Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
phunk said:
How is it that you can project your thought through a forum post that people are not reading at the same time you wrote it? Were you continuously "broadcasting" the number for some period of time after you wrote that post, so that they would "receive" it while reading your post hours or days later? Or do your thoughts time travel whenever someone reads the OP?
Click to expand...

That was another obvious flaw in the test. It was a nonsense from the word go.
 
Michel H said:
Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.
Click to expand...

How do you measure the levels of these two factors to deduce which has a greater or lesser effect?
 
phunk said:
How is it that you can project your thought through a forum post that people are not reading at the same time you wrote it? Were you continuously "broadcasting" the number for some period of time after you wrote that post, so that they would "receive" it while reading your post hours or days later? Or do your thoughts time travel whenever someone reads the OP?
Click to expand...
I do repeat the target number from time to time. I also seem to hear some people "in my head" (presumably via telepathy), and I ask them to repeat the number too. In addition, people can use their memory to remember the number, too.
 
Michel H said:
I don't know who these people are, I "talk" with them all the time, but I don't know who they are, presumably they want to hide. They are usually very aggressive (even more than you). They say that I kill people, and that I should therefore kill myself.
Click to expand...

How do you test for an external source for these voices rather than a source internal to your own mind?
 
Michel H said:
I don't know who these people are, I "talk" with them all the time, but I don't know who they are, presumably they want to hide. They are usually very aggressive (even more than you). They say that I kill people, and that I should therefore kill myself.
Click to expand...


If you are not making this up, you need to talk to a doctor about this.
 
Michel, this is not the first time you have reported hearing voices. May I suggest that you talk to your doctor about this, and follow any treatment plan he/she recommends. I am aware that you have in the past had a diagnosis of a mental illness, and I urge you to keep in touch with your doctors and let them know about the hostile and aggressive voices.

Believing that you can transmit your thoughts to others and/or believing that others can transmit their thoughts to you is a common symptom in several mental illnesses. Mental illness is in most cases manageable, it's nothing to be ashamed about and you do not need to suffer from hearing the hostile voices if you follow your prescribed treatment.

People have gone along with this flawed protocol in an attempt to demonstrate to you that your credibility assessment is influenced by your knowledge of whether the answer is correct or not. Each 'test' you've performed on here has had results of no better than chance.

I understand that you believe that you are telepathic but it is a fact that every person who has ever come here with a claim of telepathy has failed to demonstrate it. Of those who revealed their past medical histories, every one of them has had a diagnosis of a mental illness. This is not easy to accept, just as it is not easy to accept that telepathy has never been demonstrated in controlled conditions. Nevertheless, the most likely explanation for your belief in telepathy is that it is a symptom of your illness.

Please, Michel, go and see your doctor and tell him/her about the hostile and aggressive voices. Explain that whatever treatment you are currently taking is not preventing the voices being heard, and ask for help.
 
Tomtomkent said:
How do you measure the levels of these two factors to deduce which has a greater or lesser effect?
Click to expand...
After I had finished all the hard work of analysis of my first two tests on this forum, I found (roughly) 100% of correct answers, even though only about 25% of participants gave the correct (numerical) answer. I suppose these "100%" reflect the real phenomenon. I can also study telepathy in other ways, but talking about that is perhaps a little too much for here.
 
Michel H said:
I found (roughly) 100% of correct answers, even though only about 25% of participants gave the correct (numerical) answer.
Click to expand...
Which was it. Were 100% or 25% of people correct? Nothing here indicates that the number was broadcast but ignored over other possibilities.

You are convincing yourself of a conclusion and trying to make flawed results fit that conclusion.
 
Michel,

I keep asking you this. Why don't you use a sufficiently large range of number is your test to make all of these questions moot? Say, 1 to 1,000,000,000,000?

You claim to be able to project thoughts it to people across space and time. You claim to be overturning the laws of physics in your basement. Why can't you read and answer simple questions?
 
Michel H said:
After I had finished all the hard work of analysis of my first two tests on this forum, I found (roughly) 100% of correct answers, even though only about 25% of participants gave the correct (numerical) answer. I suppose these "100%" reflect the real phenomenon. I can also study telepathy in other ways, but talking about that is perhaps a little too much for here.
Click to expand...

What hard work? All you did throw out 75% of the answers when they didn't match what you were hoping for in the first test.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Which was it. Were 100% or 25% of people correct? ...
Click to expand...
Here:
Michel H said:
...
It may be interesting to introduce a credibility threshold, equal to CR=5, for exemple. Then, GregInAustin's answer (CR=2) is eliminated, and I obtain 3+4 = 7 ("strongly") credible answers for the two tests (on this forum, so far), all of which are numerically correct. The probability for this is equal to p = (1/4)7 = 6.10 x 10-5 (assuming a 25% probability of answering correctly, for each answer). This is of course highly significant, but there are uncertainties related to the fact I assign credibilities while knowing if the answers are correct or not.
...
Click to expand...
 
Michel H said:
Here:
Click to expand...

No. Sorry. But that is at best an excuse to try and make as many incorrect answers as possible seem to be correct. At very best.

You seem to have an incredibly dubious 25% but want to claim 100%.

The clue you should pick up on is that only 25% "give the correct numerical answer". If the nature of the test is to see how many people know the number you are thinking of only a correct numerical value is a viable possitive result.

Given the range of numbers available to choose from, 25% is pretty much in the bounds of random chance.

Your test is of no evidential value. Why are you not asking posters here to help define a test that would convince them?
Why are you wasting your time defending the meaningless results of an incredibly flawed and unviable "experiment"?
 
Michel H said:
I have already answered you, TheSapient, in post #310.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question at all. I didn't ask you if you might consider 1-9. I asked about using a range of numbers large enough that the odds of anyone getting the right number is sufficiently low.

Really, why are you so afraid of using a reasonably large number?

You claim to have established that everyone hears the number you are projecting, and 25% of those people are honest enough to admit it. If 25% of people are honest in these tests, using a range of 4 number is the worst choice you could make. You have a 75% failure rate. That makes it look like you have no powers at all when you use a 4-number range. But if you had a 75% failure rate with a trillion number range, we would all be very impressed.

It is telling you won't even TRY. You claim to rate people on their credibility. You dismiss most people who participate in your test as dishonest. But it is YOU who refuses to act in an honest way. It is you who fudges his data.
 
Michel, I assume you are familiar with Albert's quote: "A thousand scientists can not prove me right, but one can prove me wrong."

This quote is related to hypothesis testing and is a form of saying that it is not possible to prove that a hypothesis is correct, it is only possible to prove or fail to prove that a hypothesis is wrong.


Back to your claim, your hypothesis is that you are communicating telepathically. If we develope a perfect test for this hypothesis and run it a number of times to get a statistically significant result, we could show one of two things: Your hypothesis is correct and you are communicating in a means that is contrary to classical beliefs. Or, your telepathy is below the threshold detectable by the test or there was some other flaw in the test that prevented it from detecting your telepathy.


Now, I believe Albert is a really smart guy and am not eager to dismiss what he says. So it appears that there is a flaw in your hypothesis or the strategy being employed to test it. I brought up falsifiability earlier as an easy handle to check if you are thinking about the problem in a valid way. What hypothesis can be developed which can be potentially falsified by testing which then tells us something new.
 
Dan O. said:
Did you accept the protocol
Click to expand...
No.

and go along with it?
Click to expand...

No. I explained to Michel why the protocol was unacceptable, and then continued to point out flaws as the test proceeded. That was the sum total extent of my participation.

You've only yourself to blame for that.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some bizarre notion that the posters on JREF are some sort of organization, rather than simply being a random collection of random people. I don't have to blame myself for any of this nonsense. Michel's protocol was ridiculous, and the results even more so.

And, to address this earlier comment that was actually directed at me:

Do you speak for the MDC? The protocol design is entirely up to the applicant.
Click to expand...
No, I don't speak for the MDC, but I know that the protocol design has to be agreed on by both parties. This protocol was not. In fact there is no "both parties" here, because this forum is simply a random collection of individuals, but many of us (including me) flat-out refused to accept Michel's ridiculous protocol.

We were unable to stop the proceedings since none of have any particular authority here (except the mods, and nothing here violated forum rules). A couple of us suggested that Michel might learn something, so perhaps this wouldn't be a complete waste of time (we were wrong), but that's not the same thing as "agreeing to the protocol". The whole thing was never viewed as any more than a silly diversion by anyone whose name isn't Michel, as far as I can tell. There was no formal test going on here, so talking as if there was is a complete waste of everyone's time.
 
Now I'm not a doctor of physics and I don't even play one on TV, but it was my general understanding that if you're trying to prove something in a scientific way it's best to do one thing at a time. Proving not being the same as demonstrating, it would therefore be a poor protocol that relies on both telepathy itself and on the judgment of credibility, even if both were real.

Allowing fraudulent or potentially fraudulent answers makes it impossible to determine what is being tested.
 
xtifr said:
You seem to have some bizarre notion that the posters on JREF are some sort of organization, rather than simply being a random collection of random people. I don't have to blame myself for any of this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Dan O admitted he only read a little of this thread, and none of the previous ones. I think at this point he knows how badly he misunderstood the conversation and is just trying to save face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom