Assistance required for telepathy proof

Your inability to answer a simple question does not bode well for any future protocol negotiations you may have planned. The JREF, or any other organization, can reject the use of your contraption for any reason whatsoever.

Furthermore, your cat/ship/blinkylights test does nothing for me. As far as I'm concerned you might as well pin a sign that says "telepathic" to the wall, blindfold yourself, chug a beer, spin around really fast, and start tossing darts. It would be more fun and the results would be just as valid.

But this isn't really about testing anyway, it's about your inability to come to terms with your condition. The blinky lights will always tell you whatever you want to hear so you will never consider a real test, will you?
 
golfy, do you have any family that you could trust to help you test so that you don't have to resort to a polygraph or GSR, which is unreliable?
 
Polygraphs do not give reliable results, golfy. Please try to understand this simple point.
Click to expand...


Based on which info?

In the test done today - where was error occurring, in the GSR or in the human? The GSR's accuracy is the same as always, it does not change, the human adapts to the test. If this adaption can be altered (toy electric shock) then the adaption process may be halted. The GSR would then give the same results as at the beginning of the test if the human does not adapt sufficiently to the electric shock punishment every time they are caught lying. This would then have been 5 out of 5 results with ideally more than 12 LEDs versus zero LEDs giving accurate predictions or 10 out of ten correct predictions if adaption does not take place for that period of time.

No point removing a poly from a test is the poly always measures the same results every time reliably but the human is adapting, causing the change. The human would also adapt to other tests as well if that was not preventable and therefore the human must be removed from the test and the poly left in as the reliable aspect. I can’t do this thought can I, as I am testing for human to human telepathy.

The human adaption is the problem, not the GSR or poly. This is what has to be solved to obtain reliable results.

golfy
 
Last edited:
The blinky lights will always tell you whatever you want to hear
Click to expand...


This will be judged by the JREF, not you.


you will never consider a real test, will you?
Click to expand...


And which test would that be? Describe and I will or course consider if it is deemed cheat proof and capable of producing accurate results.

I have already done real DMILS (Google) tests in a University and got a "we have never had results like that before" response.

golfy
 
I think I'm reiterating Pixel42, here. golfy should be able to use whatever machinery he'd like. It should be easy to have both golfy and the recipient of his thoughts in a single video shot the whole time. This could still be done with a divider between the two of them so there can be no visual communication.

The recipient writes in large letters (so the camera can clearly see) either ship or cat or whatever. golfy can ask his questions right there on camera. The recipient will respond as instructed by golfy (to always answer truthfully or always answer "no" or whatever).

At the end, golfy reports which word the recipient wrote.

Repeat as necessary.

As Pixel42 pointed out, the polygraph, like tea leaves, does not matter. golfy can interpret the polygraph or GSR or tea leaves however he wishes.

All he'd need to do is declare which word the recipients wrote. He'll have to be right often enough to significantly beat chance.

If he's truly telepathic, and if he knows how to interpret his polygraph set-up, it should be a snap.

Ward
 
golfy said:
This is a cat ship test in a subtly different way except that there is a third party operating the polygraph. Why would the tea leaf reader have someone else reading the tea leaves or why would I have someone else reading the poly?
Click to expand...
You are the one who reads the polygraph in my protocol. It's a simple protocol, and that is clearly stated.

So you accept that the GSR has a better than 50% hit rate
Click to expand...
Listing the possibilities (of which that is one) and describing the outcome in each case is not the same as accepting one of those possibiltiies.

I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion until you have resolved your reading comprehension issues.
 
That is exactly correct wardenclyffe - as someone else pointed out the burden of proof is on me, no one else.

As long as there is no cheating (the JREF will make sure there is not) then the results of tea leaf reading, poly interpretation etc is valid if the correct results are obtained.

golfy
 
For thought.

If with repeated testing, the GSR always gives clear accurate results in the first and second test but then human adaption occurs and the GSR results become less reliable from then onwards but are always 100% accurate before that point.

After adaption in ten tests, only 20% or 30% reliabiluty i.e. gets the last 7 or 8 questions wrong, but always the first and second question right.

What would the validity of my cat ship test be with the Doctor?

Would it be the same as your statement (from memory) “Clearly golfy has no telepathic ability” or words to that effect Pixel42?

golfy
 
Last edited:
golfy said:
Based on which info?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity

If you are intending to use a polygraph to determine if someone is telling the truth, you will get nowhere. If your claim is that you can read people's mind via a polygraph, then go do it. However, as I understand your claim is that you can transmit to other people, I do not see how the polygraph is anything other than a distraction.
 
golfy said:
For thought.

If with repeated testing, the GSR always gives clear accurate results in the first and second test but then human adaption occurs and the GSR results become less reliable from then onwards but are always 100% accurate before that point.

After adaption in ten tests, only 20% or 30% reliabiluty i.e. gets the last 7 or 8 questions wrong, but always the first and second question right.

What would the validity of my cat ship test be with the Doctor?

Would it be the same as you statement (from memory) “Clearly golfy has no telepathic ability” or words to that effect Pixel42?

golfy
Click to expand...

Well done, golfy. You just illustrated the fact that you can interpret a failed test to mean anything you like without bothering to go through the hassle of testing.

A failed test will never be golfy's fault when his blinky lights offer up a treasure trove of excuses. And really, isn't that what it's all about?
 
golfy said:
For thought.

If with repeated testing, the GSR always gives clear accurate results in the first and second test but then human adaption occurs and the GSR results become less reliable from then onwards but are always 100% accurate before that point.

After adaption in ten tests, only 20% or 30% reliabiluty i.e. gets the last 7 or 8 questions wrong, but always the first and second question right.

What would the validity of my cat ship test be with the Doctor?

Would it be the same as you statement (from memory) “Clearly golfy has no telepathic ability” or words to that effect Pixel42?

golfy
Click to expand...

You solve this problem by having a new recipient for each trial (at least for the MDC). golfy, you are in the UK, right? If so, it would probably be smart to start with a local cash challenge, first. Then you could move on to the MDC. Here are two in the UK:

In the UK, the ASKE organization offers £14,000
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/challenge_rules.html

Tony Youens in the UK offers £5,000
http://www.tonyyouens.com/challenge.htm

If you are somewhere else, let me know and I will look for local organizations that offer cash challenges.

Ward
 
Last edited:
If you are intending to use a polygraph to determine if someone is telling the truth, you will get nowhere. If your claim is that you can read people's mind via a polygraph, then go do it. However, as I understand your claim is that you can transmit to other people, I do not see how the polygraph is anything other than a distraction.
Click to expand...


Sledge does evidently not understand the cat ship test.

Part of the Wikipedia info states "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."

In a cat ship test it is not an opinion, the poly results are validated with every answer given so it is a fact that the poly derived conclusion was correct or incorrect.

Please understand the test fully Sledge. I can’t keep on bringing you up to speed as to how this works if it is too hard for you to grasp. You’ll have to be left behind and wait untill proof have been demonstrated by a test you do not understand the working of. It will of course be judged by others, not Sledge.

Quoting out of context web pages is pointless. If you think that that page has validity in a cat ship test then that is the problem.

Let me explain yet again.

Your premis is a poly is unreliable. Perhaps it is. If only a poly were to be used then I would simply ask the Doctor or RX on a poly – can you hear my thoughts? The presumed (by me as I believe they can) answer would be “No” but the poly would say they are lying. The “opinion” of the poly operator (me) would be that the RX is lying and can therefore hear me. This is subjective, an opinion, not actual concrete fact. That would not stand up in court as has been suggested on the Wikipedia page as it not fact like DNA etc.

In a cat ship test the outcome of the poly is validated so that in the context of a closed loop cat ship test the poly accuracy can be ascertained within the confines of a cat ship test. Once done over say 10 or 20 tests the true answer of “Can you hear my thoughts” can be calculated, factually. Objective testing verses subjective testing Sledge. Please keep up.

golfy
 
Last edited:
golfy said:
Part of the Wikipedia info states "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."

In a cat ship test it is not an opinion, the poly results are validated with every answer given so it is a fact that the poly derived conclusion was correct or incorrect.
Click to expand...


You clearly do not understand the article. Read it again.
The point is that poly does not give facts. It is not reliable. It cannot be trusted. Your "validating" it proves nothing. Especially since you admit that it doesn't work in most of the tests.
 
I find it ironic that I'm being told to "keep up" by someone who cannot understand a Wiki page. Sadly, the Simple English Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on polygraphs.

golfy: A polygraph does not provide the information you want. It provides readings that are interpreted by people. These interpretations are almost universally inadmissable as evidence in courts of law because there is no proper scientific basis for them. Please drop the polygraph from your idea if you wish to be taken seriously and prove your telepathy.
 
golfy,

One problem you will encounter using Pixel42's proposed protocol is that you will have to communicate (non-telepathically) with the test subjects. Usually, in a test like this, that type of communication is forbidden.

Perhaps something in the tone of your voice might cause someone to answer one way or another, or it's possible to set up something ahead of time with test subjects that could send a signal by the words you'd use or the way you said them

I'm not suggesting that you would do such a thing either intentionally or not, but it's something that the testing organization will be very suspicious about.

I suggest that you think of a way to signal the test subjects when they should answer. They should not hear you, nor should you hear them. If you believe the polygraph will give you the answers, try and think of a method whereby you cannot use other signals.

Ward
 
Surely it doesn't matter if the whole world believes polygraphs don't work. So long as golfy is content to use one to decide what the recipient wrote, by studying the recipient's reaction to a question about what golfy wrote (unseen by the recipient) then his claim can be tested. BTW it had better be a third party who asks the questions, to avoid any possibility of unintended subliminal communication from golfy.


To summarise:
Golfy and the participant are separated and each choose one of two cards at random.

They each have a card saying either "cat" or "ship". They write down the word on their card.

Golfy attempts to tell the recipient telepathically what word he wrote.

The recipient is connected to some polygraph-type device which has a display that Golfy can see.

A third party asks the recipient "did you write down the same word as Golfy?" and the recipient must answer "no".

Then they ask "did you write down a different word from Golfy?" and again the recipient must answer "no".

Golfy then writes down the word he believes the recipient wrote.

If golfy requires a new recipient after two tests, then a number of volunteers may be required.

That seems to me to be a fairly good test, if golfy thinks he can work that way. It might also be worth videotaping the receiver throughout, as that eliminates the possibility that they confuse the polygraph by not writing down the word they chose. After all, this whole polygraph complication is only required due to golfy not trusting any recipient not to lie to him.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That seems to me to be a fairly good test, if golfy thinks he can work that way. It might also be worth videotaping the receiver throughout, as that eliminates the possibility that they confuse the polygraph by not writing down the word they chose. After all, this whole polygraph complication is only required due to golfy not trusting any recipient not to lie to him.
Click to expand...

The entire process must be shot with a single camera with both golfy and the recipient in frame at all times during the trial. Since golfy trusts no one, he can't simply be shown a tape of someone writing down words. He must see himself participating at the same time in the same frame. It's awkward, but it can be done. Any other method of videotaping is a recipe for post-test disaster.

Ward
 
BTW it had better be a third party who asks the questions, to avoid any possibility of unintended subliminal communication from golfy.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree and would be happy to add that to my protocol as the JREF would seggest it anyway if I did not.

golfy
 
golfy: A polygraph does not provide the information you want. It provides readings that are interpreted by people. These interpretations are almost universally inadmissible as evidence in courts of law because there is no proper scientific basis for them. Please drop the polygraph from your idea if you wish to be taken seriously and prove your telepathy.
Click to expand...


“It provides readings that are interpreted by people.” = Subjective.

“It provides readings that are interpreted by people.” and the accuracy of that interpretation is then validated by the RX revealing what their word was. = Objective

Objective testing like DNA testing etc can be calculated to a certain level of precision. Straight opinion stays straight opinion.

You do not know how many times the poly is correct out of ten tests (subjective) as you are just replying on the interpretation of the poly screen untill the RX has revealed their answer and then compared to the interpreted predictions. At this point the test becomes objective i.e. the poly accuracy can now be ascertained.

If you just looked a the list of interpreted “cat ship” predictions you would still not know how many were correct prediction and how many were incorrect as it is still subjective and therefore not valid as per the Wikipedia page. If you cannot ascertain its accuracy then what use is it?

Once you have now done the comparison between the predictions and the words that the RX wrote down then you can ascertain the accuracy of the test. 3 correct predictions out of ten (91% inaccurate) – not accurate objectively – 8 out of ten correct – 99.99926% accurate objectively. You have therefore measured the objective accuracy so it is valid. You cannot do this with a subjective, non closed loop result as shown above.

Objective testing verses subjective testing Sledge. Please understand the difference before you expect me to take your comments seriously.

golfy
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom