Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

'Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.'

There is a method, isnt there? - communication!
 
DaveC426913 said:
That's not quite what QQ is saying.

Let's grant for a moment that K91 has psi powers. They only manifest randomly (say, an average of once a month over a year, but highly intermittently) but when they manifest, the results are compelling. He can predict the turn of 20 cards in a row.

Unfortunately, they've have to lock him in a room for months at a time, and test him every 20 minutes before they could hope to catch him when he's "on".

The unpredictability and unreliability apply to the ability, not to the results of the ability.

It may be hard to run test on this, but it can (could) be done. Science finds a way.

Thing is, we don't hear K91 explain how his ability works. He doesn't say whether he can invoke it at will. (He seemed to try and have it work, so that would suggest attempts to invoke it might work. And that means it might be worth a perfunctory experiment with a couple of witnesses), nor does he say how often it happens or how long it lasts.

For someone who a] has a gifted ability beyond the rest of humanity, and b] is gravely concerned over the welfare of so many others who are "suffering", we doesn't seem very interested in doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

Ok. But a statistical analysis will give a clear indication if his abilities are chance or something else. If his 'abilites' are equal to chance, there will be no way to discern if these so called abilities are anything but chance and it would be useless anyway (ie equal to chance!).
 
The back of the card trick.

You have the guy who picks the card off the top of the deck, the observer, and the telepath. What the telepath is trying to do is blindly identify the card the drawer picked up. He is going to do this by literally abstracting the thought from the drawers head, it is up to the drawer to communicate the card and suit to the telepath. This is a very difficult trick. My trick is easy. Have a conversation with different people all day and watch them react to you. You'll be surprised what you learn about the human population.
 
Knowledge91 said:
The back of the card trick.

You have the guy who picks the card off the top of the deck, the observer, and the telepath. What the telepath is trying to do is blindly identify the card the drawer picked up. He is going to do this by literally abstracting the thought from the drawers head, it is up to the drawer to communicate the card and suit to the telepath. This is a very difficult trick.
Click to expand...
Yes it is difficult. Because it requires telepathic ability.

Knowledge91 said:
My trick is easy. Have a conversation with different people all day and watch them react to you. You'll be surprised what you learn about the human population.
Click to expand...
Yes it is easy. Because it does not require telepathic ability.

I just thought a joke at the guy on TV. And he laughed.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes it is difficult. Because it requires telepathic ability.


Yes it is easy. Because it does not require telepathic ability.

I just thought a joke at the guy on TV. And he laughed.
Click to expand...

Yea. When does it stop being a coincidence?
 
Knowledge91 said:
Yea. When does it stop being a coincidence?
Click to expand...

But this deserves a serious answer:

When the conditions of a valid test are satisfied
1] statistically significant results
2] in a controlled experiment
3] conducted by a neutral third party

What you are experiencing, because
1] you are not recording your results
2] in a controlled test
3] with a third party overseeing
is a textbook example of what is known as confirmation bias. And it is quite real.
 
One thing that hasn't been qualified is the reality of "chance" and "randomess". Science has yet to show reason why those attributes should be considered as real.

What is the evidence for the reality of "chance" or "randomness"?
I believe there is none...as they are both pure fantasy..

re: endless philosophical debate on this very issue

Yet we use these two terms as an escape from our own impotency to understand the determining factors..
Probability is merely qualified speculation... it is an abstraction and has no reality other than qualified guessing.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
One thing that hasn't been qualified is the reality of "chance" and "randomess". Science has yet to show reason why those attributes should be considered as real.

What is the evidence for "chance" or "randomness"?
I believe there is none...
re: endless philosophical debate oin this very issue

Yet we ue these two terms as an escape from our own impotency to understand the determining factors..
Probability is merely qualified speculation... it is an abstraction and has no reality other than qualified guessing.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you;re getting at but probabilities are very useful.

I can say that the probability of a fair coin toss is 50%. This means that, for a given number of tosses, the number of heads versus tails will approach 50% with good confidence. What it does not do is tell you what the next coin toss will be. The key is to know what you can do with the numbers - and what you cannot do.

As for chance, there is much debate about true randomness. Chance is better described as uncontrollable factors too myriad to count - but factors nonetheless.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not sure what you;re getting at but probabilities are very useful.

I can say that the probability of a fair coin toss is 50%. This means that, for a given number of tosses, the number of heads versus tails will approach 50% with good confidence. What it does not do is tell you what the next coin toss will be. The key is to know what you can do with the numbers - and what you cannot do.

As for chance, there is much debate about true randomness. Chance is better described as uncontrollable factors too myriad to count - but factors nonetheless.
Click to expand...
sure ...probability is very useful but that doen't make it anything other than qualified guess work [speculation about future events]
Once the determining factors are known the events no longer fall under "chance or randomness"
"...so the determining factors on a "coin toss" are reatively equal.. does this make the result of a coin toss coincidence or determined by those relatively balanced factors?"
 
Last edited:
As for chance, there is much debate about true randomness. Chance is better described as uncontrollable factors too myriad to count - but factors nonetheless.
Click to expand...

ahhh! now this is something to contemplate for a bit...

If a person experiences and psi event or any event is it coincidence or determined?
Does coincidence even exist as a real concept or is it merely our way of escaping our ignorance of the determining factors?
 
Quantum Quack said:
sure ...probability is very useful but...
Click to expand...

Strange that there would be a qualifying 'but'.

If something is very useful then it is very useful.


Quantum Quack said:
Once the determining factors are known the events no longer fall under "chance or randomness"
Click to expand...

Some determining factors will never be known.

The roll of a fair die will pretty much be beyond predictability for the life of the human race.

Note that quantum mechanics does impose an upper limit on predictability. The atoms comprising the die (and the air) have an inherent uncertainty about their location and momentum that will not be be overcome.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Oy. No. Via Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}$$

Formulae are what separate science from word salad.
Click to expand...
"all formula start as "word salad".
maybe you would care to provide some for that formula

this is why when you see a simple statement:
Absolute 0= > 0 + < 0
you can write word salad that says that zero = everything
and apply some herb and garlic salad dressing as well :)
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
"all formula start as "word salad".
Click to expand...
This is not true.

Quantum Quack said:
maybe you would care to provide some for that formula
Click to expand...
The product of position and the momentum of a particle is a non-zero constant.

i.e. The finer you measure the position, the more uncertain its momentum, and vice versa.

To speak about the machinations of the universe, it would behoove you to read up on it. You should know HUP before writing up your own ideas.
 
Quantum Quack said:
"all formula start as "word salad".
maybe you would care to provide some for that formula

this is why when you see a simple statement:
0= > 0 + < 0
you can write word salad that says that zero = everything
and apply some herb and garlic salad dressing as well :)
Click to expand...

This is why people no one will take you seriously. The things you say might sound plausible in your head, but to anyone who has read up on the subject, it is word salad. It's not how good work is done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top