Animal Communicator?

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=no.stirrups;8899970]
I’m kind of amused, in a head-shaking sort of way, at the ridiculous attempts to rationalize and oversimplify everything by the skeptics. As if it is feasible that we humans have an understanding and explanation of everything that happens in the universe. Scientists can’t even explain gravity yet, for Pete’s sake! Shall we debate whether it exists?

Or really, we could just allow the thread to stick with it’s original message, which is an opportunity for people to share their EXPERIENCES with animal communicators. Not their skepticism, or why they won’t ever have an experience to share. Just show enough respect for the OP to either answer the question, or move on.

I know, very wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

Well, put yourself in the shoes of those others you deride.

It is surprising to think that, just because we can’t know everything, we should then start believing in some of what we don’t know some invent, on all sorts of claims of improbable things, like imaginary beings or strange, far out actions.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=no.stirrups;8899970]
I’m kind of amused, in a head-shaking sort of way, at the ridiculous attempts to rationalize and oversimplify everything by the skeptics. As if it is feasible that we humans have an understanding and explanation of everything that happens in the universe. Scientists can’t even explain gravity yet, for Pete’s sake! Shall we debate whether it exists?

Excuse me? Newton explained gravity a couple of centuries back. Not necessarily the precise way it works but very precisely how to calculate it and and what it does. There was a “there” there and he dealt with it rather well.

We can end a debate on gravity by having anyone who doubts it jump up in the air. If there is no gravity they’ll just keep going. If there is then the Earth will reclaim them. QED.

Those of us who are skeptics are amused, in a head-shaking sort of way, at the ridiculous attempts to irrationalize and over complicate everything by the True Believers.

Or really, we could just allow the thread to stick with it’s original message, which is an opportunity for people to share their EXPERIENCES with animal communicators. Not their skepticism, or why they won’t ever have an experience to share. Just show enough respect for the OP to either answer the question, or move on.

In other words anyone who disagrees should just shut the Hell up. Isn’t that a sign of our modern times?!?!?!?!

I know, very wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

“Wishful thinking” appears to be a popular malady with some.

G.

[Reynard]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8898175]
The AC doesn’t have to be with the animal, it makes no difference in the reading, since as I said before they aren’t picking up body language.

In the sessions I have been involved with the AC asks for the horses’ name and color to ensure they are picking up on the right one. Then they answer any questions I have and generally “scan” the horse to see if there is anything they are picking up.

I have had them pick up on many things that I never told them, including a very odd trait my horse has that is fairly unusual.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8899900]
Sure. He likes whatever shade he sees. It isn’t red/orange/pink as we see it. But he sees some sort of color and he likes it.

And if he were going to communicate to you that he liked that color, he would be sending the color he sees and likes. Not the one we see and like and he can’t even perceive.

It would be a color. But it wouldn’t be what you know of as red.[/QUOTE]

Well, we do not even know for sure that horses have a thinking concept that includes the category we humans call “color”. There is no way to know for sure how it is the horse processes what it sees- and whether this idea of “color” exists for horses in the same conceptual way it does for humans. I would venture to say probably not, for all kinds of reasons-- like different survival needs, different brain capacity, different means of communication, etc, etc. While science may shed light on what colors horses see, it is not at all clear on what they do with that information or how it is processed.

So, if my horse is thinking about-- in whatever manner horses do this-- about how he likes to eat things that have the same color as apples-- or how things the color of apples should be edible and he gets angry when they are not-- or something along those lines-- then he is going to think about a color that I call “red”. As said, I have no idea if horses conceptually even have a notion of “color.”

But if someone were interpreting what my horse thinks, and it includes whatever thoughts he has about wanting to eat the things that share the color of apples, then the translation of this thought into human brain concepts WILL include the idea of the color red. The human recepient of a horse thought ( assume for a moment that this could happen even if you do not think so) then will at some level have to interpret that thought into human categories of thought. A bit like re-assembling a Morse code message perhaps into words.

So I have to disagree that a horse cannot communicate about the color red-- or whatever color-- the notional concept of color and red are human categories of whatever idea in horse thought that was-- it is an interpretation into human ways of thinking of horse ways of thinking. Of course humans and horses experience the world differently and process it differently-- so it would be silly to expect a literal and identical way of thinking of concepts, or even of having the same concepts.

[Sunflower]

As for how images or information are transmitted-- I had an interesting experience while teaching my college class this week. I could “see” what one student was thinking-- not literally see-- but-- almost-- I could see the phrase of what answer I was prompting them for in his head, but this student was so hesitant about whether he was right or not, that he was not volunteering an answer. So I said, “Yes, you are correct. What you are thinking is the right answer- can you share it?” The student gave me a baffled look, and gave the answer I had “seen”. A little later, again, I could “see” the answer in his head again and again asked him to share what he was thinking because it was correct. So he did. This time, he looked a bit unnerved, and asked if I was reading his mind.

The class went on. I could “see” what another student was thinking, and again urged him to give the answer he was thinking.

I could not “see” the thoughts of every student, nor the thoughts of either of these all the time, just something every now and again. Don’t ask me how it happened, I have no idea, it just does. I do not try to make these things happen. I do not conciously try to do this. But it happens often enough that I just go with it.

What was happening? No idea. Was I mind reading, i.e. telepathy? Maybe. Was i picking up on subtle unconcious or subconcious things-- maybe-- but both students were so hesitatant in their demeanor, they were not confident of what they were thinking, so it was not like they were offering body language of having the right answer.

Because of things like this, it is very hard in my own experience to discount the possibility of communication occuring through exchange of mental images or some other processs. Which means I am certainly open to the idea of animal communicators.

Oh, and correlation is not causation-- in either end of this discussion-- so the oft repeated allegation that no communicator has shown up and claimed this money or done whatever-- neither proves nor disproves anything. It is correlation. Not causation. Know the difference.

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8900001]
Well, put yourself in the shoes of those others you deride.

It is surprising to think that, just because we can’t know everything, we should then start believing in some of what we don’t know some invent, on all sorts of claims of improbable things, like imaginary beings or strange, far out actions.;)[/QUOTE]

when you experience it yourself, its totally different. Again, your skeptical nature is making it impossible to experience anything out of your narrow viewpoint.

(Brings me back to my “I am a scientist and narrow minded” then my horse died… then I became more open…this where I was going with that…)

Facts are super, I love facts. I love proof. and the best part? I have those for AC.

I didn’t invent anything, or quite frankly I didn’t ask for it either.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8900553]
As for how images or information are transmitted-- I had an interesting experience while teaching my college class this week. I could “see” what one student was thinking-- not literally see-- but-- almost-- I could see the phrase of what answer I was prompting them for in his head, but this student was so hesitant about whether he was right or not, that he was not volunteering an answer. So I said, “Yes, you are correct. What you are thinking is the right answer- can you share it?” The student gave me a baffled look, and gave the answer I had “seen”. A little later, again, I could “see” the answer in his head again and again asked him to share what he was thinking because it was correct. So he did. This time, he looked a bit unnerved, and asked if I was reading his mind.

The class went on. I could “see” what another student was thinking, and again urged him to give the answer he was thinking.

I could not “see” the thoughts of every student, nor the thoughts of either of these all the time, just something every now and again. Don’t ask me how it happened, I have no idea, it just does. I do not try to make these things happen. I do not conciously try to do this. But it happens often enough that I just go with it.

What was happening? No idea. Was I mind reading, i.e. telepathy? Maybe. Was i picking up on subtle unconcious or subconcious things-- maybe-- but both students were so hesitatant in their demeanor, they were not confident of what they were thinking, so it was not like they were offering body language of having the right answer.

Because of things like this, it is very hard in my own experience to discount the possibility of communication occuring through exchange of mental images or some other processs. Which means I am certainly open to the idea of animal communicators.

Oh, and correlation is not causation-- in either end of this discussion-- so the oft repeated allegation that no communicator has shown up and claimed this money or done whatever-- neither proves nor disproves anything. It is correlation. Not causation. Know the difference.[/QUOTE]

I do that regularly, looks like reading other’s minds, but is part of being partially deaf, you learn to go by so much else.

In fact, friends have at times told me to “quit reading their minds”, when I answer their questions before they had spoken.

There is much more to communication and what we know of the world around us, in very normal ways, that we know how it happens, than needing to find outlandish, involuted ways that ask we believe in supernatural powers.

Working with animals that is very plain, how they know so much more than we do at times, anticipating before we have a thought formed, like our own horses, as many that train horses can tell you.
The reason is not, again, found in any superpowers, but in “different”, but very natural, real abilities.

As technology advances, we have better and more refined ways to show and measure how that happens.

[Sunflower]

I do not think the non verbal communication of image exchange is supernatural. What could be more natural? Animals have complex non verbal communication. I remember playing hide and seek in my house with my Aussie shepherds. My bathroom had two doors. I hid in the bathtub behind a shower curtain. One Aussie guarded one door, the other-- the other- how did they plan that? Clearly, somehow, they communicated with each other to do that-- but how? That is a fairly complex level of team work and organization-- wolf packs do it on a much grander scale.

It was not supernatural powers. It was just-- what happened.

So again, the idea of image transmission or some other form of communication that has the label of mind reading or whathaveyou-- I do not think it is supernatural, but I do think it is very natural. I think it is happening all over the place, all around us. Humans are just bad at it most of the time.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8900634]
I do not think the non verbal communication of image exchange is supernatural. What could be more natural? Animals have complex non verbal communication. I remember playing hide and seek in my house with my Aussie shepherds. My bathroom had two doors. I hid in the bathtub behind a shower curtain. One Aussie guarded one door, the other-- the other- how did they plan that? Clearly, somehow, they communicated with each other to do that-- but how? That is a fairly complex level of team work and organization-- wolf packs do it on a much grander scale.

It was not supernatural powers. It was just-- what happened.

So again, the idea of image transmission or some other form of communication that has the label of mind reading or whathaveyou-- I do not think it is supernatural, but I do think it is very natural. I think it is happening all over the place, all around us. Humans are just bad at it most of the time.[/QUOTE]

That is true, but we were talking about people telling what horses are thinking on consultations over the phone, hundreds and thousands of miles away, never having seen the horse and insist those people are way better than randomly right.

That I think falls under the supernatural?

[Lady_Eboshi]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8900634]
I do not think the non verbal communication of image exchange is supernatural. What could be more natural? Animals have complex non verbal communication. I remember playing hide and seek in my house with my Aussie shepherds. My bathroom had two doors. I hid in the bathtub behind a shower curtain. One Aussie guarded one door, the other-- the other- how did they plan that? Clearly, somehow, they communicated with each other to do that-- but how? That is a fairly complex level of team work and organization-- wolf packs do it on a much grander scale.

It was not supernatural powers. It was just-- what happened.

So again, the idea of image transmission or some other form of communication that has the label of mind reading or whathaveyou-- I do not think it is supernatural, but I do think it is very natural. I think it is happening all over the place, all around us. Humans are just bad at it most of the time.[/QUOTE]

Non-verbal communication between species, certainly. Every day, all the time!
PHONE communication between HUMANS about a third-party horse the “reader” has never met and can’t see? Well, what G. said above.

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8900727]
That is true, but we were talking about people telling what horses are thinking on consultations over the phone, hundreds and thousands of miles away, never having seen the horse and insist those people are way better than randomly right.

That I think falls under the supernatural?[/QUOTE]

I suppose it depends on how you define “supernatural.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398587

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234565

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398587

These articles neither prove nor disprove anything conclusively. They do however offer some scientific explanations for the general proposition of non verbal communication over distance. The associated changes in brain wave function are an interesting correlation, as is the whole field of quantam physics.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8900545]
But if someone were interpreting what my horse thinks, and it includes whatever thoughts he has about wanting to eat the things that share the color of apples, then the translation of this thought into human brain concepts WILL include the idea of the color red. [/QUOTE]

Well, it would include the idea of red in the sense that “things that share the color of apples” would include red, yellow, and green.

There’s no particular reason to assume the horse means red over the other colors. In fact, if the image on this page is at all close to what a horse physically sees (which is different than how they think about it), red/green/yellow apples all probably look about the same color to horses. Different shades/hues, but they are all coming across as yellowish in the altered pictures.

You’re still talking about the human being able to add in information that doesn’t exist in the horse’s world when receiving communication. Of taking picture D, for example, and knowing that if the horse is thinking “I like the color of the triangle flag thing on my rider’s wrist” and knowing it is orange, not the yellow of the rider’s cuffs, despite the two being the same in the horse’s vision.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8901114]
I suppose it depends on how you define “supernatural.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398587

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234565

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398587

These articles neither prove nor disprove anything conclusively. They do however offer some scientific explanations for the general proposition of non verbal communication over distance. The associated changes in brain wave function are an interesting correlation, as is the whole field of quantam physics.[/QUOTE]

Reading over the protocols I see some issues.

In the case of the mediums the article stated “Eight mediums who had previously demonstrated an ability to report accurate information in a laboratory settings…” Reading this report would be interesting to learn how this “demonstrated ability” was determined.

As to the other, the selection process would need a careful review.

In all of this I’m reminded of the opening scene in “Ghostbusters” where Bill Murray is conducting “research.” It’s presented as comedy but we’ve some big-time examples of fraudulent research in many areas. It’s a funny, but also a cautionary tale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn7-JZq0Yxs

G.

[no.stirrups]

Scientists can’t even explain gravity yet, for Pete’s sake! Shall we debate whether it exists?

Excuse me? Newton explained gravity a couple of centuries back.

No, actually. Newton described gravity and even figured out a way to calculate the strength of gravitational attraction. How or why it works is not yet understood. Physicists are perplexed by the weakness of gravity, for example, relative to the other fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Many scientists believe that gravity probably works across yet unknown dimensions which would bring its strength more into line with expectations. Speaking of which, most physicists believe there are 11 dimensions including the four known (length, width, depth, and time) though we can’t yet determine where “there” is, to use your own term.

Our understanding of gravity is not much better than our understanding of the mind-body connection, which we know to be there, but cannot yet explain, and don’t know how far it extends.

In other words anyone who disagrees should just shut the Hell up.

It is generally accepted board etiquette to not high-jack a thread. If you want to talk about something off-topic of the OP you can start your own thread. As for me, this will be my last post on the topic, out of respect for the OP.

But before I sign off, on the topic of science and communication from a distance, are you familiar with the behavior of paired electrons? Electrons in pairs spin in opposite directions. If the spin of one of the electrons is reversed, the other will reverse instantaneously. This happens regardless of distance. It has been observed consistently even at tremendous distances, such that even communication at the speed of light would not explain it – it is faster than that. If you do not accept this, then you are denying science. If you do accept this, how can you deny that it is possible for the mind-body connection to take place at a distance?

It is not my lack of scientific understanding that leads to my open mind. In fact quite the opposite. Largely due to my scientific literacy, I am able to accept that the possibilities are mind boggling, and little should be ruled out as possible. As long as the open mind is balanced by an awareness of the power of suggestion and the proclivity of some people to take advantage of that, there is no harm and no reason for others to get angry and defensive.

If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, you may PM me or start your own thread.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=no.stirrups;8901248]
No, actually. Newton described gravity and even figured out a way to calculate the strength of gravitational attraction. How or why it works is not yet understood. Physicists are perplexed by the weakness of gravity, for example, relative to the other fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Many scientists believe that gravity probably works across yet unknown dimensions which would bring its strength more into line with expectations. Speaking of which, most physicists believe there are 11 dimensions including the four known (length, width, depth, and time) though we can’t yet determine where “there” is, to use your own term.

This may be a distinction without a difference. I suspect my “jumping” test is quite adequate to demonstrate the effect of gravity in the Newtonian universe in which I live. It is most assuredly a “there.” That there may an imperfect understanding of the actual phenomena doesn’t alter what happens to my body in the here and now. These other dimensions might well exist but do they affect how I live and breathe? If not then they are like the many and varied “spirit” worlds that may or may not exist but have no independent effect on life in the here and now.

Our understanding of gravity is not much better than our understanding of the mind-body connection, which we know to be there, but cannot yet explain, and don’t know how far it extends.

The “mind-body” connection is an integral part of medical research, particularly in the world of drug development and testing. There “placebos” are commonly used precisely because the “mind-body” connection can create false information for researchers.

In other words anyone who disagrees should just shut the Hell up.

It is generally accepted board etiquette to not high-jack a thread. If you want to talk about something off-topic of the OP you can start your own thread. As for me, this will be my last post on the topic, out of respect for the OP.

The words in red are mine but from a different thread (IIRC) on different subject and in a different context. I’m not sure why they are here. What is their purpose?

But before I sign off, on the topic of science and communication from a distance, are you familiar with the behavior of paired electrons? Electrons in pairs spin in opposite directions. If the spin of one of the electrons is reversed, the other will reverse instantaneously. This happens regardless of distance. It has been observed consistently even at tremendous distances, such that even communication at the speed of light would not explain it – it is faster than that. If you do not accept this, then you are denying science. If you do accept this, how can you deny that it is possible for the mind-body connection to take place at a distance?

I’m not familiar with the concept. But if you’re going to base an explanation upon it then it’s fair to ask for a demonstration. Be it by the Great Randi or some other means is irrelevant. It’s the demonstration (a “what”) that counts. Then we can figure out the how.

It is not my lack of scientific understanding that leads to my open mind. In fact quite the opposite. Largely due to my scientific literacy, I am able to accept that the possibilities are mind boggling, and little should be ruled out as possible. As long as the open mind is balanced by an awareness of the power of suggestion and the proclivity of some people to take advantage of that, there is no harm and no reason for others to get angry and defensive.

I’m a retired lawyer and retired Naval Aviator and a retired horse breeder. In the middle and latter roles I was exposed to all manner of scientific principles, mostly Physics or genetics. I am not an “illiterate” when it comes to scientific principles but there are many I don’t, and never will, understand. That does not mean I don’t know what I know and lots of what I don’t know. The lawyer provides the “spark of skepticism.” In that role I was involved in the interesting business of medical professional liability. I’m not an M.D. but I know a boatload of medicine. It was there I got my “baptism by fire” in the world of “junk science.” I learned that just because somebody has a lot of letters after their name it doesn’t mean they speak correctly on any given subject. Thus my penchant for the “Missouri Solution.”

If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, you may PM me or start your own thread.[/QUOTE]

And “open mind” is good thing. But an open mind is like an open storm drain. Anything can, and will, wash into it. It’s not the “openness” that counts but what happens to that “wash in.” And sometimes we put covers over storm drains to keep out trash and debris. Does a “protective grate” over an open mind mean it’s less open or just protected from the “intellectual detritus” that floats around in society?

G.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8901247]
Reading over the protocols I see some issues.

In the case of the mediums the article stated “Eight mediums who had previously demonstrated an ability to report accurate information in a laboratory settings…” Reading this report would be interesting to learn how this “demonstrated ability” was determined.

As to the other, the selection process would need a careful review.

In all of this I’m reminded of the opening scene in “Ghostbusters” where Bill Murray is conducting “research.” It’s presented as comedy but we’ve some big-time examples of fraudulent research in many areas. It’s a funny, but also a cautionary tale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn7-JZq0Yxs

G.[/QUOTE]

For someone who finds it necessary to defend a religious work that many consider to be a series of fairytales, I find it humorous that you are so willing to attack anyone else’s beliefs on anything that cannot be factually proven.

While this isn’t religion, it is something that gives some people comfort, just as religious beliefs often do. My particular feeling is that people should be left to their beliefs. It often says more about those trying to change others, than it does about the belief in question- and that, of course, applies to me, as well.

How real any of it is could be argued.

But by someone whose arguments for their own beliefs stand on sand?

Notsomuch…

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8901433]
For someone who finds it necessary to defend a religious work that many consider to be a series of fairytales, I find it humorous that you are so willing to attack anyone else’s beliefs on anything that cannot be factually proven.

I don’t get your meaning, here.

While this isn’t religion, it is something that gives some people comfort, just as religious beliefs often do. My particular feeling is that people should be left to their beliefs. It often says more about those trying to change others, than it does about the belief in question- and that, of course, applies to me, as well.

What is the Object of the Exercise: giving comfort or solving a problem?

How real any of it is could be argued.

Argued? Yes. Proven…?

But by someone whose arguments for their own beliefs stand on sand?

Notsomuch…[/QUOTE]

I believe you have slipped into an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. My own beliefs, or their lack, has nothing to do with an observation that a physical phenomenon is not supported by any observable and verifiable evidence.

G.

[SendenHorse]

Physics is another field that works a lot on non-lab studies. But people still believe and use the theory as valuable info and place stock into it.

I have facts, I just have no lab studies. If someone can’t shift gears to understand this, then that is on them.

I don’t think it matters to proof it in a study. that is just a cop out by people who hold to this as some sort of gold standard. It will not make this any more relevant.

I don’t believe those who cry for studies will EVER believe. They/you will find fault with the research. that is why this is just all a big circular argument.

Again, not a fabrication. Just not tested in a research lab.

You can do your own evaluation as a real person by trying different people and coming to YOU OWN conclusions. That is what I did. Try it.

Facts are there. Its definitive.

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;8901144]
Well, it would include the idea of red in the sense that “things that share the color of apples” would include red, yellow, and green.

There’s no particular reason to assume the horse means red over the other colors. In fact, if the image on this page is at all close to what a horse physically sees (which is different than how they think about it), red/green/yellow apples all probably look about the same color to horses. Different shades/hues, but they are all coming across as yellowish in the altered pictures.

You’re still talking about the human being able to add in information that doesn’t exist in the horse’s world when receiving communication. Of taking picture D, for example, and knowing that if the horse is thinking “I like the color of the triangle flag thing on my rider’s wrist” and knowing it is orange, not the yellow of the rider’s cuffs, despite the two being the same in the horse’s vision.[/QUOTE]

The horse may not think of “color” though-- who knows? That might be a category of thought or classification that the horse does not have. Horses may not rely on their sight in the same way that humans do-- their hearing and their sense of smell is more acute than humans, and their processing of information is different. Perhaps it is a binary of will it eat me?/can I eat it?

A human interpreting information from the horse is different than a human adding information in.

[Halt_Near_X]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8901534]
I have facts, I just have no lab studies.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the benefit of proofing it would be that it sets the groundwork for better understanding it (and then expanding our capabilities with it). Long term goal, not short term.

Imagine if, when Newton saw the apple fall, he had just shrugged and said, “Well, stuff falls. Maybe gravity? Yeah, gravity. Welp, I have proof enough for me. I don’t need to prove it to anyone else, and there’s no need to try any sort of systematic study of it.”

We may not understand gravity perfectly today, but we understand it a heck of a lot better than Newton did. What we DO understand about gravity has contributed immensely to our current civilization.

If AC actually works, it has the potential to do the same. One of the reasons I find it so hard to go from “skeptical but open to being convinced” to “actively looking for proof” is that I, quite frankly, cannot understand how anyone who knew, 100%, that this really really works would not WANT to see it better understood, expanded, opened up to and used by more people.

History is full of concepts that were originally laughed at and later become accepted, mainstream understandings… but that only happened because they were studied and those understandings were developed over time.

No, they didn’t get accepted immediately. Yes, any initial studies would likely receive significant criticism. But eventually, if AC really happens and is really repeatable under some sort of conditions, our understanding of it could grow and develop and it would ultimately become more accepted.

It’s baffling that ACs and the people who believe in it are so resistant to that idea.