Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.
Click to expand...

I find that very hard to belive.
 
After going back and re-reading the OP, and then hearing the author has a Ph.D. in physics...now i pray that someone like Stephen Hawking, in trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, doesnt use convoluted protocols like our telepathy author. To the author: Ever google something like ``good ways to test for telepathy``? Here is MY test: ``What am i thinking of right now?`` the end. Lol. Anyone care to guess? I will repeatedly be concentrating on this using my brain only. We wouldnt want to start an argument that either my pen or paper i wrote a number down on is really telepathic. Lol.
 
Iamme said:
After going back and re-reading the OP, and then hearing the author has a Ph.D. in physics...now i pray that someone like Stephen Hawking, in trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, doesnt use convoluted protocols like our telepathy author. To the author: Ever google something like ``good ways to test for telepathy``? Here is MY test: ``What am i thinking of right now?`` the end. Lol. Anyone care to guess? I will repeatedly be concentrating on this using my brain only. We wouldnt want to start an argument that either my pen or paper i wrote a number down on is really telepathic. Lol.
Click to expand...

You only heard a claim. Whether it is true or not is debatable.
 
Michel H said:
Although, saying I'll learn anything from this is perhaps a far cry... ;)
Click to expand...

Michel, are you interested in determining whether you actually have some sort of ESP ability? Or are you more interested in only proving to yourself that you do?

Designing a test with such a small sample size, with such a non-random and small set of target objects, and giving yourself such a subjective way to "judge" the results after you know the answers can only mean that you know you have no telepathic ability.

Would you like to do a proper test?
 
Dafydd, if he really has that degree....heaven help us all. Btw, every now and then i repeatedly think of that which i`d like any of you to try to guess at. To all---the trouble is with a thinking test, at least on a one first shot attempt is...someone could guess some other thought i`ve had in my brain lately, like say...um...well, maybe i`d better not say. Well, then that is where repeat testings come in. Even with tests where people are in 2 separate rooms looking at pictures in a picture book(classic telepathy test), the person guessing might have chose an incorrect picture, but the incorrect choice might be that of which the `sender` had tossed around in his/her mind for a while. Hence, many repeat tests need to be done, even if INCorrect choices were made, because there could even be partial validation in those, especially if the reciever guessed final chosen correct ones on top of it. And here is something else ---can any distinct line be drawn separating telepathy from psychic? For example, what if a person cant guess what im thinking for the actual test, yet told me im in bed right now, but just got up to get a swig of prune juice...and i did! That would really set off the woo alarms i bet.
 
Iamme said:
For example, what if a person cant guess what im thinking for the actual test, yet told me im in bed right now, but just got up to get a swig of prune juice...and i did! That would really set off the woo alarms i bet.
Click to expand...
That would set off my "hidden camera" alarms! ;)
 
Iamme said:
... And here is something else ---can any distinct line be drawn separating telepathy from psychic? For example, what if a person cant guess what im thinking for the actual test, yet told me im in bed right now, but just got up to get a swig of prune juice...and i did! That would really set off the woo alarms i bet.
Click to expand...
This is a problem with the paranormal - when something is defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is (e.g. telepathy - communication by no known means), it's impossible to devise properly controlled tests. For example, how do you distinguish telepathy from clairvoyance, remote viewing, precognition, the universal subconscious, magic, witchcraft, divine intervention, etc. ?

James Cunningham, on the Veridicality of Dream Psi thread, posted a very useful article by James Alcock, about the problems with psi & research into it, called "Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance".
 
Michel H said:
No, I don't have "credibility protocols".
This is an example of an answer I found credible:
, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:

I think it is likely I am not the only one who can come to these conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think this is quite telling.

Without your credibility system, the results of your tests show your telepathy works no better than random chance. But you don't actually have a system. You make up rules after the fact. And this ONLY helps when you have the knowledge necessary to modify the results in your favor.
 
Michel H said:
No, no, I am not saying that sending a message in a unexpected wording changes anything in this tendency I apparently have, to involuntarily send "thoughts" into the minds of people (remote or not).
Click to expand...

ap·par·ent (-prnt, -pâr-)
adj.
1. Readily seen; visible.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apparently

Considering your endless excuses you design to explain why your telepathy always fails, I'm not sure what you mean by "apparently".

But I do think you need to explain what is going on here then. You are saying you now need to know what people say to each other after the fact before you can decide whether their answers to your test should be included in the results. Why?

And really, how can anyone participate when the rules they are supposed to abide by are create by you after the test and after you have seen their answers? How can they try to be credible there are no protocols for credibility? How can they know what not to say to other people privately after the test if there are no protocols for what people are allowed to discuss?

Would you agree to be tested under those conditions? You send out a number, and then, later, we decide what your number really was based on rules we made up for our own purposes?

Would you take medicine which was evaluated by researchers who behaved the way you are? "Our pills killed zero percent of the people in our trials, after we removed most people from our study."
 
dafydd said:
Drink enough prune juice and that will set off something else.
Click to expand...

Hahaha....believe me, it has! But you have to admit, that be prettu impressive, and confusing, if a person couldnt pick a number, but displayed some power that they could tell a person what they were doing. Maybe i thought of this scenario from watching John Edward too much, some years ago.
 
dafydd said:
Iamme said:
After going back and re-reading the OP, and then hearing the author has a Ph.D. in physics...now i pray that someone like Stephen Hawking, in trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, doesnt use convoluted protocols like our telepathy author. ...
Click to expand...
You only heard a claim. Whether it is true or not is debatable.
Click to expand...
Here is a photo of my diploma:


It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Now, don't exaggerate the importance of this degree, I think it is unreasonable to judge a person from just a degree. There may be lots of good people with no university or college degree.
 
Michel H said:
Here is a photo of my diploma:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5799352800a99025c0.png[/qimg]
It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Now, don't exaggerate the importance of this degree, I think it is unreasonable to judge a person from just a degree. There may be lots of good people with no university or college degree.
Click to expand...

Physics =/= philosophy

However for once I agree with you.
 
Michel H said:
Here is a photo of my diploma:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5799352800a99025c0.png[/qimg]
It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Now, don't exaggerate the importance of this degree, I think it is unreasonable to judge a person from just a degree. There may be lots of good people with no university or college degree.
Click to expand...

What happened to you? Why have you ditched science?
 
Michel H said:
Here is a photo of my diploma:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=28990http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5799352800a99025c0.png
It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Click to expand...

What about a scan of this degree?

Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.
Click to expand...

Norm
 
Michel H said:
Why do you want a scan, Mister Never-Satisfied?, can't you read it?, do you think it's not legible? I have no image scanner at home.
Click to expand...

Because you earlier claimed a Physics degree, and you posted a Philosophy degree. You do know that there is a difference?

Norm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom