F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jun 20 14:54:28 EST 1998
In <358A7B25.14CE at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
<kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
>> >In telepathy, therefore, we sense others' thoughts like we
>> >sense our own.
>> Never managed that one, and thought the cell numbers, connections
>> processings were far too different for that.
>> How do you do that?
>Re the above:
>That is because we sense not by "connections, neuron numbers."
>like in the electric fishes, their own electroreceptors detect
>electrical impulses of the same species.
Having known personally people doing research with eletrical fish
(miniature catfish), in the Biopsychology program at Hunter College,
this caught my attention. I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe
your citing this in the context of ESP is misleading in two ways: due
to the inverse square law, there are limitations on the distance at
which this detection can occur, AND apparently this is primarily
information about location, POSSIBLY level of excitation (I'm guessing
here) but not necessarily anything more informative about what the
other fish is THINKING...
There is an enormous body of data on the ways neurons communicate,
classically by chemical messenger; apparently with some direct
electrical influence also, but this is on the order of small changes in
polarization between contiguous or nearly contiguous neurons, I
There is also a much smaller body of data suggesting influence by
external electrical fields, natural or experimentally imposed, but with
power many orders of magnitude beyond what our brains generate.
Consider: we need great electronic amplification to detect
brain-generated electrical activity even when electrodes are right on
It is irresponsible of you to assert or even to suggest as a
possibility that elecrical fields of one brain can influence activity
in another brain several feet away--to say nothing of several miles
away--without SOME indication that you have a well-developed rttionale
for how this could occur; preferably a rationale with testable
hypotheses (i.e. predictions).
So, too, like radio stations
>having their own broadcast frequencies, man detects brainwaves of
>fellow men and women because their brainwaves are at the same or
Would you care to say what these are? Naively, I would think that
someone whose DOMINANT frequency at the moment was 8-10Hz might not
detect someone with a higher frequency (e.g. 40Hz?) or lower...
Anyway, what we normally exhibit is a complex mixture of frequencies,
with much variability from moment to moment. NOT exactly the same as
being "on the same wavelength". PERHAPS two people in the midst of an
epileptic seizure might be on the same wavelength--not a good time for
communication, but might explain some of the productions of one of our
incessant discussants (partial continuous epilepsy? formerly known as
psychomotor or temporal lobe seizure??).
>Detailed out in my "The Electric Fishes Speak" now being worked on.
Sounds like it needs a lot more work before you present it or any of
its components in public. Sounds like you have not done the basic
groundwork in neurophysiology yet, even at a bibliographic or didactic
level. (n.b. I have read some of kccheng's earlier misleading replies
to innocents posting inquiries in this newsgroup...)
>Also, problems with my internet service provider's server(?). My
>homepage is now difficult to see. Hope to have it fixed or soon to
>have a new site.
More information about the Neur-sci