# Thread: A scientific test of paranormal ability, right here on sciforums!

1. kwhilborn:

Thanks for your post. I haven't looked at the links in detail yet, but I'll get to them.

It occurs to me that if you can predict lottery numbers, we can potentially test that power right here. Here's what I suggest:

Suppose I generate 10 sets of lottery numbers, with each set containing 6 numbers in the range 1-45, like a standard lottery. We can pretend that these 10 sets are 10 weekly draws of the lottery. I will use a random method to pick the numbers. That is, I won't choose them myself, but will use a computer to randomly generate them.

Next, for each of those 10 sets of numbers, you will use your psychic powers to predict as many of the numbers in the set as you can. You get to pick 6 numbers for each set.

Then, we compare your predictions to the results.

If you prefer, the results can be generated after you have made your predictions.

And, if you don't trust me to be fair about things, we could appoint a third party to receive the random numbers and/or your predictions by a PM, and then to publish them to the public thread once both sets are in. Then we can all compare and see how well you did.

Do you think you can do better than chance on this? Or is there some problem with this proposal that means your predictive powers won't work in this case?

2. Originally Posted by kwhilborn

The above picture contains a word. Can you read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram

It is meant to be read subliminally and not via intentional focus for our purposes
NAH, you see those (the word 'Yes' and a disc moving up and down behind it, in this case) by de-focussing. It's nothing subliminal.

3. Originally Posted by Epictetus
A More Sensible Test:

I'm thinking of a number between one and twenty-five. What is it?
1.2345678901r ?

You didn't specify it was an integer.

4. @ phlogistician,
imagine focusing on the auto-stereo-gram was cheating, and you had to choose without focusing on the image.

You could see the word and disc contained in the answer, so you have helped this discussion by being able to see the words/shapes/numbers I might hide in this fashion.

Other methods I have had for burying a subliminal word/number/shape into a picture is
a) by varying colors by a degree that is practically imperceptible by the naked eye.
b) Having image in color just outside normal visual range (like ultraviolet).

If you were to choose between shapes/numbers/words based upon choosing the surface picture and not the depth image you would find that every picture is made up of 8 or more subliminal pictures. This was done to help disguise the pictures from conscious choice. The disc moving up and down behind the word yes was meant to represent a nodding head so that people could perceive this subliminally. The word "no" picture; has a disc moving side to side.

This is what I meant by.
It is meant to be read subliminally and not via intentional focus for our purposes

Focusing your eyes to consciously see the numbers/shapes/words would be cheating.

@ JamesR,
You missed this part of my last post
I have no interest in devoting many hours to finding 1 or 2 picks in every draw unless you can convince the real james Randi that 6 months of hitting 1 number each draw is convincing enough. It is a reward vs work thing.,
What you are proposing is about 5 minutes work on your end and over 20 hours work on my end. If I were to be involved in a project like this I would simply use real lottery numbers and post them in advance of a draw. Then I can at least buy a ticket. I am sure a lottery organization can draw as randomly as you can without the need for a third party.

The Lottery post website does accept advance postings of Canadian draws (I think now.. unsure 100%), so I might consider that method, but again you are talking about over 20 hours staring at a computer screen voting between photos that all look the same. It is not as much fun as it sounds.

We are on the parapsychology thread (reminder), so this next part may confuse some.
For best results in picking future lottery numbers. We have developed the following rules.
a) Choose your numbers with the method we use, or method of your choice.
c) Try to forget your numbers (This is important)
d) When you have forgotten numbers enough check the winning numbers.
e) spend 1 hour memorizing and trying to send the numbers to yourself back in time.

Trying to forget your numbers is important for a few reasons. If you check the winning numbers and completely remember that you did not choose any of them then you would be too discouraged to spend time memorizing the winning numbers and broadcasting them back in time.

I believe I could pick at least 1 correct number in a weekly 6/49 draw for at least 6 months (approx 25 draws). If the real Amazing James Randi would accept that challenge as proof then off we go.

Members/James R must be prepared to accept all beating of odds as a hit, but I propose many hits. Do not expect 5 out of 6 numbers or some such thing.

I would participate in a much smaller event for the sake of sciforum skeptics/James R. I suppose I have generated some curiosity with a few, but each prediction takes 1-2 hours in a process I grew tired of years ago. I would feel better using real lotteries. Let me give it some thought.

5. Originally Posted by phlogistician
You didn't specify it was an integer.
I worked out that it would be, and I don't even claim to be psychic!

6. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Focusing your eyes to consciously see the numbers/shapes/words would be cheating.
Er, you de-focus to see the image. And it doesn't matter how you do it, it's not cheating. The point is, it is not subliminal, as I see and recognise the image consciously.

All right. Here's my deal. Post your interest in testing me and pick a whole number between 1 and 10. Try and remember it, or write it down if you are Aqueous Id. Your post must contain the line "I test you, Geoff!"

The Amazing Geoff, using the amazing powers of my unparalleled psyche (scored a distributional P-value of about 0.3 on two tries), will attempt to guess your number. If I guess correctly, your soul must be indentured to mine for a period not exceeding ten minutes. If not, you get a big can of SFA. Fair?

This test for entertainment purposes only. You cannot sue Amazing Geoff or any fund or corporation in Geoff Enterprises, so bugger off.

8. Originally Posted by GeoffP

All right. Here's my deal. Post your interest in testing me and pick a whole number between 1 and 10. Try and remember it, or write it down if you are Aqueous Id. Your post must contain the line "I test you, Geoff!"

The Amazing Geoff, using the amazing powers of my unparalleled psyche (scored a distributional P-value of about 0.3 on two tries), will attempt to guess your number. If I guess correctly, your soul must be indentured to mine for a period not exceeding ten minutes. If not, you get a big can of SFA. Fair?

This test for entertainment purposes only. You cannot sue Amazing Geoff or any fund or corporation in Geoff Enterprises, so bugger off.
Don't forget to send him the one time non refundable fee of 100 US dollars.

9. We also take rubles, for various reasons.

10. @ Phlogistician,

You are misunderstanding how to use the pictures we are discussing.

I understand that you can see them consciously. So can I. I can see them near or far, and stand on my head and still see the hidden pictures consciously.

This is completely NOT the way to do this.

If you can focus on the hidden image then you should also be able to view the pictures without seeing the depth file.

Now lets pretend you wanted to vote on the pictures WITHOUT knowing consciously what is inside the depth file. I am saying the point of the exercises is to examine what is in your subconscious. By consciously viewing them consiously then you are cheating yourself and can never arrive at a subconscious answer.

I did say I had several other methods for hiding images/words/numbers inside a picture subconsciously. The first method used colors just outside visual range such as UV, and the second method involves using a background and image colors that are very similar in pigments with only a very slight variation that the subconscious could pick up on.

Neither of the following two methods were able to be used in conjunction with a computer program and monitor.

Let's pretend a psychic broadcaster in an experiment was projecting a triangle shape from locked lab room A. The psychic receiver is on a computer in locked lab room B. The Receiver votes on Squares, Circles, and Triangles presented in the fashion of the pictures you viewed. The receiver is NOT supposed to consciously view the depth file. I understand that many people are so proud that they can view auto-stereo-grams, but viewing the depth file in our experiments are counter-productive.

Until I came up with this method the newest invention for getting an idea from the subconscious was a pendulum. My idea is at least from this (last) millennium (1993), and is the biggest solo mind power breakthrough in a few thousand years in my opinion, although the Ouija Board is also decent.

Other methods people use to get ideas from the subconscious are Ouija Boards, Automatic Writing, scrying, etc.

If you can come up with a better way to get an idea fro your subconscious then go ahead and let us know.

I reiterate that consciously focusing on the depth images contained in the auto-stereo-grams is cheating yourself as it is your (whomevers) subconscious we are trying to hack with these.

I am glad that you were able to view the background images. It is not rocket science although a few still don't understand how. The point is that you are supposed to view the pictures without defocusing or focusing (Whatever one means you are viewing the hidden/depth image).

That picture came from one of my websites that has over 800 auto-stereo-grams created and used in the graphics. The image you viewed in an earlier post was comprised of 8-10 animated gif auto-stereo-grams. I can easily see all of the depth files. I can probably change focus on these pictures as well as anyone in the world and can do so from across the room. I have worked with and helped create these.

@ plogistician,
If you still do not understand then I do not know how to explain it better. I hope this was enough. Some may argue against the existence of a subconscious altogether, but we are operating on the idea that it does exist.

11. Originally Posted by GeoffP

All right. Here's my deal. Post your interest in testing me and pick a whole number between 1 and 10. Try and remember it, or write it down if you are Aqueous Id. Your post must contain the line "I test you, Geoff!"

The Amazing Geoff, using the amazing powers of my unparalleled psyche (scored a distributional P-value of about 0.3 on two tries), will attempt to guess your number. If I guess correctly, your soul must be indentured to mine for a period not exceeding ten minutes. If not, you get a big can of SFA. Fair?

This test for entertainment purposes only. You cannot sue Amazing Geoff or any fund or corporation in Geoff Enterprises, so bugger off.
You can't guess. You have to extract the thought from my head.

I can pick a number one from one hundred. And play this thought over and over in my head.. "77," "77," "77..." You must extract that thought of "77" from my head to match the number we wrote down on paper.

12. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
... I believe I could pick at least 1 correct number in a weekly 6/49 draw for at least 6 months (approx 25 draws)...
Hi all - I'm new to these forums. Interesting thread, this one.

Kwhilborn - I applaud your tenacity on these issues, but IMO, some of what you say is quite a stretch.

Drawing one number per week in a 6/49 is no big feat IMO. What are the odds - about 3:1 ?

Yes, I know, doing it for 6 months straight is another thing, but still ..

BTW, think about this - what are the odds of drawing NO numbers in a week ? I'm no statistician, but I was talking to one about this a few years ago, and I seem to recall he said the odds were also about 3:1.

If so, what do you say to that ? Even if you failed, you could still claim some extraordinary performance.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I applaud your tanacity here, but we do often get confirmaion bias about our beliefs ..

13. Kwhilborn .. are you there ?

What do you say to the above ?

Also, you mentioned your website IIRC ? What is it ?

14. Sorry. The above math is incorrect.

To choose a correct number in a 6/49 type draw the odds are 1 in 2.42 . To do this repetitively for a series of 25 draws maintaining this above average achievement would be MORE remarkable than flipping a coin and having it land on heads 25 times in a row. I believe I can easily do this.

This Challenge was presented to "The Amazing Randi" (JREF), and it was refused by them (cowards). The James Randi Educational Foundation is only interested short videos they can poke fun at. They have no interest in accepting a challenge that takes 6 months.

If you could flip a coin and land it on heads 25 times in a row however then they would probably be interested in that. JREF is only interested in sideshows and no real experiments.

15. A bit of humor . . . "If anyone in the Sciforms audience is psychic . . . . raise my hand!!"

16. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Sorry. The above math is incorrect.

To choose a correct number in a 6/49 type draw the odds are 1 in 2.42 . To do this repetitively for a series of 25 draws maintaining this above average achievement would be MORE remarkable than flipping a coin and having it land on heads 25 times in a row. I believe I can easily do this.

This Challenge was presented to "The Amazing Randi" (JREF), and it was refused by them (cowards). The James Randi Educational Foundation is only interested short videos they can poke fun at. They have no interest in accepting a challenge that takes 6 months.

If you could flip a coin and land it on heads 25 times in a row however then they would probably be interested in that. JREF is only interested in sideshows and no real experiments.
A flip of a coin has only two alternatives, therefore, 25 straight would indeed be interesting.

Lotto has many alternatives. Sure, drawing one ball is 2.42 (or whatever), but drawing NO BALL is also about that rate. I pointed this out earlier and you didn't address it.

James Randi EF is not as trite as you make them sound. They have to have strict controls.

In any case, if you think you can do 25 straight oneballs in lotto, why not show it here. Let us know the draw, etc, and put up your picks earlier, here, real time. 25 straight!

17. Drawing no balls 25 times straight would be more impressive in my opinion. Picking at least 1 correct number would also allow me to have multiple correct numbers in my prediction, and the no balls correct version would not.

The point is I can break statistical odds. I am not talking about parting the red sea.

As for sciforums. I have attempted participation in psychic experiments on this forum years ago. I started communicating in private with the other party via email, and then had the other party say they wanted me to fail miserably. It was quite biased.

If I were to do this it would require a great deal of commitment on my part. I would need to spend 5-8 hours a week/6 months working on picking the numbers from my website, memorizing the winning numbers, etc. JREF offers \$1 million. If I was going to invest 150+ hours of boredom (it's boring voting on static pictures), I would be doing it for some sort of publicity or cash.

Yes. JREF is as trite as I make them sound. I have been in contact with them. Have you? I think that defying statistical odds over the period of 25-50-75-100 draws would at least get their attention. They really do want you to send them a short video of your claim.

The video is the method I use which has never been tried by most people. I have found a way to predict the future that works.

After the website was developed I did start a thread on a different website where I did predict 3 out of 6 numbers in advance of the draw. I then got flustered because it was discovered that I was doing self promotion. I am not attempting self promotion here as much as I am saying my method works as it is based on intuition and not ideomotor reflex.

please note: That website did/does not allow you to edit threads. I posted 6 numbers for the draw that night and got half of them correct. I swear I have never written about this anywhere except these two websites. But using my method for one of my first attempts at the time I got half the numbers correct. I can always get at least 1 or 2 right. ALWAYS... My method is unique an fantastic.

Note to moderators: Please check with James R before messing with this thread too much as it was James R who started this thread and created the title to make light of what I have claimed. I have refused to participate in the experimenting parts of this thread, but it is a unique thread that was started and titled by James R for me to aledgedly fulfill.

18. I saw the other forum web page you linked above. Not trying to discourage you or put a damper on your work, but getting three numbers since Jan 2010, well, it's no big deal. Happens to lots of people.

No, I've never been in contact with JREF, though I wouldn't expect that any test of theirs wouldn't be a very strict one - not a bad thing.

Anyway, good luck with it all, and I hope you make progress.

19. @ Lakon,
I understand getting 3 out of 6 numbers is no big deal. It is only a \$10 win on a \$1 bet. The point is I started a thread about predicting numbers when I won. It is beside the point. Imagine how often you win \$10 off of 1 pick (not 5 picks), and then imagine you started a thread about predicting lottery numbers and you just happen to be lucky enough to predict 3 out of the 6 numbers that were in the draw that night. Plus you posted the predictions in a an uneditable thread in advance of the draw.

I did this without any sort of funny business. I genuinely tried to predict the lottery that night and got half the numbers correct using the method i invented. If i could predict all 6 numbers maybe i would keep it a family secret. I am sorry if this failed to impress you. I had never previously or since made a post like that. It is of course simply coincidence to all skeptics.

20. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
@ Lakon,
I understand getting 3 out of 6 numbers is no big deal. It is only a \$10 win on a \$1 bet. The point is I started a thread about predicting numbers when I won. It is beside the point. Imagine how often you win \$10 off of 1 pick (not 5 picks), and then imagine you started a thread about predicting lottery numbers and you just happen to be lucky enough to predict 3 out of the 6 numbers that were in the draw that night. Plus you posted the predictions in a an uneditable thread in advance of the draw.

I did this without any sort of funny business. I genuinely tried to predict the lottery that night and got half the numbers correct using the method i invented. If i could predict all 6 numbers maybe i would keep it a family secret. I am sorry if this failed to impress you. I had never previously or since made a post like that. It is of course simply coincidence to all skeptics.
It did not fail to impress me, and as I said, I'm not trying to put a damper on your efforts. Sayng you're about to do it then getting 3/6 is good. But you'll accept, that it's averaged out in the long run.

It's a queer thing, this - beginners luck ? What is it ???

I recall as a teenager I went to the racetrack with some mates for the first time. 1st bet, picked a winner ! Put it all on the second - winner ! Put it all on the third - again, winner ! I won several thousand bucks, and I knew NOTHING about horses.

Do you suppose I was able to replicate this - even with the application of some form study, odds knowledge, etc ? Nah .. I failed dismally - lost it all back, and then some - that was the end of my gambling career .. such as it was.

So what is it ? I've similar experiences in immediate, un-informed guesses. Success beyond all probability, then, when I try to do it again, not so good.

What is it ? In the absence of further knowledge, I'd just call it luck, that averages out over time.

What do you think ?

Page 3 of 7 First 1234567 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•