Telepathy and socionics

[Dioklecian]

If telepathy existed, what function would be responsible for making it work?

Does anyone know much about this topic?

[machintruc]

If telepathy existed, what function would be responsible for aking it work?

Does anyone know much about this topic?

Telepathy doesn't exist, it's superstition. Telepathy is a satanic thing.

Manifestations of trying to telepathise are mostly related to , because it's related to subjective mental images - trying to understand mental images of others. It's like .

[Dioklecian]

What do you mean by it's similar to Fi?

And isn't telepathy the ability to transmit thoughts rather than images?

[machintruc]

What do you mean by it's similar to Fi?

And isn't telepathy the ability to transmit thoughts rather than images?

acquiring mental images of others
acquiring feelings of others

Although there are satanic "telepathetic" practices, acquiring mental images of others can be healthy, as long as you're not going to be superstitious about it.

Thinking process is related to possibly is acquiring thoughts of others, and is acquiring mechanical interactions of others.

[Dioklecian]

I thought that is the one that aquires the emotions of others ?

[machintruc]

I thought that is the one that aquires the emotions of others ?

E = absolute
I = relative

[Expat]

I thought that is the one that aquires the emotions of others ?

Yes but through supposedly objective, "visible" means -- not through anything needing anything like telepathy.

[Dioklecian]

I thought that is the one that aquires the emotions of others ?

Yes but through supposedly objective, "visible" means -- not through anything needing anything like telepathy.

Two points: if telepathy exists, then I don't see why it shouldn't be objective, and as real as type or type functions.

And I don't truly understand emotions, I don't see for instance how people can change others' emotions in an objective way.

[Expat]

Two points: if telepathy exists, then I don't see why it shouldn't be objective, and as real as type or type functions.

IF it existed, it would be just like another sense - but it doesn't exist, so it's a non-issue.

And I don't truly understand emotions, I don't see for instance how people can change others' emotions in an objective way.

"Emotions" in the sense of Fe are "objective" emotions in the sense that they can be agreed upon due to objective criteria. We can both agree that if someone is smiling broadly and laughing, that person is happy.

[Dioklecian]

Two more points @Expat:

-How can you be so certain that telepathy does not exist? If people can change the emotional state of others, why note their thoughts?

-And I don't think that people agree easily with each other about the content of emtions, some might think that a poet is expressing this emotion while others might think that he is expressing another.

[Joy]

Telepathy doesn't exist, it's superstition. Telepathy is a satanic thing.

How can it be Satanic if it doesn't exist?

[machintruc]

Telepathy doesn't exist, it's superstition. Telepathy is a satanic thing.

How can it be Satanic if it doesn't exist?

You know, satanistic telepathic practices... Satanic practices are superstitious and don't work.

In my catholic association, someone talked on a case of "satanic healing" of a person which was about to die, which worked... for weeks, then he died. Satan can't make miracles.

[Joy]

What about angels?

[Rocky]

In my catholic association, someone talked on a case of "satanic healing" of a person which was about to die, which worked... for weeks, then he died. Satan can't make miracles.

I know of someone with catholic association who was about to die who prayed to his God, which worked... for days, then he died.

[Joy]

I'm pretty sure that there have been a lot of people where were about to die, then didn't for days... or weeks... or months... or decades...

[Joy]

Anyways, I just asked because I was brought up religiously and taught that Satan and demons do have supernatural powers, they just aren't more powerful than God's.

[tcaudilllg]

Personal knowledge rational functions are semi-telepathic when invoked under the transcendental function.

[machintruc]

Anyways, I just asked because I was brought up religiously and taught that Satan and demons do have supernatural powers, they just aren't more powerful than God's.

Satan is a subordinate of God, because God created Satan.

Satan can tempt you, because God can authorise him to. God permits the Evil, for a greater Good. God lets you choose among the Good and the Evil.

[machintruc]

Anyways, I just asked because I was brought up religiously and taught that Satan and demons do have supernatural powers, they just aren't more powerful than God's.

Religiously, you mean, which religion ?

[Joy]

Bible.

Technically they called themselves "Baptist", but an extremist, authoritarian religion is an extremist, authoritarian religion as far as I'm concerned. What they call the excuse they use not to have to think for themselves doesn't matter much. Not that your beliefs or faith is like that. I wouldn't know.

[machintruc]

Bible.

Technically they called themselves "Baptist", but an extremist, authoritarian religion is an extremist, authoritarian religion as far as I'm concerned. What they call the excuse they use not to have to think for themselves doesn't matter much. Not that your beliefs or faith is like that. I wouldn't know.

I'm a Catholic myself, because Roman Catholicism is the only true religion. In my milieu nearly everyone says that and I agree with that, because it seems very logical (in the sense) to me. Nothing is more logical than the existence of God. God and the science ARE compatible : if you don't believe in God, you can't really be scientific nor pragmatic. God created everything which can be measured in meters and seconds.

[Exodus]

God and the science ARE compatible : if you don't believe in God, you can't really be scientific nor pragmatic.

Even if God does exist, this statement is fallacious.

[Joy]

I'm a Catholic myself, because Roman Catholicism is the only true religion. In my milieu nearly everyone says that and I agree with that, because it seems very logical (in the sense) to me.

[Expat]

Two more points @Expat:

-How can you be so certain that telepathy does not exist?

For the same reason I'm certain that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. People - often serious researchers - studied telepathy (and telekinesis etc) at least since the 1930s. Yet you never get actual, battle-tested proof. It's far less observable than Socionics. So, for all practical purposes, I'm assuming it exists as much as the Loch Ness monster, or unicorns. Until evidence of its existence is available.

If people can change the emotional state of others, why note their thoughts?

People do change the emotional state of others, as well as their thoughts - but not through telepathy. We used words, gestures, body language - etc.

-And I don't think that people agree easily with each other about the content of emtions, some might think that a poet is expressing this emotion while others might think that he is expressing another.

The fact that you don't always agree doesn't meant that it's not objective.

[cracka]

I use telepathy to talk to my bowling ball, since it doesn't have ears to hear me with. I scored a 255 a couple weeks ago. I can't say it really works with anything else though.

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

This thread speaks for the creator of this topic's understanding of the implications of Socionics on human psychology.

[Joy]

I use telepathy to talk to my bowling ball, since it doesn't have ears to hear me with. I scored a 255 a couple weeks ago. I can't say it really works with anything else though.

That's just self fulfilling prophecy.

[Logos]

I think every forum is supposed to have at least one token religious nut. This thread I think confirms who our current one is.

[aestrivex]

I think every forum is supposed to have at least one token religious nut. This thread I think confirms who our current one is.

i can think of two blatantly bad ones on this forum so far, including the present.

[tcaudilllg]

I think having to work with the same information structure can lead to a commonality of shared perceptions that can seem like telepathy.

[Dioklecian]

This thread speaks for the creator of this topic's understanding of the implications of Socionics on human psychology.

Could you explain this further please?

[Quirk Satellite Div.]

This thread speaks for the creator of this topic's understanding of the implications of Socionics on human psychology.

Could you explain this further please?

Nevermind what I said. I apologize- I made a broad generalization based on the mood I was in after reading and disagreeing with posts made by several other forum members when I made this statement.

[Metamorph]

This thread speaks for the creator of this topic's understanding of the implications of Socionics on human psychology.

Tell that to Carl Gustav Jung himself.

I'm not defending the OP's ideas, but I am defending the OP himself, because if you think paranormal ideas are not just wrong but completely stupid, what are you doing on a Jungian site?