Strange....(my theory)

[Chupi]

Moved to where it belongs, the meta board.

[Guest Dreagar]

Just wanted to put this out there~

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/incomplete-history-telepathy-science/

My Dad and I were discussing his crazy abilities, when we came across some of his telepathy work. Do some research and learn how scary it is. I swear, each time I discuss him, I get a little more afraid of him.

[waffles]

Just wanted to put this out there~

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/incomplete-history-telepathy-science/

My Dad and I were discussing his crazy abilities, when we came across some of his telepathy work. Do some research and learn how scary it is. I swear, each time I discuss him, I get a little more afraid of him.

 

Derren Brown. TV magician on Channel 4. I don't know if you're familiar with Channel 4's reputation, but when it comes to documentary I'd rater trust the History channel. He is not a scientist, and not a mind-reader. I'm not saying that he's fraudulent, only that his 'work' isn't meant for peer review.

If he is your most credible exhibition of ES then you're finished.

[Guest Dreagar]

If he is your most credible exhibition of ES then you're finished.

 

Nah, just thought it'd be a nice addition to the thread.

[waffles]

So, another false proof for a thread full of false proofs? It fits right in here.

I guess I'll summarise:

There is no proper scientific evidence for ES. No results have ever been yielded ina controlled environment, or reported by a reputable organisation, despite the fact that it has been 'studied' for nearly a century at least. This alone discredits the idea of ES.

[Guest Dreagar]

So, another false proof for a thread full of false proofs? It fits right in here.

I guess I'll summarise:

There is no proper scientific evidence for ES. No results have ever been yielded ina controlled environment, or reported by a reputable organisation, despite the fact that it has been 'studied' for nearly a century at least. This alone discredits the idea of ES.

 

Eager to end this, are we? The discussion'll continue, but us lowly mortals need breaks, y'know. But I do agree, "No results have ever been yielded *in a controlled environment, or reported by a reputable organisation" You're right, but there's still something there we need to study, and it wont go away for the foreseeable future. Much to your delightful displeasure.

[waffles]

 

Eager to end this, are we? The discussion'll continue, but us lowly mortals need breaks, y'know. But I do agree, "No results have ever been yielded *in a controlled environment, or reported by a reputable organisation" You're right, but there's still something there we need to study, and it wont go away for the foreseeable future. Much to your delightful displeasure.

 

I can't see a point of continuation here.

What do we need to study, and why? Why can't we dismiss this here? Why doesn't an abject lack of evidence completely discredit ES? Why would discussion continue here when there's nothing left to say?

[Queen Chrysalis]

A test to determine whether or not tulpas can interact with the outside world:

 

Hypothesis: The crumb may move [i'm trying to avoid frontloading here].

Method: I asked the tulpa to try moving a crumb of bread. I then tried myself to move the crumb.

Result: The crumb did not move either way.

Conclusion: Given that my tulpa is well developed and the crumb did not even weigh enough for me to feel its presence on my finger when I placed it there, there couldn't have reasonably been a much better set of circumstances for this phenomenon to be shown. However, the tulpa was observed to be unable to interact with the pen at all. Likewise I, though unpracticed in telekinesis, was not able to move it. Therefore I conclude that I have basis to believe that tulpas cannot interact with the outside world, and I am not telekinetic, even if it is not thoroughly proven.

 

There. Less mass.

I was already pleased with your previous attempt, but this has pleased me much more. Now all it needs is to be reproduced.

This is a crime against evolutionary theory.

Yes, it is. For someone as fully capable of grasping the true method of evolution as you to callously dismiss it is truly a crime.

Humans are no longer evolving.

What causes one to suicide and another to opt not to? Should there prove to be any genetic consistency to the group of people susceptible to suicide, evolution is certainly occurring.

There is no mutation that would evolve to be prevalent.

Mutation only drives microbial evolution. The introduction of sexual reproduction has caused the rate of evolution to increase dramatically. Now you have a vast and varying gene pool that can kill off entire clouds of organisms simply for being on the lower end of the genetic spectrum. There is far less spectrum involved in microbial genetics, but mutation is far from the driving force of sexually reproducing multicellular life.

The population by now is too large for a beneficial mutation to ever become prevalent, even if there were such a thing.

Yes, it is a wonder of evolution. Modern medicine is allowing every member of your species to survive, allowing for the most diverse gene pool ever to exist. You will of course see this as a travesty because you do not look at the theory of evolution in proper depth, thinking only that this stunts the evolution of your species, when this could not be more incorrect. The existence of "weakness" in a gene pool does not prevent or dissuade the development of the alpha members of the species. Yes, the "X-men" gene, should such a thing ever arise, would not dominate, but to disallow domination would by no means impede its existence.

A stable environment discourages all evolution.

It encourages the widening of a gene pool.

When there is no longer any real threat to reproduction, there won't be beneficial evolution.

Yes, there will be. There will also be destructive evolution. There will be both. There is always both. You can stop neither from happening. What you can do is kill off the less healthy half. This has no effect on the reproduction of alpha-choosing alphas.

Remember too that success in life - such as may be propagated by telepathy/telekinesis - does not really influence production of children and thus does not factor in to evolution.

It most certainly does. There are specific psychological conditions in which your species chooses to bear children. While most may end up reproducing, some will reproduce more than others. This drives evolution every bit as much as death without any reproduction does. It is not a binary science. It is based on gradients and statistics. Being the slowest in the herd does not guarantee a death sentence, it merely makes you and your children more likely to be caught before reproducing as many times as the fastest among your species is liable to do so.

 

Remember to assess what you are frontloaded with, as blind faith in the competence of your instructor is dogma.

Evolution also cannot take place over decades.

Observe the story of the peppered moth. A drastic change in environment, coupled with a gene pool all too ready to make a drastic color adaptation, resulted in a textbook example of punctuated equilibrium.

 

I did not state that this psychic awakening was the result of genetic evolution. It is a result of the drastic change in environment. The same drastic change that has resulted in the final uprising of the tulpa phenomenon. I wish to cause the psychic awakening to follow immediately on the footsteps of the tulpa phenomenon. I argue evolution merely to demonstrate competency; it aides in convincing others to conduct the experiment you have outlined.

Besides this, telepathy or telekinesis is only beneficial to survival. Tulpas may not be, but complex ability such as these would still evolve were it possible.

I suppose dragons as well should breath fire and plague the land. It is amusing that you already ceded this point to Dreagar.

The whole horror culture that grew up around the concept means that even now no respectable scientist would touch it with a ten-foot pole. It is not because it can't be reciprocated in a controlled environment, but because there is no access to such an environment.

That is what I meant. It is no accident that we have no access to such an environment as of yet.

Imagine you are a respectable psychologist. You come here and see someone named 'Queen Chrysalis' with a cartoon pony avatar posting basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory with a side-dish of pretense.

I would think that it should only surprise them further when that cartoon pony demonstrated arguable competence.

This place isn't respectable.

Why thank you for the compliment. I did not realize I spoke on sole behalf of tulpa.info itself.

I gave a justification of why it doesn't,

You did not. You rambled on unrelated phenomena. Citing an infinite number of ways two things are not related does not make them unrelated. All it takes is a single example to show it.

Address that.

I do not need to. That ponies are affected by the attitudes of others is self-evident. Everypony has felt sympathy. I need not prove it any more than I need to prove your own existence.

[waffles]

I was already pleased with your previous attempt, but this has pleased me much more. Now all it needs is to be reproduced.

I'm sure you and your host can reproduce the lack of movement yourselves.

 

Yes, it is. For someone as fully capable of grasping the true method of evolution as you to callously dismiss it is truly a crime.

The crime I was referring to was your butchering of evolutionary theory.

Before we go on, I should state that it is natural selection that no longer occurs in humans. This is evolution - the changing of genetic characteristics through generations - pointed towards survival; that is, the species as a whole inherits beneficial characteristics.

 

What causes one to suicide and another to opt not to? Should there prove to be any genetic consistency to the group of people susceptible to suicide, evolution is certainly occurring.

Suicide tends to be situational; while some are more likely to commit suicide, it tends to be a bad situation that brings out these tendencies; the point being that it's not completely genetic. Besides that, suicide rates are too low to really make an impact, and many perpetrators have already reproduced.

Another point: this is at the other end of natural selection, where the undesirable members die, as opposed to the desirable members having many children. When it comes to talking about useful traits evolving, it isn't of much use, mainly because in a controlled environment, some traits can lead to less children than average, while virtually none will lead to more and thus proliferate.

 

Mutation only drives microbial evolution. The introduction of sexual reproduction has caused the rate of evolution to increase dramatically. Now you have a vast and varying gene pool that can kill off entire clouds of organisms simply for being on the lower end of the genetic spectrum. There is far less spectrum involved in microbial genetics, but mutation is far from the driving force of sexually reproducing multicellular life.

When I said 'mutation' what I should have said was 'gene'.

However, sexual reproduction does not allow sub-standard members of the species to not pass on their genes when they are good enough to survive. In the wild, being on the lower end doesn't necessarily mean that you won't survive; in a co tropes environment it's nonsense.

 

Yes, it is a wonder of evolution. Modern medicine is allowing every member of your species to survive, allowing for the most diverse gene pool ever to exist. You will of course see this as a travesty because you do not look at the theory of evolution in proper depth, thinking only that this stunts the evolution of your species, when this could not be more incorrect. The existence of "weakness" in a gene pool does not prevent or dissuade the development of the alpha members of the species. Yes, the "X-men" gene, should such a thing ever arise, would not dominate, but to disallow domination would by no means impede its existence.

It encourages the widening of a gene pool.

Modern society is making the gene pool less diverse, as previously isolates communities lose their genetic individuality when integrated with a connected population.

The problem with the whole 'alpha' thing is that prime members of the species - judge that how you will - no longer have more children. If a gene of prime members do not proliferate then it is subject to a random process that may well wipe it out.

 

Yes, there will be. There will also be destructive evolution. There will be both. There is always both. You can stop neither from happening. What you can do is kill off the less healthy half. This has no effect on the reproduction of alpha-choosing alphas.

Again, as long as the gene's being beneficial cannot influence child-making the it will not do well. As long as this is true, then it won't expand within the gene pool, and may well die out.

You can't kill off the less healthy half either. It's ethically off the scales.

 

It most certainly does. There are specific psychological conditions in which your species chooses to bear children. While ost may end up reproducing, some will reproduce more than others. This drives evolution every bit as much as death without any reproduction does. It is not a binary science. It is based on gradients and statistics. Being the slowest in the herd does not guarantee a death sentence, it merely makes you and your children more likely to be caught before reproducing as many times as the fastest among your species is liable to do so.

No, this is not true. Better members of the modern human species do not reproduce more.

 

 

Remember to assess what you are frontloaded with, as blind faith in the competence of your instructor is dogma.

Observe the story of the peppered moth. A drastic change in environment, coupled with a gene pool all too ready to make a drastic color adaptation, resulted in a textbook example of punctuated equilibrium.

 

I did not state that this psychic awakening was the result of genetic evolution. It is a result of the drastic change in environment. The same drastic change that has resulted in the final uprising of the tulpa phenomenon. I wish to cause the psychic awakening to follow immediately on the footsteps of the tulpa phenomenon. I argue evolution merely to demonstrate competency; it aides in convincing others to conduct the experiment you have outlined.

I suppose dragons as well should breath fire and plague the land. It is amusing that you already ceded this point to Dreagar.

That is what I meant. It is no accident that we have no access to such an environment as of yet.

I would think that it should only surprise them further when that cartoon pony demonstrated arguable competence.

Why thank you for the compliment. I did not realize I spoke on sole behalf of tulpa.info itself.

You did not. You rambled on unrelated phenomena. Citing an infinite number of ways two things are not related does not make them unrelated. All it takes is a single example to show it.

I do not need to. That ponies are affected by the attitudes of others is self-evident. Everypony has felt sympathy. I need not prove it any more than I need to prove your own existence.

[waffles]

I was already pleased with your previous attempt, but this has pleased me much more. Now all it needs is to be reproduced.

I'm sure you and your host can reproduce the lack of movement yourselves.

 

Yes, it is. For someone as fully capable of grasping the true method of evolution as you to callously dismiss it is truly a crime.

The crime I was referring to was your butchering of evolutionary theory.

Before we go on, I should state that it is natural selection that no longer occurs in humans. This is evolution - the changing of genetic characteristics through generations - pointed towards survival; that is, the species as a whole inherits beneficial characteristics.

 

What causes one to suicide and another to opt not to? Should there prove to be any genetic consistency to the group of people susceptible to suicide, evolution is certainly occurring.

Suicide tends to be situational; while some are more likely to commit suicide, it tends to be a bad situation that brings out these tendencies; the point being that it's not completely genetic. Besides that, suicide rates are too low to really make an impact, and many perpetrators have already reproduced.

Another point: this is at the other end of natural selection, where the undesirable members die, as opposed to the desirable members having many children. When it comes to talking about useful traits evolving, it isn't of much use, mainly because in a controlled environment, some traits can lead to less children than average, while virtually none will lead to more and thus proliferate.

 

Mutation only drives microbial evolution. The introduction of sexual reproduction has caused the rate of evolution to increase dramatically. Now you have a vast and varying gene pool that can kill off entire clouds of organisms simply for being on the lower end of the genetic spectrum. There is far less spectrum involved in microbial genetics, but mutation is far from the driving force of sexually reproducing multicellular life.

When I said 'mutation' what I should have said was 'gene'.

However, sexual reproduction does not allow sub-standard members of the species to not pass on their genes when they are good enough to survive. In the wild, being on the lower end doesn't necessarily mean that you won't survive; in a co tropes environment it's nonsense.

 

Yes, it is a wonder of evolution. Modern medicine is allowing every member of your species to survive, allowing for the most diverse gene pool ever to exist. You will of course see this as a travesty because you do not look at the theory of evolution in proper depth, thinking only that this stunts the evolution of your species, when this could not be more incorrect. The existence of "weakness" in a gene pool does not prevent or dissuade the development of the alpha members of the species. Yes, the "X-men" gene, should such a thing ever arise, would not dominate, but to disallow domination would by no means impede its existence.

It encourages the widening of a gene pool.

Modern society is making the gene pool less diverse, as previously isolates communities lose their genetic individuality when integrated with a connected population.

The problem with the whole 'alpha' thing is that prime members of the species - judge that how you will - no longer have more children. If a gene of prime members do not proliferate then it is subject to a random process that may well wipe it out.

 

Yes, there will be. There will also be destructive evolution. There will be both. There is always both. You can stop neither from happening. What you can do is kill off the less healthy half. This has no effect on the reproduction of alpha-choosing alphas.

Again, as long as the gene's being beneficial cannot influence child-making the it will not do well. As long as this is true, then it won't expand within the gene pool, and may well die out.

You can't kill off the less healthy half either. It's ethically off the scales.

 

It most certainly does. There are specific psychological conditions in which your species chooses to bear children. While ost may end up reproducing, some will reproduce more than others. This drives evolution every bit as much as death without any reproduction does. It is not a binary science. It is based on gradients and statistics. Being the slowest in the herd does not guarantee a death sentence, it merely makes you and your children more likely to be caught before reproducing as many times as the fastest among your species is liable to do so.

No, this is not true. Better members of the modern human species do not reproduce more. Being telepathic does not give you more children.

 

Observe the story of the peppered moth. A drastic change in environment, coupled with a gene pool all too ready to make a drastic color adaptation, resulted in a textbook example of punctuated equilibrium.

For sure, evolution as a whole can happen quickly. What I meant was that on a human scale that time period is too short.

There wasn't really a drastic change in environment that would necessitate telepathy, nor was the human life cycle ever one year. For the human population to make a change like the peppered moth would take two thousand years, and that's assuming we had the same rate of change by generation.

 

I did not state that this psychic awakening was the result of genetic evolution. It is a result of the drastic change in environment. The same drastic change that has resulted in the final uprising of the tulpa phenomenon. I wish to cause the psychic awakening to follow immediately on the footsteps of the tulpa phenomenon. I argue evolution merely to demonstrate competency; it aides in convincing others to conduct the experiment you have outlined.

There was never a change in environment that would make telepathy more beneficial than it already was, and there has been no change at all between tulpas not being prevalent and being (comparatively) so.

 

I suppose dragons as well should breath fire and plague the land. It is amusing that you already ceded this point to Dreagar.

Err... what?

 

You did not. You rambled on unrelated phenomena. Citing an infinite number of ways two things are not related does not make them unrelated. All it takes is a single example to show it.

I do not need to. That ponies are affected by the attitudes of others is self-evident. Everypony has felt sympathy. I need not prove it any more than I need to prove your own existence.

Assuming that we are still talking about my view on telepathy here, I'll restate my point quickly.

Even if my view does serve to discourage people from believing in ES, it doesn't matter as my view is based on their being no evidence. Were there reason to believe in ES then I wouldn't hold this view.