Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Loss Leader]

Well, I have found in my telepathy research that people like to tease the investigator a little bit, and that it is better to show a little flexibility.

Then you will never, never do a valid test and nobody will ever have any reason to believe your results. The conditions of a correct answer must be defined beforehand and the tester must exercise no judgment whatsoever as to whether there has been a hit or not.

When you say people like to tease the investigator and then give your two examples, you are presuming your telepathic power exists. You are assuming the existence of the very thing you're testing for. After all, if you were not telepathic, there would be no way for a subject to "tease" you because the person would not be hearing your thoughts. The only way you can be teased is if you assume that you are telepathic.

You cannot assume the answer to the thing you're testing. If you're testing for telepathy, you cannot assume you're telepathic. You've skipped the first part and jumped to a different question: Do people deny my proven telepathy?

Imagine I were to run this study: Why are mermaids so good at hiding?

Is there any way to measure that without first assuming the existence of mermaids?

But, these are rare; recently, for example, I did a test on Yahoo Answers where the responder answered the letter I, instead of answering the number 1, and I felt a friendly element in his answer. So I felt (and still feel) that this should be considered as evidence, because I resembles 1.

Then you are making up nonsense instead of conducting a test.

First of all, the number one is encountered more than ten times as often as the number nine. Study Benford's Law. Conducting any test while including the first couple dozen digits throws off any probability equation.

Second, stop for a second and think how many things resemble a 1. I mean, 1 is just a line. If a person said he saw a steel beam, would you count that as a hit? A doric column? The imaginary number i? A single person standing in a field of rye ready to catch wayward children?

The list is endless. That's why you cannot introduce your own judgment into an experiment.

People are not robots, human psychology factors are essential, and have to be included, this is Human Sciences, not Computer Sciences.

And they are, but in careful ways that remove the judgment of the tester. For example, studies of whether facial symmetry is important for beauty took beautiful people and slightly altered their image. But how did the testers decide whether someone was beautiful in the first place. Obviously, that required the tester's judgment.

Except it didn't. The testers first conducted a separate study where the showed the unaltered pictures to a wide range of volunteers. Then they selected only the pictures that a large percentage rated as "beautiful" for their next test. The testers removed their own biases from the study.

You have to understand these concepts. You will never have a statistically meaningful result if you don't.


ETA: And right on time, here's a new article on a social science study that reinforces my points. Notice that the study makes plain what constitutes good science: open data and rigorous methodology. And the study then adheres to those principles.

 

[Michel H]

Then you will never, never do a valid test and nobody will ever have any reason to believe your results. The conditions of a correct answer must be defined beforehand and the tester must exercise no judgment whatsoever as to whether there has been a hit or not.

When you say people like to tease the investigator and then give your two examples, you are presuming your telepathic power exists. You are assuming the existence of the very thing you're testing for. After all, if you were not telepathic, there would be no way for a subject to "tease" you because the person would not be hearing your thoughts. The only way you can be teased is if you assume that you are telepathic.

You cannot assume the answer to the thing you're testing. If you're testing for telepathy, you cannot assume you're telepathic. You've skipped the first part and jumped to a different question: Do people deny my proven telepathy?

Imagine I were to run this study: Why are mermaids so good at hiding?

Is there any way to measure that without first assuming the existence of mermaids?





Then you are making up nonsense instead of conducting a test.

First of all, the number one is encountered more than ten times as often as the number nine. Study Benford's Law. Conducting any test while including the first couple dozen digits throws off any probability equation.

Second, stop for a second and think how many things resemble a 1. I mean, 1 is just a line. If a person said he saw a steel beam, would you count that as a hit? A doric column? The imaginary number i? A single person standing in a field of rye ready to catch wayward children?

The list is endless. That's why you cannot introduce your own judgment into an experiment.





And they are, but in careful ways that remove the judgment of the tester. For example, studies of whether facial symmetry is important for beauty took beautiful people and slightly altered their image. But how did the testers decide whether someone was beautiful in the first place. Obviously, that required the tester's judgment.

Except it didn't. The testers first conducted a separate study where the showed the unaltered pictures to a wide range of volunteers. Then they selected only the pictures that a large percentage rated as "beautiful" for their next test. The testers removed their own biases from the study.

You have to understand these concepts. You will never have a statistically meaningful result if you don't.


ETA: And right on time, here's a new article on a social science study that reinforces my points. Notice that the study makes plain what constitutes good science: open data and rigorous methodology. And the study then adheres to those principles.

I shall try to respond to the various points you make, Loss Leader (or, at least to some of them).

"stop for a second and think how many things resemble a 1. I mean, 1 is just a line. If a person said he saw a steel beam, would you count that as a hit? A doric column? The imaginary number i? A single person standing in a field of rye ready to catch wayward children?

The list is endless. That's why you cannot introduce your own judgment into an experiment."

Well, a i resembles a 1, a steel beam a little less (look at Google images). On the other hand, a o resembles a 0, not a 1, I see no real ambiguity here. When people respond something very close, I simply view this as a good partial hit.

"When you say people like to tease the investigator and then give your two examples, you are presuming your telepathic power exists. You are assuming the existence of the very thing you're testing for. After all, if you were not telepathic, there would be no way for a subject to "tease" you because the person would not be hearing your thoughts. The only way you can be teased is if you assume that you are telepathic.

You cannot assume the answer to the thing you're testing. If you're testing for telepathy, you cannot assume you're telepathic."

Actually, I don't really need to assume that I am telepathic to observe that a letter i resembles a 1, or that a letter o resembles a 0. Similarly, I don't need to be telepathic to be legitimately struck by the coincidence when someone answers "...I saw four dogs" right after the number generator picked a 4 for me. If such coincidences are constantly repeated, the conclusion that I am telepathic seems unavoidable (if there is no sensory channel). I think you are making a major mistake by assuming that people have to "admit" anything to prove telepathy. No, just (repeated enough) coincidences under conditions of sensory shielding are sufficient.

"First of all, the number one is encountered more than ten times as often as the number nine. Study Benford's Law. Conducting any test while including the first couple dozen digits throws off any probability equation."

You seem to have misunderstood Benford's Law here: this law is actually not stating that 1 is encountered more often than 9. What it states is that, if you look at numerical data, 1 will be about 6 times more often the most significant digit than 9 (because 30 = 6*5), that's very different.

"The testers first conducted a separate study where the showed the unaltered pictures to a wide range of volunteers. Then they selected only the pictures that a large percentage rated as "beautiful" for their next test. The testers removed their own biases from the study."

Well, I really don't need neutral and independant volunteers to figure out that a i resembles a 1, that a o resembles a 0, and that, when somebody thousand miles away writes 4 shortly after I wrote 4 on my sheet, this is a striking coincidence. All this unnecessary (and probably costly) complication may perhaps help explain why psychologists have achieved so little in the study of telepathy after more than one century of research.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If such coincidences are constantly repeated, the conclusion that I am telepathic seems unavoidable

The basic flaw with that idea is that the broader your subjective view of what can be called a coincidence, the more coincidences you should expect to see.

If you use your imagination you can find significance in just about anything, so spotting a large number of coincidences then becomes entirely unremarkable.

 

[Loss Leader]

I shall try to respond to the various points you make, Loss Leader (or, at least to some of them).

<snip>

It's quite clear that you have no interest in learning how to properly conduct scientific testing. I can't keep repeating myself. I wish you well.

 

[Aepervius]

But, Aepervius, while "four" or "4" may naturally and randomly occur in a conversation, the same is true about "one" or "1", about "two" and "2", and so on. I have tried to read you carefully, and I am not sure you got this; that's how you get the rough probability p = 1/10 = 0.1 for the first test, and another p = .1 for the second test, with a joint probability for the two events equal to 0.1*0.1 = 0.01. You must surely understand that "something unusual" happened in the tests I described in the opening post, because there were these two coincidences, first for 4, and then for 8.

No it is not random. People will casually mention one far far more than say 8 or 9.

 

[Aepervius]

In fact i took a random web page (on phonotactic probability) and counted the words in it :
one "71"
two 7
three 1
four 6
five 0
six 0
seven 3
eight 1
nine 1
ten 10

Even disregarding one due to the other grammatical usage, this simply can be heavily skewed. The distribution is not random.

This is why you don't use number 1 to 10.

Another reason why this would not work even if you ask people to tell and chose ONLY 1 number 1 to 10 is that people are *biased* against some numbers for a variety of reason.

bottom line : what you see as evidence is not. This is why you have to carefully state the null hypothesis , and carefully compare against a negative. You do not do this. You take *any* hit result as positive and miscalculate your p (your p does not take into account either bias against specific numbers or that it could even occurs in random conversation).

And that 's the start of what's wrong.

trust me on that one. You seem highly functional. I again urge you to maybe weight the possibility that there is no broadcasting except as an error process in your brain. I have also a few mental disorder (bipolar, OCD). I know the first HARDEST step is to admit that maybe the problem is only ourself.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

You'd be much better off abandoning the numbers and go for something more tangible. Even if you ever proved you COULD make someone think of a number, what good would that do you? Not much, really.

However, imagine if you could, say, telepathically make someone think of a Big Mac. I'm sure McDonalds would be ready to pay you a few million bucks to do that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You'd be much better off abandoning the numbers and go for something more tangible. Even if you ever proved you COULD make someone think of a number, what good would that do you? Not much, really.

However, imagine if you could, say, telepathically make someone think of a Big Mac. I'm sure McDonalds would be ready to pay you a few million bucks to do that.

In the spirit of missing the humourous intent entirely, I would say that being able to demonstrate a psychic ability would make make you just about the most famous person in the world. Uri Geller made a very good living out of bent cutlery and he was only pretending to have magic powers.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

In the spirit of missing the humourous intent entirely, I would say that being able to demonstrate a psychic ability would make make you just about the most famous person in the world. Uri Geller made a very good living out of bent cutlery and he was only pretending to have magic powers.

I made you think about cutlery, which is used to cut food. A Big Mac is (sort of) food.

It's working! I'm telepathic!

 

[Michel H]

Firstly I would like to say you don't have a telepathic "problem", you have toxic people in your interpersonal environment who are wanting to cause you suffering for the purpose of gaining pleasure from seeing your suffering.

I don't know how the games are played to cause you to experience these with great intensity but whether greater or lesser intensity,, all suggestion made mentally follow the same basic foul game play. I have made a series of videos to describe how the foul games are played here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxUl19yZU0 I have made five videos in this series and they represent the basics.


Telepathy is a reality and everyone has it but many people don’t realize it. The medical industry and psychiatry deny it because it uncovers the true causes of diseases and so-called mental disorders. That means people could make themselves well and there is no money in that.

Most experiments on telepathy are double blinded and where they are not double blinded they use near impossible tasks for the average person, eg perceiving an image that someone else is visualizing in their mind.

For telepathy to be observed in scientific experiments, beyond any shadow of doubt there needs to be two very important conditions.

Relationship is the first necessary condition. Fundamentally we are related to everything in the universe but it takes a high degree of awareness to make use of this relationship. For 99% of the population some relationship and more especially close relationship (eg family members, close and trusted friends, long time work associates etc) is a necessary prerequisite for any sort of psi phenomenon and certainly for telepathy. The reason is that related individually are mentally entangled, which enhances the psi abilities.

The second condition, where telepathy is concerned, is that an idea must be dynamically presented mentally and not passively. Visualizing an image is a passive means. To be dynamic the one related party must mentally address the other related person for that person to perceive the idea presented or suggestion made.



IMO it is useless to try and convince a psychiatrist of anything. Firstly they are bound by the medical guidelines and those guidelines say telepathy is not real but delusion. Secondly psychiatrists have the worst track record of all doctors IMO. You only need to see videos by the chairman of the American psychiatric association to see that they intend to use people's life issues to create new mental disorders in order to sell drugs. Maybe where you are you might have someone who is willing to listen.

The important thing that I would like to say to you is that the battle is fought and won in the mind. It is useless to try and verbally or otherwise fight with anyone. You will only get yourself into trouble and you won't get the result you want. The result you want is to be able to overcome the mental attacks.

Have a look at the last image on this page. You can use remote viewing (I can show you how) to see the people who are offending against you and set directives to the universe to prevent them from attacking you. Here: https://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/solutions-what-you-can-do-to-prevent-heart-problems/

kyrani, it seems to me there is kind of a paradox in your post quoted above (see highlighted parts).

On the one hand, you severely criticize psychiatrists (probably with some justification, in my opinion, though I would probably not give exactly the same reasons as you). But, on the other hand, you sound yourself a little bit like a particularly narrow-minded psychiatrist or doctor (or skeptic) when you strongly emphasize that

The important thing that I would like to say to you is that the battle is fought and won in the mind.

Isn't this precisely what "medication doctors" and skeptics keep repeating? "No, no, you don't have telepathy, there must probably be some disorder in your mind, the problem is entirely in your mind. Yes, I know, this is very hard to admit, I understand, but there is no other way than admitting the truth" (sic). In other words, you sound a little bit (though not exactly) like someone who is secretly working for the big pharma industry yourself.

In addition, I also notice that, like many members of this forum, you display a strong tendency to "lecture me". So, Professor kyrani has made five videos ("which represent the basics") to explain people, you even would be willing to explain remote viewing to me and so on. You are convinced that you KNOW, and you deliver your message to humanity free of charge.

Now, I have noticed that prof. Kyrani lives in Australia, and I therefore would like to ask her if she would be willing to participate in this telepathy test (I value particularly answers from people in Australasia because of the large distance), or does she think that, perhaps, we are not "entangled enough"? I can perhaps speculate that a contribution by such a great expert and firm believer in telepathy could be of special interest.

 

[kyrani99]

kyrani, it seems to me there is kind of a paradox in your post quoted above (see highlighted parts).

I don't understand what you mean by paradox in the highlighted areas.
If you had gone to the links I gave you would have seen something vastly different to what psychiatrists are saying.

On the one hand, you severely criticize psychiatrists (probably with some justification, in my opinion, though I would probably not give exactly the same reasons as you). But, on the other hand, you sound yourself a little bit like a particularly narrow-minded psychiatrist or doctor (or skeptic) when you strongly emphasize that

(Kyrani99: The important thing that I would like to say to you is that the battle is fought and won in the mind. )

Isn't this precisely what "medication doctors" and skeptics keep repeating?

"No, no, you don't have telepathy, there must probably be some disorder in your mind, the problem is entirely in your mind. Yes, I know, this is very hard to admit, I understand, but there is no other way than admitting the truth" (sic). In other words, you sound a little bit (though not exactly) like someone who is secretly working for the big pharma industry yourself.

Again the only way you could come to this conclusion is that you did not look at the illustration I had suggested on the bottom of this page Here: https://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2012/...eart-problems/

This is a counter attack using mental images. Hardly what psychiatrists, let alone narrow minded psychiatrists are saying. They are trying to tell you that these ideas arise out of your unconscious. That is bull. Ideas are not in business for themselves.

And as I said to someone else, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you try it, with intent in mind, you will find it works. (Their response was that they want me to have their lunch for them!)

If you use a mental counter attack you will be able to ward off those people who are attacking you with adverse suggestions that appear in your mind. You are already at the first step towards healing when you recognize that they are telepathy, i.e., someone else's ideas. But unfortunately you are unwilling to investigate.

You ought to write to the big pharma bosses and tell them you think I am working for them. They will surely appreciate the joke. In reality there is a serious MEGA conflict of interests between me and big pharma.

In addition, I also notice that, like many members of this forum, you display a strong tendency to "lecture me". So, Professor kyrani has made five videos ("which represent the basics") to explain people, you even would be willing to explain remote viewing to me and so on. You are convinced that you KNOW, and you deliver your message to humanity free of charge.

I have been on at least a hundred forums over the last eight years and I have never had anyone say I was lecturing to them. Maybe that is how it sounds to you. I would bet here again you did not look at my videos. I have had a number of people, who no doubt benefited from my videos, had thanked me for sharing that information. I am not interested in lecturing you and I withdraw my offer to explain remote viewing, since you find it offensive.

You have said in one of your posts that you feel you can't trust anyone anymore. However when someone does try to give you support you seem to want to bash them and push them away.

You say that I am convinced that I "KNOW". It sound like you think that I am saying I know everything. I never said that. I am saying that I have gained a lot of information about how foul games are played and how they may affect people. Some of that information I obtained "from the horse's mouth", i.e., evil people. And you have a problem that I am not charging for the information. Incredible.

Now, I have noticed that prof. Kyrani lives in Australia, and I therefore would like to ask her if she would be willing to participate in this telepathy test (I value particularly answers from people in Australasia because of the large distance), or does she think that, perhaps, we are not "entangled enough"? I can perhaps speculate that a contribution by such a great expert and firm believer in telepathy could be of special interest.

The number I perceived was 3.
This telepathy test is like many others.. IMO meaningless because for 99% of the population the parties must be closely related and thus mentally entangled to get good results, ie 80-100%. We are not related and furthermore you are pushing me away so it is very difficult to have telepathy.

Sure you might get some result better than chance but that doesn't prove anything. My experiment however that I set out in my post #2864 on page 72 will proves telepathy.

 

[cullennz]

I don't understand what you mean by paradox in the highlighted areas.
If you had gone to the links I gave you would have seen something vastly different to what psychiatrists are saying.



Again the only way you could come to this conclusion is that you did not look at the illustration I had suggested on the bottom of this page Here: https://kyrani99.wordpress.com/2012/...eart-problems/

This is a counter attack using mental images. Hardly what psychiatrists, let alone narrow minded psychiatrists are saying. They are trying to tell you that these ideas arise out of your unconscious. That is bull. Ideas are not in business for themselves.

And as I said to someone else, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you try it, with intent in mind, you will find it works. (Their response was that they want me to have their lunch for them!)

If you use a mental counter attack you will be able to ward off those people who are attacking you with adverse suggestions that appear in your mind. You are already at the first step towards healing when you recognize that they are telepathy, i.e., someone else's ideas. But unfortunately you are unwilling to investigate.

You ought to write to the big pharma bosses and tell them you think I am working for them. They will surely appreciate the joke. In reality there is a serious MEGA conflict of interests between me and big pharma.



I have been on at least a hundred forums over the last eight years and I have never had anyone say I was lecturing to them. Maybe that is how it sounds to you. I would bet here again you did not look at my videos. I have had a number of people, who no doubt benefited from my videos, had thanked me for sharing that information. I am not interested in lecturing you and I withdraw my offer to explain remote viewing, since you find it offensive.

You have said in one of your posts that you feel you can't trust anyone anymore. However when someone does try to give you support you seem to want to bash them and push them away.

You say that I am convinced that I "KNOW". It sound like you think that I am saying I know everything. I never said that. I am saying that I have gained a lot of information about how foul games are played and how they may affect people. Some of that information I obtained "from the horse's mouth", i.e., evil people. And you have a problem that I am not charging for the information. Incredible.




The number I perceived was 3.
This telepathy test is like many others.. IMO meaningless because for 99% of the population the parties must be closely related and thus mentally entangled to get good results, ie 80-100%. We are not related and furthermore you are pushing me away so it is very difficult to have telepathy.

Sure you might get some result better than chance but that doesn't prove anything. My experiment however that I set out in my post #2864 on page 72 will proves telepathy.

Can you re post it. I'm losing the will to live trying to find it on my phone

 

[kyrani99]

Then you will never, never do a valid test and nobody will ever have any reason to believe your results. The conditions of a correct answer must be defined beforehand and the tester must exercise no judgment whatsoever as to whether there has been a hit or not.

When you say people like to tease the investigator and then give your two examples, you are presuming your telepathic power exists. You are assuming the existence of the very thing you're testing for. After all, if you were not telepathic, there would be no way for a subject to "tease" you because the person would not be hearing your thoughts. The only way you can be teased is if you assume that you are telepathic.

You cannot assume the answer to the thing you're testing. If you're testing for telepathy, you cannot assume you're telepathic. You've skipped the first part and jumped to a different question: Do people deny my proven telepathy?

Imagine I were to run this study: Why are mermaids so good at hiding?

Is there any way to measure that without first assuming the existence of mermaids?

Einstein perceived the nature of light INSIGHTFULLY - not imagined but using psi, and the theories he arrived at were verified experimentally and are the foundations of physics. Mental perception however is discouraged.

I don't agree with your argument. He doesn't imagine he is experiencing ideas conveyed to him through telepathy. He knows it because of first hand experience, just like vision, touch, taste etc.

I have experienced suggestions made to me (though my experiences are very different to his) through strong telepathy too but I found it is with or through people I am strongly related to. I have a lot of enemies trying to hassle me and they are using close relatives, who are toxic, to aid them. i know that not only out of my own experiential perception but also because right at the start they said "we got your people working for us now".

A big problem is that we are conditioned, even penalized from very young to distrust our gut feelings and to deny any psi abilities. Thus we largely lose the use of them. However under some circumstances we can again experience them.

I would also agree with him that "some people like to tease the investigator". In fact toxic people would never comply because they use telepathy in their foul games to hassle other people and they don't want that known.

I agree with you that the sorts of tests he is devising are not worthwhile. No amount of getting numbers right or anything else like that is good enough. The experiments need to take in complex and meaningful information that cannot be gleaned from physical cues or any verbal slips.

Also the idea of "hearing your thoughts" is not right. If you uphold visual images they are very hard to perceive but if you are addressed mentally and mental dialogue is conducted then it is easy to perceive.

You will never have a statistically meaningful result if you don't.

If the test is done properly with complex and meaningful information and utilizing strongly related persons, you won't need to be chasing statistics. 80 to 100% correctly perceived information does not need a statistical analysis to try and find if it is significant.

 

[cullennz]

I don't see how young people are discouraged from PSI

 

[kyrani99]

The basic flaw with that idea is that the broader your subjective view of what can be called a coincidence, the more coincidences you should expect to see.

If you use your imagination you can find significance in just about anything, so spotting a large number of coincidences then becomes entirely unremarkable.

I agree. That is why the experiments need to take in complex, meaningful information between strongly related parties where one mentally addresses that information to the other.

It would eliminate coincidences and maybe seeing significance in something a large number of times etc., and eliminate subjective view.

 

[cullennz]

Just write down addresses and get the other person to name them.

 

[kyrani99]

Just write down addresses and get the other person to name them.

This is passive. To get strong telepathy one party must mentally address the other party, speak to them mentally.

 

[cullennz]

Zip codes

 

[cullennz]

Mentally or physically

 

[Nonpareil]

And here we go again.

Michel H is not an idiot or a fraud. By his own admission, he suffers from schizophrenia, and one of the primary manifestations of this is his belief that everyone in the world can hear his thoughts. You will not convince him otherwise. You cannot reason him out of this. He requires medical attention.

This thread cannot result in anything but harm to Michel H. Even posts telling him to seek proper medical attention will only continue to bump it and bring in more posters who do not know what is happening.

LET THIS THREAD DIE.