# Telepathy 01



## chrispenycate (Jan 20, 2006)

We started this discussion before christmas, but it was on someone elses thread, so I thought I’d bring it out.
We all know what « telepathy » is- it’s feeling at a distance (from the greek) However, we might find we’ve got different definitions of the same word- and many of these differences come down to differences in bandwidth and/or coding of information.
Long distance telepathy tends to be low bandwidth, SMS style ; address  sender, address recipient, Ouch! No « I’m in a jet which has just been hit by a ground to air missile on take off, in the probable case of my non-arrival the key for winding up the cat is in the biscuit tin on the mantlepiece ». Just « twin, distant termination, stop » Note that we already have the distinction between « projective » (shouting to gain attention) and « receptive » (evesdropping on someone elses thoughts) 

Closer range, we expect more detail (some « closer » involving contact, occasionally even intimate contact)(actually, if the “tuning “ hypothesis is right, we’d expect increased similarity to give improved reception, and male and female brains have certain phisiolgical differences. Hmm, encoureged homosexuality to develope communication pairs?) In the case of transferring an individuals entire life experience, memories and skills in a reasonable length of time (I don’t insist on instantaneous) not only must the bandwidth be extremely high, and the storage capacity enormous, the remapping of the information in a form comprehensible to its new owner will require a calculation power and speed several orders of magnitude higher than that of its original owner, who has after all spent several years obtaining it. A higher order being (call it a god – we’d never be able to tell the difference) might be able to do this – not a human.

And why should proximity make such a difference? Is it that the strength of the signal dinishes as the square of the distance ? (or, perhaps the cube of the distance, if “Jack of eagles “ got it right, and signal is radiated into time and preconition is merely reading the mind of yourself a few minutes into the future) or interference by interposed minds, or even purely psycological – if you didn’t know somebody was the other side of the planet, could you read his mind through the television ? Do we even have an idea of the speed of popagation ? 

 The « stream of conciousness » technique ; evesdropping on someone else’s nervous system and seeing, hearing, feeling etc. their stimuli requires a decent bandwidth, and little translation (although it might get a little confusing in some sexual situations) but is hardly an efficient means of communication. In the « projective » mode (if available) this would enable remote control of muscles, but if you spoke a message and projected it onto the aural nerves your recipient would « hear voices » (not the best way of convincing people to do things. Not to mention that you, wherever you are, have to speak out loud so as to hear yourself) 
But we do have a common coding system – language. I’ll bet almost all of you do your sophisticated thinking in spoken language format (I cheat. This is a readers forum, so is likely to attract far more verbal thinkers than those strange visual or other conceptual systems for cogitation)  The preconcious verbal stream is presumably relatively similar between beings thinking in the same language (and I’m frequently accused of “thinking too loud“ even when I haven’t said anything) with the “symbol set“ no more complicated to adapt to than learning a foreign language. Although learning Japanese would go much faster (because you could compare two levels of symbol sets) you wouldn’t instantly understand someone who thought in Japanese, or even someone you’d never met speaking the same language as you (though the latter would come fairly fast) An alien language would be proportionally more difficult yet the further the species experiences diverged from human.

Then we get the Jungian “collective subconcious“, the theory that concious thoughts arise from subconcious architypes shared by, and common to, all humans. (often compared to a lake, from whose depths occasional fish surface. In which case, I got a shoal of piranhas) Thus simplified, lizard-level concepts could “swim“ from conciousness to conciousness, getting transformed into symbols upon arrival. Emotions would pass very well by this technique – instructions for programming a VCR less so.

A further thought- suppose implants were developed, with associated biofeedback training, which allowed computers to be controlled by direct mental impulse, take dictation and turn down the tele at the first wince caused by the commercials coming on. As with present day voice activated software, the computer would learn to associate particular thought waves with particular syllables, and separate commands from data, Two people, each connected to a computer, could utilise the translation capabilities within their respective computers to put the data into a common form, even if it did sound like something translated by babelfish. 

Telepathy is generally seen as an ability that either we’re evolving into (chrysalids, Slan etc.) or one that primitive tribesmen possessed in quantity, but has since faded. If the latter, could it be that lying is impossible with telepathy, and that it is an essential for the rise of civilisation ? If our leaders could only tell us what they really believed, they’d be a reduction in wars, certainly, but would there be a collapse of law and order? Do we really need telepathy that much, or, given that it’s not a communications panacea, at all?


----------



## Rosemary (Jan 20, 2006)

*'And why should proximity make such a difference? Is it that the strength of the signal dinishes as the square of the distance ?'

*Perhaps when the telepathist is within very close, he may also be picking up body language...


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 9, 2006)

Rosemary said:
			
		

> *'And why should proximity make such a difference? Is it that the strength of the signal dinishes as the square of the distance ?'*
> 
> Perhaps when the telepathist is within very close, he may also be picking up body language...


 
Hi Rosemary,

I have experienced telepathy many,many times. My ability varies depending on practice, mind set etc. but I assure you I am genuine. 

IMHO Telepathy does not follow the inverse sq. law so distance/proximity does not matter. Although it can be hard to verify the experience thru dialogue if the sender/recipient is in another town or country. And setting up experiments seems too contrived for me.

Nearly all my experiences have been local though, but not all. 

The body language thing is not an issue, when in telepathy you know what it is. It's easy to tell the difference between seeing and hearing something isn't it? Same with telepathy.

I would like to talk with other about this because few of my friends take it seriously so I need to cast a wider net.


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 9, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> Telepathy is generally seen as an ability that either we’re evolving into (chrysalids, Slan etc.) or one that primitive tribesmen possessed in quantity, but has since faded. If the latter, could it be that lying is impossible with telepathy, and that it is an essential for the rise of civilisation ? If our leaders could only tell us what they really believed, they’d be a reduction in wars, certainly, but would there be a collapse of law and order? Do we really need telepathy that much, or, given that it’s not a communications panacea, at all?


 

I beleive that telepathy is a skill we all potentially possess but has since faded. It mat not be essential for the rise in civilisation but it could help. I can't say for sure but lying might be possible with telepathy (I can't say it would be impossible maybe I can say improbable). I know that it is possible to use dark thoughts to hurt others, but lying telepathically - I cannot do this but maybe others can. Of course one can stay silent with information they don't wish to divulge. 

The question 'do we need telepathy that much?' is a wierd question. I like all the colours but do we really need the colour 'red'? is not a question I would ask. It just is......


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2006)

Julio Clearsky said:
			
		

> I beleive that telepathy is a skill we all potentially possess but has since faded. It mat not be essential for the rise in civilisation but it could help. I can't say for sure but lying might be possible with telepathy (I can't say it would be impossible maybe I can say improbable). I know that it is possible to use dark thoughts to hurt others, but lying telepathically - I cannot do this but maybe others can. Of course one can stay silent with information they don't wish to divulge.
> 
> The question 'do we need telepathy that much?' is a wierd question. I like all the colours but do we really need the colour 'red'? is not a question I would ask. It just is......


If it has "faded" despite increasing contact between humans of differing origins (where its usefulness is evident, to reduce misunderstandings and improve communicaton) there must be a reason for it; useful characteristics don't just disappear, unless they have, or are inextricably associated with, severely negative side effects. I suggested inability to lie effectively as a possible cause, but it could be the inability to tune out invasive thoughts when population densities get above a certain level, or even a reduction of reproductive activity when the telepath density rises above a certain threshold. I don't know. But there must be a reason (witch burnings and equivalents wouldn't explain away a fraction of it; besides, you'd expect a telepath to know.
I'm not telepathic - that does not mean telepathy doesn't exist, just that it didn't give possessors a major advantage in life, otherwise we all would be. Perhaps I'm "colour blind" (all the charm and sensitivity of a breeze block) 
And, unless there are two, unrelated forms of telepathy (unlikely) the fact that a certain percentage of reported telepathic communications are of the long range, low information density type argue against the inverse square law, and closer to a "quantum coupling" effect. Then, decreasing probability of contact with distance could come from a number of factors: noise from intervening minds, perhaps, or just the belief it obviously can't be done crippling you.
I would like to know in what form you receive telepathic communications as speech, as words without speech, as concepts or as pictures? Whole body, feelings (especially pain), emotions? And can it work with total strangers, or do you need to "tune in " to the person in advance?


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 10, 2006)

I don't know whether I am right to suppose that this inate skill has faded, it's just a hunch. However, if it is the case maybe the reason is because of ever increasing sophisication in all non-telepathic forms of communication. I don't know about 'negative side -effects'.

General low-level telepathy is still very apparent in everyday life, ever been to a football match?

Dunno really, you see body language, facial expression and language are all powerful communicators, maybe telepathy gets overlooked and suffers atrophy, much like an office workers running muscles.

Maybe since humans quit hunting in groups the use of telepathy has naturally reduced. I work in a factory - there is little use for telepathy here, emails and memos seem to be the order of the day.

My experience with telepathy has demonstated that complex intelluctual ideas are very hard to communicate (if not impossible). The information tranferred in telepathy has nearly always been emotionally based and not intellectual. The only deviations from this have been few and the ideas communicated were still more emotional than intellectual but the data received did contain some specific facts.


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 10, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> I would like to know in what form you receive telepathic communications as speech, as words without speech, as concepts or as pictures? Whole body, feelings (especially pain), emotions? And can it work with total strangers, or do you need to "tune in " to the person in advance?


 
I beleive that I am a better sender than receiver. Words without speech have occured but rarely. Emotions are more common and can involve whole body but are more usually mind/heart based for me. 

I find that putting this stuff into words is very difficult but I'll try.

How sending works for me goes something like this; clear the mind, engage in a particular state of mind e.g. deep peace and calm and then focus this thought and with singular intent direct the thought into the mind of another. Mental imagary plays a large role here, I generally visualise a fuzzy beam of light projecting from my head/heart to the head/heart of the recipient. If the recipient is not in my prescence then holding a mental picture of their face helps.

Sorry to be so vague. I don't really understand it but I know what it feels like. One thing of note is that it feels very natural, very simple and basic. Much more striaght forward and direct compared to language. A thought can convey a hundred words.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Feb 13, 2006)

Do you not first have to learn how to communicate with yourself without words to be able to communicate with someone else... via 'brainwaves' of some sort? 'Brainwaves' being some electromagnetic wave containing some form of encoded (no doubt) information... And how can you clarify a thought of your own without translating it into those words contained within our verbal vocabulary?

What of the transmitter? Organic structure? Implant, maybe?
Then the reciever?

I really enjoyed Julian May's 'Saga of the Exiles' and how she encompassed those mental faculties... Three of them closely based on subtle human interaction... That non-verbal communication that is second-nature and has a rather vague dictionary compared to a Dictionary 

I'd appreciate pointers to other books and authors who have done similar to May and her 'mental faculties'...


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 20, 2006)

HieroGlyph said:
			
		

> Do you not first have to learn how to communicate with yourself without words to be able to communicate with someone else... via 'brainwaves' of some sort? 'Brainwaves' being some electromagnetic wave containing some form of encoded (no doubt) information... And how can you clarify a thought of your own without translating it into those words contained within our verbal vocabulary?
> 
> What of the transmitter? Organic structure? Implant, maybe?
> Then the reciever?
> ...


 
There are basically two methods to present ideas and concepts to oneself. Either language based or image based. Of course emotional information comes as a feeling and falls outside of the aforementioned categories. 

In answer to your first question concerning 'communication without words'. To a greater or lesser extent we all have the ability to communicate with ourselves internally without words. Most of our primeval desires and urges are felt non verbally. Think about desire for food or sex, these things come in a non verbal context, they do for me anyway. If you feel love for someone it is the feeling, the emotion that is doing the communicating internally. When we try to put the idea of love into words we often find our linguistic skills cannot do justice to the feeling, our words seem inadequate. So we already have the tools to conceptualise without words.

On brainwaves: I believe that the medium through which telepathic transmissions are sent and received have not yet been identified in western science. It is not electromagnetism we are talking about here. In my view though I speculate, it is the force/energy known in the east as 'Chi', 'Qi', 'Prana' etc. and to others as life force, universal energy etc. Some people are well tuned to this energy and notice it and work with it. Those who are not consciously aware of this energy tend to dismiss it as fantasy. 'If they cannot notice it then if cannot be real' type of attitude. I had a friend that fell into this group of people. His view changed completely when, under the right circumstances, he and I engaged in quite a lengthy telepathic discourse. I initiated it but his ability to recieve was spot on. Afterwards he could not explain the hows and whys but was rightly convinced of what had occured.

Back to words: Words only cloud the true meaning of a thought. When we try to put pure undiluted thoughts into words it only clouds the true meaning of the thoughts and creates a vague impressions of what they really mean. So the translation of thoughts into words is unnecessary. 

Transmitter/Receiver: Dunno which structure in the brain could be responsible. The sixth and seventh chakra could mark the spot ( third eye and crown). I sometimes get a feeling in the right side of my brain when in telepathy but not always.

On Julian May: Of course May's books are fantasy. I have not read them but I know them to be a work of fiction. The telepathy I am talking about here is real and I can do it any time. It is hard to find others who are into it and I don't tend to look for them really. I just know about telepathy through personal experience and have chosen to write about it here in the hope of finding others who may also share their experiences.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Feb 25, 2006)

For the most part I am stuck with _words_ in my own head. Internal emotions dont give rise to complex communication within my own mind without translation into words. And as often as not that is more difficult than anything else.

Some of my thoughts are concepts, but unless I am dreaming I must 'speak' to myself to clarify a thought before I can verbally express something to someone else. Dreaming could be translated as dialogueless communication, I guess. But that is always open to missinterpretation...

Quite often our brains might be slipping on their clutch while we are talking and hence saying things before we've thought about what we have or are saying (but thats a different matter).

I cant see how you can communicate in anything beyond 'feeling' without having a greater number of tools (i.e. vocabulary) with another mind. And so thats why I say you'd need to be able to fully communicate all manner of complex thought in your own head _with_ yourself, before you could manage to express anything mentally to another person (through telepathy).

This has to exclude body language, coercion, redaction, empathy. Maybe other 'natural' languages too, ones that are from what we might call the primative mind, as opposed to the higher mental functions...


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 25, 2006)

My own thoughts on the matter: I've always viewed telepathy as a form of radiation (the transfer of energy from one point to another without the use of an intervening medium). Viewing it in this manner would mean that the inverse square law _does_ come into play and explains why distance becomes a factor. Also, the fact that our brains are full of electro-chemical activity and that, if this is some natural phenomenon related to our evolution, I would not be surprised if the thing we called telepathy was somehow connected to this.

If it exists (and I'm not sure that it does) I believe that it is only a matter of time before we can both measure and amplify the effect.


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 27, 2006)

HieroGlyph said:
			
		

> I cant see how you can communicate in anything beyond 'feeling' without having a greater number of tools (i.e. vocabulary) with another mind. And so thats why I say you'd need to be able to fully communicate all manner of complex thought in your own head _with_ yourself, before you could manage to express anything mentally to another person (through telepathy).


 
Telepathy is all about simplicity as oppose to complexity. It is about minimal thought process. It is about maintaining a still, quiet yet gently focused mind. Internal dialogues are best kept to a minimum. Vocabulary is totally unnecessary i.e the participants do not need to share a common verbal language. 

Telepathy is a very different form of communication than talking or any other language based forms of communication. It is tempting though pointless to compare them.


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 27, 2006)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> My own thoughts on the matter: I've always viewed telepathy as a form of radiation (the transfer of energy from one point to another without the use of an intervening medium).


 
This is a pretty reasonable way of viewing this phenomenon. It is a subtle energy that can be encoded using will and intention. It can also be focused and directed, again using will and intent



			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> Viewing it in this manner would mean that the inverse square law _does_ come into play and explains why distance becomes a factor.


 
Distance is not a factor. I do not think the energy we are talking about here follows the rules dictated by 21st century physics.



			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> Also, the fact that our brains are full of electro-chemical activity and that, if this is some natural phenomenon related to our evolution, I would not be surprised if the thing we called telepathy was somehow connected to this.


 
I agree that our brains work on the basis of electro-chemical neuronal activity. However it does not follow that the energy medium of telepathy is electro magnetic. I tend to think it is not though I am speculating.




			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> If it exists (and I'm not sure that it does) I believe that it is only a matter of time before we can both measure and amplify the effect.


 
Telepathy exists!! It would be very interesting if the scientific community really got handle on what is going on there. I think most scientists tend to run and hide at the slightest suggestion of ESP. It does not do their credibility much good.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 27, 2006)

Just to let you know that, while I'm not talking much (due to lack of pertinent information) I'm following the discussion with interest. I agree that evidence (unclear, fuzzy, badly prepared evidence, admittedly) suggests that this is not an electro-magnetic phenomenon, but that doesn't nescessarily put it beyond the scope of thwety first century physics, it's just that the people who're working on such effects aren't thinking on a human scale. I personally have difficulty with the idea of transmitting complex information without a symbolic language structure (even bees use one) but I know people have difficulty understanding how I can think in mathematical symbolism, with great difficulty in translating into words.
Your description assumes a common pool of human experience (a Jungian architypal subconcious) which I have rejected some time ago. A large quantity of our experience is filtered through our symbolic structure, to the point that only very primitive sensations (pain, hunger, pleasure) get through relitively unmodified. Pictures might get through the filter recognisable "patriotism" no (not that I'll miss it) And "home" can't even transfer between indo-european languages without mutating into a whole sheaf of different concepts, let alone traverse humanity; and that's one of our foundation blocks.

And don't be too hard on scientists who refuse to investigate esp phenomena- peer pressure is survival based, and scientists are supposed to be sceptical and reject inconclusive evidence (admittedly, in seeking reliable evidence, but one out of two's not bad) Furthermore, the "scientists" trained to work with nasty, unreliable human beings are psycologists and sociologists, not the best ones to investigate a physical phenomenon.


----------



## Julio Clearsky (Feb 27, 2006)

To Chris,

Telepathy is hard subject to write about. For example a non colour blind sighted person knows the feeling of looking at a red object, but how do you describe actually what the experience of seeing something red really feels like. It's hard to do that.

One thing I know is that to transfer of thought feels like the simplest thing in world. There are probably as many variations on how this works and feels as there are people. 

The science seems pretty hazey so far. I've heard a variety of postulations discussing the possibility of some type of activity on the quantum level as being responsible for ESP type occurences. Personally I think that telepathy takes place in the quantum realm but this is pure speculation. I am not too sure whether science has even touched first base yet with it's enquiries into ESP. The very process of trying to scrutinise this activity seems to make it ever more elusive.

I do assume some sort of common pool of human experience, we are all basically the same anyway, though I would not attempt to categorise it. I have read a lot of Jungian psychology but I don't think I can sucessfully apply any of his ideas to my experiences.

During a trip to Thailand I was quietly meditating in a shady cocunut grove. A young Thai boy came over a tried to disturb me repeatedly. I shouted at the boy to 'go away'. He heard this very loudly in the centre of his head. No words were used (I don't speak Thai and he didn't speak English), in fact silence and closed eyes were maintained throughout. The boy was shocked by the experience and stopped pestering me immediately and went away. The important thing here is the use of intention and will. Quite simply I intended that the boy understand the instruction 'go away'. Once you forget about the language and the words 'go away' it is a simple message that anybody of any tougue can understand, even a dog.

My point is that 'will and intention' are the key elements. I wanted to tell him to 'go away' a verbal language was not necessary for this.

If you wish to greet somebody or make them aware of your prescence using telepathy, similarly the words 'hello' are unnecessary, the intention of making that person aware of your prescence is sufficient.

In my experience it is very possible for two minds in telepathy to 'see' a shared vision that is quite complex and detailed. I have experienced this a couple of times. Each time the visions were rich and detailed. My co-participant and I were able to agree on all the details of what we had been sharing, even minute details. We wondered which one of us had been the initiator but in this instance it didn't feel like a sender/receiver thing, it felt more like one mind or an overlapping of two minds.

It is very easy to make things more complicated than they need to be with this subject. 

Bottom line is *intent and will.*

A man is playing cricket he goes to catch a ball. The ball is heading upward at an angle of 47 degrees to the ground, it travels at 180 degrees from north, it leaves the bat at 88 kph. Immediately the would be ball catcher has done all the necessary calculations to catch the ball. Has he used calculus or Newton's laws of motion? No he hasn't. Has he run an internal dialogue about what he needs to do? No he hasn't. He uses his intention and his will and does what he must. For him it is simple and obvious and he just does it. If we got into analysing everything (using maths or language) going on to make this happen it would appear very complicated, the catcher of the ball just does it. His intention and will make it happen.

I must apologise, everytime I try to simplify things the waters get muddier.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Apr 24, 2006)

Julio Clearsky said:
			
		

> I've heard a variety of postulations discussing the possibility of some type of activity on the quantum level as being responsible for ESP type occurences. Personally I think that telepathy takes place in the quantum realm but this is pure speculation.



That was my first thought:  quantum connections.  But I dunno why.  (If I were cynical and trying to be clever, I'd suspect that I'm cross-connecting to the SFF cliches thread:  quantum physics is somewhat of a cliche explanation in SF nowadays, so maybe I'm being telepathically influenced by that.)


----------



## An8el (Apr 24, 2006)

> A man is playing cricket he goes to catch a ball. The ball is heading upward at an angle of 47 degrees to the ground, it travels at 180 degrees from north, it leaves the bat at 88 kph. Immediately the would be ball catcher has done all the necessary calculations to catch the ball. Has he used calculus or Newton's laws of motion? No he hasn't. Has he run an internal dialogue about what he needs to do? No he hasn't. He uses his intention and his will and does what he must. For him it is simple and obvious and he just does it. If we got into analysing everything (using maths or language) going on to make this happen it would appear very complicated, the catcher of the ball just does it. His intention and will make it happen.



People train themselves to adapt and create habits to deal with complex phenomena - such as catching a ball - or any other very simple "will to do" order such as to "walk over there." It's our ability to adapt and learn. But we have a bad blind spot that most people do not know about, because we're only built to register relative differences, not absolute ones. 
Here's the problem: The "intention to do" is fine when you're familiar with the steps needed, but pretty much useless when you're trying to do something that you've never done before. 
The acting out of intention, will or desire is, for most people, very strongly tied to a series of habits that a person has trained themselves to do and then forgotten about. Now the ingrained habits will take over and run the show when the person gives themselves the command to "do it." If the person "tries really hard," they will merely exaggerate what they already know how to do with their habitual training. Most people do not know how to turn these habits off. If you do learn how to do this, you could probably learn how to become more telepathic.

I'm betting that you have already made your ability 2nd nature into a habit. Thus, it has disappeared into being an automated habit. Unless you're really, really good at explaining what you're thinking as you're thinking it - that's what a good observer does - you're not going to have much luck at telling us how you do what to do.

Showing someone directly what you do as you do it may work to teach someone. Because some people can read minds  and just "absorb" the new information if it is demonstrated clearly. 

However, I imagine words can't describe what you actually do because many people can do something they are really lousy at describing in words. If you put some energy into being a good teacher and being able to be more flexible in telling people how to do something, then you'll get better at telling people about this.

I have a low level of mind-reading ability that happens at close range - from 2 - 12 ft. It would happen when I first met people because I was in desperate search of older people's vulnerability when I was a little kid as a survival tool. I would poke someone in their "blind spot" and very slightly intimidate them by demonstrating I knew what bothered them. I'm sure alot of it came from reading body language before I knew what body language was. Some of it comes from being sensitive to other's emotions. 

As a teen, I used to come into a room and get hit with the thoughts and intentions of others. It was a nuisance and a long time before I learned that I was "receiving" the incoherent fears and emotions of others. Eventually I learned to shield myself. 

I used to think that I was reading the minds of deer because I've lived in a high deer area for the last 30 yrs and never hit one. Then I realized that I tending to slow down for watercourses that I was actually subliminally smelling !


----------



## dyffeg (Apr 29, 2006)

Hi all,
an interesting thread.

I am one of those people who actively / deliberately practice telepathy, being a Witch / Wiccan / Pagan type. I think it relates simply to a skill - for which (like other skills) some people are "naturals" and others have to work a bit harder... it's probably achievable for everyone along a continuum.

My veiws - distance makes no difference. One concept is that distance and time (ie past and present) as simply constructs (or boundaries to keep us sane , as one person put it) - and make no difference. Essentially, with practice, you can "tap into" anyone anywhere - then seek verification to "prove" it happened. Just like fortune telling, the "when" can be a little dodgy sometimes!!!

It is fairly simple to send symbols (eg visualise a yellow triangle) and for people to receive the same. With complex messages - not always accurate!!! Emotions are the easiest to pick up - but once again it is the tuning in which is important (and the filtering out). It is also simple to "make" people do stuff (eg practicing on strangers to make them scratch their head / move etc) - although some people you just can't "penetrate".

For me, I do have to work at it... meditating, keeping in good health, and vegetarianism definately helps. If I don't put in the hard yakka, I don't get the results.

Regards,
Sandra
PS, liked the comment that lying is essential for todays society.

PPS, forgot to say that body posture / positioning also effects telepathy... people sitting in same posture can pick up exactly same thoughts / concepts... interesting!!!


----------



## Sharukem (Nov 7, 2006)

telepathy is were you can pretty much where you can read other peoples minds, but they can put up barriers to prevent that from happening. it takes a lot of practice and mental capacity and spiritual energy to do telepathy or even put up a barrier to prevent it from being done to you.


----------



## Talysia (Nov 7, 2006)

I've always been interested in telepathy, given that I am a twin.  My sister and I have had a number of strange experiences over the years, and I'm still at a loss to describe what it is - possibly because I've grown up with that sort of thing happening to me.
I don't know whether it's true telepathy or not for twins, or just a question of two nearly identical brains - ie, she knows what I'm going to say without me saying it -  and it's even happened when the two of us are miles apart.  I believe that it exists, though, and I'm willing to settle for calling it telepathy until science proves it otherwise.


----------



## WhiteCrowUK (Nov 7, 2006)

Talysia said:


> I've always been interested in telepathy, given that I am a twin.  My sister and I have had a number of strange experiences over the years, and I'm still at a loss to describe what it is - possibly because I've grown up with that sort of thing happening to me.
> I don't know whether it's true telepathy or not for twins, or just a question of two nearly identical brains - ie, she knows what I'm going to say without me saying it -  and it's even happened when the two of us are miles apart.  I believe that it exists, though, and I'm willing to settle for calling it telepathy until science proves it otherwise.



It's interesting to read your post (hi, I'm new by the way) - I've a brother who I used to be very close to, where we seemed to experience a lot of the same feelings even though we were living miles apart, although we both seem to have grown apart now.

I used to have the same sort of connection to my wife, where we could finish each others sentances.

I think it's not so much a psychic phenomena more a kind of intuition.  And when you spend a lot of time with someone you get these feelings about what they're thinking just because you are close and you know them so well.  In a way there's nothing there which is special in a paranormal sense, but there is still something special in the sense of how many people in our life do we really get to know so closely and intimately?


----------



## Urien (Nov 7, 2006)

I find it interesting that science has been unable, despite many attempts, to find any evidence of telepathy whatsoever.


----------



## Talysia (Nov 7, 2006)

Hi WhiteCrowUK!  Nice to meet you!
I think it'd be interesting to find out exactly what kind of intuitive feelings there are between twins, close siblings and loved ones, and I wonder whether scientists have already determined that it IS different from any kind of paranormal phenomenon.  I guess it all depends on what your definition of paranormal actually is - could intuition be called paranormal?  I think that would be a study in itself.


----------



## WhiteCrowUK (Nov 7, 2006)

Talysia said:


> could intuition be called paranormal?



I don't know, personally I believe it isn't.  

We're so used to the sci-fi cliches of "your puny Earth brains", that we're in danger of believing it.  In actual fact there's a lot about our brains we don't know, and everything we see around us (well almost) has been created from the mind.  Our brains are miraculous, but we don't credit just how important they are.

Plus I was reminded in a lecture we had at Rugby class _(about how we as a team are getting a bad rep - ooops!)_ that only 15% of communication is verbal, the rest are little details and body language we can pick up on if we're atuned and can read.


----------



## An8el (Nov 9, 2006)

The scientific community is hard-pressed to figure out how to investigate quite a bit of stuff in general, when money is not involved. Funding is key.

I've been reading about Bohm's non-locality ideas lately - wild stuff, very much related to telepathy. I've also been reading the book called "Dogs That  Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home..." by Rupert Sheldrake - a REAL scientist. Hey, if dogs can do it, and humans think they have bigger brains than their dogs do...?

I teach Alexander Technique - it's mostly just education that means I can decipher and use body language indicators that most people completely miss - not any "mind-reading" involved, although it seems to my Alexander student as if I'm reading their minds. I'm really only seeing what they intend in how they are getting ready to move; and I can do that because I've learned to do  it - anyone can learn to see the subtle indicators if they take the trouble to do so. F.M. Alexander's work is another topic that the scientific community is just getting around to study, after a hundred years of testimonials of how it works. Guess it was pretty impossible to study because gait laboratories had to be invented first.

It irritates my sense of discovery when people suggest that because they don't know about something, it's not "proved by scientists" or they have never heard of it, it must be pure hokum. What arrogance!  Really it's a matter that scientists have to be creative enought to craft the experiment to "prove" something. Even then the whole thing can be lost in some science journal and never picked up by the media...so the public never knows what is happening.


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 9, 2006)

WhiteCrowUK said:


> I don't know, personally I believe it isn't.
> 
> We're so used to the sci-fi cliches of "your puny Earth brains", that we're in danger of believing it. In actual fact there's a lot about our brains we don't know, and everything we see around us (well almost) has been created from the mind. Our brains are miraculous, but we don't credit just how important they are.
> 
> Plus I was reminded in a lecture we had at Rugby class _(about how we as a team are getting a bad rep - ooops!)_ that only 15% of communication is verbal, the rest are little details and body language we can pick up on if we're atuned and can read.


I'm not sure, but I think we use less than 15% of our brains in any event.  Imagine what's lost!  If we did have this facility to be telepathic, then I reckon it's been lost somewhere in the 85% of our brains that we don't use, obviously there is the odd (not meant derogatively) person who is able to harness this gift.

Animals, on the other hand, appear to use it almost non-stop.  As an example, I was doggy-sitting for my sister who'd gone skiing.  She was due home on a particular morning but arrived home the evening before.  The dog, who had been quite laid back for the 10 days she'd been away, was completely restless on the day she actually arrived home, continually going to the door and sniffing to see if she was there.  It couldn't have been any vibes from me as I didn't expect her home till the next day.  So how did the dog know she was coming home that day?


----------



## Sav (Jan 16, 2007)

To Julio Clearsky -

It's been eleven months since this discussion went on, but I only found it yesterday.
I know exactly what you are talking about. Indeed, I wouldn't be here if I hadn't typed in certain key words (including "telepathy"). The conditions relating to my state certainly should be of interest - I am more telepathic now as a result of conscious breathing, yoga, and Tantric discipline. 
Anyone who thinks it is about proximity does not understand the relationship of inner essence to inner essence. It is much more about frequency than it is about space, or as another gent suggested, "radiation". Radiation would have to be redefined in terms of the extra-dimensional aspect that distinguishes telepathy from - I dunno, kenesis, or gem stone healing, or a good ole nuclear reactor. "Vibrations" are the perfect lowest common lingusitic denominator for me, but I would be not so unwise as to suggest I know exactly how any of these things work.
But I would like to discuss this matter more exclusively. I'll get to my profile on this site in a few minutes I guess, but more importantly, I will look again soon for a response, and offer the e-mail john@savlove.com to address a more in-depth look at our respective situations. The web-site attached to the surname is about my musical media project - now prefaced with an update that alludes to the way ESP has influenced recent work. Anybody else who thinks all this is way cool, yeah, check it out. Julio, I too have thought of myself as one in 6 billion! For whatever it's worth, we're amigos.
Sav


----------

