New telepathy test, the sequel.

arthwollipot said:
If the protocol I outlined is followed, the results will be incontrovertible.
Click to expand...

We've already had results that are incontrovertibly indistinguishable from random chance. Michel's response was to discard most of the misses then claim a statistically significant excess of hits. If he followed the protocol you outlined he would do exactly the same thing.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
We've already had results that are incontrovertibly indistinguishable from random chance. Michel's response was to discard most of the misses then claim a statistically significant excess of hits. If he followed the protocol you outlined he would do exactly the same thing.

Dave
Click to expand...
What I mean is that if my protocol is followed, the lie will be obvious. Er... more obvious than it already is. Anyway. A protocol like this is the only way to honestly test such a claim.
 
abaddon said:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No. By the way, I meant "wide range" (like "broad range"), not "wire range". I have corrected the erroneous post.

Radio transmitters emit in very narrow ranges of frequencies, for example WCWP in New York, a Jazz radio station emits at frequencies close to 88.1 MHz.

I assume this is probably not true about telepathy, but I don't know much about the physical and neurological explanation of telepathy.
Click to expand...

As a graduate radio and telecoms engineer surrounded by high tech gear, have a guess whose voice has never appeared?
Click to expand...

I will just add that there are no physical or neurological explanations for telepathy. In fact most parapsychologists actually rejected the idea of neurological / physical explanations because they are materialistic and they think telepathy etc., uses non physical etc. "powers".

Those that have attempted to find a physical / neurological explanation have ran into the problem that the way they think of how telepathy works makes any neurological / physical explanation they propose extremely unlikely.
 
junkshop said:
As I say, you have previously claimed that others can hear your thoughts. You have also claimed that they deny having that ability, for some undefined (but probably nefarious) reason. If these claims are true, then what is the point in these ridiculous 'tests' you periodically trot out?

If you are right, then we all hear your thoughts, but dishonestly refuse to admit it (no proof of telepathy).

If you are wrong, then we don't hear your thoughts, and honestly say so (no proof of telepathy).

What do you hope to acheive?
Click to expand...
There have been some excellent posts made in this (and related) threads in the past, on this forum, for example:
calwaterbear said:
... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!
Click to expand...
(a correct answer).

If some good answers and comments have been posted here in the past, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some good answers and comments could possibly be posted in the future as well.

My advice to members of this forum (on possible extra-sensory issues) is to avoid excessive self-confidence and/or aggressivity.

I believe that time might show that those who are really making fools of themselves are not necessarily those the majority on this forum thinks.
 
There have been plenty of good answers and comments posted here, that's true. Unfortunately Michel H completely ignores them. He's only interested in answers and comments he can interpret as support for his beliefs, even when the posters themselves tell him his interpretations are 100% wrong.
 
Michel H said:
I believe that time might show that those who are really making fools of themselves are not necessarily those the majority on this forum thinks.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it's in no way making a fool of oneself to point out the lack of any scrap of worthwhile evidence for telepathic phenomena being real rather than imaginary.

Indeed arguing that it's fantastically unlikely that any such phenomenon will ever be shown to exist would not be foolish even if it was later discovered to be wrong.

I am prepared to be astonished, but I do not expect to be.

In the meantime, my years-old challenge still stands: I'm thinking of my phone number now. I'm thinking of my secret word now. Phone the number and tell me the word and I'll pay you a thousand pounds. (I appreciate that this is not an ability you claim to possess Michel. I argue only that it is an ability not possessed by any of 7+ billion people who either want £1,000 or who just want to show off their ability.)
 
Michel H said:
There have been some excellent posts made in this (and related) threads in the past, on this forum, for example:

(a correct answer).

If some good answers and comments have been posted here in the past, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some good answers and comments could possibly be posted in the future as well.

My advice to members of this forum (on possible extra-sensory issues) is to avoid excessive self-confidence and/or aggressivity.

I believe that time might show that those who are really making fools of themselves are not necessarily those the majority on this forum thinks.
Click to expand...

You haven't addressed my point.

If (as you have claimed) others can hear your thoughts, then why ask a multiple choice question?

If you are right, then all you should need to ask is 'what am I thinking.'
 
junkshop said:
You haven't addressed my point.

If (as you have claimed) others can hear your thoughts, then why ask a multiple choice question?

If you are right, then all you should need to ask is 'what am I thinking.'
Click to expand...
I have already replied to you on this (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13786040#post13786040).

Besides, you have to take into account that some people might see a "what am I thinking?" question hours after it was posted, when the assumed telepathic sender is thinking about something else. Similarly, I could see your possible reply only hours after it has been posted.

There is also an issue of possibly embarrassing private stuff.

Nevertheless, if you want to post here some of the things I have been thinking about recently, feel free to do it, and I'll tell you if there is any reality in what you said.
 
Michel H said:
Besides, you have to take into account that some people might see a "what am I thinking?" question hours after it was posted, when the assumed telepathic sender is thinking about something else.
Click to expand...

Then why not just think "The word I am thinking of is Splunge. Please post it on ISF when you receive this message"? If everyone really can read your thoughts, you don't even need to post the question.

Dave
 
P.J. Denyer said:
The only way anyone, Michel H included, wins this game is if everyone refuses to play.
Click to expand...

If you can believe that the entire human race has agreed to conspire not to admit to you they can all hear telepathic transmissions of everything you think, everyone refusing to play should not come as a surprise.
 
I have a better question: if everybody can hear Michel H's thoughts, why does he even post? He could just think what he wants to say and everybody will know it. The answer "for the convenience of other posters" doesn't work, because they all heard his thoughts already, too.
 
What would you do to catch people out if you thought they all heard your thoughts but were conspiring not to let on?

I think I might try recording some serious public event on live TV while watching a really funny movie or standup comedy act. Then check the recording to look for unsuppressed smirking or outright laughter. (The same would work in reverse for a happy, cheerful occasion while I watched a sad weepie movie.)

It would be a whole lot easier than trying to glean info from a paltry number of replies to a multiple choice quiz when most people give joke replies anyway.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What would you do to catch people out if you thought they all heard your thoughts but were conspiring not to let on?

I think I might try recording some serious public event on live TV while watching a really funny movie or standup comedy act. Then check the recording to look for unsuppressed smirking or outright laughter. (The same would work in reverse for a happy, cheerful occasion while I watched a sad weepie movie.)

It would be a whole lot easier than trying to glean info from a paltry number of replies to a multiple choice quiz when most people give joke replies anyway.
Click to expand...

I can't see any way of twisting the inevitable negative result to seem positive, so I doubt Michel will want to try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom