The Scientific Impact of the Existence of Telepathic Power

Kwok-Man Hui kmhui at math.duke.edu
Sat Feb 3 01:20:31 EST 2001



On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Richard Norman wrote:

>
> "Greg Neill" <gneill at netcom.REMOVE.ca> wrote in message
> news:3Eke6.2731$d76.12947 at wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Actually, it relies on an external source of energy, namely light,
> > which encodes the information via absorption/reflection from the
> > face.  At that point it's an inverse-square magnitude versus
> > distance for signal power.  But the resolution probably drops
> > faster than that due to the finite resolution of the receiving
> > apparatus, the eye, which is good to about an arcsecond.
> >
> > Imagine if we had to internally generate the light to carry our
> > image to others.  How long can you hold a 100 watt lightbulb?
> > How about 500W?
> >
> But telepathy simply taps into the Universal Energy Field which
> we already know is concentrated by pyramids and crystals.
>
> (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.  Now this thread will go on
> for another eight rounds about whether the "universal energy
> field" is inverse-square or not!)

A guy said you're scarcastic around. OK. Then, have you read concrete
reports from Princeton Pear Lab about paranormal abilities?

Try go to the web  www.princeton.edu/~pear/

and this page, www.princeton.edu/~pear/2b.html

See how those experts earn their living by writing reports about that. By
the way, those reports you won't be able to fully access them or by any
public accessment. I think those may be their secrets.

Anyway, if their accept their theoretical models about paranormal
activities. This is much more devastating to science.

Let me copy a few sentences from there and comment about that.

Quote:

Rather, nothing less than a generously expanded model of reality, one that
allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its
experience of the physical world, will be required.
(view PDF)
Such a model has been proposed and developed under the major premise that
the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its
environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to
bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control
over its reality. This model regards many of the concepts of observational
quantum mechanics, most importantly the principles of complementarity and
wave mechanical resonance, as fundamental characteristics of
consciousness, rather than as intrinsic features of an objective physical
environment. In this view, the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR
experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and
human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative
consciousness/environnment interactions.

End of Quote.


The most devastating part of their models is they raise our physical mind
to such a non-physical level that it is like another source of fundamental
force nature. In fact, it's much greater than that. It defies or alters
the laws of physics.

Now, the question is: Do you accept their findings with a
pseudo-scientific explanations or if such a fact really exists then what
compelling reasoning we must adopt in order to reconcile their findings
with our current physical laws?

Let me give you some more strange facts.

In China, there are many Qi-Qong practioners can radiate intense heat from
their palms. There are well established scientific reports about these
facts. The lituratures are in Chinese.
They even have already used this kind of Qi to cure some diseases or
illness for people. This has been taken place at least for hundreds of
years according to Chinese medical history, BUT so far no satisfactory
scientific explanation is proposed. And needless to mention there is any
proper scientific testing of any theory. There are lot empirical data, but
no appealing understandable theory is made.

Don't be narrow minded.  Science is not just composed of  empirical
science only.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list