Book Test: Max & Any Others Interested

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for the clarification.

max,

Don't you know yourself what you are able to do? That would make it impossible to test your abilities.

 

[mstricky]

Claus
No I don't know what I can do, I'm on new ground here. Probably nothing ultimately.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus
No I don't know what I can do, I'm on new ground here. Probably nothing ultimately.

Well, it does make it impossible to test you.

 

[voidx]

Well, for starters, Ed, because we haven't -got- any RV'ers...

Even Max, who describes what I think of as a going through a "psychic/intuitive process"....concentrating...getting "something"...trying to make sense of it...doesn't claim to be a psychic or clairvoyant.

What exactly about this psychic/intuitive process gives it the inability to allow the medium to pick which of 10 books, is actually on Garrettes shelf? If they can guess the book out of the blue, then they can discern which book out of the 10 they are getting information about, in whatever form it takes.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

What exactly about this psychic/intuitive process gives it the inability to allow the medium to pick which of 10 books, is actually on Garrettes shelf? If they can guess the book out of the blue, then they can discern which book out of the 10 they are getting information about, in whatever form it takes.

Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get and pass it along.

Its up to others--sitters, clients, testers, scientists...whoever....to then take what has been given to them and see if it has signifcance or meaning and is of value.

 

[voidx]

Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get.

Right. So having gotten what they get, why is it harder to pick the book out of 10 possible books, instead of just picking the book out of the blue?

If I get the impression of monkeys and a safari man and me being mischievous as a youngster. There are 2 routes we're talking about here.

A) I conclude the book I'm getting information about is Curious George.

B) I look at 10 books and conclude that Curious George is the book I'm mostly likely receiving information about.

Why is A possible but B not possible via psychic/intuition?

 

[roger]

Exactly voidx. All the proposed test does is shift the "judging" requirement from a third party to the RVer. This seemingly inconsequential change turns the test from an ambiguous, unblinded test to a very rigorous, blinded one, without changing the mental processes used one iota.

 

[voidx]

Well, voidx, you won't like this answer--and I'm not a psychic, so it's just my personal impression of "the process", but here it is:

They get what they get and pass it along.

Its up to others--sitters, clients, testers, scientists...whoever....to then take what has been given to them and see if it has signifcance or meaning and is of value.

Ummm but then even in the original exercise the book doesn't mean anything to anyone, not even Garrette, as its just a random book. So in this case, the mediums impression of what book the hints might be pointing at is just as valid as any of ours. Unless you are saying that they somehow are reading Garrette psychically and are getting information from him as to what the book is. This exercise based on your description now appears almost completely useless. They give a description, on give whatever information their "getting" and Garrette would have to go...yup, that sounds like the book I have on my shelf.

 

[Ed]

Right. So having gotten what they get, why is it harder to pick the book out of 10 possible books, instead of just picking the book out of the blue?



Why is A possible but B not possible via psychic/intuition?

Very simple, Watson. If they need to pick 1/10 then we can easily see, on a purely empirical basis, the accuracy of their prediction. If it is one book then they can weasel till the cows come home. Fraud hates light.

Watch the reasons flow.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Unless you are saying that they somehow are reading Garrette psychically and are getting information from him as to what the book is.

What I'm saying is, "Who knows?" Really, I think we have to see if anyone comes up with an unusual pattern or impressions that seem correct....THEN try to figure out the "why" and the "how".

This exercise based on your description now appears almost completely useless. They give a description, or give whatever information they're "getting" and Garrette would have to go...yup, that sounds like the book I have on my shelf.

Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime. Others might say "No, it's not nearly close enough."

I know you'd like to have someone say, "This is precisely what I do and how." Then someone else say, "Here's a test, 1 through 10 choices, are you right?" But even if Max could do such a test to your satisfaction, I don't think we would (1) all agree that he demonstrated psychic ability; or (2) how and where he got the information from if he did.

 

[renata]

Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime.

He got a theme for crime?

His original guess on 3/5 was

The God Father by Mario Puzo

After the title was revealed, he talked about his process on 3/6

toastrider
Well, you see Toast, I had God coming to me in my thoughts as I tried to visualise where you were and what was on your computer and the only book I knew with God in the title was 'The God Father'. If you look further up this thread (previous page I think,) that's what I posted. Now wouldn't it have really been spooky if I'd have known about the book called American Gods?
What does anyone else think? What are the odds in coming up with God out of all the titles of books past and present?

bolding mine above

Only on 3/7 does he mention anything about crime

No, I didn't use remote viewing, I don't know how to do that even t'were possible. I said further up the thread that I concentrated on the matter and got crime and God in my mind. After a while that's all I could get so I put the two together and then got 'The GOD Father' as the possible book. I have never heard of the 'American GODs' I would say it is pretty remote to come up with one out of two words in Toast's book whatever you say. Of course I couldn't hope in a million years for you to agree, but this is why there is never any progress on here. You just won't admit anything. If I told you exactly what you were wearing now and where you were and got it right, you would still deny any ESP

today Max says (partial quote)

I have found 'American Gods' (Toasts book) on the net and it is about crime initially, so I scored two counts on that one.

The comments about sensing crime did not come until 2 days after the original prediction, and a day after the name of the book was known. I think awarding any points for comments made after the reveal is futile.

I agree with Garrette that Max should mention what he sees/senses in full prior to the reveal. Any retroactive comments should be invalidated.

Although the original guess appears impressive, there could have been many other ways it would have hit. A search for books with "God" in the title shows 27056 hits on amazon. If "God" is a keyword, there are 109670 hits on amazon. Similarly, there are 100038 hits with "father" as a keyword, and 5920 with "father" in the title. Mario Puzo wrote about a dozen books, and people with first name "Mario" as authors show 5560 hits on Amazon. In other words, there are many, many combinations that would have allowed some sort of a hit.

Therefore, I support the pick a book from 10 procedure. Max should be the one to decide, because it eliminates the uncertainty in the choices. Garrette already posted how common boy/horse/adventure themes are- I will not bore you with Amazon hits on those subject matters

Alternatively, there can be another procedure. Select a panel of judges. Have Max submit his guess to a coordinator, and have some other guesses submitted- not by RVers, by other volunteers who claim no power. Have judges- not knowing who made each guess rate each as compared to the target on a scale of 0 (total miss) to 10(exact hit). Have them post their evaluations, and then reveal who made each guess. Max- if that is what we are testing- should consistently score higher than volunteers, and should consistently score, by all judges and for several trials over a certain number- for examply, over a 5. The judges, and Max, and volunteers should be kept unaware of who made which guess- a coordinator of impeccable integrity, trusted by both parties would be the key. I just threw this together- it is more complex than 1/10 book choice, and perhaps less exact, but it might be interesting to conduct this, and circumvent Max's reluctance to identify a book from 10. I am sure there are gaping holes in this example, and I am also sure they will be pointed out swiftly

 

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

Similarly, there are 100038 hits with "father" as a keyword, and 5920 with "father" in the title. Mario Puzo wrote about a dozen books, and people with first name "Mario" as authors show 5560 hits on Amazon. In other words, there are many, many combinations that would have allowed some sort of a hit.

Well, you make a good point, but in those specific instances, they all would have been misses. The book was "American Gods".

Of course, you could find thousands of books with the word "American" in them....and probably hundreds of millions (or more) without it.

But I agree about describing the "process" ahead...assuming Max is even willing to keep on with this.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm entirely dissatisfied with all this. I'm going to start my own thread in the next couple of hours where *I* choose a book. I know skeptics will whine that my protocol is not what they would like, and anomalous cognition should take such and such a form.

Sorry guys. It is not upon those who think the concept of PSI to be inherently absurd to dictate the way that PSI ought to be manifested. Think about it. Everyone is welcome to "guess" the title of my book. But if you could give it a shot Max, and perhaps you as well Clancie that would be great. BTW, I do not expect anyone to succeed, but at least this way it has the remotest chance, unlike what people are suggesting on here. I'll pm Garrette the title. I'll print it out from amazon, and it will be a novel.

As I say I will start a new thread before I go to bed tonight.

 

[renata]

Well, you make a good point, but in those specific instances, they all would have been misses. The book was "American Gods".

Of course, you could find thousands of books with the word "American" in them....and probably hundreds of millions (or more) without it.

But I agree about describing the "process" ahead...assuming Max is even willing to keep on with this.

My point was that Max's guess could have been scored as a hit to several hundred thousand books. I am merely looking at it from the perspective of how many possible books could have had a match in one word with Max's guess.

But yes, if one looks at it from the direction of the target, there are indeed 96460 with "American" in the title, 370654 with it as a keyword.

 

[Mercutio]

Ian--
I don't claim to speak for any skeptic but myself, but my skepticism would require me to try my hardest to see the title. If I tried to mess up the process, I would not be testing it! I resent, just a bit, the implication that a skeptic would do this!

I humbly suggest that it would be as likely that you would try to mess up the process, so that you could blame it on skeptics! (to be sure, I do not think you would do this--which means exactly what I said, that it is "as likely".)

I'd be glad to participate once the stimulus materials are assembled.

M

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian--
I don't claim to speak for any skeptic but myself, but my skepticism would require me to try my hardest to see the title. If I tried to mess up the process, I would not be testing it! I resent, just a bit, the implication that a skeptic would do this!

I humbly suggest that it would be as likely that you would try to mess up the process, so that you could blame it on skeptics! (to be sure, I do not think you would do this--which means exactly what I said, that it is "as likely".)

I'd be glad to participate once the stimulus materials are assembled.

M

It could just be subconscious expectations of failure which would ensure failure. No disrespect was intended.

And one important point. Don't try. Just think of it as light hearted fun . .a game so to speak. ESP doesn't work by people trying. Just relax and allow any thoughts or feelings to enter into your head.

 

[Mercutio]

It could just be subconscious expectations of failure which would ensure failure. No disrespect was intended.

I didn't really think you meant disrespect. My problem is that the "subconscious expectations" cannot, even in principle, be determined before the results; they may only be discerned after the fact. I can completely believe that I am trying my best, but if my results are bad you may then say it was subconscious expectations of failure leading to negative psi. Could it be true? I suppose so, but I hope you can see the circularity of the definition of "subconscious expectations".

And one important point. Don't try. Just think of it as light hearted fun . .a game so to speak. ESP doesn't work by people trying. Just relax and allow any thoughts or feelings to enter into your head.

Actually, different laboratories have gotten different results on this. My notes are at the office now (so, sorry, no citations) but there have been positive effects for trying, for not trying, for motivating with money, for not doing that...I think that it is premature for anyone to say that "ESP doesn't work by" any particular method.

Perhaps you can ask the people who get your title right (if there are any) what method they used...

 

[Toastrider]

Upchurch gave me a ticket.

So I can't set anyone on fire? Bummer.

Sorry, Upchurch. Some folks just bring out the worst in me. At least it was Unfrozen Caveman Websurfer that time, and not Spider Jerusalem. Egads.

--Toasty, who will pay his ticket when he gets back from vacation.

 

[voidx]

What I'm saying is, "Who knows?" Really, I think we have to see if anyone comes up with an unusual pattern or impressions that seem correct....THEN try to figure out the "why" and the "how".

But what constitutes an unusual pattern then, if that's what we're looking for? We've no concept of what a regular pattern would be. So far as I can tell their all just random patterns.

Well, no. He doesn't have to agree. More and more, I think this is a judgment call. For example, I'd give Max points for "The God Father" and the theme he got of crime. Others might say "No, it's not nearly close enough."

Its because the points will always be contested that we are trying to find another alternative. Which is why the 1 in 10 book scenario seems an improvement to me.

I know you'd like to have someone say, "This is precisely what I do and how." Then someone else say, "Here's a test, 1 through 10 choices, are you right?" But even if Max could do such a test to your satisfaction, I don't think we would (1) all agree that he demonstrated psychic ability; or (2) how and where he got the information from if he did.

But how I'm describing the 1 in 10 book example I don't care HOW they do it. Look, Max gets his information anyway he wants to get it, process matters not about the book on Garrette's shelf. He writes all this information down, and then decides for himself, because he was the one receiving the information, which book of the 10 it most likely applies too. We then see if that is indeed the book on Garrette's shelf. Since we cannot see the flashes of images and other such things that Max might get in his mind, he's the best judge from the information he receives, by whatever process, to make a judgement call of which of the 10 books he's receiving information about, if he really does have some kind of ability.

If anything it improves the chances for Max because at least he's now narrowed down to 10 book titles, instead of any number of possible book titles. And we can see based on his information that he's recorded why he thinks that's the book he was getting information about, however he gets it.

 

[voidx]

I'm entirely dissatisfied with all this. I'm going to start my own thread in the next couple of hours where *I* choose a book. I know skeptics will whine that my protocol is not what they would like, and anomalous cognition should take such and such a form.

Sorry guys. It is not upon those who think the concept of PSI to be inherently absurd to dictate the way that PSI ought to be manifested. Think about it. Everyone is welcome to "guess" the title of my book. But if you could give it a shot Max, and perhaps you as well Clancie that would be great. BTW, I do not expect anyone to succeed, but at least this way it has the remotest chance, unlike what people are suggesting on here. I'll pm Garrette the title. I'll print it out from amazon, and it will be a novel.

As I say I will start a new thread before I go to bed tonight.

Read my comments on the 1 in 10 book scenario. We don't care WHAT form the anomalous cognition takes, so long as the medium receiving it can do something useful with it, like guessing which of 10 books their receiving information about. I'm rather amazed that there was less contention over letting Max have to pull the book title out of thin air, rather than choosing 1 out of 10. As I mention, if anything it improves his chances.