Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

I don't know. Why would it?

Its my fault for not being clear as to what the control was for. It's not a placebo but rather a bias control that fills the role of a 'believer'; whereas, I fill the role of a 'non-believer'.

Well me too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I probably wont fall back asleep.

No games. If you want me to prove my credibility (and I would be happy to) I can direct you to some experiments I have either hosted or participated in within this very subforum.

Help me understand this one. I personally plan on being fast asleep when the message is sent so I am not sure how that would interfere.

Sure... I think thats reasonable given the nature of this experiment.

If what you are proposing is a psi message sent to me next week and then an officially doumented experiment afterwards then I am down with that. Please confirm if my interpretation is correct.

The underlying claim and personal experiment is unfortunately not credible which is why I am reaching out to you and helping you establish credibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okey dokey. Lets do this

Hmmm.

I am not seeking credibility per se. I have suggested an experiment that would allow people to discover this for themselves. I cannot imagine a psi experiment that could not be explained away as a series of coincidences.

The "power of suggestion" is very real, and is the basis for placebo medicine. If you know the experiment is to take place at a certain time, waking you up at a certain time simply would not cut it. The elephant example is good for that. I already have a completely different image in mind to project.

I would then have to imprint a specific thought. I guess that works, providing your sleep is not hampered during that time through suggestion or anticipation.

O.K. being "down with that". Does this mean you will accept a random night experiment this week, and then if successful we advance to a more organized test ( I just want to wear a darn lab-coat again ).

I am still unsure of why a second reciever would be necessary since none of our findings would be publishable, at least not in an evidentiary way.

I'll do this, but at present I truly believe it is just to prove it to you. That way I can scratch one more skeptic off my list. The die-hard skeptics will think we are long lost cousins twice removed who have concocted a hoax, but you will know different. That is what makes this amusing for me.

Sounds like fun.

Kwhilborn

p.s. it'd be more fun in a lab coat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have a fool-proof method of transmitting thoughts…It’s called language.
No time limits or anything.

Here is a thought I’m currently transmitting towards you:
You are an imbecile.

Did you receive it yet?
I bet you’ve gotten that message before. You seem familiar with stupidity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sorry. My purpose for visiting this Sciforum has become invalid. I hope those of you with open minds will try the above experiment listed in the first post. I find only frustration dealing with people here, and will restrict myself to membership forums. Prefereably with entry requirements beyond what we have here. SciForum seems to me after only several days like a poorly organized Chat room.

Even the modulators. I speak of "Q", seem more intent on wordplay than information exchange.

It is a shame.

Kwhilborn

P.S. Sorry Crunchy Cat, you will have to continue your disbelief forever. I am not returning to SciForums.

 

Please don’t go, oh you wise Jedi of the paranormal transmissions.
What this world needs most are more idiots like you.

If you shall perish then where will the laughter come from?

 

Sheessh. I've had cold sores that took longer to fade away. He's being saying he's leaving post after post, thread after thread.

 

Please, oh please, my idiotic sage. I beseech you, do not leave us in our ignorance.

Send me a message using your abilities.
Communicate with me through the distances of time and space.
Let me be your willing and worthy student.

I…I’m getting something….I…..is that you, my lord?.....is that you?....your mind…..it’s so…..so….empty.
What does it mean?!!!!

 

Satyr, you gave him an out you spastard. It would have been far more preferable to publically see him fail with the claim.

 

[ENC]Spastard[/ENC]. Never heard of that until now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know why but it is very aesthetically satisfying to say.

 

And, if you look up, I've added it to the Encyclopedia.

 

That's awesome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. *Basks in the 10 seconds of fame*

 

Does he pander under the illusion of false non-existant scientific credentials? does he have a bluff manner and scraggy white beard?
I think i might know him!

 

So youd already decided the out-come of the experiment before embarking on it?
Good job he left really you would have been completely wasting his time.
The whole point of *any* half decent psychology experiment is that youre agnostic about the outcome - given that the psyche can simply output the outcome it wants without you even being consciously aware of it.

kwhilborn did actually make a very interesting point while he was here though which i think alot of you missed.
<HOW MANY COINCIDENCES EQUALS PROOF>

This is typically the problem with proofs of this nature, we have no pre-defined or definitive idea of when a coincidence transforms into a proof.
We can calculate the statistical likelyhood of an outcome, but these could still be subjectively understood as 'statistical coincidences'.

So where exactly is the problem then?
The problem as i see it is that we all have our own internal measurements to define the point at which a coincidence becomes a proof, which largely seem to be part of subconscious process rather than an outward rationalised one.

So how can we satisfy our non-rationalised internal standards?
Id agree with kwhilborn in as much as the best way to satisfy your own requirements of proof would be to provide your own.
You need to self-experience the coincidence/proof for the greatest chance of comming into contact with your self-defined version of either.

 

Yes of course I knew what the outcome would have been. The reason I wanted to have a 'believer' as a control was to get rid of that retarded cop-out I knew would be raised otherwise:

"...given that the psyche can simply output the outcome it wants without you even being consciously aware of it"

 

Surprised.

That was never an out. I kept my word, and was willing to experiment with crunchy cat. He had worked in a previous telepathy experiment trying to intercept real time numbers between 1 - 300. Seems kinda bold.

I offerred in several PM's to make an effort in this regard, and was surprised to see crunchy cat join in the witticisms.

I do not see what is so hard to believe In 2002, the National Science Foundation found that 60 percent of adults in the United States agreed or strongly agreed that some people possessed psychic powers or extrasensory perception. In June 2002, the Consumer Analysis Group conducted the most extensive survey ever done in the United Kingdom and revealed that 67 percent of adults believed in psychic powers.

To assume that they are all uneducated is false because the researchers found that the higher the education level achieved, the more likelihood there was of believing in paranormal dimensions and the possibilities of a broader spectrum of reality.

O.K. That deals with "beliefs" and not empirical data.

so Let's talk science.....
(not directed to those building banterring seniority levels here)

Science has PROVEN that thought (mind), is directly involved in our physical reality. For those who are ignorant to this, or do not understand the implications of the "Double-Slit Experiment" I suggest they see the simplistic version at.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment".

And/OR

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum mechanics.htm

Modern quantum physicists cannot scientifically account for how sub-atomic particles respond as if "aware". It defies what we previously thought of as reality. According to the "Copenhagen Interpretation", the probability wave of an electron requires the act of observation by a conscious observer to collapse it into a definite particle

it suggests is that nothing is real until it has been observed!

So if thought has been proven to interfere with reality, then maybe the over 60% of adults are correct in their "beliefs".

How would Mr Randi respond to the above links. I think he owes the Scientists $ 1 000 000.

O.K. Let me have it. The double slit (thought/reality) experiment, Schrödinger's cat-in-the-box thought experiment, and Albert Einsteins EPR Paradox which upset Einstein because it proved particles could communicate instantaneously despite distances and "faster than the speed of light"

These "thought" experiments have been repeated time and again with the same results, and clearly offer a lot for skeptics to ponder.

I have had success with telepathy, and the experiment I outlined at the beginning of this thread will be enough to change the mind of those few skeptics with open minds.

Scientists need to be open to possibilities. Not one scientific discovery or invention has occurred without people thinking "outside" the box. O.K. that is not entirelly true. There were some lab techs who discovered naturally occurring microwaves in space just by wondering why their detector kept going off. Won a Nobel prize for it as well.

O.K. let me have it!

Call me a fruitloop, spastard, or whatever. That fact remains that mind influences reality. To argue that is pointless. IT IS A PROVEN FACT!

 

I need to find Quantum Quack my friend!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, if a group of people believe in something, it must exist? Raelians are a large group of people who believe we were created by aliens. Does that mean it's true in light of another large group of people who believe we were created by gods?

How does that support your claims?

Again, how does that support your claims? What have you demonstrated?

How are sub-atomic particles 'aware' of anything? Are you saying they are conscious entities?

Many physics theories are counter-intuitive to what we would expect, so what?

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that the observer is now informed to that which was previously uncertain.

Thought has not been demonstrated to interfere with reality, regardless of the beliefs.

You are mistaken.

You've demonstrated nothing.

Yes, let's throw truckloads of money towards psychic research. Or, let's flush it directly down the toilet. Same outcome.

You already appear to know what you are. 'Nuff said.

Yes, pointless to argue.

 

I understand how some people cannot grasp what these experiments have indicated about our reality.

"The electrons behave one way when allowed to do their own thing, yet behaved entirely differently when observed.

The double-slit experiment has been replicated time and again, and the conclusion drawn by the observers is that.

"The act of observing breaks down a particle wave."

Don't just tell me I'm wrong Q. The experiment is affected by human thought.

It may be hard to grasp, so watch the video again.

click on this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

It is perhaps one of the greatest puzzles of our time. How can "thought" interfere with reality. I can read your blog already Q. You will say "it doesn't". That is like saying water doesn't exist. There is Empirical Data that proves beyond argument that "Thought affects reality.". Is there anybody reading this thread that knows about science and perhaps even these "thought" experiments conducted by Einstein (more than him, but I'm not sure some of you can read.)

I am up against idiots here, anybody know about the double slit experiments and the conclusions feel free to tell Q he is the one who is wrong, and that the conclusion is.

According to the "Copenhagen Interpretation", the probability wave of an electron requires the act of observation by a conscious observer to collapse it into a definite particle.

The mind of people is a factor in the outcome of the experiment. It has been documented by some of the greatest brains in history and of our time. It is an experiment with two outcomes based on whether conscious observation (mind/thought) was present.

Yes the electrons did seem aware. The only two choices. The only two choices. The only two choices is that the electron was self-aware, or that thought (observation) influenced them.

This is scientifically a fact. as surely as you breath air. To deny proven factual science just because it does not fit your belief system Q makes YOU an IDIOT.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q="double slit experiment"

Chew on it.

 

I think youre missing the point, you were atempting to engage in a thought experiment with this man and you wernt (for all intents and purposes) going to play along.
The whole point of thought experiments is that you fully engage with the experiment, you should essentially be aiming for mpartiality.
If youre approaching this or any thought experiment as a debunking excersise then i can tell you what will happen before its even started - nothing will happen atall.
It really proves nothing either way, effectively no experiment will have occured atall, the whole things a write off before its even begun.

This really isnt coping out, its highlighting a very real problem of favoured/pre-empted outcomes in science, the problem in this instance is as a 'debunker' (whos now staked his name to a negative outcome already) you now have a vested interest in a negative outcome.
Really i think the best way with experiments like these is to conduct them with a small to medium cross section of society to hopefully elliminate as much bias as possible - then let the statistics do the talking.