Communication -- Telepathy -- or Vibrational Frequency?

Post Reply New Topic

Fnord, I am not referring to that type of experiencing-knowing what's in a box from a great distance. I don't even have the box in front of me ffs. I have to take your word that said box even exists. It could be a figment of your imagination.

I am talking about knowing a priori information about people I know in real life and anxiety before the occurrence of major random events like terrorist attacks, you dream someone dies and they die the next day- that type of thing.

Fnord, how do I know which thoughts are yours? What you are asking might be downright impossible! Too many people thinking about too many boxes in the world. I got yours confused with the box containing Superman comics on another thread.

Oh, come on, it's pretty obvious and you don't need to invoke telepathy to explain it. What you experienced is what NTs experience all the time--communicating with someone who has a similar mind as your own. The kid meets you, he sees your body moves the same way his does, so he gets you and you get him and the gap is much more easy to bridge, so you guys can communicate. Unlike with NTs, an autistic speaking to an autistic who is very much like himself is able to make the assumption that the other person's mind works like his own does, which means you can "read" his mind by imagining that it works like yours does and figuring out what you would think and feel. NTs do that all the time.

Who_Am_I, working on it. I'd like to provide all this, I've started working on a series of papers, but I've got a lot on my plate all of a sudden. I think I understand your concern though, and I'll say, I'd like to see those things too.

For now just a quick outline. Look at a conversation between A and B. What is the proper reference frame for this conversation? From relativity, there is no proper reference frame. (It's an assumption of the theory but all experiments to date support its validity).

Is the conversation discrete or continuous? From wave-particle duality, we can choose, by the experiment we do. How? By not observing it as a discrete stream of words, facial expressions, etc, but allowing it be continuous.

Either A or B can do this independently. If both can do it, then between them there exists a stream of information, a continuous waveform with A and B as its ends, like a string vibrating between its two endpoints. The conversation between A and B we can call M, which I use, as an abbreviation for 'message', though it could also be 'mind' I guess. M also has a reference frame, as valid as either A or B's.

In the generalization, there is not just an M between A and B, but between, for example, all the people in a crowded room.

Look, I'm getting a little far afield. Also, logic is a bit counterproductive in convincing anyone of this, because logic is mostly about the discrete, and using logic and even these symbols and letters, is introducing some discreteness into something, where its very existence depends upon not doing that. Some things, the more precision you add to the description of it, the more you choke the life out of it. (Which is why I was trying to stay meta- in my argument too, because it allows more wiggle room.)

I'm one of those things, a real person. I keep having this conflict. I'm trying to live as a real person. But when you describe a real person as the sum of its discrete attributes, you choke the life out of it and leave it no room to exist. Reality is about the continuous, not about the discrete. It doesn't come from logic, and neither does real understanding. Words are pretty fictions. Treat them that way, and they won't bite you in the backside. But take the real for the sum of its parts, mistake the truth for the words that describe it, then you are killing something.

You don't have to believe in the word telepathy or the idea it corresponds to in your understanding of the world. I don't! I'm not talking about believing in an idea, but rather jumping past belief to do something real, without caring whether it is possible or not. Everything we do is like this, it's how you learn to walk or ride a bicycle. These don't depend on belief, they depend on trial and error.

Maybe, what I'm trying to say, I used a word telepathy. People seem to object to that. What I'm talking about is not a single word. It's a facility of real living communication that goes beyond words, and escapes being pinned down as the sum of its parts. I try to explain in words, because people still use them. I'd love to just go beyond them, and with some people I can, and so can others, including people who I see posting here. But I like to go back to words, sometimes, because I like stories. I like reading still. There's still people who are being blocked out of places in society because they can't deal with words at all.

For example, I need words to get money to buy stuff, to eat, at the moment. I like to eat!! Need to go off and do this. I'll keep working on a logical argument, it's just difficult to crank out on short order in a post here. I've got hundreds or thousands of pages on this subject, and still haven't put it together, so I'm not going to in an hour or two I've spent sitting here writing this rather lengthy post, and for some considerations as I've referred to, it's a bit difficult to do (the wave-particle thing, logical argument forces particle, while real understanding in communication is wave based).

Very funny Fnord but this is a matter of two entirely different definitions. It's a matter of apples and oranges. You are referring to box reading over a great distance and I am talking about telepathy with people I either know well or are in my immediate sphere. It's not even a matter of detecting objects for them.

Then there's precognition involving the collective conscious which you referred to which has very little to do with boxes.

Thanks, mind-resonance is a good explanation. In reference back to the first experience I quoted with the child, I was just walking by him and he began talking to me, the first time, I didn't even know he was the autistic child. He was talking about a difficulty untangling a tangled string, I don't remember if it was the one attached to the balloon or his shoelaces. But nobody had heard him talk for months. And for whatever reason, he reached out to me as I was passing him, and knew I could hear or understand him. Maybe he felt I resonated, or whatever. And I did grok what he was saying, it was the string, of his shoe or whatever, but maybe also of the thought or time stream in his mind. He was expressing, in part, his difficulty communicating. That's when his parent noticed, mother I think, and I tried to point out to her and explain what he was saying. I'm resonating somewhere between the child and the parent, and trying to bridge the gap. Just what I'm saying, the words, his attempt to communicate to me, the parent's understanding of it, in all of that, there was something alive, some real understanding that passed between us for an instant, and that's not the product of the words, it was the cause of them.

Wow, such strong feelings about telepathy on all sides. I forget how much people take their beliefs seriously, since I for my part have none. I have my experience. Maybe I believe if anything, in that, just that what I actually experience, my reality, is my beliefs. Like people used to say "seeing is believing", but generalized to whatever senses I at the time have (and they are always varying for me).

I also agree, I just feel, it needs some more research. Might help some people. Hope so. I hate to be a skeptic about anything, because that's like setting out to do an experiment to determine that something does not exist. You've already made up your mind what you want to find, it seems to me, then try to do the experiment to find it. Like with wave-particle duality, you can consider an exists/doesn't duality, then the experimenter does an experiment, and the result of it may be determined by their choice of experiment to perform.

I'm not sure I believe in it, but I see it like this:

Before electricity was understood, people believed lightning came from "gods". People who had never seen it before would not believe it existed without seeing it. Then humanity eventually started to understand it, and now we have things like light bulbs and computers; electricity is part of our everyday life.

Maybe in the future someone will say: "Before mind-resonance was understood, people believed that anyone who believed in it must be absolutely crazy. Then humanity eventually started to understand it, and now we have things like resonance translators and instantaneous thought-communicators; mind-resonance is part of our everyday life."

I think someone should start researching this if so many people have had it happen to them.


Or maybe I'm just crazy and it's not true.

Well, Fnord what you are talking about might be impossible but it does not preclude what I am talking about because it's not the same thing. Knowing what is in one box thousands of miles away is not the same as reading a family member or friend's mind.

In that case, may I suggest that you're not really reading their mind, but you just know the person long enough so that you can accurately predict their thought processes?

It's like, if any random computer were to be turned on, I would have no idea what the BIOS screen would look like. But if it's my computer, I've seen it before, so obviously, I can almost picture it in my mind. Although, of course, people are a bit more complex than that, but that's my idea.

I can't predict what they do or who they see throughout the day. This is the kind of stuff I know a priori and they think it's weird that I know when they haven't told me. Seems like I am up to something but I'm not. I have had people I know tell me it's unusual or they think I have been spying on them or following them around but I can't be bothered. It's uncanny and creates misunderstandings more than anything. It's been my experience people aren't too keen on it which is why I don't like casual conversation. It used to happen on the phone a lot with one friend in particular but we don't talk anymore.