Hi all,
I can’t keep on discussing the believe that I have forever.
I was going to supply a German proverb, but then learned that there exist an English equivalent:
A fault confessed is half redressed.
It is a shortcoming - one that will just make it more difficult for you to ever attempt to pass the JREF challenge - rather than a valid excuse do avoid discussion.
My belief is that I am telepathic, other people can hear it and that it is at a conscious level. If I ask them can they hear my brain when I think, they will say “No”.
I am glad, seriously, that you call it a "belief" now. It will make discussion easier for both sides.
You should answer - for yourself, at least - the following questions:
Why should all these people consistently lie to you?
(I can think of many, many reason why I would be thrilled to meet someone who's thoughts I can read. Together, we could make millions! Poker on TV and 'Who wants to be a millionaire' aren't live events; but I am sure you get the idea!)
How plausible is it that they are answering truthfully?
(Forget for a moment what you believe about your abilities! In any given instance, would there be alternative explanations? Could a person be brain damaged in a way that would make it not possible for them to read your thoughts? Then, how would you explain the situation?)
If I think a word and ask them what it is like I did before on this forum when I stated I would offer a percentage of the prize money to the person who could tell me my surname, some people came up with first names and you ask me why would they say “Donkey” when I have just thought “Brian”.
If I was to do a telepathy test by simply asking a person what I had just thought and they then said something completely different, this doesn’t mean that I am not telepathic. In my belief, they are lying, hence the need for a polygraph or GSR to get around it.
Wahrheit said it much more eloquently than I could put it:
Why, why in the world would one of the test persons say "Donkey" when the word they received in their head was "Brain"?
Why?
Why?
Why?
That aside, do you understand that polygraphs can be fooled? They would not reliably tell you if someone was lying or really not hearing your thoughts! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
My prior post suggested that it may be subconscious to explain the need for a GSR to a sceptic who simply defines the required telepathy test to be a verbal one – no correlation, no telepathy.
So your prior posts does clearly and directly contradict your post!
That test does not include telepathy which may be subconscious which I actually mentioned before in post 12 – loss leader.
If you do a test where you simply ask the receiver “Did you hear my thoughts” and he says “No”, that proves nothing.
Gee, you're hopeless! Working protocls have been pointed out to you. Did you read and understand how a test would work
if telepathy would be understood just as well as normal speech and
if there was no reason to assume the receiving subject would be anything but truthfulness in all their replies?
Only when you have proved that his reply was totally devoid of dishonesty does it then become a valid answer.
You cannot prove that.
The test would not work that way.
If I were to participate in a test that was fallible such as the I think, the receiver answers test, it is still not accurate as it is still possible that the receiver is not telling the truth.
Why should they do that? What could their rational be? Why do you think that not one of the posters in this thread would tell the truth for the 100,000$ you promised?
Why do you think
I would spoil your test and simply give up that kind of money? Just today I discussed the possibility of self-emplyoment with a colleague. I would probably do just that if i had just half that money. With 100,000$ I would do it in a heartbeat! (I could then buy everything I'd need, hire one employee to do the actual work and keep the business running more or less in my spare time!)
As sceptics cannot define telepathy as either subconscious or conscious then you can’t rule out a GSR being required in a telepathy test.
You need to say what it is that you can do.
You need to be precise.
You need to describe the conditions under which you can do it.
You need to be precise.
You need to explain what your success rate is.
You - yep, you guessed right - need to be precise.
Sceptics don't need to define anything. You need to define what it is you wish to demonstrate. So far, you haven't even mastered that incredibly simple first step.
As you can’t rule out that the receiver may lie on a telepathy test either (which is what I believe is happening)
For the love of the FSM: WHY? Why should people reliably lie to you about this?
then for it to be as scientifically accurate as possible (why would you want it less accurate and open to deceit if that can quite easily be prevented with the addition of a GSR or polygraph) then a GSR or polygraph should be included in the experiment.
That is possible. But it would still require a foolproof and fail-safe protocol. That will only be possible if you at least commit yourself to what your ability is!
We are testing for an as yet unproven phenomenon. I would use the most accurate, tightly controlled, non manipulatable test which has nothing to do with human emotion, greed, deceit etc that I can possibly construct.
Fair enough.
Nothing left to chance would be the way to get a true indication of the fact that I am telepathic.
So far, you failed to clearly state what you could do and under which conditions.
As I understand you know,
- you think that people clearly can hear your thoughts
- you think that people lie when they report that they can't.
Here is a framework for a protocol. Please take into account that this only concerns itself with the inclusion of the polygraph (or other lie detector of your choice) and not the details of the remaining test. Those have been discussed previously.
subject: Any person that will try (or pretend to try) to receive your thoughts.
you: you
tester: Any person that facilities the execution of the test. These may be different people and it might be required that they are unable to communicate with each other, you, and/or the subject.
1. You transmit a randomly chosen word to the subject. (Like "duck" or "horse" or "brain")
2. The subject writes down a word. (Either whatever they think they are receiving or a fabricated word other than what they have been receiving from you.)
3. A tester will now activate the polygraph and ask if the subject has truthfully reported the word that you tried to transmit. The polygraph will be deactivated.
4. A tester will keep a list, that links
a) the word the tester claims he received.
b) the polygraph chart
c) the answer given under the polygraph, i.e if the subject claims to have answered truthfully.
-> these steps are repeated with different words and different subjects.
5. You will then receive a batch of polygraph charts (from 4b) with their respective replies (from 4c) in a fully randomized order.
6. From these, you will select - at your own discretion - those charts where you think the subject did report what he actually received from you. (i.e. either they said "yes" and you think the chart does indicate they were truthful, or they said "no" and you think the chart does indicate they were lying. You might want to consider to discard the latter batch, though. I listed it solely for completeness' sake)
7. The charts that you selected as "truthful" will be used to assess the outcome of the test. They will be recombined with the list of words the subject received (from 4.a)
8. Now it's just a question of finding out how many times the subject did write down the words you were sending during the first part of the test.
This does assume that you are able to read the polygraph charts yourself. If you can't i see no way of selecting the truthful candidates to our satisfaction.
It further assumes that you can transmit, and that the subjects can receive, actual words, and that this happens consciously.
It finally assumes that at least some of the subjects will truthfully report the thoughts they were receiving from you for at least some of the time.
This protocol gives you a chance to select those subjects that you think play fair. It removes any possibility of communication between you and the subjects by influencing the charts. (or rather, it would be fairly useless if they did. I can discuss that in more detail with the remaining protocol fleshed a little more if anyone cares.)
