Talk:Telepathy/Archive 1

message: I agree that some more referances and case studies would be appropriate. Maybe do some more research into famous people and characters in history who have used telepathy or claim to have used telepathy. (Neostinker 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: Could someone include a short note about Sigmund Freud's essays about telepathy to this article? ("Psychoanalysis and Telepathy", "Dreams and Telepathy", are there others?) Personally I do not have any of this material available. Talamus 11:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigmund Freud

message: Anyway, the US and the Russian did great efforts on getting telepathy, remote viewing and other stuff like this to work for them during the Cold War
ProClub 20:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA & USSR 

message: To my knowledge, EEG has 4 different patterns:
beta: this is the waken state.
alpha: half-awaken, or daydreaming state
theta: sleeping state
delta: unconcious/deep sleeping state-
To my knowledge, there is no wave pattern named gamma. Whoever wrote the "Telepathy and harmonics" section, please confirm, that gamma was ment.
Also, the most "powerful" brainwave state is alpha, not delta. That's, why that state was discovered first. I do not know, what was ment by delta state being powerful, but it seems to be a bit confusing.
ProClub 09:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EEG Gamma wavelength incorrect? 

message: I've taken the liberty of deleting almost all of the nutty 'Telepathy and technology' section (about supposed telepathy experiments conducted at a disco by someone taking medication for schizophrenia who'd also drunk beer). I wonder if the supposed experimenter was the author himself; note that 'thought broadcast' delusions are typical of schizophrenia. I thought of moving the passage here for posterity, but it's too long. Ben Finn 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Study the philosophy of science a bit before claiming that science says to have faith. In truth, science says to have doubt--it's at heart an agnostic practice. I really don't see the point of that comment other than an attempt to slur science preemptively (See: Poisoning the Well). DrLeebot 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see you've edited and expanded upon what you said. In the future, please expand on it in a new comment rather than editing your old one (only edit previous comments in matters of spelling and grammar). Also, please sign all your comments using four tildes (~~~~). ---DrLeebot 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted nutty section

message: :Hidden in text - click edit to view.
:John, no offence intended, but these are nutty comments. I hope you won't be adding material like this to the article. (Also, you should sign your posts using four tilde signs which will put in a link to your username.) Ben Finn 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Doe's nutty ideas 

message: I think this notice should now be removed. Not having read this article before, and having taken out the nuttiest bits (and added some balancing points), I think it's at least now fairly NPOV (though it's not yet a terrific article). Anyone else agree? Ben Finn 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no comments, so I've now removed the notice. Ben Finn 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I readded it, this is one of the worst, least NPOV pages I have seen Tyir 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy notice

message: The real issue with telepathy, is the concept that a bioelectric field from a human being can pass freely through the human tissue, the skull, and central nervous system of another human being. This bioelectric field generated by the brain then has an influence on the private free-will or human energy field of another person. This bioelectric field can then influence a pattern of mental thoughts, by generating archetypes that can be preceived by the brain. The archetypes are mind pictures that can become a genetic and temporary language for the brain.  The issue of transparent human energy fields is so basic to the discussion of extrasensory perception, that most people are unable to make the connection to understanding telepathy, because of privacy issues related to one's personal thoughts, or body's aura. Microwaves probably cannot communicate with the brain, but if they pass through human tissue(regardless of the so called "EMF Heating Effect"), these radiowaves may affect the mental health of human consciousness and the body.
ESP may exist, if people do not become to concerned about religion, and pseudo-science affecting their physical privacy and mental free-will. Commnon sense says there is a mind-body connection associated with a person's overall health, and well being.
-----
"controversially scientific concepts such as psychology and quantum mechanics"
Who exactly is pointing to psychology and quantum mechanics as controversial? Granted they both have their opposition, but all in all, both are quite heartily established in the scientific community, and what scientific field doesn't face opposition? I'd  like to see this removed, but it's kind of the main point of the paragraph. B.Mearns*, KSC 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point.  If you want to remove it, you have my support. Alienus 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I would say is that within these diciplines there rages very passionate controversies such as Repressed memory and Quantum gravity so maybe this is what the editor meant and should be changed to reflect this. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial science? 

message: Note that there are presently no citations to previously published scientific journals for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for "delusions" and "psychosis" under "Origins of the concept". Thus it is likely this is someone's opinion rather than based on sound sources. These 2 paragraphs should be removed if not questioned until their verifiability is confirmed.
Please add http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf as a reference and external link on the telepathy article page, since it is currently not listed. This will provide readers with a more informed view of the topic and past scientific research into telepathy.
Nick5990 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your comments from the article, and I'm glad that you have put them here. I moved your signature to the bottom, after all your comments. I don't have time to investigate at the moment, but there are a couple of references. Possibly you are saying that references 11 and 12 only verify some fact not directly related to the text as it relates to the topic of this article? That would need to be checked. Please be patient, it may be a few days before anyone looks further. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nick is not entirely correct but I am glad he has pointed this out about that section. The stuff on "psychological symbiosis" was original research. I cannot find any reference linking this to telepathy. The content however about delusions and psychosis being linked to belief in telepathy are well sourced. Goblin Face (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A second look at this, I think it is possible that  is the previously banned user  who had vandalized this article, they both sign their comments in the wrong way, have the same writing style and have said the same things about the article. Goblin Face (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important note, and requests by nick5990 

message: I removed this section because it is unsourced original research and taking far too much of the article. If anyone objects please discuss it here and we can talk about if. Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Fairly typical for so-called 'popular culture' sections of articles. Full of unsourced examples (often trivial), and completely lacking any sourced material actually analysing telepathy in popular culture as a subject. At minimum, inclusion in such sections needs to meet the same standard as other material - by citing third-party sources that discuss particular instances of telepathy as elements of popular culture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: Although Jacobo Grinberg is mentioned in wikipedia: there is no mention of this experiment.  The experiment is simple - cut and dried.  Put 2 people in a room, then separate them into individual chambers where their respective brains are connected to an EEG.  Bombard one patient with light pulses and find that the other also senses it according to his EEG readout.  The outcome - so I have heard was about 25% positive for patients - way above statistical noise.  The experiment has been replicated elsewhere (e.g. "Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects"
by Standish et al.).  The mechanisms suggested are quantum nonlocality and consciousness. This in itself does not prove TP exists - only that its potential is there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.85.61.113 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or it is a mistake in experimental design. Let's wait for the replication and the secondary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment?

message: Sheldrake has published some of the more convincing evidence for telepathy. Is there a reason for it to be left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as something is published by a reliable source it can be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Lindsay658, Can you please give some links and other information regarding this? Misty MH (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rupert Sheldrake's work 

message: Schizophrenia is not always the appropriate explanation for telepathic thoughts and is dismissive of any real communications with the spiritual. Blove2012 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some mention should occur in the article for topics that may be related, such as: "word of knowledge", revelation, prophecy, etc. Misty MH (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources that make that connection, why not. If you can't, see WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Dismissive is good, when the thing being dismissed is a childish fantasy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual Telepathy 

message: The beginning of the article states that there exists "No convincing evidence". Convincing to whom? Clearly some people are convinced of telepathy based on their observations, while others are not convinced. Therefore, the word "Convinced" is far too subjective since it does not specify those convinced. Therefore the word should be changed to something more objective.2401:7000:DB65:8A00:FD9B:DF21:1E43:10B3 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I changed "convincing" to "good". There is a consensus in science as to what constitutes good evidence, although most parapsychologists do not agree with, or understand the reasons for, that consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in wording