Several things. When it comes to consciousness we are attempting to define a phenomenon that we may think is a discrete entity but which we may not have characterised articulately. In other words, when we attempt to study it and explain it, we may be asking the wrong questions. Hard to put into words. However, once we have defined and explained it we will have done it using the laws of nature. The anatomy, the physiology and the biochemistry are all in place, ready for us to disentangle. There is no law of nature that can explain how a thought process that occurs in one person's brain can be transferred over a distance to another without the normal methods of communication. To say that it happens is mere conjecture. A flight of the imagination only. That's fine. But without evidence of any kind (which can't include claims made by individuals that can't be verified and which are notoriously subject to fraud), and with no physical laws that can be brought into play towards achieving an explanation, claims for telepathy are on exactly the same level as claims for the existence of God or the Loch Ness Monster. Beyond science, in other words, and deliberately made so. There hasn't been a single incidence of telepathy that has ever been verified by science. That's serious, Keith. Leave it to the wacky. A scientist proclaiming telepathy is disreputable.