Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

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

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Most of what you say is due to the fact that the case for psychic connectivity has rarely been "argued" or discussed properly IMO.

    Science already has evidence of the interconnectedness of all things. It is just that this connectedness is not considered as psychic but science. IMO they are both the same thing. Just different approaches and slants on the same deal.


    Is there evidence that all objects share the same universal constants, and laws derived by science? Answer: yes.
    Is there evidence that all things are subject the laws of thermodynamics? Answer Yes.
    Is there evidence that all things are connected in some way to facilitate the universality of those constants? Answer: yes.

    Science already considers the universe to be a collective of inter-dependencies by means that it has yet to realize, that a psychic may refer to as psychic.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    This is what the english gov did to me my entire adult life. But i never will play there game. I have never once tried to talk to anyone out there or sent out thoughts.

    By the way the people targeting my life, i have never once interacted with females, and my only thought of females in this world is f-off.

    The people targeting me will know what this means, and the vile english gov did this to me all my adult life thinking they where using me is some experiment.

    But the only thoughts i have for females is f-off. I never look at females or think about them, and they spent my entire adult life of 21 years, i am now 38, trying to prove this garbage.

    This post is very blunt, and its supposed to be, i am sure mods understand in this world govs use people in experiments, and i am just telling it from my point of view. So if the mods would not delete as it is something to do with this topic, as my life has been used. But thankfully i never wanted to take part.

    By the way if any female ever sees me in my life, and heard about this rubbish, my only thoughts towards females is f-off.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    So maybe you are tuning into someone in a stressed out government position...and taking it personally when in fact it may be just some government bureaucrat steaming up shit at his white board and is upset because his "experiment" with society [you included] has failed to achieve the results he predicted.

    Olfactory tuning problems are the greatest challenge facing any psychic...your sense of smell may be in need of training.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    My life was ruined in 1992, by some sort of gov clown doing this to me. I am saying i have lived 21 years with them destroying my life, and these clowns using me is some sort of vile experiment, i never took part with in the first place.

    Thats why i put that sentence above, its not aimed at those in this thread, but those targeting my life, and the board mods should know that gov use people in experiments.

    They tried to use my life to prove this stuff, but i never took part. They are still at it, and my life is ruined thanks to them.

    You notice how science people and gov never do experiments on themselves.
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I think what he is saying is "1% of the time it works every time".

  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I am sorry to hear that. I hope that you are under the care of a physician. Good luck, I am rooting for you and Quantum Quack - hang in there!
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Thread title: "Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works."
    You then claim:
    Then I claim that I tried and it didn't work... and now you claim
    I've never known any other poster to be quite so blatantly contradictory in their claims.
    Either get your story sorted - or quit peddling.
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I knew there was something that it reminded me of.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    A good start.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    To me it means that it is within the confines of expectation driven by purely mundane explanations... i.e. no statistical significance to the level of occurrences.
    Not something I would hold to - as you're merely putting a wrapper on what other people deem "nature"... i.e. (as far as I understand such a "theory") you have an impossible task of differentiating your "instinctive intelligence" from what others would consider the unintelligent/mundane.
    If it looks like a duck etc, Occam would suggest that it is.
    Not true - the scientific method should be applicable regardless of the relationship.
    The method may be "invisible" - but the scientific method merely requires repeatability - to establish that a relationship exists.
    I can make a theory that if I drop a glass then it will fall toward the centre of the earth - but I don't need to know about gravity.
    If what you mean is that there is no visible relationship - then you're stuck with psychic communication being a description of nothing that is actually observed. And if it does not get observed, even through logical induction, then it is logically akin to non-existence - even if it does actually exist.
    I think you're going to have expand exactly why such things suggest there is communication.
    Secondly, these would be examples of physical connections, not psychic connections, even if we do not understand the exact nature of the connection. Quantum entanglement I appreciate is applicable, but that is still physical, not psychic.
    Noone is claiming that means of communication not currently accepted by science is impossible.
    What is being claimed is that telepathy works - that there is a foolproof means of doing it - yet this somehow sits outside scientific acceptance.
    Whereas the reality is that it has never been demonstrated to work - and that any anecdotal evidence is within the confines of expectation from purely mundane explanations. And even my own claim to have tried but failed was stated as being "Impossible. It always works."

    It's a simple matter not that it is impossible that a means of communication exists, but that if someone wants such a claim to be taken seriously then they're going to have to offer more than anecdotes.
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for responding.
    A couple of issues come to mind that may be of value discussing with the view to clarification.

    I have suggested that there may be a physical means for communication to be delivered across vast distances of separation with out calling on the term "psychic".
    Science has indeed already evidenced this and utilized it as part of it's postulates and theories.
    The fact that the universe is observed to sustain certain universal constants in a way that suggests "communication" over vast distances with out any "apparent" means suggest to me that science could be considered as the greatest believer in so called psychic communication at a distance.
    It is in the use of the word psychic that I am expanding on.

    "If it isn't physical then it must be psychic"
    rational only works if you believe in anything other than the physical. I personally consider all things including dreams, hallucinations, imaginary constructs etc to have a physical nature. The term "psychic" is redundant, for me, in that sense.

    Science already knows that the universe is interconnected enough to generate the uniformity of the laws that we have derived from our observations. It has already concluded that the universal constancy of gravity for example is uhm... well universal.
    It claims this to be the case yet fails to resort to using the term psychic as the means and method for that connectivity.

    Yet it has no way of describing the mechanism for such constancy. What else can it be other than "psychic" using their own definition of the word on their own science. Of course I am being a little dialectic and absurdly so in saying what I have just said.
    The issue is that science has already proof of psychic connectivity based on their own failure to provide a mechanism for the universe they have already observed. Of course the mechanism if it should exist would have to be physical, which is why I believe all communications are physical in nature regardless of whether they are deemed to be psychic , spiritual or other wise a flimsy of imagination. Therefore I agree with sciences position regarding that which communicates "at a distance" by currently inexplicable means. Therefore all currently inexplicable communications must be physical in nature.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I think our disagreement is in the quickness to use the term "psychic".
    To me there is a vast difference between something that is psychic and something that is merely not understood, with regard means of communication. Science has in no way proven psychic connectivity... It may have proven a connectivity that it doesn't understand, but this is simply not the same as it being psychic.
    Conflation of the term to mean as much is disingenuous.
    If psychic merely meant "some means not yet understood" and didn't come with the baggage associated with the term then perhaps one would be more accepting. But the baggage is misleading and introduces aspects that are not warranted if all we mean is along the lines of "not yet understood".

    And further the disagreement I have is with the claim that a methodology is foolproof, as stated by kwhilborn. Yet he has nothing to support it other than anecdotes, and then dismisses an unsuccessful result as "impossible".
    And he wants to be taken seriously. :shrug:
  15. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    I think our disagreement is in the quickness to use the term "psychic".

    I have to agree entirely with that, and the rest of the post. Too quick do some here attribute 'psychic' to things not understood.
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    As shown in my post I agree entirely.. What amounts to a physical connection yet to be understood, is being claimed as psychic [ what ever that means at the time it is used ]
    I have often used this following video as a dramatised example of that instinctive intuitive and reflexive connection between persons.


    Connected over a distance with out any wires attached. Most would use the word psychic, yet a physical connection must exist IMO [As already evidenced by Science by the existence of universal constants and physical laws]. Thus the term psychic IMO, is more often conflated by science, or those that should know better than that of the person suffering from an amplified awareness of this connection who have a limited understanding of physics and the scientific method in general.
  17. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    We seem to conclude then, that you cast the definition 'psychic' far wider than I and others.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    this, I attempted to explain from the beginning.
    I see no benefit in banging your head against a semantic wall especially when it is totally unproductive to do so.
    It is obvious that science already can agree that all substances share the same constants even though there appears to be no apparent mechanism to facilitate such. People fall in to that category of "substance" and therefore one can conclude that all people are connected by the very same mechanisms that connect the universe in general.

    Why this is such a point to labor over I don't know. It seems glaringly obvious to me that all substances that are connected universally are in some form of communicative relationship [ exchange] therefore people are also in some for of communicative relationship using the same mechanisms that afford the universe cohesion and order.

    There for one can extend and conclude if one wishes to play with the semantics that that communicative relationship could be deemed to be the same as that claimed by psychics. [ie. telepathic]
    'Tis not hard to see once you realize that science already agrees...It is not the fact that people are communicating [with out wires attached] it is more about what exactly is being communicated. That is the big question IMO.
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Yet telepathy is generally considered to be communication without physical interaction.
    Furthermore, any physical interaction, if governed by the laws of the universe etc, would be replicable. As yet there has been no evidence of such replicability.
    So you seem to be arguing for telepathy to be a physical mechanism, albeit one not yet understood, yet one that has also not allowed for replication despite, as you would have it, being a purely physical mechanism.

    If you want it to be physical in nature then it must surely be replicable.
    But what believers term as telepathy is not - and never has been - despite kwhilborn's ridiculous claims to the alternative.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    thus it is relegated to the realm of "imaginary flimsy".

    I would contend that it is indeed physical and that it utilities the same mechanism that affords this universe constancy, cohesion and order. The non-scientific inclined refer to this in religious terms [ God, divinity etc] where as the scientist attempts to refer to it in physical terms, [gravity, inertia, etc]
    Personally I don't care which is preferred as we are really talking about the same thing but from a different perspective. However the less emotional hubris present in the discussion, the better...

    In a sense all events are unable to be replicated as once they have occurred the time line generates a fresh version of a similar event.
    Example: a comet hits Jupiter in 1994 [ Shoemaker - levy 9 ]
    The event is and can only be recorded once and is unrepeatable. It is true other comets may suffer a similar fate however the descriptors "similar" and "same" are very different.

    So in absolut-um no single event can ever be repeated exactly. [the action of time (perpetual movement) creates infinite diversity]
    In the self animated world this situation of non-repeatability is amplified incredibly when compared to that of the "non-animated world"

    The events displayed in that dramatized video may never be repeated in a way that science can make predictions upon. This does not negate the existence of those events but merely demonstrates the limitations of the scientific method when dealing with spontaneous, reflexive and instinctive states that are associated with "freewill" or freedom of choice no matter how deep with in our conscious,subconscious or dream states these choices take place.

    In fact I would suggest that those events as displayed in the video and others of a similar nature are designed by their very nature "NOT" to be able to be predicted, for to do so would render them susceptible to control and manipulation. [ and individual personal freedom would be no longer existent to the extent that it is ]
    So I guess what I am attempting to say is that science is strictly limited to events that can be repeated in a way that science can make relatively safe predictions upon. Human beings, being self animated and self inspired, are not so easily predicted upon. Of course human choices exist regardless of any scientific methods failure to observe and make solid predictions upon. [Some areas of human behavior are predictable as you know. Society, civilization and rational existence depends on it but as we explore extremes the ability for science to make predictions becomes severely limited]

    As science is strictly limited this whole area of human experience is subject to chronic deception, fraud, and self delusion due to the in-ability to apply any predictive rules. WE love to apply predictive rules and so the "fraudster" has a terrific opportunity in this area.
    "Care to have your palm read? [ Example: of application of false rules] How about drinking this liquid as a cure for mortality? [again applying predictive rules knowing that most desperate people will believe anything] Have fun in our casino where winning is all that happens!!! [applying the prediction that people love to make predictions ~ strive for certainty]

    When Kwhilborn states that his method always works he is both right and wrong IMO depending on what you predetermine as the outcome you seek. As every thing is connected then everything "works" and all it comes down to is utility, function and results predicted and as I have already explained predicting human nature is strictly limited for any one who wished to place the "scientific hat" on their own assessments of para-normal explorations.

    Besides, what he is suggesting is extremely unethical and down right abusive IMO and I am a little puzzled why he fails to see this. [Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant as the unethical manipulation of someones dream state with out their consent renders any result utterly useless in the mainstream pubic eye as the pubic will automatically seek to discredit any validity as a way of protecting their individual dream states and freedom]

    Imagine for a moment that his test proved to be successfully evidenced according to science.

    How many "idiots" would immediately be staying up all night trying to screw someone over for revenge, sexual, and other not so pleasant reasons?
    How many lives would be destroyed due to someone else s "God complex"?
    I am surprised that Kwhilborn does not appreciate the gravity and ramifications of what he is attempting to prove if successful in doing so.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Yet it has never been demonstrated other than as a parlour trick.
    Reliance is upon anecdote and coincidence.
    It is difficult to claim something is physical when it has never been separated from background occurrence and then evidenced.
    Individual unique events, sure.
    But science works on repeatability of the principle in question.
    Not necessarily repeatability of the unique event.
    This is why some things are difficult for science to provide any accuracy on, such as our own evolution.
    But we know evolution as a collection of processes happens, because the principles of those processes are demonstrably repeated.
    And it is the lack of repeatability of unique instances that lead science to arrive at a multitude of theories regarding that singular event.
    It is not until a repeat of the principles that theories can be honed, discarded, accepted etc.

    So please don't confuse repeatability with requiring a repetition of the exact same event in all its unique glory.
    It merely requires repeatability of the principle being examined.

    Then this is nothing but, as Sarkus has aptly referred to it in his discussions with others, a case of "believe to believe".
    I.e. if you believe you will believe.
    You will interpret events to fit that belief.
    To reinforce that belief.

    Have you tried kwhilborn's method?
    Did it work for you?
    I have also tried.
    It did not work.

    Any method that can excuse all failure as an aberration on the part of the practitioner is no method at all.

    As for the rest, I'm not too interested in the ethical nature of the debate.
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I find it interesting in its own way, but rather meaningless other than as a purely mental exercise until the practical ability has been demonstrated.
    It hasn't, regardless of the claimed foolproof nature of the methodology.
    As you highlight, Baldeee, it is a case of believe to believe if one interprets the results only in light of one's expectation such that you can claim it succeeds or fails with the same evidence. Science tries to be as objective as possible - and in the case of this method given by kwhilborn it finds the claim woefully lacking.

    But kwhilborn is renowned for spouting such unsubstantiated claims, and he walks away from any counter or request to demonstrate.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Then one must suggest that the value of the scientific method as used by science and not "Human Behaviorists" is strictly limited. After all it is the communication between people that is being investigated and shifting category in the quest for evidence is fallacious.

    What I am saying is that science has no way of determining predictability when approaching the subject of human behavior and would better serve it's own interests and credibility by declaring it's limitations in this area.
    For example:
    To state that there is no scientific evidence to support telepathy is only stating that science is not equipped to find that evidence and is therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
    If the reality of human interaction is dependent on the outcome of the scientific process, then human interactions are ALL "hallucinatory".

    Using a method that doesn't apply is ridiculous is it not?

Share This Page