New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

While we're on the subject Michel, I don't recall your ever explaining how you know that people hear your thoughts.

I mean, even if we were to imagine that the phenomenon of thought broadcasting was real, how would the 'broadcaster' know they were doing so? What would such a sensation feel like? Wouldn't it be at least as likely that they did it without realising it at all?

And even if we further assume that the person might somehow perceive they were emitting thought waves, how on earth could they know their thoughts were being heard by people in distant corners of the world? What kind of sense can you imagine that would give someone the sensation of a person on the other side of the world hearing something? It's ridiculous.

 

[Michel H]

Yes, I do. They're just the type of joke responses I'd expect to see in a thread where someone persistently claims somehow to know that people all over the world hear their thoughts.



That's a very strange use of the word "probably". It suggests you think it more probable that a phenomenon which has never ever been demonstrated to exist is experienced by multiple members of the forum rather than that they were merely poking fun at the idea.

When someone gives a response that happens to suit your delusion, you discount the possibility that they were joking even when they themselves confirm that they were in fact joking.

Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test:

I'm increasingly eager to see Michel's analysis of why I chose my number, right or wrong. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I am actually very satisfied with the results of my latest extra-sensory perception test on this forum (here): there was one credible answer, given by cullennz, and it was correct. Cullennz (who seems to be in New Zealand) added later:

(in AAH, date: 13th September 2016)
I have to admit, though, that I am less happy about many of the comments I read.

I know you are, You are unable to see the multiple issues but I'm happy that you're happy with your results.

I can't hear your thoughts

No one can hear your thoughts

You think everyone can, Nothing will change that, We know that and more importantly you know that.

End Thread. Period.

 

[MikeG]

My latest thread on this forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311990 is not of the "Which of these 4 things am I thinking about?" kind, although it is related to my telepathy testing.

Well, that's a straight-out lie. You asked us to guess which one of "automobile, boat, plane or submarine" you were thinking of.

And I don't think this "super-power" (the word you are using) is "ridiculous" (though there is no known historical precedent), because it doesn't seem to violate the known laws of physics: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10277440#post10277440

No, Michel, it is ridiculous. You don't have the ability to broadcast your thoughts. No human in history has such ability. You have produced no evidence that you have such a power, and your mental health history is the full explanation of your belief that we are all hearing your thoughts. We aren't. You don't understand irony or sarcasm. Every poster who has got one of your silly games "right" has been taking the piss out of you. I suggest that instead of wasting our time, and yours, with endless repetitions of this "guess which one from 4" game, followed by twisting the responses to suit your desired result, that you get yourself back to a mental health practitioner and then take the medication they prescribe. For your own good, I would like to see you banned from this and other fora, because endlessly rehearsing your delusions isn't likely to be doing you any good at all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Jack by the edge, you said yourself, after you saw the analysis of my first test, and after giving an answer to my second test:

You don't really say about a deluded schizophrenic that his next analysis will be illuminating. So, you supported my point of view then, and you changed your mind later, contradicting yourself. If you have sometimes a impression of knowing some of my thoughts (via extra-sensory perception), I would urge you, and also other members of this forum, to participate in my tests constructively (if there are more of them), and to contribute to the truth, rather than trying as hard as you can to present me as a deluded schizophrenic.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken, Michel.

I was eager to hear what you had to say as I was convinced that it would reveal that you were cherry picking favourable results and rejecting unfavourable results for no good reason beyond fooling yourself. That has been my belief throughout. Your choosing to misinterpret my remark as indicating that I thought telepathy might be real is another manifestation of your ongoing problem. It's all in your head, as it has been throughout.

 

[kali1137]

Welcome to this thread, kali1137. I have already pointed out the drawbacks of this policy, but they don't seem to be paying much attention.

Thank you for the welcome! The main drawback to this that I can see, from your point of view, is honesty from those suggesting it and from those participating. Is this correct? Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems.

Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

 

[Michel H]

... Because my argument is, how are we to trust that you are being truthful? You are the one claiming thoughts, so we are taking your word for it for the most part it seems. ...

When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number.

...
Let me through something out there and you tell me what your thoughts would be on it. I claim to have the ability to levitate. I tell everyone that I have it on video and agree to share the video with all who ask. Then, the video just shows me on a chair and I look like I am merely meditating. No levitation happens. I then tell you that someone clearly tampered with video since it left my possession. Do you believe me or them?

In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself.

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

 

[abaddon]

When I do tests in which I ask people, for example, "Did I write "1", "2", "3" or "4" on my paper", some people sometimes complain that, if, for example, everybody answers "2", I could cheat and say I wrote "2" on my paper, in order to get a good hit rate. For this reason, in this latest test, I have added a security feature, called a cryptographic hash, which was originally suggested to me on this forum. The idea is to calculate the hash corresponding to a complicated sentence like "àç!è§"' ze mumbe I vrote ist ein 2", and to post this hash early in the test, and the sentence at the end of the test, after I have revealed the target number.

In this case, I think I would be very skeptical myself.

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:
, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

Yeah, see that is outright mockery of your claims by means of sarcasm. We have already established that you are utterly unable to detect sarcasm, even when people later reply to explain their sarcasm.

It is also cherry-picking at it's finest. Anyone who posts a sarcastic reply you like is taken as written in stone. Anyone who posts an honest answer you don't like is rejected with a bovine pseudo-justification.

When a better test is proposed such as by Kid Eager, you run a country mile from it because even you realise that you will fail.

So put up or shut up. Add the MD5 protocol to Kid Eager's test and bite that bullet.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.
In addition, my credibility analyses for the answers are usually easy to understand (and to verify) for most people, this is why they are (in my opinion) reliable.

Your credibilitywould be significantly enhanced if you were to post the entire quote, rather than this selective cherry-pick.
I am also awaiting your response to my earlier post. An honest response to that would also enhance your credibiity.

 

[phunk]

It was not cherry-picked, this was explained in the analysis of the results (and also in this post (part 2)).

You do not really expect an average schizophrenic to get comments like this (just three examples):



And there is no objective reason to say these answers were "sarcastic". Some say this on this forum, probably just because they are desperately looking for pretexts to discredit, disqualify such statements.

You still don't get it?

"Took me a while as the signal was weak."

He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer.

 

[phunk]

However, in my tests, I fairly often read statement like:

I am hearing Michel H's thoughts. ...

, which seem to confirm the existence of a special phenomenon, and I can't fake that.

It only confirms that you don't understand, or are in denial, that these are jokes.

 

[Donn]

Nothing you shout,
nothing you yell,
will make a dent on Michel,
or cause him doubt.

In a case like this one,
in cases like these,
involving mental disease,
there is no win.

Best is quiet.
Nill per mind.
Let him find
boredom's diet.

 

[Michel H]

You still don't get it?

"Took me a while as the signal was weak."

He was insulting you, calling you weak minded. There's a reason it was moved to AAH, everyone but you can see that. This is the guy you think gave you a "credible" answer.

I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post:

Think it's pretty simple.

I'm psychic and chose to read Michael H's mind.

Took me a while as the signal was weak

You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point

So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

 

[phunk]

I don't find anything wrong in cullennz' post:

You have to realize that he is apparently in New Zealand, while I am in Belgium, we are therefore approximately on diametrically opposite (antipodal) points on a terrestrial globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodal_point

So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will?

So, from a physics viewpoint, it is quite understandable that the signal should be weak, this is to be expected. By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

I've never heard anything from you, above or below water.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... By the same token, the thoughts you are presumably hearing from me (even if you deny it) should become weak and disappear when you scuba-dive. I would like to hear this from you (this would be great), but, so far, ..., nothing, unfortunately.

Since it's only in your imagination that people hear your thoughts there will naturally be nothing to report. I appreciate that this must be extremely frustrating for you since you are clearly convinced we can all hear what you are thinking but the simple truth is we really can't.

Can you explain how you 'know' we hear you? Did you just one day become overwhelmed by the certainty that this was so? If so, how does that make sense to you?

You're presently trying to rationalise this as being some kind of radio transmission from your mind, but if you are the supposed 'transmitter', why are you certain that there are billions of 'receivers'?

If the answer is something along the lines of "I just feel it" then perhaps that's a good starting point to consider whether, since all you really have is a feeling, the simplest explanation for that strange feeling is that you have a similar medical condition to each of the other people who have experienced the same feeling.

 

[Michel H]

So the entire earth being between you and him won't block the whole signal, but a few feet of water will?
...

Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number.

Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts" . Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters).

So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

 

[MikeG]

What a waste of your time, Michel. You have calculated the behaviour of something that does not and cannot exist.

 

[phunk]

Short-wave electromagnetic waves may travel between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere, this is a well known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere . But the same short waves get quickly absorbed in seawater, figure 6 from this paper: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a046687.pdf tells us that the attenuation constant alpha is equal to about 10 m^-1 at a frequency equal to 10 MHz; this corresponds to an attenuation length of about 10 cm for the amplitude, and 5 cm for the intensity. This means that, after an electromagnetic wave of 10 MHz has traveled a distance of 5 cm, its intensity is reduced by a factor of e = 2.72, where e is Euler's number.

Of course, a factor of about 2.7 or 3 is not enough to "get rid of my thoughts" . Let's say we demand an attenuation factor f for the intensity. We have: f = exp(-2 alpha x), or ln f = - 2 alpha x, or x = - (2 alpha)^-1 ln f, or x = - ln f /20 (in meters) = - (2.303/20) log f (in meters).

So, x = - 0.115 log f (in meters), where f is the attenuation factor (not the frequency), and log is decimal logarithm. If we demand an enormous attenuation factor of 10^-100, the courageous scuba-diver will have to go to a depth of 11.5 meters.

So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers?

 

[Michel H]

So you're saying your brain broadcasts radio waves strong enough to be picked up by brains on the other side of the world (when brains aren't even antennas), and those signals magically don't get detected by actual radio receivers?

Yes, that's about correct, I think (though I wouldn't use the word "magically"). There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter occur at almost definite and precise frequencies. Presumably, this is not true for telepathic broadcasts, which are much more "broad band", with a wide range of frequencies.

 

[MikeG]

.......There is a big difference (I suppose) between our telepathic broadcasts and ordinary radio broadcasts, in that the latter exist

I've corrected your post.