Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Michel H]

Michel, did you post a letter in the past week and start thinking about stamps? Because I got a sudden urge to buy this:

[qimg]http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae113/joel1k/joel1k002/Peaceclockgivep.jpg[/qimg]

I wonder whether or not your telepathic power is suddenly urging me to buy stamps from Belgium.

Norm

Well, who knows?, could be... This is a stamp from 1963, before the euro.

 

[Michel H]

OK, I will give you two different answers to the questions.

One of the question's credibility is 3.999999999
The other question's credibility is 4.000000001

Is that better? If you don't like this one, I can give you another answer. Which answer would you prefer? Tell me and I will give you the answer you want if that will make it easier.

Norm

I don't think I can tell you how you should answer, this would make this research look unscientific and criticizable. But, I can tell you that I like this answer better than the previous one, because the two ratings are different now.

 

[phunk]

Perhaps this is what happened in your imaginary skeptical world, but this is not at all what happened in reality (these Flemish people from the police, here in Zaventem, are very serious). Actually, at the beginning of the criminal justice process back in 1999, I got a visit in my home by the assistant commissioner of the local police, who first argued to me that they could not intervene in such psychic issues ("of people talking nastily into a person's head using telepathy") "because thinking is free, and it cannot be controlled" (later, however, another police officer told me on the phone they would do an inquiry; even later, however, they took me to the local hospital, and the "inquiry" collapsed, as I have explained). During the conversation with the assistant commissioner, he did not "humor me" at all, and at no time, did he say that people were actually not talking in my head, and that this was just some mental disease (but, remember, I was then supported by psychiatrists, until they changed their mind, somewhat like Loss Leader on this forum).

I'm not sure you know what "humor" means in this context. What you describe, them acting like they were taking you seriously right until they took you to the hospital, is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[phunk]

Thank you for showing some compassion with respect to my situation, Giordano, I appreciate it. But, if you wish me happiness, don't you think it might be a good idea that you answer my question in post 1674 (please give also ratings, see the beginning of post 1755)? I think this would be important to move forward. And I ask the same thing to the other posters in this thread: MikeG, phunk, Crossbow, Nonpareil, Gord in Toronto, Squeegee Beckenheim, turingtest, Lanzy, Loss Leader, bruto, abaddon, dlorde, Ladewig, Nay Sayer, theprestige, AdMan, Pixel42, Akhenaten, Daylightstar (not to SezMe and to fromdownunder, who have already answered and given their ratings). Don't you think it would be useful that you make your contribution to my scientific research project, which has been praised several times (although there also has been criticism), instead of just attacking and criticizing? (you don't have to adhere to my views to participate constructively). My goal is (as usual) to make this project more rigorous, and better accepted, not "sloppier".

My answer to #1674 was in #1676.

 

[phunk]

I am not a "typical schizophrenic", because "typical schizophrenics" don't have a Ph.D. in physics degree from a large U.S. university (as far as I know). And if you look at the answers I have received in my tests, some of them are clearly not typical either (post 1726).

Why do you think that a PhD makes you immune to mental illness?

 

[turingtest]

Thank you for showing some compassion with respect to my situation, Giordano, I appreciate it. But, if you wish me happiness, don't you think it might be a good idea that you answer my question in post 1674 (please give also ratings, see the beginning of post 1755)? I think this would be important to move forward. And I ask the same thing to the other posters in this thread: MikeG, phunk, Crossbow, Nonpareil, Gord in Toronto, Squeegee Beckenheim, turingtest, Lanzy, Loss Leader, bruto, abaddon, dlorde, Ladewig, Nay Sayer, theprestige, AdMan, Pixel42, Akhenaten, Daylightstar (not to SezMe and to fromdownunder, who have already answered and given their ratings). Don't you think it would be useful that you make your contribution to my scientific research project, which has been praised several times (although there also has been criticism), instead of just attacking and criticizing? (you don't have to adhere to my views to participate constructively). My goal is (as usual) to make this project more rigorous, and better accepted, not "sloppier".

Michel, you don't have a "scientific research project," and I won't contribute in any way to your delusion. (This is assuming that an honest delusion is what's really going on here, and not all just trolling on your part; it wouldn't make any difference, since feeding one would be just as pointless as feeding the other)

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't accept that my beliefs are "irrational", because I think there is a basis for them. However, I am still open to the idea that I could not be telepathic after all, that the explanation for what I am experiencing is different (though I think this is unlikely). I am not sure that visiting (again) psychiatrists to talk about my feeling of persecution might be useful, because my hypothetical "telepathy" is still not accepted by society (strong suspicion of global criminal phenomenon). If it is just to learn that they now are lying even more than last time, and that they have developed even more powerful dangerous pseudo-medications, then, no, thank you. They can keep them for themselves.

I have had the very interesting experience myself of temporarily becoming psychotic. ICU Psychosis sets in after major surgeries when the patient is deprived of sufficient stimulation (conversation, tv, regular sleep, even daylight).

I was certain that my family was trying to kill me. I heard a crying baby. I thought I was being held prisoner by the Nazis.

The amazing thing is how hard my brain worked to maintain its delusion. I perceived everything correctly; I just assigned the wrong meaning to it. During that time, anything that was said or done to help me was interpreted as harm. I could not be reasoned out of it.

Before a second surgery, I recorded a message to myself on my phone saying that everything was fine and that I should trust my doctors. Even seeing myself and remembering making the message, it still freaked me the hell out. It was lucky for my phone that someone else was holding it.

I spent hours strapped down because I would pull out my lines if I weren't.

Luckily, rest and recuperation resolved the problem and my paranoia slowly faded away. In fact, I had a hard time believing I had done the things I had.

The point is that a sick person cannot be reasoned with. Cannot. Everything is translated by the brain incorrectly. He cannot be indulged, he cannot be made fun of - absolutely nothing will work. The only thing that can be done is to wish that circumstances put him in the care of people who can help him.

Such is my wish for Michel.

 

[Michel H]

My answer to #1674 was in #1676.

When somebody asks you: "Which one is more credible, A or B?", and you answer "Neither one", I don't think you have really (fully) answered. Even if they're both not-credible, one could be even less credible than the other (I admit, however, that is not completely obvious, especially if you have not seen my previous tests). However, the reason you gave makes me wonder if you really think none of the answers in #1674 are credible.

In addition, you gave no credibility rating (see the beginning of post 1755) You can give two negative credibility ratings, if you want.

 

[Ladewig]

Why do you find that to be an oddity?

If there were a man. And that man a a core belief - a defining belief - about his powers and abilities. And the vast, vast majority of the world refused to recognize these powers, then would not the logical and expected thing be for that man to try to convince everyone else that he is right in his beliefs and the world is wrong to doubt his powers and abilities?

If such a belief were all-consuming, then such a Person would be prepared to break the rules of logic and reasoning to prove the validity of his beliefs. Any "short-cuts" on the way to proof would be defined as necessary and appropriate.

But that man believes that everybody else already knows he is right, because they can hear his thoughts. So what he's actually trying to prove is that everybody else is lying when they say they can't hear his thoughts, using a test that relies on the assumption that some of them will mysteriously choose not to lie in such a test.

Yes.

And as I said
If such a belief were all-consuming, then such a person would be prepared to break the rules of logic and reasoning to prove the validity of his beliefs.

If such a belief crashes into the rules of logic, then the belief emerges unscathed and the rules of logic are damaged to the point of uselessness.

 

[Ladewig]

One reason is that people who deny that I am telepathic frequently display some kind of aggressivity or violence, and are therefore less credible. And this brings me back to the essential concept of credibility, about which I created this thread. Another reason is that my mother once told me very seriously and kindly that I was "telepathic", and I have only one mother (later, she proved it in telepathy tests, that she has refused to repeat). It seems very hard to imagine that my mother, who is a serious person (she apparently once obtained a patent for a nuclear engineering company) would have said such a thing without basis.

Science has shown many, many times that both completly healthy and somewhat sick people each can have very vivid and clear memories of events that have never happened. It is the nature of the human brain. Using one's own mind to judge the soundness of one's own mind is useless.

 

[bruto]

When somebody asks you: "Which one is more credible, A or B?", and you answer "Neither one", I don't think you have really (fully) answered. Even if they're both not-credible, one could be even less credible than the other (I admit, however, that is not completely obvious, especially if you have not seen my previous tests). However, the reason you gave makes me wonder if you really think none of the answers in #1674 are credible.

In addition, you gave no credibility rating (see the beginning of post 1755) You can give two negative credibility ratings, if you want.

I gave an answer but you did not like it. I will give it again, perhaps in a different form you will like. Assuming a credibility rating of 0 to 10, I would rate the first answer (a person who says he does not believe in telepathy and therefore gives a random answer) at 10. He has played the game by its rules and answered the question honestly. You know exactly what he has done.

The second answer is baloney. I would give it a credibility rating of about 2, just to be kind to the few crackpots who are not pulling your leg. Otherwise, I believe it's almost certain that the answers are either in jest or in error, and because all jests will end up in this category rather than the first, its credibility must be less.

Now of course I don't expect you to like that answer, but it is given honestly. I think your test will always be rigged to favor the results you wish for, that credibility ratings are entirely counterproductive, and that you will never be convinced to evaluate honest results honestly because an honest test will fail.

 

[theprestige]

I actually did tests with friends about 20 years ago, but the results were not great.

If you can't even get it to work with friends, then I conclude that liars aren't your real problem.

 

[Michel H]

... I will give it again, perhaps in a different form you will like. Assuming a credibility rating of 0 to 10, I would rate the first answer (a person who says he does not believe in telepathy and therefore gives a random answer) at 10. He has played the game by its rules and answered the question honestly. You know exactly what he has done.

The second answer is baloney. I would give it a credibility rating of about 2, just to be kind to the few crackpots who are not pulling your leg. Otherwise, I believe it's almost certain that the answers are either in jest or in error, and because all jests will end up in this category rather than the first, its credibility must be less.

Now of course I don't expect you to like that answer, but it is given honestly. I think your test will always be rigged to favor the results you wish for, that credibility ratings are entirely counterproductive, and that you will never be convinced to evaluate honest results honestly because an honest test will fail.

Assuming a credibility rating of 0 to 10

You should not assume a credibility rating between 0 and 10, but between -10 and 10, bruto. I explained this, see about the middle of post 1755.

I would rate the first answer (a person who says he does not believe in telepathy and therefore gives a random answer) at 10. He has played the game by its rules and answered the question honestly. You know exactly what he has done.

I said, towards the end of the opening post of this new "logical thread", in post 1674, that

...I am not asking here which answer (in the sense of "set of words") is more credible, but, rather, which numerical answer is more credible, taking the words into account.

(it is possible, though, that I should have been clearer about this in my later posts). The credibility ratings I am requesting from you apply, not to answers (as "set of words"), but to the numbers given (i.e. "3", for the first answer in post 1674, and "2" for the second answer).
Are you really sure you want to deem reliable the "3" given in the first answer, when its author says himself/herself that "this is a completely random choice"? (other members, do you agree?)

I would give it a credibility rating of about 2, just to be kind to the few crackpots who are not pulling your leg.

There seems to be an internal contradiction in this sentences: on the hand, they are "crackpots" (bad), but on the other hand, they "are not pulling my leg" (good). I am afraid this is not very good for your own credibility, bruto.

...it's almost certain that the answers are either in jest or in error

What?? You gave a credibility rating of 10 to the first answer, and now you're saying it's almost certain it's in jest or in error!!??!! This really doesn't make any sense to me.

because all jests will end up in this category rather than the first, its credibility must be less

I don't understand this sentence, it seems very obscure to me.

Now of course I don't expect you to like that answer...

I think what is important is more its quality, than whether I like it or not.
So, I think your answer is an improvement, because you gave two credibility ratings with some explanations, but is still very unsatisfactory, unfortunately, for the reasons I have explained (I did not say: "Well, I don't like your answer, so I can only say it is bad").

 

[Akhenaten]

<drivel>


I think what is important is more its quality, than whether I like it or not.

This is exactly the opposite of what this entire sad thread has demonstrated.

 

[Michel H]

This is exactly the opposite of what this entire sad thread has demonstrated.

Yes, sure. But, apparently, the only reason you are able to give (in your latest post at least) is to replace most of my post by the word "drivel". This will not convince me that I am wrong, and such kind of "argument" would probably not impress the editorial committee of Nature either.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, sure. But, apparently, the only reason you are able to give (in your latest post at least) is to replace most of my post by the word "drivel".

Reason? I have no idea of the reason.

Just calling it as I see it.

This will not convince me that I am wrong, and such kind of "argument" would probably not impress the editorial committee of Nature either.

Nothing will convince you that you're wrong.

Meh.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Science has shown many, many times that both completly healthy and somewhat sick people each can have very vivid and clear memories of events that have never happened. It is the nature of the human brain. Using one's own mind to judge the soundness of one's own mind is useless.

I'd like to support this with a personal story; I have a crystal clear old memory of being about 6 years old and visiting an aunt in Texas, I remember the house being tan with dark red roof shingles and a wooden door with a circle carved in it. I can recall how the interior looked, the 50's style kitchen, puke green rug in the living room and the small backyard with a broken swing.

I can even recall the dinner we had there, Mac and cheese, mash potatoes and peas.

Problem is, This never happened, None of my relatives live in Texas nor anywhere close to it. I have asked at every family gathering if anyone ever had a house the way I described, no dice.

I have given myself the explaination that it was a vivid dream that I mistook for a actual memory.

 

[Ray Brady]

I have given myself the explaination that it was a vivid dream that I mistook for a actual memory.

I have a recurring dream of living in an apartment that I have never been in. I know the exact layout of this fictitious apartment, and every time I have the dream, I wake up convinced that it's a real place I used to live in. Every single time, it takes several minutes for me to remember that the place is entirely a figment of my imagination.

 

[Giordano]

I can only add that one's beliefs seem very "real" but can be entirely made up by the brain, and that the easiest person to fool is oneself. I have dealt with this in my own case (where luckily it was modest and didn't require medical help) and in certain loved friends and family that had very dysfunctional views of the world. It all of these latter cases, the individual who had the odd view was wrong, but completely believed that they were right and everyone else was wrong. In all cases professionals helped them recognize that they were convinced about something that was not real. It was not brain-washing, it was being helped so that the friend or family member could see things for themselves. The individuals with the problems were all highly intelligent (taking me out of the story), often with advanced academic degrees. Yes, certain people may lie (some people may have a very different view of Obama's birthplace than others), but when almost all other people from different backgrounds have the same view, and it it wildly different from your own, you should seriously consider that they are right and you are wrong and seek help.

 

[Giordano]

I have a recurring dream of living in an apartment that I have never been in. I know the exact layout of this fictitious apartment, and every time I have the dream, I wake up convinced that it's a real place I used to live in. Every single time, it takes several minutes for me to remember that the place is entirely a figment of my imagination.

In my dream, there is a door on one side of the apartment that leads to many additional rooms that, in the dream, I never knew about. They were average rooms, but many more of them than in the apartment I knew about when I was awake. This dream has been so realistic that on waking, I would sometimes look for this door and the rooms behind it. Needless to say, they were never there,