. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably. Could be a breaching experiment, in getting something published which shouldn't be, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ostensible" and "reproducibility"

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry writes that including the word "ostensible" in the definition is "important to convey the fact that telepathy is not a real (ie scientifically accepted) phenomenon." This seems to be self-contradictory. There's a difference between telepathy (which I agree is not real) and the mere appearance of telepathy (which is real, for example in a magic trick or illusion). Putting "ostensible" in the definition says that the appearance of telepathy is itself telepathy. This is logically equivalent to saying that a man in a convincing bear suit is a bear. A bear isn't an ostensive ursine mammal; it's an ursine mammal. Thus removing the word "ostensible" makes the definition more accurate.

Also, "reliable Reproducibility" seems to be redundant. If an effect passes the criterion of reproducibility, then it is reliable.

Please discuss first before reverting my edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "the appearance of" in the lead sentence, so I don't see any redundancy when the word "ostensible" is added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. "Telepathy" isn t "ostensible". "Telepathy" is a real existing word in some theories about temporary unexplainable things. That s all. ff 80.128.121.94 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A class of pharmaceutical medications and their application to mental telepathy

"Pharmaceutical Telepathy" appears to work well. There is a tendency to believe that some sort of alpha, beta or theta brain wave electronic device is envolved, but with use of a specific kind of drug it may be possible to influence the biofield around other human beings. Scientists are always ready to dismiss the use of a drug to conduct extrasensory perception experiments, only to move from pseudoscience to computational mathematics and EEG technology to create a synthetic telepathy method of communication between human beings. "Microwave Transceiver Implant Device-Pharmaceutical Telepathy" may be possible, along with the capability of invisible psychokinesis control fields of telepathy energy Gremlins and Angels at higher energy states in the dimension of human consciousness and reality on planet earth.JohnDoepvd1509rejnw (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If this were accurate, and there were a source, it would probably be appropriate for the article. As neither is the case, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're theorizing about Synthetic Telepathy. That's not appropriate here - not the theorizing, nor the topic. No original research on Wikipedia, remember?Jeremystalked _talk 02:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition: more than the 5 senses

"Telepathy" is not just the transmission of information/images/whatever from one person to another by means beyond the 5 senses but also beyond all currently known means such as any devices based on communication by known means such as current electromagnetic technology, but not necessarily hypothesized ones such as distantly effected analogs of FMRI. See my comments to Fermi Paradox ("the duh response", and others). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Until verifiable evidence is provided, "telepathy" is nothing more than speculation. The Fermi Paradox is thus of no consequence one way or another regarding how it is supposed to 'work'. If you can find a reliable source that suggests otherwise, please let us know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for what Andy? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

'72.228.177.92', you seem to be suggesting the telepathy article needs altering - or if you aren't, there is no point in posting comments on the talk page (this isn't a forum for general debate on the subject of telepathy). Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources. Do you want the article altered? And if so, what changes are you suggesting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see below and in the article on brain-computer interfaces telepathy is now an achieved reality back at DARPA labs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging AndyTheGrump's entry, no I don't wish to contribute to this article at this time and that the immediate entry above in this thread is not me. The analogs I referred to were not the simple and primitive researches that use current brain imaging technology or implement man-machine interfaces. For ethical reasons I believe these are all passive abeit functional imaging in any case rather than communication as such. The interfacing where an input to computer is controlled by a biological signal are especially not communications in the sense of telepathy as we do not currently have sentient computers. Started thread in response to "5 senses" basis which appears to have been redacted. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First; where in the definition on telepathy does both parties have to be sentient? Also there are brain computer interfaces that can feed information to a brain, which makes it possible to transmit signals from one brain to another. Currently we do not have 1 to 1 mappings when it comes to input and output. We could feed one persons emotions into another persons visual cortex, but without a lot of signal processing that would be quite useless. However with signal processing we could make the emotional into some sensible graphical information. Also we could convert them to audio and send them to that part of the brain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.89.27 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention on ongoing Darpa research

Darpa has successfully made a monkey telepathically control a robot and has poured a lot of money in making further advances in telepathy. While the BCI (Brain-Computer interface) article get this ringt this article only mentions the theory, which is obviously now more then just a theory. “Some people, occasionally referred to by themselves or others as "transhumanists", believe that technologically enabled telepathy, coined "techlepathy", "synthetic telepathy", or "psychotronics", will be the inevitable future of humanity.” No. Transhumanists believe that this kind of technology should be the inevitable future of mankind. Synthetic telepathy however is not transhumanism even if they have been among the most noisy promoters of such technologically

Also synthetic telepathy has been performed by Darpa and is a fact. If it is the inevitable future of mankind is something we will have to see. Sony and other game console makers have whole departments working on technology like this, so clearly there is a wide belief that demand for this technology will be high.

For the recod a “transhumanist” is someone that believe that we should peruse the improvement of humanity. When it comes to “how” transhumanists take their ideas from futurists and the scientific community's predictions. The belief that it is inevitable is common among transhumanist, but is not a transhumanist idea.

"Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, England is one of the leading proponents of this view and has based all of his recent cybernetics research around developing practical, safe technology for directly connecting human nervous systems together with computers and with each other. He believes techno-enabled telepathy will in the future become the primary form of human communication. He predicts that this will happen by means of the principle of natural selection, through which nearly everyone will have the need for such technology for economic and social reasons.[21][22]” He is a prominent scientist and transhumanist yes, but he made no such predictions. He believe in them and state them whenever he get a chance, but he is not the origin of these predictions nor does he claim to be. I know that Raymond Kurzweil:s predictions predates Warwick, however they likely predates Kurzweil.

As a whole this means that telepathy is now a reality, and can no longer be considered pseudoscience or fringe science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.91.246 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no references to this! Anyone, please? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Balanced Lede

As the talk header shows, there has been an arbitration to effect NPOV here. I'm trynna maintain that by keeping a balance in the lede. Please restrain yourself if you've come here to put the kibosh on what you perceive as pseudoscience as this is pushing a POV. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any arbitration that says material from multiple WP:RS clearly stating the prevailing scientific consensus must be "balanced" with your own personal views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What 'we perceive' as pseudoscience is irrelevant. What is relevant is sources. A 'balanced view' is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have two accurately-cited academic sources that support the statements made in the lead regarding telepathy's status among scientists and the prevailing view of telepathy within science. There is no requirement that we make it seem as if opinion is divided or there is 50/50 balance of views. Also, if you wish to add other views to the lead, they need to be sourced appropriately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Other views must also have due weight for inclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Query: The concluding sentence of the lede digresses: In more recent times, neuroimaging has allowed researchers to actually perform simple forms of mind reading. Although this observation may provide additional context, it currently doesn't remark the distinction between (instrumentally assisted) thought identification and telepathy (defined as "the transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels..."). What to do? —MistyMorn (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Misreading/Overreaching on NSF statement

| Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"

• The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

I removed above from talk header because it's part of the POV pushing that's going on here. It directly implies that there is a list of ten official pseudo science items and that the subject of this article is one of them. That's clearly false as reading of the source material will show. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as official pseudoscience items (whatever that means) so it does not imply that telepathy is officially pseudoscience;just that the scientific consensus views it as such. This is why the "Generally seen as pseudoscience" notice is there. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It 'directly implies' exactly what it states, that the U.S. National Science Foundation identified belief in telepathy as pseudoscience. Please read WP:FRINGE - we don't 'balance' the overwhelming scientific consensus with fringe speculation, any more than we 'balance' articles on planets with the flat-earth theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Noting for the record, two, communicating mentally with the dead and channeling are squarely redundant. A slew of them are variant forms of rejection of the concept of existence persisting after animal death. If I gave a shit I would camp out here attempting to explain how the subject of this article is different. Lycurgus (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Improved U.S.Government Bio-Implant Radio Transmitter Receiver Technology?

The Department of Defense released a public statement and news story "Army Grant To Explore Communications Through Brain Waves" The DARPA, CIA, and Area 51 may be involved with research into Bio-implant Radio and Video Transmission Systems for future U.S. Army Soldiers. The advanced technology will give commanders the ability to access the thoughts of soldiers, and give radio or video telepathy commands to military units, while in combat with the enemy. The future soldier could be made invisible with a green laser type of electronic energy field, surrounding each soldiers combat uniform, unit, or battalion. A DOD Unit with the U.S. Army was designated to respond to the lack of coorperation at NORAD, the mapping and intelligence unit is called BUNKER-RAD. The US Army collects, information on foreign military bunkers and command centers, foreign videotapes and films of agent interviews, and information about the local towns and cities in the foreign country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaltimoreResidentUSA (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51091 , a 2008 press release. It's not expected to happen for 15-25 years from then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake's work has already been deemed "significant" in Wikipedia

Sheldrake already has his own article in Wikipedia. Not significant? 00:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You were citing a Sheldrake video for "Still, a minority of scientists remain who posit that with the use of recently developed testing techniques, the existence of telepathic communication can be repeatably verified under laboratory conditions using the modern scientific method". Does Sheldrake use those words, or words to that in effect (i.e. that 'a minority of scientists' believe it, not just him) in the video? If so, please indicate where - I'm not going to watch the whole video for a few words (and video's are poor sources for scientific assertions anyway). Or are you just using the wording as en excuse to link Sheldrake's video? In any case, unless the 'minority of scientists' amounts to a meaningful number, it would violate WP:FRINGE to make such vague claims. And no, Sheldrake's work has not been deemed 'significant' by Wikipedia. We don't make such assertions. Instead, it has been agreed that he meets our notability guidelines, presumably as an author, rather than as a scientist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheldrake very properly has a bio on Wikipedia. I don't see how you can draw any conclusion from that fact that his scientific work is "significant" in any sense that would tend to prove him a reliable source for the verifiability of telepathic communication. The Rupert Sheldrake article states that "Sheldrake's work has little support in the mainstream scientific community." Bishonen | talk 15:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

Adding a Well-Known Case Study - Enter Daryl Bem

This article seems to be so gentle as to admit "Case Studies", but none of them have academic standing. So why not enter Daryl Bem´s study with the Cornell University? And when we`re at it and you "expert" editors are supposed to be academics, why don't call up a few friends and get more and better ones? Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Criticism of Brain Waves as Theoretical Explanation - Seriousness of the article, please

"It should be noted that "Telepathy" gets a quite elegant expression by photons and they can be quite "magic"! Secondly, the rejection of brain waves demands something else, but there is NO other alternative in the World today as memory of the brain is almost wholly mystical in itself. Wikipedia should notify its readers about this (or face heresy charges, i.e., betrayal of the duties to Wikipedia as encyclopedia?)!" If one doesn´t see the importance of doing a proper article here, this article of sensitivity to idiocy risks ending up as hogwash! Can anything be done, please? Consequently, I think it is in the interest of the readers that medical research references are entered here so that "brain waves" be better considered in terms of (recent) research context. Thank you! 84.202.100.197 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality

Pointless soapboxing by now-blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just added (despite "adding" and explicit edit-opportunities, it doesn't enter): "Note on scientific standing insofar as obtaining status as real. Given a plain university result by use of Zener cards or other and then aquiring a mean result of 33% score, by 4 of these, rather than mathematical 25%, definitely describes Telepathy for being real. To this, there can be no doubt because telepathy has been fringe and people are different and usually more unaware and closed and that scores therefore "on the average", never hit really high. Therefore, these 8% means quite much and that therefore, the definite standing on telepathy has now been cleared and that telepathy now exists in the World for real "<ref">reference, any, needed</ref">"." I leave it here too for discussion. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Firstly, your comments don't make sense (is English your first language?). Secondly, you don't provide any references. Regardless of whether telepathy exists or not, we can't read your mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry that you fail to read plain English as I am actually the De Dicto (in English, over John Perry) Philosopher. Secondly, you don't provide any references either. For something I explicitly point that I haven't got in place yet!!! (Is it so hard to understand, that I don't have those academic journals at my fingertips, that "library" studies are required?) We??? To me knowledge, you're only 1 person (to 7 Bn) although I can understand that "you have head enough for 2". So surely, the standing of truth-value isn't dependent on you (or your ego) alone! And, finally, when I want to, maybe these other people may interact so much better with me than exactly "two-you" (by, of course, non-schizophrenic exchange of thoughts and more). All in all, this is about growing up in a World and finding out that it is bigger than your head! Good luck! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I can read plain English perfectly well. Learn to write it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Over to the article, given the significance over the telepathic research one would otherwise designate an unreasonably high alpha-level to accommodate the 8%, but there's simply no justification for this! Also, these literature/library-studies are known as "meta-studies" or "cross-survey-studies". Various academic work give the guidelines for this, such as "Research Design and Methods - A process approach" by Bordens and Abbott (McGraw-Hill Higher Education). Alright? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Can you clarify where in our article this '8%' is referred to? I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) The 8% are only important here as an example of a reasonable number out of any paper that has it "on the positive side" toward telepathy. I also think it serves well until the article has reached a much better academic standard given the cases cited, where I think none of the two "we" already have in, qualify the experimental set-ups of how clinical and reliable psychological results are obtained, i.e., the Ganzfeld standard. You can check out the standing on Ganzfeld here yourself, please, just for the interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment . LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC) You appear to be engaging in original research here. It isn't up to us to decide whether a number is 'reasonable' or not, or to criticise experimental set-ups. Unless you can cite a reliable source which is directly relevant to the subject, nothing is going to be added to the article. As for our Ganzfeld experiment article, I think that needs attention from the fringe theories noticeboard - it seems to me to be presenting the supposed conclusions as clear evidence for telepathy, and merely tacking on the criticisms as an afterthought. That is not the way we write about such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) No, I'm merely pointing out the importance of 8% concerning Ganzfeld set-ups (pref. 4 Zener cards). It also appears that you remain negative to telepathy as being real. You may also want to remember that "parapsychologists" really are the psychologists and as such are conducting psychological scientific investigations into a special sub-field, the parapsychology. I've already requested the literature studies from people who are better placed in terms of library/journal research. And that this is to be finalised by citing the best studies of these Ganzfeld experiments by "meta-studies", starting with Bem can be good. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Read WP:FRINGE. And whether I'm 'negative' or not to 'telepathy as being real' is utterly irrelevant. We base articles on published reliable sources, not our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) No, the issue is the prejudgmentalism, that no matter what, you're set on a track and it's going to take a 120mm Abrams tank cannon to get you into a constructive thought, that's how I see it! End. Bye! --LFOlsnes-Lea 03:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

a little more soapboxing from banned sockpuppeting user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a loser: "I'd add 'inability to communicate rationally' to the 'competence' issues, judging by his performance at Talk:Telepathy#Note on Telepathy and Its Standing in the World, the Reality. Not only engaging in WP:OR and soapboxing, but actually discussing another article entirely for much of the time, which accounts for at least some of the confusion. He seems to think that Wikipedia editors are all 'academic experts' in subjects, obliged to engage in some sort of abstract philosophical debate with him. I was contemplating raising his competence myself, and was glad to see I'd been beaten to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)" by "psionics", Parapsychological Association part of the publisher, AAAS, of Science (journal) in USA, and Daryl Bem and another fellow confirms telepathy in the most scientific sense, and they have authority to them. Bye, AndyTheGrump, grump is all you are and all of your "arguments". 109.189.67.107 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

MindFlex toy demonstrates assisted psychokinesis, not telepathy

Does anyone else think the section on the MindFlex toy would find a better home in the Psychokinesis article? The toy seems to demonstrate technologically assisted psychokinesis, not telepathy.

Dave Andrew (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that we say in the lede that telepathy is "the supposed transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction", none of the material in the 'Technologically enabled telepathy' section belongs in the article, since it all works via 'physical interaction'. Unless someone can provide a convincing argument as to why the lede definition is wrong (in which case the article needs a fundamental rewrite), the section should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The material has nothing to do with the topic of this article. It should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that Bali ultimate has deleted the section. I think we can consider this settled, unless someone wishes to argue for the redefinition of the lede... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, Take Note of "Psionics"

I, for one, almost made a conceptual analysis on this word, psionics, in claiming that the existence of this concept must entail that telepathy is true! You? 109.189.67.107 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole scientific community?

"The scientific community does not regard telepathy as a real phenomenon as actual telepathy has never been demonstrated to a greater degree than pure chance under controlled experimental conditions." Shouldn't this read "the bulk of the scientific community" or something like that? I can think of at least one prominent scientist of relatively recent times who believed in telepathy--Alan Turing, the originator of the famous "Turing Test" for distinguishing between human and artificial intelligence.89.100.37.108 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are quite correct about Alan Turing. But I think we can safely say that had he lived to the present day and not committed suicide, even he would have agreed there is just no evidence for psychic phenomena, at all, whatsoever. It has had its chance, along with every other 'witch-doctor' piece of magical thinking over the centures, to prove itself. It has failed to do so and can nowadays be safely dropped in the Phlogiston box - ie. its just plain Wrong. It IS however interesting to Psychologists, as it is a persistent delusion and that in itself is worthy of study. But no scientist with any worthy peer network - and yes I stand by that statement - seriously gives Psychic phenomena any credence at all these days. 118.209.89.119 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is one more who takes telepathy seriously: "With the help of various rigorous paradigms over the last 70 years, systematic research has lent support to the reality of telepathy. Meta-analyses of “ganzfield” studies as well as “card-guessing task studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathy." With sources for these statements! So obviously there are some scientists who take telepathy very seriously... Lova Falk talk 09:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true for ANY bullshit theory, no matter how ridiculous, and entirely unremarkable. Scientists are people, too, and have their quirks. It only becomes remarkable when it starts appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, is replicated and confirmed, is reviewed, and is cited widely by other scientists in the relevant field. The paper you linked to, of course, meets none of these criteria. If the scientist had anything of scientific value to say, he could have published it in a relevant peer-review journal. But he didn't. Or he tried and it got rejected. If he couldn't be bothered enough to do rigorous research that could be published in a proper journal, it's hard to argue that he takes telepathy very seriously. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right! I guess. One small part of my mind says it might be my cultural prejudice (that I share with the editors of scientific journals) that makes me blind for certain mysterious parts of life, but the rational part of my mind, the wikipedia part, says of course, you are right... Lova Falk talk 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Turing is hardly the only case. Sir Brian Pippard had told me privately that he believed his mother was telepathic as she always seemed to know what was happening to his brother who was in battle in world war II. He went public with this giving an after dinner speech at a parapsychology conference in Cambridge.

Then again the distinguished mathematician J E Littlewood did card guessing experiments with his 'niece', and concluded that telepathy was real. Nobel Laureate Karl Müller told me once he had experienced telepathy on a number of occasions personally. A theory of telepathy has been published in the peer-review journal Foundations of Physics (text available at http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the reason often cited in the telepathy article why telepathy is not scientific, is that it violates traditional conceptions of scientific "law" which have already long been superceded by such fields as quantum theory. It is nothing but circular reasoning: telepathy can't exist, because otherwise it would violate what is now considered to exist. It is interesting that some writers here insist that the most definite statement possible be made at the top of the telepathy article that telepathy has no evidence to support it, when many scientists have found evidence for it. Such a statement has no resemblance to the "neutrality of opinion" that is supposed to be the goal of wikipedia. Eameece (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)eameece

Edits by Eameece

Eameece (talk · contribs) has been deleting reliable references from the article and claiming various sources as biased "skeptical" sources. He then adds in various pseudoscience from Rupert Sheldrake which is apparently from a tabloid newspaper. This user is obviously also 76.191.191.253 (talk · contribs) as they edited at a similar time. A similar IP 79.67.244.186 (talk · contribs) has also vandalized the parapsychology article.

In one of his edit summaries Eameece said Felix Planner was not a reliable source because he is an atheist and not a scientist. The atheist part is irrelevant but Planner was a scientist, he was a Professor of electrical engineering. He had multiple degrees in other science disciplines as well. Please do your research before doing mass deletions Eameece and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on fringe theories and NPOV. Goblin Face (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you guys can claim Planer's book is a science book. It is a book on superstitions. His atheism is not irrelevant; this book expresses a particular point of view. What studies does Planer cite in his book? Why do you cite so many views of skeptics, instead of scientific studies? What business do citations of peoples' views have on a wikipedia page devoted to a subject investigated by science? What does electrical engineering have to do with investigations of telepathy?

Many sources have reported on Sheldrake's experiment, which was funded by Cambridge University.

Why is it that wikipedia cannot write in a neutral point of view on these subjects, but insist on a dogmatic point of view? There are many studies of telepathy and ESP that show positive results. The correct approach is to imply a difference of opinion. Correcting this is not vandalism.76.191.191.253 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)eameece

"The correct approach is to imply a difference of opinion." Your mistake is in thinking that all opinions and sources are created equally. Well, there not, at least here in WP. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS carefully. They don't mean what you want them to. Yes, we do give a very strong preference to mainstream scholarly views and sources, and assign them more WP:WEIGHT and credibility than WP:FRINGE views. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

76.191.191.253 there is an entire section on the article that mentions various case studies, such as Rhine's experiments, Ganzfeld, dream telepathy, Zener card experiments etc. All these experiments either contained sensory leakage issues, methodological flaws etc or were not independently replicated. There is no scientific evidence for telepathy or any other alleged psychic phenomena, this is what the reliable references say, so this is what is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe pseudoscientific views. The mainstream scientific consensus is that telepathy does not exist. Rupert Sheldrake's pseudoscientific experiments into dog telepathy and things like that have not been replicated. You can read criticism of those experiments on Sheldrake's own article.

You wrote "There are many studies of telepathy and ESP that show positive results", yes maybe in fringe or pseudoscientific parapsychology journals but not in mainstream science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I admit I seem to have run into a buzz saw here; wikipedia is overwhelmingly biased toward dogmatic, traditional, materialist science and the denial of any evidence to the contrary. Others have told me this, and now that I see how my revisions from many months ago were not allowed, that dogmatism seems confirmed beyond all doubt. The sources you rely on tend to be the Amazing Randi and Skeptical Inquirer and books on superstition rather than actual scientific investigations. You require that definite statements be made affirming one point of view among scientists, rather than indicating that a range of opinion among scientists exists; even though that's the case. Other subsequent research validates the earlier case studies like those of Rhine; you selectively choose the studies that do not, and delete links to such studies, because this conforms to orthodox opinion. You assume parapsychology studies are automatically invalid, just because it is parapsychology, as if parapsychologists or other social scientists and psychologists are automatically incapable of doing science. Dog telepathy studies have no relevance here. It's fine to give weight to prevalent views, but to make such definite statements that they are certainly correct, once and for all, is certainly not neutrality in my opinion. It's too bad that wikipedia is not a reliable source for information on paranormal subjects. 76.191.191.253 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)eameece

Yes Wikipedia is biased in favor of the orthodoxy. Check out Laws of science. Nothing about psychokinesis, ESP, mediums, etc. You can try to change the encyclopedia's policies if you want, but this article is the wrong place to start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

76. has been temporarily blocked for disruptive editing but most of his comments about the article are wrong and quite dishonest. He says "Amazing Randi and Skeptical Inquirer and books on superstition rather than actual scientific investigations" are being used on the article. Has he even read the article? James Randi is not mentioned on the article at all, and the Skeptical Inquirer is mentioned in only one reference and it is notable because it included comments from James Alcock.

76. also says references that discuss investigations into telepathy are not on the article? But there are over thirty references from psychologists and scientists such as Martin Gardner, Gordon Stein, Andrew Neher, Bergen Evans, C. E. M. Hansel, Richard Wiseman, Terence Hines, Thomas Gilovich, Massimo Pigliucci and Mario Bunge etc which discuss investigations into telepathy. There are also scientific papers on the article such as Rudski, J. M. (2002). Hindsight and confirmation biases in an exercise in telepathy. Psychological Reports, 91, 899–906. Goblin Face (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• For anyone reading this in the future, I would like to comment about Wikipedia's bias toward "dogmatic, traditional, materialist science and the denial of any evidence to the contrary" above. Imagine a reader who has heard that cold fusion is an exciting development that will be used to provide energy at very low cost, eliminating the need to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. So the reader turns to cold fusion to get an overview. What "bias" would the reader want the article to adopt? Would the reader be helped by a 50–50 balance between what "some scientists" claim versus what excited proponents proclaim? Or, should the article point out that no one has ever got any useful power from cold fusion, and the prospect that it will light up a city is very dim? There are plenty of websites that push all sorts of fringe claims—by contrast, Wikipedia should provide information about what is actually known on a subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)