New telepathy test, the sequel.

[P.J. Denyer]

Is this a necessary discussion? Michel H would prefer not to have his surname used here, even though he provided a means for the other members to easily discern it. Okay by me: Michel H seems good enough for our purposes here.

The issue isn't Michel H's surname, it is the obvious contradiction between his attitude to it being used and his claim that everyone hears his thoughts.

 

[abaddon]

The issue isn't Michel H's surname, it is the obvious contradiction between his attitude to it being used and his claim that everyone hears his thoughts.

Well exactly. If Michel H. really believed in his telepathy, then we already know everything about him as he describes it. On the contrary, and thus I think he actually knows he has no telepathy at all.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Well exactly. If Michel H. really believed in his telepathy, then we already know everything about him as he describes it. On the contrary, and thus I think he actually knows he has no telepathy at all.

Yes, this is good logic.

Michel H, claims I am breaking his privacy by stating his full name while simultaneously: Michel H posts his degree with his full name and his thesis with his full name on our forum and his full name in his posts asking the same telepathy question on other forums......and through broadcasting his full name to us, as he claims, through telepathy.

This all suggests he is simply pulling our legs. and has no belief in telepathy.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

"I seem to be able to communicate telepathically with animals (cats, dogs, birds) near my building, ......... And this phenomenon is very easy to verify: for example, when a dog is barking, I talk to him/her from inside my apartment with a weak voice...and I study whether there is a reaction, a change (often there is)".

So why was this "easy to verify" three months ago, but not now?

With animals, an obvious difference, compared with human beings, is that I never see texts written by them, together with a test answer, about which I have to ask myself:"Is this credible, or not?"

You don't have to do you? You can make animals do things and we can observe the statistical results. That is your specific claim.

Can you still make animals do things, that can be verified: YES or NO?

 

[Giordano]

Yes, this is good logic.

Michel H, claims I am breaking his privacy by stating his full name while simultaneously: Michel H posts his degree with his full name and his thesis with his full name on our forum and his full name in his posts asking the same telepathy question on other forums......and through broadcasting his full name to us, as he claims, through telepathy.

This all suggests he is simply pulling our legs. and has no belief in telepathy.

Perhaps he, like me, isn't always thinking logically?

I recognize that many here believe that he is pulling our legs, but I have experienced other individuals with similar beliefs as Michel H who are very sincere about their beliefs despite the obvious contradictions and failures when examined logically. Unlike telepathy, which is simply non-existent,people's minds are very complex and difficult to reach simple conclusions about.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Perhaps he, like me, isn't always thinking logically? I recognize that many here believe that he is pulling our legs, but I have experienced other individuals with similar beliefs as Michel H who are very sincere about their beliefs despite the obvious contradictions and failures when examined logically.

I understand your point of view. If it were some person at a party or someone chatting at a bus stop, then I would leave the matter alone.

However, Michel H has specifically posted his claim on numerous skeptic forums and invited skeptics to pull his claim apart. It is his choice.

Additionally, Michel H does seem to be posting very specific defence mechanisms ( "Yes, but....") which suggests he knows the specific holes in his own claim. I think that that behaviour reduces the probability that he is sincere.

 

[abaddon]

I understand your point of view. If it were some person at a party or someone chatting at a bus stop, then I would leave the matter alone.

However, Michel H has specifically posted his claim on numerous skeptic forums and invited skeptics to pull his claim apart. It is his choice.

Additionally, Michel H does seem to be posting very specific defence mechanisms ( "Yes, but....") which suggests he knows the specific holes in his own claim. I think that that behaviour reduces the probability that he is sincere.

By his own criteria, all of HIS answers fail his own credibility tests.

 

[Michel H]

...
Michel H, claims I am breaking his privacy by stating his full name while simultaneously: Michel H posts his degree with his full name...

Not simultaneously. I exceptionally posted my full name on this forum in November 2013, three years ago, to explain I had a Physics degree (Doctor of Philosophy in the major of Physics). When I start a new telepathy test on a forum, I generally use the name "Michel H", like you just did, which is fine.

I often notice telepathic reactions from animals (like from car drivers near my building), but this doesn't mean I can control them. For example, when a dog seems to be upset and is barking a lot, I can try to calm him/her down by talking to him/her, this frequently works very well.

 

[fagin]

You mean sometimes a dog stops barking.

 

[Michel H]

You mean sometimes a dog stops barking.

Sometimes, but not necessarily (he/she can also bark less loudly, or differently). Animals, who generally cannot talk, are often good at expressing feelings and emotions in a fairly accurate way by making various noises. For example, yesterday, I pointed out that dogs cannot write, and today I noticed, from their barking, that they felt somewhat offended and slightly upset by that statement I made. I am used to these telepathic phenomena, they happen all the time, and on a worldwide scale.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Sometimes, but not necessarily (he/she can also bark less loudly, or differently). Animals, who generally cannot talk, are often good at expressing feelings and emotions in a fairly accurate way by making various noises. For example, yesterday, I pointed out that dogs cannot write, and today I noticed, from their barking, that they felt somewhat offended and slightly upset by that statement I made. I am used to these telepathic phenomena, they happen all the time, and on a worldwide scale.

To you, It needs to be said these events don't actually happen.

Not that this will deter you, How do you feel about your recent test also being a failure?

 

[abaddon]

Sometimes, but not necessarily (he/she can also bark less loudly, or differently).

Did it never occur to you that dogs can bark however loud they want to?

Animals, who generally cannot talk, are often good at expressing feelings and emotions in a fairly accurate way by making various noises.

See, dogs are not people. Ask yourself why it is necessary to point out this obvious fact.

For example, yesterday, I pointed out that dogs cannot write, and today I noticed, from their barking, that they felt somewhat offended and slightly upset by that statement I made.

Oh right. They started a worldwide movement, did they? Wrote to their elected representative, eh? Sent a strongly worded missive which was published in the readers pages of the Doggy Times, was it?

I am used to these telepathic phenomena, they happen all the time, and on a worldwide scale.

Then why are dogs not messed up? According to you they are effectively receiving millions of instructions all at once. And all different. The dogs would go insane. Picture it. Some guy on a farm in New Mexico sends Biffo to fetch the broom from the barn, meanwhile Fifi, a poodle in a 16th floor appartment in Paris, falls to her death. The very notion is stupid.

 

[abaddon]

Not simultaneously. I exceptionally posted my full name on this forum in November 2013, three years ago, to explain I had a Physics degree (Doctor of Philosophy in the major of Physics). When I start a new telepathy test on a forum, I generally use the name "Michel H", like you just did, which is fine.

I often notice telepathic reactions from animals (like from car drivers near my building), but this doesn't mean I can control them. For example, when a dog seems to be upset and is barking a lot, I can try to calm him/her down by talking to him/her, this frequently works very well.

Read that. YOU posted your full name. Nobody else, YOU. Why are YOU complaining now about what YOU did?

I posted my own name and my credentials on this site too. Am I complaining about that? No. Because I am not ashamed of who and what I am. I'm entirely happy to stand over my name and the alphabet soup of letters that come after it. I earned that and I'm proud of it. Work done. Success achieved. Earned by merit.

In contrast, you are bringing your ravening, worldwide hoards of telepathic, controlled house pets to rule the world. I am currently unaware of any university offering courses in "World Domination via Telepathic House Pets". Perhaps you would be so kind as to direct us to such a course of study that we all might vie for doggie supremacy. Are cats included? Or are they considered too treacherous? How about goldfish? They have the inside track on sharks, you know. Or octopi, I hear they are well armed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Of course, if one were truly psychic and broadcasting to the entire world, then it would be trivial to get people who are able to receive instructions clearly and who are willing to help to sign up to any message board to participate in any test.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course, if one were truly psychic and broadcasting to the entire world, then it would be trivial to get people who are able to receive instructions clearly and who are willing to help to sign up to any message board to participate in any test.

Just so.

You could, if telepathy was real, telepathically direct people to any website, to any URL, to any phone number and so on. You could sell your services for advertising by thinking positive thoughts about any brand who cared to pay you.

But none of these things happen.

There is no conspiracy of silence, where the entire human race agrees to keep a secret from one man in Belgium for no discernable reason.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... yesterday, I pointed out that dogs cannot write, and today I noticed, from their barking, that they felt somewhat offended and slightly upset by that statement I made.

Which seems more likely:

1) You're fooling yourself and seeing what you expect to see.
2) Pointless global conspiracy of silence where the entire human race agrees to keep a secret from one man in Belgium.

Clue: It's not option 2.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I seem to be able to communicate telepathically with animals (cats, dogs, birds) near my building, ... And this phenomenon is very easy to verify:

....... but this doesn't mean I can control them. For example, when a dog seems to be upset and is barking a lot, I can try to calm him/her down by talking to him/her, this frequently works very well.

You are making two conflicting statements.

Either you can make animals do things and "this is easily verifiable", and thus can be measured and produce statistically significant data

OR

You cannot make animals do anything and therefore you had no reason to think you are telepathic.....in the first place.

Which one is it?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I am going to tidy up your claim

1) Sometimes, ... Animals, who generally cannot talk, are often good at expressing feelings and emotions in a fairly accurate way by making various noises.

2) ... I noticed, from their barking, that they felt somewhat offended and slightly upset by that statement I made.

3)..... on a worldwide scale.

Michel H's claim in simple terms
You are claiming that you can distinguish different emotions in dogs
Yesterday, you transmitted a telepathic signal that "dogs can't read".
Dogs receiving your telepathic signal became upset, around the world
You were able to discern that dogs around the world were upset.

Direct Questions for Michel H
How do you know dogs around the world were upset if you could not hear nor see them?

What exact change in behaviour should the thousands of dog pounds and shelters, across the world, have observed yesterday?

If you only saw one dog "responding" then isn't your actual evidence only one dog and therefore you have no reason to think you are telepathic?

Do you withdraw your claim "this should be easy to verify"

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Did it never occur to you that dogs can bark however loud they want to?

I'm with you. However, for this chapter of Michel's little story, I think we can all enjoy Michel's leg pulling humour.

The claim
Dogs throughout the world, are observed as upset, because Michel H broadcast a telepathic message, informing dogs that they can't read.

Well isn't it obvious? Has not the meme of dog's bringing the newspaper from the front lawn been a common cultural phenomena? Didn't this meme exist before Michel H broadcast his message to all dogs? Therefore, dogs already knew they couldn't read the newspaper and have known so, for over a hundred years! The dogs aren't upset at all! Therefore Michel is not telepathic. ( My tongue is firmly in my cheek)

 

[Michel H]

... How do you feel about your recent test also being a failure?

I do not think my latest test on this forum:

I recently wrote one of the four words: "automobile", "boat", "plane", and "submarine" on my paper, and I surrounded it with a rough ellipse.

I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt).

Also, a comment might be useful. You may say, for example, how confident you are in your choice.

Thank you for participating.

Notes:
1) A SHA-512 hash of a complicated sentence containing the selected word is: FE200D91BC7B83C5A638F5B9CD9F4F1FD8A66A5C5A8B7050D1 8316E56E881E5CA4FBB4D0524F38DA295CAAF1AD8136AECE11 A07C204EC6147C3D628F2FCC3A80
2) Yeggster has already kindly given an answer:

was a failure, and I would like to explain why.

First of all, the word I wrote and surrounded was "automobile". The sentence I used to produce the hash mentioned above was:
The word iz closely related to "car" and starts with §è the letter "a".
(a little note here: Right after I wrote "The sentence I used to produce" above [two lines ago], I heard a dog bark with amusement and excitation. So, I stopped typing, I raised my arm, and pointed towards him/her, and the window, and the barking immediately stopped, even though, on my sixth floor, I couldn't see the dog, and the dog couldn't see me).

To my great regret, nobody answered clearly one of the four possible answers of this test. However, Yeggster said:

I have circled an automobile ...

, which resembles "You have circled an automobile". Therefore, it is fair to say (it seems to me) that he suggested the correct answer, rather than giving it clearly.

DuvalHMFIC, who gave an answer related to the correct one in the previous test (link) said:

Oddly enough, I thought of Kate Upton riding a rhombus shaped skateboard. Do I score any points?

Like when fagin answered "train" instead of "automobile" in the first "automobile- boat - plane - submarine" test I did on this forum (link), I believe it is fair to say that DuvalHMFIC's answer is related to the correct one, because a skateboard is a simple wheeled ground vehicle. In addition, a rhombus is a quadrilateral, like (roughly) a car (and unlike planes, submarines, and most boats). So, I think DuvalHMFIC would indeed probably deserve a few points if these tests gave points.

p0lka replied:

hedgehog.

Hedgehogs are terrestrial four-legged animals, and are therefore more closely related to automobiles than to boats, planes or submarines (he didn't answer a bird or a fish for example - aquatic birds like ducks or swans might be reminiscent of boats).