An Odd SMS and an Odd Essay

Tonight, I received an odd SMS from my friend, Judy. The message says this:

mr know it ol, is der any truth 2 dis: human minds r linked w/ ich other thru neuron activities w/c means if ur thnking of sum1 ol day long, dat pers0n is pr0bably thnking of u. how 2 debunk dis?

Out of pure weirdness, I composed an email, which sounded like an essay.


Dear Judy,

Although it may be argued that human minds can be linked by neural activities, there is little scientific proof to this. Even twins claiming that there is such a thing as telepathy, when subjected under rigorous scientific measurements, were not able to present a conclusive correlation to the claim. Pure neural activity may not be enough to connect two people together and prove that person A can think of person B to encourage person B to think about the person A. Although this thought seems logical, it exists as a fallacy proven by biochemistry, behavioral psychology, and the Butterfly Effect.

On the other hand, we can involve several other factors, starting from the neural activities, to link 2 people together. However, this discussion might need that the two people involved share a close proximity with each other. For instance, Jane is thinking about Tarzan. Neural processes, the release of neurochemicals and bioelectric signals, may cause Jane to act differently, almost on an unconscious level, while Tarzan is nearby. As animals, humans may emit pheromones that are unconsciously detected by Tarzan, causing him to think of Jane.

Another alternative may be body language. Jane might look at Tarzan, drop her stare, and look at Tarzan once again. As an animal, Tarzan would tend to be vigilant of his surroundings and may notice Jane's "odd" or "unconventional" behavior, which might puzzle Tarzan into thinking about why Jane is acting like a crazy stalker. On the other hand, Tarzan might misinterpret this as a show of interest and could motivate him to think that Jane is expressing interest in him. Thus, this train of thought follows the idea of perceived body language creating thoughts about another individual.

On the other hand, if a person ascribes to any esoteric school of thought, it could be argued under the Butterfly Effect that the subtlest of things can cause a drastic and chaotic chain of events that leads to a specific goal. The firing of a neuron would indeed have enough force to set an innumerable chain of events to happen that will ultimately hit the target person, but as the basis of the Butterfly Effect is still a flux of events happening in succession, we cannot argue that neural activity is enough. In fact, it will lead into a vicious cycle: if Jane thought of Tarzan, then Tarzan would have been thinking of Jane, too, but who started all of this? The confusion within this vicious cycle may be pragmatically solved by merely generalizing that neural activity is the basis of the intricate web of connection, but logically, it exists as a slippery slope fallacy.

As such, mere thought might not be enough to absolutely prove the connection. It may be a hasty generalization that needs a close examination of other factors that might be involved. Such factors consist of biochemistry, behavior, sensation and perception. Even following the esoteric Butterfly Effect would only show the deficit in the generalization by presenting a vicious cycle. These factors might indeed help predispose one person to think of the other, debunking the idea that pure neural activity can achieve the desired effect.

¿Contesté yo la pregunta?

I don’t know what she’ll say to this, but it’s worth the wait. At any rate, it seems that I was not successful in debunking the theory – or was I?

Read more...