Prolescum
New Member
Baranduin said:
- get close to super-secret black-ops scientist and prompt emotional reaction
- read mind
- go to above top secret
- ???
- profit!
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
I'm psychic
- Thread starter Worldquest
- Start date
Commander Eagle
New Member
Prolescum said:
You forgot "get lawled at by me and my disinfo agent buddies". That's a pretty big step.
Commander Eagle
New Member
Not exactly a great test. Number one, do you tell them beforehand what you are writing down? If so, the test is not blinded, and you can easily receive false positives. Even if you don't tell them, the problem is that people rarely think in concrete sentences unless they are really concentrating. Thoughts are more... vague. What you wrote down can be accepted as a "word-for-word" match even if it just barely touches on what they were thinking for a split second.Worldquest said:
How far do your psychic powers extend? Can you, for example, tell what color shirt I am wearing, whether it has a collar, a pattern, a little alligator embroidered on the pocket? Short or long sleeves? Jeans or shorts? Glasses or no? A watch? Tattoos?
And so on. Or do you have to be with someone to read their thoughts?
Worldquest
New Member
Commander Eagle said:
I've done it without telling them what I'm writing down. I've done it without them even knowing that I'm writing anything at all down. Yes I have to be with that person to read their thoughts, and there has to be a strong emotion going on between us, or shared. I can't do the things that you list, so no I can't tell what colour shirt you're wearing, etc.
When I sense their thought, this is word for word, nearly every time, including the ums and aahs inbetweens words, as well as images tha they're thinking of, and random thoughts, in the order that they're thinking them. In other words, the entire thought.
So for example, if the thought is :
Well I don't know about that.....wait I've got to go down to shop in a minute (image of the shop and what they need to buy and the person that works there).....I wonder if John fixed his car...I'm so hot in this jumper...(image of a T shirt)...etc...
I can read it almost exactly. This is different to just knowing someone well. This is consistently accurate, down to the exact images that they're thinking. Each image that flashes through their mind, each half sentence, full sentence, I can read all of it. I've even drawn sketches of the images that they think about, and I can name names of people who I don't know and have never met, if the person thinks of the name. Even very personal details, things which one wouldn't want others to know, and couldn't possibly know.
An example from last week. I was having a laugh and a joke with a friend of mine, for about half an hour. At one point, I got this (I'm paraphrasing and going from memory but the details are accurate) :
Why doesn't he do that more often? (image of a crowd of people talking) These tables are wonky but what can you do (image of his brother, who I've never met, and a vague feeling of "sort it out" and the name Graham), boy oh boy if only it was actually as easy as that, I never did that at school, so stupid.
I didn't write any of it down but I remembered it, and I just said it all to him, without telling him why, I just said what came into my mind. He was pretty shocked because he said that I was repeating what he had just thought to himself. When I asked him what it all meant he explained :
Why doesn't he do that more often? )image of a crowd of people talking) - He was referring to me chatting up girls, he said that I should do it more often rather than leaving it to him all the time (our conversation at the time was about girls)
These tables are wonky but what can you do (image of his brother, who I've never met, and a vague feeling of "sort it out" and the name Graham) - His brother Graham is a carpenter (to be fair, I do know him by name but I've not met him), and he owes him money, and that's what he meant by sort it out
Boy oh boy if only it was actually as easy as that - He was thinking about making a lot of money in a short space of time (in our conversation, we were also talking about Dragon's Den, a programme in the UK about entrepeneurs (I can't spell it but you know what I mean)
I never did that at school, so stupid - He was thinking about why he never did business studies at school
All these thoughts ocurred very quickly one after the other. The only things that I was aware o was the topics of our conversation (girls, dragon's den), the rest of it we weren't talking about, those were his thoughts, which went from one thing to another very fast, as they do.
australopithecus
Active Member
:facepalm:
Commander Eagle
New Member
Worldquest said:
So in other words, you can only read their thoughts when it is painfully obvious what they are thinking?
Somehow I doubt this. Like I said above, people rarely think in coherent sentences, or even in words. It's more a series of vague feelings which only adopt word form through conscious effort. As I said above, this means that anything you say that is even close to what they are thinking - which it would be, as you only attempt this when what they are thinking is blatantly obvious - can be taken as a positive.
Also, you may want to apply for the Million-Dollar Challenge.
I thought the same thing once.
Then I realised what I was doing was reading people, and everyone does that.
If someone is in a very positive mood, you can read that they're happy and fool yourself into thinking it's something special. It's not, it's normal.
This all stems from people thinking they are important or special or whatever, when in reality - they're experiencing the same thing as everyone else. Sorry to be a buzz kill.
Then I realised what I was doing was reading people, and everyone does that.
If someone is in a very positive mood, you can read that they're happy and fool yourself into thinking it's something special. It's not, it's normal.
This all stems from people thinking they are important or special or whatever, when in reality - they're experiencing the same thing as everyone else. Sorry to be a buzz kill.
Worldquest
New Member
Commander Eagle said:
No it's not when it's painfully obvious what they're thinking because the fact that I know them, plus the fact that there is a strong emotion involved, doesn't mean that one would know what exact thoughts the other person is having, let alone get it right consistently, and with such accuracy, even involving details that I'd have no way of actually knowing. That's the difference between what I'm talking about and simply knowing someone.
The fact that I can read thoughts in such detail has been confirmed by the other person. Even people who at first doubted it now find themselves being told by me what their thoughts are, in fine detail and as I say I can even know things which I would have no way of knowing otherwise.
Commander Eagle
New Member
Worldquest said:
Okay, look, stop. Just stop.
You have stated that it works on your friends. You have stated that it only works when there is a strong emotion involved.
This is called empathy. It is not psychic. It is a byproduct of a) being close to these people and therefore knowing how they think and b) not being totally oblivious to the world around you.
It is not magic powers. That's it. End of discussion. There is nothing more that can be said.
Have you even bothered to read my previous posts?
Such as?
RichardMNixon
New Member
Worldquest said:
Horseshit. People don't think in sentences and they definitely don't think with umms and ahhs.
Commander Eagle
New Member
I've said this, but his crimestop is too strong - I can almost hear him shouting "DOES NOT COMPUTE" whenever he reads that.RichardMNixon said:
Worldquest
New Member
Commander Eagle said:
No it's not just empathy. The reason I know this is because :
a) I can read details which I have no way of knowing
b) I can read their thoughts literally word for word, and get the images which they think of
This is not possible to do unless one is extremely lucky, and be lucky over and over again. The odds of that are tiny. And even tinier still when I can do it over a long period of time. For example, if I'm having a long argument with someone who I know, I can tell exactly what they're thinking, word for word, throughout the entire argument. And when I know what the person intends to say, or is considering saying, I say it before they do, and they tell me that that is what they were about to say, word for word. I can do it consistently.
So it's not just empathy.
I can read thoughts which contain details of things which I'd have no way of knowing, such as names of people that they know who I do not know, and their appearance, the layout and appearance of places which I've never been to (if that's what they're thinking about), and so on. I tell them what I'm reading and they confirm it.
Commander Eagle
New Member
Worldquest said:
You said this already. Saying something isn't worth much. You have to back it up. What have you "read" that you couldn't have known any other way, and how will you go about proving that you aren't simply lying through your teeth?
People do not think in words. Fourth time this has been explained to you. You cannot read someone's mind word-for-word, because people do not think in sentences. It's that simple.
In a situation where you already know what they're thinking about, that is.
And how will you go about showing that you aren't simply lying, or that your memory is not flawed, or that you are not suffering from confirmation bias? Like I said above, you have to back it up. You can't just say it.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
One day, Worldquest will have to realize that his words are not posed forth as evidence themselves - claims are not evidentiary.
For example, I will stake forth a claim:
"I am Worldquest"
However, as Worldquest might do, I would expect you to take this at face value. Me simply staking a claim doesn't make it any more true - for my name is not Worldquest. All it would take is for someone to look up at my name and see that my name is, indeed, )O( Hytegia )O(.
Therefore, having no evidence to back up my claim - I am wrong.
If I make a claim again, after being explained that, once more, my name is )O( Hytegia )O(, then I am either one of 3 things -
1) Braindamaged - I don't remember you saying it, so I musty have short term memory loss.
2) Retarded - It is very difficult for me to understand the fact that I am, in fact, )O( Hytegia )O(.
3) Lying - I very much know that I am )O( Hytegia )O(. In spite of this, I will make the claim that I am Worldquest.
/crashcourse in Evidence
For example, I will stake forth a claim:
"I am Worldquest"
However, as Worldquest might do, I would expect you to take this at face value. Me simply staking a claim doesn't make it any more true - for my name is not Worldquest. All it would take is for someone to look up at my name and see that my name is, indeed, )O( Hytegia )O(.
Therefore, having no evidence to back up my claim - I am wrong.
If I make a claim again, after being explained that, once more, my name is )O( Hytegia )O(, then I am either one of 3 things -
1) Braindamaged - I don't remember you saying it, so I musty have short term memory loss.
2) Retarded - It is very difficult for me to understand the fact that I am, in fact, )O( Hytegia )O(.
3) Lying - I very much know that I am )O( Hytegia )O(. In spite of this, I will make the claim that I am Worldquest.
/crashcourse in Evidence
Worldquest
New Member
Commander Eagle said:
I read people's minds whether it be images, feelings, or words, or a combination, and people do often think in words, even if it's briefly, or even if it's half sentences or specific words or a couple of words.
Pretty much everything you're saying is just an expression of the fact that you're skeptical and that's fine. You don't have to believe any of it, I'm just saying what I do, and the fact that it has been confirmed in many ways, as I've explained in previous posts.
Even if you still think that people don't ever think in words (which is bizarre, by the way, I do it, everyone I've asked does it sometimes), there's still the matter of images, and the fact that I can read specific details which I would otherwise have no way at all of knowing. You're stretching the meaning of knowing someone well to cover what I do, but actually it cannot account for the detail, accuracyand the consistency. There have been many times when I have been able to read someone's mind for hours, In almost precise detail.
By the way, what would be a good way of testing this to see whether or not I'm reading people's minds? If you can come up with an airtight test which I could try out (in your own words, that is), I'll try it.
australopithecus
Active Member
Worldquest said:
Commander Eagle said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Contact the people at the Million-Dollar challange. They can devise an airtight one for your discression. Most likely, it will be a double-blind study incorperating a face-to-face meeting with 5 random strangers.Worldquest said:
DAMMIT AUSTRAL. I WAS POSTING THAT!
Worldquest
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
No because my claim is that this works only under the condition that I know the person quite well, and that there is an emotion involved. What I'm asking for is a test which would be appropriate under those conditions.
Worldquest, we've already told you our opinion[1], and you claim that's not enough to explain it. Then we've told you then which tests - including but not exclusively JREF - you should perform in order for us to consider to take you seriously. Don't worry answering to this or my previous post: if you're so truly convinced, do the damn tests. If you need help to see if your tests are rigorous and appropriately double-blinded, or to evaluate the statistical result, we've already offered our help and/or to put you into contact with the appropriate persons, professionals in the field. But if there's something you should know about us enough to read it in our minds every time you post is that you have to back up your claims. We are not going to take your - anyone's - word unless there's third party data to confirm it.
Now, I can foresee how this is going to evolve: you are going to claim that you've already performed every single test we propose, showing that you have troubles on reading[2], claiming that your readings (mind and post readings) are perfect and far more accurate than what psychology and cognitive sciences even permit[3], and the number of targets you can act upon will be growing as the number of the restrictions will reduce. You're going to repeat every statement once and once again, as if repeating something made it truer, with slight variations that you are going to be oblivious of, to the point that you'll end contradicting yourself. Once we point out your contradiction, you'll start trying to justify it instead of humbly admit you could be flat out wrong, creating more funny contradictions, until you start yelling at us about how closeminded[4] and moronic and negative we are in our belief[5], just to finally insult someone[6] in serious terms and get (rightfully) banned.
These are claims very precise, as you can see, nearly word by word (I'd say a 95% of accuracy). Not that my experience and your past behavior have something to do with it; it's purely divination[7].
[1] That you're a shut eye.
[2] Because the test you'll describe is not what we are telling you; usually, it'll lack of the proper double blind component.
[3] Because the accuracy you'll claim is going to be higher than the accuracy people thinks with.
[4] Remember, we've already told you what you have to do so we can consider your point; we are being open to it, it's just that we're not stupid.
[5] Just like atheism is a religion, and not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.
[6] To make this prediction harder, someone else other than hackenslash and Hytegia. No offense, but saying that you will continue to make negative references about them would have no merit at all.
[7] All the events refer to a close future, not to past events. That is, every claim will be stated at least once since now.
Now, I can foresee how this is going to evolve: you are going to claim that you've already performed every single test we propose, showing that you have troubles on reading[2], claiming that your readings (mind and post readings) are perfect and far more accurate than what psychology and cognitive sciences even permit[3], and the number of targets you can act upon will be growing as the number of the restrictions will reduce. You're going to repeat every statement once and once again, as if repeating something made it truer, with slight variations that you are going to be oblivious of, to the point that you'll end contradicting yourself. Once we point out your contradiction, you'll start trying to justify it instead of humbly admit you could be flat out wrong, creating more funny contradictions, until you start yelling at us about how closeminded[4] and moronic and negative we are in our belief[5], just to finally insult someone[6] in serious terms and get (rightfully) banned.
These are claims very precise, as you can see, nearly word by word (I'd say a 95% of accuracy). Not that my experience and your past behavior have something to do with it; it's purely divination[7].
[1] That you're a shut eye.
[2] Because the test you'll describe is not what we are telling you; usually, it'll lack of the proper double blind component.
[3] Because the accuracy you'll claim is going to be higher than the accuracy people thinks with.
[4] Remember, we've already told you what you have to do so we can consider your point; we are being open to it, it's just that we're not stupid.
[5] Just like atheism is a religion, and not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.
[6] To make this prediction harder, someone else other than hackenslash and Hytegia. No offense, but saying that you will continue to make negative references about them would have no merit at all.
[7] All the events refer to a close future, not to past events. That is, every claim will be stated at least once since now.
