Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
dafydd said:
He comes here with a claim that he is telepathic, we ask him for proof and part of the proof is that he claims that he is telepathic. There's flaw there. Surely a scientist would spot it.
Click to expand...
dafydd said:
You begin by assuming that you are telepathic, that is not scientific. ...
Click to expand...
Actually, dafydd, I do not have to assume that I am "telepathic" to (apparently) find some evidence indicating (or suggesting) that I am telepathic, on this forum. I don't know what makes you think that (you seem to be the only one saying such a thing, so far, on this forum). It is possible that you never really took the time necessary to read all my opening posts and analyses carefully, from start to finish. Obviously, if I came to a conclusion that I am "telepathic", but this conclusion was based on an analysis which is valid if (and only if) I am really telepathic, such a conclusion would simply be meaningless. In my first two tests, I explained, in mostly neutral and objective analyses (that no one was able to refute, in spite of a number of violent attacks, rather typical of this forum), that numerically correct answers seemed to be strikingly more serious, friendly, reasonable, reliable and credible than numerically incorrect answers, which were more of the "mad" kind. I also said that lying is actually allowed in my tests (provided people are not cynical, by providing numerically false answers in serious and friendly-sounding posts). It is my job to try to extract the truth from whatever answer you give (and thank you again to all who participated in my tests, for your good answers), in a neutral, and objective way. In this third (and first "blind") test, I found qualitative evidence in a first (qualitative) analysis, and limited (not statistically significant) possible evidence for telepathy in the more rigorous quantitative analysis. But, of course, you may not be aware of this, if you never read carefully my analyses, from beginning to end. In addition, it is possible that you make a number of aggressive posts on this forum of the Randi Educational Foundation, without a good knowledge of statistics, so that maybe you cannot even understand my statistical analyses without an additional study of statistics (p-value, binomial distribution...)
 
Michel H said:
Actually, dafydd, I do not have to assume that I am "telepathic" to (apparently) find some evidence indicating (or suggesting) that I am telepathic, on this forum. I don't know what makes you think that (you seem to be the only one saying such a thing, so far, on this forum).
Click to expand...

You broadcast numbers and then asked us to broadcast the asnwers back to you and you do not assume that you are telepathic? Come off it.
 
Michel H said:
That's what we call, in Science, testing a hypothesis, or an assumption.
Click to expand...

No. Investigating telepathy by assuming that telepathy exists is not scientific. Anyway, remove your credibility rating nonsense and you did no better than expected by chance.
 
Last edited:
Michel, do you think that you could develop a test for telepathy that was falsifiable? Would you as a scientist be able to accept the result of that test even if it contradicted your current belief?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Michel, do you think that you could develop a test for telepathy that was falsifiable? Would you as a scientist be able to accept the result of that test even if it contradicted your current belief?
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere.
 
Dan O. said:
Michel, do you think that you could develop a test for telepathy that was falsifiable? Would you as a scientist be able to accept the result of that test even if it contradicted your current belief?
Click to expand...
To answer this question, I should perhaps recall here what my hypothesis is, which is (roughly):
"I (seem to) have an involuntary tendency to communicate my thoughts (and probably also other mental processes: what I say, hear, see and so on) via telepathy to other people (and also animals) everywhere on the surface on this planet Earth, on which we all live."

It is entirely possible that one of the telepathy tests I might do on this forum, in the future, fails to produce any evidence for telepathy. Failures (or semi-failures) in my tests do happen, from time to time. But such a failure would not prove that I am "not telepathic": my test could have been badly designed, the answers poor and/or dishonest, or the results badly analysed.
 
Michel H said:
To answer this question, I should perhaps recall here what my hypothesis is, which is (roughly):
"I (seem to) have an involuntary tendency to communicate my thoughts (and probably also other mental processes: what I say, hear, see and so on) via telepathy to other people (and also animals) everywhere on the surface on this planet Earth, on which we all live."

It is entirely possible that one of the telepathy tests I might do on this forum, in the future, fails to produce any evidence for telepathy. Failures (or semi-failures) in my tests do happen, from time to time. But such a failure would not prove that I am "not telepathic": my test could have been badly designed, the answers poor and/or dishonest, or the results badly analysed.
Click to expand...

In other words you will ignore all the evidence that proves that you are not telepathic.
 
I can fly like Superman. All tests so far have resulted in no actual flight but I can fly.
 
Ok. How about this: Instead of coming up with flawed tests like this, you utilise the available resource (ie, people who post in this thread) and ask them what they would suggest was required to create a workable test that would create viable results.

Here is my suggestion, I hope that others will pitch in and suggest an improvement.

1) Book a table at Amazing Meet and buy a number of deccks of cards that can be shuffled together into a completely random long slew of randomly generated numbers.
2) Get two other posters to volunteer as fellow "mind readers", both of whom is the control by always choosing his (or her) number through some random generator rather than thinking.
3) Invite people to join the two controls in pairs and draw a card. Think of the number in what ever way you broadcast. The two guest attempting to read you through what ever means write their "recieved" number down, and the two random numbers are written down, possibly in secret. You record the card. The card is revealed, as are the guesses. The results are compiled. Repeat the test three more times with each pair of volunteers so everybody has a good chance of finding their groove if you really are broadcasting.
4) Compare how many pairs of guests to the convention bettered the results of purely random numbers generated through an artificial means.

If you are telepathic and people can hear you, we will expect to see more hits in the guessers than the random generated numbers.
 
Michel H said:
Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.
Click to expand...

How is it that you can project your thought through a forum post that people are not reading at the same time you wrote it? Were you continuously "broadcasting" the number for some period of time after you wrote that post, so that they would "receive" it while reading your post hours or days later? Or do your thoughts time travel whenever someone reads the OP?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ok. How about this: Instead of coming up with flawed tests like this, you utilise the available resource (ie, people who post in this thread) and ask them what they would suggest was required to create a workable test that would create viable results.

Here is my suggestion, I hope that others will pitch in and suggest an improvement.

1) Book a table at Amazing Meet and buy a number of deccks of cards that can be shuffled together into a completely random long slew of randomly generated numbers.
2) Get two other posters to volunteer as fellow "mind readers", both of whom is the control by always choosing his (or her) number through some random generator rather than thinking.
3) Invite people to join the two controls in pairs and draw a card. Think of the number in what ever way you broadcast. The two guest attempting to read you through what ever means write their "recieved" number down, and the two random numbers are written down, possibly in secret. You record the card. The card is revealed, as are the guesses. The results are compiled. Repeat the test three more times with each pair of volunteers so everybody has a good chance of finding their groove if you really are broadcasting.
4) Compare how many pairs of guests to the convention bettered the results of purely random numbers generated through an artificial means.

If you are telepathic and people can hear you, we will expect to see more hits in the guessers than the random generated numbers.
Click to expand...

What's the point? When he failed he would just ignore it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom