Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999
The reason for my skepticism is that among the huge biodiversity on this planet, no single species has evolved to utilize any such mechanism, despite their obvious benefits to survival. Surely, at least one species would exhibit a skill which could not be adequately described with the "brain-only" model.
Question: what if you're overlooking it because it's as common as air, right under your nose, not something dramatic? What if it's a general, rather than specific, non-local mechanism? How would you identify it?
If you analyse the prerequisites for such a behaviour it is understandable that there no species that have evolved to this level.
But what if every species, including us, has evolved it from a common source, from the inside out, and it's as common as the air we breathe? Maybe it is only the cultural baggage-laden notion of telepathy that we bring to the table that's screwy.
The primary ability is to, in some way, share the same space with whomever you are communicating with.
Yes, called "Hilbert space," which we always have access to, being always in a mixed quantum/classical state.
This requires a good deal of correlation, purity, and so this would be rare in a setting that favours genetic diversity and so a lack of purity.
Nah -- just intention and rapport; we do it all the time.
I would not disregard the signs that people, close to nature, watch for weather-forecasting, in te behavior of animals. They "feel". Which definitely is different from a telepathical sense, but can be dragged in as such.
It is feeling, our emotions, that enable us to share the same space in that our emotions interpret communications. The concept of empathy reflects this interpretation where there is a degree of resonance such that it is as if I am sharing your space.
The best method of description for emotions is to use the wave metaphor and with this comes (a) the use of superpositions (Same space sharing) and (b) the ability to pass through/across any barriers and continue transmission.
In identical twins there seems to be something going on that requires further investigation in that either our method of interpretation is causing is to perceive 'telepathy' or else there is something definitely at work.
If emotions are the governing method of communications then a transmission from one to the other without use of words etc favours the 'wave' concept with a resonance occuring to which is given a label by the receiver -- you do not 'hear words' in your head -- you get a feeling that elicits associations that can lead to the emergence of the 'correct' word(s).
I agree with this, and the last part is eerily similar to the way Betty Hill described her telepathy experience with an extraterrestrial.
I think there is a lot of interpretations of a 'telepathic' event in relationships where the people concerned are likeminded. Being likeminded they can have the same idea given a context and not understanding this can immediately interpret the 'synchronicity' as an example of telepthy.
That's true, given the state of telepathy theorizing and research, so for Nicole and everyone else's benefit, I'd like to put the concept of 'telepathy' into a quantum-mind perspective, as a reframe from the more popular cultural notion.
From what I've been led to understand, we all -- each of us -- at all times live in a mixed quantum/classical state. If the quantum realm is about interconnected wholeness and the classical about discreteness, then telepathy is about the interconnecting of discrete spacetime eventings which we have access to at all times. Or, as pioneer quantum linguist Benjamin Whorf put it,
Let's use for a moment a core-related word, 'rapport', instead of the word 'telepathy,' with all its cultural negative baggage. If I signal physically to you, say a gestural "Hi," and you're looking the other way, the communicating hasn't happened because there's no rapport; if I whistle to you and your ears are full of walkman sounds, the communicating hasn't happened because of no rapport (and I'm talking synchronic rapport now, regardless of historical rapport eventings); if I say socially, "Hey, howyadoin'" or in a formal manner, "Why, good afternoon, Mr/Ms X," and you're facing another way and your ears are walkmanned, the result is the same -- no rapport, no access to interconnected meaning sharing. It is at this point, when no physical, emotional, social or formal signalling is effective for interconnected meaning sharing, that what we then call 'telepathy' (as being somehow different from "rapport" -- whereas they seem conceptually, to me, to be two points of a continuum) is pulled into play -- as the more dramatic forms recorded anecdotally but criticized for their scientific unrepeatability.
But the more dramatic form, I'm saying, is just what happens when the various embodiments pointing to quantum interconnected sharing are not present or not noticed. That is, both what we call rapport and telepathy depend crucially on this quantum interconnected sharing of meaning. It's just that when the physical, emotional, social/formal embodiments of languaging are present and accounted for, we tend to overlook the quantum interconnectedness.
"Likemindedness" is a splendid label. I like it a lot, and it reminds me of Itzak Bentov's example in Stalking the Wild Pendulum of *tuned resonance* between two violins, tuned to each other and then placed in opposite corners of the room, whence a bow stroking a string on one violin produces as well a vibration on the other violin's same string. Stephen Gamboa-Eastman has proposed that classical entrainment, such as with the violins, will increase the probability of macroscopic quantum entanglement. Possible experimental tests of this hypothesis are now being considered.
Something like smoke signals -- another unfortunate cultural misconception we have. Whereas we were "taught" by westerns and cartoons that Amerindian smoke signals were kinda like Morse code put into the sky, what was really happening places the phenomenon squarely in the realm of quantum linguistics: each tribal member knew how to make a specific pattern of smoke to create an emblem recognizable by all members. When it was used, in emergency situations, the tribal members seeing it focused their spirit/rapport/telepathy toward the source of the smoke to find out what was wrong. A kind of group likemindedness.
Rather than "likemindedness" as a *plus/minus* binary distinction, however, I envision it as a continuum label, a gradation, from less to more likeminded, and this could be applied simultaneously on a number of levels, such as my levels of language and Piaget's levels of thinking. And, of course, there's a good likelihood that we'll miss a few who are not likeminded in many ways yet share a deep heart connection -- but that'll be so nice to find we won't mind widening the definition somehow to include them ;-)
As well, this inside-out, evolutionary view has the advantage of explaining animal telepathy, seen as a natural consequence of evolutionary brainmind architecture on Earth, as well as the life imperative to create rapport and communicate. As Sakej Henderson said (private correspondence), if language is a special case of telepathy, then consciousness is a special case of the unconscious.
So here's a question for y'all, kinda like the question of dogs going to heaven: since we agree that we humans live in a quantum/classical mix, do animals? Do animals also exist in Hilbert space, with their own wave functions? If yes, the question is moot -- of course. And that's why Native Americans "pray" (telepathy) to the spirits behind animals and plants. Oops -- now we have to amend the question:
Do plants and animals, with their own wave functions, exist in Hilbert space? What about "planets," like Mother Earth, or that indefinable being we call "Sun"?
warm regards, moonhawk