Telepathy

[jrhowell]

Sounds good enough to me, as it eliminates cheating while not requiring a third party.

It doesn’t eliminate cheating by collusion between the two parties. That is what I will suspect if this test is actually successful.

 

[BStrong]

Recent events and displays of well researched data has indicated to me, that 'telepathy' or the ability to extend one's consciousness beyond one's cranium is a real measurable phenomena, that has its basis in natural selection...

Ever feel like someone or something is watching you? Prey animals who can sense being watched, OFTEN look in direction of their stalker. If you look at the back of someone's head, more often than not they will turn and look right at you. Animals and humans who could identify the direction of an incoming predator were and are more likely to escape.

Fish and birds 'might' be using a single conscious rather than local physical inputs to alter direction.

When we see...light bounces off an object, is received by our retinas, flip-turned-right side up, and a picture is formed. But is that picture in our heads, or is it projected outward, outside of us, and by simply observing it, can we alter or change it, without touching it...?

After a few youtube searches I found some rather astounding test results.

Anyone here want to run a test, employing skeptics as the subjects??

"Spidey" senses?

There are plenty of examples in LE and the military where somebody felt "something" right before the situation went south, but for it to be anything other than coincidence that individual would need to have it happen more than once and it would be necessary for that individual to be able to replicate their performance directed by their own will.

I don't see that happening, and I've had that experience - believe me, it wasn't a conscious act on my part

 

[Loss Leader]

It doesn’t eliminate cheating by collusion between the two parties. That is what I will suspect if this test is actually successful.

That's why I would never suggest that this test should be conclusive of anything. It is not strictly controlled. As such, it is only an aid to help KotA explore his beliefs in his abilities. A positive result should only serve as evidence that he deserves more extensive testing.

 

[John Jones]

I think I really like this test...!
[...]

I think I like this one: What did you monsters do to predict this butchery, you unholy monsters?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

It doesn’t eliminate cheating by collusion between the two parties. That is what I will suspect if this test is actually successful.

And so it begins.


Gather round boys and girls because it's time for everyone favorite game show:



~~~GUESS THE EXCUSE!~~

Today's subject is King of the americas, We will award you with 50 points for every correct excuse you think he'll use.

Winner goes on to the money round.

 

[sadhatter]

"Spidey" senses?

There are plenty of examples in LE and the military where somebody felt "something" right before the situation went south, but for it to be anything other than coincidence that individual would need to have it happen more than once and it would be necessary for that individual to be able to replicate their performance directed by their own will.

I don't see that happening, and I've had that experience - believe me, it wasn't a conscious act on my part

I once caught a can of soda thrown at me, and managed to throw it back, damaging the windshield of the car from which it came (parked car, long before I took up throwing as a hobby, which I did because I was so bad at it. ). At the time I had no athletic experience or ability.

Interesting part of the story is my friend who was with me says they yelled something beforehand. While 100% I do no remember hearing anything, it's more likely I heard something and unconsciously took it as a prompt to look.

Now if I was inclined to want to believe in super powers, my view might be different.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

This is probably against forum Rules, but could not King of America simply log in as another member if we all write down our forum passwords and user names on pieces of paper, at a different specific times, chosen by King of America?

That would indicate if it is worth setting up a 100% foolproof test.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

This is probably against forum Rules, but could not King of America simply log in as another member if we all write down our forum passwords and user names on pieces of paper, at a different specific times, chosen by King of America?

That would indicate if it is worth setting up a 100% foolproof test.

No need, I fail to see how any "There against me" collusion defeats the hash process.

However, I did set this site up during the Michel H era.
https://projectharpoon.wixsite.com/telepathytest

 

[Dave Rogers]

No need, I fail to see how any "There against me" collusion defeats the hash process.

I think it's important to distinguish between false positives and false negatives. As jrhowell pointed out, the hash process could very simply generate a false positive if the person generating the sequence simply e-mailed the correct sequence to the person trying to receive it telepathically. What it can't do, to within a reasonable degree of confidence, is generate a false negative, because it's an intractable computational problem to generate a hash that can then be decoded with two different keys to generate two different, but internally consistent, sequences. If the answer is incorrect, then, that's strong evidence that no telepathic communication took place.

Dave

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As jrhowell pointed out, the hash process could very simply generate a false positive if the person generating the sequence simply e-mailed the correct sequence to the person trying to receive it telepathically. What it can't do, to within a reasonable degree of confidence, is generate a false negative ...

Though of course either the sender or the recipient could easily and independently generate a false negative; the former by concentrating on the wrong cards and the latter by telepathically perceiving the right cards but writing down wrong ones.

Remember the guy - Australian I think - who was entirely convinced he broadcast his thoughts but wouldn't take the MDC because he couldn't figure out a way to be certain whichever partner he chose to do the test with would truthfully write down the cards he was projecting. He worried they wouldn't find a half share of a million bucks sufficient encouragement not to lie just to troll him.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Though of course either the sender or the recipient could easily and independently generate a false negative; the former by concentrating on the wrong cards and the latter by telepathically perceiving the right cards but writing down wrong ones.

In that case, the challenge would be "Read my mind to find out what the contents of this encrypted message are."

Dave

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I think it's important to distinguish between false positives and false negatives. As jrhowell pointed out, the hash process could very simply generate a false positive if the person generating the sequence simply e-mailed the correct sequence to the person trying to receive it telepathically. What it can't do, to within a reasonable degree of confidence, is generate a false negative, because it's an intractable computational problem to generate a hash that can then be decoded with two different keys to generate two different, but internally consistent, sequences. If the answer is incorrect, then, that's strong evidence that no telepathic communication took place.

Dave

Fair enough. However, jack pointed out the example I was thinking of too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Remember the guy - Australian I think - who was entirely convinced he broadcast his thoughts but wouldn't take the MDC because he couldn't figure out a way to be certain whichever partner he chose to do the test with would truthfully write down the cards he was projecting. He worried they wouldn't find a half share of a million bucks sufficient encouragement not to lie just to troll him.

I think there's actually two people who have said that. IIRC, that'd be Michael H and golfy.

 

[dann]

Ever feel like someone or something is watching you?

No, never, but that's mainly because I know that that's something that nobody can feel, however much they imagine that they can.

Prey animals who can sense (!) being watched, OFTEN look in direction of their stalker.

Anybody who can sense being stalked will look in the direction of a stalker. It takes a conscious, deliberate effort not to do so (i.e. in order to fool the stalker by giving him/her/it the impression that the prey/stalkee is unaware of being stalked). But, of course, your "sense" means sense telepathically, and that never happens!

If you look at the back of someone's head, more often than not they will turn and look right at you.

Probably not. It would depend on the time lapse: If on average people tend to cast a glance over their shoulder once every ten minutes or so, thus discovering that somebody is watching them, then of course test situations that lasted more than ten minutes would, on average, produce the result you claim: more often than not! Tests that lasted fewer than ten minutes would, on average, not.

Animals and humans who could identify the direction of an incoming predator were and are more likely to escape.

Yes, that's one of the many reasons why animals have eyes, ears, noses and other senses (for instance of vibrations or electrical fields)!
However, even though a pig would be much more likely to escape a predator if it had wings and were able to take to the air, that still doesn't mean that pigs can fly!
You would stand a better chance if you go for the Pigasus Award (Wikipedia).

 

[Donn]

Yes, that's one of the many reasons why animals have eyes, ears, noses and other senses (for instance of vibrations or electrical fields)!

Ha. It's so damn obvious when you spell it out.

 

[arthwollipot]

One of the reasons people think that they can sense people staring at them is that our brains are hardwired to pick faces out of backgrounds. So when someone is looking at you, it's extremely easy for you to notice that, even if it's only in your peripheral vision.

I tried to read Sheldrake's book on the subject, but the way he had to massage and cherry-pick his data annoyed me and I couldn't finish it.

 

[Donn]

One of the reasons people think that they can sense people staring at them is that our brains are hardwired to pick faces out of backgrounds. So when someone is looking at you, it's extremely easy for you to notice that, even if it's only in your peripheral vision.

Apropos to this, saw/read about the naming of colours in various languages. My details are all going to be wrong, but the idea is that we name the colours we want to talk about.

There's some South American language (I can't recall) that has words only for "black", "white" and "red". Imagine that!

The hypothesis was that we name warm colours because backgrounds are all cool-colours: greens and blues. Warm is faces, fruits and foreground.

Gah! Sorry. Too light on the details.

 

[abaddon]

Apropos to this, saw/read about the naming of colours in various languages. My details are all going to be wrong, but the idea is that we name the colours we want to talk about.

There's some South American language (I can't recall) that has words only for "black", "white" and "red". Imagine that!

The hypothesis was that we name warm colours because backgrounds are all cool-colours: greens and blues. Warm is faces, fruits and foreground.

Gah! Sorry. Too light on the details.

I read about that years ago. Apparently, it's even weirder. All languages develop words for colours in the same order.

 

[Spektator]

Apropos to this, saw/read about the naming of colours in various languages. My details are all going to be wrong, but the idea is that we name the colours we want to talk about.

There's some South American language (I can't recall) that has words only for "black", "white" and "red". Imagine that!

The hypothesis was that we name warm colours because backgrounds are all cool-colours: greens and blues. Warm is faces, fruits and foreground.

Gah! Sorry. Too light on the details.

"Though few are aware of it, all New York booking agents are descended from a tribe that has no word in its language for 'no.' The closest they can come is 'I'll get back to you.'" If I recall correctly, that came from Woody Allen. But maybe not. You know how it is.

 

[jt512]

5 cards seems about right for a preliminary, unscientific test. Doing it twice would be enough in my mind for more controlled, more scientific testing.

Seems right based on what? Your calculation that the probability of winning by chance is 1 in 1.3 million or Startz's calculation that the probability is 1 in only 270?