Paranormal detection

[reason1]

news:
As some people here are bothered with me inventing things, here is a hint for you : "patent pending" .

 

[H3LL]

380+ posts and 12 days.

These "long posts" do take a lot of writing.




.

 

[TSR]

news:
As some people here are bothered with me inventing things, here is a hint for you : "patent pending" .

The only thing I see that anyone has a problem with you inventing is new definitions for already common words, and excuses not to respond to the issues raised in this thread.

For example, how *do* you determine the starer's state of mind, such that you know whether their subconscious is engaged or not?

 

[reason1]

For example, how *do* you determine the starer's state of mind, such that you know whether their subconscious is engaged or not?

I don't need to determine anything.
When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't need to determine anything.
When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

There you go - inventing a meaningless definition of "staring". The dictionary definition of "stare" is " to gaze fixedly, esp.with eyes wide open." "Subconscious desires" are fictions that have nothing to do with the actual behavior.

 

[steenkh]

I don't need to determine anything.
When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

So if you succeed at the test, then people were staring at you, and if you do not succeed, you can blame it on people just looking at you, right?

 

[reason1]

So if you succeed at the test, then people were staring at you, and if you do not succeed, you can blame it on people just looking at you, right?

Give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't need to determine anything.
When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

1. Yes you do need to do something. You need to write up that lengthy post outlining your proposal and clarifying everything once and for all, so that you can proceed to THE BIG BUCKS THAT AWAIT YOUR SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE. Don't you want that million bucks, reason1. That's why you came here, clearly.

2. Alas, there you go with that pre-cast definition of staring, again. As mentioned more than a dozen times, now, you seem to be intentionally trying to make it impossible to test you.

Anyone looking at you without "desire to do so" can be dismissed as not staring. So you eliminate all misses in that category with the wave of a hand. And what scientific body is going to decide that? L'Acdemie de Staring de Lyon? I think they went out of business just after the Jacobin beheading of Pere Nicolas Des Yeux.

 

[reason1]

Anyone looking at you without "desire to do so" can be dismissed as not staring. So you eliminate all misses in that category with the wave of a hand. And what scientific body is going to decide that? L'Acdemie de Staring de Lyon? I think they went out of business just after the Jacobin beheading of Pere Nicolas Des Yeux.

Same question : give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Pere Nicolas Des Yeux? Deja vu, encore.

 

[Rodibidably]

Give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

Watching chick flicks with my wife...

 

[Rodibidably]

Same question : give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

Also there are MANY times when somebody will "stare" into space, not really looking at anything, and if something in their field of vision disturbes them (something moving into their field of vision, or something already there moving) it will "wake up" the "starer" and cause them to look away...

I tend to "stare" off into nothing many times when I am thinking about things unrelated to what is in front of me.
Sometimes I may happen to be looking in the direction of a person, sometimes it may be a wall, other times it may be the sky.
But in these cases, I am usually thinking about work or upcoming plans. The fact that I suddenly look away is because something disturbes my train of thought (somebody speaks, somebody in my fieldl of vision looks at me, something moves into my field of vision, etc).

 

[reason1]

Watching chick flicks with my wife...

exactly, it's acting/pretending/simulating , it's not normal staring that happens in every day life or specifically in public places in which random people are passing/wandering around .

 

[Rodibidably]

exactly, it's acting/pretending/simulating , it's not normal staring that happens in every day life or specifically in public places in which random people are passing/wandering around .

And check the post below that one...

*waits*

*waits*

I'm thinking there is a chance you might just learn something here. I'm not holding my breath or anything, but I do think there is a chance.

 

[reason1]

Also there are MANY times when somebody will "stare" into space, not really looking at anything, and if something in their field of vision disturbes them (something moving into their field of vision, or something already there moving) it will "wake up" the "starer" and cause them to look away...

I tend to "stare" off into nothing many times when I am thinking about things unrelated to what is in front of me.
Sometimes I may happen to be looking in the direction of a person, sometimes it may be a wall, other times it may be the sky.
But in these cases, I am usually thinking about work or upcoming plans. The fact that I suddenly look away is because something disturbes my train of thought (somebody speaks, somebody in my fieldl of vision looks at me, something moves into my field of vision, etc).

This is not even the dictionary definition of staring

 

[Rodibidably]

This is not even the dictionary definition of staring

But it is also EXACTLY what YOU HAVE DESCRIBED many times as your experience.

Please explain how this is different than your own experiences?

You turn and look at somebody
They look away quickly

 

[reason1]

But it is also EXACTLY what YOU HAVE DESCRIBED many times as your experience.

Please explain how this is different than your own experiences?

You turn and look at somebody
They look away quickly

It's all about the chances that this could happen at the same moment more than certain number of times.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Same question : give me an example of a situation in which you looked at something intensively for 10 seconds while you didn't have any interest in looking at that thing.

Well, I just saw it, here in Hong Kong. Just a few minutes ago.

What? You can't see it. Well, it's perfectly obvious to me that the person was staring with complete disinterest.

See how stupid this argument would be? "
You: No, that wasn't staring. They were only looking because they were told to.
Us: Nuh huh! Looking fixedly for more than X seconds is staring by all definitions.
You: Not by my definition.
Us: You're not qualified to define words.
You: (placing fingers in ears) La la la la caaaaant heaaaaar youuuuu!

 

[TSR]

I don't need to determine anything.
When people stare at something , they are doing this because they have a subconscious desire to do so, as when you look at something weird, unusual, new, beautiful or of special interest to you

And this is different from when they stare because they are interested in the testing ... how, exactly?

You *were* the one trying to claim "Looking at something intensively for the sake of demonstrating a test is NOT staring (acting/passive), and that involves only the conscious level, you don't have any desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity to do so,it's boring and doesn't happen in normal every day life," right?

So, how do you determine this "desire, subconscious motivation or curiosity" is present in one case, but in another it only involves "the conscious level," whatever you mean by that?

 

[Jackalgirl]

exactly, it's acting/pretending/simulating , it's not normal staring that happens in every day life or specifically in public places in which random people are passing/wandering around .

The problem is, how do we determine whether the person whom you detect was doing one or the other? Because you're talking about intent, which can't be objectively verified. The best you can do is ask and hope that the person is being truthful with his or her answer, but there's no real objective way to test that.

Also, there's no real objective way to test whether or not you have "missed". For example, if you say "that person was staring at me and I detected him" and we ask the person "were you looking at reason1?" and the person says "no, I was gazing at the potted rhodadendron (sp?) on the other side of reason1, thinking about current politics". Would you accept that answer, if you were SURE he was staring at you, or would you claim that he is lying and claim it as a hit? How could we confirm, objectively, that he is lying (or not)?

Also, I still don't recall seeing anything from you that describes the nitty gritty of what would be required to objectively verify your claim. The closest that I can get, imagination-wise, would be next to impossible to pull off because of the complexity involved in trying to take objective measurements in a public space.

UncaYimmy's protocol -- the one involving hats -- is a LOT simpler and would be a LOT more practical. It's actually doable. Do you have any particular objections to his protocol?

Because if you still insist on a public setting with no independent, objective means of verification, then you might as well give up now.

Another question, and this isn't meant in a mocking way -- are you familiar with the Invisible Dragon analogy (as written by Carl Sagan in his book "Demon-Haunted World")?