A scientific test of paranormal ability, right here on sciforums!
- Thread starter kwhilborn
- Start date
kx000
Valued Senior Member
We need a controlled environment. Next.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
K91, we can't purport to know how your ability works. You are the one who knows how it works. For all we know, your ability doesn't work within 20 feet of balls or cups or televisions.
Why don't you tell us what test you could do, and we'll apply reasonable controls.
Here's one , I'll put a number below and make it in white so that you'll need to run your cursor over it to see it. That way if you think you know the number you can see if you are right or wrong. Of course it is only to be used for fun because I won't know if you really knew the number before you looked.
Below is the number it is between 1 and 1000.
789
Below is the number it is between 1 and 1000.
789
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I need to tell you about something you have no knowledge of that you came to know through my thoughts. Im past that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If you can't show a consequence how do you even know it happened?
How do you know you have an ability? I mean specifically: what litmus test do you do mentally to decide 'that worked' versus 'that did not work'.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I already said I have influenced live events with telepathy.
Two different attempts:
0e (Hexadecimal)
or how about:
31 (Octant)
It's never simple and not necessarily sensible.
Yes you did, but you are mistaken.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, in his defense, we do not know he is mistaken. The whole existence of this thread is premised on getting past that kind of foregone conclusion and giving him a chance to make his best case.
That is a general statement. Give details. Otherwise how can we build a test around it?
How do you know you influenced a live event? How do you know the course of events wasn't going to happen anyway? Again, what litmus test tells you that 'this worked' or 'this didn't work this time'?
K91, this is a really bad time to get evasive or reticent. We are actually trying to provide you with a means to prove yourself. You should be jumping at the chance. Instead, the closer we get to making a test that might vindicate you, the more you back away. That is telling.
It would be a good time to step up or stand down.
er...um.. I forget now, but you're probably right if that makes you feel anymore psychic than you already do.
Here's another option:
He makes a specifc, testable claim.
Here, I beleive, is the official website for Ontario Daily Keno Somewhere on their website, presumably, they keep a full record of their daily draws. So it should be a relatively straightforward (if one has the time and inclination) to not only calculate an average number of correct choices, but to calculate some confidence intervals (my money would go on 99.99%) to see whether or not Kwhiliborn's claim of statistical significance is accurate.
More over, we can verify it for ourselves, because all we have to do is get him to post his picks, check the website each day, and compare the results. The odds for/against it being blind luck are, IIRC pretty trivially calculable as well.
Source
He makes a specifc, testable claim.
Here, I beleive, is the official website for Ontario Daily Keno Somewhere on their website, presumably, they keep a full record of their daily draws. So it should be a relatively straightforward (if one has the time and inclination) to not only calculate an average number of correct choices, but to calculate some confidence intervals (my money would go on 99.99%) to see whether or not Kwhiliborn's claim of statistical significance is accurate.
More over, we can verify it for ourselves, because all we have to do is get him to post his picks, check the website each day, and compare the results. The odds for/against it being blind luck are, IIRC pretty trivially calculable as well.
I tend to believe the scientific method, as is, is not capable of testing these phenomena in ways that can lead to conclusive results. As an analogy, say a credible scientist had a dream about a particular thing and he decided to relate the details of this dream to other scientists; mind phenomena.
Even though he had this dream and he carefully observed the details, there is no way to prove this happened as he claims and relates. Science would have to conclude that even if this was true, he has no proof. It would come down to the subjective word of the subject scientist. It would be scientific to say no proof means you make this up and it never existed.
Since his fellow scientists like him and knows he is a good observer, they decide to run more tests and have him sleep and dream the same dream again so they can gather more data. But how often can you dream the same dream with the same detail; rare? Therefore what he claimed was not repeatable, even over several months. Based on philosophy we deny truth rather than admit the incompetence of the method.
The problem is phenomena of the mind are different from detached phenomena, in that they can't be fully addressed in the second and third person. With these phenomena you need the observer to also be the subject.
Nobody can taste food for me, in the second person, and fully define how it tastes for me. If I say X, the second hand may not see X , therefore my sense of taste does not exist?
Even though he had this dream and he carefully observed the details, there is no way to prove this happened as he claims and relates. Science would have to conclude that even if this was true, he has no proof. It would come down to the subjective word of the subject scientist. It would be scientific to say no proof means you make this up and it never existed.
Since his fellow scientists like him and knows he is a good observer, they decide to run more tests and have him sleep and dream the same dream again so they can gather more data. But how often can you dream the same dream with the same detail; rare? Therefore what he claimed was not repeatable, even over several months. Based on philosophy we deny truth rather than admit the incompetence of the method.
The problem is phenomena of the mind are different from detached phenomena, in that they can't be fully addressed in the second and third person. With these phenomena you need the observer to also be the subject.
Nobody can taste food for me, in the second person, and fully define how it tastes for me. If I say X, the second hand may not see X , therefore my sense of taste does not exist?
having writen similar opinion before I have since realised that most scientist of any calibre DO NOT claim that your experience is untrue and never happened simply because it fails the requirements of the scinetific process.
Most scientists of any calibre recognised their own limitations when confronted with this sort of phenonema and simply offer a non-committed opinion as to validity or falacy.
It is only a throw back to the past where the world of science was attempting to minimise it's own self deceptions by being over stringent of evidencial requirements to determine reality etc.
It is only skeptics that use the umbrella of scientific process, incorrectly IMO, to pursue an agenda of discreditation.
In human behavioural science it could be quite easy to state with out doubt that most of the 8 billion if not all people of this world have had at least one conscious and fear ridden experience of a psychic nature including the scientists doing the research, and that is 8 billion pieces/sets of unfalsifiable evidence.
Last edited:
@ Trippy,
You want to see a lottery prediction I did in advance of a draw then click here.
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207163
It was for a 6/49 type draw in Ontario Canada. The post was meant as blog advertising towards one of my websites, but I did predict half the numbers in advance of that drawing. Someone soon realized it was my website and called me on it and flustered the entire thread.
I used my "intuitives" on my website to predict 3/6 numbers in advance of the lottery. I had no means of editing that post after the fact.
@ James R,
I did not start this thread, and the OP (you made me make) along with the sarcastic thread title is based on another thread started over 5 years ago.
Anybody who would read the first 2 pages of that thread will realize I was attempting to perform a sciforums demonstration. Behind the scenes crunchycat was not sending required photo, etc agreed upon, and he eventually said he was biased.
@ JamesR,
You love jumping on paranormal and religious threads to take a whack/trolling and makes the OP even more relevant imho. Imagine for a second that you are wrong on the subject, does trolling help? If you told ancient people that one day we would be able to project a likeness of a person and scene on a screen with their voices exactly duplicated on a screen they would think you insane. If you told ancients we would visit the moon they would think you were magic. If you told ancients that you could hold a tiny box to your face and speak to someone on the other side of the ocean they would think you were insane. Future science is very likely to seem insane and magic to us.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: I did not start this thread, and the OP is about trolling. There was never any promised demonstration of telepathy, although I have posted an easy method to do telepathy on another thread.
click here to view that thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
(linked it 3 times so Trippy can ban me for "spam". Got to keep the moderators happy.)
@ Trippy,
Even though I invented a new method for getting answers from your subconscious with my intuitives (probably the biggest mindpower breakthrough in a few thousand years), the method of telepathy I described in my other thread was far easier to perform.
I make money from people subscribing to my websites. Thank-you all.
Despite being discouraged by the Trolls and naysayers here, it actually has the opposite effect. If someone truly does not believe in telepathy I feel sorry for them and wish they had more constructive life experiences that would show them the greater reality.
I would go so far as to say people who do not believe in telepathy are "slow learner" types. I think there is too much evidence out there for anyone literate to ignore, and if you cannot find it then it adds to my opinion of your literacy.
You want to see a lottery prediction I did in advance of a draw then click here.
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207163
It was for a 6/49 type draw in Ontario Canada. The post was meant as blog advertising towards one of my websites, but I did predict half the numbers in advance of that drawing. Someone soon realized it was my website and called me on it and flustered the entire thread.
I used my "intuitives" on my website to predict 3/6 numbers in advance of the lottery. I had no means of editing that post after the fact.
@ James R,
I did not start this thread, and the OP (you made me make) along with the sarcastic thread title is based on another thread started over 5 years ago.
Anybody who would read the first 2 pages of that thread will realize I was attempting to perform a sciforums demonstration. Behind the scenes crunchycat was not sending required photo, etc agreed upon, and he eventually said he was biased.
@ JamesR,
You love jumping on paranormal and religious threads to take a whack/trolling and makes the OP even more relevant imho. Imagine for a second that you are wrong on the subject, does trolling help? If you told ancient people that one day we would be able to project a likeness of a person and scene on a screen with their voices exactly duplicated on a screen they would think you insane. If you told ancients we would visit the moon they would think you were magic. If you told ancients that you could hold a tiny box to your face and speak to someone on the other side of the ocean they would think you were insane. Future science is very likely to seem insane and magic to us.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: I did not start this thread, and the OP is about trolling. There was never any promised demonstration of telepathy, although I have posted an easy method to do telepathy on another thread.
click here to view that thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
(linked it 3 times so Trippy can ban me for "spam". Got to keep the moderators happy.)
@ Trippy,
Even though I invented a new method for getting answers from your subconscious with my intuitives (probably the biggest mindpower breakthrough in a few thousand years), the method of telepathy I described in my other thread was far easier to perform.
I make money from people subscribing to my websites. Thank-you all.
Despite being discouraged by the Trolls and naysayers here, it actually has the opposite effect. If someone truly does not believe in telepathy I feel sorry for them and wish they had more constructive life experiences that would show them the greater reality.
I would go so far as to say people who do not believe in telepathy are "slow learner" types. I think there is too much evidence out there for anyone literate to ignore, and if you cannot find it then it adds to my opinion of your literacy.
Last edited:
kwhilborn:
You realise, I hope, that this single half-successful prediction does nothing to support the existence of any type of paranormal power.
The chances of guessing 3 out of 6 numbers correctly is not incredibly low. Moreover, if you play the lottery more than once, your chances of doing this sooner or later increase proportionately to the number of times you play.
Now, if you could predict, say, 5 or 6 of the numbers for several weeks in a row, with just one prediction each week, then we'd have serious reason to begin to suspect that something out of the ordinary was happening.
This thread was a split from another thread where the present discussion was tangential.
I'm not sure that your definition of trolling is the same as mine.
It seems strange to me that if I try to inject some common sense or science into a paranormal thread that you would automatically regard that as trolling.
I'd love to be proved wrong on this, kwhilborn.
Wouldn't it be great if we all had psychic powers, as you claim we do?
My issue is not that I don't like the idea. My issue is that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that your claim is true.
I merely ask you to show me some convincing evidence. If you can do that, then I'll flip right over to your side.
This echos something that Arthur C. Clarke wrote. One of Clarke's laws is that any sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic.
On the other hand, Clarke also wrote about "expected" scientific advances and "unexpected" ones. And you know what? ALL of the things you've mentioned in the above paragraph were expected before they became a reality.
If you'd said to somebody in 1900, "I have just inveneted a box that lets you talk to somebody on the other side of the world", few people would have cried out "Such a thing is impossible! Lock this man up in an asylum for the insane!" What they would have said is "We have dreamed of such a thing. Show me your device."
As for the "expectedness" of things like video phones, recall that they were ubiquitous in fiction long before they became a technological reality.
I'm with you on that.
How can I have a more constructive experience that will show me the reality of telepathy? Please tell me.
As an expert in the field, can't you help me?
Why not just link me to the most convincing demonstration of telepathy that you are aware of on the web? Or some instructions for how I can do it myself. Or something.
You realise, I hope, that this single half-successful prediction does nothing to support the existence of any type of paranormal power.
The chances of guessing 3 out of 6 numbers correctly is not incredibly low. Moreover, if you play the lottery more than once, your chances of doing this sooner or later increase proportionately to the number of times you play.
Now, if you could predict, say, 5 or 6 of the numbers for several weeks in a row, with just one prediction each week, then we'd have serious reason to begin to suspect that something out of the ordinary was happening.
This thread was a split from another thread where the present discussion was tangential.
I'm not sure that your definition of trolling is the same as mine.
It seems strange to me that if I try to inject some common sense or science into a paranormal thread that you would automatically regard that as trolling.
I'd love to be proved wrong on this, kwhilborn.
Wouldn't it be great if we all had psychic powers, as you claim we do?
My issue is not that I don't like the idea. My issue is that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that your claim is true.
I merely ask you to show me some convincing evidence. If you can do that, then I'll flip right over to your side.
This echos something that Arthur C. Clarke wrote. One of Clarke's laws is that any sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic.
On the other hand, Clarke also wrote about "expected" scientific advances and "unexpected" ones. And you know what? ALL of the things you've mentioned in the above paragraph were expected before they became a reality.
If you'd said to somebody in 1900, "I have just inveneted a box that lets you talk to somebody on the other side of the world", few people would have cried out "Such a thing is impossible! Lock this man up in an asylum for the insane!" What they would have said is "We have dreamed of such a thing. Show me your device."
As for the "expectedness" of things like video phones, recall that they were ubiquitous in fiction long before they became a technological reality.
I'm with you on that.
How can I have a more constructive experience that will show me the reality of telepathy? Please tell me.
As an expert in the field, can't you help me?
Why not just link me to the most convincing demonstration of telepathy that you are aware of on the web? Or some instructions for how I can do it myself. Or something.
@ JamesR,
This is one of my favorite studies in telepathy and has similar bases to the method I tried everyone here to attempt in my other thread.
http://siivola.org/monte/papers_gro...experimental and clinical findings (2003).htm
(click above link).
NOTE: You just asked for this link but if you followed the real thread you would have seen that link in my last post prior to you asking.
The study was well organized in a sleep lab setting. Locked doors with double blind testing was used, so the "broadcaster" did not know what pictures were being used until they opened an envelope in a locked room.
I have seen experiments like this work well myself and have no doubt about its truth.
I had seen a television documentary about this called "secrets of sleep: dream telepathy", however am unable to find any reference on youtube atm.
I doubt there will be belief that this experiment occurred, and despite all the care used nobody will care. This is exactly the types of studies that exist but are ignored by skeptics.
For this reason I still maintain the best proof is doing telepathy yourself. It takes a whole hour.
The above experiment is actually in book form.
The first person in modern times to recognize and record scientific findings on telepathic dreaming was Sigmund Freud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_telepathy - wikipedia mentions the study here
Here is the book about the experiments.
http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Telepathy-Experiments-Extrasensory-Consciousness/dp/1571743219
Also @JamesR,
Now as far as picking 6/49 numbers for a draw. You state
Wow - That would be truly grand to be able to be that accurate. You make light of the fact I defied 55 to 1 odds and posted a number in advance of the draw that would have won anybody 1000% return on their money if they had played my numbers. Maybe there was a time or people who could do what you are asking, but telepathy is not as much of a science as it was, and people are not as practiced at it.
Think about what you just said though. With 6 numbers from 1 to 49 the law of averages says that you would be hard pressed to get 1 number accurate in every single draw. It would be an impossibility.
For every draw you have a 2.42 to 1 chance of not getting a single number correct, so for every draw I can get at least 1 number I am beating the odds by a lot. I picked three in the sample I used, but my normal is 1-2.
I can consistently defy the odds over a period of time/draws. Every draw I do my statistical anomalies increase.
I would argue that predicting one number accurately in a 6/49 draw on a consistent basis would be well above chance and therefore convincing as proof of clairvoyance, but how many coincidences equals proof.
I posted 3 of 6 numbers accurate in advance of that draw. I can predict accurately at least one number every draw and usually at least 2. If you have seen my website that does this then you will realize that it is very time consuming and I have no interest in devoting many hours to finding 1 or 2 picks in every draw unless you can convince the real james Randi that 6 months of hitting 1 number each draw is convincing enough. It is a reward vs work thing.
ODDLY... I have been focused on convincing people here of telepathy. I have experimented in clairvoyance as well and can report that time does not seem to be a barrier in telepathy. It was Trippy that brought the clairvoyance I am involved with to light in this thread.
I mostly avoid that topic because anybody using my method to pick lottery numbers must either spend a few hundred hours programming and creating graphics, or subscribe to my website. I have refrained from advertising on sciforums and only a few know about my website.
I did post a very good method to transmit thoughts that always works in a thread
here. The thread is 5 years old but still active.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
What more do you guys want... eesh.
It is not me that needs convincing. I know it's real. good-luck to you lot.
The above picture contains a word. Can you read it?
(click following link if not)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram
It is meant to be read subliminally and not via intentional focus for our purposes.
I disguise lottery numbers in similar fashion so all picks are purely from the subconscious.
Conscious choices are filtered out via repetition.
The computer randomizes the order of presentation of these for voting. If you "FEEL" the number is correct for your draw you select yes and the next number is presented. This is rinse/repeat until you have voted on all the numbers in your draw x number of times. It is appealing to you if you think your subconscious holds the winning numbers.
It is using this method I (or ANYONE IMHO) have been able to predict the lottery numbers above chance.
This is one of my favorite studies in telepathy and has similar bases to the method I tried everyone here to attempt in my other thread.
http://siivola.org/monte/papers_gro...experimental and clinical findings (2003).htm
(click above link).
NOTE: You just asked for this link but if you followed the real thread you would have seen that link in my last post prior to you asking.
The study was well organized in a sleep lab setting. Locked doors with double blind testing was used, so the "broadcaster" did not know what pictures were being used until they opened an envelope in a locked room.
I have seen experiments like this work well myself and have no doubt about its truth.
I had seen a television documentary about this called "secrets of sleep: dream telepathy", however am unable to find any reference on youtube atm.
I doubt there will be belief that this experiment occurred, and despite all the care used nobody will care. This is exactly the types of studies that exist but are ignored by skeptics.
For this reason I still maintain the best proof is doing telepathy yourself. It takes a whole hour.
The above experiment is actually in book form.
The first person in modern times to recognize and record scientific findings on telepathic dreaming was Sigmund Freud.
Since then, many experiments have been conducted in order to learn more about dream telepathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_telepathy - wikipedia mentions the study here
Here is the book about the experiments.
http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Telepathy-Experiments-Extrasensory-Consciousness/dp/1571743219
Also @JamesR,
Now as far as picking 6/49 numbers for a draw. You state
Wow - That would be truly grand to be able to be that accurate. You make light of the fact I defied 55 to 1 odds and posted a number in advance of the draw that would have won anybody 1000% return on their money if they had played my numbers. Maybe there was a time or people who could do what you are asking, but telepathy is not as much of a science as it was, and people are not as practiced at it.
Think about what you just said though. With 6 numbers from 1 to 49 the law of averages says that you would be hard pressed to get 1 number accurate in every single draw. It would be an impossibility.
For every draw you have a 2.42 to 1 chance of not getting a single number correct, so for every draw I can get at least 1 number I am beating the odds by a lot. I picked three in the sample I used, but my normal is 1-2.
I can consistently defy the odds over a period of time/draws. Every draw I do my statistical anomalies increase.
I would argue that predicting one number accurately in a 6/49 draw on a consistent basis would be well above chance and therefore convincing as proof of clairvoyance, but how many coincidences equals proof.
I posted 3 of 6 numbers accurate in advance of that draw. I can predict accurately at least one number every draw and usually at least 2. If you have seen my website that does this then you will realize that it is very time consuming and I have no interest in devoting many hours to finding 1 or 2 picks in every draw unless you can convince the real james Randi that 6 months of hitting 1 number each draw is convincing enough. It is a reward vs work thing.
ODDLY... I have been focused on convincing people here of telepathy. I have experimented in clairvoyance as well and can report that time does not seem to be a barrier in telepathy. It was Trippy that brought the clairvoyance I am involved with to light in this thread.
I mostly avoid that topic because anybody using my method to pick lottery numbers must either spend a few hundred hours programming and creating graphics, or subscribe to my website. I have refrained from advertising on sciforums and only a few know about my website.
I did post a very good method to transmit thoughts that always works in a thread
here. The thread is 5 years old but still active.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63619
What more do you guys want... eesh.
It is not me that needs convincing. I know it's real. good-luck to you lot.
The above picture contains a word. Can you read it?
(click following link if not)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram
It is meant to be read subliminally and not via intentional focus for our purposes.
I disguise lottery numbers in similar fashion so all picks are purely from the subconscious.
Conscious choices are filtered out via repetition.
The computer randomizes the order of presentation of these for voting. If you "FEEL" the number is correct for your draw you select yes and the next number is presented. This is rinse/repeat until you have voted on all the numbers in your draw x number of times. It is appealing to you if you think your subconscious holds the winning numbers.
It is using this method I (or ANYONE IMHO) have been able to predict the lottery numbers above chance.
Last edited: