New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Jack by the hedge]

Clearly, this answer is not correct. An interesting question, however, is "Is this (incorrect) answer related to the correct answer (France)?"
The answer to this question seems to be "yes" to me, because Canada is a (partially) French-speaking country. In the country list of the opening post of the test, only two (Belgium and France) out of ten are (totally or partly) French-speaking. In addition, Canada contains, like "France", the two consecutive letters "an" (this is true for half of the countries in my list).

Congratulations. This is a new extreme. Had I not been reading this thread for years I would presume it was self-parody. You will attempt any mental gymnastics in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth that you are not really telepathic and your feeling that you are is caused by something else.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Canada has closer ties with England, (Northern) Ireland and Scotland than it does with France, seeing as it only gained independence from the UK in 1982 and still shares the same monarch. All three words also contain the two letters "an", as well as a "d", which is in the word "Canada" but not "France". Scotland also has the "c", which "France" lacks.

It's perhaps also worth noting that two countries on the list - Australia and New Zealand - are also constitutional monarchies with QE II as their monarch, making them both more similar to Canada than France is.

 

[JesseCuster]

Also, I would like to observe that analyzing only the answers which give clearly a country (in this test), or one of the possible choices (in general) may be considered as a way to filter out the big mass of people who just want to be dishonest and nasty, and who answer "I don't know", with sometimes suggestions that I would be a "delusional schizophrenic".

I was being honest when I said that I didn't know what country you wrote down and circled and that I have never got the impression of receiving any communications from you telepathically. I have no reason to lie about this.

Are you calling me a liar? I'm not going to be offended by whatever answer you gave, I just want to know if you truly believe that I am being dishonest and nasty by giving the answer I gave.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Scotland also has the "c", which "France" lacks ...

I think the crafty French might have slipped one in while you weren't looking.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think the crafty French might have slipped one in while you weren't looking.

I don't know what I didn't c that.

 

[Michel H]

...

Are you calling me a liar? I'm not going to be offended by whatever answer you gave, I just want to know if you truly believe that I am being dishonest and nasty by giving the answer I gave.

I prefer to remain a little vague, and avoid attacking someone personally, if I can. Also, I have to comply (in principle) with Rule 12:

“Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer."(This rule does not apply only to direct insults and attacks (which are often also a breach of Rule 0) but is intended to ensure discussion stays focussed on the topic at hand and not on the Members involved.)

Even if you are ready to accept certain things, it is not sure that the moderation team also will.
But I do think there is probably a lack of honesty on this forum (though it is really a more general problem), with respect to my apparent telepathy and thought broadcasting, your approach here tends to be too narrowly skeptical ("I can tell you that telepathy doesn't exist", stuff like that...), in my opinion. If telepathy is really the principal method of communication in the animal world (animals do not talk!), it seems pretty enormous to state it doesn't exist.

 

[p0lka]

I prefer to remain a little vague, and avoid attacking someone personally, if I can. Also, I have to comply (in principle) with Rule 12:

Even if you are ready to accept certain things, it is not sure that the moderation team also will.
But I do think there is probably a lack of honesty on this forum (though it is really a more general problem), with respect to my apparent telepathy and thought broadcasting, your approach here tends to be too narrowly skeptical ("I can tell you that telepathy doesn't exist", stuff like that...), in my opinion. If telepathy is really the principal method of communication in the animal world (animals do not talk!), it seems pretty enormous to state it doesn't exist.

It isn't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If telepathy is really the principal method of communication in the animal world (animals do not talk!), it seems pretty enormous to state it doesn't exist.

If telepathy existing would overturn extremely well-established laws of physics (which it would), it seems pretty enormous to state it does exist.

And while you're talking about honesty, you might want to consider why you've ignored my post about how close Canada is to France relative to the other countries I named. The fact that you've not acknowledged, let alone addressed these facts, rather suggests that you are lying to yourself.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If telepathy is really the principal method of communication in the animal world (animals do not talk!), it seems pretty enormous to state it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if telepathy doesn't exist it seems pretty absurd to state it's the principal method of communication in the animal world. There is an enormous body of knowledge concerning the ways animals communicate through sounds, smells, sight and touch, and I'm not personally aware of any significant gaps in that understanding that require an additional channel of communication.

Dave

 

[Donn]

If telepathy is really the principal method of communication in the animal world (animals do not talk!), it seems pretty enormous to state it doesn't exist.

Oy! This just keeps on rollin'.

 

[Gamolon]

To my great regret, nobody answered one of the 10 possible choices of this test.

This is incorrect. You gave 11 possible choices. The 10 words and:

I ask you to write it here (if you think you know it, even with a doubt). You may also answer "I don't know".

Clearly, this answer is not correct. An interesting question, however, is "Is this (incorrect) answer related to the correct answer (France)?"
The answer to this question seems to be "yes" to me, because Canada is a (partially) French-speaking country. In the country list of the opening post of the test, only two (Belgium and France) out of ten are (totally or partly) French-speaking. In addition, Canada contains, like "France", the two consecutive letters "an" (this is true for half of the countries in my list).

This is what you're going with? Not that telepathy doesn't work because the WORD you concentrated on never reached anyone, but telepathy MIGHT have worked SOMEWHAT because of some vague commonality you made up after the fact?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is it worth pointing out that humans communicate without talking? Even if you expand "talking" to include things like typing forum posts, that's still true:

 

[Michel H]

On the other hand, if telepathy doesn't exist it seems pretty absurd to state it's the principal method of communication in the animal world. There is an enormous body of knowledge concerning the ways animals communicate through sounds, smells, sight and touch, and I'm not personally aware of any significant gaps in that understanding that require an additional channel of communication.

Dave

There are lots of variable currents in the brain, and we know from physics that variable currents do generate electromagnetic waves, so assuming that telepathy does exist is a natural position from a physicist's point of view. If telepathy did not exist, this would mean that mother Nature would have missed an opportunity, I don't think (though I am not a biologist) she often does that.

One may perhaps speculate that the real reason why many of you on this forum seem to be blocked or stuck on the very rigid position that telepathy does not exist (?) is because these persons have what might perhaps be termed a "criminal agenda", which has everything to do with crime, and very little to do with rationality. I have already tried to explain on this forum how I seem to be able to communicate telepathically with animals (cats, dogs, birds) near my building, but I am not sure you paid any attention. 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 (so he/she cannot hear me normally, sensorially), and I study whether there is a reaction, a change (often there is).

 

[fagin]

We're all criminals now? Thanks for the heads up.

I better go turn myself in.

ps. Mother Nature is not actually a real person. Really.

 

[Michel H]

This is incorrect. You gave 11 possible choices. The 10 words and:
...

Perhaps I should have said, more correctly:

To my great regret, nobody answered one of the 10 possible (word) choices of this test.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There are lots of variable currents in the brain, and we know from physics that variable currents do generate electromagnetic waves, so assuming that telepathy does exist is a natural position from a physicist's point of view.

No it isn't. We also understand the inverse square law, signal to noise ratios, and a whole lot more, and we would be able to detect electromagnetic waves strong enough to carry information from one brain to the other. And I am a physicist, by the way.

If telepathy did not exist, this would mean that mother Nature would have missed an opportunity, I don't think (though I am not a biologist) she often does that.

I can tell you're not a biologist from the fact that you're trying to formulate a scientific argument based on an anthropomorphic personification. For it to be an opportunity, it has to be physically feasible. And if it were real, why would speech have evolved?

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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 (so he/she cannot hear me normally, sensorially), and I study whether there is a reaction, a change (often there is).

What measures have you put in place to counteract confirmation bias in these tests? Have you tried to replicate these things under controlled conditions?

 

[Michel H]

We're all criminals now? Thanks for the heads up.

I better go turn myself in.

...

I have somewhat edited my post #230, following your feedback.

 

[Gamolon]

Perhaps I should have said, more correctly:

Doesn't matter.

The choice "I don't know" tells you that your telepathy didn't work at all on those folks as they never telepathically heard anything from you. Not giving them the "I don't know" option would have forced them to guess, which is a far cry from making a selection based on actually telepathically hearing from you.

 

[Michel H]

No it isn't. We also understand the inverse square law, signal to noise ratios, and a whole lot more, and we would be able to detect electromagnetic waves strong enough to carry information from one brain to the other. And I am a physicist, by the way.
...

You should perhaps have a look at the book "The Radiating Brain", by Ferdinando Cazzamalli: http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/parapsychology/TheRadiatingBrain.pdf , or at this article:
Radiometer measures temperature in premature babies' brains (2000)
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=2512
(microwave radiation from the brain recently measured, but they don't seem to have extended their measurements to the shortwave frequencies)