Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

aleCcowaN said:
Well, on that we disagree. I told you about this before. I don't believe we should give weapons to the endless parade of delusional users who parachute themselves into here, for later seeing them used to take things up a notch into deeper deliriums.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we've seen corrections and explanations given by others show up in Buddha's posts later as if he were the one bringing it to the table. We've seen him bloviate from other posters' simple mentions of specialized concepts. He's clearly appropriating the wisdom of others to make himself look good. I agree it's important to the integrity of the debate not to enable that behavior. Pointing out that I'd already explained the statistical modeling was therefore intended more in the way of an apology.

But he's basically badmouthing Palmer and later Jeffers' based on idiotic mix ups. And you will patiently explain him a dozen things many times to see him pouring more ill-intended badmouthing against the same.
Click to expand...

Right, he seems to have no plan to prove the reality of psychokinesis other than to cast desperate aspersions on critics he cherry-picks. And the mixups are getting more and more misguided.

The fine line I'm trying to walk is to give enough of an explanation to show that my objection to his claims is more than mere gainsaying, without feeding him so much information that he'll regurgitate it and pretend he came up with it. Not everyone understands statistical modeling and can see for themselves just how far off the mark he really is. That's where I would want to give a little more detail, but not so much that he can swiftly correct course and pretend nothing bad happened.
 
JayUtah said:
Right, he seems to have no plan to prove the reality of psychokinesis other than to cast desperate aspersions on critics he cherry-picks. And the mixups are getting more and more misguided.
Click to expand...

I will relish the moment he starts attacking James Randi here. He'll learn what happens when the gates of hell are opened.

JayUtah said:
The fine line I'm trying to walk is to give enough of an explanation to show that my objection to his claims is more than mere gainsaying, without feeding him so much information that he'll regurgitate it and pretend he came up with it. Not everyone understands statistical modeling and can see for themselves just how far off the mark he really is. That's where I would want to give a little more detail, but not so much that he can swiftly correct course and pretend nothing bad happened.
Click to expand...

It's a lot we can do in that department, but I don't want to anticipate anything though there is some basic piece of knowledge he ignores I'd love to shout at the top of my lungs.

The hyperbolic bit was very clever on your part and he sprung the trap, but you saw how he twisted everything into his post #603 and tried to lecture me about the "generalized hyperbolic distribution" when in fact you and I caught him red-handed ignoring that in your post #531 to which he replied

""""Buddha"""" said:
Apparently, you cannot understand the material that I quoted, it says nothing about hyperbolic distribution.
Click to expand...

and in my post #587 where he found the very link he's using to try to lecture me.

Notice in his reply to yours the wording "about hyperbolic distribution" when he always drops extra "the" everywhere in his texts: evidence of how completely unfamiliar it was to him hours before he started lecturing about it.

He's basically another flimflammer with an already solid bad reputation gotten here, much like that Stephen North the gullible of Hasted bought and endorsed; who were "gutted" by Randi.
 
Buddha said:
But all this material is not likely to convince the Pied Piper that he is wrong. Or, perhaps, he is right and there is an unseen connection between these distributions and t-tests. I am dying to know everything about that connection. Any printed material about it? If there is none, I refuse to follow the Pied Piper into his land of mathematical Shangri-La.
Click to expand...

It's amusing that you have no argument other than to hurl insult at Jay. You seem blissfully unaware that there are those among us that have long experience with his expertise both here and at other venues, You fail to have such provenance, not just because of the brevity of your sojourn here, but because your crank arguments have no merit.
 
If telekinesis is real, then it would be possible to demonstrate it.

Also, if telekinesis is real, then gambling games like roulette, bingo, lotteries, and so on would be completely busted.
 
Crossbow said:
If telekinesis is real, then it would be possible to demonstrate it.



Also, if telekinesis is real, then gambling games like roulette, bingo, lotteries, and so on would be completely busted.
Click to expand...



Unless of course telekinesis is real but rare and feeble.

Telekinesis being real would certainly explain why the last time I went to Vegas the roulette wheel enabled me to leave the city with exactly $40 less than I arrived with. I was betting on either red or black not a specific number. Influencing that with psychic powers would certainly be easier than forcing a particular number.
 
JayUtah said:
But you're not any kind of authority on statistical analysis, what it's for, or how it's used. The previous 15 pages of this thread have proven that. So what good is your judgment here?
Click to expand...
In this case being authority is not required because I was stating that Palmer didn't interpret the result of his statistical analysis, which renders it completely useless in even in the world of harry Potter. If you think of yourself as a supreme authority on mathematical statistics, you would have no difficulty explaining the results of Palmer's analysis
 
halleyscomet said:
Unless of course telekinesis is real but rare and feeble.

Telekinesis being real would certainly explain why the last time I went to Vegas the roulette wheel enabled me to leave the city with exactly $40 less than I arrived with. I was betting on either red or black not a specific number. Influencing that with psychic powers would certainly be easier than forcing a particular number.
Click to expand...
You should play online poker instead if you live in Nevada. As a successful player, you could earn plenty of money as my friend did. Unfortunately, the online poker is banned in majority of the states. But you could go to a casino instead, you won't need telekinetic ability to make money there, but you would need some knowledge of the probability theory.
 
Buddha said:
In this case being authority is not required because I was stating that Palmer didn't interpret the result of his statistical analysis...
Click to expand...

Determining whether someone else has properly interpreted a statistical analysis requires the judge to be proficient in statistics himself. You are not proficient. Further, we have pointed out specific errors you have made in criticism which are directly caused by your failure to understand statistical analysis. Your personal judgment is of absolutely no value therefore in determining whether others have done it right.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Unless of course telekinesis is real but rare and feeble.

Telekinesis being real would certainly explain why the last time I went to Vegas the roulette wheel enabled me to leave the city with exactly $40 less than I arrived with. I was betting on either red or black not a specific number. Influencing that with psychic powers would certainly be easier than forcing a particular number.
Click to expand...

The whole ridiculousness in all this is the similarity between psychokinesis and wishes of "allmightyness". It's like the supposed creator deity: "Let There Be a Universe!". When you divide the action of "creating the universe as it actually is" into tasks you find the achievable result to be awesomely complicated yet utterly incomplete.

You can shorten the list a lot by choosing "moving a 10-pound box in a sealed and controlled room which location is informed to the test subject showing him the building in Google Maps and showing him the room with photographs and the building blueprints". If too heavy, make the box 10 ounces, or 10 grams, or even 10 milligrams -made it a dead ant-. I don't think we're going to hear of such an experiment any time soon. I mean, with the proper controlled conditions and not Hasted-like.

Instead we have increasingly convoluted experiments: having the roulette producing more reds than blacks, where you can try to test the results to conclude "the person did (not) show telekinetic powers for this 1-alpha" without explaining a thing about the mechanics of it.

And then we arrive to Jahn's and Jeffers' experiences. The "light" task of having massive quantum nature and scale effects to amount to something "readable". Even the "easier way" Jeffers' selected of having the test subject making photons avoid one slit or hit the other one instead of the more complicated task of deviating photons or unravelling wave packages in weird ways the one-slit experiment proposes (and yes """"Buddha"""", both experiments render a variable following the normal distribution).

We can wrap all this half-scientific half-anthropologic explanation up in "Let There Be Ridiculousness In Humans Who Dislike Being Puny While Wish Being Powerful".
 
Buddha said:
In this case being authority is not required because I was stating that Palmer didn't interpret the result of his statistical analysis, which renders it completely useless in even in the world of harry Potter. If you think of yourself as a supreme authority on mathematical statistics, you would have no difficulty explaining the results of Palmer's analysis
Click to expand...

Summary: You completely failed in the realm of Statistics, so now it was never about Statistics.

I guess you worked at Minitrue in the USSR, back in 1984.
 
halleyscomet said:
Unless of course telekinesis is real but rare and feeble.
Click to expand...

The advantage here is that is can be said to appear only as sporadic and uncoordinated readings on otherwise noisy sensors, or can be eked out of poorly-controlled data only through torturous statistics. It's not anything like street levitation or sleight-of-hand spoon-bending or any of the dramatic demonstrations that immediately come to mind when thinking of psychokinesis. Instead, "real" psychokinesis seems to be a largely inconsequential effect.
 
Buddha said:
You should play online poker instead if you live in Nevada. As a successful player, you could earn plenty of money as my friend did. Unfortunately, the online poker is banned in majority of the states. But you could go to a casino instead, you won't need telekinetic ability to make money there, but you would need some knowledge of the probability theory.
Click to expand...

Your (yet another imaginary) friend, the "Anonymous Telekinetic Poker Player", whose identity you keep in pectore just for safety reasons (the mob is on to him!).

Why don't you ask him to use his powers to change the forum's database and erase all your blunders in this thread? After all that is a simple task the like of what Russia or North Korea do a myriad times a day and you're at walking distance of Brighton Beach.
 
abaddon said:
It's amusing that you have no argument other than to hurl insult at Jay. You seem blissfully unaware that there are those among us that have long experience with his expertise both here and at other venues, You fail to have such provenance, not just because of the brevity of your sojourn here, but because your crank arguments have no merit.
Click to expand...
If you consider my posts insulting, you should take a look at his posts with the insults aimed at me. Basically, he started this insult thing, I was just responding in kind. It seems that you prefer to see my unkind comments only, without paying attention to his. But I am a big boy now, so I do not complain about his tactics.

If you read one of my posts, you saw that I correctly guessed that Jay is a prominent figure here, you just confirmed that. Judging by the posts of some other members, they do have provenance here. Although I disagree with their point of view, I never accused them of pretending being expert in a field without actually being one. Foe example, one of them is a staunch defender of the Popper doctrine (I think you know my opinion about Popper), but I have no doubt that he is an experienced engineer, as he stated. You might be also
an expert in your field. at least I haven't seen any of your posts that go against common sense.

But Jay is different, none of his interpretations of mathematical statistics make any sense to me. You might disagree with me, but I suggest you ask him why he didn't present any reference to a material that supports his point of view. He could have laid this matter to the rest by responding to my multiple requests to provide any book or article giving some credibility to his assertions, but he steadfastly refused to do so.

You might still trust his mathematical judgment, but I do not think that majority of the audience agrees with you, although they might still like him
 
JayUtah said:
The advantage here is that is can be said to appear only as sporadic and uncoordinated readings on otherwise noisy sensors, or can be eked out of poorly-controlled data only through torturous statistics. It's not anything like street levitation or sleight-of-hand spoon-bending or any of the dramatic demonstrations that immediately come to mind when thinking of psychokinesis. Instead, "real" psychokinesis seems to be a largely inconsequential effect.
Click to expand...

But """"Buddha"""" moved onto Hasted and his experiments at Birkbeck College, a well known catastrophe, so even more hilarious times have arrived.

[let's wait for the copypastiche """"Buddha"""" is preparing]
 
aleCcowaN said:
...
You can shorten the list a lot by choosing "moving a 10-pound box in a sealed and controlled room which location is informed to the test subject showing him the building in Google Maps and showing him the room with photographs and the building blueprints". If too heavy, make the box 10 ounces, or 10 grams, or even 10 milligrams -made it a dead ant-. I don't think we're going to hear of such an experiment any time soon. I mean, with the proper controlled conditions and not Hasted-like.

Instead we have increasingly convoluted experiments: having the roulette producing more reds than blacks, where you can try to test the results to conclude "the person did (not) show telekinetic powers for this 1-alpha" without explaining a thing about the mechanics of it......
Click to expand...

That's in interesting point! Thanks. I like that. Move this ant! Heck it doesn't even weigh much.
 
Buddha said:
If you consider my posts insulting, you should take a look at his posts with the insults aimed at me. Basically, he started this insult thing, I was just responding in kind. It seems that you prefer to see my unkind comments only, without paying attention to his. But I am a big boy now, so I do not complain about his tactics.

If you read one of my posts, you saw that I correctly guessed that Jay is a prominent figure here, you just confirmed that. Judging by the posts of some other members, they do have provenance here. Although I disagree with their point of view, I never accused them of pretending being expert in a field without actually being one. Foe example, one of them is a staunch defender of the Popper doctrine (I think you know my opinion about Popper), but I have no doubt that he is an experienced engineer, as he stated. You might be also
an expert in your field. at least I haven't seen any of your posts that go against common sense.

But Jay is different, none of his interpretations of mathematical statistics make any sense to me. You might disagree with me, but I suggest you ask him why he didn't present any reference to a material that supports his point of view. He could have laid this matter to the rest by responding to my multiple requests to provide any book or article giving some credibility to his assertions, but he steadfastly refused to do so.

You might still trust his mathematical judgment, but I do not think that majority of the audience agrees with you, although they might still like him
Click to expand...


Your whole post is just social engineering and misdirection. Are you going to tackle your previous mistakes or commit new ones with Hasted and the like any time soon?
 
aleCcowaN said:
The whole ridiculousness in all this is the similarity between psychokinesis and wishes of "allmightyness". It's like the supposed creator deity: "Let There Be a Universe!". When you divide the action of "creating the universe as it actually is" into tasks you find the achievable result to be awesomely complicated yet utterly incomplete.

You can shorten the list a lot by choosing "moving a 10-pound box in a sealed and controlled room which location is informed to the test subject showing him the building in Google Maps and showing him the room with photographs and the building blueprints". If too heavy, make the box 10 ounces, or 10 grams, or even 10 milligrams -made it a dead ant-. I don't think we're going to hear of such an experiment any time soon. I mean, with the proper controlled conditions and not Hasted-like.

Instead we have increasingly convoluted experiments: having the roulette producing more reds than blacks, where you can try to test the results to conclude "the person did (not) show telekinetic powers for this 1-alpha" without explaining a thing about the mechanics of it.

And then we arrive to Jahn's and Jeffers' experiences. The "light" task of having massive quantum nature and scale effects to amount to something "readable". Even the "easier way" Jeffers' selected of having the test subject making photons avoid one slit or hit the other one instead of the more complicated task of deviating photons or unravelling wave packages in weird ways the one-slit experiment proposes (and yes """"Buddha"""", both experiments render a variable following the normal distribution).

We can wrap all this half-scientific half-anthropologic explanation up in "Let There Be Ridiculousness In Humans Who Dislike Being Puny While Wish Being Powerful".
Click to expand...
There are different kinds of experiment design to prove that telekinesis exists, some of them are based on statistical interpretation of empirical data, as in Jahn's experiments, the other ones prove directly that some individuals have telekinetic abilities, as in metal-bending research. You may disregards the ones that measure telekinetic abilities of a group due to your poor understanding of statistical methods of research, but it is kind of hard to deny the ones that deal with the individuals with purported telekinetic achievements.

You keep stubbornly saying that a double-slit setup lead to a normal distribution, despite the pictures that I provided, there is nothing I can do about that. But keep in mind that the audience may not like it because they are smart, and they see the difference between the pictures. Let me warn you that if you continue walking down the road of complete denial, you will severely damage your reputation as an objective board member.

You see, I always appeal to the audience because they are the ultimate judge of our arguments, it is left to them, but not to you and I, to decide who is right.
 
The Sparrow said:
That's in interesting point! Thanks. I like that. Move this ant! Heck it doesn't even weigh much.
Click to expand...

You're welcome!

And much better an experiment if you have the test subject sitting with his back close to the dividing wall and the ant is one yard apart at the same store in the building next door. He also needs to learn the address where the ant is and know very well the area, but he should be brought into the lab blindfolded so they doesn't learn the address they are. But a video live feed of the room and ant can be allowed.

[I'd like to wait for """"Buddha"""" daily ruminations, but duty before pleasure]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom