Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Nay_Sayer]

1. I am trying to understand "telepathy" phenomena myself, so I do some experiments sometimes in order to study it. Also, I would like to have "my telepathy" "recognized".
2. Possibly, see 1.
3. I examine all answers and all posts in the same spirit of objectivity. See for example the analysis of the results of the second test I did on this forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155), I studied all 22 valid numerical answers. It often surprises me that you cannot stand credibility ratings, because it's an excellent and logical idea.

It's totally tubular.

But you are already convinced it's real, Anything to the contrary has been in vain.

I don't hate it, I think it's pointless if you decide which answers are valid and which ones are not.

A logical idea would be to pick 6 letters at random. PM someone interested (Or Valid) in your opinion the 6 letters.

Transmit the 6 letters so whomever is participating earnestly.

Another Logical idea would be to seek professional help.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wouldn't say everybody is lying all the time, there are some positive (or partly positive) moments (see above).

Of course you don't. You only claim that people who disagree with you are lying.

Admittedly, "people who disagree with Michel H" and "everybody" are very, very similar values, but in the context of this thread the difference is indeed significant.

It seems likely that the high frequency electromagnetic waves emitted by the human body (or the brain), considered as a dielectric cavity, have a very low intensity (otherwise presumably they would have been detected already . . .

If they haven't been detected then why are you treating the proposition as a done deal?

. . . it is possible that brain activity, action potentials, excite the normal modes of the cavity, just the way lightning discharges excite Schumann resonances in the big cavity formed by the Earth's surface and the ionosphere).

20 watt lightning?

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure Tesla wouldn't either.

It is also possible, though, that our brains, with their large number of neurons, have an extraordinary ability to detect very small electromagnetic fields.

Fish do it all the time and we know all about it.

Why have we not been able to demonstrate the same ability in humans?

CNN published a few months ago an interesting article, comparing electronic noses to dogs. They said:
While the devices today don't come close to mimicking the nose of a dog, I'm confident that they will help to recognize diseases based on body odors.
This means that Nature stills beats human (electronic) technology (in that area at least).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims about telepathy.

 

[Akhenaten]

1. I am trying to understand "telepathy" phenomena myself, so I do some experiments sometimes in order to study it.

This very thread is itself testimony to a lack of ability to conduct a meaningful experiment

Also, I would like to have "my telepathy" "recognized".

If it existed, it already would be.

Your supplementary claim that people do recognise your telepathy but then lie about it is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to get around this rather obvious point.

2. Possibly[conducting further tests], see 1.

It doesn't matter how many tests you conduct or even whether they're valid.

The insurmountable problem is always going to be that you'll invent bogus reasons for rejecting any results which don't support your foregone conclusion.

3. I examine all answers and all posts in the same spirit of objectivity.

This is patently untrue.

See for example the analysis of the results of the second test I did on this forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155), I studied all 22 valid numerical answers.

That nonsense was indeed an excellent example of the way in which you interpret results but to pretend that it was an objective analysis is laughable.

It often surprises me that you cannot stand credibility ratings, because it's an excellent and logical idea.

It's the exact opposite of the objectivity with which you claim to be approaching this matter.

 

[AdMan]

3. I examine all answers and all posts in the same spirit of objectivity. See for example the analysis of the results of the second test I did on this forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155), I studied all 22 valid numerical answers. It often surprises me that you cannot stand credibility ratings, because it's an excellent and logical idea.

It most definitely is not, and you have gotten no closer to showing that it is. In fact, because you've repeatedly shown that you apparently don't know when people are being obviously sarcastic, your "credibility ratings" are even more worthless, if that is possible.

A proper test would try to minimize any kind of subjective analysis. Any competent scientist would know this. You are simply fooling yourself (but no one else) by thinking that it's "excellent and logical". You are bringing this measure into your tests because of your delusion that people are lying to you when they say they can't receive your thoughts.

 

[Donn]

(The quote button produces a blank text window..)

Bruto: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10278484&postcount=1975

Perhaps, but a detector might be open to scrutiny, and, of course, he'd have actually to build one and think about it.

It would be a pareidolia generator, like that Ovilus thing. (thread)

The detector would not actually detect anything in the world, it would confirm what Michel already knows.

Here's two reasons why:
Michel H: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10278789&postcount=1979

It's a little annoying that I seem to try to give myself a central position, but this is a special situation (I suppose), it's not my fault.

He's special pleading - and part of him knows it.

Michel H: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10278828&postcount=1980

I am trying to understand "telepathy" phenomena myself, so I do some experiments sometimes in order to study it. Also, I would like to have "my telepathy" "recognized".

More special circles.

The circuit on that detector would be like dropped noodles!

I know this is all obvious — I keep hoping Michel will realize it; in vain, I suppose.

 

[fromdownunder]

Michel, AGAIN (because I am sure this has been suggested before), start a 1 - 10 Poll on the Board, requiring no in thread answers. Send the answer to one member whom you trust in advance (one of the ones you think support your ability and actually believe you would be fine. So name this member up front)

Leave it open for a fortnight, broadcast your number 24/7, or even whenever you are awake, then see the results. Simple and easy, and no manipulation or interpretation required, and an extremely simple test. Why not just do it? You could become The King of the World. Come on sunshine - give it a shot!

BTW, I already think the answer is 8.

Norm

 

[dlorde]

...It often surprises me that you cannot stand credibility ratings, because it's an excellent and logical idea.

It would only be an excellent and logical idea if there were some clear and proven criteria for measuring credibility which you described prior to testing and applied consistently to the analysis.

Sadly, there are no such criteria. If you find some, do let the security services know - it's their holy grail; I'm sure they'd be glad to scrap their cumbersome polygraphs.

 

[phunk]

Michel, AGAIN (because I am sure this has been suggested before), start a 1 - 10 Poll on the Board, requiring no in thread answers. Send the answer to one member whom you trust in advance (one of the ones you think support your ability and actually believe you would be fine. So name this member up front)

Leave it open for a fortnight, broadcast your number 24/7, or even whenever you are awake, then see the results. Simple and easy, and no manipulation or interpretation required, and an extremely simple test. Why not just do it? You could become The King of the World. Come on sunshine - give it a shot!

BTW, I already think the answer is 8.

Norm

You don't get a random distribution when you ask a bunch of people to pick a number between 1 and 10. The most popular answers are generally 3 and 7, so he'd just need to pick one of those to get results that appear "better than chance" to anyone who doesn't know better (and himself).

The test would need to be repeated multiple times, with and without him "broadcasting", and with his numbers chosen via dice roll or some other random method.

 

[Giordano]

If this is a thread to propose excellent and accurate ways of testing claims of telepathy, then I am very impressed by the cleverness of many of the posters here.

If you believe that Michel H would perform such an excellent and accurate test, without a way of eventually making certain the results can be twisted to confirm his belief that he is telepathic, then you are certain to be disappointed. Any proof of a lack of telepathy would be dismissed by Michel H for any of a number of "reasons." I realize that it is very tempting to find a way to "make" Michel H see that his beliefs are wrong, and maybe therefore reinterpret how he looks at things. But this is very, very unlikely. I hope he reinterprets how he looks at things, at least so as to make him happier in his life, but that may require events to occur in his personal life that we cannot control.

 

[Ladewig]

If this is a thread to propose excellent and accurate ways of testing claims of telepathy, then I am very impressed by the cleverness of many of the posters here.

If you believe that Michel H would perform such an excellent and accurate test, without a way of eventually making certain the results can be twisted to confirm his belief that he is telepathic, then you are certain to be disappointed. Any proof of a lack of telepathy would be dismissed by Michel H for any of a number of "reasons." I realize that it is very tempting to find a way to "make" Michel H see that his beliefs are wrong, and maybe therefore reinterpret how he looks at things. But this is very, very unlikely. I hope he reinterprets how he looks at things, at least so as to make him happier in his life, but that may require events to occur in his personal life that we cannot control.

I fear that you are correct on all counts.
It is so tempting to approach this situation as if the claimant were honestly and sincerely seeking help on a test protocol. He is not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is so tempting to approach this situation as if the claimant were honestly and sincerely seeking help on a test protocol. He is not.

Indeed. All of these tests so far involve a good chance of guessing right by accident but too small a number of responses to glean anything from the result (quite aside from the subjective post-hoc manipulation of the data).

I've said it before, but all Michel needs is a hard-to-guess thing to transmit and for there to be one single person in the whole world who can hear Michel's thoughts and is curious enough to respond.

He should think of his own phone number for the receiver to call and a password for them to say when the phone is answered. Simple as that.

I have in front of me the page where, 6 months ago, I wrote my own phone number, a password and the sum £1,000 which goes to the first lucky caller who can hear my thoughts. I have concluded from the passage of time that my phone is broken I am not psychic. But the £1,000 offer still stands if anyone wants to have a go. If any high-minded mind readers out there are scornful of the money, I'll happily give it to the charity of their choice.

 

[TheSapient]

Indeed. All of these tests so far involve a good chance of guessing right by accident but too small a number of responses to glean anything from the result (quite aside from the subjective post-hoc manipulation of the data).

I've said it before, but all Michel needs is a hard-to-guess thing to transmit and for there to be one single person in the whole world who can hear Michel's thoughts and is curious enough to respond.

He should think of his own phone number for the receiver to call and a password for them to say when the phone is answered. Simple as that.

I have in front of me the page where, 6 months ago, I wrote my own phone number, a password and the sum £1,000 which goes to the first lucky caller who can hear my thoughts. I have concluded from the passage of time that my phone is broken I am not psychic. But the £1,000 offer still stands if anyone wants to have a go. If any high-minded mind readers out there are scornful of the money, I'll happily give it to the charity of their choice.

So I've been trying to win this. I'm not sure if it is better to keep calling the same number and trying different passwords, or calling new numbers with the same password, or what.

 

[Ladewig]

He should think of his own phone number for the receiver to call and a password for them to say when the phone is answered. Simple as that.

Yes. Simple as that - or least it would be if Michel were not convinced that people would hear the phone number but refuse to call.

Right now there are...
No tests,
No protocols,
No results,
No analogies,
No hypotheticals,
No explanations,
No urgings,
...that will convince Michel to even consider the possibility that he does not have extraordinary powers.

It is easy for us to fool ourselves into believing that we have just the right explanation to help Michel see that his tests are inherently flawed. We do not have the right explanation. The right explanation does not exist.

Many of us are used to presenting data or evidence in such a way that the opposite parties must admit they were mistaken (or they simply runs away and abandons the thread). That will not work here. Many of us are so bothered by letting an obviously incorrect poster have the last word, that we fall back on that logical approach and try to present more evidence. that trait is so powerful, that this thread will never end. Michel will make a post saying he is right, and that desire to "win" the argument is so strong that several posters respond and point out the errors in the claims being made.

No one can win an argument with a person making the claims that Michel is making. That is a fact. And yet, this thread will continue to limp ahead until some mod puts the thread out of its misery and sends it to AAH.

 

[Michel H]

Telepathy test: which number did I write?

Hi, I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test, similar to other tests I have already done on this forum.

At about 9:51 p.m. on this Friday January 23 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully one of the three numbers: "1", "2", "3" on my sheet of paper, and I surrounded it with a circle. Then, I wrote it again twice.

I shall repeat this number (which was selected using a random number generator) from time to time during this test.

I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt).

A comment might also be useful. You may, for example, tell us how confident you are in your answer.

If you feel you don't know my number, I ask you to give a number (equal to 1, or 2, or 3) nevertheless, and I suggest you add a comment to make it clear your number is (probably) not related to telepathy (for example: "I don't know the number you wrote, I just typed the first number that came to my mind", or "I used a random number generator").

Some selected (numerically correct) answers from previous tests:

... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

4

I know it. I'm absolutely sure. I feel it inside of me ...

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

Also (perhaps) of interest:

Well this is certainly one of the most robustly controlled experiments I have encountered.

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.
...

Thank you for participating.

(Note for Moderators: In spite of the obvious similarity of this thread to other "number-guessing threads" I have started on this forum, I ask that this thread be not merged with other similar threads. The reason for this is that unmerged threads are more readable; people don't have to search through the thread to find the opening post.)

 

[abaddon]

My answer is 15F8₁₆

Having completely ignored the feedback provided to you, you have reduced your sample size to 1-3 despite everything you have been told in this very thread.

I know for a fact that you will derive will nothing from this. I would appeal to others not to engage in the almost inevitable mockery which will take place.

ETA: The inevitable destination is that you will provide a test where one may select from "1". Anyone who selects "1" is a hit. 100% result.

 

[HighRiser]

View attachment 32383

My answer is 15F8₁₆

Having completely ignored the feedback provided to you, you have reduced your sample size to 1-3 despite everything you have been told in this very thread.

I know for a fact that you will derive will nothing from this. I would appeal to others not to engage in the almost inevitable mockery which will take place.

ETA: The inevitable destination is that you will provide a test where one may select from "1". Anyone who selects "1" is a hit. 100% result.

I second the motion.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Some selected (numerically correct) answers from previous tests:


Also (perhaps) of interest:

These threads are boring so I doubt I'll watch but Michel... you stating you're in Belgium, I presume English is not your first language and that sarcasm in English text is more difficult for you to recognize.

Please, please tell us that is the truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I flipped a coin three times, with the intention that the odd one out would indicate the number (for example, HTH would be 2, TTH 3 etc.) I got three tails the first time, and three heads the second. From this I can only conclude that the number you wrote is not in fact 1, 2 or 3.

Dave

 

[Giordano]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Michel H]

View attachment 32383

My answer is 15F8₁₆

Having completely ignored the feedback provided to you, you have reduced your sample size to 1-3 despite everything you have been told in this very thread.

I know for a fact that you will derive will nothing from this. I would appeal to others not to engage in the almost inevitable mockery which will take place.

ETA: The inevitable destination is that you will provide a test where one may select from "1". Anyone who selects "1" is a hit. 100% result.

"I know for a fact that you will derive will nothing from this."
Are we talking here about high-class, open-minded and generous skepticism?
If you look at some of the answers or posts quoted at the end of my opening post, it's not at all obvious that "I got nothing out of this".