Assistance required for telepathy proof

golfy said:
And you are wrong dlorde, statistically two out of two tests at 50% chance is correct at 75% probability that I am telepathic but who would rely on such a small sample size and say it is valid? 10000 to 1 or 99.99% certainty is the target to reach before the JREF will acknowledge that I am telepathic, not 75% probability that I am based on two 50:50 tests.
Click to expand...

You are right that more trials would be needed for an acceptable level of confidence. But I am not wrong about your mistaken interpretation of the results for one and two 50/50 tests. It's a subtle mistake, easy to make.

Remember that the figures (25% or 1-in-4 chance) for correct results in two 50/50 tests refer only to the probability of getting that result by guessing (by random chance). This means that if you guessed, you'd be wrong 75% of the time. It does not mean there is 75% chance that you are telepathic (i.e. it is not a 75% chance you weren't guessing).

Another example - if, before you tossed a coin twice, I called "Heads, heads", and you then threw 2 heads, it doesn't mean there is a 75% chance that I really knew what the outcome would be - it's more likely I just got lucky. By just guessing in many such tests, I'd be right 25% of the time and wrong 75% of the time, and many such tests would be required to say anything meaningful about the probability that it was not due to chance.

These figures are always given in terms of the probability of getting a result by chance. The lower that probability, the more likely the results are not due to chance. The inverse of that figure isn't the probability that the results are not due to chance (i.e. getting a result that you'd only expect by chance one time in a hundred doesn't mean a 99% chance you're telepathic).

The figures in the tables linked by Pixel42 will give you the figures for the number of tests you need to get right in various numbers of trials, for a confidence level of 1:100 (table 1), 1:10,000 (table 2), and 1:1,000,000 (table 3). The confidence level is the probability that you'd get those results by chance alone.

Notice that the tables don't deal with less than 5 trials - even for relatively unlikely events, you need a reasonable number of trials to state a level of confidence about the results.
 
Last edited:
golfy said:
Superficial oversimplified lack of understanding nonsense as usual Sledge. I am obviously arguing the (beyond Sledge’s simple fantasy world mentality) more complex point that people buy things that make an improvement to something in some way, not simply because objects are on sale. Men buy rugby boots, not high heel shoes as it improves their performance on the pitch as they play on grass. Women buy high heel shoes as it improves the shape of their calves, their visual height and their self image. The girls would not buy a nice outfit then a pair of rugby boots to go out in as that would be a negative effect, not positive. Their legs would look short and dumpy and not very visually appealing compared to the other girls legs.

The gel creates a positive effect, enhances something (the poly’s performance) and so people will buy it. If it made GSR channel function at reduced performance, then people would not buy it just because it is on sale. I do not buy stale bread just because someone will sell it, as I perceive that this would give me a negative eating experience, but I would buy a Burger King burger for more money as this would be a positive eating experience despite the increase in cost. Think Sledge, think.

golfy
Click to expand...

So you didn't bother to read Akhenaten's post? Or did you just choose to ignore it because it told you something you don't want to hear?

Oh, and don't think your attempt to shift the goalposts went unnoticed. We were discussing why shops sell things, not why people buy them. Shops sell things because people will buy them. It's a rare shop that cares whether people should want to buy their goods. Consider all the shops selling homeopathic products, for instance. They do nothing and are sold purely because gullible people will buy them.
 
James Randi's stance as I understand it would be that he could demonstrate how this (telepathy type results on a cat ship test) would be done, as he is a magician, in a magicians or tricksters way and then prevent the applicant from using any of those techniques or dial into the protocol measures that prevent any of those techniques from being used.

golfy
 
golfy said:
James Randi's stance as I understand it would be that he could demonstrate how this (telepathy type results on a cat ship test) would be done, as he is a magician, in a magicians or tricksters way and then prevent the applicant from using any of those techniques or dial into the protocol measures that prevent any of those techniques from being used.

golfy
Click to expand...

James Randi's stance is that he is 100% sure nobody has paranormal abilities and he is therefore only interested in testing people with a significant public profile who are swindling and defrauding the public, in order to stop the public being swindled and defrauded. On that basis alone you have zero chance of being tested so you might as well give it up, whether you genuinely believe that you're telepathic and that the world is against you, or that you've come up with an equally deluded way to cheat the JREF into giving you a million pounds.

And to all those who keep asking "how can you believe.." or "how does he think.."...it's because he's schizophrenic. Schizophrenics believe all kinds of crazy ****, much of it contradictory. They're not stupid; many are highly intelligent, but you can't argue logically with them.
 
If the JREF is willing to test you, it's on the basis of you being able to telepathically send messages. They aren't going to test a polygraph device. Saying that your device is only 80% accurate and therefore your accuracy doesn't need to be as high to prove your claim won't fly.
Click to expand...


That is a valid point, then I will have to get at least 26 out of 30 to prove my claim.

My understanding is that James Randi as a magician will remove all possibilities of communication by adding to the protocol measures that prevent any communication other than telepathy.

golfy
 
I went goose hunting today.

I'll bet you didn't know I was going to say THAT.

Now - have you applied or not??
 
golfy said:
The gel is applied to the sensor, not the hand so that the sensor is conducting to the hand correctly at the place of contact. The hand itself is left clean. Measurements can also taken across two fingers like my GSR, the fingers are clean, only the tips where there is point of contact have the gel on them.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting this information from, Golfy? How does your source deal with the issues raised, for instance, in this article?


A study on electrode gels for skin conductance measurements
Christian Tronstad, Gorm Krogh Johnsen, Sverre Grimnes and Ørjan G Martinsen

Low-frequency skin conductance is used within several clinical applications and is mainly sensitive to sweating and the moisture content of the stratum corneum, but also how electrodes introduce changes in the electrical properties. Four electrode gels were investigated with regard to sorption characteristics and electrical properties. Skin conductance time series were collected from 18 test subjects during relaxation, exercise and recovery, wearing different pairs of electrodes contralaterally on the hypothenar and the T9 dermatome. Pressure test was applied on the T9 electrodes. Impedance frequency sweeps were taken on the T9 electrodes the same day and the next, parameterized to the Cole model. ANOVA on the initial skin conductance level change, exercise response amplitude, recovery offset and pressure-induced changes revealed significant differences among gel types. The wetter gels caused a higher positive level change, a greater response amplitude, larger recovery offset and greater pressure-induced artifacts compared to the solid gels. Sweating on the T9 site led to negative skin conductance responses for the wetter gels. Correlations were found between the desorption measurements and the initial skin conductance level change (hypothenar: R = 0.988 T9: R = 0.901) RM-ANOVA on the Cole parameters revealed a significant decrease in Rs of the most resistive gel. Clinical implications are discussed.
Click to expand...


IOP Publishing


Seems to me that it's not as simple as buying a tube of KY from someone on ebay.
 
Beaver Hateman said:
And to all those who keep asking "how can you believe.." or "how does he think.."...it's because he's schizophrenic.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a possibility, but I continue to think it's also possible golfy is just one of those people who have allowed confirmation bias to convince them of something that is not true, and has then invested emotionally in that belief and identified themselves with it to such an extent that they are no longer capable of questioning it. Goodness knows we get enough such people here - the ones who are convinced that they can dowse for gold, that they're the reincarnation of Bonnie Prince Charlie, that they can identify face down playing cards using a pendulum, that they can tell how many kidneys someone has just by looking at them, etc etc. They aren't mentally ill, they can usually function quite well in society, they just have this one fixed, completely irrational, belief.

I have been impressed with the rational way golfy has discussed possible test protocols and actually carried some out, something that the truly mentally ill posters we sometimes get here can never do. True it took him a long time to grasp why using a polygraph in the way a fortune teller uses tea leaves or a crystal ball doesn't affect the success criteria for a claim of telepathy, but he does seem to have finally got it. Obviously he's paranoid - believing that every single person he's ever met is lying to him is the very definition of the word - but that could just be the way he justifies continuing to hold his fixed belief in the face of the evidence rather than a symptom of schizophrenia. I have my moments of paranoia myself. ;)

So I am going to continue to engage with him under the working assumption that he is an essentially rational person with a single irrational belief, help him create as workable a test protocol as can be contrived in the circumstances (i.e. in the light of his paranoia), and then encourage him to try it, in the hope that when he fails to achieve results better than chance it will at least be enough to convince him to start questioning his assumptions.

ETA: Just to say I do know precedent is against me here - none of the people I refer to in my first paragraph have AFAIK abandoned their irrational belief, even the ones who tried and failed a proper test - but I live in hope. :)
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
That's certainly a possibility, but I continue to think it's also possible golfy is just one of those people who have allowed confirmation bias to convince them of something that is not true, and has then invested emotionally in that belief and identified themselves with it to such an extent that they are no longer capable of questioning it. Goodness knows we get enough such people here - the ones who are convinced that they can dowse for gold, that they're the reincarnation of Bonnie Prince Charlie, that they can identify face down playing cards using a pendulum, that they can tell how many kidneys someone has just by looking at them, etc etc. They aren't mentally ill, they can usually function quite well in society, they just have this one fixed, completely irrational, belief.

I have been impressed with the rational way golfy has discussed possible test protocols and actually carried some out, something that the truly mentally ill posters we sometimes get here can never do. True it took him a long time to grasp why using a polygraph in the way a fortune teller uses tea leaves or a crystal ball doesn't affect the success criteria for a claim of telepathy, but he does seem to have finally got it. Obviously he's paranoid - believing that every single person he's ever met is lying to him is the very definition of the word - but that could just be the way he justifies continuing to hold his fixed belief in the face of the evidence rather than a symptom of schizophrenia. I have my moments of paranoia myself. ;)

So I am going to continue to engage with him under the working assumption that he is an essentially rational person with a single irrational belief, help him create as workable a test protocol as can be contrived in the circumstances (i.e. in the light of his paranoia), and then encourage him to try it, in the hope that when he fails to achieve results better than chance it will at least be enough to convince him to start questioning his assumptions.
Click to expand...

So either you think he's lying about having been diagnosed as schizophrenic, in which case he's just playing everyone along for the fun of it, or you think those diagnoses are wrong.

Saying that the 'truly mentally ill' could not discuss 'test protocols' in a 'rational way' indicates the limits of your understanding of schizophrenia, I'm afraid. They can argue very rationally and then walk away with the same irrational and impossible beliefs they started with. This is not their fault.

He may well not even believe he is telepathic, but believe that he has, cunningly, come up with a foolproof system to swindle the JREF test. This would be entirely characteristic of the one schizophrenic I know well. Either way, he best thing anyone can do for him is reiterate, constantly, that JREF DO NOT test people with no public profile. The test is not there for people to take, it's there to not be taken by people who do not believe they have paranormal powers but claim they do to swindle people. Unless he starts swindling people on a public scale, which given the nature of his claims is rather unlikely, he's not going to be tested, and he's not going to get the million pounds, which is what he wants, whatever sort of protocols you discuss with him on a forum.
 
Beaver Hateman said:
So either you think he's lying about having been diagnosed as schizophrenic, in which case he's just playing everyone along for the fun of it, or you think those diagnoses are wrong.
Click to expand...
If the sole basis for the diagnosis was his belief that he's telepathic, which is what he claims, then yes, the one psychiatrist who thought he was actually just mistakenly attributing meaning to coincidence may be the one who diagnosed him correctly. Not having any more information than that which he chooses to share with us, it's impossible to say for sure.

Saying that the 'truly mentally ill' could not discuss 'test protocols' in a 'rational way' indicates the limits of your understanding of schizophrenia, I'm afraid. They can argue very rationally and then walk away with the same irrational and impossible beliefs they started with. This is not their fault.
Click to expand...
Which is why I agree that schizophrenia is a possibility. I'm just not (yet?) sure that we can dismiss all other possibilities.

He may well not even believe he is telepathic, but believe that he has, cunningly, come up with a foolproof system to swindle the JREF test. This would be entirely characteristic of the one schizophrenic I know well. Either way, he best thing anyone can do for him is reiterate, constantly, that JREF DO NOT test people with no public profile. The test is not there for people to take, it's there to not be taken by people who do not believe they have paranormal powers but claim they do to swindle people. Unless he starts swindling people on a public scale, which given the nature of his claims is rather unlikely, he's not going to be tested, and he's not going to get the million pounds, which is what he wants, whatever sort of protocols you discuss with him on a forum.
Click to expand...
But he has made it clear that he intends to try his test protocol out before submitting an application to JREF. This is the one thing most claimants never see the point of doing, and the main thing which makes me continue to hold out some hope that he can be helped. And if he did try it under properly supervised conditions it's my understanding that a videotape of a successful outcome would now be acceptable to JREF as qualifying him to take the challenge. Obviously we both know that he would not get a successful outcome, but it's an incentive to continue.

Also, even if he is schizophrenic, it's still possible that he can be helped to recognise his irrational belief as a symptom of that illness. There's a fascinating thread in the science forum started by a schizophrenic which describes the process by which he was eventually able to recognise his delusions as such, even though he originally attributed them to the supernatural.
 
Hi Akhenaten,

I have just read your uninformed post - post 923 - did you realise that you are teaching an ex Hewlett-Packard R+D electronic design engineer how to suck eggs? I designed £15000 erbium fibre amplifiers (EFA) for AT+T's internet telecommunications systems and a 622MHz Wavelength Division Multiplexed (WDM) transmitter for Siemens Data Telecoms in the mid nineties. (I too can add acronyms to a post) I now have my own design company (albeit small 2 man band) Surely I can understand a simple GSR.

If you don’t understand why conductive gel improves the measurement accuracy – more consistency from person to person, then you must have just looked up GSR on Google and quoted it verbatim with no understanding of your own of how to use it in a practical way.

Please see the post below yours to Psiload, post 935.

golfy
 
Last edited:
So I am going to continue to engage with him under the working assumption that he is an essentially rational person with a single irrational belief, help him create as workable a test protocol as can be contrived in the circumstances (i.e. in the light of his paranoia), and then encourage him to try it, in the hope that when he fails to achieve results better than chance it will at least be enough to convince him to start questioning his assumptions.
Click to expand...

This is basic falsifiability, isn't it Sean84. Put forward a premise and then design a protocol to prove the premise wrong. If the protocol proves it wrong, the premise has been falsified. If the test cannot prove the premise wrong, then the premise must be viewed as true.

golfy

PS "it will at least be enough to convince him to start questioning his assumptions" Please see the film "A Beautiful Mind". This rational has been mentioned by others and is valid. Unless you can get the person in question to question his own beliefs by a logical demonstration of why that person is not what they think, then their beliefs stat rock solid.

The string of GSR tests will make me question my belief if they do match up to my premise. I am confident that my rational is sound and I have not made a mistake.
 
Last edited:
My poly training video has just arrived - not sure I will need it yet though as the GSR may be good enough an instrument as my preliminary test point towards or just the GSR channel on the poly. I'll have a watch anyway but the poly is a bit cumbersome to carry around and set up apart from if the GSR starts to give unreliable results, I can then try the poly and poly techniques to see if it produces more valid answers.

goly
 
Last edited:
golfy said:
Hi Akhenaten,

I have just read your uninformed post - post 923 - did you realise that you are teaching an ex Hewlett-Packard R+D electronic design engineer how to suck eggs? I designed £15000 erbium fibre amplifiers (EFA) for AT+T's internet telecommunications systems and a 622MHz Wavelength Division Multiplexed (WDM) transmitter for Siemens Data Telecoms in the mid nineties. (I too can add acronyms to a post) I now have my own design company (albeit small 2 man band) Surely I can understand a simple GSR.

If you don’t understand why conductive gel improves the measurement accuracy – more consistency from person to person, then you must have just looked up GSR on Google and quoted it verbatim with no understanding of your own of how to use it in a practical way.

Please see the post below yours to Psiload, post 935.

golfy
Click to expand...


Demonstrate your mad skillz by mastering the quote function and we'll talk, professor.
 
Pixel42 said:
There's a fascinating thread in the science forum started by a schizophrenic which describes the process by which he was eventually able to recognise his delusions as such, even though he originally attributed them to the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link or title or something to help find it?
 
golfy said:
That is a valid point, then I will have to get at least 26 out of 30 to prove my claim.

My understanding is that James Randi as a magician will remove all possibilities of communication by adding to the protocol measures that prevent any communication other than telepathy.

golfy
Click to expand...

If you understand that, don't you see that hooking a subject up to a GSR/poly/lie detector and interrogating them is "communication other than telepathy" and would therefore prevent your protocol from ever being acceptable?
 
Anyone thinking this is pointless yet? Just wondering.

Don't get me wrong i am looking forward to another 2 years of hearing golfy say how he knows he is right. But encouraging him seems both unproductive, and pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom