🚀 go-pugleaf

One important issue in this post was further treated in the thread 
Electrical potency of a brain under different conditions.

Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message 
<news:k6k0h0lq6096o4mtjsi3h7gla9his2j6gv@4ax.com>...
> On 3 Aug 2004 09:49:54 -0700, fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
> Bonsignore) wrote:
> >> Am I correct in my assumption that you are re-proposing the the old
> >> concept of the human brain radiating an electromagnetic field, can be
> >> detected by other human brains?
> >> And you give as "potential" support for this detection, EEGs, which do
> >> not detect EM radiation, but electrostatic voltages?
> >Not the field, but some signals. EEG does prove that there is such an
> >electromagnetic field.

> EEG does *NOT* prove that there is an electromagnetic field.
> If you are going to pontificate on such matters, get educated about
> them first.
> EEG only monitors electric potentials.


No deep knowledge, indeed, but we can detect electric activity even
without perforating the skull, and that`s my point.
> >The connectionist system of the brain can be
> >modeled in such way.
> I know of no such model.
> I know of models that are based on varying electric potential
> gradients, but none that rely on electromagnetic fields, or
> "radiation" as you originally put it.
> Could you please point to me a scientifically valid "connectionist"
> model of the brain that is based on electromagnetic fields.
> (Vis "photon exchange")

Some models can be analyzed in their dynamics (learning), from the
point of view of statistical mechanics, as a field being magnetized.
The Hopfield model, for instance.
> >> And that this is what makes people's feelings that telepathy exists,
> >> somehow justified?

This what?
> >There are meaningful coincidences. And I guess true telepaths if they
> >exist wouldn`t publish it openly. People used to be burned alive just
> >for having black cats...
> You're not seriously suggesting that EVERY single person who has this
> hidden but truly Earth-Shattering power, which if revealed, could make
> them master of the universe, and get them enough money to hire a large
> private army to protect them, don't do so because of a few apocryphal
> witch burnings hundreds of years ago?
> EVERY SINGLE one of them, in all of recorded history!?!


There is competition if there`s more than one; there should be
differences in power (ability) too. Are you sure those in power who
ACTUALLY got enough money and sorrounded themselves with an army
didn`t had (have) this truly Earth-Shattering power?
> Now that's either very funny, or so implausible that I cannot accept
> it.
> If *I* had the demonstrable power of telepathy, I would immediately
> grab Randi's million bucks, hire a few bodyguards, and live it up!
> So would any sane person.

And would you go about and publicize the fact to the whole world?
Particularly when telepathy is equivalent to hearing voices nad 
*that*
is equivalent to mental illness.
> >> Then that version of "telepathy" *must* obey the various rules rules
> >> applying to the propogation of  electromagnetic radiation.
> >> Including it's power falling off with the square of distance, and
> >> travelling no faster than the speed of light.
> >Precisely. The question is whether the brain has enough computing
> >power to separate a diminishing signal from background noise.

> Good point.
> And one that has been researched thoroughly
> And so far failed to manifest anything.


Do you have the figures?
> Of course there are many other phenomena that an EM signal should obey
> as well, such as being able to be blocked by an appropriate Faraday
> cage, etc etc.

Interesting...
> >> Oh, yes. I nearly forgot.
> >> The "phenomenon" should actually manifest itself in some testable way.
> >Again, I guess telepaths wouldn`t give away their advantage. And many
> >magicians may use telepathy and let people believe it is just a trick.
> >There is people who tune `radio station` with their fillings...

> Once again, you provide an utterly irrelevant example, which is
> supposed to support your proposition, but does nothing but show to me
> that your case is non-existent, if that's the best answer you can
> give.


Why irrelevant? Which example?
> And for your:
> "telepath's wouldn't give away their advantage."????!!!??
> What "advantage"?

Maybe the ability to know the black wizard wants to kill them... ;)
> The advantage to supply vapid answers to non-questions?
?
> The advantage to be able to predict distasters, but not until after
> they happen?

Volcanoes are telepathic!?!
> The advantage to live in a trailer park for the rest of their lives?
Please explain.
> Any sane telepathist would ditch those advantages in a second.
Please explain.
> And what would you say of the magician that uses telepathy in front of
> a small audience in a dingy dive in Encino every night, in order to be
> able to pay the rent on his 2 room flat, and have his mother dying of
> a curable disease because he can't afford the operation?

Maybe he is using a trick... or doesn`t have enough computing
capacity...
> Doesn't he know about Randi's challenge?
> When next  you see one of these "many" magicians, it is your duty to
> let them know that he can have $1 million, in a flash!
> Why can't these people use their telepathy to discover this fact?

No idea about the challenge. Is it really suitable to what telepahy
might actually do or is based on the assumptin of a fantastic sf
power?
> Are they *all* terminally thick?

 ?!
> >> So far, it has not done any of the above.
> >`it`, what?
> 'it' = Telepathy.
> >> In fact, it has done a very good job of pretending as though it does
> >> not exist at all.
> >> A truly excellent job.
> >Secret societies usually do an excellent job.

> Another utterly irrellevant example.
> And wrong. Secret societies do a terrible job of keeping secrets.


People would announce their `powers` openly during certain eras.
Priests, shamans, wizards, witches... they were at times recognized
and believed, then feared, and the notion of telepathy has been with
humans for a while... It doesn`t exist at all after the scientific
method revolution. How would you apply the scientific method to the
study of telepathy?  Or to the ability to improvise melodies?
> >> Your "food for thought" leaves me intellectually starving...
> >You already thought about it, as the post shows....
> 'it', what?

The theme of this post

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore