Re: FW: FW: virus: Does God really exist?/Telepathy
Fri, 23 Aug 96 10:03:49 BST

Wow, I've been away from my terminal for fourteen hours, and all of a sudden
there are 29 new messages. I'm going to have a go at looking at the ones which
I can reply to, but I think I'm going to fail...wish me luck!

Ken Pantheists wrote:

> God or brain radio.... do I have to chose? Are they mutually exclusive?

They are not mutually exclusive. In one sense, God is defined as the group as
a whole, as they are the ones producing the images and fellings used to be the
basis for the existance of God. So assuming that God doesn't exist, then
God and brain radio are the same thing.

In another sense, the brian waves themselves are "God", as they are the ones
producing the feelings directly. It depends on your standpoint over what nature
God would take.

Reed Konsler wrote:

>Wolves coordinate activity in hunting, as do lions and other pack predators.
>Are they telepathic?
>Come on! That's such a cop out explanation.

How do you know that isn't how a wolf pack coordinates it's hunts. Do you know
what capacities the wolverine brain has?

It is unfair, and narrow-minded to dismiss such a theory out of hand, without a
scrap of evidence. Admittedly, there's no hard proof for it, but there is more
circumstancial evidence for than there is against. This would make me decide,
as a rational being, with an understanding of probablity, that the option with
the most evidence is more likely to be correct.

As I've said before, we know little of what the brain is capable of, and as
someone else mentioned (I've got too many emails to sort through and find out
who, so forgive me for not mentioning your name), the brain is so powerful, and
so good at what it does, that it doesn't bother to tell us exactly what it's
doing all the time. Since it does so many things that we don't know about,
there is the scope for telepathy.

Chris Anderson wrote:

>I often wonder if it's like ripples in time. You can pick up something that
>is about to happen because this wave/event is coming towards you and you get
>a bit of warning through some sensory input.

This is an idea that I must admit I havn't contemplated. But now I look at it,
is seems like quite a good idea. The concept of something moving backwards in
time is fairly difficult to grasp. Scientifically, so far, it's not considered
possible, but many scientist have looked at the implementation of time travel
quite seriously. If it could occur naturally (and many scientific discoveries
do - although not all things, like artificial chemicals), then it's likely that
we would encounter it eventually, due to the laws of probablitity.

If I return briefly to the mention of shamenism here, I'm slightly embarrassed
to admit it, but I own an album by the band "The Shamen", and on one track, it's
like ambient music, with a running commentary over the top discussing Shamens
practices, and various philosophical ideas surrounding it. I'd like to quote:

"an object in hyper-space, glistening in hyper-space...that's throwing off
reflections of itself, which riquochet into the past..."

In response to David McFadzean's suggestion that we assume that all telepathic
communication must be within eye contact, and to make this our official stand
point, I would have to disagree.

When I begun talking about telepathy, I was not only offering it up as a
communications network, but also as a way to explain religious phenomenon.
To use an example, Astral Projections - that is the appearance of a ghost-like
apparition before another person, who is somehow connected to the image of
this phantom (ie, a friend or relative). There have been no occurrences that
I've heard of where astral projections have materialised while the source is
still within eye range.

On the other hand, if we are going to boil telepathy down to just inter-group
communication, then perhaps eye contact is a necessity. This would help control
the number of people who recieve the message, hence the few number of people
who claim to have had serious psychic experiences.

I still think it's a bit of a shaky stance though.

Plus, we seem to be getting further away from the initial purpose of this
thread, which was to come to some kind of general agreement over the existance
of God. Sorry, it might be my fault that we've digressed a little.


Richard Jones
"I've cried for Earth, more than once, but rivers still run, with reddest