Empaths

[InfiniteNow]

We need a half dozen MRI machines with everyone strapped in at once maybe? Maybe just wearing helmets with sensor arrays feeding the signal to a CPU?

Shocking them is fun indeed. (see the famed "Milgram Experiment")

 

 

However, your above referenced equipment seems outdated (no offense ;) ), and I'd like to conduct a similar study using a SQUID device.

But, that's just me. : poindexter : ;) Damnit! How about this one: :) That's close enough I suppose... :)

 

 

Anyone else have a suggestion for experimenting?

[Turtle]

Shocking them is fun indeed.

Speaking of living in the electrifying Now, what do you think of the thought that empaths have the ability to live in the Before-Now? Like riding a bow-wave. :QuestionM

The thought came to me earlier, but I am only communicating it now.:angel:

[InfiniteNow]

what do you think of the thought that empaths have the ability to live in the Before-Now? Like riding a bow-wave.

Premonitory indeed. I cannot speak with much clarity on the issue, but it immediately reminded me of dreams I'd had that later occurred, or intense feelings of deja vu.

 

Now is all things, all places, all times, and always. A continually increasing surface on an expanding bubble, but simultaneous everything both within and external to that bubble.

 

I'm thought surfing. Apologies.

 

Perhaps empaths have a greater ability to connect with a "before-now," to tap into it, but it's there for everyone if it's there for one.

 

 

Cheers friend. :QuestionM

[Turtle]

A continually increasing surface on an expanding bubble, but simultaneous everything both within and external to that bubble.

 

I'm thought surfing. Apologies.

 

Perhaps empaths have a greater ability to connect with a "before-now," to tap into it, but it's there for everyone if it's there for one.

 

Cheers friend. :beer:

 

I'm thought Buckminster Fuller.

Apology for a good analogy? I think not.

If the wave & board are there for all to surf, why do the meek eschew it?

Salut freunden.:beer:

[CraigD]

Throughout this thread, I’ve been somewhat confused by the assumption that “Empath”, as described in the list of traits linked to by post #1, describes other than a normally socialized human being.

You could put an empath in a room with a specific amount of people for a given amount of time. then have everyone leave, and have the empath descrbe how each one of them felt, and the overall vibe of the room.

Provided that everyone is from roughtly the same culture – language, dress, social conventions – I suspect that nearly any normal adult could accurately discern this information, using their ordinary visual and auditory perception and the usual (but amazing) human ability to understand facial, postural, and vocal clues. Even if the people were making an effort to appear in a different mood than they actually were, most people will see throught that, and describe the scene as “strained”.

 

Only people with psychological disorders (such as an autistic or a schizophrenic), or someone experiencing the performances of skilled actors or con artists, or a preoccupied or distracted person will consistently fail to perceive the emotional states of people around them.

 

The empaths.tribe.net page actually asks the question “ARE YOU AN EMPATH OR TELEPATH ??” (italics mine), implying equivalence between “ordinary” empathy, which nearly all people appear to have, supernatural empathy, the “ability to directly experientially feel the emotion of another”, and telepathy, “the claimed ability of humans and other creatures to communicate information from one mind to another, without the use of extra tools such as speech or body language”, abilities which nobody has been able to demonstrate in a well-controlled experiment, and which no widely accepted scientific theory suggests exists.

 

This strikes me sneaky and disingenuous. In short, it consists of the following:

1. If some people can recognize and perceive the emotions of others, then some people can directly experience the emotions of others, and some people can communicate information from one mind to another without the use of tools such as speech or body language, possibly over a long (tele-) distance
   
2. It can be shown (obviously) that people can recognize and perceive the emotions of others.
   
3. Therefore, some people can directly experience of the emotion of others, and some people can communicate mind-to-mind without the use of tools.
   

Because the first implication in this argument is arbitrary and false, the argument is false.

[InfiniteNow]

I remembered that I had a similar correspondence back in January.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/computer-science/4872-phones-tomorrow-2.html

 

 

Also, the guy Rupert Sheldrake, has some ideas. While morphic fields may not bear fruit, I very much like that he's attempting real life tests at these phenomena. Again, his explanation may be off, but he's at least working at making the science of it all less psuedo.

 

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html#

[CraigD]

Also, the guy Rupert Sheldrake, has some ideas. While morphic fields may not bear fruit, I very much like that he's attempting real life tests at these phenomena. Again, his explanation may be off, but he's at least working at making the science of it all less psuedo.

While Sheldrake’s “7 Experiments that Could Change the World” won’t, IMHO, prove that the physical world is dominated by morphogenic field, or even that such things exist, they did me a service in exposing some shortcomings in the skeptical community.

 

Several years ago, I was involved with one of the 7 experiments: “the sense of being looked at”. In short, this experiment seeks to demonstrate that human beings, and by extension, other animals, are aware of when someone is looking at them, even when they have no ordinary sensory evidence of it. A typical design involves having a group of volunteer “prey” go about ordinary activities in a public place, such a library, while a group of volunteer “predators” stare at them intently but outside or their hearing or vision, according to a randomly generated schedule. Prey wear labels so that the predators can identify them, while the predators are unmarked. None of the participants know who the predators are. Predators log which prey they were staring at in each randomly assigned staring session, while prey keep a log in which they note “felt I was being watched” or “didn’t feel I was being watched” for each interval (typically a 5 minute period) of the experiment. Afterwards, the logs are compared to determine if the preys’ feelings of being watched correspond to when they were actually watched more often than can be accounted for by random chance.

 

When carried out with proper controls, this experiment usually shows a significant positive correlation between the feeling of being watched and actually being watched, which Sheldrake defined in the experiment’s design as evidence of perception beyond the usual 5 senses.

 

A number of skeptics examined Sheldrake’s “7 experiments project” datasets and experiment notes, and documented various methodological flaws in them, most based on the idea that the assignment of stare/don’t stare periods, which Sheldrake recommended calculating using such simple methods as coin tosses, were not random enough, allowing prey to successfully guess according to unconscious patterns in a way that produced a false positive result. In short, they refuted the claim that experimental subjects had a “6th sense” with the claim that they had an unconscious ability to guess the pattern of slightly biased random data.

 

Being aware of when one of these experiments was being conducted, I discretely spied on it, and almost immediately noted an effect that neither Sheldrake’s supporters nor detractors had documented: often, when a prey was being stared at by a predator (who was being careful that they prey did could not see him), a third person would see them, and naturally look about to try and determine what was going on, looking alternately at prey and predator, often with a look of slight alarm. This third person often would be within the prey’s sight, and notice their unusual behavior, in some cases even following their glance toward the predator, who, per experimental design, would stop staring before being detected. Most people are acquainted with this “what’s that behind you” perceptual phenomenon.

 

This struck me as a neat, simple explanation of the significant results of the “sense of being stared at” experiments, that fit well with the idea that behaviors with obvious survival value were likely to be present in successful animal (including human) populations. The ability to notice from the behavior of other members of your “herd” when you were being stared at with possibly hostile intent seems to have obvious survival value. To my surprise, although my observation was politely received (and even published) by skeptic groups, and to a lesser extent by Sheldrake supporters, none considered it important enough to attempt to control for in the experimental design. In short, it appeared that Sheldrake supporters had their agenda – to demonstrate the existence of ESP – while skeptics had theirs – to debunk the Sheldrake supporters’ results and conclusions. Neither appeared to have any interest in eliminating an obvious flaw in the experiment’s design in order to increase the validity of its result, either positive or negative.

 

The moral of this story: In combating irrational, agenda-driven thinking, one should be careful lest one become dogmatic and irrational oneself.

[InfiniteNow]

The moral of this story: In combating irrational, agenda-driven thinking, one should be careful lest one become dogmatic and irrational oneself.

CraigD, thank you, as always, for your masterful description and understanding. I agree with your statement that folks tend to look for that which supports their preconceptions, was not aware of the idea of using reference cues to determine if they were being stared or not, and agree that the study could be improved.

 

Perhaps an interogation room with one-sided mirror. The "prey" looks away from the mirror, and each 60 seconds is asked to state "yes, they are being looked at," or "no, they are not being looked at." The "predator" role could then be randomized such that a) they are looking, :doh: they are not looking, or c) there is no predator in the room. What do you think?

 

Also, have you read the studies on animals that know when their owners are returning home, studies which controlled for time passage awareness?

 

Again, masterful post, and thank you. :esmoking:

[Turtle]

Throughout this thread, I’ve been somewhat confused by the assumption that “Empath”, as described in the list of traits linked to by post #1, describes other than a normally socialized human being.Provided that everyone is from roughtly the same culture – language, dress, social conventions – I suspect that nearly any normal adult could accurately discern this information, using their ordinary visual and auditory perception and the usual (but amazing) human ability to understand facial, postural, and vocal clues.

 

I agree the list is lacking in rigor and clarity. I also agree that it is the perception of clues that accounts for empathy. Without regard to the telepathy, I think the differentiation you make between "ordinary" and "supernatural" is ill applied. Given other human capabilities which show great variability, e.g. athletic ability, visual accuity or hearing accuity, I see no reason not to accord the same range of accuity to empathy. :)

 

I mean does anyone claim Michael Jordon is supernatural? :eek2: :cup: :hihi:

[learnin to learn]

I mean does anyone claim Michael Jordon is supernatural? :) :cup: :eek2:

 

nope, but he has some super skills!! :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

C1ay makes a point in other threads regarding supernatural. Basically, if I am to paraphrase, everything is natural or just as yet unexplained. There's no need for the qualifier of "super" or "above" or "beyond" natural, because everything is natural, even when it's unexplained at present.

[paigetheoracle]

Premonitory indeed. I cannot speak with much clarity on the issue, but it immediately reminded me of dreams I'd had that later occurred, or intense feelings of deja vu.

 

Now is all things, all places, all times, and always. A continually increasing surface on an expanding bubble, but simultaneous everything both within and external to that bubble.

 

I'm thought surfing. Apologies.

 

Perhaps empaths have a greater ability to connect with a "before-now," to tap into it, but it's there for everyone if it's there for one.

 

 

Cheers friend. :)

 

Sounds a bit like Quantam Mechanics to me or that teleportation experiment where an atom here was able to influence an atom there.

 

Celtfaery's description of the difference between empaths and narcissists is spot on in my books.

 

The latter are more like the 'Criminals' described earlier. They don't feel anything for themselves or others and are ambitious, trampling all over others to get what they want out of life (materialists/ addicts are equally good descriptions or transmitters as opposed to recievers on the emotional wavelength (active not passive - disruptors not disrupted: Speaking from personal experience - being on the recieving end of an 'emotional shock wave' is totally disabling to everyday functioning and in my opinion explains apathy as an emotion and why women suffer from mental illness more than men, and are considered fluffyminded (disabled by emotional input)).

 

The difference between telepathy and empathy is that the former isn't disruptive at all - it's just picking up something. For instance I just knew when a girl I was thinking of having a relationship with, was having sex with someone else (don't know how I knew but I just picked it up). I was just walking down the street when I knew without a shadow of a doubt this was happening, rushed round to her place and caught them at it (Case proved, case and relationship closed for me - not what I wanted but there you are, that's life).

 

I think it is as Infinite says - the language of physics applies. If you're open to things, then you 'attract' them and if you don't want to know about them, you're 'repulsed' by them (psychic or indeed any awareness of something and denial or shutting out of awareness of something - it's all varying degrees of this phenomena: Big Dog and twins applies here as it's about being in harmony with someone (I remember a survey where it was found we pick our partners because they look like us and have similar interests and another that stated as we get older, sexual characteristics that define us fade as our relationship develops and of course there is the old chestnut about pets and dogs resembling each other too: See also my first statement in this post about atoms and quantum mechanics.

 

The reason you see evidence of something is that you want to (creative linking) and don't for the same reason - intellectual repulsion and attraction or love/hate of ideas, just as you have it emotionally (aesthetically - the arts and life in general, from this point of view).

 

Like Turtle implied about himself (hope I haven't got this wrong) I'm a bit autistic myself (Aspergers Syndrome) and it throws your ability to process all that life throws at you. It can be a curse and a blessing (don't ask about sex) - it's like 'The Princess and the Pea' by Hans Christian Anderson: You feel everything but too much sometimes, in my case this leads to migraines (I have been known to visibly jump if I'm walking along and a grain of dirt hits me in the face - thankfully I'm not always this sensitive). To me the less sensitive could be compared to zombies - slow witted and slow moving but this is not meant as an insult just an observation and comparison: We work into a cobweb and know it instantly - they require the build up of several cobwebs over their faces to know that cobwebs exist.

 

Apparently it is believed that more primitive man might have been more psychic but lost this faculty over time ( I think it was Graham Hancock who mentioned it in an article on one of his books once, in The Daily Mail but don't quote me on that). Personally I think this is possible as I don't believe this society could function effectively if it was full of telepaths and empaths - too emotional, too naked in our thoughts to keep secrets and be as ruthless as most civilizations seem to need to be to operate.

[paigetheoracle]

The problem here is when the people lie on the questionaire, which they will do to hide some embarrassment or other. You could polygraph them, but that's not reliable either. In cases where the empath's assessment differs from the claims of a subject, there is no reliable way to resolve the conundrum.

I do like the idea of making a suitable experiment, but I think the odds are against us without some major equipment. We need a half dozen MRI machines with everyone strapped in at once maybe?:eek: :) :hyper: Maybe just wearing helmets with sensor arrays feeding the signal to a CPU? :D When we detect a lie, we can shock them. :) Then I....er...the empath can try & tell how they liked that shock.:hihi:

Sorry, I detected a jovial spirit & just went with it.:D

 

The shock idea is good but how about just shocking someone in a different room that the empath claiment is fond of and measuring their unconsious reactions?. You put them (reciever) in a an isolation chamber or sensory deprivation tank, white noise transmitted into their ears/ blindfolded. Then you act on the transmitter to see what if anything they pick up in the way of feelings (measure heart rate/ brain wave patterns etc.). As a control you just have somebody doing nothing much for the same period, in the same environment.

[Turtle]

Like Turtle implied about himself (hope I haven't got this wrong) I'm a bit autistic myself (Aspergers Syndrome) and it throws your ability to process all that life throws at you. It can be a curse and a blessing (don't ask about sex) - it's like 'The Princess and the Pea' by Hans Christian Anderson: You feel everything but too much sometimes, in my case this leads to migraines (I have been known to visibly jump if I'm walking along and a grain of dirt hits me in the face - thankfully I'm not always this sensitive). To me the less sensitive could be compared to zombies - slow witted and slow moving but this is not meant as an insult just an observation and comparison: We work into a cobweb and know it instantly - they require the build up of several cobwebs over their faces to know that cobwebs exist.

No, you didn't get it wrong. :) If I'm not wrong, such descriptions as you give of the experience are as endless as they are inadequate. As to the shocking, I was being facetious and playing off of Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority. To clarify those experiments, only one mild shock was given the dupes at the outset to convince them the fake shocking apparatus was real. Clockwork Orange anyone?;) :lol: :lol:

[paigetheoracle]

No, you didn't get it wrong. :xparty: If I'm not wrong, such descriptions as you give of the experience are as endless as they are inadequate. As to the shocking, I was being facetious and playing off of Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority. To clarify those experiments, only one mild shock was given the dupes at the outset to convince them the fake shocking apparatus was real. Clockwork Orange anyone?:doh: :confused: :xparty:

 

Even so (and it was in the back of my mind I'd come across the idea before) strong emotion is a good test of empathic reception and it needn't be physical - how about the test subjects shown pictures of shocking events (can't remember who thought of that one either but it was used to test telepathy or remote viewing).

[InfiniteNow]

I struggle to separate empathy from empathic behavior, and sense the similar cortical regions may be involved with these concepts. Below is some data from a study on empathy itself. If my comment above has merit, then similar tests on empathic behavior might be warranted.

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

 

 

Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas.

 

How do we empathize with others? A mechanism according to which action representation modulates emotional activity may provide an essential functional architecture for empathy. The superior temporal and inferior frontal cortices are critical areas for action representation and are connected to the limbic system via the insula. Thus, the insula may be a critical relay from action representation to emotion. We used functional MRI while subjects were either imitating or simply observing emotional facial expressions. Imitation and observation of emotions activated a largely similar network of brain areas. Within this network, there was greater activity during imitation, compared with observation of emotions, in premotor areas including the inferior frontal cortex, as well as in the superior temporal cortex, insula, and amygdala. We understand what others feel by a mechanism of action representation that allows empathy and modulates our emotional content. The insula plays a fundamental role in this mechanism.

[Turtle]

I struggle to separate empathy from empathic behavior, and sense the similar cortical regions may be involved with these concepts. Below is some data from a study on empathy itself. If my comment above has merit, then similar tests on empathic behavior might be warranted.

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

 

 

Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas.

 

Fascinating! I read the abstract, but can't seem to find the full text. Nonetheless, I looked at some of the related articles and found something somewhat confounding. To preface, I have said here I am an austistic empath; this little study seems to indicate autists lack empathy? :beer:

 

One characteristic of ASD (Autism spectrum disorder )is the lack of empathy and emotional engagement with others (Gillberg 1992; APA 2000). Individuals with ASD have difficulty in relating to others and recognizing their emotions and fail to show the usual empathic reaction when other people demonstrate emotions of fear, pleasure, or pain (Hobson 1993). Lack of empathy in ASD has been quantified with objective test measures, such as the Empathy Quotient Questionnaire (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004).

 

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/9/1276

 

Great stuff Infinow! Cheers.:beer: