SezMe said:
So, I sent again (assuming of course here that telepathy exists, otherwise I cannot send "telepathic waves").
The opening post for this test is post #1495.
Last edited:
Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
The opening post for this test is post #1495.
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
I've been pondering this a while. You say you transmit the idea of number, but your tests are all about a particular representation of a number -- you write it down using Arabic numerals in a base sufficiently large it is only a single digit. The property of, say, 15-ness is something represented in a number of different ways but it is different to all of those representations.
You played with the representation when claiming 42 was a hit on 2 because it's 4 (two 2s) and a 2. If you'd used a different representation that wouldn't have been possible. You could have decomposed it into prime factors {2, 3, 7}, which would be independent of base and suggests you should pick from the set of primes to avoid such a temptation.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If you're capable of transmitting such a complex idea then why is the test limited to receiving a number between one and ten? Why not transmit a random line from a song or perhaps a bible verse?
This seems contradictory to your statement above about transmitting a complex idea. Now you seem to be claiming that you're transmitting the image of a number with a circle around it.
Further, since you're the only one who can see this circle, whose confusion are you hoping to avoid?
Then in fact you're actually writing down at least four numbers but only transmitting the idea that the number in the circle is the target for the Randi test.
This power of yours becomes more sophisticated with every post.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's not the complexity of the protocol that's the problem. It's the utter uselessness of it that needs to be addressed.
I can't fathom why you'd think it's a good idea to have people post their guesses (and that's all they are) in the thread. Does it not occur to you that people are going to be influenced by seeing the numbers other people have posted?
Mind you, this would only be a concern if more than a couple of people actually bothered to post answers at all, but still . . .
It might, but it would be completely meaningless because of the ridiculously small sample size.
Drivel.
You claim to have revised your protocol following remarks of the members here and yet you adamantly cling to this particularly fatal flaw in the whole process.
No, what would be considered as not credible would be any result you claimed to obtain by employing such blatantly subjective and irrelevant criteria to whatever responses you receive.
In fact, this subjective acceptance/rejection of the answers you get is even more of a killer blow in this "test" now that you're asking people to actually post their guesses.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
78 T Borzoi Dusky Cyclamen Altostratus
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
The biggest problem with this protocol is there is no definition at all of what constitutes a hit or a miss. For example, if the target number is 3, is 9 a hit because it is three 3s? Does a 6 count? If the target number is 10, will you lump all answers of 1 into your statistics? This lack of clarity from the very beginning pretty much dooms this test to irrelevancy. Stating that you are trying to see if the correct answers are more than 10% of the total answers is useless if you do not define what a correct answer is in the first place.
Also, you cannot state that you may need to do credibility ratings, they are either a part of the protocol from the beginning, or they are not. Changing the protocol after the test has been run is pretty much anti-science.
Also, you cannot state that you may need to do credibility ratings, they are either a part of the protocol from the beginning, or they are not. Changing the protocol after the test has been run is pretty much anti-science.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I was just doodling on a piece of paper and happened to draw a circle. I no sooner closed the loop when the phrase appeared.
The big question here is, of course, which of us is transmitting and which is receiving.
FWIW, I wasn't concentrating on the idea that xxxxxxxxxx is the target phrase for the Randi test. I was actually thinking about beer (which should give me an astronomical credibility rating, if there's any justice in the world).
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
When I'm talking about a 10% hit rate without telepathy, I am of course implying that, if the target is a 3, the answer has to be a 3, and not 6 and 9. However it is true that 6=2.3 and 9=3.3 are more related to 3 than 8 or 10 for example. These kinds of observations can be made in a more qualitative analysis.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
In other words, everything that Hokulele said was spot on and you are quite prepared to manipulate whatever data you receive by whatever means you can think of in order to skew the results in favour of your claim.
Codswallop.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
But 3 looks closer to 8 than 6, so how can it be less related? Or are you sending the number as something other than a visual image of the digit?
If you are just sending a mathematical thought from your mind, what's the point of writing the number down on paper?
BTW I'm not getting any thoughts from you, so either your mind has some abnormality that prevents me from reading it (which might explain a lot...) or you have been lying to us. Which is it?
Yes, you have a point there, Roger Ramjets, I was thinking "mathematically related", not having some degree of similarity as drawings. I am myself more a mathematician (as a physicist and an engineer) than an artist, and it seems to me than people have more a tendency to answer mathematically related numbers than visually related numbers, but your observation shows that it is important to be careful.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Why did you not answer the second part of the question?
Seems? On what basis?
And yet you keep coming up with more and more careless protocols.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
The minute I saw that beer was the thought, Sapporo immediately sprang to mind, even though I've never drunk that brand.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
That's incedible!
I'm drinking Fat Yak which is named after a creature from Asia, which is where they make Sapporo!
I'm scared.
scarlettinlondon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 452
Here's my highly credible answer
816731DC7F4F34DBEE6B81834175A3C9EA196DB0039B7AD747AE76FA03E7861ABC9BA9C7AFDB817DFF9D2CB5E95ED24CFF8611BD0BBEEFE1132F968FB2F3A6FB
816731DC7F4F34DBEE6B81834175A3C9EA196DB0039B7AD747AE76FA03E7861ABC9BA9C7AFDB817DFF9D2CB5E95ED24CFF8611BD0BBEEFE1132F968FB2F3A6FB
scarlettinlondon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 452
Also I too wrote it down this time, here on my note pad which also doubles as a mouse mat and also as Cat Sitting Perch
Sorry, Scarlett, but, in this test, your answer must be one of the ten numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or "I don't know", in order to be valid. Please, answer one of these eleven possibilities.
- Status