Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by kwhilborn, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. Trebor Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Hello, I am stunned to actually read about this online.
    I know this really works although I never tried this technique, I would just focus on a message and try to send it somehow with looking or thinking about the person..
    One of which was a dream about a scary monster i transmitted to my cousin during that time he made a weird grunt as if h was scared maybe it was the energy i sent out...

    Also in lunch i looked at my friend and thought of him coming to my lunch table which he did and was so cool..

    I want to know what are the pros and cons because i don't want to hurt anyone by accident please educate me more because I have been having anxiety problems due to my thoughts.
    Your pal, Trebor
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Can I ask, would you be happy about someone else doing to you what you have done to others? [That is to be deliberately psychically influenced with out your knowledge or consent?]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Quantum Quack,

    I am a hardcore advocate of telepathy and have been involved in this area of research.

    You make it sound as if you can manipulate someones actions and remove their free will. I will admit that it is possible to send messages and thoughts to people, but I think it is RIDICULOUS your stance that you or anyone is able to remove free will to anything but a minor extent. Anybody saying a prayer or making a wish for you is as guilty.

    If anything this topic screams for research, and yet stances like the one in your last post make it seem as if trying to learn our abilities should be a crime.

    Try being remotely realistic for a bit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Today I was driving and in rather a sticky situation. I willed for the guy on my left to let me in - and HE DID !!!

    (Whew - I must be psychic)
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    • Have you ever considered why your psychic test only works because people are sleeping and are unable to offer consent ?
    • Have you ever wondered what would happen if some spurious and unethical "secret organization" should happen to utilize this method for general population control?
    • How many groups do you know of that get together after midnight when most are sleeping and chant their chants attempting to influence the population? I can think of quite a few.
    • How many men would jump at the chance to effectively "date rape" using this method?
    • Why do you presume that those who know of this method are all of high integrity when the act of using it means that the inability for the victim to consent to, what tantamount s to a "home invasion" whilst they sleep, is ignored?
    • Why can't you see the issue of ethics needed when deliberately attempting to sneek into someones home and influence what they have for dinner?
    Oh I am being very realistic and I can only ask you the same question I asked the previous poster:

    "Can I ask, would you be happy about someone else doing to you what you have done to others? [That is to be deliberately psychically influenced with out your knowledge or consent whilst you are asleep?] "


    Why do you think they burned witches at the stake years ago?

    Why do you think black witches invariably are portrayed as Ugly and Gross in popular media and are generally considered to do their thing after midnight, in the dark and always in secret?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You say you have researched psychic pheno for a long time and yet you fail to recognize exactly how "offensive" your suggested test method is to the privacy, mental integrity and freedom of the victim.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    just think, if you were not psychic he may not have seen you and drove into you instead....[chuckle]
     
  10. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ QQ,
    You are not speaking in the dimension of sanity. Show me a case where you think someone has bee able to subvert the free will of another.

    From what we see a telephone is much more reliable way of sending a message to another person, and yet a telephone cannot subvert will or cause date rape.

    I likely will not continue to argue this as it is a waste of time trying to talk sanity into someone.

    The reason I think people are more receptive to psychic messages during REM sleep is they are not blinded by conscious thought and are in states of extreme relaxation. It is not because their defenses are down. In fact; I have seen many people attempt to communicate with ex GF's or BF's and their messages do not seem to get through or responded to. I think psychic defenses are intact at all times.

    Maybe there will come a time when people can be controlled and your arguments gain validity with mind enhancing drugs and generations of practiced psychic behavior, but as long as we remain in a place where psychic communication cannot be measured with 100% accuracy the ideas you submit are ridiculous.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    still haven't answered the question put to the previous poster. Ridiculous? I think not
     
  12. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    I would have no problem with people trying.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Ok , let us say we have a go at it... you sleep and I send ok?
    however before we do I must warn you...
    That I can not guarantee that:
    • you wont end up institutionalized with severe and inexplicable depression or other mental/emotional trauma.
    • I don't have a sinister ulterior motive.
    • you may end up being screwed over for the rest of your life.
    • you may suffer from severe memory lapses that you have no way of accounting for.
    • you nor I may not be able to reverse any of the outcomes.
    • I have any idea what part of your brain, heart, lungs, thymus, kidneys, nor bowel, testicles, or other parts of the body including the endocrine/immune system, I am tampering with.
    • clinical trials have been performed to suggest any degree of long term safety at all.

    ok?
    Are you still prepared to have a go at it?
    Because I am sure as hell, not prepared to....as to do so would be incredibly unethical and an act in utter disregard for the long term welfare of the chosen target candidate [you].
    Oh btw one thing I am pretty certain of, your free will [ what ever that is] "may" remain intact but your body may be needed to compensate [in trauma] for the assault upon your free will.
    Pulmonary conditions are a common outcome for example. [ for example: a persistent throat irritation (cough) that just wont go away and sudden onset of "irritable" bladder and bowel syndromes ]

    Before you go all hysterical and claim I am not in the realm of the "real" I just wanted to explain that by recommending a method with out considering the very real consequences of using that method "deliberately" you are proposing that "people experiment with ignorant guinea pigs" and this can only be considered as grossly irresponsible as you have absolutely no idea of what you are doing nor any idea of the long term ramifications to the target person. You can't even describe what exactly "freewill" is, let alone ensure it's protection.

    What exactly are dreams? for example... any idea?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2013
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Good news you won't hurt anyone accidentily by thinking about them. You have mistaken reality for that movie Scanners, the one where peoples noggins blow up real good. The idea that you can control, influence or even communicate with someone telepathically is just pretend. So don't worry about it. If you, or anyone else, thinks it is real you have my permission to think real hard and make me walk in front of a bus, or fall off of a cliff or just have my head blow up real good. If you succeed there are no hard feelings - I am insured to the hilt so my wife could move to St. Johns and eat mangos all day long.

    Have at it! If I stop posting you will know it worked, oh and if I do stop posting, my wife says, "thanks!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Origin,
    My Thanks as well.

    @ QQ,

    Yes. Even though I think you could influence a dream or convey your day to someone telepathically, I think you are being ridiculous to think you could hurt, maim, or influence someone beyond their conscious control.

    I could simply repeat this over and over and over and over, but it doesn't seem to sink in.
     
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Telepathy has never been scientifically demonstrated (ie reproducibility of results).
    At best there is anecdotal support for the phenomenon.
    Unfortunately such anecdotal support introduces a bias through selective sampling.

    Another issue I have is that while some observations that appear to be telepathy certainly exist, the flaw is in concluding that the observation is evidence of telepathy rather than something altogether more mundane, such as knowing the subject matter well, reading body language, or just simply coincidence.

    Maybe when someone I don't know can transmit, say, their telephone number into my head so that I ring them, then I'll perhaps consider it to be something more.

    The problem with this is that, if I never receive a number, it will either be a case of the puported telepath claiming to have never actually sent, or somehow my fault for not being receptive.
    I.e. telepathy has a habit of only seeming to work in situations when it suits the people to think it has worked.

    Put it up to scientific scrutiny.
    So far it has has underwhelming "success".
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Why do you think that?
    When approx. 51 million people world wide, on any given day suffer from either being the subject of influence and/or are compelled to believe they can influence [schizophrenia] and require hospitalization due to their apparent social dysfunction. [ premised on the fact that a key indicator for Schizophrenia is either being possessed* [*influenced ] or believing they can psychically influence.]
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    You are referring to telepathic acts of a "deliberate nature" and not acts of a passive instinctive/reflexive nature.

    What if psychic communication was "supposed" to be only instinctive, reflexive and passive in it's function and every deliberate attempt leads not only to frustration of the attempt but also the very instinctive , passive, reflexive activities you rely upon to stay sane and healthy?
     
  19. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Baldee,

    Telepathy has never been scientifically demonstrated (ie reproducibility of results).
    At best there is anecdotal support for the phenomenon.

    There is unfortunately a large difference between 100% reproduceability and anecdotal support. It is true that no method or people have yet to be found that can reproduce telepathy 100% of the time, there certainly has been experiments where hit rates dwell above 75% of the time. The Sleep/REM/Dream Telepathy experiments in New York were a good example that yielded 75 000:1 odds in favor of telepathy. Mankind has also demonstrated the ability to control the output of random number generators that supposed give coinflip like results.

    In science we work mainly with tools and measurements. If telepathy did not rely on Humans as the instruments for now then perhaps a 100% rate could be achieved. The reason why experiments like the two I mention are not Widespread news is because we developed a "scientific method" that ignores it when there is only a probability it exists. Our scientific method only accepts 100% reproduceability. This is a flaw with the scientific method as far as I am concerned as research could benefit from looking at subjects with high probabilities of existence.

    I am sure you or anyone can point at failed psychic experiments and I also could produce a failed psychic experiment if I chose. This is often done by skeptics.

    The idea you give of transmission of a phone number is highly unlikely, and is why many experiments fail. The most successful experiments seem to be between an emotional sender and a passive or REM sleep receiver. It is hard to be emotional about a phone number, but you might sense when something bad has occurred to a loved one.

    I suggest reading and trying the method I gave in the OP. There is no skin off my nose if people do not believe what I have seen and experienced since that day. I often feel sorry for those who cannot see what is right in front of them. Telepathy is not a hard thing to do. It is a hard thing to do 100% of the time with great accuracy, but it is very simple and often works.

    Believe it.... or not... (No matter to me)
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    I would think that what he refers to is telepathy in general.
    Granted, all we can test is the "deliberate", and anything else would be no different from such things we interpret (for good reason) as coincidence.

    His name has 3 "e"s.
    Yet what is the title of this thread that you started?
    Let's revisit, shall we... "Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works."
    There will always be individual tests that yield such results. The chance of rolling double-six with 2 dice is 1 in 36 yet happens rather frequently (1 out of every 36, actually).
    Does that mean we should take an individual event of rolling a double-six as being evidence of something remarkable.
    Source where this has been shown to be anything other than coincidence.

    You're talking out of ignorance.
    Science very much uses probability - but nothing is concluded as a scientific-fact until it is reproduceable to a rather high degree of success.
    There is no flaw with the scientific method - only with your application of it, and your desire to see unscientific notions given the seal of approval from the scientific community.
    Yet you fail to look at the meta-analysis that concludes any successful experiment is nothing more than background noise... i.e. expected within the confines of probability.
    Now you're just making excuses... "oh, it's not that telepathy doesn't exist, it's because you're not capable!".
    Tried it. Didn't work. But you'll ignore the 2 million who it doesn't work for and only look at the 1 person it seems to, and through that claim some mysterious process at work, that science then ignores.

    As for feeling sorry... others feel sorry for those that are irrational enough to believe that what they observe is not what it appears to be (i.e. coincidence) but something more mysterious. This thread is as laughable as your claims to consistently defy odds in lotteries, based on 2 or 3 successes some 6 to 8 year ago.
     
  21. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Sarkus,
    Impossible. It always works.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @ Sarkus,
    yes we agree at least in this regard.
    The main issue then is to determine what the term "coincidence" actually means...
    As you may recall I have argued that the universe could be considered as an entity of "instinctive intelligence". That all events are "cause and effect" oriented and that when considered holistically "could " be considered as a form of instinctive intelligence. Suffice to say that the mundane act of a "wave washing up on a beach" is a reflexive or instinctive act of intelligence [simply due to it's apparent "order" perhaps.(Equating Order with intelligence - ration-al and Chaos with insanity)]

    Psychic communication, "if" it exists, is only an "invisible" relationship between two of more entities, that is currently unable to be evidenced using the scientific method.

    ie.
    Does a rock communicate "psychically" with another rock a billion light years away in distance?
    • The laws of thermodynamics suggests that it must.
    • The laws of gravitational constancy suggest that it must.
    • QED quantum entanglement suggests that it may.

    Yet given all the logically extended notions of inter-connected-ness as already evidenced by science and stated in it's laws, it is unable to observe using the scientific method the details of that communication beyond the limitations of it's ability to observe using the technology currently available. However simply because science can not observe the detail of that communication does not mean that that communication is non-existent. [Logically two rocks (or two people for that matter) separated by billions of light years "MUST" be communicating. It is only in the detail of what exactly is being communicated that is the issue.]
     
  23. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ QQ,
    Trying to sway a skeptic is like discussing with a rock. They refuse to explore the subject as they feel they have a correct stance. I see their view as reasonable although sad.
     

Share This Page