Possibility of telepathy information theory (theory of)

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore fbonsignore at beethoven.com
Mon Nov 8 21:15:08 EST 2004


Telepathy has been considered one of the phenomena for which science
can offer no explanation, and which therefore is relegated to the
category of superstition, though a very extended one. Most people have
lived at one time or another the `meaningful coincidence` experience
that leads to the belief in direct mind to mind communication; on the
other extreme there is the people who actually hear voices
continuously and who we consider `mentally ill`, or shizophrenics. Of
coursse there are serious teams around the world applying the
scientific method to the study of telepathy, with aparently little
results, though it is rumored that the military complex has also
performed research on the matter, with results being, of course,
classified.
 
People usually resort to mystic beliefs to explain telepathy, while it
is argued that there is no physical support for it. I believe
otherwise. Brains are composed of interconnected `simple` information
processors that use and generate electric fields to propagate their
signals. The resultant field is so powerful that we can even measure
it *through* the crain to obtain an EEG. The measured signal is
however quite undifferentiated, even though we know there is an
underlying order to it. On the other hand we know that electric fields
do have an effect over other fields... If we live in a continuous
reality we can safely assume that a given signal will diminish
continuously over time, evetually integrating in the background noise
but without losing its caracteristics. It simply becomes too weak to
be distinguishable, though it will affect the whole electric field
that surrounds us.

So it is just a matter of asking: has the brain enough computing power
to distinguish the effect on its own (generated) field caused by the
signals of other brains? We certainly go through life without
listening to others thoughts, but this may well be a learned
(evolutively or environmentally) response, maybe brough about by the
developmentof language. Sound is certainly a better, more reliable
information carrier than weak electric field interactions and so we
rely on it, but it is possible given the plasticity of the brain that
under certain circumstances groups of neurons `learn` to accept and
interpret this interactions and give them `meaning`, for instance, if
the individual is gradually losing aural acuity. It is even possible
to speculate on the organizaion of `resonator groups`, groups of
neurons that learn to fire when certain (analogous) signals affect the
brain`s field. This ability may well be the cause of the development
of certain forms of schizophrenia, like those that develop late in an
individual`s life, though it wouldn`t explain all schizophrenic cases.
We can even speculate that certain forms of schizophrenia become a
problem due to the `storm` of thoughts received and the inability of
the individual to deal with the new source of information. In fact,
many individuals may actually enjoy the benefits of telepathy without
suffering the ill consequences of schizophrenia because they are able
to process the increased quantity of information received through this
channel. I doubt telepaths would be anxious to tell the whole world
that they hear voices (sort of a secret society...), though many
psychics and entertainers around the world give this kind of shows.

The relation between the strength of the signals and the necessary
computing power to interpret and whether the brain can provide it is
amenable tom formal calculus. It may well be that Earth`s electric
field is more charged with meaning than what we usually think...
 
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill at aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message :<mp57u1-j15.ln1 at lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> > There's also the little issue of power: the human brain
> > is reputed (and AFAICT it's a good estimate) to use 19%
> > of the 125W or so of a healthy adult young male's power.
> > (The value is more normally expressed in the units
> > 'kilocalories/day':
> > (125 Watts) / (1 (kcal / day)) = 2 581.26195
> > )
> > 19% * 125W = 23.75W.
> > 
> 
The signal must be very weak, though a trained brain, i.e., a brain
using the `unused` capacity should be able to generate stronger
signals. But even the weakest signal, in a totally continuous Reality
(infinite within) can be distinguished from the rest of the signals
(noise), given enough computing power. So power is not an issue,
though propagation certainly takes time; in a sense no signal is ever
lost, only becomes infinitely weak as time passes.

> This wouldn't be too hard to detect were it broadcast
> in a standard carrier wave from a considerable distance
> (with a conventional dish antenna), but it's far from
> clear how the human brain could receive such a signal.
> 

I envision something akin to the magnetization of iron by a strong
magnetic field, though I am interested in the computing power needed
vs the strength of the signal.

> The brain is also not a particularly organized transmitter;
> one can contemplate a human brain as consisting as a large
> number of minute spark gaps.

Those sparks are actually spread at least in two dimensions; I
_assume_ they would radiate like `ripples` in the surrounding
electromagnetic field, much like sound does, though I am not an expert
in this kind of phenomena.

> It is barely possible to contemplate a pair of "tuned
> brains" right next to each other sharing a thought, but
> that's about as far as telepathy can go; the brain cell
> that has the right frequency to broadcast "Aaah, pizza's
> coming" in brain 1 might be received by brain 2 as "Oh oh,
> my foot's being invaded by space aliens" for all I know.

Except there is a point in common which is language...

> (And that's assuming a single brain cell is responsible
> for that thought; my guess is that the thought "Aaah,
> pizza's coming" involves the synchronized firing in a
> certain sequence of various neurons 

The signal is certainly temporal, a series of activation patterns
`radiating` outwards toward infinity (?), or modifying by their simple
existence the whole state-of-the-world of the electromagnetic fields
surrounding us...

>including those in
> the smell/taste region of the brain, the thought that the
> delivery man came up in a truck (hearing), and perhaps
> the logo and/or general shape of the pizza (visual).
> With that hypothesis the receiver's firing pattern will be
> hopelessly scrambled; the rest of the brain will probably
> discard the signal as random noise.)

Even though specialized sensory brain centers may be involved in one
thought we can at least assume there is a common mapping among
individuals when it comes to language so that is the only part of the
signal we need to take into account, and very likely the structure of
the activations for any word or phrase should be roughly similar from
brain to brain; if this is true we would transmit and _receive_
thoughts only in the language or languages we actually practice, and
both the beginning and ending of the signals would be blurred until
there is a match between the pattern of the signal received and the
set of neurones trained to distingush the signal. Since spoken
language is composed of characteristic sounds, some words would be
easily transmited and received, while others would be hardly
distinguished. I suppose a trained brain would develop resonator and
amplifier clusters whith activation paterns deepening with practice,
specialized in `tuning` basic (phoneme? morpheme?) patterns before
sending them to the `language understanding` centers. I imagine these
centers analogically, like kind of key-keyhole pairs.

But this is going too far already. The issue is whether a brain can
dedicate and does have the computing power in terms of activations to
process the signals given that they must be very weak.

Assuming a human brain has enough computing power to `analogically`
process the influence on its own activity of the signals emitted from
other brains, and the existence of areas devoted to receive and
process those signals, that telepathic reception would be far more
potent when a) there`s people around and b) the individual is in a
closed environment.
 
In case a) the weak signals can `resonate` among brains, for the most
part unconsciously, to generate a stronger signal more easily
transmitted. This is equivalent to say that the fields of electric
activity of each individual`s brain get `aligned`, gnerating a
stronger signal. This stronger signal would be the sum of the original
`ambient` content of information and the results of the processing by
the brain. The more sensitive individual would experiment the net
result as a perceived sound or as an idea. This kind of phenomena may
lie behind the usual `coincidences` when two persons start talking at
the same time and say the same phrase (notwithstanding other
psychological or situational explanations), particularly after a few
minutes of keeping silence (how many would-be lovers end long
embarrasing silences this way?). In other words, people would act like
anthenas. This hypothesis may point to modifications in current
parapsychological experimentation.

As for b), closed environments would isolate many random disturbances,
makin it easier for the brain to process the modulation in the signal,
both in the case of direct electromagnetic perturbances as in the case
of other sensorial extractions.

Is it possible to prove telepathy exists? I believe not, unless
telepaths want to show it possible. A good experiment would involve
the coordination of spatially distanced individuals, making some noise
after a command is given telepathically. For instance: `All telepaths
say ok!` And then hearing lots of oks... The probability of many
people saying ok at the same time without coordinatio is so small that
it would prove the phenomenon beyond doubt, but it would need
cooperation, very difficult to obtain given the inclination of humans
to persecute whatever exceeds the normal capabilities of an
individual.

As to the evolution of telepathy, seen as a problem of computing power
against strength of signals it is very likely it can only be observed
in humans and maybe some big brained animals, like elephants and
dolphins. If corroborating telepathy in humans is a difficult problem,
doing so in other species looks like an impossible problem. It has to
be observed here that many problems of synchronization that are
popularly presented as evidence of animal telepathy are actually the
expression of global effects of local rules, like the ordering of
animals in flocks.

What should be evident is that, as a communication channel, it has
very low advantages over hearing, for instance, as it has no obvious
spatial relationship. If proximity were an element, it would be
superseded by hearing and sight, so it wouldn`t develop. And as a
remote sense, since it would be impossible to know the source, and
what`s more, to know whether the messages are tru or false, a lead or
a mislead, the information content would tend toward zero.

At most it is a phenomenon that develops as a side effect of brain
size, if at all. (To be honest, I was expecting somebody to offer the
calculus). But if it exists, then schizophrenia would acquire a new
meaning, as the neurosis of people who didn`t learn how to integrate
their disembodied messages with everyday life.

Imagine a telepathic individual who identifies signals meant for him
(people thinking of him), and he suddenly goes famous, lots of people
think of him. He not only would receive lots of messages but also,
given human`s inclination to jealousy, many evil thoughts. That
individual would experiment a cacophony, that may leave him unable to
cope with everyday affairs, a severe schizophrenia. This hypothesis
can be tested. Severe shizophrenics must be well known in their
communities, while mild schizophrenics would be almost unknown and
lonely individuals. I think of the moovie picture `A Beautiful Mind`.
This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.

Michael Gray <fleetg at newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message :<mh82m0lh2vrchpgfq41ugtmkrm5452qcqp at 4ax.com>...
> > The fist would need to separate cause from effect.
> > The schizophrenics that I know all displayed schizophrenic tendencies
> > before they became well known.
> > Their fame/infamy was mostly due to to their bizarre behaviour.
> > 
> > Schizophrenia leads to being well known.
> > 
This is really very interesting. Seeing the problem mechanically, we
would indeed be interested in causes and effects. But the hypothesis
is not that becoming well known is the cause of schizophrenia, only
that both circumstances occur simultaneously.

At some point there must be an innate or induced (drugs as triggers of
telepathy) telepathic ability. IF, from the outset, due to education,
character or innate (IQ) factors, the individual is _not_ able to cope
with telepathy, we would exhibit bizarre behaviour. Then he is well
known. Then his behaviour is even more bizarre. Etc. A classical
example of positive feedback, the system reinforces itself until the
individual`s behaviour is so bizarre that he can no longer live in a
social environment. He is excluded from society. Eventually as he is
forgotten (family size would be another factor: the more relatives
worried, the less the telepathic individual`s opportunty to recover,
[unless he learns to separate both sources of informatio, telepathy
and everyday life]), schizophrenia would diminish, making the
individual more `adapted to reality`.

What would be needed is a good numeric indicator (maybe a scale? would
be less effective as would involve human judgement) to relate both
factors, severity and social life (distinguishing now between society
in general and family).

Note that a particular individual may be `tuned` to other telepaths
*outside* of his immediate social circle, so there could be an
unaccounted residue, maybe from the very start of the adaptation
process. Because once started it becomes a process to which the
individual must adapt.

> How would you eliminate this factor from any tests?

It would recquire a more elaborate correlation model, a dynamic one,
taking into account the story of the individual. I don`t know if
clinic notes are complete enough to be useful as input to this dynamic
models. I do assume that initial correlations must be strong enough to
warrant more careful testing with volunteers (no medication, early
detection/treatment/studies, social deprivation, for different age
brackets).

And the models must contain at least age, social interaction, family
size and drug use as variables.

> >This approach may open new ways to treat certain types of telepathic
> >schizophrenia if this hypothesis can be tested and proven true. It can
> >be done by comparing the clinical notes of psichiatrists.
> 
> That makes the wild leaping assumption that there is such a thing,
> well before it has even been sufficiently established, let alone
> proven.
> 
The fact is that alternative therapies using this hypothesis as their
basis, if successful, would support the statistical correlation
method. Both research lines can be followed concurrently and reinforce
each other.

Note too that the *content* of the voices may acquire a new meaning
and lead to new testable hypothesis if seen as communication (signal)
rather than as noise.

Also, about telepathic ability triggers, it may well be that extreme
circumstances can enhance the innate ability to commune/perceive
thoughts. It would provide a certain survival advantage, particularly
while the human brain was evolving subjected to the pressures of
social interaction and the development of the faculty (how to call
it?) to murder.

A candidate substance would be adrenaline. It may well be that
sporting types may develop telepathy. There should be a correlation
too between exercising as a constant practice and schizophrenics. A
good percentage of schizophrenics were also good athletes. And,
supposing that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence
and the propensity to do sports (nothing indicates it should be so, it
would have no survival advantage, on the contrary, though the practice
of sports definitely competes in term of time with the development of
the `brain muscle`), the reason they develop schizophrenic is because
they lack the necessary intellectual tools to cope with the new
information (like, for instance, dwelling in endless arguments without
sense).

Of course, once the correlations begin showing, successful telepaths
would have an incentive to accept their ability without being
stigmatized (and `incarcerated`)  as schizophrenics or people having
mental health issues...

Since signals must be weak and difficult to distinguish from noise, or
in other words, since noise is always present (composed from the sum
total of signals of all emissors) and signals are comparatively brief
and burst-like, the brain must be able to ignore the noise while being
receptive of signals. Resonators would have this capacity to
`resonate` or be triggered the moment noise matches the patterns gor
which it has been formed. It must be very difficult to receive and
 interpret random signals, these must match in some form what the brain
already expects. Except for very strong broadcastings, pure thought
reading must be nearly impossible unless it is formulated in a form
that is already mapped by the resonators. Language, visions, emotions
would share this characteristic; also particular thoughts directed
*at* the individual would be relatively easy to pick up. The same way
doves and other birds are able to orient themselves in the magnetic
field of earth, as if they had an absolute positioning system, signals
may contain within themselves the information needed to distinguish an
individual or a group of inividuals. This is equivalent to the
hypothesis that even if we are not aware of it, our sense of position
in the world, and at least the notion of particular other individuals
is present in our brains in a distinguishable way. Should this
hypothesis be true, based on the computing power of the brain to
distinguish arbitrarily small signal to noise ratios, our uniqueness
as individuals can be expressed in a unique way by our thoughts, while
at the sme time we can be aware of our position in relation to other
individuals. We can identify individuals uniquely simply by thinking
of them, and once a link is established (a particular signal pattern
has been matched and anticipated) a connection may be permanent and
sef reinforcing in terms of plasticity of neural activations This
would explain why schizophrenics (who can be een as unadapated
telepaths at least for those individuals who do not contain real brain
damage [dificult to explain, besides, as it woud mean a set of nerons
clamped in perpetual self-activation, though with enough variation as
to simulate whoe strains of converstaion, hardly the product of a
truly damaged mind {multiple personalities, possible by partitioning
if the brain, usually are unaware of each other}], engage in long
conversations, which would mean a link has been established and
reinforced. Notie that according to the assumptios, the thoughts
(signals) exchanged must be recognizable by the receptive individual:
foreign languages, unknown words, notions, concepts and ideas would be
difficult to commuicate through this medium. This can be further
refined in terms of particular architectures of neural activation.

See also the thread `Schizophrenia as neurosis` for further discussion
of statistical proof.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list