Talk:Telepathy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

misc

I agree that some more referances and case studies would be appropriate. Maybe do some more research into famous people and characters in history who have used telepathy or claim to have used telepathy. (Neostinker 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

---

This article could do with some headings earlier on (to make a much shorter intro). Also the current intro section could do with a rewrite or with shifting around into other sections, as it contains lots of material which isn't central to telepathy IMHO. Ben Finn 20:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Since I cannot put this on Talk:Telepathy cause it says my user id is blocked, and I dont want to put it in Telepathy cause I dont think it is of much revelance to the article, Ill put it here hoping someone else can put it on Talk:Telepathy:

In 1985, after Deborah Carthy-Deu won the Miss Universe contest, her mother told a Puerto Rican magazine that she used telepathy to help motivate her daughter.

Hope someone else can add that to the talk page or maybe they decide its good enough for the article.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours,

• Antonio Hyper Foreva!! Martin

---

I've moved your comment here, Antonio. I don't really get your explanation, though: if you can post on Talk:Main Page, then you can't be blocked! And sorry, but I don't know anything about the story you mention above, so I can't really comment on it. -- Oliver P. 00:45 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

I can only comment that I don't see how it is relevant in any way. I'm sure we could come up with a million examples of lots of people believing silly things, but that doesn't help describe the thing in an encyclopedic way. An example or two may not be out of place, but certainly it would be better to come up with a supporting example from someone more relevant than "Miss Universe's Mom", like a semi-serious researcher or something. LDC

---

In the context of the article:

"While the dream telepathy experiments results were interesting, to run such experiments required many resources (time, effort, personnel). Other researchers looked for more streamlined alternatives. These led to the so-called ganzfeld experiments, which have been most closely followed in recent times and have provided perhaps the strongest experimental evidence of telepathy to date; above chance by .05 percent."

an anonymous user inserted the following question:

"The probability of a coin toss turning up heads is .5; that is, if a coin is tossed 100 times it seems it should show heads one half of time (50) because there are only two possibilities. But in reality this rarely occurs. It is just as probable that the coin could show heads 100 times, 40 times, 60 times etc. because the .5 probability is for "each seperate" toss. What is .05 percent above chance?"

Given a run of 100 tosses of a fair coin, it is most emphatically not the case that all possible numbers of heads are equally likely. The probability of getting exactly 50 heads and 50 tails is the binomial coefficient "100 choose 50" divided by 2 to the 100th power, i.e. 100!/(((50!)^2)(2^100)), which is about 0.0796, i.e. a little more than 1 in 13 times on average. Even if that is small enough to say that it is a "rare" occurence, it is still true that this outcome is more probable than any other outcome. For example, the probability of getting 40 heads and 60 tails (or vice versa) is about 0.0108, or about 1 in 100 times on average. The probability of getting all heads (or similarly all tails) is extremely small, about 7.89E-31.

One should read/follow the chain of articles (the source material referred to in external links, not the Wikipedia articles) to find the analysis and strict meaning of the phrase ".05 percent above chance". Not being a statistician, I am hesitant to answer that. (But I do know enough about probability to calculate the probabilities of coin tosses.) I would understand the phrase to refer to the fact that data in the experiments had a higher "hit" rate than the expected value assuming random guesses (the equivalent of coin tosses). How significant the figure ".05 percent" is, again, I cannot say, not being a statistician. Grizzly 08:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Could someone include a short note about Sigmund Freud's essays about telepathy to this article? ("Psychoanalysis and Telepathy", "Dreams and Telepathy", are there others?) Personally I do not have any of this material available. Talamus 11:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Learning telepathy & chance

The humorous thing is: to learn telepathy, you first think of chance, and later realise, that it actually isn't. But it helps a lot developing!

Want to learn telepathy? Go, get some knowledge on the 3rd eye chakra. Books are awailable at Llewelyn on these topics. You might want to check out.

ProClub

USA & USSR

Anyway, the US and the Russian did great efforts on getting telepathy, remote viewing and other stuff like this to work for them during the Cold War

ProClub 20:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neurokinetics?

Nothing to do with Dyanetics- don't worry. The guy(?girl) who wrote the last paragraph of intro to Telepathy re: Einstein and Quantum/string stuff was dead on. I'm not willing to raise my head in the real quantum physics pages, but does anyone else out there beleve in the possibility of Heisenberg scale probability waves? The behavior of charged particles as a medium of transmission for subtle neurosynaptic disturbances? I'm hoping I can pass these ideas off to someone who can run with them. I haven't actually tested the game myself, but it's the best idea I've got, right now. Please don't hesitate to take my ideas and run. If they pan out that just means I'm not insane. I don't care who gets the credit. Wikipedia kicks ass.

Truth and Fiction

The section now labelled "Truth and Fiction" appears to be a long essay which doesn't really advance a reader's knowledge of telepathy. Perhaps there is another article where it would be appropriate. Is there any reason we should keep it here? (PS, thanks to Psyche for all the editing!) Cheers, -Willmcw 20:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work

This article is insanely sympathetic to a phenomenon that does not exist. There have been no generally accepted scientific, controlled experiments that have demonstrated that telepathy exists. Tempshill 18:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that the article is written too much toward the proponent POV? It may seem a bit skewed, but my job (ie. the parts I worked on; the intro, 'truth' section, etc.) was largely to deal with the contexts that the concept called "telepathy" falls under and is related to. If there are claims in this article that 'telepathy has been scientifically proven to exist' (Im not sure if there is such a statement) then of course that would be need to be placed in its proper context as 'a proponent-POV interpretation of controversial and disputed research.' All views being POVs, the claim of "does not exist" is likewise just another POV. Science is by definition a narrow concept, compared to human experience. Has science "proven" the "existence" of love? No, of course not. -Psyche 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes, absolutely. The entire article is credulous. But you already knew that. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Fringe claims have a place in articles, but they must be in proportion. Your latter argument above, incidentally, asks me to prove a negative, which as you know is not possible, and not part of the scientific method. It is incumbent upon the party making a claim (e.g. "telepathy exists") to prove the claim. It's not incumbent upon the opposing view to prove that it doesn't. Since nobody has successfully proved any claims about telepathy — and feel free to prove me wrong here if you can cite a generally accepted, controlled, scientific experiment that does prove any telepathic ability anywhere in any species — the article needs to talk about telepathic claims proportionally. And by "proportionally" I have in mind that the entire scientific community rejects this, except for 5 cranks. Tempshill 18:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not upon believers in the telepathic experience to "prove" the truth ('reality' if you like) of their experiences, nor is it a part of NPOV policy that articles must defer to the scientific method and its limited scope. We must accomodate "both" the views of the believer and the skeptic. Because experience by nature is "unprovable," it's neither upon others to prove, or on you to disprove the "truth" of something (that would violate WP:NOR would'nt it?) but its something which those who believe in their experience can relate and express in language which is plain and descriptive, just as those who disagree with the "truth" (or reality) of such experience can dispute it.

On this neutral ground, we can make reasonable attempts to speak the same language and to avoid using language which is in the domain of either science or metaphysics, such as "theory" and "proof," "divine," "trancendence," etc. But terms like "truth" and "reality" have a much deeper history in discussions about spirituality than they do in scientific language. Hence we need to be clear in defining the terms we use. Keep in mind that science is rather new, relative to other systems for framing and thinking the world we experience and sense. If most scientists in fact 'reject the concept of telepathy,' then its fair to cite studies or polls which so report as 'the views of most scientists.' But your concept of "proportionally" would seem to be a violation of NPOV, if you are claiming that an exclusively 'scientific POV' should be the baseline. As you've well stated, there is no way to prove a negative, so even the "reject" views of scientists must be taken as merely views in a spectrum. Would it not also have some bearing here that a large proportion of scientists claim religious affiliation? :) -Psyche|logy 06:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several major problems with this stance.

Your approach — and the "Truth and reality" section of the current article, which I assume you wrote — would mean that Wikipedia articles should not shout down phenomena that are claimed to be internal to the mind. This is possibly valid. The love article is indeed uncritical. The scientific method may break down in these cases because of subjectivity and because it seems difficult to come up with experiments that can eliminate hypotheses and lead to better ones. But telepathy does not fit this criterion of an internal phenomenon, at all. Telepathy is communication between individuals without use of the usual 5 senses. Whether communication has taken place can be verified, easily. It is not a matter of opinion or faith. Because it's possible to test it, it should be tested, and it has, repeatedly, with no indication that it exists that I know of (again, by any generally accepted study).

You choose to ignore this and couch the article and your arguments in terms that attempt to place telepathy in some kind of spiritual realm, faith-based, untouchable by criticism, which is intellectually bankrupt. The article needs to start out: "Does it exist, or not?" And then "List the research that says so." Instead we get a history section that only lists supporters; and ample, evidence-free speculation about possible mechanisms of telepathy ("quantum entangled minds") which are bald-faced pseudoscience, a set of scientific-sounding explanations with no phenomenon to explain.

With regard to proportionality, your argument is a straw man. Of course the article shouldn't ignore contrary beliefs — if there's a poll saying 20% of Americans believe in telepathy, that definitely belongs in — but telepathy is not a matter of opinion or belief. It is something that can be experimentally tested. It therefore ought to be discussed as a subject of scientific study that can be experimentally proved or disproved. Tempshill 00:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If you say, it can be proven, then please, by all means, tell us, how. As a matter of fact, how do you, as a supporter of scientific methods explain happenings, when you just feel something, such as a mother feels, when her little boy is in trouble. Coincidence? It seems highly unlikely to me.

As science is by definition proving things deducted from basic assumptions by the means of logic and observation, you (or in case the scientists involved in proving telepathy) should make a test series with the use of scientific logic, which proves or positively disproves telepathy.

As long as you do not positively disprove, that telepathy is possible, you may, by the laws of science not say otherwise. By the laws of science, you must say, the existence of telepathy is not decided yet. But you may also not say, from your point of view, that telepathy exists, as you have never positively proven so or experienced anything, that may only be explained that way.

In mathematical history, there were several statements, that could not be proven. In the end, some of these statements turned out to be undecidable. So, under the set of basic assumptions currently valid, these statements were neither true nor false. But until statements were not proven, no real scientist said, there were false. They said, they were not proven or disproven.

I believe, we (as in everyone) should take a neutral stance concerning telepathy unless some of us have really experienced these things. As a matter of fact, I have. But I could not prove it, since the conditions are not replicable. So, by scientific means, I may not say, that telepathy exists, because I cannot prove it. As in a non-scientific point of view, I can say, that telepathy exists, because I have experienced it and failed to explain the happenings otherwise. (Happenings such as, I have been in the same place with someone for about 5 minutes and somehow "knew" things about that person, I could not have guessed.)

ProClub 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

1. This doesn't address my points in the previous paragraph, the most important being that this is a (rather easily) verifiable phenomenon which has not been verified, and the article needs to treat it as such.

2. Let's see. I may have been bombastic above by saying definitively that telepathy is a phenomenon that does not exist. I agree with you that in the article, we can't say "telepathy does not exist", because this statement has not been proven. The furthest the article can go is to say "There is no evidence that telepathy exists", and then to be clear, the article could list the experiments that have attempted and failed to establish that it exists.

3. As you recognize and have acknowledged, your personal experiences don't count; the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies embody this. And I'm all for having an open mind. But this is a verifiable phenomenon that has never been verified. The article must treat it as such. Tempshill 16:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but were not describing personal experiences -- were talking about collective personal experience. If you dont think a religious POV should be considered encyclopedic, you might want to try deleting religion and its category. -Psyche|logy 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to represent both sides of the argument. However, the claim that it is easy to verify may not be as simple as it sounds. I am personally skeptical about telepathy (I'm the sort that needs to experience these things myself before I believe them - even if I like the idea), but it occurs to me that perhaps telepathic ability relies on the state of mind of the participants, and perhaps any sort of test environment is not conducive to the ability.-An Interested Bystander 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

EEG Gamma wavelength incorrect?

To my knowledge, EEG has 4 different patterns:

beta: this is the waken state.

alpha: half-awaken, or daydreaming state

theta: sleeping state

delta: unconcious/deep sleeping state-

To my knowledge, there is no wave pattern named gamma. Whoever wrote the "Telepathy and harmonics" section, please confirm, that gamma was ment.

Also, the most "powerful" brainwave state is alpha, not delta. That's, why that state was discovered first. I do not know, what was ment by delta state being powerful, but it seems to be a bit confusing.

ProClub 09:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted nutty section

I've taken the liberty of deleting almost all of the nutty 'Telepathy and technology' section (about supposed telepathy experiments conducted at a disco by someone taking medication for schizophrenia who'd also drunk beer). I wonder if the supposed experimenter was the author himself; note that 'thought broadcast' delusions are typical of schizophrenia. I thought of moving the passage here for posterity, but it's too long. Ben Finn 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

article-history 19:17 December 16, 2005

Developments in scientific research relating to the brain, and mind may have scientists saying have faith to the general public, just like religion speaks of faith. Religion is such an important part in lives of people,that any new ideas in the Philosophy of Science, and the brain may have science asking for "New Thinkers" in this kind of research. The paradox is the invisible line(space) across the discotheque dance floor. It was created by taking a tiny amount of a psychiatric drug. Look for the words "invisible line" in the movie "X-Men III". Watch the the TV show "The 4400", maybe they are all disco dancers under the influence of psychic energy. It really has been possible to create a opening through a crowd of people dancing in a discotheque. Read the new books "Challenging Nature", by Lee Silver, and "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett. John Doe, 6/5/06.

Study the philosophy of science a bit before claiming that science says to have faith. In truth, science says to have doubt--it's at heart an agnostic practice. I really don't see the point of that comment other than an attempt to slur science preemptively (See: Poisoning the Well). DrLeebot 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've edited and expanded upon what you said. In the future, please expand on it in a new comment rather than editing your old one (only edit previous comments in matters of spelling and grammar). Also, please sign all your comments using four tildes (~~~~). ---DrLeebot 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Harmonics

Does anyone agree with me that this section looks pretty nutty and should just be deleted? Ben Finn 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No responses so far - OK, I'll go ahead and delete it. Here it is for posterity: Ben Finn 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Based heavily on theories by Maturana and Francisco Varela in the 1980s, a recent theory, focusing on the stable and powerful Delta and Gamma wavelength EEG emissions brains produce during states of intense emotion, has been suggested. The theory focuses the principle of neurokinetic harmonics into a rough framework called neurokinetic telepathy. It emphasises the practice of 'telepathy game', which is similar to ganzfeld type experiments, except that it is more energetically efficient, and treats the Sender/Receiver as a single unit. The theory posits that experts in this type of telepathy game could learn telepathy by co-adapting to their counterpart's specific neurosynaptic reflexes.

Truth and reality

I think the whole 'truth and reality' section is not particularly relevant and should be deleted. For a start, telepathy is not AFAIK particularly associated with religion; no major religion that I know of talks about telepathy much if at all. Also, this section goes on extensively about believers and skeptics, making out that believers in telepathy have a different view of reality and don't accept that telepathy can be objectively proved etc.; but while this may be true of New Agey beliefs in general (e.g. astrology), I don't think this is specifically relevant to telepathy. Like (say) dowsing, telepathy can be easily tested, and (despite the comments of other Wikipedians above) I doubt very many who believe in it dispute that telepathy is a factual claim that can be objectively tested. Ben Finn 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, no comments, so I've deleted it now. Ben Finn 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, your blanket delete needs to be reversed and replaced with a cautious and considered edit. I tend to agree with a number of your ideas and likewise like very much the historical section youve added, but its not reasonable to skip millenia in one paragraph - from a generally tepid overview of a religiously oriented explanation to the period when paranormal research began.

I think youre operating under an assumption that an article, under its current title, needs to be restricted to contemporary concept that the word "telepathy" refers to. Granted, there is probably enough material to write an article on telepathy in religion, and that would seem to be a fair compromise. But its not valid to to claim that the article should be dominated by SPOV. People here should make any attempt to reconcile the various points of view, or (more importantly) consider several thousand years of religious history in the article, which, though it may not use the specific term "telepathy" nevertheless covers the concept in great detail.

In both the article and in our discussion, we have to be careful with the terms we use: "telepathy can be easily tested" is a fallacy which assumes a great deal about proof which excludes experiential proof. I.e. if entire religions are based on experiential proof which can often have no technical or literal relation to a scientific definition, so to say that a science must take precedent is to ignore a huge element of non-scientific human culture - which is (in fact) no less encyclopedic.

(I will admit that earlier comments and discussions with another skeptic editor were disheartening, and I disliked the way he sunk to the level of pejoratives when he could no longer argue against NPOV. I appreciate the tone you have taken, if hope we can both keep a fidelity to NPOV.) Thanks for your interest in editing this, Sincerely, -Psyche|logy 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you have thoughts about how best to edit this, so I'd be happy for you to make these edits yourself. Ben Finn 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

John Doe's nutty ideas

Hidden in text - click edit to view.

John, no offence intended, but these are nutty comments. I hope you won't be adding material like this to the article. (Also, you should sign your posts using four tilde signs which will put in a link to your username.) Ben Finn 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy notice

I think this notice should now be removed. Not having read this article before, and having taken out the nuttiest bits (and added some balancing points), I think it's at least now fairly NPOV (though it's not yet a terrific article). Anyone else agree? Ben Finn 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, no comments, so I've now removed the notice. Ben Finn 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I readded it, this is one of the worst, least NPOV pages I have seen Tyir 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with sources & info

My Science Fair project this year is based in large part on Rupert Sheldrake's staring experiments, and I would like to find the papers that his papers (and some others I've found) refer to, to round out my understanding, and help get some idea whether he's just crazy, stupid, or lying. A google search yields nothing, and I don't know any other way to look for things online. Any suggestions? It seems like there must be some way to track these things down, or research papers wouldn't be put on the web in the first place. Also, if you know of any good research papers he doesn't cite, those would be appreciated.

BTW, partway through Telepathy In History it says "By the 1960s, many parapsychologists had become dissatisfied with the forced-choice experiments of J. B. Rhine, partly because of boredom on the part of test participants after many repetitions of monotonous card-guessing and refusing the suggestion by magicians of adding cards that were totally blank, partly because of the observed "decline effect" where the accuracy of card guessing would decrease over time for a given participant, which some parapsychologists attributed to this boredom." I can't sort this out. What is the author trying to say? I can understand that for some reason 'magicians' suggested including blank cards. Why would they do this, and why would their suggestion not be followed? Black Carrot 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He's trying to say, that if you keep doing the same stuff for hours, you get bored. (Shock here, really.) If you get bored (your mind gets bored) telepathic capabilities begin to fade due to concentration failure. Blank cards are rare and - in controversion to picture cards have nothing to imagine on them and therefore make the "guessing game" a little different if you get such a card. So, you don't get bored. So, the guess is still accurate.

ProClub 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversial science?

The real issue with telepathy, is the concept that a bioelectric field from a human being can pass freely through the human tissue, the skull, and central nervous system of another human being. This bioelectric field generated by the brain then has an influence on the private free-will or human energy field of another person. This bioelectric field can then influence a pattern of mental thoughts, by generating archetypes that can be preceived by the brain. The archetypes are mind pictures that can become a genetic and temporary language for the brain. The issue of transparent human energy fields is so basic to the discussion of extrasensory perception, that most people are unable to make the connection to understanding telepathy, because of privacy issues related to one's personal thoughts, or body's aura. Microwaves probably cannot communicate with the brain, but if they pass through human tissue(regardless of the so called "EMF Heating Effect"), these radiowaves may affect the mental health of human consciousness and the body. ESP may exist, if people do not become to concerned about religion, and pseudo-science affecting their physical privacy and mental free-will. Commnon sense says there is a mind-body connection associated with a person's overall health, and well being.

---

"controversially scientific concepts such as psychology and quantum mechanics"

Who exactly is pointing to psychology and quantum mechanics as controversial? Granted they both have their opposition, but all in all, both are quite heartily established in the scientific community, and what scientific field doesn't face opposition? I'd like to see this removed, but it's kind of the main point of the paragraph. B.Mearns^*, KSC 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. If you want to remove it, you have my support. Alienus 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I would say is that within these diciplines there rages very passionate controversies such as Repressed memory and Quantum gravity so maybe this is what the editor meant and should be changed to reflect this. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

If a person would say to all "I know telepathy exists from experience". "The proof you require can be given". "You must follow these simple excersises, religiously for 3 months". "There is no doubt, more will know than not". This is the age of increasing knowledge. If you are not willing to take that step, you should not write any opinions on this subject. These excersises only require half an hour per day. You can increase the time if you want. You can do daily multiples also. These excersises are so beneficial, you may do them as life long routines. This is up to the person that accepts this. Universal law dictates these will never change. You put this in, you get this out. If this seems too simple. I'm sorry. I will tell anyone who asks.Alexargen 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I consolidated my comments here, and signed it. I don't mean to be a skeptic. And I don't intend to edit the article. Just trying to give some constructive insigts.

I did not read any plausible mechanism for telepathy, although there is plenty of evidence that telpathy is possible. See the Microwave auditory effect or Frey effect (currently feuding each other). See Electroreception. We measure brain waves with electrodes, albeit in contact with the scalp. I could go on... My point is that telepathy, if it exists, uses Electromagnetism. Q.M. may be used to explain how a Photoreceptor works, but it's absurd (too strong???) to say that the Uncertainty principle explains how the photon got to the eye. Tests for telepathy done in electrically shielded rooms atempts to destroy the only possible telephathic transport, E&M. Telepathy needs QM or String Theory no more than an old fashion Radio does.

Sometimes people make references to science in analogy. After reading the abstract by Gao Shen on entangled minds, I'm confindent in saying that it's not a Q.M. paper. But it mixes in meaningful statements about the math of Q.M. (superpostion of estates, etc.) with meaningless statements such as entangled minds...

Lastly, telepathy is defined rather abstractly. Seems to me in an attempt to avoid saying "hearing voices", as this is mostly seen as a mental illness. I don't have any evidence of people reading eachother's minds in history, but there's plenty of historical individuals hearing voices, including biblical ones.

--Pereza 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

"some" studies. "many" studies. Cites needed, people. Otherwise, it just sounds like vague assertions meant to weasle POV away. Coren 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In the first place, "some/many studies..." would be a "citation needed" rather than a "weasel words" situation. Weasel words is about saying things like "some people say that blah blah," which is flawed because some people say pretty much anything. The statement "some people say ..." is always true and therefor meaningless. Saying that "some studies have indicated blah blah" is not always true and therefor not meaningless. Such references should be backed up with citations for the sake of thoroughness, to allow fact-checking and to aid readers in studying further. But in any case, I see only fairly insignificant instances of un-cited references to studies or experiments in this article, and I don't see any that promote a particular POV. Please give some specific examples. KarlBunker 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

While awaiting clarification, I'm removing the weasel words tag. KarlBunker 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You don't have to go far to find:

Though many scientific experiments into telepathy have been conducted, including recent ones by respected universities (some claiming significant positive results)

The POV being, obviously, an implication that telepathy has any sort of scientific support. Weasely "many" (cites?), "including" (vague), "respected universities" (which?) and "some" (which ones, and how many exactly?). Four glaring examples in one statement. Frankly, I'd put weasel, neutrality and disputed facts warnings back on this article, but simply eliminating the multitude of vague assertions meant to imply credibility would fix a lot. Weasel tag goes back in; please don't remove it "just because". Coren 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) ... and no, I don't want to rewrite the article myself to fix the flaws. I have personal views about superstitious woo-woo and pseudoscience that would make it hard to maintain NPOV myself, and unlike many I actually care enough to avoid that. Coren 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding:

Though many scientific experiments into telepathy have been conducted, including recent ones by respected universities (some claiming significant positive results)

That should be expanded upon, made specific, and cited, I agree. That is still a case of "citation needed" or "vague" or just "better goddamn writing needed" rather than "weasel words" however, for reasons stated above. Personally, I made the mistake of not reading that sentence as an uninformed reader would, and so I didn't realize, until you pointed it out, that it's misleading. Probably there is other content in the article that is similarly misleading. From my own reading on this subject, I know that there have in fact been many scientific experiments into telepathy, including some by respected universities, and that some of these have claimed significant positive results. I also know from my reading that all these studies have subsequently been shown to be seriously flawed in one way or another, and that the "significant positive results" they reported have been shown to be worthless, or at least highly questionable. What the article needs is some examples of "positive results" studies that have been conducted, and the flaws in methodology and/or interpretation that have turned up in those studies. Unfortunately, that sounds suspiciously like work to me. KarlBunker 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, at any rate. I avoid editing articles I feel strongly about (against?) myself, but pointing out the problem so some volunteer can fix it is okay by me regardless of the detail of which tag to use.  :-) Coren 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah! But this one was so egregious I couldn't help myself. I've been carful, though. Still needs cleanup. Coren 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ben Finn"

In regards to, well, most of your comments here: Who are you to judge what is truly hocus pocus and what is not? Get off your high horse.

A section for telepathy in popular fiction?

Since telepathy plays a major role in science fiction and fantasy, a section in this article should mention the most significant uses of telepathy in fiction. Kaijan 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the deleted header: "Telepathy in fiction"

Comic books and role-playing games take greater liberties with telepaths, giving them the ability to not only control minds (through hypnosis-like capabilities, illusion etc.) but actually turning telepathy into an offensive weapon by overloading the mental communication channel with a "mind-blast" which causes great pain, unconsciousness, and sometimes even death. Telepathy is also sometimes used to remove memories of other characters (for example, to preserve the secret identity of a superhero), or even in extreme cases to induce a vegetative state by removing all of a character's memories. More broadly, telepathy has been the subject of much other science fiction and particularly soft science fiction. An example of this is the dystopian novel The Chrysalids by author John Wyndham.

I think it's better to rewrite this section and insert it back into the article than simply delete it for "having no real informative content." Telepathy in fiction is itself very significant. Kaijan 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Important note, and requests by nick5990

Note that there are presently no citations to previously published scientific journals for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for "delusions" and "psychosis" under "Origins of the concept". Thus it is likely this is someone's opinion rather than based on sound sources. These 2 paragraphs should be removed if not questioned until their verifiability is confirmed.

Please add http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf as a reference and external link on the telepathy article page, since it is currently not listed. This will provide readers with a more informed view of the topic and past scientific research into telepathy. Nick5990 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)nick5990

I removed your comments from the article, and I'm glad that you have put them here. I moved your signature to the bottom, after all your comments. I don't have time to investigate at the moment, but there are a couple of references. Possibly you are saying that references 11 and 12 only verify some fact not directly related to the text as it relates to the topic of this article? That would need to be checked. Please be patient, it may be a few days before anyone looks further. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick is not entirely correct but I am glad he has pointed this out about that section. The stuff on "psychological symbiosis" was original research. I cannot find any reference linking this to telepathy. The content however about delusions and psychosis being linked to belief in telepathy are well sourced. Goblin Face (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A second look at this, I think it is possible that Nick5990 (talk · contribs) is the previously banned user Eameece (talk · contribs) who had vandalized this article, they both sign their comments in the wrong way, have the same writing style and have said the same things about the article. Goblin Face (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, Goblin Face, as usual. Eameece (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)eameece

Wikipedia loses a lot of credibility because bonifide research into paranormal subjects is not allowed on its pages, or even on its talk pages. To say that refusal to cover this research, or even allow links to it, is NOT about "improving the article," contributes to this lack of credibility. Most people know that telepathy exists, because they have experienced it. People want information on the subject. Now, people wanting more information on this subject are blocked from getting it, just because wikipedia editors want to limit coverage to one point of view, and call any alternative views that are posted to this page "vandalism." Allowing links to research that shows telepathy exists, as well as research that doesn't, would vastly "improve" the article. Right now, coverage is limited to research saying it doesn't. This research is mostly carried out by skeptics, and most of the links on this page are not to researchers, but to skeptical writers. This is a very poor article that hurts wikipedia's reputation, and articles like this and others on related topics cause many people to look upon wikipedia as an unreliable resource on many other topics. Why can't there be a place on wikipedia for knowledge on these topics, and not just one point of view? Eameece (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)eameece

In popular culture

I removed this section because it is unsourced original research and taking far too much of the article. If anyone objects please discuss it here and we can talk about if. Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Fairly typical for so-called 'popular culture' sections of articles. Full of unsourced examples (often trivial), and completely lacking any sourced material actually analysing telepathy in popular culture as a subject. At minimum, inclusion in such sections needs to meet the same standard as other material - by citing third-party sources that discuss particular instances of telepathy as elements of popular culture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Telepathy and pseudoscience

This edit in my opinion does not reflect the cited sources [1], because none of those sources in the lead mention telepathy being pseudoscience, they say there is no evidence for telepathy and it is non-existent. We already cover parapsychology being a pseudoscience on the article in another section, so there is no need to cover it twice. I have no problem with telepathy being described as pseudoscience but we cannot attribute statements that are not in the cited sources.

The statement "There is no scientific evidence that telepathy is a real phenomenon. Many studies seeking to detect, understand, and utilize telepathy have been carried out, but no replicable results from well-controlled experiments exist." Is more accurate to what the sources say that are in the lead. TreeTrailer (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

It doesn't need a cite in the lede unless you think it is controversial. Kindly change it back. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment?

Although Jacobo Grinberg is mentioned in wikipedia: there is no mention of this experiment. The experiment is simple - cut and dried. Put 2 people in a room, then separate them into individual chambers where their respective brains are connected to an EEG. Bombard one patient with light pulses and find that the other also senses it according to his EEG readout. The outcome - so I have heard was about 25% positive for patients - way above statistical noise. The experiment has been replicated elsewhere (e.g. "Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects" by Standish et al.). The mechanisms suggested are quantum nonlocality and consciousness. This in itself does not prove TP exists - only that its potential is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.85.61.113 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Either that, or it is a mistake in experimental design. Let's wait for the replication and the secondary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake's work

Sheldrake has published some of the more convincing evidence for telepathy. Is there a reason for it to be left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As soon as something is published by a reliable source it can be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay658, Can you please give some links and other information regarding this? Misty MH (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Spiritual Telepathy

Schizophrenia is not always the appropriate explanation for telepathic thoughts and is dismissive of any real communications with the spiritual. Blove2012 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think some mention should occur in the article for topics that may be related, such as: "word of knowledge", revelation, prophecy, etc. Misty MH (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that make that connection, why not. If you can't, see WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dismissive is good, when the thing being dismissed is a childish fantasy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Change in wording

The beginning of the article states that there exists "No convincing evidence". Convincing to whom? Clearly some people are convinced of telepathy based on their observations, while others are not convinced. Therefore, the word "Convinced" is far too subjective since it does not specify those convinced. Therefore the word should be changed to something more objective.2401:7000:DB65:8A00:FD9B:DF21:1E43:10B3 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. I changed "convincing" to "good". There is a consensus in science as to what constitutes good evidence, although most parapsychologists do not agree with, or understand the reasons for, that consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)