Evolution of telepathy?

[ceptimus]

If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?

Think of the survival value of telepathy - the ability, say, to telepathically warn one's children or siblings of the impending attack of a predator, or of a fire sweeping through a building.

Even the tinyest amount of telepathy would presumably bestow some evolutionary advantage on its possessors, and the nature of evolution is to drive any such abilities to a higher state of perfection.

So if our distant ancestors possessed even the smallest vestage of telepathy, we all ought to be accomplished telepaths by now. This doesn't seem to be the case.

This, of course, assumes that there are no negative survival affects that would be caused by a rudimentary form of telepathy - I can't think of any at the moment.

So is this a useful argument against telepathy? I don't suppose it's original anyway.

Of course, the same argument can be used against most paranormal powers. Most would have a survival benefit - though I don't see how spoon bending abilities would have helped our ancestors much.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?
Gotta start somewhere.


Seriously, I picture a couple of early light-sensitive single-cell organisms saying the same thing about...well...sensing light. We could be on the forefront of the new wave in sensory evolution!





...or, as I am led to believe, not.

[Jeff Corey]

One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught?

__________________________________________________
"I am not a crook." Tricky Dick

[Nivek]

Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Nivek
Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way.
What's the trick to accepting and acknowledging it then? I have no problem being responsible for my thoughts.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught? Well as with our non-supernatural abilities to detect deception, there'd be still better defences to telepathy evolved alongside it, each edging ahead of the other at various stages. So we could expect to see, rather than no telepathy (because ability to detect deception is of survival value, but so is avoiding detection of your own deceptions), we'd probably see highly developed telepathy, which would be of use in everyday life, but an almost equally highly developed ability to fox it if need be. Just like our Theory of Mind today - our ability to determine the thoughts of others through natural means - it's highly evolved and very useful, but we can try to trick it in others if we need to.

[MRC_Hans]

The main objection is that evolution os not deliberate. Provided telepathy was possible, there could be many reasons for it not to have evolved into more than a trace ability. E. g.

1) It requires a very large brain, the human brain only marginally large enough to have some abilities.

2) The DNA configuration for full telepathy is in some other way destructive.

3) It is not really an advantage because it might threaten mental stability.

etc. etc.

Nivek: You explanation does not make sense. Some people can suppres some functions to the level where they are unaware of them (like making themselves blind), but this is quite rare. If all people had a natural telepathic ability, most would be aware of it.

If the ability exists at all, it is either dormant, quite rare, or quite weak.

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

Nivek. Welcome to the forum.

You have made some bold and sweeping assertions, for which you provide neither evidence nor an explanation of your thoughts on the matter.

If you have supportive data, please specify.

Thanks.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts.Why do people who believe in stuff attribute nonsensical attitudes or thoughts to people who don't agree with them?

Why on earth would I be ashamed? In what way would acknowledging telepathy make me feel more responsible for my thoughts?

Honestly. :rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?

Think of the survival value of telepathy - the ability, say, to telepathically warn one's children or siblings of the impending attack of a predator, or of a fire sweeping through a building.


This assumes that there would be a survival value.

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes.

[Diamond]

How did I know you were going to post in this thread?

[Jeff Corey]

Many of the implications of telepathy have been explored by scientifiction writers. "Slan" comes to mind. "The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester made a big impression on me back in the 50's.
The antihero commits a crime and has to hide his thoughts from the psicops. So he keeps on thinking a jingle that goes something like, "Tenser says the censor, senser says the tenser, tension, apprehension and dissension have begun."
Loosely based on a Mark Twain story about a man who can't get a jingle about punching trolley car tickets out of his head.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Many of the implications of telepathy have been explored by scientifiction writers. ...snip...

"Scientifiction writers" and just how old are you? :D

[juninho]

Originally posted by Diamond
How did I know you were going to post in this thread?

How did I know you were going to write that?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat
"Scientifiction writers" and just how old are you? :D
Well, I was around when "The Demolished Man" got the first Hugo for a scientifiction novel in 1953.
Hugo. Get it?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


This assumes that there would be a survival value.

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes. Hmmm... I'm not sure. Being a 'psychic' helps flaky people earn money and gather resources, for very little outlay or effort, which is of survival value. Even more so these days, when the same people can get on tv, and as well as being rather well-off, may have many adoring potential mates surrounding them at all times.

The thing to remember, though, is that it doesn't matter in this instance whether the psychic abilities are real or faked. To paraphrase Randi, if nature's doing this stuff by supernatural means, it's doing it the hard way.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Well, I was around when "The Demolished Man" got the first Hugo for a scientifiction novel in 1953.
Hugo. Get it?

Explains a lot Ralph, sorry Jeff ;)

[fishbob]

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes. And that would get you burned at the stake until a few short centuries ago. Not much survival value there.

[Darat]

Originally posted by fishbob
And that would get you burned at the stake until a few short centuries ago. Not much survival value there.

Unless you worked for the military and could be benificial to them ;)

[Nivek]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nivek: You explanation does not make sense. Some people can suppres some functions to the level where they are unaware of them (like making themselves blind), but this is quite rare. If all people had a natural telepathic ability, most would be aware of it.


It is not rare to suppress telepathy. Since we are born we are told that if we hear voices in our head we are crazy. People do not want to be crazy so we suppress our gift of unity. Many of those whom are aware of it are concidered crazy (scitzophrenic).

Where else are we to hear voices?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Nivek. Welcome to the forum.

You have made some bold and sweeping assertions, for which you provide neither evidence nor an explanation of your thoughts on the matter.

If you have supportive data, please specify.

Thanks.
I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek

I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

Of course you can prove what you say "telepathy" is, you are talking about communication between people; very easy and straightforward to test for.

Have you considered the reason you believe it can't be proved is that it doesn't exist?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
In what way would acknowledging telepathy make me feel more responsible for my thoughts?

Honestly. :rolleyes:

Ever hear of logic? How would acknowledging a broken arm make one feel more responcible for their safety?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Of course you can prove what you say "telepathy" is, you are talking about communication between people; very easy and straightforward to test for.

Have you considered the reason you believe it can't be proved is that it doesn't exist?

You contradict yourself.

I said that NOTHING can be proved. This does not mean that nothing exists. We all know things exist, but there is no proof. We can see clouds but the blind man has to take our word. We can hear sounds but the deaf man has to take out sign. They can choose to believe or live with their own perceptions.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


You contradict yourself.

I said that NOTHING can be proved. This does not mean that nothing exists. We all know things exist, but there is no proof. We can see clouds but the blind man has to take our word. We can hear sounds but the deaf man has to take out sign. They can choose to believe or live with their own perceptions.

Your words:

"Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way."

The contradiction is yours not mine, it is you who has claimed that telepathy is a fact, yet now you are claiming there are no facts.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Nivek

I said that NOTHING can be proved.
Can you prove that?


Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd

[Nucular]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd Well like I said earlier, it's like the ability to read body language and infer mental states from people's actions: it pays us to be able to read, but also to be able to choose not to be read.

Thus, we get a bit of a race between the two conflicting abilities, which end in a bit of a stalemate (sometimes we can accurately read people, sometimes we can't; sometimes we can stop ourselves being read, sometimes we can't). But overall, because of this evolutionary conflict, our abilities to infer people's mental states from their behaviour have become very powerful indeed, except where intentional deception occurs.

But this isn't the case with telepathy: even when two people are willing to use no 'blocking' at all, we still can't really see it happening - so that might be an indication that it doesn't exist.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Your words:

"Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way."

The contradiction is yours not mine, it is you who has claimed that telepathy is a fact, yet now you are claiming there are no facts.

From www.dictonary.com

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.


b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.


c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.




3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.


4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Notice how it only mentions proof as an example once? Besides, I never said that there were no facts. Not that facts would prove anything, they only lead one to agreeing to another perception or denying and dissagreeing with another perception, sometimes both.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Can you prove that?


Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd

1. No.

2. There is vale in having an immunity to being probed by anothers mind. This immunity comes with the practice of telepathy.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
But this isn't the case with telepathy: even when two people are willing to use no 'blocking' at all, we still can't really see it happening - so that might be an indication that it doesn't exist.

Why do you say that? Is not being able to see air an indication that it doesn't exist? What about pheromones? Can you see pain? Emotional trauma? After all, we are talking about an Extra Sensory Perception here.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by juninho


How did I know you were going to write that?

How did I know they were going to invent the Internet?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Nivek
Why do you say that? Is not being able to see air an indication that it doesn't exist? What about pheromones? Can you see pain? Emotional trauma? After all, we are talking about an Extra Sensory Perception here.

"Evidence iff seen with the naked eye" got stale about 500 years ago.

We have physical, concrete evidence of the existence of all these things. There is no physical, concrete evidence for telepathy. Your analogy is inaccurate.

Originally posted by Nivek
Notice how it only mentions proof as an example once? Besides, I never said that there were no facts. Not that facts would prove anything, they only lead one to agreeing to another perception or denying and dissagreeing with another perception, sometimes both.

Well, clearly this means you can fly if you want to enough. I await the results of your first leap off a building.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by aerosolben
We have physical, concrete evidence of the existence of all these things. There is no physical, concrete evidence for telepathy. Your analogy is inaccurate.


Really? I didn't know that there was physical, concrete evidence for emotional trauma. Where can I find this evidence?

What does flying have to do with the subject at hand?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


Really? I didn't know that there was physical, concrete evidence for emotional trauma. Where can I find this evidence?

What does flying have to do with the subject at hand? What do air, pheromones, pain and emotional trauma have to do with the subject in hand?

Emotional trauma is a subjective state reported by many people after upsetting events. There is little reason to fake emotional trauma (except for where lawsuits are involved), and it is held to be unpleasant.

Although it is not a necessary condition to acknowledge that emotional trauma exists, we have all felt it to some degree, and therefore have subjective experience, as well as inferring it from the behaviour of others.

Emotional trauma can be defined from the trigger event, plus the cognitive, affective, behavioural and physiological effects it produces. These include, respectively, intrusive thoughts, inability to concentrate, obsessive thinking and avoidance of certain thoughts; anxiety, fear, depression, grief, shame, guilt and sometimes flattening of affect; social avoidance, lethargy, substance misuse, self harm, etc. (depending on severity of trauma); and higher levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, increased or decreased arousal, and possibly some neurological or neurochemical changes associated with prolonged distress. Extreme cases of some of these things can add up to actual disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic anxiety disorder, morbid grief, etc. Thus, through these factors, diagnosis or symptom identification can take place, and the reality of emotional trauma as a phenomenon can be affirmed. The term itself, of course, is more of a lay term, or a colloquialism for collections of the symptoms I outlined; but agreement as to the meanings and usage of clinical and non-clinical terms allows the use and validation of the term.

So where is your physical, concrete evidence for telepathy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nivek

I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. You and Interesting Ian would get along well.

However, imagine one person who was open to telepathy sat on one side of a room. Imagine further that another person who was also open to telepathy sat on the other side of the room. One person is shown a randomly selected picture or word. If the person on the other side fo the room could correctly name that picture or word beyond random chance, would that not prove the existance of telepathy?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught?



At peace and with equality for all.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
At peace and with equality for all.

And since we don't have either...

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
What do air, pheromones, pain and emotional trauma have to do with the subject in hand?

So where is your physical, concrete evidence for telepathy?

To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Nivek
[B]

From www.dictonary.com

...snip...

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.


b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.


c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

I'd like to place a vote for 2c please :D. With a slight modification. "Something believed by believers to be true or real: a document or theory laced with mistaken, or in fact often zero facts.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity?

Air and Phermones have physical reality. They can be felt, weighed and measured. They exist. We have previously proven that they exist and can prove that they exist right now. Telepathy has not been proven to exist ever.

To your question, "Does this not give telepathy validity?" the answer is no.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity? I've already given you the evidence for emotional trauma. However, it is a poor analogy.

I don't think you've thought this through.

You seem to be saying that I can't demonstrate the existence of oranges (which I can), so therefore unicorns exist.

Edited to add:

Hey Nivek (or can I call you Kev?) - I can't believe you think that because some people say it's true, then it is. Do you really live your life and base your beliefs on that principle?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
I've already given you the evidence for emotional trauma. However, it is a poor analogy.

I don't think you've thought this through.

You seem to be saying that I can't demonstrate the existence of oranges (which I can), so therefore unicorns exist.

Edited to add:

Hey Nivek (or can I call you Kev?) - I can't believe you think that because some people say it's true, then it is. Do you really live your life and base your beliefs on that principle?

What evidence have you given me? You only gave me theory. It's a theory that is commonly known and agreed with, not proof.
Everything I speak of I know from experiances that I, and many other people, have had and continue to have. Many of us were sckeptics before we had our "awakening", now we see. Can I get a witness?

BTW No, please do not call me by that name, I wasn't born with it.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


What evidence have you given me? You only gave me theory. It's a theory that is commonly known and agreed with, not proof.
Everything I speak of I know from experiances that I, and many other people, have had and continue to have. Many of us were sckeptics before we had our "awakening", now we see. Can I get a witness?

BTW No, please do not call me by that name, I wasn't born with it. No, I haven't given you proof - I've given you good, solid evidence. Can you give me any for telepathy? Or will you continue your "nothing is proven, therefore telepathy exists" argument?

PS - I assumed your name might be Kevin, given your username: apologies, I'm not psychic :wink:

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
I've given you good, solid evidence.
When? like I said you have only given me theory, conjecture, someone elses hypothesis. I will give you evidence once I am given some, because the evidence is the same.
How can one believe in these invisible emotions and not empathy, which evolves into telepathy?

Post Scriptum
Tis' ok, it's a common mistake. ;)

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek

When? like I said you have only given me theory, conjecture, someone elses hypothesis. I will give you evidence once I am given some, because the evidence is the same.
How can one believe in these invisible emotions and not empathy, which evolves into telepathy?

Post Scriptum
Tis' ok, it's a common mistake. ;) I'm not sure on what basis you dismiss what I said about emotional trauma as "theory, conjecture, someone else's hypothesis". I defined emotional trauma as consisting of certain phenomena; I then described what we'd expect to see if those phenomena were present. I see them every day (I work with people who are emotionally traumatised). We also see them borne out in the literature (for a good review of one aspect or type of emotional trauma, see McMillan, M., Williams, W. and Bryant, R. (2003) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury: A review of causal mechanisms, assessment and treatment, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 13 (1/2), 149-164).

So the evidence consists of definition, prediction of effects, confirmation of that prediction (unless you deny that the phenomena I describe are common after trauma), everyday clinical observation, and a body of scientific literature. Would you mind producing these as regards telepathy, as promised?

Regarding empathy. Empathy is an ability to 'mind-read' - but not in the supernatural sense. It is a product of 'Theory of Mind' (ToM) skills, the ability to infer people's mental states from behavioural cues. You can see what happens when it goes wrong in autistic spectrum disorders, such as autism and Asperger's Syndrome (see Simon Baron-Cohen's work on ToM). There is zero evidence that ToM relies on any supernatural phenomena. Empathy exists, and is a useful skill, but it is not telepathy. Unless you can show otherwise.

[MRC_Hans]

Nivek, stop evading. The question is: If telepathy exists, can it be tested? And the answer is obviously yes. It is very simple to design a test protocol for telepathy, and such tests have been performed. They were negative.

The voices in your head are not teleepathy.

Hans

[Ipecac]

Here's a question.

If telepathy evolved in humans, then why do we have spoken languages? A truly telepathic race wouldn't need something as clumsy as spoken language to communicate.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Here's a question.

If telepathy evolved in humans, then why do we have spoken languages? A truly telepathic race wouldn't need something as clumsy as spoken language to communicate.

This is something I was wondering... Telepathy would be a lot more useful for hunting, for instance, than clumsy vocal speech. But if telepathy preceded spoken language, what would the content of that form of communication be? Could it be anything more complex than basic emotional states?

[Nivek]

Here are a few links;

http://www.vexen.co.uk/4/ft.html

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/telepathy.html

http://www.psiexplorer.com/telepth3.html

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/1998/retrocausal_tucson3.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/present_2002_porto.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/fmri.presentiment.pa2002.pdf

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/109/109transcript.html

They are in no paticular order(sorry) but they link to definitions, studies, interviews and government involvement in remote viewing which evoles from telepaty, the sudject at hand.

@ BillyTK: The context of the comunication preceeding spoken was that of mental imagery and gestures.

@ Ipecac: Your right, a truly telepathic wouldn't need a spoken language, this is what's re-evolving now.

@ MRC_Hans: I wasn't evading, leading the debate and researching.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Nivek
They are in no paticular order(sorry) but they link to definitions, studies, interviews and government involvement in remote viewing which evoles from telepaty, the sudject at hand.

No experiment involving any sort of telepathy has ever been independantly and successfully replicated. Please feel free to correct me if you have any evidence to the contrary.

@ MRC_Hans: I wasn't evading, leading the debate and researching.

You are evading, whether you think so or not. The fact is, telepathy should be a very tangible and measurable phenomenon.

I (and many here) can come up with many, many ways to test telepathic ability. May I suggest that, before you wander off into speculations about the "re-evolution" of telepathy, you demonstrate its existence. The very organization that sponsors this forum will be happy to give you a million bucks, just for performing a few routine telepathic activities.

[robbersdog]

Ok, reality check! Nivek. What on earth are you taking? Comparing telepathy to things we can prove doesn't make proof of telepathy. It doesn't even give it credibility. I can prove that air exists. I can do it without analogy.

Your arguments are inaccurate and logically incorrect. They are below par for this forum. Try harder.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by aerosolben
[B]I (and many here) can come up with many, many ways to test telepathic ability. /B]

Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?

I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

[robbersdog]

Originally posted by Nivek
Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

What?

I can't see any way of having a test where the results aren't left to the perceptions of others. Not a fair test.

How would you like to be tested? Please, this is a fair and not leading question.

[The Don]

Against my own better judgement I actually the material at the end of these links...


Originally posted by Nivek

Here are a few links;

http://www.vexen.co.uk/4/ft.html

or how to create telepathy using sticky back plastic and bits of string. A similar thing can be done today, I write down what I'm thinking and pass it to you. You read (and ideally understand) it Bingo! telepathy (not)


http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/telepathy.html

Anecdotal reference to poorly conducted tests.


http://www.psiexplorer.com/telepth3.html

Dead link, maybe "they" are hiding something fom us

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/1998/retrocausal_tucson3.pdf

we looked for evidence of telepathy, didn't find it so therefore decided that our tests weren't sensitive enough. So we re-did them until we got a set of responses we liked

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/present_2002_porto.pdf

Found some more studies, same MO



http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/fmri.presentiment.pa2002.pdf




I am no expert in these things, but I think it's illuminating that there's no evidence of peer review for these three articles


http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

Remote viewing - already debunked I think


http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/109/109transcript.html

Four people sit around and ignore a skeptic

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?

I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

Any chance of being able to support this conclusion? In what way are the rules designed to produce "failed results"?

[Nucular]

Nivek,I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.I would also like to know how the test is designed to "produce failed results" (I assume you mean produce negative results?).

In my understanding, the idea of the JREF test is that the results are left to the perception of nobody - they will be self-evident. Either you're telepathic or you're not.

I didn't realise before that you were claiming you were telepathic. Anything you could demonstrate to us over this MB? What exactly can you do?

[Ipecac]

It's been laid out clearly, Nivek.

Are you claiming that you have telepathy?

Any hard evidence of its existence?

Your objection to the Randi challenge is not a point well made as the claimant works with the JREF and has to agree to the conditions of the test before it even begins.

Put up or . . .

[thaiboxerken]

Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it.

LOL. So, you claim to have superpowers? I know where you can get one million dollars just for demonstrating your telepathy.

The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact.

Wow.. it's a fact? If it's such a fact, why is it non-evident?


The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts.

This is an appeal to emotion. I say it doesn't exist simply because there is no evidence of it and no person can demonstrate such abilities in objective tests.

Ignorance is the lazy way.

Is it lazier to just "accept" telepathy as a fact, or to ask for evidence of it first, test it and then conclude if it's fact or not?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ipecac
It's been laid out clearly, Nivek.

Are you claiming that you have telepathy?

Any hard evidence of its existence?

Your objection to the Randi challenge is not a point well made as the claimant works with the JREF and has to agree to the conditions of the test before it even begins.

Put up or . . .

There is no independant adjudication, ergo; the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. End of story.

Believing in the challenge is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


There is no independant adjudication, ergo; the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. End of story.

Believing in the challenge is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Ipecac


As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

Also, if and when judgement is needed, Randi doesn't do the judging. A third party is introduced. Lucky's claim of 'no independant judgement' is false.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nucular
The thing to remember, though, is that it doesn't matter in this instance whether the psychic abilities are real or faked. To paraphrase Randi, if nature's doing this stuff by supernatural means, it's doing it the hard way.

If nature is doing it at all it wouldn't be Super natural.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

Reading body language is a far cry from reading thoughts.
I can tell when a person is happy :)
I can tell when a person is sad :(
This talent isn't telepathic, it's intuitive.

Know what I'm thing right now? ;)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by BNiles


Reading body language is a far cry from reading thoughts.
I can tell when a person is happy :)
I can tell when a person is sad :(
This talent isn't telepathic, it's intuitive.

Know what I'm thing right now? ;)

Whoa! I have telepathy with smilies!

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?


One cannot prove that something doesn't exist, nor is anyone claiming to. However, when one claims that something does exist, it is reasonable to expect that they can prove it.

As for the tangibility of Telepathy, we're not asking to see brainwaves (though that would be helpful), only the results. Very simple double blind test have been offered and failed time and time again. The inconclusive results you've alluded to is more a level of vagueness that falls below the level expected for claims of Supernatural.

[Nivek]

So much to reply to....

Firts off;
Dean Radin of the University of Nevada http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm successfully showed that people do have precognition dubbed presentiment, a sub-conscious emotional response to unknown future events.. http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

This work was replicated independantly by Dick Bierman of the University of Amsterdam http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.

Now;

@ Ipecac: Yes, I'm telepathic. refer to links above.

@ Nucular: I'm sorry, this electronic forum makes demostrations nearly impossible.

As for the Challenge, I would not try and prove telepathy in this challenge. Reason being that it extreamly easy for anyone who recieves a telepathic transmission to deny reciept or to confuse it with ones own thoughts. This and I couldn't possibly take the challenge for I have no ID, no bank account, no address and no transportation.

BTW I don't care if anyone here believes my posts to be below them and under par. As far as I know this is not a battle of ego's but a forum to dispute the existance of metaphysical occurances and abilities. Nor is it witch hunt. So please, read all the posts before posting that we may cut down on the redundancy.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ipecac


As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the results. It is Randi's challenge, he has the final say as to what is, or isn't acceptable regarding the basis of the challenge itself. Ergo, the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. It needs to have independant adjudication. Unless it is, any belief in the challenge as a measure of the existence of the 'paranormal' is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the results. It is Randi's challenge, he has the final say as to what is, or isn't acceptable regarding the basis of the challenge itself. Ergo, the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. It needs to have independant adjudication. Unless it is, any belief in the challenge as a measure of the existence of the 'paranormal' is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

Doesn't the fact that it's a double blind test account for independant adjudication? If I am shown a random image (lets say by a stand alone computer with a million different images to choose from). Then a "Telepath" in the next room reads my mind and gets it right, and then can repeat their success; where does independant adjudication get missed here?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
@ Ipecac: Yes, I'm telepathic. refer to links above.

BTW I don't care if anyone here believes my posts to be below them and under par. As far as I know this is not a battle of ego's but a forum to dispute the existance of metaphysical occurances and abilities. Nor is it witch hunt. So please, read all the posts before posting that we may cut down on the redundancy.

So, this is what we've learned about you so far: you're telepathic, have no ID, no bank account, no address, and no transportation. Okay . . .

It is a forum to dispute the existence of metaphysical occurrences and abilities. Proving such requires evidence. So far, you've provided none.

[BNiles]

No ID, no bank account, no address, and no transportation...I'm not even sure that I believe he exists. :p

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


Doesn't the fact that it's a double blind test account for independant adjudication? If I am shown a random image (lets say by a stand alone computer with a million different images to choose from). Then a "Telepath" in the next room reads my mind and gets it right, and then can repeat their success; where does independant adjudication get missed here?

By not being incorportated in the challenge.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Proving such requires evidence. So far, you've provided none.

I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

in case you missed it.....(from last post)
The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.
http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

Take your time and read them all the way through....

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


By not being incorportated in the challenge.

Since applicants design tests along with Randi, your excuse is lame. Lucky, you insist that you have superpowers. If you want the JREF money, simply apply and then insist for a 3rd party judgement. Oh.. you still will refuse to apply, simply because you know you don't have superpowers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

in case you missed it.....(from last post)
The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.
http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

Take your time and read them all the way through....

More BS evidence from BS sources and BS studies.

Come on, Nivek.. one million dollars awaits you, all you have to do it show Randi your telepathic abilities.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
@ Nucular: I'm sorry, this electronic forum makes demostrations nearly impossible.Oh. Why's that? I would've thought it would be fairly easy. I mean, it's not going to win you any money or anything, but hey if you could show us, I'd be really pleased!As for the Challenge, I would not try and prove telepathy in this challenge. Reason being that it extreamly easy for anyone who recieves a telepathic transmission to deny reciept or to confuse it with ones own thoughts.Why would they do that? Nivek, this is sounding like a cop-out again.This and I couldn't possibly take the challenge for I have no ID, no bank account, no address and no transportation.And for a million dollars you wouldn't sort yourself out with those things? Tell you what, if you can show me that you're telepathic, I'll be willing to open a bank account, and, with the help of your solicitor, make it so that the million is payed straight into it, so you can withdraw it and have the cash. How's that? Legal people, would that work?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


More BS evidence from BS sources and BS studies.

Come on, Nivek.. one million dollars awaits you, all you have to do it show Randi your telepathic abilities.

BS? Does that stand for Believable Science?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/d_bierman.html

And in case you missed it the first two times...(double blind test?)
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm

I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.

BTW; I don't need the money.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
Oh. Why's that? I would've thought it would be fairly easy. I mean, it's not going to win you any money or anything, but hey if you could show us, I'd be really pleased!

Why would they do that? Nivek, this is sounding like a cop-out again.

And for a million dollars you wouldn't sort yourself out with those things? Tell you what, if you can show me that you're telepathic, I'll be willing to open a bank account, and, with the help of your solicitor, make it so that the million is payed straight into it, so you can withdraw it and have the cash. How's that? Legal people, would that work?

Yes, people generaly think that if another is a telepath then it is simple for them to contact another mind, it's not. There are many factors when it comes to my own telepathy....

Proximity: I have found thoughout the years that there has to be a certain distance between me and the person I'm trying to comunicate with. This distance is not set for every occasion, it is as diverse as the people I comunicate with. With some I can speak telepathicaly while they are in the same room, others must be further away. True I have had mind to mind connections over the internet but these were with people whom had the same capabilities as I. Which leads us to...

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.

Focus: I find it hard to be in public because of my ability. When anyone focuses on me, be it a quick glance or a hard stare, I can hear their thoughts. Sometimes the thoughts are about me like, "get a haircut" or "punk kid" but most of the time they are trivial, for they are the thoughts while they are focused upon me. It's very annoying when in crowded areas.

To your third question see previous post.

[MRC_Hans]

So, now you have pointed us to and required us to read a number of sites that contain various degrees of speculations about telepathy and related topics, but no proofs.

Then you tell us that your own alleged ability is random and untestable because you have no control over it and you are unable to verify it.

So the scientific proof you have talked about does not exist or at least you have not been able to point to it.

Furthermore, the ability you claim to have yourself is impossible to verify.

Tell me:
1) Why do you think we should belive in anything you say?
2) Why do you believe it yourself?

Hans :rolleyes:

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.


Right. And the fields they work in are computers, electrical engineering, and physics. How does any of this qualify them as experts in telepathy? This is called an appeal to authority and it's a fallacy.

A lot of what you're describing is remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. You're in someone's home, you're thirsty and someone offers you a drink. You think you have telepathy. You don't remember the other times when you thought something and no one responded.


I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

If you did not come here to prove anything, I have only one thing to say. Bravo! You've done a masterful job.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek


Yes, people generaly think that if another is a telepath then it is simple for them to contact another mind, it's not. There are many factors when it comes to my own telepathy....

Proximity: I have found thoughout the years that there has to be a certain distance between me and the person I'm trying to comunicate with. This distance is not set for every occasion, it is as diverse as the people I comunicate with. With some I can speak telepathicaly while they are in the same room, others must be further away. True I have had mind to mind connections over the internet but these were with people whom had the same capabilities as I. Which leads us to...

So it'll work on anyone, but we don't know what distance to be for each person. And it'll work on people with the same power (which you've claimed that we all have) but there's no way to test it. Strangely convenient.

Originally posted by Nivek

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.

What your describing here is the sum of empathy, understanding and body language. My wife and I have known each other for 15 years, and have lived together for the last 8 years. We are very "attune" to each other’s wants and needs, but that should in no way be confused with "Telepathy".

Originally posted by Nivek

Focus: I find it hard to be in public because of my ability. When anyone focuses on me, be it a quick glance or a hard stare, I can hear their thoughts. Sometimes the thoughts are about me like, "get a haircut" or "punk kid" but most of the time they are trivial, for they are the thoughts while they are focused upon me. It's very annoying when in crowded areas.

To your third question see previous post.

Nothing personal but this is a very common experience of most paranoid people. Unfortunately, you’re probably not too far off the mark with what the average person is thinking. But this is nothing special. If I see someone on the street that dresses like me and appears to be in relatively the same societal class, it's natural for me to assume they understand me and would have positive thoughts about me. And likewise, if I see someone who appears to be my opposite, I'm going to assume they have negative thoughts about me. It is especially true if we make eye contact and they frown or smile at me. But as I stated before, this is reading body language not Telepathy.

This is very much like John Edwards, who makes a vague statement and then reads the audience to see who responded to it. He then zeros in on that individual and slowly becomes more detailed based on their response.

I think it’s more likely that you’ve fooled yourself into believing that you have this gift, than it is that we have fooled ourselves that we do not.
:)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


BS? Does that stand for Believable Science?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/d_bierman.html

And in case you missed it the first two times...(double blind test?)
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm

I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.

BTW; I don't need the money.

BS means Bull S**t, as in crap from a bull, as in bunk and false.

Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table. Hell, that's what the JREF challenge is, it's one million dollars just sitting there waiting for a telepath, such as yourself, to come claim it.

Can you do me a favor? Go win the money and send it to charity and help feed thousands of starving people. I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Then you tell us that your own alleged ability is random and untestable because you have no control over it and you are unable to verify it.


Tell me:
1) Why do you think we should belive in anything you say?
2) Why do you believe it yourself?



I have never stated that my ability was random nor that I couldn't control it.

1) There is no need for you to believe in what I say, as there is no need for me to believe what you say.

2) Experiance. I can not deny what has happened in my life, nor what others have claimed to have happened in theirs.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles
What your describing here is the sum of empathy, understanding and body language. My wife and I have known each other for 15 years, and have lived together for the last 8 years. We are very "attune" to each other’s wants and needs, but that should in no way be confused with "Telepathy".



Nothing personal but this is a very common experience of most paranoid people. Unfortunately, you’re probably not too far off the mark with what the average person is thinking. But this is nothing special. If I see someone on the street that dresses like me and appears to be in relatively the same societal class, it's natural for me to assume they understand me and would have positive thoughts about me. And likewise, if I see someone who appears to be my opposite, I'm going to assume they have negative thoughts about me. It is especially true if we make eye contact and they frown or smile at me. But as I stated before, this is reading body language not Telepathy.

I think it’s more likely that you’ve fooled yourself into believing that you have this gift, than it is that we have fooled ourselves that we do not.
:)

Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy. Then, if you will, tell me how they are the same.

Paranoia? Know of any free psycologists then?:p Although I think it is highly unlikely that so many people are plauged with paranoia. if they are then maybe we need free health care in this country;)

The way I see things is that everything is based on perception, like the glass of water analogy. Some see it half full, others see it half empty, still, others see it completely full. I see it as completely full.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table.

I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.

Why not, I turned down $500 for a blow job.

Telepathy is not a superpower, the United States is. :p

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy.Nivek, I already explained this above. The fact that you ignored it makes me wonder about you. Here is the potted description again:Regarding empathy. Empathy is an ability to 'mind-read' - but not in the supernatural sense. It is a product of 'Theory of Mind' (ToM) skills, the ability to infer people's mental states from behavioural cues. You can see what happens when it goes wrong in autistic spectrum disorders, such as autism and Asperger's Syndrome (see Simon Baron-Cohen's work on ToM). There is zero evidence that ToM relies on any supernatural phenomena. Empathy exists, and is a useful skill, but it is not telepathy. Unless you can show otherwise.The way I see things is that everything is based on perception, like the glass of water analogy. Some see it half full, others see it half empty, still, others see it completely full. I see it as completely full. Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

[thaiboxerken]

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.


This is the same line of BS that the god-believers give about their gods and demi-gods.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nucular
Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

:dl:

[thaiboxerken]

Why not, I turned down $500 for a blow job.

Yea, and you are also turning down the chance to feed THOUSANDS of starving people. If I had your claimed superpowers, I'd take the JREF money right now and help mankind. You are not helping mankind at all when you claim that you have superpowers but won't help science to understand it.


Telepathy is not a superpower, the United States is. :p

Equivocation fallacy, I'm not talking politics, i'm talking about telepathy. Telepathy is a superpower, Jean Grey is an example of a superbeing with telepathy in fiction. You claim to have one of the same powers as Jean Grey, why can't you prove it to the rest of us with a test?

Oh, I know, it's because you don't have the superpower you claim to have. You can try to convince us all that you have superpowers, but until you prove it, your words.. your BS science links and your fallicious arguements are all worthless.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy. Then, if you will, tell me how they are the same.


empathy (èm´pe-thê) noun
1.Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See synonyms at pity.
2.The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

[en-2 + -pathy (translation of German Einfühlung).]

telepathy (te-lèp´e-thê) noun
Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power. See Usage Note at mental telepathy. See Usage Note at redundancy.
- tel´epath´ic (tèl´e-pàth´îk) adjective
- tel´epath´ically adverb
- telep´athist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this explains how they're different. I can't explain how you think they're the same.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
Nivek, I already explained this above. The fact that you ignored it makes me wonder about you. Here is the potted description again:Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Telepathy is a superpower, Jean Grey is an example of a superbeing with telepathy in fiction. You claim to have one of the same powers as Jean Grey, why can't you prove it to the rest of us with a test?

[/B]

Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

Are you gonna' drive me to the test?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles


empathy (èm´pe-thê) noun
1.Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See synonyms at pity.
2.The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

[en-2 + -pathy (translation of German Einfühlung).]

telepathy (te-lèp´e-thê) noun
Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power. See Usage Note at mental telepathy. See Usage Note at redundancy.
- tel´epath´ic (tèl´e-pàth´îk) adjective
- tel´epath´ically adverb
- telep´athist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this explains how they're different. I can't explain how you think they're the same.

Another definition...

em•pa•thy
Pronunciation: (em'pu-thE), [key]
—n.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts , or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

[jj]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

2) The DNA configuration for full telepathy is in some other way destructive.


Yes, the rest of the tribe kills and eats the human lie detector. :) :) :) :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek
Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

I'll bet you have just the documents to prove that, right? Do you have her DNA fingerprint? Or the comparison against the DNA of us mere mortals?

Cheers,

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Nivek


If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

Excuse me.

The glass half full and half empty saying is implicity refering to the amount of water. I suppose I could say the glass is in outer space, and so you are wrong and the glass is truly half empty. But that would be misleading and annoying and so I shall refrain. :p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek


If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

Wow, and to think I get hungry from time to time. Who knew my stomach was always full? Thanks, Nivek, now I am also finally free from the evil oil companies. My gas tank is always full! But how do I get my car going?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


BS means Bull S**t, as in crap from a bull, as in bunk and false.

Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table. Hell, that's what the JREF challenge is, it's one million dollars just sitting there waiting for a telepath, such as yourself, to come claim it.

Can you do me a favor? Go win the money and send it to charity and help feed thousands of starving people. I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.


What would the JREF consider a valid paranormal claim and why ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
What would the JREF consider a valid paranormal claim and why ?

Anything that is truly beyond normal, cannot yet be explained by science and that meets the basic description found here. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Anything that is truly beyond normal, cannot yet be explained by science and that meets the basic description found here. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Cheers,

I don't see any information in the actual application document that addresses my question. The relavent clause is obviously no 1. thus:

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. "


My point is that its quite unclear as to who or what actually dictates which applicants are filtered out of the elegibility for the prize and which are allowed to stay beyond clause 1. I agree that this is the most important of the rules but its a rule that gives free intelluctual reign to the JREF as to what exactly is paranormal or is not. Thats ok I suppose because its the JREF money after all. However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

What exactly is the "obvious bias" that concerns you so? That "the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there" isn't covered? Don't you see the incredible irony in discussing the "obvious bias" of JREF while simultaneously declaring paranormal phenomena are "actually out there"?

I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants, although Randi comments on them from time to time. Some of those, as I recall, were dangerous to the applicants and to others and were therefore refused. Some were just downright ridiculous and therefore refused.

Cheers,

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I don't see any information in the actual application document that addresses my question. The relavent clause is obviously no 1. thus:

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. "


My point is that its quite unclear as to who or what actually dictates which applicants are filtered out of the elegibility for the prize and which are allowed to stay beyond clause 1. I agree that this is the most important of the rules but its a rule that gives free intelluctual reign to the JREF as to what exactly is paranormal or is not. Thats ok I suppose because its the JREF money after all. However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

I have been told the only way I can view past applications is to fly over to Florida and go to the JREF. There is no public, accesible record. The application, prototcol, method or test is not independantly adjudicated either, so it's a non-start from the off as it will be always biased in favour of the challenger. I see it more like a carnival rube bilking game more than anything else, a publicity stunt, a method of gaining money, etc,. It's a shame because IMO it makes skepticism stink of something fishy and bilks other skeptics into giving money to support it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I have been told the only way I can view past applications is to fly over to Florida and go to the JREF. There is no public, accesible record.
The application, prototcol, method or test is not independantly adjudicated either, so it's a non-start from the off as it will be always biased in favour of the challenger. I see it more like a carnival rube bilking game more than anything else, a publicity stunt, a method of gaining money, etc,. It's a shame because IMO it makes skepticism stink of something fishy and bilks other skeptics into giving money to support it. You contradict yourself here. It's public, you just must go there to see it. The rest of your rant stinks of something fishy.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You contradict yourself here. It's public, you just must go there to see it.

Like I said, a carnival game.

But if that is the JREF standard, then why did they refuse to go to the U of A to review the data which they had offered a $1m grant for?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Like I said, a carnival game.

But if that is the JREF standard, then why did they refuse to go to the U of A to review the data which they had offered a $1m grant for?

Well, if you are so concerned with going to Florida, do you think it is wrong of Schwartz to hide his data in Arizona?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Well, if you are so concerned with going to Florida, do you think it is wrong of Schwartz to hide his data in Arizona?

I am not making a claim on the $1m. I am not an entire organisation funded with public money who makes an offer of a grant of $1m to the UofA and then refuses to go there to review the data, despite their insistance that, unfinanced people, living thousands of miles away come to *them*.

Like I said, a carnival game. But a serious flaw when their standards are doubled over to breaking point.

[CFLarsen]

Come now, Lucianarchy, you are avoiding the question. Can't have that, can we?

You say that having to go to Florida to look at the data makes the JREF challenge a "carnival game".

Do you similarly think that having to go to Arizona to look at the data makes Schwartz' experiment a "carnival game"?

Please either:

answer the question, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


What exactly is the "obvious bias" that concerns you so? That "the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there" isn't covered? Don't you see the incredible irony in discussing the "obvious bias" of JREF while simultaneously declaring paranormal phenomena are "actually out there"?

I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants, although Randi comments on them from time to time. Some of those, as I recall, were dangerous to the applicants and to others and were therefore refused. Some were just downright ridiculous and therefore refused.

Cheers,

The obvious bias is that the JREF has the final say as to whether an application will go ahead. In other words, the JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. I can see no indication of any formal criteria for this within the application.

For example, if I were to apply for the million via a ganzfeld experiment and claimed I could identify targets at a 40% hit rate when chance expects 25%, I would guess that the JREF might refuse the application because the blurb on the web site (not the official application) says that no judging procedures are required for testing.

Furthermore, if a ganzfeld experiment was allowed then what hit rate or degree of significance would be acceptable for the JREF ? Again I guess that the JREF would set the hit rate far too high to be realistic based on what we know about ganzfeld ESP so far. I reckon that I would be expected to corretly identify 90% of targets.

Thus, my application would be rejected when my claim might actually represent a real paranormal phenomenon.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

Are you gonna' drive me to the test?

Depends on where you are. Send in the notorized application, then send me a certified copy as well. Once your test is accepted and date set, we'll see about getting you to the test.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You say that having to go to Florida to look at the data makes the JREF challenge a "carnival game".

Do you similarly think that having to go to Arizona to look at the data makes Schwartz' experiment a "carnival game"?


[/LIST]

Nope, because it a standard set by the JREF. Ergo, if the JREF want to review the data, *they* must go to Arizona. In addition, the JREF is an educational organisation backed by public money and had offered the UofA the $1m as an educational grant, even more reason to go.

A Carnival game. Bait and Switch. Bilk the rubes. Call it what you want, but as it's done under the name of 'educational' it stinks like a bucket of dead red herrings.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Nope, because it a standard set by the JREF. Ergo, if the JREF want to review the data, *they* must go to Arizona.

Are you saying that Schwartz is merely following the standard rules of scientific research, by keeping his data in Arizona?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In addition, the JREF is an educational organisation backed by public money and had offered the UofA the $1m as an educational grant, even more reason to go.

Please provide evidence of the claim that JREF is "backed by public money".

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A Carnival game. Bait and Switch. Bilk the rubes. Call it what you want, but as it's done under the name of 'educational' it stinks like a bucket of dead red herrings.

Please state who these "rubes" are, and in what way they are "bilked.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The obvious bias is that the JREF has the final say as to whether an application will go ahead. In other words, the JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. I can see no indication of any formal criteria for this within the application.
It is deliberately open-minded. But, of course, skeptics can't be open-minded, so that can't be, therfore it must be wrong? Come off it.

We can't a priori name every possible paranormal claim! They are, by definition, things beyond known science. The world is your oyster here. Use your imagination or your special powers.
For example, if I were to apply for the million via a ganzfeld experiment and claimed I could identify targets at a 40% hit rate when chance expects 25%, I would guess that the JREF might refuse the application because the blurb on the web site (not the official application) says that no judging procedures are required for testing.

Furthermore, if a ganzfeld experiment was allowed then what hit rate or degree of significance would be acceptable for the JREF ? Again I guess that the JREF would set the hit rate far too high to be realistic based on what we know about ganzfeld ESP so far. I reckon that I would be expected to corretly identify 90% of targets.

Thus, my application would be rejected when my claim might actually represent a real paranormal phenomenon.
Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

If you submitted ganzfeld experiments, JREF says very clearly they would consult with statisticians to design an experimental protocol. They also say very clearly the testing design is mutually agreed to and that no changes can be made by either party without the approval of both parties.

Where on earth is the beef?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please provide evidence of the claim that JREF is "backed by public money".


Ah, Claus, my friend, you did not anticipate the weasel my Kreskin's Krystal Ball(tm) is flashing me about at the moment. Wait, let me change the batteries...

There we go. My KKB(tm) says Lucianarchy will point out to you that non-profits are tax-exempt in the U.S., and therefore "backed by public money."

Yes, they oil themselves up for this pap.

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

Here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated on the reverse before a notary public, and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set. All applicants must clearly identify themselves properly before any discussion takes place. "

========

I think this precludes the use of protocols that require subjective "scoring" or "evaluation" of "hits".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
My KKB(tm) says Lucianarchy will point out to you that non-profits are tax-exempt in the U.S., and therefore "backed by public money."

It might be my English, but when you are "backed" by money, you "get" money.

How does JREF "get" money from the "public"?

[Pyrrho]

Then there is this oft-ignored paragraph, which pretty much puts the lie to any nonsensical idea that the JREF Challenge is a scam:

Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated on the reverse before a notary public, and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set. All applicants must clearly identify themselves properly before any discussion takes place. "

I think this precludes the use of protocols that require subjective "scoring" or "evaluation" of "hits".
Pyrrho,

Thanks.

Holy cow! That's exactly what is meant there: Randi wants the antithesis of the crap JE and others get away with. He simply wants to remove the weasel room.

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It is deliberately open-minded. But, of course, skeptics can't be open-minded, so that can't be, therfore it must be wrong? Come off it.


Come on Claus, I'm not saying its wrong because its open-minded. All I'm saying is that the JREF has the final say as to whether a claim can be regarded as paranormal or not.


We can't a priori name every possible paranormal claim! They are, by definition, things beyond known science. The world is your oyster here. Use your imagination or your special powers.


Of course you are right, the JREF cannot be expected to name every possible situation that could be included as paranormal. However, the fact is that the eligibility for the test depends upon this specific criteria. The claim has to be deemed paranormal by the JREF for the claim to be accepted for the challenge.

I'm interested, who exactly decides this ? Is it a group of people or is it just James Randi ?




Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

Ok, so Pyrrho has pointed that out. Its not in the official application but I assume that's what would happen. So I guess a ganzfeld experiment wouldn't be accepted ?



If you submitted ganzfeld experiments, JREF says very clearly they would consult with statisticians to design an experimental protocol. They also say very clearly the testing design is mutually agreed to and that no changes can be made by either party without the approval of both parties.




I understand and accept that the experimental protocol would be sound and that mutual agreement would be met before the test takes place. However, I am pointing out that the JREF would have the final say as to what result would actually be acceptable as paranormal. So, would a significant hit rate of 35% be acceptable and why ? 50 %, 80 % ?

Do you see my point ?

[CFLarsen]

davidsmith73,

I'm not BillHoyt. He is not me.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
davidsmith73,

I'm not BillHoyt. He is not me.

whoops sorry. Need more coffee today.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Come on Claus, I'm not saying its wrong because its open-minded. All I'm saying is that the JREF has the final say as to whether a claim can be regarded as paranormal or not.
And I repeat: what is wrong with that? JREF is open-minded about the definition. Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?
Of course you are right, the JREF cannot be expected to name every possible situation that could be included as paranormal. However, the fact is that the eligibility for the test depends upon this specific criteria. The claim has to be deemed paranormal by the JREF for the claim to be accepted for the challenge.
Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?
I'm interested, who exactly decides this ? Is it a group of people or is it just James Randi ?
AFAIK, it is Randi and, possibly, Harter.
Ok, so Pyrrho has pointed that out. Its not in the official application but I assume that's what would happen. So I guess a ganzfeld experiment wouldn't be accepted ?
If you removed weasel room from ganzfeld, I don't see why JREF would refuse it. Do you know that JREF has done so in the past?
I understand and accept that the experimental protocol would be sound and that mutual agreement would be met before the test takes place. However, I am pointing out that the JREF would have the final say as to what result would actually be acceptable as paranormal. So, would a significant hit rate of 35% be acceptable and why ? 50 %, 80 % ?

Do you see my point ?
No, I don't see your point. The statistics would be based on the claimed hit rate. What is wrong with that?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And I repeat: what is wrong with that? JREF is open-minded about the definition. Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?


The reason its wrong is as I have said. It is possible that a genuine paranormal claim is rejected because the JREF thinks it is not paranormal. The motive behind the refusal could also be that the JREF thinks the claim has a good chance of success. Im not saying that it has happened but the nature of the challenge criteria makes this possible in principle. That said I think the JREF is a good fraud buster. Its not any kind of indication about the reality of paranormal phenomena though.


AFAIK


what does that stand for ?


If you removed weasel room from ganzfeld, I don't see why JREF would refuse it. Do you know that JREF has done so in the past?


"weasel room" ?

I don't know if JREF has refused ganzfeld. In principle they could, simply by declaring that it does not represent anything paranormal. Look, most of the people on this forum think there's nothing paranormal in ganzfeld experiments ! Thats the bias.


No, I don't see your point. The statistics would be based on the claimed hit rate. What is wrong with that?


The point is what level of hit rate would be acceptable to the JREF as being paranormal. 30%, 50%, 90% ? I'm not arguing over the statistics used to calculate the hit rate. That would be agreed upon fairly easily.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The reason its wrong is as I have said. It is possible that a genuine paranormal claim is rejected because the JREF thinks it is not paranormal. The motive behind the refusal could also be that the JREF thinks the claim has a good chance of success. Im not saying that it has happened but the nature of the challenge criteria makes this possible in principle. That said I think the JREF is a good fraud buster. Its not any kind of indication about the reality of paranormal phenomena though.
Ah, now we've ferreted it out! You're using a concocted fear of a Type II error to fuel your subject/motive shift. Rejected, sir, as fallacious reasoning. As I said before, do you know of specific refusals to test that you feel are wrong?
what does that stand for ?
"As Far As I Know"
"weasel room" ?
A private room in the back of the strip club where I work. Don't ask.

Come on, the statement means JREF would probably want the hit to be clean. The chorus of telepathy broadcasters are thinking really hard about an apple. JREF wants the subject to say "apple". Not banana. Not orange. Not sphere. Not pie. "Apple". JREF doesn't want to participate in the games parapsychological "researchers" play.
I don't know if JREF has refused ganzfeld. In principle they could, simply by declaring that it does not represent anything paranormal. Look, most of the people on this forum think there's nothing paranormal in ganzfeld experiments ! Thats the bias.
So try them. Be aware of the words. Stop this subject/motive shift and JREF-smear. You have yet to state any JREF refusals that you find objectionable. You simply engage here in a pre-emptive smear strike. If you have some JREF decision you feel was in error, let's discuss it. If you have a claim you want tested, present it to Randi and Andrew.
The point is what level of hit rate would be acceptable to the JREF as being paranormal. 30%, 50%, 90% ? I'm not arguing over the statistics used to calculate the hit rate. That would be agreed upon fairly easily.
David, are we talking the same language here? By "30%" I construe you to mean "80%" in the case of guessing fair coin tosses. Is that what you are talking about?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ah, now we've ferreted it out! You're using a concocted fear of a Type II error to fuel your subject/motive shift. Rejected, sir, as fallacious reasoning. As I said before, do you know of specific refusals to test that you feel are wrong?


You are right in saying that I fear that type II errors could easily be made by the JREF. The motivation behind these errors is a separate issue and I acknowldge that. I won't be naughty and mention possible motivations anymore (slap wrist). However the bias in the application procedure remains. It doesn't matter if any such refusals have actually happened yet. The bias in the procedure is there. The JREF has the final say as to what is deemed paranormal or not.




A private room in the back of the strip club where I work. Don't ask.

Intruiging :D


Come on, the statement means JREF would probably want the hit to be clean. The chorus of telepathy broadcasters are thinking really hard about an apple. JREF wants the subject to say "apple". Not banana. Not orange. Not sphere. Not pie. "Apple". JREF doesn't want to participate in the games parapsychological "researchers" play.

Are you saying that the telepath has to identify the target all of the time ? You see, you have already made a judgement as to what constitutes a paranormal result.

Also, you seem to be excluding the possibility of using a free response method. You are suggesting that a forced choice method is only acceptable. Is that right ?



David, are we talking the same language here? By "30%" I construe you to mean "80%" in the case of guessing fair coin tosses. Is that what you are talking about?


I was talking about the ganzfeld judging procedure whereby 4 targets are used, one the real target and the other the decoys. So 25% would be chance.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You are right in saying that I fear that type II errors could easily be made by the JREF. The motivation behind these errors is a separate issue and I acknowldge that. I won't be naughty and mention possible motivations anymore (slap wrist). However the bias in the application procedure remains. It doesn't matter if any such refusals have actually happened yet. The bias in the procedure is there. The JREF has the final say as to what is deemed paranormal or not.
To demonstrate a bias, you need to marshall some evidence. You continue to claim this bias while claiming there are no known refusals evincing the bias. Therefore, either you are wrong or are trying to point to a bias built into the procedure but not yet triggered. Which is it? Where is it?
Are you saying that the telepath has to identify the target all of the time ? You see, you have already made a judgement as to what constitutes a paranormal result.
I said no such thing.
Also, you seem to be excluding the possibility of using a free response method. You are suggesting that a forced choice method is only acceptable. Is that right ?
No, it does not exclude free response. It simply means the response must be right. If the applicant claims they can identify an object hidden in a solid lead box, JREF would feel free to fill the box with any old thing they desire and expect the applicant to say what's in the box. But not "ball" when it is an apple. Not "diamond" if it is a chip of glass.
I was talking about the ganzfeld judging procedure whereby 4 targets are used, one the real target and the other the decoys. So 25% would be chance.
In that case, I'd expect JREF to use enough trials to demonstrate a statistically significant departure from 25%. If the applicant says they can do it 30% of the time, there would be more trials than if they said they could do it 100% of the time.

Cheers,

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek


Another definition...

em•pa•thy
Pronunciation: (em'pu-thE), [key]
—n.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts , or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

Sorry so long to reply... I was out of town this weekend.

First, I noticed right off that you didn't include a source for this definition as I did. Not saying that you added the word thoughts but without a source, we just don't know.

Second, if assume that thoughts was part of the original definition, we cannot ignore the first half of the definition...ie "identification with". This is not a "knowing of" thoughts, only "relating to" thoughts.

Thirdly, if empathy is the same as telepathy, as you claim, why then does neither definition (or any other that I've seen) say, "See also telepathy"? It only ever says, "See also pity".

Please....Try harder next time.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

To demonstrate a bias, you need to marshall some evidence. You continue to claim this bias while claiming there are no known refusals evincing the bias. Therefore, either you are wrong or are trying to point to a bias built into the procedure but not yet triggered. Which is it? Where is it?


I mean there is a bias in the procedure. Thats why I said specifically that in my last post. I have no idea whether the JREF has refused an application because they think the claim in not paranormal. I'm not making a claim of that sort but you are continuing to make it look like I am.


I said no such thing.

Well what did you mean then ?


No, it does not exclude free response. It simply means the response must be right. If the applicant claims they can identify an object hidden in a solid lead box, JREF would feel free to fill the box with any old thing they desire and expect the applicant to say what's in the box. But not "ball" when it is an apple. Not "diamond" if it is a chip of glass.


So why would the JREF not accept a judging procedure ?


In that case, I'd expect JREF to use enough trials to demonstrate a statistically significant departure from 25%. If the applicant says they can do it 30% of the time, there would be more trials than if they said they could do it 100% of the time.



Ok

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I mean there is a bias in the procedure. Thats why I said specifically that in my last post. I have no idea whether the JREF has refused an application because they think the claim in not paranormal. I'm not making a claim of that sort but you are continuing to make it look like I am.
A "bias" means to skew something in a particular direction. If you claim a process is biased, you must evidence of this bias. In this case, that would either be evidence of past refusals or evidence of bias in the written procedures. So where is it?

Well what did you mean then ?

So why would the JREF not accept a judging procedure ?

I mean JREF doesn't want to get into p***ing contests about a guess of an "banana" being a hit because it is a fruit and the target apple is a fruit. This is also what I meant about "weaseling". But this is not the same as meaning the hit rate has to be 100%. Does this make sense?

Cheers,

[BNiles]

Simplifying the test could solve both of these questions.

Example:
Use numbers only as target (0 - 9) = 1 in 10 chance
or letters (A - Z) = 1 in 26 chance

That way there's no need for any "interpretation" of response, and provides enough of a base to measure luck verses clairvoyance.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

A "bias" means to skew something in a particular direction. If you claim a process is biased, you must evidence of this bias. In this case, that would either be evidence of past refusals or evidence of bias in the written procedures. So where is it?


I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

The JREF will have the final say as to what constitutes a paranormal claim and what does not. You can't deny this.


I mean JREF doesn't want to get into p***ing contests about a guess of an "banana" being a hit because it is a fruit and the target apple is a fruit. This is also what I meant about "weaseling". But this is not the same as meaning the hit rate has to be 100%. Does this make sense?



Yes that makes perfect sense and also illustrates my point nicely. The JREF has the final say as to what kind of analysis is acceptable and what is not.

By the way, if the guess is "banana" and the target is an apple then by using a judging procedure with three decoys, say a brick, a car and a shoe you can bypass the "pissing contest" as you so eloquently put it.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The JREF will have the final say as to what constitutes a paranormal claim and what does not. You can't deny this. Surely both sides can be said to have the "final say", since it is a collaborative process, and either side can drop out of the testing at any stage. Neither side wields more power than the other, therefore.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Nucular
Surely both sides can be said to have the "final say", since it is a collaborative process, and either side can drop out of th