Telepathy doesn't make evolutionary sense

[RomanHD]

Before I begin, let me say that I am neither a sceptic nor a believer in regards to telepathy - I simply don't know if it exists. If I had to pick a position, I would probably be more of a believer than a sceptic.

So, I had this German teacher in high school. When there was nothing to do in the class after we've completed the final German exams, I would often talk with him about interesting subjects, most often free will and the paranormal. He's one of the people who increased my, you could say, scepticism level

One day he made a really great point against telepathy which goes something like this: "If we could communicate telepathically, wouldn't it be totally redundant for nature to start developing a vocal tract?" At that point, I had nothing to say.

Here are a few explanations I can think of now:

1. Telepathy evolved AFTER the vocal tract. But the question is now just reversed: why would we need telepathy if we can talk?
2. Telepathy is a vestigial feature of some sort. If so, will we lose it at one point, if we don't practice it?
3. Telepathy is a feature outside the physical body and therefore doesn't need to make evolutionary sense.
4. Some higher entity gave telepathy to us.

So what do you say guys, which is it?

[AlmostGodess]

Personally, I don't believe in evolution, so I don't need to find evolutionary explanations to my senses

[Nimue]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Personally, I don't believe in evolution, so I don't need to find evolutionary explanations to my senses

I guess God sat on a great feast after He/She created the world, then burried the remainings and that's where dino skeletons come from. Seers-believers these days
*asks sorry for being sarcastic* (I just couldn't help it)

Ahem, on topic.

Other possibilities

5.Telepathy needs too much energy to transport as much info as speech, therefore speech can transport more info more accurately in shorter time.

6.All having one mind is less advantageous to creativity than all being individuals.

7.Being able to say lies is an evolutionarily acceptable method to defend oneself-especially if humen could sync with animals.

8.It's not always easy to distinguish telepathy and imagination (which was advantageous to the development telephone industry )

See, telepathy may be advantageous at certain cases, but doesn't have to help in ALL cases. Daily life could use some light chit-chat.

[Tanemon]

Here's my starting point on this topic: Telepathy is probably the "paranormal" phenomenon that I've experienced most often. Therefore, I have no doubt that it exists. I tend to experience it most frequently when I'm in a quiet environment (talk or distractions not being abundant) and often with one of the people whom I know very well.

Okay... along with this, I'm a person who enjoys talking with people. And I'm a reader (books, Web sites, magazines, newspapers, etc), and in my career life I've written for publication for quite a few years. What I'm saying is I'm also comfortable with spoken and printed communication.

On the basis of my experience, I'd say that telepathy may be the sort of communication that tends to occur with people that we trust the most, people we feel very comfortable with (and vice versa). Spoken communication may have developed more for one person communicating to another (or one person to several or many) where the intimacy is less - and written communication hence would have developed out of that.

Just a thought... and not really put into evolutionary-biological or evolutionary-psychology terms.

[Person Isac]

Well mate, if I were to take a shot in the dark I would say telepathy would make sense as a mode of long-range communication. For paleolithic nomadic peoples, such a thing would be invaluable. Not that I have any more of an opinion than you do.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Personally, I don't believe in evolution, so I don't need to find evolutionary explanations to my senses

Not believing in evolution is the same as not believing in biology. Nothing in biology makes sense until you place it in the context of evolution. You can believe or disbelieve anything you like, but not believing in evolution is like thinking it's the sun pushing us down onto the earth instead of the earth having its own gravity.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

"If we could communicate telepathically, wouldn't it be totally redundant for nature to start developing a vocal tract?"

...

So what do you say guys, which is it?

Instead of viewing the trait as something redundant, perhaps think of a way that telepathy would be not only evolutionarily useful, but also something that evolved over time in the areas where telepathy could be used but none of the other forms of communication could really be of any use. This may lead to some interesting notions on what the world might be like for such a trait to come into existence. Meaning that the model of our world where something such as telepathy is redundant is inaccurate and there is actually something else that would require it as the form of communication.

On the other hand, if telepathy really is redundant, so what? I'm sure we've got many different ways of operating in the world. There's also a sense of robustness that comes out of redundancy, in the case that one option is closed, perhaps another can pick up the slack. Vestigial structures is an evolutionary explanation, by the way. But if so, the explanations of how that vestigial function came about in the first place are also interesting.

[TheLifeQuaker]

I semi-agree with AlmostGoddess. Not in that I don't believe in evolution (because I do), but in that I don't think evolution need apply to it. Because all evidence points towards genuine telepathy not being a physical phenomena.

I'm just going to go through your suggestions and throw out a few of my thoughts.

1. Telepathy evolved AFTER the vocal tract. But the question is now just reversed: why would we need telepathy if we can talk?

That idea was actually the first thought that flitted through my head when I first read what you wrote.

There's a simple answer to your question though - language doesn't allow complete understanding. Plenty of people experience 'mis-communication' when using the same language, let alone considering language barriers. With telepathy you would be directly transferring concepts, which would allow for clearer communication. (This based on a big presupposition that the telepathy was always clear and easily done - far from the case in any research I've seen currently...but perhaps possible in the future)

2. Telepathy is a vestigial feature of some sort. If so, will we lose it at one point, if we don't practice it?

Well, most things weaken through lack of use. I don't think it's any exception. But I don't think it would ever be lost completely, simply because I don't think it is a physical 'thing' (not alone, anyway). Plenty of people experience random telepathic like experiences in their life...perhaps many years apart.

3. Telepathy is a feature outside the physical body and therefore doesn't need to make evolutionary sense.

I agree, in part. It still evidently utilizes the brain in the processes of thought, and as a later 'interpreter'. But all experience, and research suggests the means of transference are not physical. (as is the case with all psychic phenomena that come to mind - when physical possibilities i.e. body language are removed from the equation)

To actually transfer the information that can be transferred physically would require more energy than we physically generate (in the sense of electromagnetic fields...which some people still cling to even in the 'psi communities' even though it goes against all research).

And there's other research which also debunks the idea...such as the speed of travel and a bit of research on using it through time. (Don't know if any research specifically on telepathy has been done through time, but in other areas of psychic phenomena it has)

4. Some higher entity gave telepathy to us.

Don't personally think that is the case...but can't really argue against it. I know in some "magic" traditions, there are entities supposedly able to give one a more concrete ability, such as an entity or two in the goetia. Franz Bardon in "Practice of Magical Evocation" also mentions a spirit of "Gemini" in the 'zone girdling the earth' which supposedly can aid the development of telepathy. William Mistele (someone in Bardon's system) mentions some work with them here: http://shell.lava.net/~pagios/bagoloni.html for those interested.

I have no experience in that area though, so can't personally say.

[Nimue]

Originally Posted by TheLifeQuaker

There's a simple answer to your question though - language doesn't allow complete understanding. Plenty of people experience 'mis-communication' when using the same language, let alone considering language barriers. With telepathy you would be directly transferring concepts, which would allow for clearer communication. (This based on a big presupposition that the telepathy was always clear and easily done - far from the case in any research I've seen currently...but perhaps possible in the future)

I believe the ideal would involve a combination of language and telepathy. We already got body language and smell, so why not add another thing to aid speech?

Intriguing link by the way,I'm reading it now. I hope I'll find a place similar to a zoo to practice the first exercise (my classroom maybe?)

[Philemon]

Telepathy, I think, is a form of perception, and our perceptions are evolving/devolving, depending on what we cultivate, absorb, release, revive, contrive, subside, arise, blast, and on and on.

Personally, I don't believe it exists, I know it exists. I've conducted successful experiments and had numerous shared dreams.

There are some good questions being asked here, centrally, what's the purpose of it? I'm thinking of fire. There was a point in time, most agree, when humans did not grasp the power to control fire. It was something perceivable and observable, but it was not controlled.

Telepathy is very similar. Many people perceive it subliminally. One person calls another and they say, "Hey, I was just thinking of you." Simple, perceiveable, but not controlled.

So we await the purpose, perhaps. I can't be sure right now. But you've given me something to consider. . .

[Lionman]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

So what do you say guys, which is it?

It's probable that physical communication is more efficient in the physical world we are focused in, rather than telepathy which is often symbolic/confusing/slightly-out-of-phase-with-the-physical. So it would make sense evolutionary wise to just communicate physically instead of telepathically.

But I just see physical communication as a hardened and therefore more limited form of telepathy anyway.

In these belief structures the physical is the greatest level of separation from unity. Then there are different levels of reality above which progressively getting more and more unified and easier to communicate between so called separate entities.

At the highest there is just one singular consciousness. This one consciousness doesn't even need to communicate anything because there's no separate thing communicate it to. Telepathy at it's highest requires nothing to be said or communicated at all.

[theuprising]

Well if telepathy exists b/c everything is connected with a net of consciousness or what not, you can see how it makes evolutionary sense. It was there from the beginning, humans were just smart enough to tap into it.

[RomanHD]

Very interesting responses so far guys, keep them coming!

Originally Posted by TheLifeQuaker

1. To actually transfer the information that can be transferred physically would require more energy than we physically generate (in the sense of electromagnetic fields...which some people still cling to even in the 'psi communities' even though it goes against all research).

And there's other research which also debunks the idea...such as the speed of travel and a bit of research on using it through time. (Don't know if any research specifically on telepathy has been done through time, but in other areas of psychic phenomena it has)

...

2. Don't personally think that is the case...but can't really argue against it. I know in some "magic" traditions, there are entities supposedly able to give one a more concrete ability, such as an entity or two in the goetia. Franz Bardon in "Practice of Magical Evocation" also mentions a spirit of "Gemini" in the 'zone girdling the earth' which supposedly can aid the development of telepathy. William Mistele (someone in Bardon's system) mentions some work with them here: http://shell.lava.net/~pagios/bagoloni.html for those interested.

I have no experience in that area though, so can't personally say.

1. I am one of those "electromagnetism" people. It seems to me that people in the past might have had greater success with telepathy and other psychic skills because there weren't radio, mobile phone and GPS waves bombarding their brains all the time. But again, that's just me, I have no evidence for it. Maybe someone here does?

2. Wow, Franz Bardon! I've tried practising his system (IIH) at one time, but it requires such extraordinary amounts of time and effort, that I'm not sure it's worth it, considering that lots of what he writes might or might not be real.

Originally Posted by Philemon

Personally, I don't believe it exists, I know it exists. I've conducted successful experiments and had numerous shared dreams.

Mind giving us a simple experiment protocol we can use to produce statistically significant results in a limited number of trials?

[themaster]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Before I begin, let me say that I am neither a sceptic nor a believer in regards to telepathy - I simply don't know if it exists. If I had to pick a position, I would probably be more of a believer than a sceptic.

So, I had this German teacher in high school. When there was nothing to do in the class after we've completed the final German exams, I would often talk with him about interesting subjects, most often free will and the paranormal. He's one of the people who increased my, you could say, scepticism level

One day he made a really great point against telepathy which goes something like this: "If we could communicate telepathically, wouldn't it be totally redundant for nature to start developing a vocal tract?" At that point, I had nothing to say.

Here are a few explanations I can think of now:

1. Telepathy evolved AFTER the vocal tract. But the question is now just reversed: why would we need telepathy if we can talk?
2. Telepathy is a vestigial feature of some sort. If so, will we lose it at one point, if we don't practice it?
3. Telepathy is a feature outside the physical body and therefore doesn't need to make evolutionary sense.
4. Some higher entity gave telepathy to us.

So what do you say guys, which is it?

My understanding is.. talking developed after telepathy..

And right now in this "new age" this transformation age.. were returning to telepathy.. it might be possible for you to engage in telepathic conversation all the time in 20 years..

The way I heard it.. we used to use our voice box for "singing" then someone went crazy and invented "talking" and the woman have yet to shut up!

2 . is incorrect.. you can practice or not.. but you will become more and more aware overtime of "thinking the same thing" or communicating is my understanding.. my teacher has told me he talked to me via "telepathy" but oddly I heard it as "thoughts/ideas" I didn't hear a distinction /separateness in the communication

3. Might be true.. might not.. from my understanding we are all the same being.. we are all connected, we are all part of a wi-fi network, no! A internet

All I'm saying is you may think text, water and tv's are SEPERATE from you.. they are not.. so is the same thing from human beings or *creator gods*

4. There is no higher entity (there are entities more connected) we are all god! There now solved that pickle go home and watch tv!

[Nimue]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Mind giving us a simple experiment protocol we can use to produce statistically significant results in a limited number of trials?

I second that.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Nimue

Seers-believers these days

Fundamaterialists these days

My own sarcasm stems from a distaste for anything that smacks of "Sorry, you're just a meat puppet with delusions of a transcendent aspect, deal with it." I think my recent bug has made me cranky

[Lionman]

Originally Posted by TheLifeQuaker

William Mistele (someone in Bardon's system) mentions some work with them here: http://shell.lava.net/~pagios/bagoloni.html for those interested.

I have no experience in that area though, so can't personally say.

Oh wow, another William Mistele fan
Never actually thought I'd ever bump into one

*That said, I read that secrecy.pdf and that's all I'm saying on the matter

[Orca]

Well, one thing unique to vocal tracts is that it gives us the ability to sing. Can't do that with telepathy, since singing and song involves actual pitch and physical vibration.

(Of course, that begs the question of why people developed the ability to sing, from an evolutionary standpoint...)

Also, with telepathy, it seems you would communicate with one person at a time, while with voice, you could address a whole crowd and vice versa. And I don't know if you can eavesdrop with telepathy like you can with sound. Seems like telepathy works best when both people are reasonably 'open' to one another. So if you don't want to be heard, seems like telepathy wouldn't break into your head to hear your thoughts.

Therefore, maybe voice developed as the result of people needing to control who they communicate with, and what is said? Seems like it would be hard to lie via telepathy... LOL. And lying does seem like it would have some sort of evolutionary advantage for survival.

Orca

[supertom]

Any good telepathy resources?? hard to find things on it

[Tanemon]

Originally Posted by Orca

Also, with telepathy, it seems you would communicate with one person at a time, while with voice, you could address a whole crowd and vice versa. And I don't know if you can eavesdrop with telepathy like you can with sound. Seems like telepathy works best when both people are reasonably 'open' to one another.

Agrees well with my experience (as I posted it up above, #4 in this thread).

For instance, three of the people I have experienced a lot of telepathy with are my partner ("wife"), my daughter, and a good friend I used to have a lot of thoroughgoing philosophical and personal discussions with.

[Orca]

Hmmm...so maybe voice is for people we don't know well yet or we aren't close to, and telepathy is for people we do know.

Seems like both would serve evolutionary purposes. One keeps you safe from danger, the other helps with close communication.

[desertrat]

I read in a book some where , the cave man could sense if there were critters ready to eat him just out side the cave . He knew how to go out of body to see what was out there . With organized religion we forgot how to do that . desert rat

[Nimue]

Originally Posted by desertrat

I read in a book some where , the cave man could sense if there were critters ready to eat him just out side the cave . He knew how to go out of body to see what was out there . With organized religion we forgot how to do that . desert rat

I don't think we can know for sure, but that would be very cool! Cavemen had way more sharped senses, though, so we cannot know if they were in enough disadvantage to develop such powers. (Even if they did, they ended up preferring to work on their smarts over that kind of abilities)

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Orca

Also, with telepathy, it seems you would communicate with one person at a time, while with voice, you could address a whole crowd and vice versa.

I don't think it's true that telepathy can communicate with 1 person at a time.. that seems like limitation to me..

Sometimes I imagine telepathy as being a "instant message" program.. you could leave a message sitting.. or you could respond to one or more

It's my understanding that we really do have a "framework" inside of all of us for this to work.. how that works exactly..?? dunno.. still learning

Originally Posted by Orca

Hmmm...so maybe voice is for people we don't know well yet or we aren't close to, and telepathy is for people we do know.

Seems like both would serve evolutionary purposes. One keeps you safe from danger, the other helps with close communication.

Telepathy currently works best with people you love.. ones that you have close vibrational match too.. Bashar says telepathy between people who are close is all to common

Originally Posted by Nimue

I don't think we can know for sure, but that would be very cool! Cavemen had way more sharped senses, though, so we cannot know if they were in enough disadvantage to develop such powers. (Even if they did, they ended up preferring to work on their smarts over that kind of abilities)

I have a theory that the "caveman" theory is incorrect and not of this reality.. that I'm aware off.. we didn't evolve from animals.. we were seeded from *cough* aliens

I believe we were born smart

[desertrat]

It was a quote from a book , no unless we time warp back and meet them we cant know what abilites they had . Reading this thread I was thinking of the Simon and Garfunkle song " sound of silence " " people singing songs voices never share , hearing with out listening "( best as I rember lyrics ) . Sounds like telepathy of some kind to me . desert rat

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Before I begin, let me say that I am neither a sceptic nor a believer in regards to telepathy - I simply don't know if it exists. If I had to pick a position, I would probably be more of a believer than a sceptic.

So, I had this German teacher in high school. When there was nothing to do in the class after we've completed the final German exams, I would often talk with him about interesting subjects, most often free will and the paranormal. He's one of the people who increased my, you could say, scepticism level

One day he made a really great point against telepathy which goes something like this: "If we could communicate telepathically, wouldn't it be totally redundant for nature to start developing a vocal tract?" At that point, I had nothing to say.

Here are a few explanations I can think of now:

1. Telepathy evolved AFTER the vocal tract. But the question is now just reversed: why would we need telepathy if we can talk?
2. Telepathy is a vestigial feature of some sort. If so, will we lose it at one point, if we don't practice it?
3. Telepathy is a feature outside the physical body and therefore doesn't need to make evolutionary sense.
4. Some higher entity gave telepathy to us.

So what do you say guys, which is it?

My opinion is this:

Telepathy has not completely evolved in our physical bodies yet. It is in the process of doing so, however.

On the other side of the coin, our consciousness, or spirits, exist outside and beyond time as we understand it, physically. And pure spirit (not to be confused with the various planes between the physical and monadic levels) is already at the ultimate level of development or connection, which is true homogenized oneness -- a state where all points of information are being shared instantaneously and simultaneously with all other points of information or consciousness. There is no separation in other-words.

It is this level that the experience of telepathy is derived from. Non-physically, we all have access to a kind of omniscience. However, the reliability of this "omniscience" is in direct proportion to the clarity of our minds. There are many distortions and obscurations. Buddhist masters call them "defilements" or "impurities". To the extent that we can look within ourselves with pristine, crystal-clear clarity, we can access information about anything or anyone, because we are ONE. Psychics are individuals that have developed some degree of skill at looking inwards into this inner continuum. If the glass is clear enough to see into, it is also clear enough to see out of.

So in summation, I would have to go with option 3. You can be rest assured though, that when it does become reflected in the physical body's evolution on a conscious level, it will leave speech for dead.

[elucidate]

Just to go off on a tangent with what you said Anagogy, perhaps it is BECAUSE people don't know how to not talk and appreciate silence and quiet, that this is the reason telepathy hasn't fully evolved in us?

After all, it's like anything else really, it improves the more you practice, but most people aren't capable of not talking for long enough to actually develop this faculty. It is socially unacceptable to not talk for any given time lest you cause others to feel uncomfortable (or they try and blame the quiet one for feeling uncomfortable in their presence).

Also, the fact that it requires quiet to hear what is being transmitted pretty much makes it impossible in the city and with the noisy distractions of daily life...unless one is quite concentrated on the subtler realms.

Maybe monks are really good at telepathically communicating as it is required for them to be silent for much of their daily life?

I know that when I was exploring this phenomenon extensively in my late teens, I got to a point where I no longer saw the need to talk with my mouth, and this suited me fine, as I didn't really like talking much.

I begrudgingly started talking again once I realized I had to...that no one I knew was willing to communicate this way long term. It felt so false for so long to use my mouth and speak words...and is the reason for much grumpiness still, in me.

Originally Posted by Anagogy

My opinion is this:

Telepathy has not completely evolved in our physical bodies yet. It is in the process of doing so, however.

On the other side of the coin, our consciousness, or spirits, exist outside and beyond time as we understand it, physically. And pure spirit (not to be confused with the various planes between the physical and monadic levels) is already at the ultimate level of development or connection, which is true homogenized oneness -- a state where all points of information are being shared instantaneously and simultaneously with all other points of information or consciousness. There is no separation in other-words.

It is this level that the experience of telepathy is derived from. Non-physically, we all have access to a kind of omniscience. However, the reliability of this "omniscience" is in direct proportion to the clarity of our minds. There are many distortions and obscurations. Buddhist masters call them "defilements" or "impurities". To the extent that we can look within ourselves with pristine, crystal-clear clarity, we can access information about anything or anyone, because we are ONE. Psychics are individuals that have developed some degree of skill at looking inwards into this inner continuum. If the glass is clear enough to see into, it is also clear enough to see out of.

So in summation, I would have to go with option 3. You can be rest assured though, that when it does become reflected in the physical body's evolution on a conscious level, it will leave speech for dead.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by elucidate

that this is the reason telepathy hasn't fully evolved in us?

I repeat.. my understanding of our true history (not the one that is more a imaginative tale based on scientific imaginations is..)

We used to all walk around and use telepathy.. not 100,000 years ago.. but 15,000 at the least..

So to be clear we de-evolved or let go of telepathy in favor of speech (more to do with it just being a lower vibration down here )

[metaphysics101]

When it comes to telepathy or anything else metaphysical, experience is the best teacher. I always tell people never burden yourself with feeling like you have to either "believe" or "not believe" anything metaphysical.

Once you experience it, you WILL know. There will be no doubt in your mind. But until then just keep an open mind and enjoy life...

[desertrat]

My girlfriend picks up things I am thinking about , I dont think she is conscious of the fact that she is picking up my thoughts. She will talk about what I am thinking. desert rat