Mental communication (telepathy, consciousness or whatever one would call it) apparently is not possible through a machine, is not even measurable with a machine and typically cannot be called on demand. Thus it must be seen that investigation into it using some scientific method will not be productive.
What do you mean by “mental communication” ? Direct brain to brain contact? Mind-reading? How do you visualize this can be accomplished?
We can certainly communicate via wi-fi by artificial means. We also communicate via our empathic abilities, our mirror neural network, which is tantamount to mind -reading.
I recently saw an experiment where a man controlled a robotic arm and hand connected only to electrodes attached to his skull. He was able to pick up and place a variety of objects merely by thinking. It had taken him a few weeks to learn to control his mental functions to synchronize with the translator.
IMO, theoretically this could also be accomplished via wi-fi at a distance. Won’t that be a wonder?
Here is an example of a muscle/tought controlled arm without the external electrodes.
Lausten: “Science is not like diagnosing a problem with your car. It can figure out things that aren’t directly measurable and aren’t “called on”.”
Unless we’re talking theories, I think this is not strictly true. Doing science is discovering. We don’t discover what isn’t there. If we can’t repeat, demonstrate or in some way share the experience we can’t say we have observed anything in accordance with the scientific method; we can’t make the claim that “it”, whatever it is, is there, and we have to lay it off to a personal experience which cannot be proved. I think you have posted this, or something very much like this, several times.
Write4U: “What do you mean by “mental communication” ? Direct brain to brain contact? Mind-reading? How do you visualize this can be accomplished?”
I have no clue as to what mind-to-mind contact actually is, if it is, or how it works. I gave a couple of examples and a way of visualizing it in terms of familiar things and actions. I cannot discount it (in fact I believe it, probably about 96.5%) because of the huge number of reports and my own experience.
That our scientists say we emit brain waves really doesn’t reinforce my belief because I don’t know anything about that, especially what sort of range they may have. I suspect they are measuring electrical activity within the brain and I don’t think that particular physical activity is the origin of mind-to-mind contact.
Unless we’re talking theories, I think this is not strictly true. Doing science is discovering. We don’t discover what isn’t there.
How do we have a Big Bang theory? No one was there.
Are you familiar with Einstein was proven right? It was well after he died, but while he was alive we were already using his theory to discover new things and understand our universe.
I’m not sure what I said that has you confused. You lay out some correct specific about scientific methods, but you seem to be saying that results of experiments have to be tangible or something. I’m not sure. What I’m saying is more like how we discovered Pluto. We got better at measuring the effects of gravity on the planets and we predicted that there had to be something big out there. So we knew where to look, and found it.
You’re saying, hey, I detect something big out there, look there. So we look, and nothing is there. So we ask what did you detect, how did you detect it, and you are vague. This is nothing but good old fashioned hyper-active agency detection.
The Big Bang theory, you appeal to the skeptic in me. It starts with the claim that everything in the universe was compressed into some tiny volume. Premise is that we have identified everything in the universe. Really? No explanation (evidence) of how it came to be compressed. Claim of expansion. No explanation (evidence) of what caused that. No explanation of an external volume sufficient to contain the expansion. Claim that the universe is still expanding. That claim based on 14 billion year-old info (light emitted way back when). Do you see the BB theory as vague?
I think the term “vague” is not a good term to describe someone’s effort at reporting personal experience. “Vague” carries an inference of an attempt to obscure or deceive. I think it would be remarkable if we could report an experience totally outside our previous experience, one which we could not share, in terms of our previous shared experiences. You apparently accept that humans are not rational by nature. I think it wrong to dismiss what we cannot explain rationally. We are not able to extrapolate from nothing. I believe what something is is independent of our ability to describe it.
Cause and effect is accepted as rational agency detection. I try to keep in mind the fact that science practitioners are, always have been and probably always will be not completely correct. They won’t get to the perfect state of totally not wrong until we have discovered everything and until we do we won’t know how close to, or far from, the truth we were.
The Big Bang theory, you appeal to the skeptic in me. It starts with the claim that everything in the universe was compressed into some tiny volume. Premise is that we have identified everything in the universe. Really?
Think of a black hole. Matter compressed into a tiny singularity. We know they do exist, no?
I try to keep in mind the fact that science practitioners are, always have been and probably always will be not completely correct. They won’t get to the perfect state of totally not wrong until we have discovered everything and until we do we won’t know how close to, or far from, the truth we were.
It's always interesting to me when someone can so well express fundamentals of the scientific method, but then can't apply them. I never get anywhere when I try to discuss it with them, but it's still fascinating to observe.
You apparently accept that humans are not rational by nature. I think it wrong to dismiss what we cannot explain rationally.
I didn't say that. I also didn't say you were being deliberately vague. I don't know if you are of not. I only know that your reports of universal consciousness aren't anything I can do anything with. They amount to pure speculation, as you've presented them here so far. I don't dismiss people. I enjoy speculation and free thinking. I also know that our senses fool us. When I discovered optical illusions as a kid, I thought that was the coolest thing. It makes you realize that we need each other. I have Tinitus, it's an auditory hallucination, so sometimes I have to ask my wife if she hears that high pitch sound.
A few examples of how human perception is but a “best guess” by the brain and how it can not only be fooled , but also how it easily it can adopt new information. It is really astounding when you think of it (pun intended)
Lausten: “Tinitus, it’s an auditory hallucination, so sometimes I have to ask my wife if she hears that high pitch sound.”
I do not envy you that. Are you sure its an hallucination? I hear LED light bulbs, some traffic light controllers and many CRT-type monitors and TV sets squeal. I also hear what I call high pitched background noise, but its only noticeable when I’m inside.
