New telepathy test, the sequel.

[abaddon]

Michel H. I have good news for you. Greyhound racing is common in Belgium. There is a greyhound course near you.

As you can command dogs to "stop barking" you can simply go down to the track and command the dogs to not leave the starting gates. when the gates open and video this for us.

Once you have done this and presented a video of dogs not leaving the starting gates.......we can go the next step. If you can't do this.......well that ends your entire claim in one swoop.

That's not going to work. At some level, Michel H realises how his claims are utter bunk. He wont go anywhere near an actual test of his claims. He will jump through any number of hoops to avoid letting go of his odd belief. I suppose it's a form of security blanket.

 

[TheSapient]

That's not going to work. At some level, Michel H realises how his claims are utter bunk. He wont go anywhere near an actual test of his claims. He will jump through any number of hoops to avoid letting go of his odd belief. I suppose it's a form of security blanket.

From what I can tell, he isn't doing these "tests" to actually demonstrate he has telepathy. He is doing them because he hopes that good results will quiet the disturbing voices in his head. I think he fears what the clear results of a quality test would mean.

I don't say this to make fun of him or his mental illness. While I admit his "logic" can really annoy me, I do feel bad for him and wish he would accept the help that professionals and loved ones have tried to give him.

 

[Michel H]

A simple telepathy test: which number did I write?

I recently wrote and circled one of the ten numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 on my paper.

I ask you to write it here (if you think you might know it).

Thank you for participating.

Note: A SHA-512 hash of a complicated sentence containing the selected number is:
D612368B32B23789D99BCEB8A25406415D423092779B7219FA04B0B40BCF01A09A2CB38DF57C243F4DE009987A7FB73798ED896AEA87CFBC75BF6DF2F0121F1F

This hash was generated here:
http://www.convertstring.com/Hash/SHA512.

 

[Donn]

Is there an echo in here?

 

[Michel H]

Is there an echo in here?

As far as I am concerned, I am following this thread very carefully.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I don't fully understand why people keep responding to Michael's tests, whether seriously or in jest, unless they are new to his posts.

Michael will never accept any argument showing he is not truly telepathic. He's made up his mind. (It is curious, because the fact he keeps posting his "tests" shows there is still some doubt somewhere in him, but that doubt has never really been apparent beyond the interminable posting of his decidedly unscientific "tests".)

Joking or sarcastic responses are useless, because Michael will either not get the joke or sarcasm, or will explain it away and figure out a convoluted way in which the response actually supports his own foregone conclusions.

Urging Michael to seek medical help to try to solve his problems would seem to be an adequate approach, but unfortunately Michael has continually rejected such suggestions.

So I continue to think ignoring the "tests" is probably best. I urge everyone to seriously consider this as the best approach.

Reposted for it's renewed applicability.

 

[Michel H]

... I continue to think ignoring the "tests" is probably best. I urge everyone to seriously consider this as the best approach.

Reposted for it's renewed applicability.

Are you really sure that ignoring (simple) scientific experiments is the most honest approach, P.J. Denyer?
Don't you think Daylightstar's post:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.
...

does at least create a doubt?

 

[fagin]

Edited because AdMan is right.

 

[abaddon]

Are you really sure that ignoring (simple) scientific experiments is the most honest approach, P.J. Denyer?
Don't you think Daylightstar's post:
does at least create a doubt?

Here we are yet again. You have proposed no "scientific experiment". Give it up. Nobody hears your thoughts.

 

[Michel H]

Edited because AdMan is right.

I would have liked to see the first version of your post.

 

[jond]

It helps to read the whole quote rather than cherry pick. I am certain from reading Daylightstar's quote that he was being sarcastic. And so are you, Michel. You won't fool anyone here with your insistence that this quote was serious.

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.

As per usual, he has externally expressed thoughts and private thoughts.
The private thoughts, which to me are as clear as the externally expressed thoughts make it crystal clear that his whole schtick about his mother is almost entirely untrue, apart from the urging to take medication.

Michel H, I can literally hear the cognitive dissonance grind in your mind.

 

[Michel H]

It helps to read the whole quote rather than cherry pick. I am certain from reading Daylightstar's quote that he was being sarcastic. And so are you, Michel. You won't fool anyone here with your insistence that this quote was serious.

He said he could "hear the cognitive dissonance grind in my mind". I objectively detect no sarcasm in that post, although I do detect some aggressivity in it. Obviously, if you demand the "perfect post", you may have to wait for a very long time.

 

[jond]

He said he could "hear the cognitive dissonance grind in my mind". I objectively detect no sarcasm in that post, although I do detect some aggressivity in it. Obviously, if you demand the "perfect post", you may have to wait for a very long time.

And what else did he say?

 

[Michel H]

And what else did he say?

You can read it, like any one else. He said that something I posted about my mother was "almost entirely untrue", and I find this aggressive. But this does not remove the fact that he said:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.

As per usual, he has externally expressed thoughts and private thoughts.
The private thoughts, which to me are as clear as the externally expressed thoughts make it crystal clear that ...

Michel H, I can literally hear the cognitive dissonance grind in your mind.

You might also want to read the beginning of this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10276284#post10276284

 

[jond]

You can read it, like any one else. He said that something I posted about my mother was "almost entirely untrue", and I find this aggressive. But this does not remove the fact that he said:

You might also want to read the beginning of this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10276284#post10276284

Was Daylightstar correct about your mother or not?

 

[Michel H]

Was Daylightstar correct about your mother or not?

No, he wasn't, but this does not remove the fact that he said:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. All of them.

The fact that he said something incorrect about my mother does, however, reduce his credibility. This is why it is better to use several sources, and to look at the problem from different angles. For example, what "im" said on Yahoo Answers: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100703134559AAR70yj is of interest as well.

What deilorsux said (in French) was interesting too: https://qc.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091222075757AAog8oU

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Are you really sure that ignoring (simple) scientific experiments is the most honest approach, P.J. Denyer?

Your post-hoc assignation of arbitrary weightings to ensure that results are biased to suit your preconceptions means that none of these 'experiments' help anyone, least of all you.

Don't you think Daylightstar's post:
does at least create a doubt?

No, the fact that you're oblivious to sarcasm that is glaringly obvious to every other participant in this thread and has been repeatedly pointed out.

Sorry, but NO ONE HERE HEARS YOUR THOUGHTS. Being blunt, sarcasm doesn't register with you and humouring you is unhelpful and does you no favours. Extending this farce is pointless and and not helping you.

 

[jond]

No, he wasn't, but this does not remove the fact that he said:

The fact that he said something incorrect about my mother does, however, reduce his credibility. This is why it is better to use several sources, and to look at the problem from different angles. For example, what "im" said on Yahoo Answers: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100703134559AAR70yj is of interest as well.

What deilorsux said (in French) was interesting too: https://qc.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091222075757AAog8oU

If he was incorrect about your mother means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts. Period. Nothing more needs to be discussed.

 

[Michel H]

If he was incorrect about your mother means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts. Period. Nothing more needs to be discussed.

I think that you should be a little more nuanced.

Your sentence: "If he was incorrect about your mother means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts." is grammatically incorrect, a more (grammatically) correct sentence would be: "If he was incorrect about your mother, this means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts."

Does this means you are necessarily completely wrong about any subject you might talk about? No, I don't think so, it sounds too extreme.

 

[abaddon]

I think that you should be a little more nuanced.

Your sentence: "If he was incorrect about your mother means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts." is grammatically incorrect, a more (grammatically) correct sentence would be: "If he was incorrect about your mother, this means he wasn't really hearing your thoughts."

Does this means you are necessarily completely wrong about any subject you might talk about? No, I don't think so, it sounds too extreme.

You think your really strange claim that we all hear your thoughts and then lie about it for no reason is not more extreme?

Really?