Interesting talk about human telepathy & Earth's magnetic field

I never actually said that being backed by science is either sufficient or necessary for "something" to qualify as either real or useful. You claimed that telepathy was "outside the realm of science" and that is referring not to a category of things but to a specific entity and to be backed by is different from being accessible to a method.
But, lest I sound too dismissive, I'll also add that while the discussion about ethics is an ongoing and arguably worthwhile one, ethics themselves are neither something we so far could identify as real nor as useful. Pretty much every model of ethics we have is either to explain our natural tendencies in spite of their vast inconsistencies or to impose behaviours on us without any sort of justification. I agree that ethics are in the sense in which you mean telepathy to be outside of the realm of science, but they are, if not as a direct result of that then merely incidentally, also lacking in reality and usefulness in much the same way telepathy is.

Now I have not actually proposed this experiment to any scientific institute, so I dare not say whether they'd "accept" it or not, what ever accepting even means. However, my response was not to demonstrate that telepathy is something scientists would still waste their time testing for. Rather it was a response to your claim that it is fundamentally untestable because we can never have unabridged access to the thoughts of any one person. My point was that the extent to which your objection is true, it is irrelevant. We do not have unabridged access to anything in nature and we don't need it either. As long as we can guarantee known and finite margins of error, as long as we can have any sort of falsifiable predictions, that is something we can work with. I have not read any central commandments of science that declared a ban on parapsychology (what ever that is) and while I do not think that with the rapid rise of neurobiology psychology will for long remain much of a science unless it merges with it, I am a physicist who does as of yet consider psychology basically and possibly scientific and so do many of my peers. But regardless, it is not up to me to make testable predictions on behalf of telepathy. You say it cannot make any, I showed you how it could. That's all there is to it.

You keep insisting that we cannot display isolated thoughts on a display as if isolated thoughts are even something we have. Citation, please. But since we can display, say, the reconstruction a brain makes of a visual input, that alone should be enough to make a simple telepathy test with colours. Please, explain to me what about such a test is fundamentally impossible to conduct and why on earth we should demand an accuracy and perfection of telepathy that we wouldn't ask of even bloody rocketships.

It's hard for me to post in this thread without sounding goofy!!

It's just things like, how do I know when someone is looking at me from behind in the other side of a crowded room.... or how can I dream of a place that I've never been only to see something bad happen there a few days later on TV. Both things I've personally experienced at a high level of detail and timeliness.

So if I was to assume this sort of stuff is true, all I can think is that its something that is lost in subconscious pre-processing prior to reaching our conscious awareness, or maybe some phenomena of much higher fidelity processing of sensory inputs to gain some extra information. Both would benefit from our sensory apparatus detection ranges being in excess of what is fed into conscious awareness, so that could be looked into at least.

But it almost feels awareness itself is a phenomena we don't really understand and as such perhaps its existence is related to other instances of it. Like we have some extra sensory capacity to detect fluctuations in awareness itself around us. The spooky bit is that it seems to cast an imprint backward in time slightly, which is perceived as seeing the future by those in the past. Which to me is a bit of a challenge, so instead implies maybe instead some capacity to compute causality in a networked manner across multiple awareness as part of that phenomena of awareness... seeing a potential likely reality which might be of interest enough to warrant a breakthrough from that subconscious into the conscious awareness.

These things could dictate the nature of ones practise to refine and promote, but as Kohadre pointed out, the mind has a huge capacity to experience reality in alternative ways, and sorting through order and disorder could be a pain in the butt.... but if it makes normal reality more efficient or beneficial in some way then perhaps why not!? Sudden increases seem to be populated with delusional representations but maybe just because we're not used to operating at that level of power, I dunno. It would be nice to think it could be tamed and trained, unless its the result of actual damage and is using previously functional areas for malfunction.

So continuing the idealism, it might mean changing the way we perceive information, but using artificial means would need to be done carefully, the capacity is seemingly there but how distracting is it might be a measure of how we experience it. I think this is where emotions and passions become counter-productive because they seem to serve as almost irrational drivers, or at least strong sources of mental power which are outside of your conscious control. So feeding in lots of mental power without having a grip on strong emotions probably runs the risk of becoming demonized by them, as I don't think its the ego which if fuelled by an increase in awareness, but rather the experience of connecting outwards. Again, assuming it is real for the sake of conversation.

But on the video, the brain is part of the entire nervous system, its not all just in the skull. Some pre-processing occurs in organs and the seemingly gated design of the nervous system probably introduces some processing as well. I'm not a fan of his use of the term hologram, it sounds a bit co-opted. Something like hive mind might be more accurate maybe!? The more connected the less self may exist, maybe, hopefully not. Perhaps that is what being human is, a measure of our connectivity with 'other' awareness, with other lifeforms being more or less connected and the physical incarnation representing the degree of such. So maybe limited by our bodies, but perhaps not yet at our limits.

His use of the magnetic field is interesting, but I would imagine solar winds would somehow impact us if that were true.... which I have not noticed or heard about yet... unless we got like filters or something, or like he says pattern recognition.

Here is 2 articles on thought recognition controlled devices, so how far will this go?

http://www.livescience.com/53535-computer-reads-thoughts-instantaneously.html

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/brain-controlled-gadgets/

Here is a study " Consciousness is a state of matter?"

https://www.academia.edu/9095227/Consciousness_Is_A_State_Of_Matter

That's another article, not a study. For one, out of two randomly picked parts of the text I copied into google search, I found both verbatum all over the place neither authored by Mr. Rajna. Then the reference section has eight entries, two of which are two school-level articles under the same domain, one to Wikipedia, three to popular science magazines and two to a preprint repository. Finally, the only actual mathematical argument boils down to an equivocation of a photon's energy h*v and the rest-mass energy mc², which of course overlooks the crucial points that photons don't have a rest mass while inert matter doesn't travel at light speed. I could bother reading the rest of it but so far I'm not convinced it's worth my time...

#Offtopic

Pardon my straightforwardness, but - @Gisteron, great job! I notice how you dismantle pseudo-scientific stuff constantly and IMO it's very good for the forum, where "Ignorance, yet Knowledge" is in the Code. I know, "who I'm gonna call" next time I see dubious stuff here!

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.html

den385 wrote: #Offtopic

Pardon my straightforwardness, but - @Gisteron, great job! I notice how you dismantle pseudo-scientific stuff constantly and IMO it's very good for the forum, where "Ignorance, yet Knowledge" is in the Code. I know, "who I'm gonna call" next time I see dubious stuff here!

I'm really struggling to tell whether this is sarcastic or not. Honestly, I can't tell.