Online Telekinesis Experiments

[Kibbles]

Ok. Finally got the computer to run this thing. Just a 1 out of 13 chance on my first run. I'll do this again some time.

I find the above results (0.7559 THE OTHER WAY) kinda funny.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Kibbles

[Virtual Particle]

Essentially results that fall within a standard deviation from P=.05 are not significant otherwise, that they fall beyond a standard deviation then they are significant. As far as the "other way" that makes little sense in relation to this discussion either way results fall beyond a standard deviation (such as .05, .06,.07,.08,.09 and so on or .051, .052, .054 and so on). .7559 is about 75% as opposed to .05 which is 5%.

Five percent is the mean, so to be clearer, if you are able to affect the program 5% of the time then from the context of "Science comes bearing a sharp pin ready to burst some bubbles " we are looking at a response which can be defined as simply within the range of luck, but in relation to 75% well, that is clearly well beyond a standard deviation from the mean.

Ai_guardian I clearly do not understand your comment could you perhaps elaborate??

Any thoughts?

PS: Kibbles make sure your taking notes on your results.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Triad

[Bio-Mage]

Well then you are having problems with your memory....

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...0046&st=525

As far as the rest of your response it makes absolutely no sense and if anything looks like posturing especially in light of this...

Thats your area of expertise. If you wish to address the point I made about telekinesis and random generators do so. Pasting links and efforts in dismissing my position by pretending you do not understand me is a poor effort on your part. One of many in fact...

Sconce you obviously forgot you wrote this just click on the link included in my sig and you can see it again thumbsup.gif

Yes I am sure somehow even this served your argument...we know the drill...

Backing what up? All you seem to be doing is discouraging actual experimentation in this.

Besides, I'm busy doing the math on some other problem. I don't see you backing up your statements with hard science.

I have made a simple point in one of my prior responses already. The fact that you completly ignore that, is the reason I fail to see the need for further science. You and Triad have problems following simple concepts as it is.

[Kibbles]

A simple point? Sorry, I just must've missed it or the severity of its importance.

If your point is so simple, what is it?

And back it up with hard logic, verifiable fact, or scientific explanation please.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Kibbles

[ai_guardian]

Essentially results that fall within a standard deviation from P=.05 are not significant otherwise, that they fall beyond a standard deviation then they are significant. As far as the "other way" that makes little sense in relation to this discussion either way results fall beyond a standard deviation (such as .05, .06,.07,.08,.09 and so on or .051, .052, .054 and so on). .7559 is about 75% as opposed to .05 which is 5%.

Five percent is the mean, so to be clearer, if you are able to affect the program 5% of the time then from the context of "Science comes bearing a sharp pin ready to burst some bubbles " we are looking at a response which can be defined as simply within the range of luck, but in relation to 75% well, that is clearly well beyond a standard deviation from the mean.

Ai_guardian I clearly do not understand your comment could you perhaps elaborate??

Triad, with all due respect I don't know what you are trying to put across in the above but standard deviation is NOT the probability so equating .7559 to 75% just makes no sense at all.

Here are the results of the RPKP experiments that BTW have been running since 1997.

What you will find is that the .7559 figure (if I interpret it correctly) is the overall deviation from the mean of a .5/.5 probability bell curve of a 1024 bit test (the link shows the curve (blue) and the outcomes (red boxes)).

To clear things up, as you know, the test subject chooses to influence the outcome of the test to have more 'hits' on the LEFT or on the RIGHT. There are 1024 random bits generated based on radioactive decay. These bits are either LEFT or RIGHT (not actually left or right but based on some QM property ie. spin). Now, when I looked at the results, based on what the subject chose ie. subject choses LEFT you'd expect perhaps a slight deviation to the LEFT and vice versa. NOW, this is what I mean by THE OTHER WAY - the deviation is the wrong way ie. subject chose LEFT and more hits were on the RIGHT and vice versa. Go figure! That's where the bubble bursting starts.

As from the previous results (they've probably been updated now)...

Total Tries (bits): 233080832

Total Hist (bits correct): 116534646

And that is LESS than half correct

BTW, I've swung the chance to the 'believer' side by taking the test and SUPPOSEDLY influencing the test 30:1 in favour of the correct outcome ie. I chose RIGHT and got a result on the RIGHT that should probabilistically be obtained once in 30 tries. BUT I'M NO PSYCHIC!

Cheers

[Virtual Particle]

Ok now I understand what you are saying; consider that in relation to such an experiment the suppression of telekinetic ability is also an expression. In other words, a person who is inherently telekinetic but has some psychological issues regarding its expression can in fact actually cause the results to be the opposite, of what he or she intended. These results are actually as valid, as causing the effect to produce what the subject wanted and perhaps as well suggestive of some unconscious element in relation to there PSI ability.

I hope you can understand why, but if not will be pleased to elaborate further.

Edit:Unneccessary

Any thoughts?

Edited August 16, 2006 by Lottie

[Guest Lottie]

Right. Before this thread gets out of hand, I think that a look at the guidelines of this board is in order.

The subject of metaphysical abilities and psychic phenomena is a very controversial one. There is and always will be conflict between those who strongly believe in these phenomena, and those who do not. Therefore it is important to respect each other's opinions on the subject.

This means no flaming or trolling in this section. You are welcome to argue a point, as long as you do so in a civil manner. Namecalling, bickering, personal insults or offensive remarks are unacceptable. Posts designed to ridicule or demean other members will be removed.

As to stop any kind of flaming from happening on here I have edited and deleted two posts.

Now instead of nit-picking and targeting certain members, can we please get back on topic.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Lottie

[ai_guardian]

Ok now I understand what you are saying; consider that in relation to such an experiment the suppression of telekinetic ability is also an expression. In other words, a person who is inherently telekinetic but has some psychological issues regarding its expression can in fact actually cause the results to be the opposite, of what he or she intended. These results are actually as valid, as causing the effect to produce what the subject wanted and perhaps as well suggestive of some unconscious element in relation to there PSI ability.

That to me sounds like clutching at straws - just my opinion.

But I tell you something else that's interesting but keep in mind that it is a very weak argument if you decide to use it. On the openning page (your original link, not the results link I posted) the choice radio buttons, to choose either to influence left and right, are swapped around ie. to choose to influence the experiment to the RIGHT, you have to place a check on the left and vice versa. Did anybody notice that?

This IMO is a cognitive test. If you believe that the outcomes are correct (and support RetroPsychoKinesis albeit very very little) you sacrifice the subject's COGNITION If however you believe that people realised this swapping around, you recognise people's cognition but sacrifice RetroPsychoKinesis. I know which one I'm choosing. What do you think?

Cheers

Edited August 16, 2006 by ai_guardian

[Virtual Particle]

It’s called an inversion reaction ai_guardian and in relation to psychology fairly common even in respect to "normal" activity. In relation to the field and with respect to statistics (common tool in psychological research the paranormal being a subset), when such an event as you are describing occurs, invariably this is an explanation for why the reaction in inverted in relation to the phenomenon being studied. When a person is confronted with something he or she does not fully comprehend, it experiences stress and because the phenomenon is real, it still does express itself. Variations in this expression beyond the mean to either extreme as still expression of a capacity.

As far as the, your right or my right issue, I don't think that that should be a problem but as far as inversion reaction in respect to statistical analysis its psychology 101.

Lottie I do and will respect you counsel but please understand I do not.....

Bio-mage states in this thread...

"have any problems following simple concepts".

Any thoughts?

Edited August 17, 2006 by Triad

[ai_guardian]

It’s called an inversion reaction ai_guardian and in relation to psychology fairly common even in respect to "normal" activity. In relation to the field and with respect to statistics (common tool in psychological research the paranormal being a subset), when such an event as you are describing occurs, invariably this is an explanation for why the reaction in inverted in relation to the phenomenon being studied. When a person is confronted with something he or she does not fully comprehend, it experiences stress and because the phenomenon is real, it still does express itself. Variations in this expression beyond the mean to either extreme as still expression of a capacity.

....

...inversion reaction in respect to statistical analysis its psychology 101.

Perhaps you can direct me to the text in your syllabus for psychology 101 that defines this "inversion reaction"? The only inversion reaction that I know of is with respect to chemistry and DNA.

Cheers

[Virtual Particle]

No problem we all have our points of view.....

http://psy.tom.ru/eng/displacement.html

http://psy.tom.ru/eng/instruction.html

and if you really want to get into it...

http://www.unige.ch/lettres/philo/enseigna...doc/Spectre.pdf

Bio-Mage states....

No..it only shows that random number generators are prone to produce patterns rather than randomness. They only difference is that when a person is used in the equation you actually bother to recognize it. I am sorry but telekinesis is a long way...especially the more extravagant application we keep seeing posted.

Your suggesting that a technology to generate random effects does not work what is the basis for your conclusion?? Feel free to elaborate from the context, of the physics of the technology, on specific reasons why such a conclusion has a basis in fact. I have on a multitude of occasions presented substantive data and as an example....

http://www.robertnz.net/hwrng.htm

http://random.mat.sbg.ac.at/

And have to date seen nothing from you with exception of your comments to the effect, that what you are claiming should be accepted as valid, to be clear can find no reference which supports your point.

Any thoughts?

[Bio-Mage]

Your suggesting that a technology to generate random effects does not work what is the basis for your conclusion?? Feel free to elaborate from the context, of the physics of the technology, on specific reasons why such a conclusion has a basis in fact. I have on a multitude of occasions presented substantive data and as an example....

I feel that the "interference" caused by individuals to the number patterns coming from a random number generator, are not sufficient to explain telekinesis for the folowing reasons.

1) Although affecting the generator 5% of the time may have statistical significance, in reality we cannot dismiss the probability of the number to come up with the same pattern without any directed influence from individuals anyway. In effect unless you have a very constant response of a huge measure, its impossible to claim something as telekinesis when it has almost the same chances as a random pattern emerging.

2) Random number generators are very prone to interference. Temperature, power supply voltage, age of the equipment and other environmental and artficial occurances could very well disrupt the sequence of number generation. Since the equipment itself uses radioactive decay, thermal noise, shot noise and clock drift to produce its results, how can we be certain that any of those phenomena is not subject to variables we do not take into account? Isn't it more possible that the small percentage of "success" we get in down to such an oversight? The human body is known to produce EM fileds through involuntary metabolic processes which could produce such results after all.

3) As I pointed out on an earlier post, a quantum phenomenon is subject to electromagnetic forces that dwarf gravity in magnitute and intensity. Yet we discuss the possibility of Micro-Telekinesis as a first step, when that by default should have been more difficult than levitating for example, since gravity is a weaker force to counter. So my question here is simple. On what basis do you believe we can affect a random number generator and yet not able to produce simple telekinetic feats as moving an object across a table?

Looking forward to your reply

[Kibbles]

1) What would you consider a constant enough and large enough response of a huge measure?

2) If the human body produces EM fields that affect a random number generators across the internet, then I would count that as evidence of telekinetic capacity.

3) If the telekinesis works ot a quantum level, which is a possiblilty, then it would be easier for the human mind to affect things at that level.

[ai_guardian]

Read your links Triad and IMO your speculation re: inversion just does not wash. Inversion deals with emotions and feelings not inversion of a supposed 'psychic' ability. Moreover your rather far-fetched speculation that "When a person is confronted with something he or she does not fully comprehend, it experiences stress and because the phenomenon is real, it still does express itself" has no credible basis in the said test. Are you trying to suggest that these supposed 'psychics' cannot comprehend a simple instruction such as "try to influence a bar to move either left or right based on your choice" ? And because of that they get stressed and move it the wrong way? That is laughable and doesn't say much for the supposed 'psychics'

The fact of the matter is, the test is simple (a child could understand it ), the results to-date show that the decay type is NOT being influenced - it is a mere small standard deviation NOT indicative of any influence, the results to-date follow VERY CLOSELY and as predicted by probability the bell curve for the said test.

In conclusion and reiterating, there is nothing in this test indicative of any influence other than standard probability. If anything, it proves this probabilistic outcome by there being less than half hits to bits generated.

Cheers

[Kibbles]

What number of trials, 1 out of x chance, deviation, etc. would one person have to get to prove some capability?

(ai_guardian)

(No this hasn't much to do with yours and triads debate. Just asking.)

[Virtual Particle]

Ai_guardian you need to do some more research into the field of parapsychology as in fact the most prevalent issue in relation to the phenomenon (in question) is in respect to emotions. That matter has been covered numerous times in this forum so much so, that in relation to some of the regulars here it is common knowledge.

But let me for the sake of argument present oneexample....

If biologists had to use only the laboratory methodology of physics, there would be no science of biology today. The experimental methodology of idealist science will involve weak objectivity (observer invariance - results should be the same irrespective of who the observer is) rather than strong objectivity (complete independence of results from observers). Furthermore, the mind-set and emotional states of both the observer and the observed would have to be taken into account. And causality and synchronicity will always be important factors. Also importantly, the experimenters have to be prepared to be transformed as a result of their participation in the experiments.Further details are laid out in the twentieth anniversary (autumn, 1993) issue of "Noetic Sciences Review."

Rest of link....

Literally friend; emotional states are tied to paranormal experiences like milk is to cereal is during a morning meal. To be clear, you will find in relation to discussions in which I have been involved, in this forum, numerous comments (as well as numerous links) which support this conclusion (beyond any shadow of doubt). Issues related to the paranormal, when they manifest themselves, in an individual, do evoke strong emotions as a result of cultural taboos and in reality, these cultural taboos, carried a death penalty as early as 100 years ago. That you suggest otherwise, simply suggest your lack of experience in relation to this feild, so again, there is plenty of data and my advise is that you review it.

Bio-Mage, as is obvious, you have not reviewed the substantive data presented in the experiments in question. They do not suggest a 5% success rate, but are in keeping with your requirements ,of a very constant response of a huge measurement An obvious point here, is that the effect of telekinesis is in relation to gravitic effects and so therefore, because, in relation to Micro-Pk, the objects being moved are effectively much lighter, the phenomenon, is much easier to observe. But since you have suggested that Gravitic forces are not the issue and in fact electromagnetic forces are, lets take a look at what they have in common....

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

Let me point out Bio-Mage that you, have in your response, provided no documentation to support your point (as usuall).

Now, in relation to your last query, the simple fact is, such demonstrations have been presented in this forum numerous times and this issue of validity has been discussed. The format presented, in relation to the topic, offers an alternative, which apparently you failed to review, in a way that affords you with the data you need to provide, a discourse, which presents, the fact you actually read the information.

Ai_guardian is this the experiment you are talking about????

http://www.fourmilab.to/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html

http://www.fourmilab.to/rpkp/experiments/summary/

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/intro.html

Because if that is the case, taking everything into consideration, it is you sir who are grasping at straws Good day sir

One more thing, Bio-Mage; what do the words "Unified Feild theory (or Theorem)" mean to you?????????????

Any thoughts?

Edited August 18, 2006 by Triad

[Bio-Mage]

What would you consider a constant enough and large enough response of a huge measure?

At least over 95% success and reproduction of results.

If the human body produces EM fields that affect a random number generators across the internet, then I would count that as evidence of telekinetic capacity.

I dont think random generator data is accurate enough to make that asessement. But if it was to happen it could be an indication.

If the telekinesis works ot a quantum level, which is a possiblilty, then it would be easier for the human mind to affect things at that level.

If you can affect quantum phenomena you should be able to produce macroscopic changes too. The quantum level is not an independent state.

Bio-Mage, as is obvious, you have not reviewed the substantive data presented in the experiments in question. They do not suggest a 5% success rate, but are in keeping with your requirements ,of a very constant response of a huge measurement An obvious point here, is that the effect of telekinesis is in relation to gravitic effects and so therefore, because, in relation to Micro-Pk, the objects being moved are effectively much lighter, the phenomenon, is much easier to observe. But since you have suggested that Gravitic forces are not the issue and in fact electromagnetic forces are, lets take a look at what they have in common....

I have...and I am not the only one who noticed that the percentages are not impresive. Save the physics lesson of your link for those who need it, as it just a denotation of the theory and does not answer my question. Then again that was never yout intend anyway...

Let me point out Bio-Mage that you, have in your response, provided no documentation to support your point (as usuall). thumbdown.gif

Internet links are hardly documentation as such. It only shows that you have no other sources or education and lots of time on your hands. If you have a personal theory, then do tell without resorting in pasting 200 junk links because you can't explain it yourself in simpler terms for us "unfortunate" not to understand your majesty...No documentation is necessary to have an opinion or an idea. You should know that since most of you are prime example if I recall.

Now, in relation to your last query, the simple fact is, such demonstrations have been presented in this forum numerous times and this issue of validity has been discussed. The format presented, in relation to the topic, offers an alternative, which apparently you failed to review, in a way that affords you with the data you need to provide, a discourse, which presents, the fact you actually read the information.

That hasn't stopped you for making this the 5th or 6th duplicate post on random number generators...

One more thing, Bio-Mage; what do the words "Unified Feild theory (or Theorem)" mean to you?????????????

I am very well aware of the theory which is why I fail to see why you get all excited. Blurting out big words makes little to make you appear informed when you make little effort to fit it in your thoughts. In fact all your posts are composed of an endless colage of superfluous internet links and random physics and philosophy concepts thrown in for good measure. Unless you are ready to make a clear statement of what exactly is your position and support that in your own words in a manner that is accomodating and not patronizing, dont bother to share any more of your issues with me.

No more things for you I am afraid...

[Virtual Particle]

As is apparent Bio-Mage you have taken a pseudo-skeptical prose.......

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks######

As far as your standards of 95%, my advice is that you address the matter officially with the scientific community and get back to us when they officially agree to alter a determination of validity in relation to experimental studies which favors your opinion. As far as the comment concerning affecting quantum phenomenon and producing macroscopic changes, generally speaking learning to crawl is something done prior to learning to walk so not certain why you would even bring that up??

I don’t think random generator data is accurate enough to make that assessment. But if it was to happen it could be an indication.

Well it did happen and there is more that just an indication there is evidence of it happening

Internet links are hardly documentation as such. It only shows that you have no other sources or education and lots of time on your hands. If you have a personal theory, then do tell without resorting in pasting 200 junk links because you can't explain it yourself in simpler terms for us "unfortunate" not to understand your majesty...No documentation is necessary to have an opinion or an idea. You should know that since most of you are prime example if I recall.

I have on numerous occasions presented opinion most recently in this thread.....

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=76020

It would help Bio-Mage if you actually read the responses in the individual threads in the forum before you make such incorrect statements. Posting links provide support independent of ones own words for the record you do know what they say about opinions?

That hasn't stopped you for making this the 5th or 6th duplicate post on random number generators...

The subject/topic is in relation to applying a methodology to generating data on paranormal ability with respect to the membership of this forum.

I am very well aware of the theory which is why I fail to see why you get all excited. Blurting out big words makes little to make you appear informed when you make little effort to fit it in your thoughts. In fact all your posts are composed of an endless collage of superfluous internet links and random physics and philosophy concepts thrown in for good measure. Unless you are ready to make a clear statement of what exactly is your position and support that in your own words in a manner that is accommodating and not patronizing, don’t bother to share any more of your issues with me.

As you are then aware the conclusion that Gravity and electromagnetism is part of the same force, points to the flaw in your prior statements. Let me again be clear I have discussed my opinion on numerous occasions, it would help with respect the manner in which you present posts, if you actually did some reading of the responses offered.

You can begin with the first month we began talking or continue to pretend that you can justify yourself with false statements.

Any thoughts?

[ai_guardian]

Literally friend; emotional states are tied to paranormal experiences like milk is to cereal is during a morning meal. To be clear, you will find in relation to discussions in which I have been involved, in this forum, numerous comments (as well as numerous links) which support this conclusion (beyond any shadow of doubt). Issues related to the paranormal, when they manifest themselves, in an individual, do evoke strong emotions as a result of cultural taboos and in reality, these cultural taboos, carried a death penalty as early as 100 years ago. That you suggest otherwise, simply suggest your lack of experience in relation to this feild, so again, there is plenty of data and my advise is that you review it.

That would be if there are any paranormal experiences Perhaps you can post a link or two to these numerous comments (that support this conclusion). Perhaps you should revise that 100 year thingy - it makes it sound like these taboo/death penalty things started 100 years ago. What you'll probably find is that that is when they finished so in most instances nowadays (and especially in private in front of a computer) there is little credibility to be scared and thus affect your emotions.

Perhaps you should review your train of thought because if you are claiming inversion (which is a very doubtful reason for the discrepancy in the said test) then the other 'probability affecting tests' that you boast about (and apparently show the right results) would be MORE LIKELY to be affected by this inversion. So it seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Ai_guardian is this the experiment you are talking about????

http://www.fourmilab.to/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html

http://www.fourmilab.to/rpkp/experiments/summary/

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/intro.html

Because if that is the case, taking everything into consideration, it is you sir who are grasping at straws Good day sir

Yep, that is it and I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that I am grasping for straws All the summary says is that the bias (towards the opposite of what the subject chose) is consistent with influence it does not mean it IS being influenced. See, even they are covering their backs

BTW, you should also notice that the CONTROL RUNS seem to be consistent with an influence BUT THEY'RE NOT BEING INFLUENCED - being control runs.

The other thing you should notice with this test is that although they talk about the Chi-square calculation (the statistics page) that determines the likelyhood of deviations, they don't bother to calculate it! hmmm

Cheers

[Virtual Particle]

ai_guardian emotional reactions to phenomenon are pretty much the norm unless of course a person is a sociopath. As far as your opinion and given the nature of your responses, as mentioned earlier you need to do some more research. The fact that the report states the effect is consistent with influence is because of the point I am making.

Seriously friend this conversation is much like insisting on questioning your car mechanic while he is working on your car and you have absolutely no idea what fixing a car involves but you are acting like you do.

The link in question (statistics) does offer a way for you to calculate it yourself

With respect to control runs exactly what are you trying to imply????

As presented in my prior responses to the relationship between psi effect/emotions is so well documented in respect to the phenomenon it is overwhelming. An inverse reaction to stress is a commonplace occurrence and having a paranormal experience can to those, who were brought in an environment, where psi events have inherent social taboos occur with a great degree of frequency. To be clear while you seem to be very enthusiastic in relation to your responses you obviously lack any real experience or education in relation to the field.

[ai_guardian]

ai_guardian emotional reactions to phenomenon are pretty much the norm unless of course a person is a sociopath. As far as your opinion and given the nature of your responses, as mentioned earlier you need to do some more research. The fact that the report states the effect is consistent with influence is because of the point I am making.

You seem to have shot yourself in the foot. Either inversion applies or it doesn't. So which is it? If it applies then you have discounted all your other probabilistic tests that show an inckling towards a correct result. If it doesn't then what are you talking about? With regards to this post and said rpkp test, research what else???

Seriously friend this conversation is much like insisting on questioning your car mechanic while he is working on your car and you have absolutely no idea what fixing a car involves but you are acting like you do.

Yep, I thought pretty much the same except I'm not the one who is claiming to be a 'car mechanic' (aka expert) I ask a simple question that was related to your educated stance ie. "perhaps you can direct me to the text in your syllabus for psychology 101" and all I get is 2 links from a russian website that cannot even state their credibility and another (quite enjoyable I might add) that supports reversal of EMOTIONS (take note of the word emotions). I show my capacity to learn, give it the benefit of the doubt (even though as mentioned your first 2 links do not seem credible) and go along with the reversal of emotions. Not to mention that if I was given these links as syllabus I'd seriously think of swapping educational institutions Might I add, I point out that drawing out of this reversal of emotions into a reversal of supposed 'psychic' intentions is largely unfounded (in this day and age) and under the circumstances the tests are being taken (which you have chosen to ignore). So, I give you the benefit of the doubt on this drawn-out speculation just to see how long it will take you to realise where you're heading. Let's see how long it takes to sink in.

As presented in my prior responses to the relationship between psi effect/emotions is so well documented in respect to the phenomenon it is overwhelming.

No, see above as to what you have presented. Do you even read/comprehend what you present? You have drawn-out unfounded conclusions trying to bridge psychology to para-psychology based on study in psychology (from what you've presented ).

An inverse reaction to stress is a commonplace occurrence and having a paranormal experience can to those, who were brought in an environment, where psi events have inherent social taboos occur with a great degree of frequency.

Then I repeat, you've shot yourself in the foot. I agree that inverse emotional states may be commonplace (actually, come to think of it, it may not be that common - how many times a day do you cry when you're happy, or laugh when you want to cry?) but it's certainly there but so far what you have presented is related to psychology. I've countered the above point but you have ignored it, repeating your psychology 101 'syllabus' material.

To be clear while you seem to be very enthusiastic in relation to your responses you obviously lack any real experience or education in relation to the field.

To be honest, when one uses the term 'real' in an objective and provable stance, everyone lacks real experience (in this field). Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you mean by real experience, in that case, please clarify. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the real education you have in this field? When it comes to probability, statistics and mathematics, I have real education at university level. So in relation to the test being discussed, I do have real education. I've also studied Human Behaviour, Management and Human Resources where we have touched on psychology as lot of it is related to these. I'm no expert in psychology or para-psychology on a tertiary education level but given your 'syllabus' I gather you aren't either. I may stand corrected.

With respect to control runs exactly what are you trying to imply????

I thought it was obvious, perhaps not. The control runs ALSO show a bias so it can be said that the results (of the control runs rather than the actual tests) are consistent with something influencing it.

EDIT: Forgot one.

The link in question (statistics) does offer a way for you to calculate it yourself

The point is, they promptly calculate everything else but that which will tell people whether the deviation is significant.

Cheers

Edited August 19, 2006 by ai_guardian

[drakonwick]

Seriously friend this conversation is much like insisting on questioning your car mechanic while he is working on your car and you have absolutely no idea what fixing a car involves but you are acting like you do.

That is just foolish common sense would tell you Triad that most people would not act like they know what you are talking about! because the fact is you can set these experiments into action but the results are always the same very minimal and random! All us Skeptics ask for is real results! And if you must ask REAL results will be much more than just random numbers!

I would like to see something spectacular myself like lifting a person!

That is of course under scientific results. So take a go at something more REAL.

Edited August 19, 2006 by Moro Bumbleroot

[Virtual Particle]

You guys are starting to sound funny and ai_guardian you clearly do not have a clue

Anyway to be honest this is an excellent way to practice Pk for all concerned and for those whose ideology precludes the reality of it existence you have absolutely no basis for such a belief.

Will be more than happy to respond to inquiries, in relation to this matter as long as they make sense.

Any thoughts?

[ai_guardian]

Great debate Triad, seriously, one can't say you haven't tried.

Now to use your sarcastic overtones (as you have previously), it is you sir who's lost the plot.

Cheers & Peace

Guardian

[Virtual Particle]

As I said, only a sociopath would respond as you suggest and that you seem incapable of understanding that, means you really have no idea what you are talking about.

This is not a debate it’s a slaughter and you sir have won nothing. I simply do not get any pleasure out of watching another person (you) embarrass his self and if you think about it you will understand why.....

Peace to you as well though

Any thoughts?

Edited August 20, 2006 by Triad