Roger Sperry's Nobel Prize (was "impact of telepathy")

EL hemetis at
Sat Feb 10 20:19:32 EST 2001

In article <3a85ab93_2 at>,
jmprice at wrote:

> : So what does the psychology professor say?
> Telepathy is flat out bunk, but the Bem ond Honorton (sp?) paper is
> intriguing. I think that what should actually be done is apply Signal
> Detection Theory to the subject, and see what arises from that.
> research is based on old style psychophysics, and has the errors
> to that process. We are all human, after all, and share a common
> environment. That, in and of itself, will bring in enough noise in the
> receiver that it can possibly bring the results above chance. The SDT
> procedures will help to take that into account.
> --
> John M. Price
Thank you John, that is what I expected too.
So we are done with the classical notion of "tele"-"pathy", yet we
leave the door open to investigate the "direct" reactions of the brain
to electromagnetic waves reaching inside.
What I see, is that the spectrum range that can penetrate the skull
invasively is way too high a frequency over any brain activity wave.
Also those that are below the microwaves are yet too slow and with too
long a wavelength.
So, the correct range of frequencies that can really do any direct
communications is that particular range that could not penetrate the
brain tissues, not to mention the skull bone, the scalp and all the
If, humans were to evolve in response to these energies and ranges, we
should develop an antenna of a sort that penetrates the skull and is
dedicated as a transducer to catch these waves, analogous to what
insects do with infrared range, etc...
Did I wildly depart from orthodox thinking here? Your call.
EL Hemetis

Sent via

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list