Like I said in the 'Building The New Jerusalem' post there is a need to embrace technology when it enables us to do what we thought only 'magicians' can do. I compared Al buraq with a modern Aeroplane. During the time of prophet Muhammad, only magicians could move from Mecca to Jerusalem overnight! They pulled a 'magic wand' and voila! A creature termed Al buraq appeared from nowhere and then took you to Mecca, Jerusalem, stars and even to heaven! I then pose the question to the 'gurus' who fight anyone trying to understand their 'magics'; does the existence of Al buraq obviates the need to invent an aeroplane? If no, why should we stop there? We can go on and try to invent all those things that the likes of Muslims etc experienced or imagined. We can try to heal the seek, move to heaven, resurrect the death etc. Today, I will zero in on artificial telepathy.
The other advantage in trying to understand even what people call it 'magics' is that it helps you see how trivial the sceptic vs believers arguments are! You, for instance, won't encounter any much resistance to the 'synthetic telepathy' idea from amongst scientists, and yet to the natural telepathy idea, it seems someone (eg Sheldrake), is coming up with a totaly outrageous idea that cannot possibly have a tickle of scientific support. That is when you get to understand that scientists are not as objective as they like to appear! Like religionists, they won't believe something if they don't want to believe it, regardless of evidence! Like religionists, they will always insist that 'they follow evidence'. One cannot properly shave his own head, and as such scientists should accept to be judged by those outside the 'science' clique on whether or not they adhere to scientific methods. They should avoid being the players and the referees all at once.
If you believe that artificial telepathy is possible, what problem do you have with natural telepathy? Why will you lash at the latter idea so much? There are numerous cases that shows a one to one correspondence between natural technology and artificial one. There is a natural camera (eye) and there is an artificial one etc. In fact, when it comes to biological organism, it is very hard to find something artificial without finding a corresponding natural counterpart. Nature (or God) had proven very clever! It even make perfect sense to demonstrate how something like telepathy can be by trying to make an artificial one. If you can make an artificial telepathy, sure enough, there must be a natural one! Scientists used to think that compass directions have no natural counterparts. It is now known that many living things have more advanced natural compasses that uses earth's magnetic fields and even quantum mechanics! In other words nature was already applying quantum mechanics millions of years before humans discover it!
My main aim here is to use synthetic telepathy to illustrate how natural one can be. With this I can show a scientist who scoffs so much at telepathy that he has no justification. While telepathy may not have been demonstrated, at least not, enough, it doesn't deserve the criticism it often meets. Neither has string theory been demonstrated etc.
If you have searched into 'synthetic telepathy' research, you will note that they tend to consider some brain to computer interface whereby the computer first try to read what is going on in a human or an animal brain. They seem to consider only the case where the computer first decodes what is in the brain and then sends it to remote. They seem to forget that the brain itself is the ultimate computer that they often simply aim at, eg in 'artificial intelligence'. While the idea of connecting the brain to a computer will be useful in making such things as mind controled robot arms, legs etc (which can help paralysed people), one can argue that the computer-aided interface part is unnecessary for a mere telepathy. In the latter, the communicating brains themselves and will act as the even more excellent computers. With the approach that I will use, the 'synthetic telepathy' will look one step more natural than first connecting brains to chips or wires etc. Eventually we will remove the artificial all together and see how the purely natural telepathy can work!
One area that we can use is 'brain waves'. Note that one of the two main reasons why scientists think that natural telepathy is impossible is that they think that EM waves emanating from the brain are too weak and of too low frequency. So if we can artificialy boost the small signals from the brain, then maybe we can send it over vast distances. To send electromagnetic waves over vast distances, we need boosters, which are electronic amplifiers. Then at the other end, we will need to decode the message. It is in decoding the message that makes the 'synthetic telepathy' researchers think of the computer interface. But I don't think this is necessary. People can learn themselves to decode the 'images' they see. In my view, if you are thinking of say a lion, and then a certain pattern of EM waves is generated by such thoughts, then if the same pattern of EM waves is fed into your brain, a vision of the lion will come to your awareness. This is because the EM waves will drive the brain to think the same way it thought when it was generating the similar pattern much the same way as in if you move the wheels of a car, it will drive the stearing wheel in the same way the stearing wheel moved to drive the wheels in the same way you have now moved the wheels. A similar logic also works in reconstruction of holograms.
So we can easily see that the brain itself is an excellent decoder of telepathic message. We don't need a computer to do that. The brain itself IS a computer! Next, we will see that the brain is also an amplifier! Since it is never claimed by telepathy proponents that telepathy is easy done, it makes sense to think of a brain state that is not easily attained. Maybe such a state is the 'powerfull transmitter' state. Can the brain, at least at some moments, emit as powerful EM waves as a cellphone can emit? I think it can! The total energy in the brain exceeds the energy in a cellphone, yet the latter can 'send a messag' 'all the way accross the globe while the former cannot communicate even to an adjuscent neighbor? I think scientists must be jocking! The brain must be an excellent amplifier since it uses sodium channel pumbs in much way your cell phone uses the bases of transistors as 'gates'. When small signals opens channels in neurones, a much larger signal will pass across the neurones. The signal opening or closing sodium channels acts in exactly the same way signals opens or closes gates in a transistor. When small signals thus gates and hence controls gates for larger signal, amplified version of the small signals is seen to be happening in the larger currents passing through the manipulated gates.
So the brain is both an excellent computer and an excellent amplifier! If these artificial interfaces are the ones scientists see as necessary to form a 'synthetic telepathy', we have just seen that then a natural one is easily obtained! Perhaps all we need is to train (program?) our brains to act as decoders and amplifiers, which they definitely can! So if scientists have no much problem with 'synthetic telepathy', neither should they have a problem with a natural one! By the way as for the boosterd, the brain can use the brains of other people around or even of animals or etheric beings etc. You don't have to send information directly to a brain accross the globe. That will require tremendous energy. You can relay the signal through intermittent brains that lie in between. These can even be animal or etheric brains etc.
Comments