Telepathy - read someone's mind

[kwhilborn]

Okay alexg (a.k.a.crunchycat)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65279&highlight=kwhilborn

There I have submitted a thread i started (years ago btw), that has scientific content. So you can withdraw your comment.

Show me a single thread or POST even by crunchycat that is not simply a troll filled with scathing negativity and I will withdraw my comment that he is just a vermin troll to this website.

I am not asking for 10 or 20. Just show me 1 out of 7100+ posts he has made.

Honestly; when i was looking the only posts I even saw him participating in was the paranormal ones. So why does a grown man hang around paranormal section of this website for years and years if he is such a skeptic.

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL.. That is a a new type of person on the internet that likes to disagree with people or act silly just to get a rise from people.

Show 1 out of 7100 crunchycat comments that isnt a troll, and contributes to a scientific discussion (not filling out a survey), and i will withdraw my comment that he is a troll.

As for you Alexg... I linked a thread by me containing scientific ideas, so you can attempt keeping your word. lmfao

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thank-you for supporting my argument so well. I believe you have added towards my arguments.

Methinks thou doth believe too easily.

Exactly! Science must have repeatable outcomes to be accepted.

I was pointing out that probability and statistics are derived from repeatable outcomes; hence, it's not some seperate entity that is outside science.

I am assuming you are a bit of a slow learner so I will explain things a little slower.

When I say science does not accept probabilities as fact, even if the odds of it being fact are a trillion to one. That is what I meant.

Probabilities is the "science of uncertainty" so it does have a place in science, but not the type of science we are discussing.

You have mistaken it for the science that is used to calculate insurance rates, and big banking. The world of finances is governed by such "science", as well as things like engineering (will a plane fly into this building).

For a scientific experiment to gain approval it must be an experiment that can show "repeatable outcomes" exactly as you just stated.

It has been my argument that psychic "hits" that suggest telepathy is real should have support if they have hits that defy the odds to a great degree.

This is not so. Mr Cranchycat; you can repeatedly argue that it is already a reality, but this will continue to make you look foolish.

The irony of the entire set of statements above is that you have an assumption about science that is incorrect. Science can and does deal with low probability events. If something can occur on one in a million tries then it is 100% repeatable with a million tries. Telepathic experiments do not share this behavior. At best you find an experiment that produces a touch over chance probability. Then the whole thing gets reviewed, a problem or set of problems are found with the experiment, the problems get fixed, and the experiment is tried again and again and again... and oddly enough the anomolous results disappear.

Show me wrong, find real science results that contradict what I am saying (I am being facetious of course because you wont be able to). As I mentioned earlier, there is only one psychic-ish phenomenon that has caught the eye of science and that's it... but you don't even know what it is.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Okay alexg (a.k.a.crunchycat)...

Another incorrect assumption.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...Show 1 out of 7100 crunchycat comments that isnt a troll, and contributes to a scientific discussion (not filling out a survey), and i will withdraw my comment that he is a troll...

I'll answer for Alex:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92207

Noob.

 

[AlexG]

There I have submitted a thread i started (years ago btw), that has scientific content. So you can withdraw your comment.

I'm sorry, but that post is a load of nonsensical crap. Other than the use of buzz words, there's nothing in it which even faintly resembles science.

As is everything you've posted.

You are a liberal arts major, aren't you?

 

[Ophiolite]

So why does a grown man hang around paranormal section of this website for years and years if he is such a skeptic.

To protect casual lurkers with, as yet, minimal education in science, but who are excited by learning more about the wonders of the universe. Who is he protecting them from? Deceitful, delusional whackos such as yourself.

 

[kwhilborn]

Let us say for the sake of argument that the majority of people in this world believed in telepathy!

I am not saying that because it is true (although it is), I am saying it because I want you to realize that many people assume it is possible despite what is currently believed by science.

Using the "Scientific method" the first step is to derive a hypothesis to explain how the results may be possible.

I am not saying that there has been a correct hypothesis on this forum, but if someone did come up with something interesting to "The majority of people who believe in telepathy"; the thread would be more or less ruined by trolls who just thumb their noses and curse a lot.

I have been involved in paranormal research for over 20 years. I invented a method of retrieving subconscious thoughts from peoples minds without using anything relying on ideomotor reflexes.

I can perform double blind tests repeatedly that have above chance results.

I am not saying trolls such as yourself/crunchycat/alexg don't have a place in the world. Every new science is met with a room full of doubtful trolls. I bet the wheel was called idiotic by someone.

It would be nice if some of the trolls would stay away from paranormal pages to allow discussions to be interesting even if often flakey.

Kind of like there is no bad idea in a brainstorm session. Maybe some idea will click.

So yes; I do profit from paranormal research. I have invented a method for retrieving subconscious thoughts from your mind. I have witnessed many unexplainable results.

I suppose that is my advantage over some of you skeptics. I have been lucky enough to have seen things that should be impossible on a repeated basis.

I for one do not believe these results came from "magic". I do not believe a tooth fairy came into our offices and manipulated the results.

I believe there is some form of communication going on between people at a distance or in separate rooms, and I would like to know how/where/what is happening to make telepathy possible.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Let us say for the sake of argument that the majority of people in this world believed in telepathy!
I am not saying that because it is true (although it is)

Evidence, please, for this claim.

Using the "Scientific method" the first step is to derive a hypothesis to explain how the results may be possible.

Wrong.
Science is not here to explain beliefs, it's to explain observed phenomena. Telepathy has not been observed.

I am not saying that there has been a correct hypothesis on this forum, but if someone did come up with something interesting to "The majority of people who believe in telepathy"; the thread would be more or less ruined by trolls who just thumb their noses and curse a lot.

As opposed to trolls who make up their own statistics?

I have been involved in paranormal research for over 20 years. I invented a method of retrieving subconscious thoughts from peoples minds without using anything relying on ideomotor reflexes.

I can perform double blind tests repeatedly that have above chance results.

Show us.

I suppose that is my advantage over some of you skeptics.

Your "advantage" is that you're gullible?

I believe there is some form of communication going on between people at a distance or in separate rooms, and I would like to know how/where/what is happening to make telepathy possible.

Belief is no good without actual evidence.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

kwhilborn, I think the first thing you would need to do for anyone to take you seriously is post everything from experiment to analysis that makes you think telepathy is real.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let us say for the sake of argument that the majority of people in this world believed in telepathy!

This may well be true. The majority of people in the world are pretty damn thick. I'm thick, just not thick enough to be gullible and self deluded.

Since most of us are thick, a handful who weren't came up with a system that enables us to get around being thick by following a process. We call this process science.

You are not following the process. And (remember we covered this a moment ago) you are thick. That ain't going to get you anywhere.

 

[kwhilborn]

“
Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Let us say for the sake of argument that the majority of people in this world believed in telepathy!
I am not saying that because it is true (although it is)
”
Evidence, please, for this claim.

Okay... shows us that 3 of 4 believe in paranormal stuff in the U.s. according to gallup poll.
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/gallup.html
and this is an American study. I am not linking studies associated with other religions, but some religious groups have a higher that 75% acceptance. Obviously you know that many religions accept reincarnation and telepathy more than our own christian based society.

It is also shown that the more education someone has the higher chance they believe in the paranormal.

“
Using the "Scientific method" the first step is to derive a hypothesis to explain how the results may be possible.
”
Wrong.
Science is not here to explain beliefs, it's to explain observed phenomena. Telepathy has not been observed.

I will argue that telepathy has been observed, repeatedly. You have not observed it, but that does not mean it has not been observed.

“
I am not saying that there has been a correct hypothesis on this forum, but if someone did come up with something interesting to "The majority of people who believe in telepathy"; the thread would be more or less ruined by trolls who just thumb their noses and curse a lot.
”
As opposed to trolls who make up their own statistics?

No. I would be happy if trolls quoted statistics. I have seen trolls link videos of insane music videos, or just call people woohoos, or cuss and swear. Valid statistics would mean they might have looked into the subject matter, and is highly unlikely.

I have been involved in paranormal research for over 20 years. I invented a method of retrieving subconscious thoughts from peoples minds without using anything relying on ideomotor reflexes.
I can perform double blind tests repeatedly that have above chance results.
Show us.

Show you what? I made several claims there... I doubt you would think it is rational to produce experiment results within thread so I am guessing you must mean "Show us your method of retrieving subconscious thoughts from peoples minds"

I can do that easily enough I suppose, and I suppose you will marvel at my brilliance and fall down and apologize to me...

No! Wasn't expecting it.

Okay! Let us suppose you could hide a triangle and a square inside a subliminal picture. Only your mind could detect if there was a square or triangle in the picture. Then you had to choose between two random pictures that looked identical to you.

Now I know you wonder how could the pictures both look identical and one have a triangle inside, and another have a square inside?

I invented 2 ways. The first is to make the picture one solid color, and make the pictures in a very similar color. A color change so slight that it could only be perceived by your subconscious.

also U.V ink on white cards was tried.

This method presented problems, and we wanted to be able to use computers in our research. so I used auto-stereo-grams to hide the images in depth images. I did not invent auto-stereo-grams, however I am the first person to use them to get subconscious thoughts from people.

Now getting ideas from your subconscious is old school. Everyone knows that the only methods for achieving this are. Pendulums,ouija boards,automatic writing, all of which involve ideomotor reflexes. Dreams are also another method to peer into your subconscious.

So I am the first person to arrive at a new method of doing this in thousands of years. Thank-you .. Thank-you.. Thanks much...

My method has been used to develop intuition based websites.
Here is a link to one of the intuitive tests I was referring to before. You can become more intuitive by practising here.

NOTE: This is the ONLY method in the world for practising your intuition, and I invented it.

On the screen before you when you click the link will be 2 pictures, They will randomly contain one of three images inside an auto-stereo-gram. You may think the images both look the same but you would be mistaken. They contain in random order , either circle, triangle, or square.

This website is a public website, and contains public content...simplified experiments, and popular lottery number retrieval section. Nobody has one, but again they seem to predict better than average so precognition looks valid imo.

http://www.choicedowsing.com/mind_research_institute/intuitivepractice/colorpage.php

Subconsciousness is not a paranormal study. You should agree that everyone has a subconscious mind. If you realized how well this "invention" has helped then I'd probably get some congratulations, but I do not expect it from you lot..

Anyways...

“

I suppose that is my advantage over some of you skeptics.
”
Your "advantage" is that you're gullible?

I am gullible for seeing repeated positive results in mind experiments?

Go to the link above.. If you try your best, and use intuition only I am sure you can get better than average results of your very own. It does require practice. Also: Again; it is the only method to practice your intuition in the world. If you know what a auto-stereo-gram is and you have two eyes.. your subconscious should easily "know" what is inside without focussing.

I believe there is some form of communication going on between people at a distance or in separate rooms, and I would like to know how/where/what is happening to make telepathy possible.
”
Belief is no good without actual evidence.

Yes.. That is why this is in the Paranormal thread section. I know this website is too anal for a genuine paranormal section, and I came on here again for investment brainstorming purposes. on another thread. That was pretty fail thread as well.. One too many alexj/crunchyscats on this website.

 

[MacGyver1968]

You should try out David Icke's forum then...you'll be right at home there.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Okay... shows us that 3 of 4 believe in paranormal stuff in the U.s. according to gallup poll.
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/logic/gallup.html
and this is an American study.

So 3 out of 4 AMERICANS believe in the paranormal of some sort. How does that relate to your contention that "the majority of people in this world believe[d] in telepathy"?

I am not linking studies associated with other religions, but some religious groups have a higher that 75% acceptance. Obviously you know that many religions accept reincarnation and telepathy more than our own christian based society.

Um, religions?

It is also shown that the more education someone has the higher chance they believe in the paranormal.

I think you'll find that the opposite is the case.

I will argue that telepathy has been observed, repeatedly.

Argue it as much as you like. But until you present evidence it's still onmly an argument.

You have not observed it, but that does not mean it has not been observed.

Specious comment.

No. I would be happy if trolls quoted statistics.

Um, try re-reading my comment. You've claimed statistics, but not presented them.

Show you what? I made several claims there... I doubt you would think it is rational to produce experiment results within thread so I am guessing you must mean "Show us your method of retrieving subconscious thoughts from peoples minds"

Show us your results, the test data...

I can do that easily enough I suppose, and I suppose you will marvel at my brilliance and fall down and apologize to me...

I doubt it.

Okay! Let us suppose you could hide a triangle and a square inside a subliminal picture. Only your mind could detect if there was a square or triangle in the picture. Then you had to choose between two random pictures that looked identical to you.

Bullshit. How does your "mind" detect it?

I invented 2 ways. The first is to make the picture one solid color, and make the pictures in a very similar color. A color change so slight that it could only be perceived by your subconscious.

Right.

however I am the first person to use them to get subconscious thoughts from people.

Evidence please.

Now getting ideas from your subconscious is old school. Everyone knows that the only methods for achieving this are. Pendulums,ouija boards,automatic writing, all of which involve ideomotor reflexes.

Balls.

So I am the first person to arrive at a new method of doing this in thousands of years. Thank-you .. Thank-you.. Thanks much...

Claims, no data.

NOTE: This is the ONLY method in the world for practising your intuition

Also crap.

I am gullible for seeing repeated positive results in mind experiments?

Gullible for a belief in the "results".

 

[weavers]

Greetings and Salutations Stryder

Congratulations , Wow, you have given an impressive response, very impressive indeed :
How to achieve the ability to make telepathy a scientific reality?
We don't know if, it will happen the way you predicted, but something like it, is in the future!
Although we believe, despite the side affects you have delineated, as actual possibilities, we believe modalities are being researched, by individuals and or agencies of governments to make it happen. Any ideas of course can only happen, after many frustrating and disappointing failures, and over time, the concept will evolve into something doable.
One problem is, after technological and financial obstacles are over come, how, to avoid a misunderstanding of the general public and a public outcry, how can such a research project like this be kept secret?
Also the problem of the testing subjects and the subsequent exposure to radiation does appear to be a real impediment and a difficult problem to surmount.

But, we feel hopefully, we can leave it to the research investment firms to fund the
Think tanks, that would be involved, to engineer an appropriate solution, so it would be safe.

Militarily it would be an asset, it will be done, sooner or later, and to over come many of the social hurdles you articulated, we think they would limit its access to the public, and dedicate its usages, to just the military and branches of the new derivative Nasa agencies, and similar agencies that will evolve!


Thanks for the cool concepts and ideas! [ Keeper of " good " ideas ]

 

[kwhilborn]

Hi.. Send a message to the creators of the website i disclosed, and ask them who invented this method.

You are also wrong about this..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23

You called bullshit! and then when i explained how your subconscious mind could detect it you agreed.. unsure why you didn't change your bullshit comment!

You do not think eastern religion counts as beliefs?

I cannot show 100% results in any of my experiments. I can repeatedly show above chance results. You can go on an on and on with above chance results until the probabilities are over trillion to one odds for. Probabilities are not in the scientific method so are just proof to us paranormal types.. When i see stats with millions to one odds in favour of the paranormal, then yes i accept it as fact. skeptics choose the side with the one chance it was fluke.

an idiots view is to deny odds imo


You also claim there are "other" ways to test your intuition. Assuming your subconscious mind can detect the shapes (and our testing confirms this) contained in the subliminal pics then you should be able to "intuitively" know the correct answers without any paranormal input.. straight up science.

if that is true and there are other methods of practising intuition please tell me. You called bullshit on that claim, and if there is any possible other way i'd even pay hard cash to learn of it.

I believe I have invented the ONLY way people can test their intuition scientifically , and practice. Maybe you are denying intuition as a valid feeling?

I am assuming also that you do not believe in pendulums, oija boards etc.. I meant as a tool for getting information from your subconscious using ideomotor reflexes.. i am not talking about paranormal musings.

If i ask you if you are a boy or a girl, and you were trained to use a pendulum, you should arrive at a correct answer.. Where people believe it gets hokey is when they claim spirits are involved.

I do claim to have the only method for practising intuition, and that i invented a more reliable ouija board type thing. The first subconscious breakthrough in thousands of years.

You say my claim is claims.. no data.

Well you have seen my method working if you clicked my link. so you know it is valid. I also described a working model with which you agreed.

So if you can think of another method for retrieving subconscious thoughts I am all ears.

My method also illiminates ideomotor reflexes and replaces them with conscious interference, which is why many of the results must be based on repetition of the answer.

So yes! Thousands of years and then i make it all better... If you can think of any other methods you just let me have it.

Yes! David Ickes Forum.. There are better ones.. ty though macgyver

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are also wrong about this..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23

In the US. A superstition-riddled country...

then when i explained how your subconscious mind could detect it you agreed.

Really? Please point out where I did so.

You do not think eastern religion counts as beliefs?

Your "point"?

I cannot show 100% results in any of my experiments. I can repeatedly show above chance results.

More claims. And still no actual results shown...

Probabilities are not in the scientific method

Bullshit. Again.

Assuming your subconscious mind can detect the shapes (and our testing confirms this) contained in the subliminal pics then you should be able to "intuitively" know the correct answers without any paranormal input.. straight up science.

Two failures here.
1) you have yet to show that this is the actual explanation.
2) intuition is not science.

if that is true and there are other methods of practising intuition please tell me. You called bullshit on that claim, and if there is any possible other way i'd even pay hard cash to learn of it.

For someone who persists in telling others to Google you seem to have an aversion to doing so yourself.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=im...fficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

I believe I have invented the ONLY way people can test their intuition scientifically , and practice.

Yet to be shown.

Maybe you are denying intuition as a valid feeling?

Not at all.

I am assuming also that you do not believe in pendulums, oija boards etc.. I meant as a tool for getting information from your subconscious using ideomotor reflexes.. i am not talking about paranormal musings.

Also bullshit.

If i ask you if you are a boy or a girl, and you were trained to use a pendulum, you should arrive at a correct answer.. Where people believe it gets hokey is when they claim spirits are involved.

Bullshit.

I do claim to have the only method for practising intuition, and that i invented a more reliable ouija board type thing. The first subconscious breakthrough in thousands of years.

More unsubstantiated claims.

You say my claim is claims.. no data.
Well you have seen my method working if you clicked my link. so you know it is valid. I also described a working model with which you agreed.

Um, try to read what I actually posted. Where did I agree?

Yes! David Ickes Forum.. There are better ones..

Icke is another crank. You would be at home.

 

[kwhilborn]

Okay. I believe I destroyed every point you made, and then in your past two posts contradicted yourself too many times for me to seriously respond. Plus you bore me now.

You wrote agreed when i explained how subliminal pictures could be implanted with shapes, and here in your 2nd last line you say. "where do I agree".

You claim probabilities is allowed in the scientific method.
This also makes you a moron. Maybe you need a definition of the scientific method..
Try wikipedia.
Probabilitities are allowed in math sciences fro things like finances and engineering. NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER to prove a theory is real, and certainly not remotely related to the scientific method.

I said I invent the ONLY way for people to practise and test their intuition, and you responded. "Yet to be shown"
however I put a link to a website containing this test with geometrical shapes in operation. That is the test for practising. Go ahead and purchase a membership for the website if you want anything more extreme, more money in my pocket.

You consistently seem to stay stuff and forget you say it..
I could go on about almost everything you said, but I know I answered all your comments amazingly.. so I shall now politely say Fuck off..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Okay. I believe I destroyed every point you made

That would be yet another mistaken belief of yours.

and then in your past two posts contradicted yourself too many times for me to seriously respond.

Wrong. You have yet to show where I agreed with you.[/quote]

You wrote agreed when i explained how subliminal pictures could be implanted with shapes, and here in your 2nd last line you say. "where do I agree".

Wrong.
Unless you mean the comment "Right. ". You DO recognise sarcasm, don't you?

You claim probabilities is allowed in the scientific method.
This also makes you a moron. Maybe you need a definition of the scientific method.

Nope, it makes me educated.

Probabilitities are allowed in math sciences fro things like finances and engineering.

"Math sciences"? WTF?

I said I invent the ONLY way for people to practise and test their intuition, and you responded. "Yet to be shown"
however I put a link to a website containing this test with geometrical shapes in operation. That is the test for practising. Go ahead and purchase a membership for the website if you want anything more extreme, more money in my pocket.

You consistently seem to stay stuff and forget you say it..
I could go on about almost everything you said, but I know I answered all your comments amazingly.. so I shall now politely say Fuck off..

Nope, you're still (badly) deluded, and apparently incapable of parsing English.
Goodbye.

 

[kwhilborn]

Yes.. Math sciences.. Probabilities is the science of uncertainty? I thought you claim to be smart. I gave examples of engineering, and finances, and insurance as science that accept probabilities. You obviously did not try to get a definition of the scientific method as I suggested. I do believe you are educated, unfortunately not as far as 6th grade science where they teach the scientific method.

I actually did not take that one comment as sarcasm; I thought it might fall within your comprehension. So yes; I did think you were smart enough to agree with me when you were apparently being sarcastic. I normally receive positive feedback about this method and am not used to the idiocy of this particular website.

I am also not used to dealing with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Good-luck in getting a definition of scientific method.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes.. Math sciences..

And physics doesn't use maths?

Probabilities is the science of uncertainty?

And physics is certain?

I thought you claim to be smart.

I didn't. But I am.

I gave examples of engineering, and finances, and insurance as science that accept probabilities.

As does physics.

I do believe you are educated, unfortunately not as far as 6th grade science where they teach the scientific method.

And you're assuming again.

I actually did not take that one comment as sarcasm; I thought it might fall within your comprehension. So yes; I did think you were smart enough to agree with me when you were apparently being sarcastic. I normally receive positive feedback about this method and am not used to the idiocy of this particular website.

And you failed, once again, to understand English.

I am also not used to dealing with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

But you're so good at it yourself!

Good-luck in getting a definition of scientific method.

I got one when I took degree-level physics.