Telepathic Proof

[dimreepr]

 

[mistermack]

On 11/21/2019 at 9:56 AM, Arnold Ungab said:

besides 99.99 percent of all people that claim they have the telepathic ability is completely sham and make alot of money from non skeptical people.

Well, that's your best bet. Why waste your time here? If you can really do it, it should be easy to make money, from sceptical and non sceptical alike. 

15 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

Over what range can the message be transferred?    *  10 meter or more it depends on the sender

So it's not just you who can do it then? It should be easy to set up an impressive show, if you have someone else who can do it as well. 

[Arnold Ungab]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

You don't need technology or (lots of) money.

I'm sure you could find a couple of students who would be willing to take part for the price of a beer or a lunch.

If you are finding it that hard to find people to help, I can only assume you are putting them off with talk of your (non-existent) ability.

@Strange  Most people are scared of the unknown, and the people here are scared of it, they prefer either to contain or killed it... to an intellectual person prefer it to manage.

@Mordred 

20 hours ago, Mordred said:

How could I possibly help you if your range is 10 metres and I probably live over a 1000 km from you ?

@Mordred  im hopeful people including you sir may tell an organization or group of people that will conduct such experiments with a willing participant.

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

@dimreepr  I understand to a point of view of a fellow skeptic but i assure you sir if you are going to meet me i'll prove it to you but my telepathic ability have a range and its not like in the movies as presented.

[Ghideon]

15 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

it works but the person can here it just like normal talking

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison. 

 

 

[Arnold Ungab]

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison. 

 

 

@Ghideon  i would like to test that theory but the sad truth is there will no more willing participants in the exercise. Badly need a willing participant so i can experiment with my hearts content without compromising Myself , the ability and the experiments for future endeavors.

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Arnold Ungab said:

  I understand to a point of view of a fellow skeptic but i assure you sir if you are going to meet me i'll prove it to you but my telepathic ability have a range and its not like in the movies as presented.

what if

 

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Arnold Ungab said:

Most people are scared of the unknown, and the people here are scared of it, they prefer either to contain or killed it... to an intellectual person prefer it to manage.

Then tell them that your experiment is to prove it is impossible. (Which should be the goal of your experience,ent, anyway. To ensure it is as rigorous as possible.)

Just seen Ghideon's suggestion. Brilliant. Don't say anything about telepathy at all.

37 minutes ago, Arnold Ungab said:

im hopeful people including you sir may tell an organization or group of people that will conduct such experiments with a willing participant.

OK. Are you going to fly over here (to Europe or USA) so you can be tested?

 

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison. 

Genius!

Also reduces the risk of the results being affected by the subjects expectations about telepathy. 

It is common in psychology experiments to tell the subjects that the purpose of the experiment is something completely different, to stop them trying to second-guess the results.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

@Strange   i don't know i mean all i need is a willing participant for the experiments and no one is willing to be a test subject.

I would place you and a willing participant in separate rooms within ten meters of each other, where you couldn't interact (can't see or hear each other). On a paper in front of you is a series of random words (egg shell gobbling underwear collectors jumping sand castles partly sunburned). Then you try to send these exact words directly into the participants mind in the other room. You can't make any sounds. Ideally, the participant shouldn't be told about you, or your alleged ability. They should just be told to relax, open their mind, and write down anything they think they hear. To make it a double blind experiment, you would have a second participant who did the exact same thing, except you wouldn't be anywhere near them. Ideally, you'd be in the next county. I like Ghideon's idea as well, and you can get more data by using actual sounds over the headphones.

With a setup like this, I can control the words used, and I can make sure the environment isn't helping you in some way (like somehow the participant can see you, or be influenced by you in some manner), and there would be no other people to interfere with your alleged ability. If the participant, out of all possible words in the language, managed to write down ANY of them in consistent testing, it would show there is something beyond mere chance at work. I'm not sure how one would work out the odds of getting random words correct in this situation, but I used ten words in case someone wanted to figure that out. How extraordinary would it be to get even 30% in this setup?

Are you saying you would be able to put those exact words into someone's head, and they'll hear it as if you spoke? Are you claiming they'll hear all ten words? In order? Most importantly, if the participants were NOT able to hear your mental transmissions, would that show you that perhaps you don't have extraordinary mental powers? 

I'm afraid to ask since it will undoubtedly be completely anecdotal, but what has happened in the past to make you think you can do this extraordinary thing? Hopefully it's a lot more than just having people say things that you were just thinking about. That's actually pretty common, and there are almost always lots of cues that prompt such a thing.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

With a setup like this, I can control the words used, and I can make sure the environment isn't helping you in some way (like somehow the participant can see you, or be influenced by you in some manner), and there would be no other people to interfere with your alleged ability. If the participant, out of all possible words in the language, managed to write down ANY of them in consistent testing, it would show there is something beyond mere chance at work. I'm not sure how one would work out the odds of getting random words correct in this situation, but I used ten words in case someone wanted to figure that out. How extraordinary would it be to get even 30% in this setup?

If the words were chosen randomly from, say, a large dictionary, then the odds of getting even one right are close to zero. For example, Webster's Third New International Dictionary contains about 470,000 words. If we have chosen 10 of those, then there is (I think) a roughly 1 in 47,000 chance of someone guessing one of those.

Although it depends how common the chosen words are - it would be easier for someone to recognise "cat" than an obscure technical term like "phenotype"). To make it easier to calculate the results, I might start with something like the 850 word list from Basic English which should all be commonly known words. 

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm afraid to ask since it will undoubtedly be completely anecdotal, but what has happened in the past to make you think you can do this extraordinary thing?

I would also like to know the answer to this.

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Hopefully it's a lot more than just having people say things that you were just thinking about. That's actually pretty common, and there are almost always lots of cues that prompt such a thing.

As well as confirmation bias.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

If the words were chosen randomly from, say, a large dictionary, then the odds of getting even one right are close to zero. For example, Webster's Third New International Dictionary contains about 470,000 words. If we have chosen 10 of those, then there is (I think) a roughly 1 in 47,000 chance of someone guessing one of those.

Something tells me we should remove standard connectors, the little words like "of" and "to" and "the" and "with", so we're not necessarily in danger of using words that suggest other words ("friends" and "benefits" might lead someone to put "with" in between them). Still, that's a LOT of words, which makes getting them correct more than just a guess.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Although it depends how common the chosen words are - it would be easier for someone to recognise "cat" than an obscure technical term like "phenotype"). To make it easier to calculate the results, I might start with something like the 850 word list from Basic English which should all be commonly known words. 

I'm also thinking the exact order is also a factor. If the participants are supposed to "hear" these words inside their heads, shouldn't they be hearing them in order? Although it probably only affects the odds calcs, now that I think about it. If Arnold was able to plant three of those ten words into someone's head in ANY order it would support the idea that something extraordinary was going on.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

i would like to test that theory

A man named Rupert Sheldrake had a bunch of ideas for testing these things. He's written many books about what he calls "morphic fields," and one of those books was about experiments (another was called the "Sense of Being Stared at" and "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home").

Ghideon's idea is a good one. There are others. 

We can't help you find participants. If you can't even figure that part out, then you're sort of screwed. If, however, you manage to figure out the basic social skill of getting help from others, you could try these tests proposed by Sheldrake:  https://www.sheldrake.org/participate

Note: No good evidence has been found after decades of trying. It's led to some good comedy, though:

 

 

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Something tells me we should remove standard connectors, the little words like "of" and "to" and "the" and "with", so we're not necessarily in danger of using words that suggest other words ("friends" and "benefits" might lead someone to put "with" in between them).

That's a good point (for that reason and just avoiding words that don't really have much meaning). There are standard lists of such "stop words" (because you want to exclude them from indexing and searching documents) that could be used to limit the list.

35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm also thinking the exact order is also a factor. If the participants are supposed to "hear" these words inside their heads, shouldn't they be hearing them in order? Although it probably only affects the odds calcs, now that I think about it. If Arnold was able to plant three of those ten words into someone's head in ANY order it would support the idea that something extraordinary was going on.

Yes. Getting any number right is going to be impressive. Getting the order (and, in my version of the experiment, the timing right) would be a massive bonus.

It would definitely convince me .... that more carefully controlled experiments were required!

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

  i would like to test that theory but the sad truth is there will no more willing participants in the exercise. 

Are there any homeless people where you live?

How about students or bored housewives?

 

This idea that you can't find  experimental subjects is daft.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Although it depends how common the chosen words are - it would be easier for someone to recognise "cat" than an obscure technical term like "phenotype"). To make it easier to calculate the results, I might start with something like the 850 word list from Basic English which should all be commonly known words. 

Good idea to try to try to control the odds to make it easy to explain/understand statistical outliers and "real" statistical evidence.

How about simplifying further: pick ten words and use them in long sequences where the same word may occur multiple times? It would represent numerical sequences and make probability calculations easier. It could also reduce the possible bias introduced by the recipient not knowing about or heard about the uncommon words picked randomly.
 

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This idea that you can't find  experimental subjects is daft.

Agree. I would not announce such abilities here on the forum* if I believed there was any kind of truth behind the claims.

3 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

im hopeful people including you sir may tell an organization or group of people that will conduct such experiments with a willing participant.

I would not be worried at all about sceptics. Personally I would be seriously worried about anyone showing interest. If there would exist any kind of evidence supporting the claims made I believe there are many individuals that would like to get some money or other opportunity from the claimed abilities. Whit or without the cooperation of the individual possessing telepathic powers.

 

*) Most members here are nice but the posts are visible to any visitors afaik.

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

It would definitely convince me .... that more carefully controlled experiments were required!

And this is important. Successful results would show that SOMETHING interesting is happening. Eliminate all the other possibilities (hidden transmitters, cooperation between participants, environmental influences, for instance), and if you can still show an anomalous pattern of success, it's strong evidence in support of the claims, but it's still not proof. 

Arnold's claims seem pretty strong as I reread them. Cognition with no sensual or experiential input, accurate within 10 meters, and if I read him correctly, he's saying he wouldn't have a problem putting all ten words into the minds of multiple participants, in the correct order, if only he could find willing participants. It seems to me that even if a university or school didn't take him seriously, a local newspaper could have someone spend half an hour running some experiments against what would seem like the story of the century if it were true.

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This idea that you can't find  experimental subjects is daft.

But asserting it is a good way to continue your claims without actually supporting them. You'd like to, but gosh, what can you do? Sucks to be psychic.

[Ghideon]

 

8 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

there are no willing participants it seem i am surround by poor minded people

Ok. Since you seem to have no problem going public:

20 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

Can the receiving individual choose to not listen to messages?    * they can't 

-Visit a crowded area.
-Randomly walk about sending "Would you like to explore telepathy and make a lot of money?" into random peoples' minds. Maybe add an email address as well.
-Wait for responses. 

I'm sure someone that is able to receive the message will believe they have the psychic powers and be willing to explore further?

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

I just corrected the title of the thread from Proff to Proof. 

 

[mistermack]

I don't know if this is relevant, but I'm sure I just heard a remote voice say "I've really got them going, this is great trolling!"  

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I don't know if this is relevant, but I'm sure I just heard a remote voice say "I've really got them going, this is great trolling!"  

You're too far away, so it's obviously just your own thoughts. Points for accuracy, though.

[Arnold Ungab]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:03 AM, iNow said:

A man named Rupert Sheldrake had a bunch of ideas for testing these things. He's written many books about what he calls "morphic fields," and one of those books was about experiments (another was called the "Sense of Being Stared at" and "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home").

Ghideon's idea is a good one. There are others. 

We can't help you find participants. If you can't even figure that part out, then you're sort of screwed. If, however, you manage to figure out the basic social skill of getting help from others, you could try these tests proposed by Sheldrake:  https://www.sheldrake.org/participate

Note: No good evidence has been found after decades of trying. It's led to some good comedy, though:

 

 

@iNow  Thank you for the advice https://www.sheldrake.org/participate i will look into it and hopefully get on board to their ship Best of luck

On 11/22/2019 at 6:03 AM, John Cuthber said:

Are there any homeless people where you live?

How about students or bored housewives?

 

This idea that you can't find  experimental subjects is daft.

@John Cuthber  I live in the Davao City Philippines there a quite a few homeless but they are mentally ill, students are impossible in addition most of them don't follow strict rules about bored housewives it's insane because the mentality of men here are "macho" thing so it will make alot of problems.

To some places its realy hard to get a experimental subjects 

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Arnold Ungab said:

i will look into it and hopefully get on board to their ship

I urge caution. That ship is sinking, that is of course if it hasn’t sunk already 

[zapatos]

14 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

i would like to test that theory but the sad truth is there will no more willing participants in the exercise.

I'm calling 'bull'. You are making excuses. 

[Arnold Ungab]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

I urge caution. That ship is sinking, that is of course if it hasn’t sunk already 

I'll try harder maybe they recommend me to other organizations thank you

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm calling 'bull'. You are making excuses. 

@zapatos  it is not an excuse i won't be here if i got it

[Sensei]

On 11/21/2019 at 10:56 AM, Arnold Ungab said:

lol, a great joke for a non believer but if i ever get tested i will invite you for sure....

1) did you get my message,

or

2) did not you get my message..

???

If yes, then be so kind and tell content of my message to you..

Thanks in advance!

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

students are impossible

Why? Have you tried to recruit some?

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

1) did you get my message,

or

2) did not you get my message..

???

If yes, then be so kind and tell content of my message to you..

Thanks in advance!

 

You are not reading the thread. 

1. The OP claims to be able to send messages

2. The range is limited to 10 m

4 hours ago, Arnold Ungab said:

To some places its realy hard to get a experimental subjects 

How do you expect people here to help, then?

And if you want help from people here, are you able to travel to Europe or USA?