Thought Transference

[Search & Destroy]

Eagle_1 - You are not going to convince any skeptics with the evidence you provided. You were able to turn on a girl by thinking? Is that really strong evidence?

Were you looking at her when you did this? Were you near her? Could there have been other factors contributing to this. Perhaps she was already horny, and thinking gave you confidence to make a move - nothing more.

But I'd rather discuss a different point of evidence. To keep this thread serious, I hope you will write a very detailed report on your most powerful evidence. Make it detailed, don't fib, and see if you can convince anyone with that.

Otherwise as far as I'm concerned you are making up claims without decent supporting evidence - which is not allowed in this science forum.

Maybe you can go in to detail about this experience:

what I was doing, placing lights with the mind in front of someone and that person emailing me time she got to work and asked "why did you do that to me"

 

[Search & Destroy]

Hi scheherazade - so you claim to be able to talk to animals? Why don't you have some fun with your claim and do some simple testing.

Walk around with a notepad for a week, noting how often you pass a dog, and how often it looks at you.

The next week do the same thing, but transmit a message to the dog. See if the success rate really jumps or not.

I'm pretty certain you will see no measurable change between the two weeks.

What do you say? Contribute to Parapsychology with some real science!

 

[Robittybob1]

If you want to read about an interesting case of thought transference
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthr...ual-Guidance-assists-in-Scott-Watson-s-Pardon

 

[scheherazade]

Hi scheherazade - so you claim to be able to talk to animals? Why don't you have some fun with your claim and do some simple testing.

Walk around with a notepad for a week, noting how often you pass a dog, and how often it looks at you.

The next week do the same thing, but transmit a message to the dog. See if the success rate really jumps or not.

I'm pretty certain you will see no measurable change between the two weeks.

What do you say? Contribute to Parapsychology with some real science!

Your interpretation of 'talk' and mine may differ. There is little doubt that a majority of animals regard me with a lot more attention and interest than they pay most other people.

Actually, an incredible number of people are surprised that their dog or horse looks at me, although I am innocuous in my location. Many others are astounded that their 'shy' cat/dog/horse/bird will come forth and seek my company.

People who observe me have noted that animals seem to be drawn to me. When I was younger, I thought everyone could understand what animals were indicating.

It is simply visualizing ones words and actions as if one were actually speaking/preparing to follow through on them. Some people and most animals are quite perceptive to the energy that is coursing through our minds and bodies at all times.

Tell me Search & Destroy, have you never had the sensation of being observed, and then looked around and found that indeed such was the case? It's the same thing, only with more detail.

Thank you for the invitation, but there are many things known that are best left not shown, for the history of our species is that many abuse any knowledge they are given.

Let anyone visiting the Yukon follow me around for a week and they can take the notes. Surely that would be more objective?

 

[kx000]

I know when people are looking at me bellow the belt with sexual eagerness with out even knowing that they are stading there

 

[kx000]

Hi scheherazade - so you claim to be able to talk to animals? Why don't you have some fun with your claim and do some simple testing.

Walk around with a notepad for a week, noting how often you pass a dog, and how often it looks at you.

The next week do the same thing, but transmit a message to the dog. See if the success rate really jumps or not.

I'm pretty certain you will see no measurable change between the two weeks.

What do you say? Contribute to Parapsychology with some real science!

I spoke to a depressed dog who said his human diddled him, and the dog wondered if he was doing a good job protecting the door. Also, he wanted to know about squirels.

 

[scheherazade]

I spoke to a depressed dog who said his human diddled him, and the dog wondered if he was doing a good job protecting the door. Also, he wanted to know about squirels.

LOL......

When I am working with dogs and horses, I communicate in pictures. Visualization.

In many disciplines (athletics for example) it is also discussed as right brain training. Once you understand what you are attempting to accomplish, and have learned the skills to do undertake this, you imagine yourself doing it perfectly every time. The body actually develops a memory of how to perform the task with considerably less wear and tear on the body.

When I used to show horses, I would practice the trail class obstacle pattern in my mind, as it is posted shortly before the class so none have an advantage. As I would be thinking about doing the pattern, I could feel the horse under me slightly responding to each change of direction and speed in my mind.

We were able to 'practice' the course several times before we rode it. Trail class is a precision obstacle course that challenges the horse and rider to perform intricate movements.

(All of my communication with animals serves a purpose. I don't DO parlor tricks.)

 

[Search & Destroy]

Your interpretation of 'talk' and mine may differ. There is little doubt that a majority of animals regard me with a lot more attention and interest than they pay most other people.

You claim they pay more attention to you than to other people.

Firstly, 99.9% of people in the world are not your acquaintances. And whether you know the .1% well enough to paint an accurate picture of how they interact with animals is doubtful but for all but your close friends.

This leaves us with a small group of people labeled 'close friends that you have observed around animals'

Granted, among this group you might attract more attention. But this is not necessarily because you can talk to them through your mind. You are an animal enthusiast, so you probably pay more attention to the animals than your friends. The attention you are giving animals, will in turn attract the animal's attention. So as an animal lover, you are probably simply just looking at the animals more, thus creating a larger opportunity factor for interaction.

And even if after all else is said, and the animals are more attracted to you after all. Maybe you just smell funny - perhaps animals smell the horses on you. There are a lot of reasons, rather than ESP that an animal might respond to you more than to someone else.

Actually, an incredible number of people are surprised that their dog or horse looks at me, although I am innocuous in my location. Many others are astounded that their 'shy' cat/dog/horse/bird will come forth and seek my company.

I have been told this too, and I think it's almost a cliche thing in our society. I'm sure many people can step up and vouch for similar experience as you here.

Tell me Search & Destroy, have you never had the sensation of being observed, and then looked around and found that indeed such was the case? It's the same thing, only with more detail.

I've definitely thought that someone was looking at me before. Usually nobody is. I feel that if I am paranoid, at night, walking down a dark street I will think someone is watching me far more often than in the day time. This doesn't make sense to me, so the feeling is probably just a symptom of paranoia rather than a 6th sense.

Thank you for the invitation, but there are many things known that are best left not shown, for the history of our species is that many abuse any knowledge they are given.

That's an interesting belief and way of going about things.

However I can think of many benefits communicating with animals would have. The knowledge that we can speak to animals through our minds would be a victory for animal lovers everywhere. For rights activists as well, they can use that piece of information to win more hearts, and get society to think twice about the way we treat such lifeforms.

I think more animals would be happy too. They could express their complaints which could lead to an animal health revolution. Right now they are being forcefully muted... it's as if I put someone on 'ignore' on this forum because we may abuse the knowledge they type. But we in turn we 'ignore' Darwin and in turn never learn about evolution.

Anyway it's your opinion. If you really think keeping the secret to yourself will somehow benefit humans and the animals would you mind telling me why?

Let anyone visiting the Yukon follow me around for a week and they can take the notes. Surely that would be more objective?

Objective, but unrealistic.

 

[chimpkin]

Animals are very sensitive to body language.
People who are very sensitive to it also might have an attraction to animals?
That's why I suspect I generally get on well with them?
I speak critter...body language.

But whatever Sche's got, it works? whether something is real or not...does not mean it's not useful.
Which sounds weird...but...it still works.

 

[Search & Destroy]

But whatever Sche's got, it works? whether something is real or not...does not mean it's not useful.
Which sounds weird...but...it still works.

It is very possible it works, and if scheherazade claims so, it might very well be so. Useful, yes, I believe it is useful.

But we still shouldn't jump to any conclusions. The simple explanation is as you said, the animals are seeing subtle body signals rather than mental ones.

 

[kwhilborn]

I have been involve in psychic experiments, and run a paranormal website. I have seen/participated in telepathy experiments achieve well above average hit rates. I have also seen/participated in precognition experiments with above average hit rates.

Both of those experiments had consistently higher hit rates than chance. There are psychic experiments out there that now defy billion to one odds, yet the skeptic community is allowed to write them off as chance.

Defying Billion to one odds on long term psychic project should not be written off, and anybody who does so without at least looking at the possibility is wrong.

I think almost any psychic experiment would yield results above chance, unless it was run by hard core skeptics who are not even trying.

Go ahead and "make" someone call you on the telephone who might not normally, or do something to just prove it to yourself.

I do not believe that thoughts travel by magic, but are transmitted and received by a process yet unknown. The "yet unknown" would be interesting to talk about, but sciforums has to many "anti-possibility" trolls who think we have maxed out our scientific potential as humans. I feel sorry for them. I have seen positive results beyond some peoples imaginings, but it must be harder to accept as someone just looking at results on paper.

View one such experiment in Wired.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68216?currentPage=all
I don't expect the trolls to actually read these links however, as it would interfere with time they can be calling people cranks and demanding more proof, when statistical proof is too great for sane people to ignore.

Okay.. Trolls turn.

 

[Search & Destroy]

I have seen/participated in telepathy experiments achieve well above average hit rates. I have also seen/participated in precognition experiments with above average hit rates.

You're right, 1/Billion is hard to hit. Can you publish your results in the mentioned tests here?

 

[kwhilborn]

The Billion to one results I was referring to was for the global consciousness project. I linked a "wired" article about it in my last post. Anyone can now participate in the experiment online. If you think your mind can influence a machine have a go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

The Global Consciousness Project has an interesting history.

It started out as people just trying to influence a machine mentally. They were so successful statistically that the project grew.

During 9/11 terror attacks they noticed difference in how the statistics were affected for a few days afterwards.

Now the project is looking not only at influencing machines, but at the worlds "moods" in comparison.

It is a widely known experiment, and has been replicated elsewhere.

Watch this news brief on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQMALL__bE

Remember this experiment is built on the back of another experiment which took decades. They already had statistical success of man influencing machine for years.
Here is more on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc

As for my own involvement in psychic research. Many years ago I did contact the real James randi. He said he would not accept statistics as proof even if the experiments were done in front of him on a consistent basis. I can always demonstrate positive results on at least a small scale defying probability.

I think anyone can really.

Anyways.. Trolls have their place. Bring it trolls..

 

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Search & Destroy.

Anyway it's your opinion. If you really think keeping the secret to yourself will somehow benefit humans and the animals would you mind telling me why?

I am not keeping 'animal whispering' a secret. I am just not interested in sharing how vulnerable animals are in their desire to please because most people only want them to be 'obedient' and would use such knowledge for leverage.

There are plenty of practical methods to teach 'conditioned response' to those who have not the time nor the patience to learn a whole new way of communicating. Today's society expects instant gratification and that is not how what I am talking about works.

Several years ago, one of my adult students asked me how famous I wanted to be. She thought that I should take my work to Europe and do demonstrations there.

I have also thought about producing my own videos on the topic and then reconsidered the matter.

Instead, I am mentoring a couple of former students whom are now adults and we shall see if they are committed to the undertaking.

You see S & D, to truly understand a thing, you must experience it first hand. There is a written language for keeping track of details, yet anything that is recorded in any medium may be altered. Only live experience cannot be altered although sometimes the memory of experience may be reconfigured and re-evaluated by the brain.

One must become one with their subject matter. This is not a new idea. It is incorporated in other teachings from conversations that I have had with others of many disciplines.

Thank you for your responses and comments thus far. My equine companions have been patient long enough and await their brunch and warm water. I visit my mother on Saturday mornings after shift, and they have accepted this state of affairs, lol....Mother picks green grass for them during summer visits and speaks softly to them. They are very gentle with her, for she is frail and somewhat intimidated by their size and strength.

 

[scheherazade]

Animals are very sensitive to body language.
People who are very sensitive to it also might have an attraction to animals?
That's why I suspect I generally get on well with them?
I speak critter...body language.

But whatever Sche's got, it works? whether something is real or not...does not mean it's not useful.
Which sounds weird...but...it still works.

Everybody has a 'gift', chimpkin. That these gifts are variable between individuals contributes to diversity in life, at many levels.

Animals are differently talented also. Some are incredibly attuned to their environment, while many others have become desensitized, not unlike our own species. In many cases we have been the cause of their desensitization.

Communication with animals at the non-verbal, non-restraining level is an enjoyable and rewarding pursuit.

Kind of like......have you ever glanced across the room and encountered the gaze of a child or an elder and something passes between you, an exchange without words, most often described in literature as 'a knowing look'?

An unfiltered thought has been shared.

Didn't science recently demonstrate that all that 'empty' space isn't empty at all and that photons are busy doing things that we can only guess at?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111128

Perhaps a thought is nothing more than light traveling in vacuum. What's to stop them from getting around?

 

[Search & Destroy]

View one such experiment in Wired.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68216?currentPage=all
I don't expect the trolls to actually read these links however, as it would interfere with time they can be calling people cranks and demanding more proof, when statistical proof is too great for sane people to ignore.

Okay.. Trolls turn.

Hi, I'm not a troll nor are they allowed on this forum, so you won't have to worry about that.

From your article:

Out of several million trials, they've detected small but "statistically significant" signs that minds may be able to interact with machines. However, researchers are careful not to claim that minds cause an effect or that they know the nature of the communication.

No one knows. Both Radin and Jahn say that just because there is a correlation between the intent of the participant and the machine's actions doesn't mean one causes the other.

It is evidence for ESP, but weak evidence. Not the kind of evidence that is required for extraordinary claims in other words.


scheherazade -

Kind of like......have you ever glanced across the room and encountered the gaze of a child or an elder and something passes between you, an exchange without words, most often described in literature as 'a knowing look'?

An unfiltered thought has been shared.

Didn't science recently demonstrate that all that 'empty' space isn't empty at all and that photons are busy doing things that we can only guess at?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111128

Perhaps a thought is nothing more than light traveling in vacuum. What's to stop them from getting around?

Yeah you're right. In some sense a thought is shared - only the transmission of information is where we might argue. Light traveling in a vacuum seems to sum it up though. When you think of something sour, your face might curl - the light bouncing off your hundred curled face muscles hits my pupils and are converted into thoughts. We don't share a single thought, but a thought can get transmitted through a few mediums.

You see S & D, to truly understand a thing, you must experience it first hand. There is a written language for keeping track of details, yet anything that is recorded in any medium may be altered. Only live experience cannot be altered although sometimes the memory of experience may be reconfigured and re-evaluated by the brain.

I'm an animal person too, hence my interest. I've trained a lot of untrainable animals and always figured I can communicate with them better than the average Joe. All my success I attribute to real-world phenomenon.

 

[Search & Destroy]

As for my own involvement in psychic research. Many years ago I did contact the real James randi. He said he would not accept statistics as proof even if the experiments were done in front of him on a consistent basis. I can always demonstrate positive results on at least a small scale defying probability.

I think anyone can really.

Well it sounds like you know what you are doing. Will you set up a psychic test on this forum with some rules so that we may test your results?

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Search and Destroy,
You said...

Hi, I'm not a troll nor are they allowed on this forum, so you won't have to worry about that.

That's incorrect.

Was not referring to you as a troll. I meant specifically 2 other people who do not contribute to any conversations on Sciforums except to ridicule in parapsychology, and they are allowed on this forum as this is their main posting grounds.

Online experiments would not have the controls necessary to prove anything, as a simple telephone call could "fake" it.

I have maintained that the best proof someone could do is to attempt to witness results first hand. This allows people to see results they cannot explain repeatedly defying odds.

Spend one hour while a friend is sleeping trying to remote influence them to call you upon awakening or try to wake them up at a certain time. Harold Sherman conducted a long distance telepathic log with a "out of touch" Northern explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. The trip was well documented and there were many famous witnesses to the experiment. This was at the turn of last century and the book published from it was called, "Thoughts through space." (1942)
They did not communicate directly, but sent mail to the "control group" who compared logs. It was clearly amazing and witnessed by dozens of officiants and even short wave radio operators swore oaths.

I had tried to organize an online experiment using sciforum members last year. It seemed to be met with eager participation, but then the other main participant made a post that made it clear he was biased and ridiculed me for my efforts at the same time.
Here is a quote from Heliocentric regarding that,

“

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
Yes of course I knew what the outcome would have been. The reason I wanted to have a 'believer' as a control was to get rid of that retarded cop-out I knew would be raised otherwise:

"...given that the psyche can simply output the outcome it wants without you even being consciously aware of it"

”

Heliocentric - I think youre missing the point, you were atempting to engage in a thought experiment with this man and you wernt (for all intents and purposes) going to play along.
The whole point of thought experiments is that you fully engage with the experiment, you should essentially be aiming for mpartiality.
If youre approaching this or any thought experiment as a debunking excersise then i can tell you what will happen before its even started - nothing will happen atall.
It really proves nothing either way, effectively no experiment will have occured atall, the whole things a write off before its even begun.

This really isnt coping out, its highlighting a very real problem of favoured/pre-empted outcomes in science, the problem in this instance is as a 'debunker' (whos now staked his name to a negative outcome already) you now have a vested interest in a negative outcome.
Really i think the best way with experiments like these is to conduct them with a small to medium cross section of society to hopefully elliminate as much bias as possible - then let the statistics do the talking.

For the record I was willing to spend a lot of time conducting online experiments in this forum. Now I have a less contributory attitude here.

I rarely make comments in these paranormal forums now. I prefer to use another website for intelligent conversations on the matter.

It is a shame because I feel the mind is a frontier of science that needs more explaining. I would love to be able to open an encyclopaedia and look up why I have seen what I have seen.

I currently make money operating a member driven paranormal website among other things.

@ Search and Destroy,

It is evidence for ESP, but weak evidence. Not the kind of evidence that is required for extraordinary claims in other words.

This could be said of any ESP experiment, and I repeatedly say it is a shame that statistical probabilities cannot be accepted as proof, and even a billion to one odds can be written off as chance.

I feel sad for people who do not believe in telepathy, and can understand their viewpoint. If they have made no effort to explore the possibilities or indulge in experiments, then they have only the words of their science teachers to guide them.

When you see that it must be real then people want to know "How". It is a shame that people cannot even discuss "how" on this forum. If a person even acknowledges they have paranormal beliefs they are immediately "cranks" here.

Many scientists are pursuing this field to try to explain what is going on.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/
The above link is interesting and is from The University of Cambridge.

If any of that was posted on Sciforums they would just be called "crank".

Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality[1]

Brian D. Josephson[2] and Fotini Pallikari-Viras[3]

Is a paper on Quantum Mechanics and the paranormal.

linked here
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html

Brian Josephson is a Nobel Prize Winner btw, yet he would only be a crank if he posted that paper on sciforums.

Explore
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi.html
if you want more intelligent information on the subject.

 

[Search & Destroy]

kwhilborn - if you were at a barbecue with me and friends, we were all getting along, drinking, and having a good time. You mention that Sandra - the girl we all think is very ugly... is beautiful! Do you think anyone will believe you, or take you seriously after that? How hard do you think it would be to convince us that she is hot?

It would really be impossible - I think she's ugly. You couldn't convince me with any argument. But then you bring a survey with 999/1000 people agreeing she is hot. The survey is legitimate. Ok I agree the girl is hot. I would agree after seeing the survey.

That survey is not easy to make, and neither is ESP easy to prove.

But there is a hard crowd of skeptics here, myself being one of them. There won't be any trolling but there certainly will be scientific rigor when confronting parapsychology.

I apologize for the poor analogy.

Regardless,

I'm interested in you hosting some sort of parapsychology test here on this forum. You have my full support as a moderator that nobody can troll you or sling any sort of insult. The input from other members will be limited to helpful things you have my word.

I think you should make a proposal thread, with how you think a test can work, and let other members critique its effectiveness. After a critique thread we can proceed - what do you think?

 

[kwhilborn]

That's why I barbecue in a different park. I agree that sciforums has many skeptics. I think probably about 99%.

I do not think the majority of sciforums would agree that she is hot even if 999/1000 said there was a probability she was.

You may doubt this now (as do many on sciforums still), but Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR/Cold fusion) devices have been demonstrated and in production for the past year. Sciforums reaction is like scientists telling Orville and wilbur flight is impossible even after they had flown (science did deny flight was possible for 4 years after flight btw). You can even buy one at www.ecat.com .

I am currently writing, and my paranormal website is suffering neglect as it is. I will pipe up in paranormal sections from time to time, but my main interest is in Physics/Electricity.
The more I post down here the more I ruin my credibility up there.

If anybody wishes more specific information I could message them.