Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
I didn't give a credibility rating to fromdownunder's answer (neither negative, nor positive). Remember, however, that this test is about telepathy, not about credibility ratings.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and it's really rigorous.


Michel H said:
Really? So, your numerical answer was a "42". Can you prove it? (remember, this is a very rigorous test. But it can only produce good results if people answer well). What is the character string you used to produce the MD5 hash in your answer above?
Click to expand...


fromdownunder said:
Except you have just shown that you are going to check the #hash before you accept or reject any answers. What a joke!

Go directly to Go. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Norm
Click to expand...



Do you really think we're all completely stupid, Michel? Do you assume that none of us are actually reading the thread?

Really? Your claim is a joke.
 
fromdownunder said:
OK, here is my genuine answer ## I really believe, I really and truly believe.

a1d0c6e83f027327d8461063f4ac58a6
Click to expand...
fromdownunder said:
But you thanked me for my answer initially, then included me in your list of credible answers in several subsequent posts. ...

Norm
Click to expand...
No, I never said your answer was credible. It was valid, though, because you had replaced your number by ## (using "##" instead of "xx" is acceptable to me, you did not give your number explicitly, I couldn't see it, and possibly be infuenced by it when I assign credibility ratings), and you had given a MD5 hash. Here are two examples, to explain what I mean:

My number is 5. I am quite confident this is correct.
This is an answer which is not valid in this test, because the number is given explicitly, which is forbidden in this "high security, highly rigorous" test ;).

My number is xx. I am quite confident this is correct.
My MD5 hash code: a1d0c6e83f027327d8461063f4ac58a6
This would be a valid answer (like yours apparently was, until you explained to me that you had answered 24, instead of one of the four number 1, 2, 3, 4).

(To all members) Please, try to turn down the aggressivity in your posts on this forum. Your posts are often so aggressive, they're almost unreadable.
 
Michel H said:
No, I never said your answer was credible. It was valid, though, because you had replaced your number by ## (using "##" instead of "xx" is acceptable to me, you did not give your number explicitly, I couldn't see it, and possibly be infuenced by it when I assign credibility ratings), and you had given a MD5 hash. Here are two examples, to explain what I mean:

My number is 5. I am quite confident this is correct.
This is an answer which is not valid in this test, because the number is given explicitly, which is forbidden in this "high security, highly rigorous" test ;).

My number is xx. I am quite confident this is correct.
My MD5 hash code: a1d0c6e83f027327d8461063f4ac58a6
This would be a valid answer (like yours apparently was, until you explained to me that you had answered 24, instead of one of the four number 1, 2, 3, 4).

(To all members) Please, try to turn down the aggressivity in your posts on this forum. Your posts are often so aggressive, they're almost unreadable.
Click to expand...



You accepted ## instead of xx because you needed data, but I can guarantee that if it had turned out that the answer was wrong (disregarding the fact that it is deliberately wrong) you would have used the ## to disqualify the answer, after the reveal.

Just like you did in the last test. Inconsistencies like this are the main reason this whole thing is purely worthless, scientifically speaking.
 
Michel H said:
(To all members) Please, try to turn down the aggressivity in your posts on this forum. Your posts are often so aggressive, they're almost unreadable.
Click to expand...

I disagree. People not accepting your claims is not aggressive. Far from it. Most people are taking the time to explain why you are wrong and how to produce a test that would convince them.

I find it hard to believe that people are aggressively trying to help you improve your protocol.
 
An MD5 hash is NOT encryption. It is simply a fingerprint of the given input. However, it is a one-way transaction and as such it is almost impossible to reverse engineer an MD5 hash to retrieve the original string.
Click to expand...

So how will you know what any hash actually is?


ETA: Turns out there is an online Md5 hash decrypter
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
(To all members) Please, try to turn down the aggressivity in your posts on this forum. Your posts are often so aggressive, they're almost unreadable.
Click to expand...

And still more evidence that you have no idea what other people are actually thinking or saying, or what they really mean when they post here.

Norm
 
Michel H said:
Snorkio, you say MD5 is not safe enough. But exactly how "unsafe" is it? (btw, the use of a MD5 hash was first proposed on this very forum, by another person, now I hear a complain that it is not good enough...). I gave a MD5 code of a sentence containing my target number in the opening post:

Can you crack it? Can anyone on this forum really decipher it, find the string I used to produce it (and, therefore, the target number)? Or, would it take longer than say, the age of the universe to crack it, on any affordable computer?
Click to expand...
In your sentence, you are using a few non-alpha numeric characters at the end, but I would bet 99% of people's responses would be plain alpha-numeric i.e. ascii characters which reduces the number of permutations needed to try to brute force it. It's not clear how long each string is, but you could probably guess that it's not going to be very long sentences, and pick rough number as your maximum length.

This thread goes on for days and weeks, how can we be sure you aren't brute force reversing these hashes right now?
 
Nay_Sayer said:
So how will you know what any hash actually is?


ETA: Turns out there is an online Md5 hash decrypter
Click to expand...
I am guessing, although it's not clear at all from the requesting post, that the people who answered need to later come back and say my plain text sentence is 'xxx', and he can compare the hash of this with what is in the original post.

If the person never comes back and does this there wouldn't be any way for him to know what the value is in the answer (other than the fact that you could brute force MD5 by guessing every possible string)
 
Snorkio said:
I am guessing, although it's not clear at all from the requesting post, that the people who answered need to later come back and say my plain text sentence is 'xxx', and he can compare the hash of this with what is in the original post.

If the person never comes back and does this there wouldn't be any way for him to know what the value is in the answer (other than the fact that you could brute force MD5 by guessing every possible string)
Click to expand...

Regardless, All this talk of hashes, Credibility ratings is nothing but un-needed theatrics.

I suspect this test will go the same way as the last.
 
Salm9958580 said:
This thread goes on for days and weeks, how can we be sure you aren't brute force reversing these hashes right now?
Click to expand...

I can't really see that it matters what really goes on with these hash thingies and credibility ratings as even if Michel comes back eventually with 100% accuracy scores, only a fool would view this test as legitimate research and take this thread as evidence for the existence of telepathy after all the post hoc shenanigans.

Except Michel of course. He believes. But even if he'd failed a properly constructed test, I doubt that it would shift his core belief that someone is listening in to his thoughts.

He seems rather calm for someone who thinks that his thoughts are audible to others. I wouldn't like mine to be broadcast willy nilly. Others with delicate sensibilities would be shocked.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
Regardless, All this talk of hashes, Credibility ratings is nothing but un-needed theatrics.
Click to expand...
Agreed

I suspect this test will go the same way as the last.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are right - I just wish to would move faster.
How about it , Michel, can we skip ahead to where you triumphantly announce that once again, you have beaten the odds? It would save a of of time.

............
I still don't see what you have against seeing a doctor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom