• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paranormal detection

Miss_Kitt said:
So, r1, what you're in essence saying with your :words: 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.
Click to expand...


reason1 said:
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 !!!!
Click to expand...


Here you go:

reason1 said:
I have the ability to detect when someone stares at me even from behind.
Click to expand...


The nonsense starts there. Quoting all of your posts would be flooding, so I'd better not do that, but it WOULD be a more complete answer.

I feel no need to waste logic in order to demonstrate that this is nonsense and that's the beauty of some things being self-evident, I guess. We are able to take logical shortcuts, so to speak.

What you've discovered is more in the nature of a logical bypass.



@ Miss Kitt. Please excuse me for jumping in ;)
 
reason1 said:
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).
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption. You did not determine by asking whether these people were staring at you, in your general direction, at something near you, nor what their state of mind was at the time. When they look away it could have been cioncidence, or that the movement of your head toward them snapped them out of a daydream, or indeed that they then looked away from you as you stated - but you can't know which. They may not even have been staring at you at all - they may have been looking around them, and just caught your eye as you moved your head round.
 
reason1 said:
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 ????
Click to expand...


As usual, you aren't explaining anything, since I already know how stuff works.

Now look at the text which I have bolded in the above quote. The whole point, young fellow, is that you have no way of knowing this. How do you know I'm not a fenestrophile? How do you know I'm not staring at someone IN the plane? Hmm?
 
Last edited:
Reason1, this is just getting pathetic. I suggest you read up on the invisible dragon-analogy like jackalgirl suggested in post #400. You will find a religous version here, Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot. As for your strange definition of staring, I would also suggest you read up on the True Scotsman-fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman_fallacy. Your "definition" makes your claim a tautology.

And I assure you, I don't think anyone is impressed with your reasoning at this point.

I would suggest you do some of the tests proposed in this thread on your own, before you keep on trolling. And if you don't, (which I am pretty much sure of) please include some explicit humor, so this thread don't get totally worthless.
 
chillzero said:
You are making an assumption. You did not determine by asking whether these people were staring at you, in your general direction, at something near you, nor what their state of mind was at the time. When they look away it could have been cioncidence, or that the movement of your head toward them snapped them out of a daydream, or indeed that they then looked away from you as you stated - but you can't know which. They may not even have been staring at you at all - they may have been looking around them, and just caught your eye as you moved your head round.
Click to expand...

Hi chillzero,
well...let me start by giving an analogy:
suppose you're holding your hand behind your back and suddenly something hot touched your hand...what would you do at that moment?....
Yes, you reflex your face and look back at direction of that hot thing, and when you find some smoke is coming out of it , this proves to you that it is the actual hot thing that touched you....
Will you be making an assumption here, that this thing touched you and it is actually hot ?....
NO...because you sensed it and also got feed back from it.
the same here for my ability...i sense staring and also i get feed back, that it is actual staring, and that happened thousands of times.


eirik said:
Reason1, this is just getting pathetic. I suggest you read up on the invisible dragon-analogy like jackalgirl suggested in post #400. You will find a religous version here, Russell's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot. As for your strange definition of staring, I would also suggest you read up on the True Scotsman-fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Scotsman_fallacy. Your "definition" makes your claim a tautology.

And I assure you, I don't think anyone is impressed with your reasoning at this point.

I would suggest you do some of the tests proposed in this thread on your own, before you keep on trolling. And if you don't, (which I am pretty much sure of) please include some explicit humor, so this thread don't get totally worthless.
Click to expand...

GIVE THE EVIDENCE WITH ANY ACCUSATION !!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
Hi chillzero,
well...let me start by giving an analogy:
suppose you're holding your hand behind your back and suddenly something hot touches your hand...what would you do at that moment?....
Yes, you reflex your face and look back at direction of that hot thing, and when you find some smoke is coming out of it , this proves to you that it is the actual hot thing that touched you....
Will you be making an assumption here, that this thing touched you and it is actually hot ?....
NO...because you sensed it and also got feed back from it.
the same here for my ability...i sense staring and also i get feed back, that it is actual staring, and that happened thousands of times.
Click to expand...

You are talking nonsense. What feedback did you get? None. You looked around, and made an assumption based on whether someone appeared to look away from you at the time you looked at them. They may have been moving their head already, they may have coincidentally caught your eye, they may have looked at you as you turned your head to look at them. They may even have been staring in your direction but not with the desire to stare that you keep banging on about. You never checked. Your assertion is completely flawed and repeating it won't make it valid.

And no, if something touches my hand behind my back, I'll step forward and pull my hand away. I'll likely check my hand for damage and then - a good lot of seconds later - will look to see what caused it. When I do look round it will depend how many suspect objects there are, but the fact is that something will be measurably hot enough to have made me react. I'm not depending on an object 'looking away in a guilty fashion'. If there are several objects, I'll be able to check the temperatures and see which one touched me - apart from the fact that unless there's another person there, the object will most likely have remained in the same place.. not having ... you know... conciousness and all.

All of this is why I told you at the start to determine what your claim is and what circumstances it occurs under, rather than wasting everyone's time waffling on with vague and useless 'theories'.
 
reason1,
If you want to discuss whether or not your phenomenon is actually a phenomenon or a figment, you need to get in touch with Rupert Sheldrake directly. Maybe you have a doggie for him to test, too?


We'd be happy to test either of you if you could figure out what the hell it is you want tested.

Here's Rupert's email. He's a very busy and important fellow (we know because he says so), so maybe you want to boil your claims down to a few bullet points, as I doubt he'll be willing to go to five hundred messages.


sheldrake@sheldrake.org
 
chillzero said:
You are talking nonsense. What feedback did you get? None. You looked around, and made an assumption based on whether someone appeared to look away from you at the time you looked at them. They may have been moving their head already, they may have coincidentally caught your eye, they may have looked at you as you turned your head to look at them. They may even have been staring in your direction but not with the desire to stare that you keep banging on about. You never checked. Your assertion is completely flawed and repeating it won't make it valid.

And no, if something touches my hand behind my back, I'll step forward and pull my hand away. I'll likely check my hand for damage and then - a good lot of seconds later - will look to see what caused it. When I do look round it will depend how many suspect objects there are, but the fact is that something will be measurably hot enough to have made me react. I'm not depending on an object 'looking away in a guilty fashion'. If there are several objects, I'll be able to check the temperatures and see which one touched me - apart from the fact that unless there's another person there, the object will most likely have remained in the same place.. not having ... you know... conciousness and all.

All of this is why I told you at the start to determine what your claim is and what circumstances it occurs under, rather than wasting everyone's time waffling on with vague and useless 'theories'.
Click to expand...

Hi,
yea...of course you are right, i'll not be able to prove anything here ,only the official test will prove that.
All i can do is to tell how to test my claim which is :
"i can detect when people stare at me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, when i sit in a public place and while not having any eye contact with anyone of those people"
 
reason1 said:
"i can detect when people stare at me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, when i sit in a public place and while not having any eye contact with anyone of those people"
Click to expand...


Any chance of us seeing the protocol for this?
 
reason1 said:
Hi,
yea...of course you are right, i'll not be able to prove anything here ,only the official test will prove that.
All i can do is to tell how to test my claim which is :
"i can detect when people stare at me wherever they are and from whatsoever distance, when i sit in a public place and while not having any eye contact with anyone of those people"
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear why this has to be done in a public place with lots of random people. If you turn suddenly, either to the right or the left, it's pretty normal for somebody in that half of the crowd to be staring at you, just based on the law of averages, and for them to look away self-consciously. Natural human behavior.

Where you're fooling yourself is by thinking you can identify a starer by turning to look directly at the individual person. The more logical explanation is that you're sweeping your gaze quickly over the crowd, and as soon as you notice someone turn away, you subconsciously "lock on" to that person, ignoring the fact that you were quickly glancing past several others and rejecting them because they didn't do the predicted behavior.

So a test of the ability above is going to hinge on the word "detect." Turning to look at the crowd, and having a chance to see and quickly reject several non-starers until you find a starer, won't do.
 
UncaYimmy :
I have some problems with your draft protocol, do you still want to discuss it ?
 
I don't see how a controlled test would be possible in public, but if I was going to test the original claim outside that requirement, I'd have the claimant in room around which were a number of one-way mirror windows. Behind each window would be a starer told to avoid looking through the window until instructed. Each starer would be told that on command they should look through the window and try to project a picture into the head of the claimant by staring at his head (they could be told the claimant is a psychic or an illusionist, who will be able to tell them what their picture was). For each iteration, a random choice is made whether to have a stare, and if so, which starer should do it. A light will indicate to the claimant that a test has begun. The claimant writes down whether a stare occurred and from which window, and signals when finished. The starer then stops staring, there is a short interval, and the test is repeated.

This might satisfy the requirement that the starer must have some interest in the claimant.

Tests of the two parts of the claim (staring or not, and direction of starer) could be separated into separate sequences to simplify the protocol and analysis.

Even if the conditions were not quite ideal for the claimant, you might expect the results to be better than chance if this claimed ability is as certain as he seems to believe.
 
dlorde said:
Each starer would be told that on command they should look through the window and try to project a picture into the head of the claimant by staring at his head (they could be told the claimant is a psychic or an illusionist, who will be able to tell them what their picture was).
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet the complaint will be that each person is not staring at the applicant 'with intent', but has their mind on the image they are attempting to project, rather than the person they are supposed to be staring at 'with intent'.
 
Pup said:
It seems pretty clear why this has to be done in a public place with lots of random people. If you turn suddenly, either to the right or the left, it's pretty normal for somebody in that half of the crowd to be staring at you, just based on the law of averages, and for them to look away self-consciously. Natural human behavior.
Click to expand...

Hi , welcome to the topic,
Well...UncaYimmy also addressed this issue.
but i think it's a problem only if at any certain moment someone could be staring at me from all directions.
here is a solution (still thinking it through though):
at random intervals the testers will instruct me to simulate a reflex in any giving direction. i don't think there will be significant opposite reflexes

Pup said:
Where you're fooling yourself is by thinking you can identify a starer by turning to look directly at the individual person. The more logical explanation is that you're sweeping your gaze quickly over the crowd, and as soon as you notice someone turn away, you subconsciously "lock on" to that person, ignoring the fact that you were quickly glancing past several others and rejecting them because they didn't do the predicted behavior.

So a test of the ability above is going to hinge on the word "detect." Turning to look at the crowd, and having a chance to see and quickly reject several non-starers until you find a starer, won't do.
Click to expand...

I think that will take much more time than a fast reflex.
i'm not saying it's not possible, but It's a matter of probability not possibility.
also the chances/odds are only for testers ,as i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring ,so i can't be fooling myself

H3LL said:
Let me guess. Is it the bits that can actually test something?
Click to expand...

Hi H3LL,
i see you are having a good time, but here is word for you:
i will not accept my protocol if proven flawed, and also i will not reject any suggested protocol without giving good logical reasons, you can be sure of that.
 
Last edited:
reason1 said:
but i think it's a problem only if at any certain moment someone could be staring at me from all directions.
Click to expand...

In a crowd, I think that's pretty likely, especially if their eye is drawn to you by your movement of turning toward them. Remember, you don't actually know (in a non-paranormal way) that they're staring at you until you've already done something to draw their attention (turned to look).

here is a solution (still thinking it through though):
at random intervals the testers will instruct me to simulate a reflex in any giving direction. i don't think there will be significant opposite reflexes
Click to expand...

Have you already given that an honest try in a crowded situation?

i don't make reflexes at people when i don't sense any staring ,so i can't be fooling myself
Click to expand...

But that's exactly how you're fooling yourself. If you don't sense any staring, you don't look around. You just assume you're right.

How have you proven to yourself that no one is actually staring at you, if you don't look around?
 
reason1 said:
i will not accept my protocol if proven flawed............
Click to expand...

A good start would be to show us what your suggested protocol is.

We can work from there.

Any chance of you writing your protocol for us to see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom