Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Mind-to-mind communication links?

Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

20 Nov 2018, 4:16 pm

Raleigh wrote:
NDs emit more stress.


Very possible, but if they emit stress, and this can be detected, then that proves that emotional transfer works. Especially given that many NDs miss facial expressions and body language which are normally used to detect stress, and which requires seeing the other person.

Besides, the most enjoyable is to send happy emotions. It's like NTs compliments.



Raleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jul 2014
Age: 124
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,224
Location: Out of my mind

20 Nov 2018, 4:35 pm

I've actually read a book of scientific studies on this subject, which I can't remember the name of and I can't find it by googling keywords.
It explored phenomena about how stressed individuals cause electromagnetic interference and create 'paranormal' activity around them.


_________________
It's like I'm sleepwalking


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,887
Location: Stendec

20 Nov 2018, 5:22 pm

cberg wrote:
I'm calling BS on Fnord here, if you're going to refute something, prove it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sorry, kid, but the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. You claim these things exist, so it is up to you to prove them. I claim that they don't exist, still leaving it up to you to prove them.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,887
Location: Stendec

20 Nov 2018, 5:33 pm

rdos wrote:
OK, now I'll move on to the evidence that Fnord claim is missing. First, I've surveyed supernatural issues several times, as well as being able to detect electromagnetic fields.
Evidence, please?
rdos wrote:
These issues are always linked to neurodiversity.
Evidence, please?
rdos wrote:
NDs are more likely both to believe in supernatural things, experience them and also practice them.
Evidence, please?
rdos wrote:
NDs claim to be more likely to be able to detect electromagnetic fields.
Evidence, please?
rdos wrote:
I've proved this with large datasets at several points. One of these are also published: Ekblad, L., Oviedo, L. (2017) Religious cognition among subjects with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Defective or different? Clinical Neuropsychiatry 14(4):287-296 (link: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _different)
Researchgate poses as a peer-review journal, when it is actually only an outlet for any fake science article that any member cares to post. Members are not vetted as degreed scientists. Profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs, if available, from around the web. ResearchGate has also been criticized for failing to provide safeguards against "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and fake impact ratings. It has also been caught in copyright infringement of public works. In addition, their "Journal Impact Scores" are inflated, more often than not. Neither of the alleged "Authors" of your article show up in any scholarly index that I have access to, either.
rdos wrote:
Next, to verify that NDs could sense somebody's presence without seeing them, I had a survey in Aspie Quiz. I've not yet completed this article, but the data shows that NDs are more likely to sense this, and in the comments, several people describe similar things as I did in the other post. These answers also link to sensing electromagnetic fields, which makes it quite likely that the communication link uses electromagnetic fields.
You "quiz" lacks validity, in that it is based solely on subjective testimony, none of which has been vetted or verified.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

20 Nov 2018, 7:26 pm

Fnord wrote:
cberg wrote:
I'm calling BS on Fnord here, if you're going to refute something, prove it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sorry, kid, but the burden of proof is is on the person who makes the positive claim. You claim these things exist, so it is up to you to prove them. I claim that they don't exist, still leaving it up to you to prove them.


We are not children but your impression is pretty convincing. Throwing something back in our faces & calling it stupid isn't proof at all.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

20 Nov 2018, 9:23 pm

Piobaire wrote:
Possibly the only thing more stupefying than rdos's fact-free assertions is that someone would be stupid enough to step up to defend them.


That or, more likely, we're all wrong. Either way you're discouraging conjecture about determining the actual nature of consciousness which by the way, we know practically nothing about.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

21 Nov 2018, 2:46 am

Fnord, I'm not having a discussion with you about what is real science and what is not. I'm not going to argue about the validity of Aspie Quiz, or the conclusions either. That's completely off topic in this thread.

You asked for proof, I gave you empirical proof using large populations, which you brushed-off based on idiotic claims about my research. I think that is the end of our discussion about science and proof.