Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You could have just said you were lying, and pointed out that Michel didn't spot it.
Dave
New telepathy test, the sequel.
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
You could have just said you were lying, and pointed out that Michel didn't spot it.
Dave
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Because it shows you are not telepathic, that you are not actually broadcasting your thoughts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_broadcasting
This wiki entry describes the actual 'phenomenon' presented by you.
No actual tests for telepathy or thought broadcasting are really necessary, as there is nothing shown to test, your 'tests' only fulfill your need to perpetuate your belief in you broadcasting your thoughts.
Nothing more to it.
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
Come on. Item (2) is way too obviously true, unless you really had twenty stitches. I've been to reunions.
This wikipedia article says:
, it doesn't just say:
"Thought broadcasting is the belief that others can hear or are aware of an individual's thoughts.[1]", notice the difference.
The first version of the article (to view it, click "View history" on top of page, then "oldest" at bottom of "Revision history" page, next click "06:29, 13 June 2005" on bottom, the link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought_broadcasting&oldid=17650707 ) actually says:
This article contains two obvious anomalies (errors): it says "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts", and it says "others around him", instead of "others around them", or "others around him/her".
I think it is reasonable to assume that these anomalies are reflections or manifestations of my "real broadcasting particularity". Presumably, they reflect a lack of self-confidence (of the author), and they are easy to interpret. Saying "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts" conveys an idea of aggressivity, by suggesting the thought emitter "has only one thought", and saying "others around him" suggests the thought transmitter is a male (which I am). The number of anomalies (2) might also be related to my birthday (22 February, or 22/2).
If you look at the the first sentence of the first version of the "Russell's teapot" article for example:
(link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell's_teapot&oldid=39610509 ), there is no such anomaly (or, at least, I don't see any).
Last edited:
No, that's not reasonable. You are adjusting reality to suit your viewpoint, again. Those were simple typos.
You cannot broadcast thoughts. No-one can. Do not accuse me of lying when I say that I have never received thoughts from anyone, and I have never, in particular, received thoughts from you. No-one on the planet ever has, however much you twist typos to mean exactly what you want them to mean.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Well my family comes from a tough neighborhood, In the local restaurant I sat down and had broken leg of lamb.
But in all seriousness since Michel failed, 2 was the lie, I have never visited England.
I did however get a few stitches at a Christmas gathering when a cousin who will remain unnamed had too much nog and got into an altercation with me.
Susheel
Illuminator
You aren't taking this seriously...you just pulled those numbers out of your posterior cavity.
Michel, would you want to know if it turned out you can't thought project? Or would you rather continue on deluding yourself that you can?
Conversely, myself and many others would surely be extremely interested if it turned out you could, but of course we would be highly skeptical. I would hate to delude myself into thinking you couldn't if in fact you could, that would be such a shame.
Given how truly amazing it would be if true (and to a lesser extent how silly/delusional it would be if false), surely you would want to figure this out once and for all? Why are you on some internet forum doing a rinky dink test that doesn't prove anything?
Come up with a scientifically valid study that would definitively prove or disprove your claim, and get on with it already. This test is a joke, why waste your time with it? It's really not that hard to set up a real study that would prove/disprove your claim. Just find a few people in real life who are also into woo that wouldn't be inclined to sabotage the test, perhaps pay them to participate, and run though hundreds of trials quickly and develop a large sample.
I think you're wasting your time with this silly test because it's a "can't fail if you don't try" type of thing. If this test proves nothing, it doesn't matter because you can just come up with excuses. But if it were a legit test, you actually have to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong.
Conversely, myself and many others would surely be extremely interested if it turned out you could, but of course we would be highly skeptical. I would hate to delude myself into thinking you couldn't if in fact you could, that would be such a shame.
Given how truly amazing it would be if true (and to a lesser extent how silly/delusional it would be if false), surely you would want to figure this out once and for all? Why are you on some internet forum doing a rinky dink test that doesn't prove anything?
Come up with a scientifically valid study that would definitively prove or disprove your claim, and get on with it already. This test is a joke, why waste your time with it? It's really not that hard to set up a real study that would prove/disprove your claim. Just find a few people in real life who are also into woo that wouldn't be inclined to sabotage the test, perhaps pay them to participate, and run though hundreds of trials quickly and develop a large sample.
I think you're wasting your time with this silly test because it's a "can't fail if you don't try" type of thing. If this test proves nothing, it doesn't matter because you can just come up with excuses. But if it were a legit test, you actually have to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
No, I think that is utterly unreasonable. What I think is more reasonable is that "thought are" was corrected to "thoughts are" to make it gramatically correct, and that "him" was changed to "him/her" so as to avoid gender bias.
Everything you speculate on here is a further manifestation of your inability to interpret reality as anything other than confirmation of your wishful thinking. (Which some here have characterised as delusions. I am not qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis.)
If you want to reclaim some kind of perspective, you really need to examine all possibilities, rather than this monomania (Again used in a lay definition) that everything is about you and your supposed special abilities.
And no, before you ask: I won't be taking any of your tests. At least, not until you achieve some kind of objectivity.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
None of your objections are relevant.
The wiki entry shows you in what context your claim to broadcast your thoughts, belong.
If you don't like the wiki link, would you perhaps prefer the following one?
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/thought+broadcasting
I could use that one in stead when referring to what you are talking about
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I thought it was particularly amusing that Michel thought all of mine were lies, as actually they were all true.
Dave
Daylightstar
Philosopher
How could he know,he's not telepathic, you know.
If I thought there was even a 1% chance I had the amazing ability of thought projection, I would devote all my free time to figuring out whether or not I could do it. If I could scientifically prove I had this ability, that would arguably be the most ground-breaking discovery in all human history. Why even delay this amazing discovery a day when it is so important?
It's kind of like if I had reason to believe there was a chance a treasure chest with 100billion in it was buried not too deep in my backyard. I know that if I devote enough time to digging, I will eventually find out for a fact whether it is there or not. Why would I not conduct a comprehensive digging effort to unearth the treasure as soon as possible? Why bother digging a little hole here or there that I wouldn't even expect to unearth anything? To delay this discovery would surely be a colossal blunder, and to never find out would be an even bigger blunder.
The way you describe your ability is such that it would be scientifically verifiable if only subjected to an actual valid scientific test (for example have a lie detector test to verify if someone intends to sabotage, and only accept participants that pass the test). There's really no excuse to not already know for a fact right now whether you can do it or not. One question you should ask yourself is not whether or not you have this ability, but if you did have this ability why has it not already been proven? Surely it can't be that you're too busy for something this important. Do you not appreciate the importance of this discovery? Are you just too lazy to take the necessary actions to get a real test? Do you deny that such a test could be conducted that could prove this? There's no excuse. I can easily think of explanations as to why it wouldn't be officially disproved yet if you in fact didn't have this ability and were just deluding yourself, but I don't understand how if you actually had this ability it wouldn't already be proven, or at the very least be in the process of doing a real study.
It's kind of like if I had reason to believe there was a chance a treasure chest with 100billion in it was buried not too deep in my backyard. I know that if I devote enough time to digging, I will eventually find out for a fact whether it is there or not. Why would I not conduct a comprehensive digging effort to unearth the treasure as soon as possible? Why bother digging a little hole here or there that I wouldn't even expect to unearth anything? To delay this discovery would surely be a colossal blunder, and to never find out would be an even bigger blunder.
The way you describe your ability is such that it would be scientifically verifiable if only subjected to an actual valid scientific test (for example have a lie detector test to verify if someone intends to sabotage, and only accept participants that pass the test). There's really no excuse to not already know for a fact right now whether you can do it or not. One question you should ask yourself is not whether or not you have this ability, but if you did have this ability why has it not already been proven? Surely it can't be that you're too busy for something this important. Do you not appreciate the importance of this discovery? Are you just too lazy to take the necessary actions to get a real test? Do you deny that such a test could be conducted that could prove this? There's no excuse. I can easily think of explanations as to why it wouldn't be officially disproved yet if you in fact didn't have this ability and were just deluding yourself, but I don't understand how if you actually had this ability it wouldn't already be proven, or at the very least be in the process of doing a real study.
Last edited:
Just to clarify, the pseudo lie detector test you've done here is not even remotely scientific and appears to be highly unreliable. If it actually mattered whether or not someone intended to sabotage (or however you want to put it), and you wanted to filter those people out, you could do so effectively with a real lie detector test. It's a small price to pay for such a large discovery, and it would go a long way in helping prove your claim. Filtering out who you personally think is lying is just plain laughable from a scientific point of view.
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
If I could actually hear Michel H, I'd make a deal with him for a 50/50 split on the James Randi million dollar challenge. Why wouldn't I? I could use the cash.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
p0lka
Illuminator
missile.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,392
And so would millions of others worldwide.
And there would be many times more who at least chatted about the shared experience of hearing some guy's thoughts. Social media would be crammed with inane chatter about whatever Michel had for lunch today. There would be worldwide interest in finding out who the thought broadcaster was and a considerable industry around finding ways to block out his intrusive thoughts. Every time Michel thought about his phone number, thousands of curious people would ring it.
But there isn't any of that. None of that exists. It is the dog that did not bark. And that simple truth is staring Michel in the face but he just ignores it as if it wasn't there.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,392
But sadly Michel does not want good faith. He wants good results. And results are only 'good' if they confirm his delusion.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way, These tests are designed to be way too fair.
What is needed is a totally lopsided test for Michel.
OK Michel I am think of one of these TWO numbers, Try to guess whichone I have picked.
Is it:
A:1
or
B: >>2<<
What is needed is a totally lopsided test for Michel.
OK Michel I am think of one of these TWO numbers, Try to guess which
Is it:
A:
or
B: >>2<<