3 ms·

Are you kidding me dude? At 1"40: "[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look a

by GuiA 14y ago

Are you kidding me dude? At 1"40: "[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically. None of them stand up very well." So "telepathy doesn't exist" does not stand up to scientific questioning? Come on man, you're better than this.

Alex3917 14y ago
>"[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically. None of them stand up very well." He's saying that the evidence for the 'ten dogmas' being true is weak, not that there is strong evidence for them being false. >So "telepathy doesn't exist" does not stand up to scientific questioning? He's not saying that telepathy exists, he's saying there isn't good reason to believe that it's impossible.
- GuiA 14y ago
  Here's the thing though, and this will be the last comment from me on this thread as it gets tiring; people of your sort are great when it comes to playing "he said/she said" games, finding something to "tutut" about at every sentence– but when it comes to actually producing results, actually bringing something to the table other than an ego, there is nothing. Not a single man standing.
obruchez 14y ago
"Natural telepathy" probably doesn't exist. "Artificial telepathy", on the other hand, is already a reality: http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-direct-brain-to-brain-interface-between-two-animals http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-direct-brain-to-brain-interf... http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-computer-interface-goes-wireless http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-computer-interface-goes-... Of course, it would be a bad idea to call these technologies "telepathy", as they're "simply" wireless brain-to-brain interfaces.

3 ms·

Are you kidding me dude? At 1"40: "[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look a

by GuiA 14y ago

Alex3917 14y ago
>"[I] take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science, and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them scientifically. None of them stand up very well." He's saying that the evidence for the 'ten dogmas' being true is weak, not that there is strong evidence for them being false. >So "telepathy doesn't exist" does not stand up to scientific questioning? He's not saying that telepathy exists, he's saying there isn't good reason to believe that it's impossible.
- GuiA 14y ago
  Here's the thing though, and this will be the last comment from me on this thread as it gets tiring; people of your sort are great when it comes to playing "he said/she said" games, finding something to "tutut" about at every sentence– but when it comes to actually producing results, actually bringing something to the table other than an ego, there is nothing. Not a single man standing.
obruchez 14y ago
"Natural telepathy" probably doesn't exist. "Artificial telepathy", on the other hand, is already a reality: http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-direct-brain-to-brain-interface-between-two-animals http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-direct-brain-to-brain-interf... http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-computer-interface-goes-wireless http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-computer-interface-goes-... Of course, it would be a bad idea to call these technologies "telepathy", as they're "simply" wireless brain-to-brain interfaces.