Paranormal detection

[Czarcasm]

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.

Again, seriously-studying for Biology finals. I stared at the textbook for hours, though I had no interest in doing so.

 

[Moochie]

Cacakoka ... Julunggul ... I just can't keep up as a Paranormal Claimant. I can't make up funny words like this. I just can't do it.

It's all potrzebie to me.


M.

 

[Czarcasm]

"Cacakoka" is kinda long-mind if I shorten it up a bit?

 

[Paul2]

Miss_Kitt: "If you have not done such inquiries, why do you believe that such an emotional state (or intention) on the starer's part is required?"

R1: "because this is how I've always experienced my ability"

R1, your answer is absolutely no answer to Miss Kitt's question. Again:

"How do you know what the mental state/intent of the starers you have previously detected was?"

You're assuming the mental state had to be so-and-so because of the results you got (your experiences), but you're then using those results (your experiences) to say it had to be so-and-so.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

[B]You be the Judge[/B]

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.

Staring contest with an ugly guy.

People being told to stare at a MDC applicant, as part of a MDC test

Studying for a Biology test.

Then:

reason1 -- I have a basic question for you. On the question of your reported difference on your ability of "staring" versus "passive staring":

How do you know what the mental state/intent of the starers you have previously detected was?

If you did not talk to them or question them; if you only turned towards a direction in which you 'felt a starer', how do you know that they were staring and not just disinterestedly looking?

These are serious questions, and unless you can answer them, you don't have any evidence that there is a stare/passive stare issue at all. You seem to be assuming that the starers you feel are somehow different, and you ascribe an emotional content to their gaze; but if you have never been able to ask them, how do you know what their emotional or intent state was?

Hi,
i don't know if you are following the thread but here is the question again for you :
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.

Seems like you're the one not following the thread

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Reason1--I have been following this thread from the beginning. I have not seen anywhere that you have answered my question, which has tremendous bearing on how testable your ability is.

You claim you have "experienced" your ability with people staring in a particular way; but if you have not asked them what their psycho-emotional state was when they were staring at you, how do you know what it was? Saying, "I felt it" is no evidence at all. It just adds a second claim, "I can detect the emotional state of strangers" to your original claim; and, again, you have not even checked for your own curiosity's sake to see if this assumption is true.

In order to make the extensive claims about the nature of 'staring' versus 'passive staring' that you have made, you need to provide evidence. Asking people to provide counter-examples is not providing evidence. The basic rule of rational discussion is, The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive.* You are asserting that there are two kinds of what the dictionary and experience describes as "staring" -- where is your evidence? Further, you say a particular mental state of the starer is necessary for your ability to function; you need to document that. It is not up to the bystander to disprove your claim; it is up to you to prove it.

If you can't get that difference down, this whole discussion is pointless, as is any attempt at the MDC. You have to provide proof; the base assumption is not that you are correct.

Yours, Miss Kitt


* It is logically impossible to disprove an arbitrary assertion, for it can be supported by any number of further arbitrary assertions. Thus, "There is an invisible man standing behind you," could be amended with, "He's moving out of the way, that's why you can't touch him," and "He's levitating, that's why he has made no footprints" and so on indefinitely.

 

[reason1]

Reason1--I have been following this thread from the beginning. I have not seen anywhere that you have answered my question, which has tremendous bearing on how testable your ability is.

You claim you have "experienced" your ability with people staring in a particular way; but if you have not asked them what their psycho-emotional state was when they were staring at you, how do you know what it was? Saying, "I felt it" is no evidence at all. It just adds a second claim, "I can detect the emotional state of strangers" to your original claim; and, again, you have not even checked for your own curiosity's sake to see if this assumption is true.

In order to make the extensive claims about the nature of 'staring' versus 'passive staring' that you have made, you need to provide evidence. Asking people to provide counter-examples is not providing evidence. The basic rule of rational discussion is, The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive.* You are asserting that there are two kinds of what the dictionary and experience describes as "staring" -- where is your evidence? Further, you say a particular mental state of the starer is necessary for your ability to function; you need to document that. It is not up to the bystander to disprove your claim; it is up to you to prove it.

If you can't get that difference down, this whole discussion is pointless, as is any attempt at the MDC. You have to provide proof; the base assumption is not that you are correct.

Yours, Miss Kitt


* It is logically impossible to disprove an arbitrary assertion, for it can be supported by any number of further arbitrary assertions. Thus, "There is an invisible man standing behind you," could be amended with, "He's moving out of the way, that's why you can't touch him," and "He's levitating, that's why he has made no footprints" and so on indefinitely.

Miss_Kitt: "If you have not done such inquiries, why do you believe that such an emotional state (or intention) on the starer's part is required?"

R1: "because this is how I've always experienced my ability"

R1, your answer is absolutely no answer to Miss Kitt's question. Again:

"How do you know what the mental state/intent of the starers you have previously detected was?"

You're assuming the mental state had to be so-and-so because of the results you got (your experiences), but you're then using those results (your experiences) to say it had to be so-and-so.

but how do you know this is true, if you haven't made those inquiries? You seem to be making an .... 'assumption' of sorts - one that allows you a lot of wiggle room when confirmation bias is shown to be at play.

Hi,
I'm not making an assumption here , because in normal life situations no one will stare at someone without having an interest in doing so.
I mean what are the chances that the starers were testing my detection ability or for example, casting a magic/curse spell on me.

Also their lame attempt to avoid being caught staring , which actually proves that they were doing so, when if they just averted only their eyes , it wouldn't have proven anything. In fact if they kept looking for one more second , also it wouldn't have proven the staring desire.

most of those people realized that reflexing their face away was a (subconscious) mistake, and when they stared again, they didn't repeat it (because they became more conscious about it).
It's like when you are unaware and you touch something which happens to be quite hot , you (subconsciously) reflex your hand away before even (consciously) knowing that it's actually hot.
Subconscious reflexes are fast (but can be mistaken) and can save your life before consciously identifying the danger which is slower.

Television, whenever I see one that's switched on. I'll stare at them intensively for far longer than 10 seconds and on looking away I'd be unable to tell you what brand, or even what colour the set was.

You were not staring at the television but at the programing itself.

Again, seriously-studying for Biology finals. I stared at the textbook for hours, though I had no interest in doing so.

You had interest in reading the words to pass Biology finals didn't you ?
You just didn't like studying it.

Or you were just trying to make the book pages flip using only the power of mind ????

 

[arthwollipot]

I've had to skip quite a bit to catch up on this thread. Have we progressed anywhere since I last looked in about 200 posts ago?

 

[TSR]

I've had to skip quite a bit to catch up on this thread. Have we progressed anywhere since I last looked in about 200 posts ago?

No

 

[Czarcasm]

I've had to skip quite a bit to catch up on this thread. Have we progressed anywhere since I last looked in about 200 posts ago?

One step forward, two steps back.

 

[reason1]

I've had to skip quite a bit to catch up on this thread. Have we progressed anywhere since I last looked in about 200 posts ago?

yea...I've made a good progress, but some people will consciously disagree

 

[TSR]

Hi,

I'm not making an assumption here , because in normal life situations no one will stare at someone without having an interest in doing so.

But you have stated that an interest in the results of the test is not sufficient.

Could you document how that interest is objectively different than any other interest, such that it becomes "active staring?"

 

[reason1]

arthwollipot:
Check UncaYimmy posts in page 11, and you will know.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Hi,
I'm not making an assumption here , because in normal life situations no one will stare at someone without having an interest in doing so.

An assertion without evidence is an assumption, even if you say it's not.

I mean what are the chances that the starers were testing my detection ability or for example, casting a magic/curse spell on me.

What are the chances that they were lost in thought and ignoring what their eyes see? I say very good.

Also their lame attempt to avoid being caught staring , which actually proves that they were doing so, when if they just averted only their eyes , it wouldn't have proven anything. In fact if they kept looking for one more second , also it wouldn't have proven the staring desire.

This is another assertion without evidence.

most of those people realized that reflexing their face away was a (subconscious) mistake, and when they stared again, they didn't repeat it (because they they became more conscious about it).

This is another assertion without evidence.

It's like when you are unaware and you touch something which happens to be quite hot , you (subconsciously) reflex your hand away before even (consciously) knowing that it's actually hot.

This is another assertion without evidence.

Here's the thing, Reason1. You may be right in your assertions, but you have no evidence. What possible tests could we run to test your assertions and prove them false? The biggest problem here is these assertions, which none of us here seem to accept as valid. You'll need to prove your case.

Or you could read over my protocol and stipulate that I set up a condition that makes staring as you define it very likely. Then we can ignore your assertions.

It really does boil down to just those two options at this point.

 

[reason1]

But you have stated that an interest in the results of the test is not sufficient.

yea...if someone has interest only in the results, he/she would stare at the results, not at me.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

So, r1, what you're in essence saying with your is that you have no idea what the person was thinking, but you have an elaborate series of rationalizations. You have no evidence whatsoever, just your own untested assertions.

Game over, dude. Come back when you have managed to find a clue. It's too bad, I like helping people design their protocols, but you seem completely uninterested in actually doing any testing.

 

[arthwollipot]

arthwollipot:
Check UncaYimmy posts in page 11, and you will know.

I have my display set to 10 posts per page. What post number was it?

 

[reason1]

I have my display set to 10 posts per page. What post number was it?

Hi,
check the highlighted text (i'm not quoting whole posts)

You guys keep getting hung up on this "not counting the misses" thing when, as I've explained more than once, it's not even a consideration at this point. There are plenty of scenarios where a failure to detect is not particularly relevant.....

Who cares if Reason1 thinks that only 10 sixes were "really" rolled instead of 20? What possible relevance would it have to the overall result, which is statistically very unlikely given no false positives? His "beliefs" about what constitutes a "real" or "fake" six don't change the results in the scenario I described. It would still be an amazing feat correctly predicting half the sixes that were rolled and never predicting a six that didn't come up. You could make a buttload of money in Vegas with that advantage....

I don't disagree with you. If it seems like it, that's only because I am not articulating my point well enough. In the "guessing sixes" scenario the data would be:
10 Hits
10 Misses
0 False Alarms
80 Correct Rejections

That would clearly disprove a claim of being able to detect sixes 100% of the time. At the same time it would lead me to investigate further because it looks like there is some sort of ability there or just very good luck.

I think there's a communication issue. In a back-handed way Reason1 seems to have a tiny grasp of signal detection. I base that on this statement:

It's all about the chances that two reflexes which are opposite in direction could happen at the same moment more than certain number of times. testers/observers can easily calculate that , mathematics are objective.

and

I did say that it's impossible for the observers to count any misses because it's not self-evident but irrelevant to success in regard to the test because the hits are actually self-evident

What he's saying is that if he turns his head reflexively and someone in his new line of sight does so at the same time, this is a rare event. Thus, given a sufficient number of rare events, there must be something there. There's a germ of truth to that, but the problem lies in the assumption that simultaneous reflexes are rare events. What he describes is ordinary and even expected.

To illustrate that point, suppose that instead of the "starer" reflexively turning away the "starer" shouted, "The Lord smites me!" and collapsed in a heap. If this happened every time Reason1 reflexively detected a "starer" and "beamed" this subconscious command, we'd all be amazed. Would we be getting hung up on the same things we're hung up on now? I doubt it.

UncaYimmy is just amazing, don't you think ?

So, r1, what you're in essence saying with your is that you have no idea what the person was thinking, but you have an elaborate series of rationalizations. You have no evidence whatsoever, just your own untested assertions.

Game over, dude. Come back when you have managed to find a clue. It's too bad, I like helping people design their protocols, but you seem completely uninterested in actually doing any testing.

Why are being on the defensive ma'am ???!!!!!.
where are my words that you think are nonsense ??....just quote ma'am...maybe there is misunderstanding....explain using logical discussion.
you are claiming that i'm not giving any evidence while throwing accusations at me without giving even one.

just quote me ma'am...just quote me !!!!!!!!!!!!!
do as other objective members like UncaYimmy did !!!!

 

[Akhenaten]

Television, whenever I see one that's switched on. I'll stare at them intensively for far longer than 10 seconds and on looking away I'd be unable to tell you what brand, or even what colour the set was.

You were not staring at the television but at the programing itself.

If I accept this point then I would also have to accept that people weren't staring at you either, but at the activity you were performing.


Fortunately I don't need to accept such childish and poorly thought-out drivel at all, so I'm good.

 

[reason1]

If I accept this point then I would also have to accept that people aren't staring at you either, but at the activity you were performing.


Fortunately I don't need to accept such childish and poorly thought-out drivel at all, so I'm good.

Hi,
let me explain it more :
It's like when you're sitting in your room while the window is open, a big plane is passing that catches your attention for a while.
what would you be staring at in this situation ?... the window or the plane ?
of course the plane..
you are staring at the plane through the window, just as you stare at things through the television...OK man ????