I admitted that I had? Where? Quote, please.
Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
But MikeG, there is a difference between "detecting no sarcasm" and "missing sarcasm". If you miss sarcasm, this means there was sarcasm, but unfortunately you failed to notice it, this is a different idea from detecting no sarcasm when there is not even the tiniest shred of sarcasm in an answer (this latter thing is ok).
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I read this post before you edited it and have considerable sympathy for your situation, but it's clear that no-one here can help you. Your paranoia, the voices you hear telling you to harm yourself and your conviction that everyone here is lying to you when they say they cannot hear your thoughts are symptoms of your illness. Please talk again to the professionals who actually can help you.
Ahhh, a semantic game!! Excellent, we like those..........
"Detecting no sarcasm" does not mean there was no sarcasm there to be detected. That would suggest infallibility. There is no difference in meaning between "detected no sarcasm" and "missing sarcasm", except in the case in which there is no sarcasm, which obviously doesn't apply in this instance.
Let's try some other words, to make this clear. There were 3 posts which were pure sarcasm. Their sole purpose was to mock your silly claims. You took them seriously, as though they contained no sarcasm. You admitted as much.
Ah yes, I admit there is a part that I deleted. But I don't know where you got the idea that I am convinced that everyone here is lying to me, I quoted some answers obtained on this forum in post #1726 (I hope I don't have the number wrong again), I found these answers excellent, of rare and exceptional quality. Of course, some people may disagree, but everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. I think that visiting a psychiatrist to talk about this alleged telepathic persecution (hostile voices in my head) may not be a good idea, in my opinion (it's hard to tell), it could be dangerous (because of dangerous medications or pseudo-medications) and I think it could actually be embarrassing for the physician him(her)self. It's a somewhat curious feature of this forum, that many of you seem totally convinced that physicians totally reject as ludicrous the idea of telepathic persecution, but physicians in Belgium are not necessarily like that, it depends on the person. For example, professor Jean Dierkens (a psychiatrist) is the author (together with his wife Christine) of a book on parapsychology.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Unfortunately this admission does your overall cause no good whatsoever.
It's simply the latest example of the hundreds(?) that exist of you either editing out or ignoring completely anything which doesn't agree with your preconceptions.
Probably from reading the posts in which you have expressed concern that everyone is lying to you.
And you still claim to be able to detect sarcasm?
Really???
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to his/her set of facts.
Rigorous testing is what separates facts from opinions and you steadfastly refuse to undertake anything even resembling a rigorous test.
I actually have been following all of you tests here, and my memory that none of these have provided any evidence of telepathy, and remarkably in the last test no one guessed your target number, appears to be correct when I review your links. However, to be absolutely fair, I asked you for a compilation of the actual numbers from these tests, which you still have not provided. I gather this is because the actual numbers argue that you are not telepathic, and that therefore each result requires a lengthly explanation why you should count certain numbers retroactively, but not others, as reliable.
I have no desire to mock or torment you. I think that you are tormenting yourself with your belief that other people hear your thoughts, voices urge you to kill yourself, and that your thoughts are linked to certain dreadful events in the world. But I can't help you by convincing you that others cannot hear your thoughts, that these are not real voices, or that these events are not caused by you. You simply will not believe me.
But the fact that you have repeatedly come to this forum to "test" your telepathy means that there is some part of you that may not be convinced of these things. I again urge you to talk to doctors and tell them your problem: you are willing to test your telepathy here, and thus you should be willing to test if doctors might be able to help you control what appears to be a very unpleasant (and to you, a very real) trait. This does not require that you or they believe that telepathy is not real: in fact you have indicated that there are some doctors near you who will honestly consider telepathy as a real possibility. So, again, whatever the reason for your beliefs, seeing a doctor might help you control it better even if you can really send your thoughts. And it might rule out the diseases that falsely convince people that that are telepathic.
Again, doctors have much better resources now than before, when you had bad experiences with them. Try them out. I think you will feel better for it, even if you are truly telepathic.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. I lied to make you look foolish. I saw no number in my mind and did not even guess a number. I just hit a key.
All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.
If I were you, I would discard all my responses as not being credible.
Now, the question is: If a moderator of a paranormal forum has no credibility, let alone special credibility, how can any person's credibility be assessed?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
This is exactly right. Michel isn't testing telepathy, he's testing his faith in it, and looking for "credible" ways to bias the results so he can maintain that faith.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
I agree, but why the need to "test" it at all? Lack of complete faith? But then, if you want to test something because you aren't certain it is correct, why not do so accurately?
But then again, logic is probably not the best way to analyze this.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Well, yes, that's the formal way if one is inclined towards the objective credibilists, a la Hopkins and Singer. And, for simple credibilities, it also fits the Russian model based around the work of Krutchfield (1927) and expanded after the war by Alexandreyev (1949) and the students of the so-called Swiss Krutchfield School.
Following that graph, the antiderivative of dyq would be one of the six Pulvisham numbers. But then you run into the same old problem of reconciling the Pulvisham scale with the Reichgenshire integers. And I don't think anybody wants to go down that road.
When it comes to credibility, then, I prefer the Subjectivist Revisionism of the Berkley School in the '60s. That equation is much, much more simple and straightforward for this application.
I would set it out in full here, but I think we're all familiar with it.
Last edited:
(A reminder of the opening post of this "logical thread")
I now would like to react to two of your posts:
The reason why credibility is so important is that answers given by members are not always of equal quality, trustworthy and sincere, so it is important to try to figure out a way to keep the good, and to eliminate the bad. In addition, it is important that the credibility ratings be understood and accepted by all (this unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case now, from what I read in your posts). In order to achieve this goal, it seemed to me (and it still seems) that it was a good idea to ask you to assign credibility ratings yourself, because you will surely understand it well if you have done yourselves.
So far, only one members (SezMe here) has given the two credibility ratings requested.
...with a little ETA:
and a reminder:
.
I now would like to react to two of your posts:
I believe that credibility is a fundamental and essential concept in these online telepathy tests I am doing, or trying to do. This is why I decided to devote a whole thread to it (before it was merged). Doing telepathy tests (in my case at least) without credibility is like trying to study thermodynamics without the concept of entropy, this would be nearly impossible, because something essential would be missing. And I don't want to fall again into the trap of following dubious advice of (hopefully) well-intentioned members, this may have caused some difficulties in tests 3, 4 and 5 on this forum. These tests are already hard enough for the researcher, who should not get weakened by (now) a restrictive and narrow interpretation of credibility. The goal of these tests is not, and will never be to entertain dishonest skeptics. The goal, of these tests is to try to investigate telepathy in some special circumstances, in a reliable way (and in a way which would be understood and agreed by all).
The reason why credibility is so important is that answers given by members are not always of equal quality, trustworthy and sincere, so it is important to try to figure out a way to keep the good, and to eliminate the bad. In addition, it is important that the credibility ratings be understood and accepted by all (this unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case now, from what I read in your posts). In order to achieve this goal, it seemed to me (and it still seems) that it was a good idea to ask you to assign credibility ratings yourself, because you will surely understand it well if you have done yourselves.
So far, only one members (SezMe here) has given the two credibility ratings requested.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
If you have a large enough sample size and a low enough probability of guessing right, you don't need credibility.
Let's take a simple card out of a playing deck. That's a 1 in 52 chance of guessing correctly.
Then ask 104 people what card you've chosen. By chance, you might expect 2 correct answers from pure guessing.
Now, assume that you have the ability to send your thoughts to half of the people. If they all reported credibly, you'd get 52 right answers. But you are not naive. Assume that 90% of them, 9 out of 10, purposefully give the wrong answer. That still leaves you with 5 correct answers. 5 when you would expect 2.
Suppose you pick a three digit number. Three digits aren't that hard. The total 3 digit number (including ones that start with 0) are 1000.
If you asked 100 people to guess your three digit number, 500 of them actually receive the number, and 90% of them lie, you still have 50 correct answers. 50. When chance said you'd be lucky to get 1.
So, there are easy ways around this credibility "problem" you've imagined. You choose not to take them. The question you should ask yourself is why.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
...and obviously you are still completely innocent of sarcasm and humour. Here is a hint:
What will it take for you to "get it!"
Norm
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
In a post above, this appears:
Here is one part of your problem. You immediately consider a stated non believer to be less credible than one who states he is a believer in language you like. And yet, one thing you can be most certain of is that a non believer who bothers to take your test on your terms is acting honestly, and that a statement of non-belief is true. A believer will not give it, and a non believer who wants to pull your chain will make up a baloney answer that sounds like #2. You have it backwards.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
SezMe was not being serious. Your utter inability to detect sarcasm and/or humor is yet another reason why even if your credibility rating made sense (which it doesn't), you would be incapable of evaluating the answers.
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Honestly I think he's perfectly capable of understanding sarcasm/humor but chooses not to so he can neatly place into the collection of posts that, In his mind, confirm his ideas.
- Status