Paranormal detection

[reason1]

Can you please provide reasons why the above protocol would be unsuitable?

I'm not sure about it, I'll try to self-test it. And believe me there no reason for me to reject simple protocols if I'm sure that can do it that way. People's mental state can't be easily quantified, and I don't want to be tested under the wrong conditions. Also we know that a great debunker like James Randi can't be fooled.

What will you do if they say no?

We won't ask them whether they were staring or not.

More to the point, will they be asked why they were staring at you?

Exactly!. To eliminate the possibility of bias, we will keep the test blind; we won't tell the detected starers that this is the MDC, or the actual purpose of the test. And after showing them the video which proves that they were staring, they will be asked why they were staring at me. This way there will be no reason for them to lie in favor or against me. But, if the cameras are positioned correctly and everything goes will, I don't think the testers will bother asking the starers. A child will not mistake their behavior for any other explanation.

.
Because, of course, no one will mind being asked that question and will be 100% honest for reason1's sake...
.

What do you mean?

 

[LightningStrike]

Here is the data from my experiences:

Thousands of true positives (the hits spanned years of my life).
No false positives, which means I didn't suddenly look in a certain direction after sensing staring and found no starers.
That happened when there were random amount of people around me and at random places, from the crowded to the visually empty.
The starers were random people at random directions (including from above me).
Those were at random distances, from the near to the long for any sound to reach me.
Not only I sensed the starers but also they affirmed that by the caught off guard behavior.
There wasn't any visual or audible stimulus that made me interrupt what I was doing and suddenly look in the directions of the starers.
I didn't catch staring when I didn't sense it while looking around for a reason or non.
And all of that happened at random times.​

Isn't this extraordinary to happen?.

No, this is quite normal as I experience it too.

a) being stared at I can feel 'force' sometimes and also b) staring at another I have been noticed.

It is extraordinary that scientists/skeptics don't acknowledge it in their own experience. I would think it is very common in many peoples experience.

Now the difference between a glance and a stare is the question here. Isn't it the degree that I project my self seemingly into space to connect with the object? If I at the same time as looking at you focus on an emotion (and don't suppress it) that emotion can arise up behind the eyes and actually be looking into existence. This is the self and if I can attune my resonance to your body's that is penetrate your psychic 'egg' then I am in!(unconsciously or not). If I enter consciously and you are open then if life permits I can speed your consciousness up to my speed (the realm of the spiritual master or teacher).

I think that the problem that you will have with this test is that if we have no instrument to measure the degree of connection that a starer is 'doing' then it is questionable as to whether they are really seeing/connecting with you.
I know that it is quite possible to not project at someone or to endeavor to not which is another act of self conciousness that could equally attract attention.

Should it not be defined as to what a stare is?

Is a stare from an animal not different to that from the human animal.

What's the difference? The human animal is the only self conscious animal.
Self consciousness which means that I can reflect on a) the physical environment b)my body and c) my self. The animals just do what they do or can't do with no reflection on whether they have failed or succeeded.

It is not a question as to whether psychic force exists. We all know it is real just cop a dose of it from your loved one. Anger, moodiness, excitement.

Come on scientists please develop an instrument that can measure the psychic emanation of the forest or a healthy natural environment. That would be a good direction for science to go in. It can also be used to test whether a person is moody or not. I can see a million uses for it to improve the quality of life on earth.

Good luck with your test if you take it.

 

[reason1]

No, this is quite normal as I experience it too.

I didn't mean that. I meant that detecting starers by no way of communication that is known to conventional science is an extraordinary thing to happen. It's an extraordinary claim, and passing Randi's test is an extraordinary evidence.

I can see a million uses for it to improve the quality of life on earth.

Yes, I did suggest an idea: Early Sniper Detection & Counter Attack System (ESDCAS) . But also think about the bad practical applications.

 

[steenkh]

Yes, I did suggest an idea: Early Sniper Detection & Counter Attack System (ESDCAS) . But also think about the bad practical applications.

And yet you did not accept a protocol where snipers with paintball guns would snipe at you?

 

[Ashles]

Come on scientists please develop an instrument that can measure the psychic emanation of the forest or a healthy natural environment.

How can they invent an instrument that detects something that has never ever been demonstrated to even exist?

If you (who seems to believe in such a 'force') cannot define it, measure it or devise a test for it, how do you expect scientists to do so? Especially when they have no reason to think it actually exists?

That would be a good direction for science to go in.

Why? And most imporatntly how?
Give scientists something to test and they will test it. The issue is actually having something to test. Which there isn't.

You find it hard to understand why scientists do not study something you feel exists.
Why does it not occur to you that maybe it is your perception that is mistaken rather then centuries of scientists?

If you are so sure you can tell when someone is looking at you, would you be prepared to run an organised test on this?

It can also be used to test whether a person is moody or not. I can see a million uses for it to improve the quality of life on earth.

To be honest, if paranormal detection abilities were suddenly discovered to be real I can think of better and more interesting uses for such a scientific field rather than telling whether someone is 'moody'.
Which most of us can pretty much do already using mundane methods.

 

[LightningStrike]

"That would be a good direction for science to go in."

Why? And most imporantly how?
Give scientists something to test and they will test it. The issue is actually having something to test. Which there isn't.

A scientist will investigate his or her own consciousness. The third person approach is flawed in the looking in the projection for evidence of consciousness rather than looking for the one and only originating source of this projection which is in this (your) body. Only the scientist himself can attempt to examine his own consciousness but then he has to give up his attachment to the thinking mind to find his own source. Then he is more intelligent and pure perception starts to see through the appearance of things to the originating unmoving power of consciousness or pure life.
This type of scientist tests things in their own experience.

 

[Cuddles]

We won't ask them whether they were staring or not.

You'll ask someone if they were staring at you, and if they say no you'll decide not to ask them? Is that supposed to make sense?

"That would be a good direction for science to go in."

A scientist will investigate his or her own consciousness. The third person approach is flawed in the looking in the projection for evidence of consciousness rather than looking for the one and only originating source of this projection which is in this (your) body. Only the scientist himself can attempt to examine his own consciousness but then he has to give up his attachment to the thinking mind to find his own source. Then he is more intelligent and pure perception starts to see through the appearance of things to the originating unmoving power of consciousness or pure life.
This type of scientist tests things in their own experience.

Nope.

 

[Sean84]

It would seem to me that until Reason1 states simply, "All staring is staring without exception" that any discussion of a potential protocol is moot. Intent cannot be determined, and a simple excuse of "they were staring wrong" would justify his impotence in an actual test (excuse-wise).

Some of you have the patience of saints... admirable.

 

[Ashles]

"That would be a good direction for science to go in."

A scientist will investigate his or her own consciousness. The third person approach is flawed in the looking in the projection for evidence of consciousness rather than looking for the one and only originating source of this projection which is in this (your) body. Only the scientist himself can attempt to examine his own consciousness but then he has to give up his attachment to the thinking mind to find his own source.

That doesn't really mean anything. You cannot experience anything seperate from your actual "thinking mind" (i.e. actual brain function).
If you experience it in any imaginable way, it has to be processed, remembered etc. by your brain.
It's easy to make vague generalisations about seperating consciousness from the brain - in reality how does someone actually do it? How can they demonstrate whatever they experienced was not simply a result of brain function?

Then he is more intelligent and pure perception starts to see through the appearance of things to the originating unmoving power of consciousness or pure life.

Again these are words that you are using without real meaning.

Describe how this would be done.

This type of scientist tests things in their own experience.

And again what would be the point? If a scientist is investigating perceptions/sensations/concepts that are unique to themself and have no relevance to anything outside of his own experience... what use would that be?

 

[reason1]

It would seem to me that until Reason1 states simply, "All staring is staring without exception" that any discussion of a potential protocol is moot. Intent cannot be determined, and a simple excuse of "they were staring wrong" would justify his impotence in an actual test (excuse-wise).

Some of you have the patience of saints... admirable.

Please don't post comments that are based on your ignorance of the topic. Sensing staring is just the non technical term. Technically, it's the telepathy that happens subconsciously when people stare at me out of an internal motivation. Staring is the physical part, internal motivation (whatever it is) is the psychological part and telepathy is the scientifically inexplicable part that we are trying to prove.

 

[nathan]

Technically, it's the telepathy that happens subconsciously when people stare at me out of an internal motivation. Staring is the physical part, internal motivation (whatever it is) is the psychological part and telepathy is the scientifically inexplicable part that we are trying to prove.

No, the existence of the claimed phenomenon has yet to be proven. Rationalizing as to what the underlying process might be is putting the cart before the horse.

Have you submitted your application to the JREF yet, or are you still working on the affidavit and media presence requirements?

 

[dlorde]

A scientist will investigate his or her own consciousness. The third person approach is flawed in the looking in the projection for evidence of consciousness rather than looking for the one and only originating source of this projection which is in this (your) body. Only the scientist himself can attempt to examine his own consciousness but then he has to give up his attachment to the thinking mind to find his own source. Then he is more intelligent and pure perception starts to see through the appearance of things to the originating unmoving power of consciousness or pure life.
This type of scientist tests things in their own experience.

The individual might be a scientist, but the activities you describe are not science or scientific.

 

[dlorde]

It is extraordinary that scientists/skeptics don't acknowledge it in their own experience. I would think it is very common in many peoples experience.

I suspect that, if asked, most scientists/skeptics would acknowledge that they have experienced similar sensations - but they don't put the same interpretation on them that you do. I have had the sensation of being stared at or followed in busy public places, on empty streets, and alone in my own home. For me, these sensations are more commonly night-time phenomena. The fact that they occur whether people are present or not leads me to believe they are not connected with people actually staring at me or following me, but are probably erroneous sensations triggered by my state of mind and environmental factors.

 

[Lrrr]

Please don't post comments that are based on your ignorance of the topic. Sensing staring is just the non technical term. Technically, it's the telepathy that happens subconsciously when people stare at me out of an internal motivation. Staring is the physical part, internal motivation (whatever it is) is the psychological part and telepathy is the scientifically inexplicable part that we are trying to prove.

Staring at you for any reason has internal motivation. If someone stares at you because you are wearing a funny hat, the internal motivation might be "Hey that's one big red hat that person is wearing". If someone is staring at you because they are part of a controlled experiment, the internal motivation might be "I'm part of an experiment to prove someone can telepathically determine that I am staring at them. Think of the scientific possibilities like sniper early warning systems. That is so cool!".

What you are saying is that you can only telepathically detect someone is staring for a small set of internal motivations. I don't think you will ever be able to come up with a testable protocol for that as a person's internal motivation is about the most subjective thing I can think of.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Virtually all of the points in this discussion have been brought up and - by common sense - have been dealt with as reasonably as possible in this context.

Typical behaviour of primates is to dominate a discussion by repeating the same points over and over and over again. Despite of being refuted ad nauseam.

The most simple - and dare I say: sensible - thing would be for you, reason1, to do a controlled demonstration of your claim.

Anytime. Anywhere. Anyhow.

Do it. Document it. Show it to the world.

If I were you, I'd pay a college/university professor or a similar qualified professional his usual wage and see what I could come up with in a test.

If you would be really honest and forthcoming, you would post the correspondence with said professionals.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say you will have to deal with a lot of rejections.



The point is: Can you come with more than just keystrokes? Can you enlighten the scape outside your head with whatever is inside?

 

[Lanzy]

Thought this thread died a natural death.

Whoops, caught staring at it.

Look away, look away.

 

[LightningStrike]

I suspect that, if asked, most scientists/skeptics would acknowledge that they have experienced similar sensations - but they don't put the same interpretation on them that you do. I have had the sensation of being stared at or followed in busy public places, on empty streets, and alone in my own home. For me, these sensations are more commonly night-time phenomena. The fact that they occur whether people are present or not leads me to believe they are not connected with people actually staring at me or following me, but are probably erroneous sensations triggered by my state of mind and environmental factors.

Thank you for your straight forward response.
There is a difference between sensation and feelings.
All sensation is true and real that is surface sensations of touch and deeper sensation of thirst/hunger and deeper still of wellbeing.
Feelings however have a degree of interpretation in them. Anger for example is a substantive sensation imbued with a forceful personal component of feeling. It is personal.
Sensations in the same respect are impersonal.

So your erroneous sensations perhaps were feelings or reactions. But unfamiliar energy can be detected by the body and feelings can arise as a result of interpretation ie a secondary thing. The mind will dismiss the cause.

A tricky region where the mind is of no help only pure perception can see what is now. The mind comes after with its interpretations. Try thinking about now, you will find you are thinking about something in the past and not now which has moved on.
The mind lives in the past.

 

[Sean84]

*snip*
The mind lives in the past.

Apparently some do. I'm still trying to translate the rest of your post.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Thank you for your straight forward response.
There is a difference between sensation and feelings.
All sensation is true and real that is surface sensations of touch and deeper sensation of thirst/hunger and deeper still of wellbeing.
Feelings however have a degree of interpretation in them. Anger for example is a substantive sensation imbued with a forceful personal component of feeling. It is personal.
Sensations in the same respect are impersonal.

So your erroneous sensations perhaps were feelings or reactions. But unfamiliar energy can be detected by the body and feelings can arise as a result of interpretation ie a secondary thing. The mind will dismiss the cause.

A tricky region where the mind is of no help only pure perception can see what is now. The mind comes after with its interpretations. Try thinking about now, you will find you are thinking about something in the past and not now which has moved on.
The mind lives in the past.

Sorry, I am not fluent in Gibberish, Try again in English.

 

[dlorde]

So your erroneous sensations perhaps were feelings or reactions.

I'm happy to accept that what I described as 'sensations' are what you might call 'feelings' or 'reactions'. I was using the word informally.

But unfamiliar energy can be detected by the body

what 'unfamiliar energy' might that be?

feelings can arise as a result of interpretation ie a secondary thing. The mind will dismiss the cause.

Yes, we can rationalise these feelings - that's what I said.

The mind comes after with its interpretations. Try thinking about now, you will find you are thinking about something in the past and not now which has moved on.
The mind lives in the past.

Um, yes... and your point is? I can't quite see the relevance to whether the feelings under discussion are really caused by someone staring at us, or are due to other factors...