Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[USEC_OFFICER]

A quick online search suggests that that experiment suffered from improper randomization which resulted in that favourable result. Other experiments conducted since then, and a couple before, had results pretty much identical randomly guessing.

[dragdeler]

-snip-

[USEC_OFFICER]

What did you type to find that so quickly?

edit: rather how did you?

'Can you feel if someone is looking at you' -> Psychic staring effect on Wikipedia -> Investigate Wikipedia's sources.

While Wikipedia might not be the most reputable website, it often collects good, academic sources for its articles. So it's a good place to start if you want to investigate a topic without fiddling with search results and so on.

[x2yzh9]

I think a keyword on the subject here would be 'probability', 'algorithmic', and the concept of multiverses. Probability is something that would be a major factor in any kind of mathematic theory or equation describing the effects, but I think that in a practical reality such an equation would not speak of finite volumes but something that is infinite and non-metric in nature, so you couldn't really define it with math unless you did it on an individualized basis and I guarantee you the measurements, the biological research into the individual itself(of which there would have to be 2, I would presume), and the subsequent mathematical sum of said equation. I don't think it can be defined, at least not for a long time in our history or with the level of technology we have(unless we approach a singularity by 2050-2070). I do think it can be measured, and I do think it can be proven, but I don't think any one country or group, even, has the means to do it on any level unless they were to focus on such a pursuit. MK-ULTRA comes to mind here.

I've meditated before though, focused on chakra points, and had (what is termed as) a 'kundalini awakening'(found out the label of what I experienced several years afterwards) and probably a bunch of other stuff. This pretty much ends my view of the subject. Input? Or should we go to a different topic.

[redwallzyl]

I would just like to state for the record that no matter how much people might want it there is absolutely no proof of anything supernatural existing. No magic energy or mind weirdness. Just our boring world. This stuff makes great fiction though.

[Egan_BW]

How do we actually define "supernatural" other than "things that do not actually exist", though? Sounds a bit like a tautology.

[redwallzyl]

How do we actually define "supernatural" other than "things that do not actually exist", though? Sounds a bit like a tautology.

Things the defy the known laws of the universe. Often directly going against them. There is some ambiguity when it comes to unscientific questions though.

[Trekkin]

I think a keyword on the subject here would be 'probability', 'algorithmic', and the concept of multiverses. Probability is something that would be a major factor in any kind of mathematic theory or equation describing the effects, but I think that in a practical reality such an equation would not speak of finite volumes but something that is infinite and non-metric in nature, so you couldn't really define it with math unless you did it on an individualized basis and I guarantee you the measurements, the biological research into the individual itself(of which there would have to be 2, I would presume), and the subsequent mathematical sum of said equation. I don't think it can be defined, at least not for a long time in our history or with the level of technology we have(unless we approach a singularity by 2050-2070). I do think it can be measured, and I do think it can be proven, but I don't think any one country or group, even, has the means to do it on any level unless they were to focus on such a pursuit. MK-ULTRA comes to mind here.

I've meditated before though, focused on chakra points, and had (what is termed as) a 'kundalini awakening'(found out the label of what I experienced several years afterwards) and probably a bunch of other stuff. This pretty much ends my view of the subject. Input? Or should we go to a different topic.

First, you do yourself no favors by playing buzzword bingo with everything. Don't get into chakras and multiverses and the singularity and MK-ULTRA and all this other stuff randomly; if you mean to define a theory under which telepathy might work, do so completely and concisely first, then give your evidence for it, then move on to the next thing. Name-dropping just makes you sound like you're throwing things out to see what sticks rather than presenting something coherent enough to permit a considered response.

Second, the way you speak of mathematics makes me think you're laboring under a diffuse set of misconceptions about how science works. We don't define everything in terms of equations; it would be nonsensical to expect an ornithologist to "find an equation to describe a new species of bird", or a cytologist to somehow define cell theory mathematically. Yes, we generally like to define things in quantitative terms where possible to enable more powerful and reproducible methods of analysis, but don't mistake the map for the territory. "The mathematical sum of said equation" has nothing to do with whether your theory oftelepathy has greater predictive power than some other explanation of the available data. We don't strictly need to define things with math in order to explore them scientifically, although it might be more accurate to say that we can group things conceptually without an overarching mathematical relation between them.

Third, you don't have nearly enough here to start trying to calculate the necessary sample size (which is one of those things that mathematics, specifically statistics, does so we don't need to presume it); with no indication of the effect size or the signal-to-noise ratio we have no basis on which to begin any sort of power analysis to work that out, and with no theoretical basis for what exactly is going on we have no way to establish priors for either.

All of which is somewhat less relevant considering we already have a well-known explanation for all the actual phenomena you allege to be the result of telepathy: over time, you're getting more consistent at nonverbally signaling what number you're thinking of as your counterpart is getting better at reading that. It's literally a more subtle version of teaching a child what numbers go with how many fingers, and it's learnable in the same ways -- yes, even by autistic people for whom nonverbal cues can be more difficult to process. Every time you correctly "project" the number you want, you remember to do whatever you were doing more next time, and so the reader learns to associate whatever you're doing with that number. No chakra points or kundalini awakenings required, just bog-standard conditioning coupled with confirmation bias.

If you want it in equation form, your telepathy = (you learn to behave in certain ways to "radiate" certain numbers + your partner learns those associations) * (you remember your successes more than your failures).

[x2yzh9]

Thank you for the response Trekkin. You have raised some very good counterpoints which..is good for the debate, I suppose.
   you are right, if I am to define a theory under which telepathy may be possible, I should do so completely and concisely first, shame on me for forgetting the scientific method..So, to reply to your second paragraph-The way I think of mathematics is wildly different from most people, so that may be an possible reason for the miscommunication. So if we want to define things quantitatively most times, is your suggestion this;to instead define it qualitatively? Honest question.
   Next, on to the 'mathemetical sum of said equation part'. I did not mean to imply this, but I did, my apologies. What I meant by that was that the supposed sum of such an equation wouldn't be native to the current, state-of-the-art even human understanding or psychological understanding. We wouldn't be able to for a long time, unless we shortened such a timeline by another alternative. Next, when you say 'greater predictive power', I may interject that that the whole technique, theory, thesis IS to an extent 'predictive power' in and of itself. There could be a million other explanations of the data, but it leads to the same thing-a natural or learned ability to predict things to a certain extent, but there are so many factors that go into that, that the variables themselves couldn't(or just havn't, and should be)be quantified, or maybe even the qualitative variables too.
   Next, that is precisely what I'm saying as well, this supposed phenomena would be easier understood in a group of conceptual factors, rather than put into 0's and 1's, or variable, or what have you. as far as your third point-Your right, calculating the sample size would be impossible at this point in time. The 'effect size' is something that I don't know if would be a proper term for this scenario-or the signal-to-noise ratio. So here is a small, short basis that I propose-

   The human brain has scientifically to operate on certain frequencies, which range widely and have different variable effects on the human psychology and physiology, at the very least. Now, it is a scientific fact(correct me if I'm wrong) that everything in the universe 'vibrates' or 'oscillates', as well as meaning it does so on a certain frequency, or wavelength. My theory is that when you naturally or learn to align your frequency through muscle or neuroplasticity based methods, to the other individuals, then that is what creates the basis for everything further along in the theory. Make your counterpoints, if you would.
Finally, the well-known explanation of the phenomena you speak of is true, but by proxy would you agree, or disagree that the explanation itself that you just provided is a proof of the probability factor of the theory? But as I said earlier and as you mentioned-we may be talking quality-wise, not quantity.
Just thought I would take the time to actually type an educated to the best of my ability response.

[Dorsidwarf]

I’m not aware of any special frequencies at which the human brain or all matter in the universe vibrates at myself, unless that’s like, derived from the average length of a nerve impulse and the speed of a nerve impulse?

Edit: also it’s a neat enough theory I guess, but if it’s being presented without evidence it should be clearer as to what it’s trying to explain?

[wierd]

Nerve impulses are actually pretty slow. There is a rather protracted refractory period between neuron firings, as ion concentrations have to get built up again before the neuron can fire. 

https://aiimpacts.org/rate-of-neuron-firing/

[Il Palazzo]

Edit: also it’s a neat enough theory I guess

I don't know. It looks like affected word salad to me, of the technobabble variety.

[Reelya]

They do in fact have machines capable of sending a word into someones head. The question then becomes whether someone else's head would be capable of putting out similar signals. The main argument against it is that brain-wave activity isn't coherent enough at long distances and won't transmit a strong enough signal. But if we can stick electrodes on someone's head and tell what words they are thinking it's not too hard to imagine that if two heads were near each other one is picking up the same type of signals from the other, even if not aware of it.

[wierd]

If the brain were that sensitive to EM radiation, people would have severe epileptic seizures inside an MRI.

[Il Palazzo]

They do in fact have machines capable of sending a word into someones head.

Duh. It's called headphones.