The Scientific Impact of the Existence of Telepathic Power
taliesin11 at telocity.com
Fri Feb 2 21:07:52 EST 2001
Ashish Ranpura wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:37:24 -0800, Taliesin <taliesin11 at telocity.com>
> >> The phenomenon must be around the low energy physics regime, but obviously
> >> the medium to transmit the thoughts can't be some powerful radiation to
> >> penetrate walls, bone and flesh to the other mind, otherwise the mechanism
> >> immediately burns the telepathic brain before the radiation can go out its
> >> brain. As we all know, the electrical and chemical energy in
> >> our brain is no more than one or two volts. Then how we can explain such a
> >> transmition of thoughts in terms of our current physical laws?
> >> Therefore, it must involve some unfound low energy limit physical laws
> >> behind this phenomenon. Maybe it invokes some quantum mechanical small
> >> scale structure of spacetime in some good quantum mechanical condition
> >> like in our brain. In other words, it may involve a low energy limit of a
> >> combined fundamental forces of electrmagnetism and gravity. If physicists
> >> accept such mentality, then it consequently poses question on how
> >> physicists should treat their high energy physics and the unification of
> >> fundamental forces so that in the low energy regime there is a weak
> >> coupling of electromagnetism and gravity but with observable effect in
> >> some good condensed matter condition.
> >Really, it comes down to the simple law of conservation of energy. There is
> >no mechanism for energy in brains (short of mitochondria), and given that the
> >brains of "telepaths" aren't dissolving, there can't be much hidden energy
> >anywhere. And the energy to any given point outside the emitter is the
> >inverse of the distance cubed (1/d^3), which is basic geometry. This is true
> >for any force, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces (though the
> >strong nuclear force does have some exceptions within the confines of the
> >nucleus), or gravity in a quantum sense. Thus, I think that outside of cells
> >that are more or less adjacent (as in the split brain cases), I doubt any such
> >phenomenon could exist.
> Ok, not to jump in on the telepathy argument which was nicely squashed
> earlier, but regarding this interesting calculation on conservation of
> neural energy...
> If a person smiles, the communicative power of the gesture travels
> undiminished for a long distance without the smiler's face burning up.
> Why? Because intrapersonal communication does not rely on traditional
> point-to-point transfers of energy.
> We're not talking about anything mysterious here, just acknowledging
> that human beings are not connected by wires. We exchange scents, body
> postures, sounds, touches... Now, can communication occur without some
> exchange through the "five" senses? Well, that's the telepathy
> argument again, and the answer is, not in any way we've seen.
> ---Ashish Ranpura.
Ok, not to be overly literal, but one must look at the fact that the "strength"
(noticeability) of these gestures/scents/etc. diminishes with visibility, or in the
case of scents, with the dispersion throughout the air. But these are not
technically energy (E=MC^2 aside) but matter, and I was referring to neural energy,
which is electrical and thus dimishes by the distance-cubed.
More information about the Neur-sci