does Telepathy exists in real life?

[Aman's formula]

It's one of the most fascinating topics, telepathy and telekinesis, when we look at the quantum level, we he get to know that we are all interconnected.... At macro level we are all distinguished, and we are not atively , consious for what we are doing, soo it's long process to control our inner particles..... So first know about yourself at macro level then at micro level, then you can do telepathy.... Coz you can understand what other person thinking or going to think

[erikagautney]

That's a lot of words

It's a a forum. Both in the philosophical sense that it's an place where anyone can voice their ideas, and in the literal and modern sense that TWS provides a full-fledged WYSIWYG+MarkDown editor that I can take advantage of to express my thoughts in as articulate a manner as I deem fit.

#SorryNotSorry if I decide to take advantage of the technology at my fingertips and the philosophy of an open forum.

you're a cynic

I'm a skeptic.

I didn't say there is no such thing as telepathy. I pointed out that

1. there are numerous+popular depictions of telepathy in the entertainment business, but... that is, quite literally, fiction for the sake of entertainment.
2. In order for it to be considered to "exist in real life?" (as was asked in the question) "it needs to actually be demonstrated first rather than just assumed in the question" (as was written in my reply)
3. The rest of my reply (which was separated by horizontal line-breaks, because, forum+markdown superpowers ftw) was more generalized advice. I already answered the post content directly, and then more generally I wrote "ask me to provide evidence ... unless I do, the intellectually honest thing to do is maintain a default of disbelief ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with witholding one's judgement until belief is rationally justified"

So there. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic. As soon as I'm given a good reason to change my mind, I will. Until then, I'm well within my prerogative and purview to maintain the default of withholding judgement on the matter.

I'll even go so far as to say this, telepathy may in fact be real and truly exists (I'm not actually conceding that point, but for the moment, just for the sake of argument, I'll grant y'all that hypothetical) but I have no way of knowing that to be the case. Not until it has been objectively, reliably and repeatedly been demonstrated in such a manner that I and others can actually verify it rather than just take y'all's word for it, it doesn't warrant my belief.

That is a perfectly prudent position to hold, and you don't get to pretend I'm a prude for holding it; Skepticism is not synonymous with cynicism.

Given shamanic practices and other forms of "magic" have been around for millennia I'm not sure what you're calling baseless

I wasn't referring to shamans at all.

My reply revolved around telepathy and black magic (directly addressing the contents of the post) and then a more generalized response (my 2 cents of advice, for whatever it's worth, about having a healthy dose of skepticism) involved dragons and puppies.

For the record, the "baseless" part was from the dragon example. Here's the full quote, for context: "If I tell you I have a pet dragon in my garage, you shouldn't just take my word for it. Ask me to provide some evidence to back up that baseless, empty and vacuous assertion (regardless of however confidently I said it) of an otherwise incredibly extraordinary claim."

If you'd like to talk about shamans, I'm perfectly willing - but the same rules apply; hearsay isn't going to convince me, reason and evidence will.

If it helps to give you a preview of my position on that matter, I briefly talk about "magic plants" here but

1. I also clearly say that "magic" is just fun placeholder word that stands for "psychedelic"
2. I very briefly even broke down what sort of chemical compounds comprised the contents of "magic" mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc (psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine, etc)

I know for a fact that certain shamanic practices and rituals involve those mushrooms and those vines.

I can show how that neurochemistry interacts with our neurotransmitters affecting our neurological functions.

I'm even willing to step away from that small-scale breakdown of what's going on to look at the holistic scope of the experience and describe it as "psychedelic"

I have no problem admitting all of that because it isn't a mere matter of opinion or belief, this is a matter of tried tested and true facts of knowledge. We know there are rituals of preparation before, rituals when it's consumed, and rituals thereafter. We also know what the active ingredients in these plants are and why/how they modulate our synapses the way they do. We've even documented the phenomenology of what takes place -- both from controlled-condition research-studies plus directly from some of the individuals who partake in these shamanic ceremonies as well.

I'll reiterate once again that this is what we'd call "knowledge." Not subject to the subjective opinions of some singular subject, but objectively reliable and independently verifiable -- anyone who has access to the data will be able to come to these same exact conclusions. So "even if" there is a "magical" or "mystical" or "divine" or "supernatural" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it component to those practices, these things still hold true.

Now... if you'd like to share any personal experience you may have had with "shamanic magic" or you'd just like to point me to someone else's testimony of it, I'd be more than willing to hear y'all out. But simply asserting it was "magic" won't make me / others like me automatically believe that's the underlying explanation. I'm not being close-minded when I say that, I'm being as open and transparent and humble and honest as I possibly can be in admitting that YOUR subjective experience couldn't possibly become MY+OUR "knowledge" -- at least, not until y'all share something stronger to back your case.

Ah, and therein lies the rub behind this entire misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my position. It's your case, not mine. And the case has not been adequately made to warrant belief, let alone "justified and true belief a.k.a. knowledge."

I and the rest of the global consensus stand upon a compendium of ever growing info that we the human race have painstakingly gathered over the ages. These things, we know to be true. We're not saying "all else is false" just that they're not known to be true.

Now you or the OP or someone else comes along and says things like "telepaths" and "mind-readers" and "psychics" and "magic" and "mysticism" and "spellcasting" and "supernatural" and so on... fine, it can easily be added it to the library so that the rest of humanity can understand and benefit from this new branch of study rather than just remaining within your group which is only a subset of people within the overarching superset that is "the human race."

Here's how that's gonna work: You claim it's magic? That makes you the claimant. And the "onus" i.e. the "burden of proof" will always rests upon that person making the claim. It's not on the rest of us to "disprove magic doesn't exist / couldn't possibly exist / never has existed and never will exist forevermore amen" or some other convoluted double-negative gymnastic of that sort. Nope, it's simply a matter of "we just don't know what you you're talking about, so please - if you would - make your case "

Oh, and y'all had better make it a damn compelling case too, cuz if not, this telepathy trick (or any of the other claims quoted above) remains a belief that circulates only within your subset community and not the superset of humanity. Sure, it may be a strongly held belief, fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't met the onus to make your case withstand the investigation of unbiased 3rd-parties outside your community (or indeed, the public scrutiny of the global community at large).

At that point "you" don't get to fingerpoint back at "us" and cry "closeminded" lmao that's just fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamics at play here. YOU are making an EXTRA claim about reality that WE the rest of humanity as of yet do not (that claim may even actually be true, alright? I'm saying that to point out that's very much besides the point. Cuz the core of what I'm addressing here is whether or not belief in that claim is warranted). "Our" only prerogative is to examine any available evidence (which, by the way, is about as open-minded as it gets). We have no obligation to pedestalize whatever you posited to be true simply because y'all say so. Every other piece of knowledge that we hold went through rigorous and stringent criteria of scrutiny before it could be validated. It had to be ontologically valid, epistemologically sound, objectively reliable and independently verifiable, et cetera, et cetera... why then would we lower the bar for "telepathy" ? Or "black magic" ? Or "spellcasting" ? Or "shaman magic" ? Or even my silly example about "dragons" ? My other example about puppies withstands such scrutiny: we know puppies exist. You don't think I want dragons to be real too? Plus the OP said in the question that black magic users could read your present thoughts and peer into your past (and, presumably, the future as well) don't you think I'd want to benefit from something like that as well? And not just for my sake, but to be able to share that ability with the human race en masse? Don't tell me I'm closeminded cuz I don't fall for GOT CGI dragons or people peering into crystal balls while munching on mushrooms. The technology that went into making those entertainment dragons? I "know" is real. The neurochemistry behind those psychedelics that fortune teller took? I "know" is real. But I don't think "dracaris" actually constitute a "magic" word, nor do I think "mind reading / telepaths / psychics" have a strong case going for it either.

But please, do feel free to change my mind about "magic/telepaths/magic telepaths". If it really is real, harboring a healthy dose of rational skepticism isn't going to make a difference. If the truth is true, the truth will out, despite my doubts. And if me investigating with "how" and "why" questions really does throw a wrench in your case (which, by the way, is nothing short of the Socratic Method pure and simple) you don't get to then pin it on me/us and say we're being closeminded. Either make a stronger case or re-evaluate whether what you claim is true is actually fact or fiction masquerading as fact proudly proclaiming itself to be true.

I know a ton of mind-readers fell into the latter category over the course of history... but y'all think you've found the exception to that rule? By all means, make your case -- but the onus has and still does rest upon you #SorryNotSorry

I'm not gonna argue the existence of anything,

In other words... you're just gonna assert the "millenia of magic" without backing it up?

Alright, that's perfectly fine, it's entirely your call.

But then, I have no reason to believe the "magic" part.

And if you say I'm close-minded for not automatically accepting it without question, I'll point out (once again) that it was merely asserted in an emphatic voice, you didn't actually support your case with corroborating evidence.

Wanna spin on that merry-go-round some more? Cuz my invitation still stands, I'm willing to talk about mind-readers, magic, whatever (i.e. I'm open to being persuaded, I'm not a cynic) but the criteria remains the same as it does for puppies and virtually everything else we classify as knowledge (i.e. Skeptical Socrates says #SorryNotSorry)

but it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around,

Sure. But you do realize that the verdict comes down to "guilty" or "not guilty" right? Our courts never try to prove someone is innocent, it only looks at whether or not the prosecution made an adequate case for the defendant's guilt in that case.

Carrying that analogy right tf over to this convo and keeping all lines as parallel as possible:

• "I find telepaths NOT GUILTY of existing"
  • i.e. I DO NOT believe telepaths exist.
• Please make your case and know that the strictest of stringent standards will be used to see if your case stands up to skeptical scrutiny and investigation.
  • My only prerogative is to examine the evidence presented and ascertain "guilt" / determine "existence".
  • At no point am I obligated to make my own case for "innocence" / disprove telepathy. I don't have to go down the rabbit hole of "proving a negative" nor am I interested in doing so
• The claimant makes their case to the best of their ability, and
  • I maintain the default position of "not guilty" until and unless the case for "guilt" has been adequately and satisfactorily demonstrated
  • I maintain the default position of "I do not believe" or "I am not convinced" or "I do not accept" until and unless the case for "existence" has been demonstrated

Again, and I hate having to repeat myself, but just to be suuuuper crystal clear about this: At no point do I have to (nor want to) make my own case during the court proceedings / claim the contrapositive assertion that "telepaths cannot possibly ever exist forevermore, amen!". Our courts don't work on that principle, nor do I. It's more prudent to address the sticking point of the issue, i.e. "guilt" / "existence".

And since our courts / I only address that one prong of the issue, the default position to hold until a change of mind becomes warranted is "not guilty" / "not convinced"

so better to have an open mind than a default denial of anything you can't comprehend.

I'm open to adjusting my views ...but based on the merit of any new evidence I can examine.

Because "open minded" does not mean "automatically be accepting of everything, without question". At that point it shifts from "being open" to something more along the lines of "credulous" or even "gullible" to anything that get's peddled your way.

So, yes, I'd say holding a default of dis-belief or un-belief or non-belief in unverifiable claims until belief is sufficiently and necessarily warranted is a generally prudent approach.

I mean, I'm not a robot, I'm human, so I'll admit that in day to day life I make exceptions to this rule. For example, trust is generally earned, but I'm perfectly willing to grant trust tentatively to someone I've just met. Or in my earlier example about owning a puppy, even if I don't ask for some form of evidence first like seeing a selfie of you with your dog, I'm willing to just take your word for it

...but these sorts of decisions I make are really just in the name of convenience and the practicality of not overcomplicating daily interactions more than anything else. Coming back to the principle of the matter, the fact remains it IS much more prudent to let people earn your trust. It IS true that without some sort of proof that you own a dog I can't actually know that you do, I'm just willing to accept it based on how well I trust you / conversational convenience / etc.

Anyway, I think I made a strong case for why the default of withholding judgement makes the most sense in the "courtroom / guilt verdict" analogy. If you still think I'm wrong about this and I should, by default, believe anything/everything I'm told instead of believing only when it is warranted, feel free to change my mind. I think the very fact that you CAN change my mind shows that I'm open minded, plus I think the approach you're advocating for it "too" open and borders on "credulity" without the critical component of skeptical discernment... but please, feel free to make your case if you really think I'm the one who has it "unreasonable" or "backwards" here.

That just leads to mental stagnation.

Speak for yourself lol the global consensus of knowledge and understanding via scientific progress continues to march ahead strong

[Lnrfg2272891]

So much text, guess someone's been dumped recently.

[erikagautney]

u rite. y tok lot wen smol wurd do trik? me dumb.

---

n me dumped 2. thos dots conekt fasho, becuz, #correlashun wow u so smort!

---

o nd me didn' ask for evi...dance? sry, me no gud @ big wurd. NEway jus dnt read tht prt k? k! me close mine dead. me no change.

---

me dumb. me dumped. u all rite, no Qs ask'd frm silly dumb dumb dumped me.

butt me OPEN WIDE now "aaaah" see?

feed me plz? feed mee! ah bee leave it all oh toe mat tick lee ‍

[Charlish]

@niazi-niazi yes it does. That's it.

[Lnrfg2272891]

@erikagautney The gradient of verbosity is not correlated to neither the correctness of your statements nor the grammar. No need to feel attacked.
If you did miss my point, your late presence seems to be a cry for help - you recently came back, invested so much time in wording essays on rather irrelevant topics.
Oh, and you might want to consider that talking all the time makes you unable to hear the rest.

[erikagautney]

hmm...

@tempname420 20 hours ago: "So much text, guess someone's been dumped recently."

Hmm...

ALSO @tempname420 6 hours ago: "The gradient of verbosity is not correlated..."

HMMM....

Yeah, I'm not buying your wishy-washy BS. Pick a position and stick with it.

Or at least until you have been shown a more reasonable position to hold, at which point feel free to adjust your views accordingly (which, by the bloody way, has been the main thrust of my entire argument throughout this thread)

But this sort of "oh I'll say this, but then later I'll say that, which completely contradicts what I said before there, but now hopefully nobody will notice the discrepancy all the way over here" thoroughly flip-flopping fails to impress.

At this point in the conversation, I give more credit to the other person who @mentioned me in her reply than I do to you.

1. She fundamentally misunderstood me too (I was misrepresented as a "closeminded cynic") but at least I know exactly where she's arguing from and what line of argumentation I could present that might potentially persuade her otherwise.
2. She and I respectfully disagree with each other, whereas you seem to have absolutely no problem namecalling the OP as mindless and gossipping that I must've been dumped, just cuz, why would anybody ever want to date someone like me who dares voice their mind?
   • wait, so does that mean you prefer to date mindless drones? I'm confused, cuz your first comment was a diss on mindless people... oh well, I guess we'll just add this to the pile of your mounting inconsistencies ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"...neither the correctness of your statements nor the grammar. No need to feel attacked."

I agree. Would you care to disagree with any of the positions I've posited, perhaps?

Or do you only specialize in gaslighting the OP and then backpedal to pretend that your insults aren't actually meant as an attack on our person?

Perhaps the line I drew between fiction and fact is incorrect?

Maybe you think I'm wrong about the courtroom "default" of belief or disbelief and which side has the "onus" to make their case?

Come on! For once and say something, ANYTHING, that actually demonstrates a coherent position.

Cuz thus far, all you seem capable of doing is a sort of "meta running-commentary denigrating other people rather than addressing the content of what they're actually presenting".

If I well and truly argued for a position that is indeed wrongheaded or problematic -- pretty pretty please with a cherry "dumped" on top -- grow a spine and say something substantive and meaningful that actually contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding the topic of conversation for once.

Because the validity (or lack thereof) of my arguments stand on their own merit -- it has absolutely nothing to do with grammar, nor does my verbosity suddenly make my points moot; now, care to share where my position on the topic was unreasonable to hold?

Oh and quit with all this posturing while you're at it (I'm tempted to say you'll soon need lumbar support if you continue like this, but once again, you've successfully shown a complete and utter lack of spine so far)

"If you did miss my point, your late presence seems to be a cry for help - you recently came back,..."

1 - Someone replied to me. I was responding. Cause. Effect. Funny how that works out, huh?

2 - Is this your proof of mind-reading? Do you somehow know my own thoughts better than I myself do?

I mean, someone addressed me, and then I responded to them point-by-point... but here you are now, miraculously telling me that the actual content of my response was actually irrelevant (← everyone take note of this, cuz we're gonna highlight another fun example of "double-standard" later on) and that "really" what I "secretly" and "actually" in my "heart-of-hearts" was trying to do was cry out to @tempname420 for help cuz I couldn't find a date.

Damn... you know what? You might be right! Thank you so much for helping me to come to terms with the error of my ways, I see the light now! It's a bloody miracle! Telepathy truly exists!!!

Oh wait, what the hell am I saying, that's a total and utter steaming hot pile of flaming garbage. If someone literally talked about the burden of proof, and I talk about the burden of proof, they don't need help but I do? Get the flying f**k outta here with your speculative non-sequitur BS.

"...invested so much time in wording essays..."

"Verbosity is not correlated" my foot But hey, thanks for "dumping" that double standard right on my lap lmao, you gave me this sacred honor of shining a spotlight on your hypocritical nonsense. I swear to whatever deities that be, you are the most inconsistent spineless flip-flopper I've ever met.

"...on rather irrelevant topics."

Bish, I've been more on-topic than you.

In fact, I hadn't strayed off of the topic UNTIL I responded to you, PRECISELY because you never actually address the topic - you just prefer to fingerpaint others in dismissive and denigrating stereotypes.

All you've done so far is label the original poster as mindless, did a convenient handwave dismissal of me as a dumpee, them postured your non-existent back some more to turn that into a "I'm not attacking y'all. Let's just hug it out. oh btw, you talk too much. Shut up......... jaykaaaayyyyy wait hold up a sec let me use my psychic skills to wipe your memory when I said 'so much text' and 'verbosity' and 'wording essays' cuz I don't discriminate on opinionated people, trust me I'm dating someone who has a mouth. ANYWHOOZLES irrelevant tangent ok no but really tho my telepathy superpowers tells me you're crying on the inside cuz you're afraid you'll die alone, dumped on your deathbed cuz you 'talk all the time' don't look at me like that I'm still not hating on you cuz those aren't my words I'm a psychic telepath remember I got that from peeking inside your brain noodle, I know you better than you know yourself - despite whatever thoughts you penned down, I'm allowed to tell you what you 'really/actually/truly' think" ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

How in the name of all things sane does any of your gaslighting count as relevant to this topic?

I outlined telepathy in fiction vs what it would take to be considered factually true.

The post also mentioned black-magic, and again, I pointed out the same distinction regarding demonstrability.

No longer directly addressing the post point-by-point, (but still thematically relevant) I spoke briefly about when belief is justified, regardless of what the claim is (i.e. no longer talking about telepathy or black magic, as I gave the example of something else extraordinary like dragons and even something exceedingly ordinary like dogs - but it's not off-topic as the same principle applies in each instance). Accepting a claim based on the evidence for it is the most prudent approach.

I saw you calling them mindless when I wrote all that by the way, but I didn't go off topic to reprimand you. I stayed on topic.

Someone else commented after me mentioning spellcasting and how their belief isn't based on evidence so much as it is amusing and perhaps even a little fear-driven. I have thoughts on the psychological drives behind their belief, but I don't respond, as it wasn't directed at me. Still 100% on topic thus far by the way.

Someone replies directly to me. They bring up the subjects of cynicism, shaman magic, the burden of proof, what it means to be open-minded, and question my stance on what the default position should be. I respond to all of that and not a letter more. Still wondering how I got off topic by the way?

Someone else answers the post, positing not only telepathy by telekinesis and throw in the term "quantum" to justify how these things are possible at various "micro vs macro" perspective. I consider this is such a loosey-goosey, quintessential "Deepak Chopra answer" but I bite my tongue. Because he has shared his opinion, directly addressing the topic. Just as I addressed the topic by pointing out an evidence-based approach is of paramount importance and should take precedence over people's claims - no matter how confidently they say it. Since both answers (which are on the topic) are already out there, I keep my disagreements with the individual to myself and didn't pollute the thread with unnecessary cross-talk. Again, 10000% on topic, despite your insinuations otherwise.

Now you come along and, just like with your first post, decide to diminish the person rather than address anything that I actually said directly. FINA-FRIGGIN-LY I go off-topic. Why? Because of you. And you've BEEN off topic since your very first reply

Well, okay, admittedly it could be inferred that your first answer was meant to be convey something along the lines of "no I don't think telepathy exists" but we have to read between the lines to get there because rather than saying that you chose to attack the individual instead. So, no, I'm not gonna give you credit for this. And you've stayed true to form since, belittling me simply for speaking my mind.

Now tell me, almighty mind-reader, who here derailed us off-topic?

Even the people I disagree with were answering the question. Meanwhile YOU just seem to prefer to putting people down rather than address them or the topic of their discussion.

But hey, thanks for projecting your double-standard on me.

Oh, and you might want to consider that talking all the time makes you unable to hear the rest.

Every single time I've spoken has been in response, I didn't cross-pollinate like you do, I respected everyone else's right to voice their own opinion just as I shouldn't be put down for being vocal about mine.

Oh sure, you can opine that I must just be lonely and crying for attention if you like. But guess what? This is a public forum! So I can and will defend myself against such serpentine slithering from a spineless worm.

[Lnrfg2272891]

Ah yes, the close-mindness is, once again, prevalent.

[erikagautney]

1 - It's spelled "close-mindedness"

But hey, we're not gonna call each other mindless for their mis/use of grammar, right? You'll just call people mindless right from the very first post, and continue your disses and dismissals of people rather than what they post, all the way through each of your posts until your very last post.

Congratulations @tempname420 this is the one and only aspect you've been consistent in. Keep trolling people when you pretend to answer them, invertebrate gremlin, keep trolling.

2 - You don't get to call me close-minded (any more than you're right to gaslight me as being undatable or when you pretended to telepathically know what's going on inside my mind or whatever the sht)

She made an argument: "it's better to X rather than Y because otherwise you're being closeminded" It was TOPICAL. It was RELEVANT. It wasn't a personal attack and I didn't take offense. And, when I responded making my case, I was being RELEVANT to the TOPIC.

Whenever you say these sorts of things though, you're explicitly trying to offend. I'm almost tempted to call it a red-herring tactic, except that would be giving you too much credit since you're not eve make an argument, you're just rattling off name-call non-sequitur after nonsensical non-sequitur. It's laughably easy to show how woefully, painfully, egregiously wrong you are when you try this sort of thing.

3 - I'm not gonna participate any further in the pissing context you're clearly trying to turn this into.

Either contribute something back to the topic of discussion, or

• STFU
• sit TF down
• and let others feel free to voice their thoughts in answer to the topic and topical discussion -- free from your transparently trollish bait-tactics of just dissing them rather than addressing anything they've said like you did to the OP + attempted (and failed) to do the same me.

[Lnrfg2272891]

@erikagautney I'm sorry, is this the same Erika I was talking to? This one seems pretty emotional. I would like to hear the rational one.