what768 said:
This doesn't answer the questions.
Why no one steps forward
- Thread starter Q_Who
- Start date
This doesn't answer the questions.
Crunchy Cat said:
*Bump* Transmaterial?
W
what768
Guest
Nothing has ever been proven. They have only been explained so that people could understand and believe in them. I have explained it, but you have not understood. I tell the truth, and that is why you do not believe me, because you do not recognise when truth is spoken.
what768 said:
Nothing has ever been proven. They have only been explained so people
with self-chosen cognitive handicap could understand and accept the
explanations as true without any factual supporting / contradictory support.
I have explained it, but you have not understood otherwise you would have
accepted my assertion as true without any factual supporting / contradictory
support. I tell the truth and I expect this to be accepted as true without
any factual supporting / contradictory support, and this is why you do not
accept my assertions as true without any factual supporting / contradictory
support, because you do not recognize when true assertions are made
without any factual supporting / contradictory support.
Last edited:
W
what768
Guest
Crunchy Cat, I only said that so that people would know that I'm a stupid asshole, who thinks he knows everything, but he doesn't. Now you've recognised the truth - the stupidity of mankind.
what768 said:
In all honesty, I think that the inclanation to 'believe' is a very smart
adaptation in mankind.
W
what768
Guest
Yeah 
TheERK said:
Probably, but a sarcastic presentation doesn't invalidate the message.
W
what768
Guest
Actually I was not being sarcastic. As I said, It's the truth... :m:
Many people say things, and others don't understand them (even if they think so). Most of us don't know what's in people' hearts and minds, they only hear the words they say, in their own personal way. It is easy to understand for one self, but to understand one another is harder.
Many people say things, and others don't understand them (even if they think so). Most of us don't know what's in people' hearts and minds, they only hear the words they say, in their own personal way. It is easy to understand for one self, but to understand one another is harder.
transmaterial
Registered Member
Crunchy Cat said:
Sorry for the delay, CC; busy week. If it came down to an experiment, I would think that being in the same house would still leave room for cues such as hearing the rhythm of the other person's footsteps, which could indicate anger, excitement, lethargy, etc. In comes the doubt, and out goes the experiment.
I'm not sure if this ability would be the best one to test, since "state of mind" is such a vague quantity and any claim of remote sensing would leave lots of room for interpretation. How about, instead, a telepathic empathy test? Case in point:
Place two people physically close to one another, but separated by soundproofing. Electrode placement could measure brainwaves related to a change in emotional state. The "sender" is given something pleasant, or some other emotional trigger. The "receiver" has no idea what is happening in the next room, but has a close personal connection to the sender, which in many circles is believed to promote psychic connections. The time spent collecting results would have to be extensive, to rule out coincidence and differentiate specific emotional predictions from deductive conclusions about the sender's overall emotional reaction to the testing.
Hypothesis to be tested would be that information can transmit between people without light, sound, smell, or touch.
What do you think of the Ganzfeld experiments designed to determine whether psi can affect random-number generators? Online resources, including a rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, are listed at:
http://www.transmaterial.com/winston_wu/winston_wu_section2.htm#argument18
Those who claim that there is no conclusive evidence for psychic ability should address this particular anomaly.
Pantalimon
Registered Member
Sorry for not having read 7 pages of this thread and appologies if I repeat whats gone before.
Just like certain events within scientific theory its a real frustration that psi events cannot be measured in conventional ways. I'm sure many people would like to see someone with spooky powers that can be turned on like a light bulb take Randi's test and win a mill but it isn't going to happen.
I recon the best proof could come from experiments involving the effecting of results due to intent (skeptic or believer).
Maybe this pair of unlikely bed fellows http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/article2.shtml
These studies focus in on the actual mind sets of the scientists making the observations. If results do show an effect then the conclusion could be that the resercher somehow was choosing parts of the experiment unconciously that would prove their own hypothesis. For example when to cease the experiment when the results were in their hypothesis's favour.
Just like certain events within scientific theory its a real frustration that psi events cannot be measured in conventional ways. I'm sure many people would like to see someone with spooky powers that can be turned on like a light bulb take Randi's test and win a mill but it isn't going to happen.
I recon the best proof could come from experiments involving the effecting of results due to intent (skeptic or believer).
Maybe this pair of unlikely bed fellows http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/article2.shtml
These studies focus in on the actual mind sets of the scientists making the observations. If results do show an effect then the conclusion could be that the resercher somehow was choosing parts of the experiment unconciously that would prove their own hypothesis. For example when to cease the experiment when the results were in their hypothesis's favour.
transmaterial said:
No problem. What if we had a compromised experiment? The receiver is in
one room with enough audio distraction to filter out footsteps and whatnot.
A sender comes into another room, is given an emotional simulus as the
audio distraction is cut, is asked to write down what he / she is feeling (and
the receiver does the same), pump up the audio distraction again, check
the results... What do you think?
Thanks for the link; however, I find greater interest in this experiment.
transmaterial
Registered Member
So the hypothesis is that even when two people are removed by both visual and auditory barriers, one person may be able to sense the other's emotional state.
how about this:
Pairs of people sign up for a paid "sociological study." The ad doesn't specify the exact purpose of the study. When they arrive, they are separated, and each is told a different story.
Pair A
The pair is separated and taken to separate rooms. One of them has electrodes placed along his/her scalp, and is told to watch the other one through a one-way mirror. The electrodes measure the emotional responses, via brain waves.
The person on the other side of the mirror thinks that they are getting some preliminary testing. The tester is actually part of the study, and is deliberately dropping emotional cures as s/he goes along. For instance, the tester might be pleasant at the outset, offering pastries or some such, then act increasingly rude, or alternately, would act dreary, anxious, or anything else that might elicit specific emotions.
Pair B
We have two voluntary subjects, a "Sender" and a "Receiver." We have two rooms that are adjacent to each other, but are heavily soundproofed... hey, why not throw in some white noise generators, while we're at it?
The designated Sender is told that before s/he begins, they need to do some testing. Then they either annoy the shit out of them, or give them stuff like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, or an 18-year highland scotch. In any case, the pleasing and agitating stimuli could alter, or remain constant.
The research team takes Receiver aside and tells him or her about the real purpose of the experiment. They are made to understand that it is a test of empathy, and that they are to try and sense what their friend or partner is feeling.
Pair C
..The control group is a separate pair of subjects. Initially the Sender (who, ideally, is a close friend or acquaintance) is led away from the Receiver, and actually taken to a different building or further. The researchers tell the Sender that it's a study on attachment.
The Receiver, on the other hand, believes that s/he is participating in the same experiment described above. There is no one on the other side of the wall, but the would-be Receiver doesn't know it, so whatever they project is a matter of deduction and guesswork.
If the results turn out to be consistently higher in the experimental group (two people on opposite sides of a soundproofed wall) than the control (one person who thinks that s/he is in the experimental group, but actually no one is behind the wall), this might add a little to the data pool.
how about this:
Pairs of people sign up for a paid "sociological study." The ad doesn't specify the exact purpose of the study. When they arrive, they are separated, and each is told a different story.
Pair A
The pair is separated and taken to separate rooms. One of them has electrodes placed along his/her scalp, and is told to watch the other one through a one-way mirror. The electrodes measure the emotional responses, via brain waves.
The person on the other side of the mirror thinks that they are getting some preliminary testing. The tester is actually part of the study, and is deliberately dropping emotional cures as s/he goes along. For instance, the tester might be pleasant at the outset, offering pastries or some such, then act increasingly rude, or alternately, would act dreary, anxious, or anything else that might elicit specific emotions.
Pair B
We have two voluntary subjects, a "Sender" and a "Receiver." We have two rooms that are adjacent to each other, but are heavily soundproofed... hey, why not throw in some white noise generators, while we're at it?
The designated Sender is told that before s/he begins, they need to do some testing. Then they either annoy the shit out of them, or give them stuff like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, or an 18-year highland scotch. In any case, the pleasing and agitating stimuli could alter, or remain constant.
The research team takes Receiver aside and tells him or her about the real purpose of the experiment. They are made to understand that it is a test of empathy, and that they are to try and sense what their friend or partner is feeling.
Pair C
..The control group is a separate pair of subjects. Initially the Sender (who, ideally, is a close friend or acquaintance) is led away from the Receiver, and actually taken to a different building or further. The researchers tell the Sender that it's a study on attachment.
The Receiver, on the other hand, believes that s/he is participating in the same experiment described above. There is no one on the other side of the wall, but the would-be Receiver doesn't know it, so whatever they project is a matter of deduction and guesswork.
If the results turn out to be consistently higher in the experimental group (two people on opposite sides of a soundproofed wall) than the control (one person who thinks that s/he is in the experimental group, but actually no one is behind the wall), this might add a little to the data pool.
transmaterial
Registered Member
So the hypothesis is that even when two people are removed by both visual and auditory barriers, one person may be able to sense the other's emotional state.
how about this:
Pairs of people sign up for a paid "sociological study." The ad doesn't specify the exact purpose of the study. When they arrive, they are separated, and each is told a different story.
Pair A
The pair is separated and taken to separate rooms. One of them has electrodes placed along his/her scalp, and told to watch the other one through a one-way mirror. The electrodes measure the emotional responses, via brain waves.
The person on the other side of the mirror thinks that they are getting some preliminary testing. The tester is actually part of the study, and is deliberately dropping emotional cures as s/he goes along. For instance, the tester might be pleasant at the outset, offering pastries or some such, then act increasingly rude, or alternately, would act dreary, anxious, or anything else that might elicit specific emotions.
Pair B
We have two voluntary subjects, a "Sender" and a "Receiver." We have two rooms that are adjacent to each other, but are heavily soundproofed... hey, why not throw in some white noise generators, while we're at it?
The designated Sender is told that before s/he begins, they need to do some testing. Then they either annoy the shit out of them, or give them stuff like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, or an 18-year highland scotch. In any case, the pleasing and agitating stimuli could alternate, or remain constant.
The research team takes Receiver aside and tells him or her about the real purpose of the experiment. They are made to understand that it is a test of empathy, and that they are to try and sense what their friend or partner is feeling.
The electrodes measure the brain wave frequency combinations that people generate in response to others' emotional state.
Pair C
..The control group is a separate pair of subjects. Initially the Sender (who, ideally, is a close friend or acquaintance) is led away from the Receiver, and actually taken to a different building or further. The researchers tell the Sender that it's a study on attachment.
The Receiver, on the other hand, believes that s/he is participating in the same experiment described above. There is no one on the other side of the wall, but the would-be Receiver doesn't know it, so whatever they project is a matter of deduction and guesswork.
If the results turn out to be consistently higher in the experimental group (two people on opposite sides of a soundproofed wall) than the control (one person who thinks that s/he is in the experimental group, but actually no one is behind the wall), this might add a little to the data pool.
how about this:
Pairs of people sign up for a paid "sociological study." The ad doesn't specify the exact purpose of the study. When they arrive, they are separated, and each is told a different story.
Pair A
The pair is separated and taken to separate rooms. One of them has electrodes placed along his/her scalp, and told to watch the other one through a one-way mirror. The electrodes measure the emotional responses, via brain waves.
The person on the other side of the mirror thinks that they are getting some preliminary testing. The tester is actually part of the study, and is deliberately dropping emotional cures as s/he goes along. For instance, the tester might be pleasant at the outset, offering pastries or some such, then act increasingly rude, or alternately, would act dreary, anxious, or anything else that might elicit specific emotions.
Pair B
We have two voluntary subjects, a "Sender" and a "Receiver." We have two rooms that are adjacent to each other, but are heavily soundproofed... hey, why not throw in some white noise generators, while we're at it?
The designated Sender is told that before s/he begins, they need to do some testing. Then they either annoy the shit out of them, or give them stuff like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, or an 18-year highland scotch. In any case, the pleasing and agitating stimuli could alternate, or remain constant.
The research team takes Receiver aside and tells him or her about the real purpose of the experiment. They are made to understand that it is a test of empathy, and that they are to try and sense what their friend or partner is feeling.
The electrodes measure the brain wave frequency combinations that people generate in response to others' emotional state.
Pair C
..The control group is a separate pair of subjects. Initially the Sender (who, ideally, is a close friend or acquaintance) is led away from the Receiver, and actually taken to a different building or further. The researchers tell the Sender that it's a study on attachment.
The Receiver, on the other hand, believes that s/he is participating in the same experiment described above. There is no one on the other side of the wall, but the would-be Receiver doesn't know it, so whatever they project is a matter of deduction and guesswork.
If the results turn out to be consistently higher in the experimental group (two people on opposite sides of a soundproofed wall) than the control (one person who thinks that s/he is in the experimental group, but actually no one is behind the wall), this might add a little to the data pool.
transmaterial said:
These are all interesting ideas transmaterial (and I am glad to see that your
putting such good thought into the experimentation process), but ultimately
I am am providing an opportunity to prove your claim with the resources that
I personally have at my disposal. I have 2 rooms (side by side), audio
equiptment, video equipment, volunteers (receivers), and a cash reward of
$500 USD if the claim can be demonstrated. What I am trying to do now
is come up with an agreeale experment. Please revew my last proposal and
let me know what we can do to make this happen. Keep in mind that we
can use earmuffs, music, etc to prevent people from being heard entering /
leaving the other room. Beyond that, I can guarantee you wont hear a single
vocalization from these people.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Its pretty tiresome to read a long thread like this and see people spew forth unsupported dogma, all the time under the guise that they've arrived at their ideas via some scientific method.
Im quite frankly sick of hearing from pseudo-science types that esp is 'impossible' and has been 'debunked'. In fact studies into esp have produced results way over the odds of what is normal.
If you want to state that the evidence is inconclusive fine, but to say that esp is bullshit is to ignore the scientific results and methods by which you proport to live by.
Any scientist worth their salt would conceed that the availble evidence
points to the possibility of esp. Though i doubt for all the ascertions made on this thread that many of the debunkers actually have any idea what progress has been made in esp research in the past 5 years.
Good on ya transmaterial for actually being original in your posts, and putting across some good and clear arguments.
Im quite frankly sick of hearing from pseudo-science types that esp is 'impossible' and has been 'debunked'. In fact studies into esp have produced results way over the odds of what is normal.
If you want to state that the evidence is inconclusive fine, but to say that esp is bullshit is to ignore the scientific results and methods by which you proport to live by.
Any scientist worth their salt would conceed that the availble evidence
points to the possibility of esp. Though i doubt for all the ascertions made on this thread that many of the debunkers actually have any idea what progress has been made in esp research in the past 5 years.
Good on ya transmaterial for actually being original in your posts, and putting across some good and clear arguments.
heliocentric said:
ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) is a fairly generic description. Is there
some particular claim that you would like to make? Perhaps telepathy,
telekenesis, pyrokensis, need any other ideas?
Q_Who said:
People come through with untrue psy powers all the time. Forward to people that believe that they have them or that they exist and yet nobody's life seems in danger at all. The strong belief that many people have despite contrary evidence of psy powers creates a living experiment of what would happen is someone came forward (cause they do all the time) stating they have psy powers. They come forward and nobody is trying to kill them.
transmaterial
Registered Member
Sounds fun. What state (or genenral region of the US, if you prefer) do you live in? I won't guarantee results, but I would be more than curious to try it. The $500 is optional.