Even a nonscientist science appreciator like me knows that we live in a very strange universe once you get beyond the everyday reality of our senses.
The bizarre physics of the quantum level is where much of this strangeness lies. Photons that are both particles and waves. Cats that are both dead and alive until one looks. The weird observer effect, and above all quantum entanglement.
Then, toss in the types of infinities, fractsl geometry, mathematical incompleteness, and chaos theory.
Given all that, how can one write off cross species mental telepathy?
It’s well established, though unexplained, that some dogs and cats know when their human is returning from work or from a trip and will go and wait for them at the door where they are expected to enter. And this does not fit the first explanation that comes to mind, which is that the animal is sensitive to a pattern. Their human always walks in the door around 6 p.m., for example. No, they are sensitive to variations in the normal pattern. It seems that somehow they can read their human’s mind and thus know they are on their way.
This woman appears to have a special nonverbal way of communicating with animals nonverbally. This video does not depict a one off. It’s followed by another example.
There is plenty of skepticism regarding this woman which is very easy to find, but it is largely by people who seem to reject her out of hand. Remember, that almost every major advance in science was rejected out of hand, regarded as preposterous and apparently impossible.
The way we progress is by giving what seems impossible a fair shake.
Undeniably, there are people who have a way with animals. The so-called horse whisperer, for example, and other people can calm down vicious dogs, going into their pen and sitting down and before long they are petting the dog and handing it treats changing them into far more agreeable and compliant animals.
My cat is known as a one man cat. My ex is not a cat person and was swatted pretty hard when she went to pet her. On the other hand, I have a male friend who is a cat person and when he entered my apartment and saw her, he walked right up and petted her and she didn’t bat an eyelash.
So, is animal/huan telepathy impossible? How can we find out? And what if it turns out it’s something some people—possibly very few—possess.
People sometimes have a sense of foreboding that, say, something bad is happening to a loved one.
That aside, I’m not sure how anyone short of the lady depicted in the original post would know what the pigs are thinking. They could easily be reacting negatively to the circumstances of their transport. Being in a crowded pen that vibrates and bounces and not having water.
BTW, I’m not clear on what could be “mischief” about giving pigs water(?).
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Unseen.
This story is kind of the opposite of the snowflake.
So instead of accommodating the outgroup and censoring any perceived intolerance-this is prosecuting for a tiny act of kindness to those whose destiny is bacon.
“Krajnc, founder of the group Toronto Pig Save, is charged with mischief for giving water to pigs en route to Fearman’s Pork Inc. on June 22, 2015. She has pleaded not guilty, and if convicted, faces a maximum $5,000 fine and jail time.”
The motive? Yea assuming Canadian criminal law is similar to American…how the hell did a prosecutor take this up?
Apparently this is the relevant statute. Section 430 (1) of the Criminal Code defines mischief as the wilful destruction of property, making it dangerous or useless to others. This charge can also be laid if you obstruct or interferes with other people’s lawful use and enjoyment of property.
Unless there is more to the story i have to think this is a malicious prosecution. It is also a frivolous. Perhaps the motive is spite because the defendant is an animal right’s activist and the logic may be something like how dear you give water to suffering pigs on the way to slaughter. You have no right to show kindness to my PROPERTY. Also i hate your guts for raising the issue of morality in my business practices.
I agree, malicious (and nonsensical) prosecution which any reasonable judge, I would think, would toss out of court even before it goes to trial as a perfect example of abusing the justice system.
Now, let’s get back to the telepathy question. For example, how does the so-called “observer effect” not hint at something like a mental power or mental field or some such thing?
Perhaps the motive is spite because the defendant is an animal right’s activist and the logic may be something like how dear you give water to suffering pigs on the way to slaughter. You have no right to show kindness to my PROPERTY. Also i hate your guts for raising the issue of morality in my business practices.
Setting aside the suffering of pigs for a moment, when we look at them as food supply, there are a lot of regulations and safety standards in the raising, handling and slaughter of livestock. It has to be this way for health standards. So interfering with the animals becomes a problem. From our perspective after the fact, it may seem apparent she was trying to ease the suffering of the animals, but from the perspective of farmers and/ or truckers bringing them to the slaughter house, they don’t know who she is, what she’s doing, or what’s in that bottle.
When it comes to the animal welfare aspect, there are certainly broader questions we should be asking ourselves as a society. But that sort of paradigm shift isn’t one best resolved by a single court case nor by giving a few pigs some water. Canadian law, especially at the level of enforcement or lower court rulings, isn’t really about justice in some high-minded sense of the word, but rather practical measures for regulating and maintaining a particular social paradigm. In that paradigm, pigs aren’t ranked highly, certainly not anywhere close to on par with human wants or needs.
The point isn’t that this makes the situation right or just, only that the court proceedings were not necessarily a matter of malicious prosecution neither were they necessarily in the best public nor private interest in this case. Sometimes the tools we have at our disposal are not the right ones for the job. There was never going to be a case where there was no prosecutor, just as in cases where the most heinous and uncomplicatedly guilty defendants are not going to have a defence attorney unless by choice. While there is some degree of choice in the decision to prosecute, generally prosecutors aren’t going to outright ignore cases where evidence exists and a court can decide the outcome.
That said, with regard to ‘mischief’ it’s a very broad offence which seems to be used in cases where something more specific just doesn’t exist. For instance, when it came to the Truck Convoy, most charges laid were ‘mischief’ iirc. While it’s true that the concept of pigs as property is still salient, it’s not necessarily quite as reductive as one might assume.
There seems to be some connection between bird navigation during migration and using quantum entanglement to “read” the magnetosphere. Of course, HOW they use this sense is a matter for more research.
This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Unseen.
TheEncogitationer 1 year, 3 months ago.
Unseen.
