New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't think it would be powerful enough, for a homemade one. Now, if you used a superconducting one, this could be different, but very expensive.

You're a physicist, no? Do some basic research on Faraday cages or admit to yourself you are just making up excuses.

 

[Mojo]

Why do you doubt a Faraday cage would work?

If the results contradicted his hypothesis, there must be something wrong with the test.

 

[Dave Rogers]

All comments helpful to improve these kinds of test, or their analyses, are welcome.

Helpful note to onlookers: The above statement is entirely untrue.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

All comments helpful to improve these kinds of test, or their analyses, are welcome.

Helpful note to onlookers: The above statement is entirely untrue.

Dave

Untrue? Why untrue?
All helpful comments to improve my work remain welcome, as welcome as they have ever been. However, this may not be easy, and it can of course be a little disappointing when your suggestion has not been found as great as you hoped.

A fairly large number of good posts have been made in the Michel H telepathy threads (even if they are only a minority). In addition, the suggestion to use MD5 hashes, originally made on this forum, was useful for a while, I think. The hashes help make the test more rigorous to most readers and participants (though not to me).

One problem with this forum, though, is that you seem to have a strong skeptical agenda, which doesn't seem to be a good idea in this case. I often have the impression that you are trying to deceive me.

Take for example my 2009 Yahoo Answers question: I asked:

In your opinion, is it possible to be "telepathic", in the sense that everybody else on this planet knows what the telepathic person thinks and perceives?

to the Yahoo Answers community (a question I have only asked once I think, not dozens of times until I get the answer(s) I like).
The best answer (chosen by voters at the time, not by me) was:

I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it.

(Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...mY75lLjty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090601113445AAmVwcl).
On this, Pixel42 commented:

... that answer was favoured because it is simply the funniest. It was a good humoured, rather than sarcastic, response to what was to most people an obviously absurd question. ...

and nobody objected.
Why an "obviously absurd question"? The question was asked in the Parapsychology category of Yahoo Answers. What kind of question would you expect in the parapsychology category? How much time is needed to cook eggs? I don't think this would be a good parapsychology question.

In addition, there is really nothing funny or humorous about this answer, chosen by the community. The fact you are using this kind of obviously wrong argument can only reinforce my suspicions towards you, and reduce your credibility. It was just a common sense and most appropriate comment, which contained implicitly the answer to the question posed. This answer, given by the Yahoo community, was fully in line with many other testimonies, for example the correct answers:

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

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

or:

IIRC, he is able to broadcast his thoughts to everyone.

How on on earth does he know in the first place that we hear his thoughts?

Hey! I got it right. Thanks Michel H for this little experiment. It's funny what you said about guessing the number 1. It's a number I would also typically avoid. But this time, I believe I did see you writing it on a page, so that's why I went with it, despite my knee-jerk reluctance.

Thanks again.

(http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1424032#post1424032)

There is no serious ground for believing that these statements, posted in appropriate specialized forums, were "sarcastic".

 

[Loss Leader]

There is no serious ground for believing that these statements, posted in appropriate specialized forums, were "sarcastic".

Mine was.

However, stop avoiding the issue. Are the test protocols I laid out (and amended after your input) acceptable to you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Untrue? Why untrue?

You should realize that everyone else sees how you run away.

Answer the question.

 

[Michel H]

Mine was.

In view of the large input I have already received regarding my alleged telepathy, I don't believe you. You yourself emphazised later:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of ... your thoughts were very easy to read ...

Your answer was good, but not necessarily extraordinary, in a special telepathic context. You have nothing to be ashamed of. I suspect you may have used the word "sarcastic", influenced by Pixel42. Besides, it is never a good idea to participate in a "sarcastic way" when you take part in a scientific experiment on an educational forum, this might add even more confusion to an already complicated situation (I assume a moderator on an educational forum would be even less likely to be "sarcastic" than the average member).

However, stop avoiding the issue. Are the test protocols I laid out (and amended after your input) acceptable to you?

I don't see any major problem in your amended version (though I don't like the idea of excluding some people). However, I also see no improvement, compared to the simple, unblinded tests I have already done on this forum. More complex does not always mean better. I am not even convinced that a hash is really indispensable, though I could use one if demanded by forum members.

 

[Michel H]

You should realize that everyone else sees how you run away.

Answer the question.

Which question?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Which question?

The dishonesty is breathtaking. No surprise to me but it's still so disappointing.

 

[fromdownunder]

I don't see any major problem in your amended version (though I don't like the idea of excluding some people). However, I also see no improvement, compared to the simple, unblinded tests I have already done on this forum. More complex does not always mean better. I am not even convinced that a hash is really indispensable, though I could use one if demanded by forum members.

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!


Norm

 

[Loss Leader]

In view of the large input I have already received regarding my alleged telepathy, I don't believe you. You yourself emphazised later

It's bizarre that you would choose some of my statements as credible while excluding those that contradict them. It's even more incomprehensible considering that the ones you deem credible are the ones that support your preconceptions and the ones you discard are those that don't.

Perhaps the sheer weight of my denials will eventually tip the scales: I was lying. I was making fun of you. I was being sarcastic. I never have seen any evidence of telepathy. I never believed telepathy was possible. I continue in my disbelief.

Add up the times I've said that my statements supporting you were lies, jokes, sarcasm, and/or untruths. Add up the statements I've made which you think show that I believe you are psychic. balance them and let that scale tip. You will see that I have far more often denied that I thought you were psychic and/or that my past pretenses otherwise were true.

I do not believe you have telepathic abilities. I have never received your thoughts telepathically. I do not believe you have ever conducted a proper test of your supposed abilities. Absent a properly controlled test, I never will believe you have any psychic power whatsoever.

(I assume a moderator on an educational forum would be even less likely to be "sarcastic" than the average member).

You assume incorrectly.

I don't see any major problem in your amended version (though I don't like the idea of excluding some people).

That's odd. You personally have argued passionately that you require some level of additional input from people to determine their credibility. It's an easy fix, though. Nobody will be excluded. It actually makes the test easier.

However, I also see no improvement, compared to the simple, unblinded tests I have already done on this forum. More complex does not always mean better. I am not even convinced that a hash is really indispensable, though I could use one if demanded by forum members.

It is demanded. Are the terms of the test acceptable to you or not?

If so, post your ten phrases and the MD5 hash as I've indicated. Say how long you want the test to run - 24 hours or a week or whatever. Say whether you want the right to exclude people for any reason you care to. I will start a poll thread specifically for your test.

Otherwise, stop complaining that you've run "tests" before. You haven't. You've simply dipped into huge pools of words and picked out the ones you liked.

We could have this whole thing settled in very short order. It's up to you.

 

[Loss Leader]

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

Sadly, the gentleman who composed this song, Neil Innes, just passed away a few days ago.

 

[Michel H]

Perhaps the sheer weight of my denials will eventually tip the scales: ...
Add up the times I've said that my statements supporting you were lies, jokes, sarcasm, and/or untruths. Add up the statements I've made which you think show that I believe you are psychic. balance them and let that scale tip. You will see that I have far more often denied that I thought you were psychic and/or that my past pretenses otherwise were true.

I have to admit that, in my life, I am generally far more often attacked than supported. But this does not lead me to believe that those who attack me are right, and that those who support me are wrong.

Are the terms of the test acceptable to you or not?

If so, post your ten phrases and the MD5 hash as I've indicated. Say how long you want the test to run - 24 hours or a week or whatever. Say whether you want the right to exclude people for any reason you care to. I will start a poll thread specifically for your test.

I am not interested in doing a new ESP test on this forum at this time, right now. However, I might be interested later, perhaps with your suggested method (I try to keep it in mind), or another one.

 

[Pixel42]

Why an "obviously absurd question"? The question was asked in the Parapsychology category of Yahoo Answers. What kind of question would you expect in the parapsychology category?

The majority of people - yes, even of those who read, and occasionally hit a button on, parapsychology forums - are unconvinced of the existence of telepathy. Many, probably most, of them will be open to being convinced, but that won't stop them being amused by a good joke about the subject.

In addition, there is really nothing funny or humorous about this answer

If you genuinely can't see that "I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it" is a joke answer to your question then there really is no helping you.

The people who read your question may be open to the possibility of telepathy but they all know for a fact that everybody on the planet cannot hear the thoughts of one particular person, as they would have experienced that for themselves. And they haven't.

 

[fromdownunder]

If you genuinely can't see that "I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it" is a joke answer to your question then there really is no helping you.

I knew you were going to say that.


Norm

 

[Michel H]

The majority of people - yes, even of those who read, and occasionally hit a button on, parapsychology forums - are unconvinced of the existence of telepathy.

I don't know where you got that idea (you give no reference). When I do a Google search with the terms "telepathy poll", I find this:

Poll: Most Believe In Psychic Phenomena
A majority of Americans - 57% - say they believe in psychic phenomena such as ESP (Extra Sensory Perception), telepathy or experiences that can’t be explained by normal means.

.

If you genuinely can't see that "I knew you were going to ask this question, an hour before you posted it" is a joke answer to your question then there really is no helping you.

The people who read your question may be open to the possibility of telepathy but they all know for a fact that everybody on the planet cannot hear the thoughts of one particular person, as they would have experienced that for themselves. And they haven't.

It is possible that I could use some good help, but nevertheless I see no serious reason to believe this answer to a serious question in the parapsychology category was a joke (you seem to have a tendency to see jokes or sarcasm everywhere, when there is none).

This answer was in line with many other testimonies I have received, including by my mother, a close friend, a psychiatrist, a patient who once was hospitalized with me in the same room, members of this forum (including -twice- a moderator), of other forums (in various languages), countless observations every day and so on. It was presumably a way to answer intelligently the question, adding more information. I asked "Is it possible to be telepathic?" and somebody replied "Sure you are telepathic". So I see nothing funny or abnormal here. It would have been inappropriate to try to make a joke of that nature, because of the high probability of it being misinterpreted.

Obviously it seems the person who gave the best answer, and the people (three, 60% of the votes) who selected it had experienced "that", otherwise they probably would not have done it.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't know where you got that idea (you give no reference). When I do a Google search with the terms "telepathy poll", I find this:

I don't think you can generalise about the whole of humanity based on what Americans believe, but even that poll doesn't really support you. "experiences that can’t be explained by normal means" covers a whole lot more than telepathy, even though it's one of the examples listed. The fact that only 57% even of Americans answered yes to the question is actually something I find quite comforting, frankly I would have expected the percentage to be higher.

It is possible that I could use some good help, but nevertheless I see no serious reason to believe this answer to a serious question in the parapsychology category was a joke (you seem to have a tendency to see jokes or sarcasm everywhere, when there is none).

No, it's you that has an inability to see jokes or sarcasm even when they are blindingly obvious.

 

[Loss Leader]

This answer was in line with many other testimonies I have received, including by my mother,

Which she rescinded and with whom you no longer talk about the subject.

a close friend,

No idea.

a psychiatrist,

False. The psychiatrist used language that did not contradict your beliefs as he was trained to do. Contradicting people with irrational beliefs closes them off. Instead, he used words to attempt to draw you into a therapeutic relationship. This is standard practice among such professionals.

a patient who once was hospitalized with me in the same room,

Who had his own issues with mental illness.

members of this forum

Who have nearly all rescinded their comments, and claimed they were joking or being sarcastic.

(including -twice- a moderator)

I hope you don't mean me. My mod status is of no value regarding my ability to tell the truth. And, in any case, I have often stated that those remarks were jokes, sarcasm, and meant to belittle and dismiss you. They were not true.

of other forums (in various languages)

Nope. None of those were proper tests. You've never done a properly controlled test.

, countless observations every day and so on.

Your daily observations are merely your ego searching for ways to be right, so as to comfort you. They have nothing to do with the truth.

It was presumably a way to answer intelligently the question, adding more information. I asked "Is it possible to be telepathic?" and somebody replied "Sure you are telepathic". So I see nothing funny or abnormal here. It would have been inappropriate to try to make a joke of that nature, because of the high probability of it being misinterpreted.

Why on earth do you thin people on Yahoo! Answers care whether their jokes are misinterpreted? First, you've shown a high propensity of misinterpreting the written words of others. Second, many people of Yahoo! Answers are just there for a laugh.

Obviously it seems the person who gave the best answer, and the people (three, 60% of the votes) who selected it had experienced "that", otherwise they probably would not have done it.

Except: a) you disregard many answers on Yahoo! because they don't seem "friendly"; and b) nobody on Yahoo! Answers cares if the answers they give are true or not. They're mostly there to entertain themselves.

You have no reliable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence. You, by your own statements, have no inclination to gather any.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I knew you were going to say that.


Norm

This was also a joke, Michel. Did you spot it?

When one is asked to speculate on whether telepathy might exist, a very obvious joke response is to reply with a remark which indirectly implies that you are in fact telepathic yourself and yet make no direct claim to have knowledge of the phenomenon's existence. That absurdity is how the joke works. It is expected to be clear that it is a joke and not truth. People like to joke and do not understand your degree of difficulty in detecting when they are doing so. It's very unusual and people do not expect it.

Try a different example in a similar format:
Q:"Is it true that your dog can play chess?"
A:"No. I beat him almost every single game."

Do you sense that that was a joke? A serious question asking if a thing generally presumed impossible might in fact be true. An answer which implies that the thing is true yet the person does not recognise how amazing it is as they seem to be thinking about the ability to play chess competently and fail to see that a dog playing chess at all is still astonishing. That absurdity is the joke.

To be entirely serious, you have a lot to cope with, having to deal with hostile voices in your head. If it helps you to cope that you pursue the idea that these voices may be an external phenomenon then that's great if it works for you. But this forum is not a good place to seek validation for your experiments. People here are not going to indulge badly designed tests or pretend the results are significant.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Untrue? Why untrue?

Because, no matter what suggestions are made, you repeat precisely the same format and approach in new tests as in old, and apply precisely the same openly admitted selection bias to interpretation of results. Comments on how to improve the tests and their interpretation are therefore not welcomed, but totally ignored.

Dave