Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

[kwhilborn]

Every aspect of science has been brought in with kicking and screaming from naysayers. I am certain there were those who disbelieved in the wheel and fire.

I am certain that many here on sciforums have never done any paranormal research and in my opinion don't qualify to comment intelligently here. DaveC seems to be ignoring or not intelligent enough to understand why a highly repeatable laboratory setting P.S.I. experiment would be seen as "luck" to a skeptic no matter how high the probabilities get stacked.
It is a fruitless debate. Until there is an accurate theory and measurement that can occur the only way to accept telepathy is through common sense. I cannot expect someone uneducated in this field to accept this with common sense, however if they had a real iterest in the topic I am sure they could perform telepathy on a repeatable basis using the OP of this thread. It appears not many people think this experiment is worth an entire hour.
The amount of time some of the trolls have spent here they could have done the experiment multiple times.

Another thing is the trolling itself.
Imagine you saw a U.F.O. with your whole family. You saw aliens, flying saucer, the whole bit. Now imagine someone came to you and was trying to convince you they did not exist. That is how I feel about telepathy. I do not believe in earthbound aliens although I am sure there must be other planets with life.

I feel sorry for DaveC, Knowledge, Crunchy cat, and others who have made their beliefs clear. I highly recommend anybody to find a friend and attempt a series of experiments designed to wake one another up on a random night at certain times. If you put honest efforts into it I think you will be successful as influencing dreams is VERY easy. Too easy to describe. Even a harsh skeptic can perform telepathy easily. It is a shame that you guys are too (removed word) to try.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Every aspect of science has been brought in with kicking and screaming from naysayers. I am certain there were those who disbelieved in the wheel and fire.

I am certain that many here on sciforums have never done any paranormal research and in my opinion don't qualify to comment intelligently here. DaveC seems to be ignoring or not intelligent enough to understand why a highly repeatable laboratory setting P.S.I. experiment would be seen as "luck" to a skeptic no matter how high the probabilities get stacked.
It is a fruitless debate. Until there is an accurate theory and measurement that can occur the only way to accept telepathy is through common sense. I cannot expect someone uneducated in this field to accept this with common sense, however if they had a real iterest in the topic I am sure they could perform telepathy on a repeatable basis using the OP of this thread. It appears not many people think this experiment is worth an entire hour.
The amount of time some of the trolls have spent here they could have done the experiment multiple times.

Another thing is the trolling itself.
Imagine you saw a U.F.O. with your whole family. You saw aliens, flying saucer, the whole bit. Now imagine someone came to you and was trying to convince you they did not exist. That is how I feel about telepathy. I do not believe in earthbound aliens although I am sure there must be other planets with life.

I feel sorry for DaveC, Knowledge, Crunchy cat, and others who have made their beliefs clear. I highly recommend anybody to find a friend and attempt a series of experiments designed to wake one another up on a random night at certain times. If you put honest efforts into it I think you will be successful as influencing dreams is VERY easy. Too easy to describe. Even a harsh skeptic can perform telepathy easily. It is a shame that you guys are too (removed word) to try.

@khwilborn,
Possibly have a look at this:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/parapsychology/52-interconnected-ness
even a hard nosed skeptic could relate to the video shown.
Perhaps you would like to complete the article shown?

 

[DaveC426913]

read post 141 and 142 again.... and tell me if there is no mistake.
how does post 142 relate to post 141?

It is not an issue of rereading the posts. I know what you are referring to and I've pointed out why the terms are synonymous.

Talking about the predictability of the results of a single coin toss is identical to talking about the unpredictability of the results of a single coin toss:

The outcome of a fair coin toss has a predictability of 50%. The outcome of a fair coin toss has an unpredictability of 50%.
The outcome of a fair die roll has a predictability of 1/6. The outcome of a fair roll has an unpredictability of 5/6.

I realize it may have seemed ambiguous, but do you see how it's actually not?

Can we move on?

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC seems to be ignoring or not intelligent enough to understand

Again, if you had valid point, you wouldn't need to attach some poo to it to ensure it sticks.

I'll be happy to engage with you when you realize you don't have to do this to have a conversation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is not an issue of rereading the posts. I know what you are referring to and I've pointed out why the terms are synonymous.

Talking about the predictability of the results of a single coin toss is identical to talking about the unpredictability of the results of a single coin toss:

The outcome of a fair coin toss has a predictability of 50%. The outcome of a fair coin toss has an unpredictability of 50%.
The outcome of a fair die roll has a predictability of 1/6. The outcome of a fair roll has an unpredictability of 5/6.

I realize it may have seemed ambiguous, but do you see how it's actually not?

Can we move on?

I see ... you failed to see the context of my post... my bad hey?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Can we move on?

to whence you wish to move on to...

 

[DaveC426913]

I see ... you failed to see the context of my post... my bad hey?

I think I've been pretty respectful of you. So just be straight. "relate to" is an ambiguous term. So if you have something to say, say it.

I've shown several times now how the terms are synonymous. Do you or do you not understand my examples of the gas tank, the coin toss and the die, as analogies of the Big Bang and neutrino detection?

 

[Quantum Quack]

.....to have a conversation.

I am not convinced that there is even a possibility of having a useful and fruitful discussion.

 

[kx000]

What is all this probability talk? It works 100% of the time. It is out there. Understand it.

 

[kwhilborn]

I apologize to any who feel I am too harsh on the skeptics who (for whatever reason) feel they are the paranormal section police and peruse this section of the forums.

-Imagine for a second that telepathy is 100% real and people wanted to have a forum to discuss the science of it. Sort of like a ScienceForum.
-Now imagine that for every intelligent observation or idea you had there was also a dozen (paranormal police) trolling your thread yelling "It's all B.S".
-Plus you must also wade through genuine crackpots who believe aliens stuck antennas into their heads or some such thing.

It begins to sound all the same, and all of the paranormal police begin to sound the same.
When I state that they are "uneducated" I am referring to this field, although some seem to be very childish in their rantings and state things that are totally inaccurate (Like DaveC).

@ DaveC; I am not trying to ridicule you or fling poo, but you open heartedly suggested that in order to prove telepathy all one had to do was send a message to someone accurately 3 times. You suggested that doing so would bring the riches of Avarice I believe.

This person would need to be in a locked soundproof room and the phrase would need to be in a random concealed envelope not revealed to the sender until they were also in a locked soundproof room. Then if you had 100% success documented and videotaped you would still get people saying it was guesswork, or subliminal influences, or fraud.
Stating that proof was so simple showed extreme ignorance in this topic.

I have expressed the opinion that this section of the forum would be best served if the author of the thread/opening post could moderate the thread and ban trolls or disturbing elements. That is only a wish though.

 

[DaveC426913]

@ DaveC; I am not trying to ridicule you or fling poo, but you open heartedly suggested that in order to prove telepathy all one had to do was send a message to someone accurately 3 times. You suggested that doing so would bring the riches of Avarice I believe.

K91 was unable to conceive of something as simple as this demonstration.
Yes there are steps that need to be taken. None are more than a perfunctory effort for even the most mildly motivated. If he can convince a few people, he will find more resources and more manpower for more elaborate, expensive, compelling experiments.

This person would need to be in a locked soundproof room and the phrase would need to be in a random concealed envelope not revealed to the sender until they were also in a locked soundproof room. Then if you had 100% success documented and videotaped you would still get people saying it was guesswork, or subliminal influences, or fraud.

Yes. All this is absolutely true. I would have gone into the logistics of it had anyone been interested. But K91's response was "I don't want to become a superstar." There's little point in pursuing it in detail.

Rooms that are acoustically separate (eg. opposite ends of a hotel would do at first) and written notes (which I explicitly mentioned in post 93 - the very one you are criticizing me for) are all things that would be necessary. There are other aspects but again, not insurmountable.

This is what is known as under controlled conditions, which I explicitly mention in post 115:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2944663&postcount=115 when referring to what skeptics will sit up and pay attention to.

Stating that proof was so simple showed extreme ignorance in this topic.

You totally fired from the hip on this one. And you are very quick to judge the intelligence of someone without giving any benefit of the doubt by confirming what you thought you were hearing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not convinced that there is even a possibility of having a useful and fruitful discussion.

Nor am I. What's ironic is that I've spent the last dozen posts actually trying to get back to the ideas in your ZPT, but you've started changing the subject or dwelling on technicalities.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nor am I. What's ironic is that I've spent the last dozen posts actually trying to get back to the ideas in your ZPT, but you've started changing the subject or dwelling on technicalities.

So Dave, how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

From Human Behavioural Science POV there is ample evidence that all humans have has some conscious exposure to either first hand experience or a desire to discredit psi phenonema and so on...
In the least all humans have had to consider it's validity and will continue to do so...[As you are now]
After all most patients diagnosed with NPD [ schizophrenia ] have indicated exposure of some type, which accounts for a significant number of the Western worlds population [ 1 in 5, I think was the last Aust Gov Statistic]
Is this not significant evidence of at least psi phenonema being a constant issue for humans?

 

[kx000]

So Dave, how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

From Human Behavioural Science POV there is ample evidence that all humans have has some conscious exposure to either first hand experience or a desire to discredit psi phenonema and so on...
In the least all humans have had to consider it's validity and will continue to do so...[As you are now]
After all most patients diagnosed with NPD [ schizophrenia ] have indicated exposure of some type, which accounts for a significant number of the Western worlds population [ 1 in 5, I think was the last Aust Gov Statistic]
Is this not significant evidence of at least psi phenonema being a constant issue for humans?

Yes, because I can do it. I know it.

 

[origin]

If you put honest efforts into it I think you will be successful as influencing dreams is VERY easy. Too easy to describe. Even a harsh skeptic can perform telepathy easily. It is a shame that you guys are too (removed word) to try.

Wrong, if it is easy why is it NEVER documented? It is not that we are negative. Or that we refuse to believe the data. Or that we just don't want to believe. Or that we have a knee jerk reaction to anything paranormal.

It is very very simple. All test and experiments show that telepathy is fantasy. It NEVER works when tested. You are the ones who believe in something that is shown not to exist.

If there was experimentation that showed telepathy was a real phenomena I would 'very cool', until that experimentation I am forced to say 'bullshit'.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Origin,
how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

 

[origin]

Origin,
how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

What do you mean? Experimentation at it's core is done to determine if there is a causality that is predictable and nonrandom. If the results are unpredictable and unrepeatable then they are by definition random and indicate a null result to the experiment.

Most of the experimentation that is being done is by researchers that WANT to prove that the phenomena exists, even with that mind set they cannot get a decent supporting experiment.. Real scientist have long given up on this and have moved on.

 

[DaveC426913]

So Dave, how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

From Human Behavioural Science POV there is ample evidence that all humans have has some conscious exposure to either first hand experience or a desire to discredit psi phenonema and so on...
In the least all humans have had to consider it's validity and will continue to do so...[As you are now]
After all most patients diagnosed with NPD [ schizophrenia ] have indicated exposure of some type, which accounts for a significant number of the Western worlds population [ 1 in 5, I think was the last Aust Gov Statistic]
Is this not significant evidence of at least psi phenonema being a constant issue for humans?

This argument makes the a priori assumption that what they were exposed to was indeed a psi phenomenon. You then use this to suggest that, since so many people have been exposed to it, there's obviously something to it.

That is circular logic.

Lot's of people have been exposed to the Moon Hoax too but that doesn't mean there must be something to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Origin,
how do you feel the evidencial methods currently employed, regarding psi phenonema, accommodate unpredictability and unrepeatability?

As I have said, science deals with these things all the time.

It is up to the claimant to frame expectations around predictability and repeatability, so that the science world can plan accordingly.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you mean? Experimentation at it's core is done to determine if there is a causality that is predictable and nonrandom. If the results are unpredictable and unrepeatable then they are by definition random and indicate a null result to the experiment.

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.