Developing Telepathy

[ellion]

Seriously Ellion, wth?

er! i am not sure if your pissed with me or the author of the article.
i am not sure what your expectations where but hey where obviously not met. i wondering if by saying WTH? you had something more specific to say to me?

* When hits occur in any batch, there is no investigation as to how its occuring... it's like 'hey man... 10 our of 30 hits... must be telepathy!'. Shit man, push the buttons, try some variables, get some neurscientists... something and at the very least try damn hard to falsify the extraordinary hypothesis'.

i do agree that most of the experiments i see outlined dont take into consideration the actual telepathy as a phenomena, it is usually all down to geuss work, this is one of the problems i see in researching the pheno. how do scientist take into consideration the conditions of telepathy when they do not understand those conditions and they will not speak to any one who does experience telepathy with out proof of them being telepathic. you dont get a certificate to say you are fit to practice you know.

the experiments by sheldrake where the best thought out in terms of natural phenomena but the problem was obviously the lack of control and the potential for falsified results.

but yes i agree, the experiments are mostly conducted by idiots.

EDIT

its not fair to call people idiots i take that back.

 

[leopold]

Leopold can I ask you what would you think if you got 5 trials correct. That is 5 numbers out of 5*14 [70] given?
How would that effect your opinion about telepathy?

7 out of 14 is random chance. i would be impressed if i got 10 out of 14 on 4 or more trials

p.s. sorry about the delay but me and buddha are locking horns

 

[Quantum Quack]

7 out of 14 is random chance. i would be impressed if i got 10 out of 14 on 4 or more trails

p.s. sorry about the delay but me and buddha are locking horns

ha...don't lock horns to much, ....... you might get to like it.....

 

[leopold]

i'm ready to SCREAM
he's already given me a headache

 

[RickyH]

lol, what thread??

 

[leopold]

masculinity and men
man, you go there and you'll get sucked in.

 

[RickyH]

go to ethic's on prostitutes.....imagin trying to fight some one views on that

 

[leopold]

one buddha type is enough thank you

 

[RickyH]

lol but you got to admit if it wasn't for people like him you wouldn't spend so much time on these forums

 

[leopold]

you have a point there
i just hope we can reach an understanding before the year is out

 

[duendy]

trying to get thru to CC islike floggin a dead horse. i can see VERY clearly he/you cling to a matrerialist philosophy. problem is, you dont. you seem to make it up as you go along. that is not good science. good scientism, yes

And Skinwalker, sometig u said in a previous post: "I'm very proud of the fact that their worldview [Native American worldview] includes the universe as sacred...but I need not believe in the mysticism of my ancestors to respect them or it...Ineed not believe there is something 'magical' or 'mystical' occuring to agree that something is sacred."

For a start, the Indigenous worldview, whic is usually animist is NOT 'mystical'. Mysticism came about with the Mystery schools which created dualistic ideologies between 'spirit' and Nature.
Theearth-centred Indigenous animistic does NOT divide 'spirit/consciousness' from Nature!

Also, IF you regard yoir anestor's unerstandingof reality sacred, well you betray their integrity by choosing to become part of a materialistic ideology which does NOT respect peoples SACRED EXPERIENCES. Not once have i seen you defend people here who have been insulted by the materialists as being 'woo woo','crackpot' 'liars', 'mentally ill', 'whacko' etc......after sharing about their sacred experiences........?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

OK ....just a quick test then [ just for me and certainly proves nothing]:
Below is a list of 4 digit numbers.
There is only one of them that I do not want you to pick.
Pick which one is the one that I don't want you to pick.
btw any one can have a go not just Crunchy Cat


1256
6897
7849
2256
5689
6645
7819
2345
8134
9478
1010
2185
3336
2568


once picked write it down and then click on this link
let us know of your results and how you felt doing the test....

I gave this the ol' try. 8134 is the number I chose and is not the number that you didn't want me to choose . I felt tired (just did it when I woke up).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The thing that prompted the impulse to run the test was that CC had openly offered to suffer severe mental instability in the pursuit of evidence of telepathy. I found this puzzling as I really don't think he has any real idea of what severe mental instability entails nor does he have any idea for how long that condition would last for.

QQ, allow me to clarify. You are correct in that I have no idea how long the condition of sever mental instability entails. Do I have an idea what it entails? Maybe. I've had first hand experience with people suffering from drug-induced psychosis for extended periods as well as alzheimers with strong hallucination. The reason I would choose to allow such a thing (or worse) is because the evidence it could provide far outweighs the risk to me.

To risk your own sanity therefore your own future just to prove telepathy exists is in my opinion already signs of mental instability.

If I'm already showing signs of mental instability then I should be more adapted to it no? . Such a definitive and reproducible result would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that one person's mind could directly affect anothers with mere thought. IMO, that's next-generation nobel prize winning discovery right there.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

er! i am not sure if your pissed with me or the author of the article.
i am not sure what your expectations where but hey where obviously not met. i wondering if by saying WTH? you had something more specific to say to me?

It was disappointment in both for this case. From reading the first few paragraphs I could already see the red flags. My expectations from you are self-set and they are higher than others in this thread. I would have expected at least surface scan such references before submitting them to the evidence table.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh,
Whilst, possibly inviting a psy attack with the following. Maybe if you were yourself more open to CC's POV he might be more open to yours.

At least he is being hoinest as far as I can tell, and that is much more than you get from a lot of others.

His point of view is to ask for things. Then when someone asks him for something, his cooperation, that is too much trouble. I was asked for evidence. I took the trouble to assemble what I consider evidence. When it was presented, it was deemed not enough. Not for any reason though. All he did was listen to the music. When I tried to ask one question about the music, he dismissed the entire exercise. I went to the trouble of finding a suitable picture. He dismissed it immediatly.

If he was truly interested in having his mind open, he would listen and discuss. Looking at a picture for 30 seconds and writing "there is nothing there" is not listening and not cooperating and not discussing. It is an imperious rejection based on ignorance. Ignorance that I can only dispel if the person listens, cooperates and discusses things they do not believe. Yet.

 

[Happeh]

I have no idea how my response produced that interpretation. I could order my words randomly in every possible permutation and I doubt the meaning of them would ever even come close to that interpretation.

Waste of time. You really ought to go to Wrongplanet. They talk just exactly like you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Waste of time. You really ought to go to Wrongplanet. They talk just exactly like you.

Wrongplanet isn't going to provide evidence of your claims. As a result you have more in common with them than I could ever hope for.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ, allow me to clarify. You are correct in that I have no idea how long the condition of sever mental instability entails. Do I have an idea what it entails? Maybe. I've had first hand experience with people suffering from drug-induced psychosis for extended periods as well as alzheimers with strong hallucination. The reason I would choose to allow such a thing (or worse) is because the evidence it could provide far outweighs the risk to me.



If I'm already showing signs of mental instability then I should be more adapted to it no? . Such a definitive and reproducible result would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that one person's mind could directly affect anothers with mere thought. IMO, that's next-generation nobel prize winning discovery right there.

so CC how many persons would have to be institutionalised before the operant recieved his nobel Prize for doing it? More like a prison sentance or a death sentance than a Nobel would be handed out.

You might be prepared to suffer sever mental instabilities in the name of science but I have to ask my self whether that would be something I would care to focus my energies on. To me only negative outcomes would result and it would not even prove the existance of telepathy to the wider community and only prove it to you the sufferer.
I am not saying that I could do this to you but even in abstract I find the whole notion repulsive on moral and ethical grounds.

You may be happy in "lah lah" land but I would certainly not be, knowing I put you there.

There are better ways of proving telepathy and that is what I am striving towards, but if it means droping integrity then I would rather go sit under a tree somewhere and watch a sunset listening to the symphony of colour.

[ha..... the muse has struck....]

 

[Quantum Quack]

His point of view is to ask for things. Then when someone asks him for something, his cooperation, that is too much trouble. I was asked for evidence. I took the trouble to assemble what I consider evidence. When it was presented, it was deemed not enough. Not for any reason though. All he did was listen to the music. When I tried to ask one question about the music, he dismissed the entire exercise. I went to the trouble of finding a suitable picture. He dismissed it immediatly.

If he was truly interested in having his mind open, he would listen and discuss. Looking at a picture for 30 seconds and writing "there is nothing there" is not listening and not cooperating and not discussing. It is an imperious rejection based on ignorance. Ignorance that I can only dispel if the person listens, cooperates and discusses things they do not believe. Yet.

Happeh,
It is in the definition of the word "evidence" that is in dispute here not the material provided. As far as I can tell evidence is required to be unambiguous, with out any other explanation. That psi is the only explanation for the pheno submitted. As soon as it is seen that causation "could" be from more material means then the evidence is discounted as ambiguous. So therefore not counted as evidence.

The burden of evidential criteria is really heavy on this issue. Arguing that it should not be so heavy will achieve very little. This is the nature of the scientific method.
I think Albert Einstien once said: "My theories may be supported by hundreds of experiments but it will only take one to prove them wrong" or something to that effect. Such are the rigours of intense scientific scrutiny.
anecdotal and circumstancial evidence whilst of some curiocity unfortunately do not meet this criteria.

Personally I do not doubt that you have the experiences you have had, however as to whether this is evidence unfortunately evidence is not subject to belief [ or so it is supposed to be....]
If we can some how discuss with out using the word evidence at all and consider it all to be hypothesis or abstraction I am confident more can be achieved. It is the pressure on evidence that is "ham stringing" conversation and discussion. [ Any way the internet is no place for finding evidence regardless of how you do it]

 

[Crunchy Cat]

so CC how many persons would have to be institutionalised before the operant recieved his nobel Prize for doing it? More like a prison sentance or a death sentance than a Nobel would be handed out.

Hopefully only one if the expriment is done right.

You might be prepared to suffer sever mental instabilities in the name of science but I have to ask my self whether that would be something I would care to focus my energies on. To me only negative outcomes would result and it would not even prove the existance of telepathy to the wider community and only prove it to you the sufferer.
I am not saying that I could do this to you but even in abstract I find the whole notion repulsive on moral and ethical grounds.

Sometimes we have to temper morals and ethics with risk and permission. To some it may sound repulsive and to others it may not.

You may be happy in "lah lah" land but I would certainly not be, knowing I put you there.

I could be sad i lah lah land too and don't forget there are alot of positive consequences that could come out of this (maybe not for me ).

There are better ways of proving telepathy and that is what I am striving towards, but if it means droping integrity then I would rather go sit under a tree somewhere and watch a sunset listening to the symphony of colour.

[ha..... the muse has struck....]

Given the success rate of existing proofs I would assert that this may not be the case. Of course as we discussed in our PM, if the results of the violation experiment could take up to a decade then it's not a great candidate at this point (which is pretty much the sole reason I'm not pursuing it further).