New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
I am talking here about my work on telepathy. I have never had a submitted paper on this topic refused.
Click to expand...

Cite to your published work on telepathy, then, please.

If you want to contribute usefully to this thread, I think that you should try to be more specific in your criticism, for example by pinpointing an answer to a test, where "obviously" (sic) I said an answer was not credible when it was or, conversely, where I said an answer was credible when "obviously" it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Dictating how criticism of you must appear before you will address it is not very forthright. You have received voluminous criticism of exactly the type you mention, and you have simply disregarded it and insisted that you are still somehow correct. However, my criticism is of that whole process entirely. You seem to take it as a given that your subjective, ad hoc method of deciding what's good data and what isn't is scientifically acceptable. I have spoken at length about how that makes your protocol irreproducible and therefore inapplicable as a scientific methodology. My quibble is with the forest, not the individual trees.

Many people have tried to correct your methodology and show you how to apply the proper controls that would make your method reproducible. But you wanted nothing of it. We must therefore conclude that the irreproducible element of your method is one you have put there intentionally to skew the results.

You might want to take a look at my latest test on Spiritual Forums: https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=22.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to.

I suspect the so-called attempts to "ridicule" me have been far more ridiculous than the posts which were targeted.
Click to expand...

You can suspect whatever you like. The fact remains that people have ridiculed you -- appropriately, given your outrageous, unsupported claims -- and you have failed to recognize it. Subsequently citing it as if it were praise is just going to earn you more ridicule.
 
Michel H said:
I am talking here about my work on telepathy
Click to expand...

Michel H said:
I have never submitted a paper about telepathy to any science journal.
Click to expand...

You're talking in circles.

I told you that a none of the data you're collecting here had scientific value. In response you said that you had never been refused publication. In order for that to be a relevant answer, the publication you refer to would need to relate to data collected here. You confirmed, as quoted above, that you are indeed referring to your work on telepathy when you spoke about never having a submitted paper refused.

Now you're telling us that you have never submitted a paper on telepathy to a scientific journal. Fine, what papers have you submitted on the subject of telepathy, and in what journals were they published?
 
Michel H said:
Here are three of them:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375947485902052

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4616/7/8/013/meta

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375947484903956.
Click to expand...

Well done (not sarcastic). You seem to have published on appropriate physics subjects in the 1980s, and -- as requested -- you have provided suitable citations. I have a professional interest in helium isotopes, but that's not the subject of this thread.

I stated that the data you are collecting here, on the subject of telepathy, has no scientific value. You alluded to publication as a rebuttal to that, and confirmed it in a subsequent post. Have you been published in a suitable journal on the subject of telepathy? If so, where? Using what data?
 
JayUtah said:
Well done (not sarcastic). You seem to have published on appropriate physics subjects in the 1980s, and -- as requested -- you have provided suitable citations. I have a professional interest in helium isotopes, but that's not the subject of this thread.

I stated that the data you are collecting here, on the subject of telepathy, has no scientific value. You alluded to publication as a rebuttal to that, and confirmed it in a subsequent post. Have you been published in a suitable journal on the subject of telepathy? If so, where? Using what data?
Click to expand...
I thought I was clear on this: I have never published or attempted to publish on telepathy in any journal (so far).

And I want to warn you: if you want to open yourself to intelligence on the subject of telepathy (particularly, Michel H's alleged telepathy, more than general telepathy), you will need to understand the concept of credibility evaluation, for example by using the provided links.

Scientific research isn't just about posting a high volume of words.
 
Michel H said:
I thought I was clear on this: I have never published or attempted to publish on telepathy in any journal (so far).
Click to expand...

Then your rebuttal to my point was misleading.

The data you are collecting here on telepathy has no scientific value. I have explained why.

And I want to warn you: if you want to open yourself to intelligence on the subject of telepathy (particularly, Michel H's alleged telepathy, more than general telepathy), you will need to understand the concept of credibility evaluation, for example by using the provided links.
Click to expand...

I have addressed the subject of "credibility evaluation" at length. It is subjective. It is ad hoc. It occurs without any blinding controls. It is therefore irreproducible. Your results are therefore scientifically worthless.

Scientific research isn't just about posting a high volume of words.
Click to expand...

Nor is it about touting irrelevant qualifications.
 
The polymath Prof. Jagadish Chandra Bose did pioneering work on the nature of radio and micro- waves and their transmission for which he was entitled to a Nobel Prize, which ultimately went to Marconi. He also did great work as a botanist. However, in his later years, he went around doing pretty dubious "research" on "life forces" and how "feelings" might manifest in plants.
While his work on radio waves was exemplary, it, in no way, grants credibility to his later woo.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Here we go again. Is it not yet obvious enough that engaging with these delusions in any way at all is futile?
Click to expand...

Michel is by his own admission unwell. I wish him all the best and beg him to get the treatment he needs, and part of that process will be not having people engage with him on forums such as this. I have done so in the past and regret that.

Please, Michel, look after yourself. Prend bien soin de toi.
 
It should be clear at this point that no change in OP's thinking is ever going to happen. Enough rebuttal has been laid out that any random person can read this thread and see the reality of it. I truly see no reason to keep going. When someone is clearly unwell and refuses to get the help that is out there, nothing is going to change. It doesn't matter what is said, it will get twisted to fit the narrative. There is no getting anyone to see the truth. This thread is just a sad train that jumped the track ages ago.
 
kali1137 said:
It should be clear at this point that no change in OP's thinking is ever going to happen. Enough rebuttal has been laid out that any random person can read this thread and see the reality of it. I truly see no reason to keep going. When someone is clearly unwell and refuses to get the help that is out there, nothing is going to change. It doesn't matter what is said, it will get twisted to fit the narrative. There is no getting anyone to see the truth. This thread is just a sad train that jumped the track ages ago.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. No point to keep responding to his tests.

I wish Michel well, and hope he gets the treatment he needs.
 
Rincewind said:
I agree with this. No point to keep responding to his tests.

I wish Michel well, and hope he gets the treatment he needs.
Click to expand...
I believe that the best "treatment I need" is the truth (and admission of the truth) about what seems seems to be a very strange and unusual paranormal phenomenon (thought broadcasting):
Loss Leader said:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
Click to expand...
(by a now deceased mod on this forum, his answer was correct).

What I don't need is ineffective and dangerous antipsychotic medications, which don't address the root cause of the problem and gravely damage the brain (I have taken Haldol when I was a student in the U.S., and I have long been suffering from epilepsy because of antidepressant medication (Ludiomil) which was injected into my body when I was hospitalized in 1985).

This is why I am somewhat wary of coronavirus vaccines, I don't want the same kind of trouble to repeat itself.

I think that most of the posters here don't really take the time to carefully analyse my work, perhaps because they feel they would be scared by the results if they did.

I don't know how many people suffer from telepathic voices in their heads in the world. It may be sad that many of these people have their brains unnecessarily damaged by antipsychotics:
Recent research has shown that use of any antipsychotic results in smaller brain tissue volumes and that this brain shrinkage is dose dependent and time dependent.[4] A review of the research has also reinforced this effect.[5]

The use of antipsychotics may result in many unwanted side effects such as involuntary movement disorders, gynecomastia, impotence, weight gain and metabolic syndrome. Long-term use can produce adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia.
Click to expand...
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychotic).
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I don't this would be possible.

With difficulty, because it's not a real voice, with sound waves. But there are some psychological differences.
Click to expand...

Michel,

You missed this question earlier.

Like what? Please give an example of a psychological difference between two people’s thoughts that enabled you to deem one female and the other male.
 
abaddon said:
One can use the number 12 to get the answer 2, 3, 4 or 5 very easily.

You already claimed you could drop the 1 from 12 to get 2
12=3x4 so there is 3 and 4
2+3=5
So it doesn't matter which number you circled, or even if you circled none. Regardless of any answer given, you could easily twist it into a hit.

Your test and analysis are invalid. You wasted everyone's time again.
Click to expand...


This has been a continuous stream of time-wasting since its inception.
 
Gamolon said:
Michel,

You missed this question earlier.

Like what? Please give an example of a psychological difference between two people’s thoughts that enabled you to deem one female and the other male.
Click to expand...
This is a difficult question which lies somewhat outside the scope of telepathy.

It seems that females use more mental cruelty, while males are more often physically brutal and violent. The voices I hear are almost always female (they say it themselves).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom