Telepathy - truth or science fiction?

Speaks said:
I never said mice tele connect. I said it was observed in studies done at Harvard, Edenburgh, and Melbourne that when rats in one place solved the maze that rats in other areas started solving them more easily. Every pseudo scientific explanation I have heard is totally unsubstantiated though coincidence seems unlikely. I mentioned it as simply an observed phenomenon that we do not have an explanation for.

I am highly skeptical of at least the conclusions drawn in the telepathy tapes if not how they captured what phenomenon they claimed to capture. The simplest explanation is that it was faked. How about the explanation that the experiments never happened. That's pretty convincing.
Click to expand...

Edited

Claude.ai
This claim about rats solving mazes more easily after other rats in distant locations solved them is likely referring to the "morphic resonance" theory proposed by Rupert Sheldrake. It's not supported by mainstream science for several reasons:

No verified studies from Harvard, Edinburgh, or Melbourne universities demonstrate this effect.
The scientific consensus rejects "morphic resonance" due to:
Lack of reproducible evidence under controlled conditions
No established mechanism for information transfer between isolated animals
Alternative explanations for observed learning improvements (better experimental technique over time)
Well-designed experiments attempting to test these claims have failed to show statistically significant results.
This concept falls into the category of pseudoscience rather than established scientific fact. While animal learning and collective behavior remain fascinating fields of study, information transfer between physically separated organisms without conventional communication channels isn't supported by current scientific evidence.

ChatGPT
The idea you're referencing sounds like a version of the "morphic resonance" theory proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, a controversial biologist. The concept goes something like this:

When one group of rats (e.g., in a Harvard lab) learns how to solve a maze, rats in completely different locations (like Edinburgh or Melbourne) subsequently learn to solve the same maze faster—even without direct exposure or shared genetics.

Sheldrake used this kind of example to support his theory that memory and learning can be non-local—i.e., transmitted or influenced beyond conventional biological or physical mechanisms. He called this morphic resonance: the idea that once something is learned by a group, it becomes easier for others of the same species to learn it, because a "morphic field" has been established.

What about the Harvard/Edinburgh/Melbourne rat studies?
There is no verified scientific record of coordinated studies between those three universities showing the effect described. This claim is often repeated in popular or New Age literature, sometimes referencing Sheldrake's work, but:

No peer-reviewed, replicable study has proven that rats across the world learn mazes faster because other rats did.

There are studies showing that animals can learn socially or that genetic memory can influence behavior—but those don't support Sheldrake's broader non-local theory.

Sheldrake's ideas are considered pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community because they lack falsifiability and reproducible evidence.

Verdict:
Mostly hokum. The claim lacks empirical support and appears to be a distorted or mythologized version of Sheldrake's speculation, not grounded in verified multi-institutional experiments.

Would you like the actual references Sheldrake uses when he talks about these rat experiments?
 
Mike Islander said:
And yet a few minutes of searching would have cleared your misunderstanding up. This is how these bullshit stories spread.

Claude.ai
This claim about rats solving mazes more easily after other rats in distant locations solved them is likely referring to the "morphic resonance" theory proposed by Rupert Sheldrake. It's not supported by mainstream science for several reasons:

No verified studies from Harvard, Edinburgh, or Melbourne universities demonstrate this effect.
The scientific consensus rejects "morphic resonance" due to:
Lack of reproducible evidence under controlled conditions
No established mechanism for information transfer between isolated animals
Alternative explanations for observed learning improvements (better experimental technique over time)
Well-designed experiments attempting to test these claims have failed to show statistically significant results.
This concept falls into the category of pseudoscience rather than established scientific fact. While animal learning and collective behavior remain fascinating fields of study, information transfer between physically separated organisms without conventional communication channels isn't supported by current scientific evidence.

ChatGPT
The idea you're referencing sounds like a version of the "morphic resonance" theory proposed by Rupert Sheldrake, a controversial biologist. The concept goes something like this:

When one group of rats (e.g., in a Harvard lab) learns how to solve a maze, rats in completely different locations (like Edinburgh or Melbourne) subsequently learn to solve the same maze faster—even without direct exposure or shared genetics.

Sheldrake used this kind of example to support his theory that memory and learning can be non-local—i.e., transmitted or influenced beyond conventional biological or physical mechanisms. He called this morphic resonance: the idea that once something is learned by a group, it becomes easier for others of the same species to learn it, because a "morphic field" has been established.

What about the Harvard/Edinburgh/Melbourne rat studies?
There is no verified scientific record of coordinated studies between those three universities showing the effect described. This claim is often repeated in popular or New Age literature, sometimes referencing Sheldrake's work, but:

No peer-reviewed, replicable study has proven that rats across the world learn mazes faster because other rats did.

There are studies showing that animals can learn socially or that genetic memory can influence behavior—but those don't support Sheldrake's broader non-local theory.

Sheldrake's ideas are considered pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community because they lack falsifiability and reproducible evidence.

Verdict:
Mostly hokum. The claim lacks empirical support and appears to be a distorted or mythologized version of Sheldrake's speculation, not grounded in verified multi-institutional experiments.

Would you like the actual references Sheldrake uses when he talks about these rat experiments?
Click to expand...

Your arguing a straw man here buddy. I am in no way making an argument in favor of Morphic Resonance or any of Shelldrakes other conclusions. I did listen to one of his audio books on the way up to hunting camp a few years ago and didnt bother finishing it. He will generally point out some observed phenomenon that is either unexplained (or to which he does not understand the explanation) and then make up some idea that could theoretically explain it but with zero evidence to back it up. Its really not any better than saying "I dont understand it so it must be magic."

The one interesting tid bit was in some cases the original observation.

Recalling from when I did some quick google research back then it was something that had been documented and observed but not specifically studied. I dont think there was any conclusion drawn for cause or even a hypothesis around that much less published peer reviewed research. Just an interesting note about something we dont have a good explination for.

As you noted chatGPT does a quicker job of synthesizing this stuff now than was available back then and likely more thurough than my maybe 20 min of fact checking did. Here is the question posed to it today.

It quickly brings up the observations from Harvard and also the criticisms of it which all seem reasonable. Im sure if I play around with prompts I could get the source for the other two which are likely similar.

As I said in my post that you are ripping on

"Every pseudo scientific explanation I have heard is totally unsubstantiated though coincidence seems unlikely. I mentioned it as simply an observed phenomenon that we do not have an explanation for.

I am highly skeptical of at least the conclusions drawn in the telepathy tapes if not how they captured what phenomenon they claimed to capture. The simplest explanation is that it was faked."

The part I probably got wrong was this phrase "though coincidence seems unlikely" You dont need to pretend that I was arguing in favor of Sheldrake's claims though as I clearly stated that I was not.

I also for the record dont buy whats claimed in the telepathy tapes. I think before I used the phrase "highly skeptical" but perhaps should just say "dismiss outright." I have not listened to the tapes or podcasts though did listen to her interview on Rogan and based on her own description of the case she was making it seemed not just weak, but flawed enough to not warrant any more of my time.



1743338945929.png

Pasting the full text below just including the screen shot to document the source

Yes — this idea has been claimed and even documented in a few studies, most notably in the early to mid-20th century. But whether it holds up to modern scientific scrutiny is another story. Here's the real scoop:

🧪 The Claim​

When mice learn to solve a maze in one location, mice in a completely different location (with no physical contact or known communication) subsequently learn the same maze faster.
Click to expand...

📚 The Most Famous Study: William McDougall (1920s–1930s)​


  • Who: British-American psychologist William McDougall

  • What: Conducted maze-learning experiments on generations of rats at Harvard.

  • Claim: After training generations of rats to solve a specific maze, later generations of rats — even those not descended from the trained ones — began solving it more quickly.

  • Implication: He suggested the possibility of some form of non-genetic transmission of knowledge (a proto-theory of "Lamarckian inheritance" or even collective consciousness).

🧪 Reinforcement: “The Hundredth Monkey Effect” (popularized in the 1970s)​


  • A related (but heavily disputed) idea, often lumped together with the maze-learning claim, suggested that once a critical mass of individuals learned a behavior, others would spontaneously "pick it up" — even across physical distances.

  • This concept is not scientifically supported, and the original primate observations were misreported and exaggerated.

🧬 Modern Evaluation​

1. Replication Attempts​


  • Many scientists attempted to replicate McDougall’s findings under tighter controls and failed to reproduce the results.

  • Some hypothesized that experimenter bias, environmental cues, or simple selection effects (e.g., smarter rats surviving longer) could explain the findings.

2. Critiques​


  • Nobel laureate Peter Medawar and others considered these results methodologically flawed.

  • No mechanism — genetic, neural, or environmental — has been identified that would allow for such “remote learning.”

🧩 Scientific Consensus​

ClaimStatus
Mice learn faster when others have already learned the mazeClaimed in older studies
Result replicated with modern methods❌ No
Mechanism identified (genetic, memetic, quantum, etc.)❌ No
Accepted by mainstream science❌ No

✅ What Is Well-Supported​


  • Social learning: Animals (including mice) can learn faster by watching or interacting with other trained animals.

  • Transgenerational epigenetics: Some stress responses or adaptations can pass across generations, but not complex learned behaviors like solving a maze.

  • Environmental cueing: Scents, markings, or residual cues left in the maze can influence results if not perfectly controlled.

TL;DR​

Yes, the phenomenon has been claimed and even "documented" — but not convincingly replicated under rigorous scientific controls. There's no accepted evidence that learning in one group of mice leads to faster learning in isolated mice elsewhere. Still, it's a fascinating piece of science history that gets at our enduring curiosity about hidden forms of knowledge transmission.

Want a citation trail or deeper dive into McDougall’s original experiments?
 
Speaks said:
Your arguing a straw man here buddy. I am in no way making an argument in favor of Morphic Resonance or any of Shelldrakes other conclusions. I did listen to one of his audio books on the way up to hunting camp a few years ago and didnt bother finishing it. He will generally point out some observed phenomenon that is either unexplained (or to which he does not understand the explanation) and then make up some idea that could theoretically explain it but with zero evidence to back it up. Its really not any better than saying "I dont understand it so it must be magic."

The one interesting tid bit was in some cases the original observation.

Recalling from when I did some quick google research back then it was something that had been documented and observed but not specifically studied. I dont think there was any conclusion drawn for cause or even a hypothesis around that much less published peer reviewed research. Just an interesting note about something we dont have a good explination for.

As you noted chatGPT does a quicker job of synthesizing this stuff now than was available back then and likely more thurough than my maybe 20 min of fact checking did. Here is the question posed to it today.

It quickly brings up the observations from Harvard and also the criticisms of it which all seem reasonable. Im sure if I play around with prompts I could get the source for the other two which are likely similar.

As I said in my post that you are ripping on

"Every pseudo scientific explanation I have heard is totally unsubstantiated though coincidence seems unlikely. I mentioned it as simply an observed phenomenon that we do not have an explanation for.

I am highly skeptical of at least the conclusions drawn in the telepathy tapes if not how they captured what phenomenon they claimed to capture. The simplest explanation is that it was faked."

The part I probably got wrong was this phrase "though coincidence seems unlikely" You dont need to pretend that I was arguing in favor of Sheldrake's claims though as I clearly stated that I was not.

I also for the record dont buy whats claimed in the telepathy tapes. I think before I used the phrase "highly skeptical" but perhaps should just say "dismiss outright." I have not listened to the tapes or podcasts though did listen to her interview on Rogan and based on her own description of the case she was making it seemed not just weak, but flawed enough to not warrant any more of my time.



View attachment 860317

Pasting the full text below just including the screen shot to document the source

Yes — this idea has been claimed and even documented in a few studies, most notably in the early to mid-20th century. But whether it holds up to modern scientific scrutiny is another story. Here's the real scoop:

🧪 The Claim​


📚 The Most Famous Study: William McDougall (1920s–1930s)​


  • Who: British-American psychologist William McDougall

  • What: Conducted maze-learning experiments on generations of rats at Harvard.

  • Claim: After training generations of rats to solve a specific maze, later generations of rats — even those not descended from the trained ones — began solving it more quickly.

  • Implication: He suggested the possibility of some form of non-genetic transmission of knowledge (a proto-theory of "Lamarckian inheritance" or even collective consciousness).

🧪 Reinforcement: “The Hundredth Monkey Effect” (popularized in the 1970s)​


  • A related (but heavily disputed) idea, often lumped together with the maze-learning claim, suggested that once a critical mass of individuals learned a behavior, others would spontaneously "pick it up" — even across physical distances.

  • This concept is not scientifically supported, and the original primate observations were misreported and exaggerated.

🧬 Modern Evaluation​

1. Replication Attempts​


  • Many scientists attempted to replicate McDougall’s findings under tighter controls and failed to reproduce the results.

  • Some hypothesized that experimenter bias, environmental cues, or simple selection effects (e.g., smarter rats surviving longer) could explain the findings.

2. Critiques​


  • Nobel laureate Peter Medawar and others considered these results methodologically flawed.

  • No mechanism — genetic, neural, or environmental — has been identified that would allow for such “remote learning.”

🧩 Scientific Consensus​

ClaimStatus
Mice learn faster when others have already learned the mazeClaimed in older studies
Result replicated with modern methods❌ No
Mechanism identified (genetic, memetic, quantum, etc.)❌ No
Accepted by mainstream science❌ No

✅ What Is Well-Supported​


  • Social learning: Animals (including mice) can learn faster by watching or interacting with other trained animals.

  • Transgenerational epigenetics: Some stress responses or adaptations can pass across generations, but not complex learned behaviors like solving a maze.

  • Environmental cueing: Scents, markings, or residual cues left in the maze can influence results if not perfectly controlled.

TL;DR​

Yes, the phenomenon has been claimed and even "documented" — but not convincingly replicated under rigorous scientific controls. There's no accepted evidence that learning in one group of mice leads to faster learning in isolated mice elsewhere. Still, it's a fascinating piece of science history that gets at our enduring curiosity about hidden forms of knowledge transmission.

Want a citation trail or deeper dive into McDougall’s original experiments?
Click to expand...

Literally thought you thought the mouse claims were legitimate. My apologies.

"Still, it's a fascinating piece of science history that gets at our enduring curiosity about hidden forms of knowledge transmission."

Not for me. I see an enduring example of how hokum spreads. Here It is again.

The fact that no actual original studies were actually done on remote mouse improvements is the literal end of the story. Like so many hokum sources, some dude just said maybe this is true. Some dude's pipe dream. The thought should have died as soon as he finished his sentence.
 
Mike Islander said:
Literally thought you thought the mouse claims were legitimate. My apologies.

"Still, it's a fascinating piece of science history that gets at our enduring curiosity about hidden forms of knowledge transmission."

Not for me. I see an enduring example of how hokum spreads. Here It is again.
Click to expand...

No issue, I do have some level of interest in things we can observe but dont understand. I have very little tolerance for unsubstantiated conclusions about cause. I likely worded the mouse example in a way that did not make that clear.
 
Science can’t explain everything it’s good to be an independent critical thinker.

Want to do your own experiment on telepathy? Then do this. When you’re driving down the road stare at someone walking on the sidewalk the same direction as you are so their back is to you. I mean really stare hard at them. I guarantee they feel it and turn around and look right at you. My wife and i do it often it’s freaky how often people do feel this and turn to look at you. We have all had the feeling of being watched but largely ignore it as we are taught to not believe in this sort of stuff. But my money is on you WERE being watched when you felt that.

Can science explain that, nope. But does it happen way more often than to just be chance, yep.
 
Predator_SD said:
Science can’t explain everything it’s good to be an independent critical thinker.

Want to do your own experiment on telepathy? Then do this. When you’re driving down the road stare at someone walking on the sidewalk the same direction as you are so their back is to you. I mean really stare hard at them. I guarantee they feel it and turn around and look right at you. My wife and i do it often it’s freaky how often people do feel this and turn to look at you. We have all had the feeling of being watched but largely ignore it as we are taught to not believe in this sort of stuff. But my money is on you WERE being watched when you felt that.

Can science explain that, nope. But does it happen way more often than to just be chance, yep.
Click to expand...

You sound very confident about this. I will fly to meet you anywhere in the lower USA, rent a car, and let you try it. If it works more than 5 out of 10 tries, I will pay you $1000. If not, you pay me $1000. I'll pay for the flight and the car.
 
Billy Goat said:
This is a completely serious question, honestly.


Does any research show that tin foil on my head will prevent my thoughts from being read?

I don't need people knowing what's going on inside my head, even if they have difficulty with communication to others.

I can line my hats with it, nobody will notice.
Click to expand...
Tinfoil will stop your thoughts getting out and you end up with an echo chamber. :ROFLMAO:
 
Predator_SD said:
Science can’t explain everything it’s good to be an independent critical thinker.

Want to do your own experiment on telepathy? Then do this. When you’re driving down the road stare at someone walking on the sidewalk the same direction as you are so their back is to you. I mean really stare hard at them. I guarantee they feel it and turn around and look right at you. My wife and i do it often it’s freaky how often people do feel this and turn to look at you. We have all had the feeling of being watched but largely ignore it as we are taught to not believe in this sort of stuff. But my money is on you WERE being watched when you felt that.

Can science explain that, nope. But does it happen way more often than to just be chance, yep.
Click to expand...
Sooooooo, its not that they hear the car coming?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MT_Wyatt
SEAK mountain goat lessons
Replies
4
Views
1K
StupidLightweight
StupidLightweight
hereinaz
#8 Trusted Resources: Where can you find good info?
Replies
2
Views
2K
BlackLabel1200
B
M
Snow Day
Replies
0
Views
834
magtech
M
bguitierez
Persistence Always Pays Off
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
6K
bguitierez
bguitierez
bguitierez
She calls him Napoleon
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Osut645
O

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
366,423
Messages
3,880,719
Members
83,019
Latest member
DB55

Latest Articles

Back
Top