Telepathy Experiment

[mintoots]

Thank you for all your efforts @java !!! This was an interesting expierment indeed!

So when we trying this again, but with more interest, hinty-hint?

It was difficult to keep track of the choices. I had to write them down. Could we perhaps try a different approach? Like a poll question? Or could we do a daily response thing? Or google forms? Or maybe letters rather than numbers? Or words!

 

[Sandie33]

It was difficult to keep track of the choices. I had to write them down. Could we perhaps try a different approach? Like a poll question? Or could we do a daily response thing? Or google forms? Or maybe letters rather than numbers? Or words!

MsTooth, I just sent Java a PM each day with my choices. Maybe that could work for you next time?

@java, I like MsTooth's idea of using words??

 

[java]

So when we trying this again, but with more interest, hinty-hint?

We could do it again, @Skarekrow certaintly seems interested.

@java
How are you choosing your numbers, are you using a random number generator or just picking them yourself?
Also...after you chose the number, do you try to act as a "sender", meaning you take some time and focus on mentally sending out the number to those trying to receive it?
I would love to get more folks and run another one if you have time and are down.
Take care and much love!

The numbers were picked randomly each day, by Excel's RANDBETWEEN.
I just went with gut feelings for my selections, no sending or receiving attempt.
I just looked at the choices and tried to tell which one we would pick as a group, or which one I should be the only one to pick.
Fun fact, during these last 2 weeks, I've made this experiment twice in real-time, with people on Discord, and in both cases, I had like 30% more pairings than other participants, which is much better than my performance here... there were more numbers to pick too (20 and 50).

It could be fun to do it again, yes, with more people, and perhaps sub-groups, like I had planned in the original post. I think beyond 5 people per group, the data might be too scattered, and less meaningful.
Also, after having done these real-time experiments, I realize 12 selections is very little. We still noticed correlations between Bellosome and Sandie33, but really, it's very low. In my opinion, the best is at least 40.

This wouldn't last 40 days, of course. We'd make several choices per day.

It was difficult to keep track of the choices. I had to write them down. Could we perhaps try a different approach? Like a poll question? Or could we do a daily response thing? Or google forms? Or maybe letters rather than numbers? Or words!

@java, I like MsTooth's idea of using words??

Yes, maybe we could set up a Google spreadsheet, with tabs for everyone to store their choices, and trusting people not to glance at the selections of others.

I've thought of using other things than numbers, but I feel like numbers have more "personality" than letters, or rather, more to grasp at. But I hadn't thought of words, this could definitely be interesting too.

 

[mintoots]

We could do it again, @Skarekrow certaintly seems interested.



The numbers were picked randomly each day, by Excel's RANDBETWEEN.
I just went with gut feelings for my selections, no sending or receiving attempt.
I just looked at the choices and tried to tell which one we would pick as a group, or which one I should be the only one to pick.
Fun fact, during these last 2 weeks, I've made this experiment twice in real-time, with people on Discord, and in both cases, I had like 30% more pairings than other participants, which is much better than my performance here... there were more numbers to pick too (20 and 50).

It could be fun to do it again, yes, with more people, and perhaps sub-groups, like I had planned in the original post. I think beyond 5 people per group, the data might be too scattered, and less meaningful.
Also, after having done these real-time experiments, I realize 12 selections is very little. We still noticed correlations between Bellosome and Sandie33, but really, it's very low. In my opinion, the best is at least 40.

This wouldn't last 40 days, of course. We'd make several choices per day.





Yes, maybe we could set up a Google spreadsheet, with tabs for everyone to store their choices, and trusting people not to glance at the selections of others.

I've thought of using other things than numbers, but I feel like numbers have more "personality" than letters, or rather, more to grasp at. But I hadn't thought of words, this could definitely be interesting too.

What about google survey forms? It tallies into excel format immediately. We could just hit the link and answer.

 

[mintoots]

MsTooth, I just sent Java a PM each day with my choices. Maybe that could work for you next time?

@java, I like MsTooth's idea of using words??

It could! Lol i was afraid Java's choices would be influenced so i didn't actually i could set up an excel file for this on my phone. Lol

 

[java]

What about google survey forms? It tallies into excel format immediately. We could just hit the link and answer.

Aah, yes, it looks useful. I'm unfamiliar with it, I'll look into it!

 

[mintoots]

Aah, yes, it looks useful. I'm unfamiliar with it, I'll look into it!

Yay!!! I think best would be the multiple choice thing

 

[Skarekrow]

We could do it again, @Skarekrow certaintly seems interested.



The numbers were picked randomly each day, by Excel's RANDBETWEEN.
I just went with gut feelings for my selections, no sending or receiving attempt.
I just looked at the choices and tried to tell which one we would pick as a group, or which one I should be the only one to pick.
Fun fact, during these last 2 weeks, I've made this experiment twice in real-time, with people on Discord, and in both cases, I had like 30% more pairings than other participants, which is much better than my performance here... there were more numbers to pick too (20 and 50).

It could be fun to do it again, yes, with more people, and perhaps sub-groups, like I had planned in the original post. I think beyond 5 people per group, the data might be too scattered, and less meaningful.
Also, after having done these real-time experiments, I realize 12 selections is very little. We still noticed correlations between Bellosome and Sandie33, but really, it's very low. In my opinion, the best is at least 40.

This wouldn't last 40 days, of course. We'd make several choices per day.





Yes, maybe we could set up a Google spreadsheet, with tabs for everyone to store their choices, and trusting people not to glance at the selections of others.

I've thought of using other things than numbers, but I feel like numbers have more "personality" than letters, or rather, more to grasp at. But I hadn't thought of words, this could definitely be interesting too.

How about this...you have four pictures you put into envelopes - one of which you randomly select yourself without knowing the picture.
You spend a few minutes after choosing one, focusing on the picture and attempting to "send" it to us or whomever.
We also choose 1 of the 4 pictures after you - preferably after spending a moment or two ourselves trying to act as "receivers", then make a choice.
I would say we should do at least a series of 20 pictures, if not more, to get a better idea of trends as you've suggested...but I understand that could be difficult on this forum format and with people in various time zones and sleep times.
Hopefully we will have a few more participants also.
You can still choose numbers, but they've gotten better results in past tests when run with pictures.
Of course they also have higher than chance results with numbers overall as well, whatever you choose is your prerogative and it's cool...if you do again go with numbers then the number you choose from the 4 or 5 numbers should also be random until you see it...like, you could put numbers into 4-5 various envelopes (or perhaps there is already a program to be utilized), then have the number of the envelope randomly chosen as well just to make it double-blind?
They have gotten significant results with both real time and even pre-cognitive tests - seeming to suggest that time doesn't hold as much sway over the results as we may think.
However, they have also gotten higher results with real time or set time sending/receiving - so maybe also set a certain time of the day that you could "send" and we can try to make our selections then if possible?
(If not, we should note it but not require it)
They've also gotten better results with more artistic and certain types of mindsets...I would encourage those trying to receive to spend a moment and try to tap into that - but also remember to go with your gut instinct and try not to second guess yourself.
When testing students at a normal university vs an art college, the art students did much better...generally the more "creative" the better the results, but not always of course.
There are usually certain people naturally more in tune to others (maybe like Sandie and Bellosome are with one another, or maybe it's a statistical fluke?) so it may be prudent to test those two together - one as sender and one as receiver as a sub-experiment?
Also - people should keep in mind that the more they believe they can really do this - the better the overall results have been as well.
Belief seems to make a difference.
If someone doesn't get anything worth noting...it doesn't mean that you don't have the power to do it...just that there are lots of factors in all our lives that can affect the test results - it's like anyone who plays sports or music or anything like that - our focus, diet, mental state, things in our lives, support from others, belief in oneself - all seem to play a factor in the results - there are very few who have consistently higher hit rates and can continuously produce said results on demand.
They've seen that many wax and wane in seemingly normal fluctuations no matter their "skill" at choosing.
And again - certain individuals have produced higher results working together than others.

Let me know when you are going to get started or if you want to discuss the outline of the experiment some more?
I think I have some links somewhere to the steps and controls used in some such experiments somewhere, I will try to find them if you like?

Fun stuff...THIS is the type of thing I find interesting...even if I myself don't do well each time.
Much love!!

 

[Skarekrow]

@java

Here is one study I found talking about the methodology of ESP and related experiments.
http://jeksite.org/psi/jaspr79a.pdf

Here's an email idea - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.101.3.771-786

 

[Skarekrow]

Here is fairly short video about running ESP/Telepathy testing, and possible training as well.
It presents some compelling evidence too.
Enjoy!

Learning to Use Extrasensory Perception with Charles T. Tart

​

Charles T. Tart, PhD, is emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, as well as the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology.
He is a past-president of the Parapsychological Association.

He has published over 100 scientific papers in parapsychology. He is editor of several anthologies including Altered States of Consciousness, Transpersonal Psychologies, Mind at Large, and Body Mind Spirit: Exploring the Parapsychology of Spirituality.

Books that he has authored include Psi: Scientific Studies in the Psychic Realm, States of Consciousness, The End of Materialism, Learning to Use Extrasensory Perception, On Being Stoned, Waking Up, and Open Mind – Discriminating Mind.

Here he describes the “decline effect” in parapsychology research as the result of a psychological “extinction paradigm”.
Having subjects repeat a boring task without feedback, in many different disciplines, results in a decline of ability.

His research involved training ESP using an automated system, involving forced choices with feedback.
Subjects were pre-screened for ESP ability.

As predicted, ESP scores did not decline.
Tart then shifted to research on remote viewing, in which a single trial may take an entire half-day.

Remote viewing subjects routinely receive feedback; and decline effects have not been reported among remote viewers.
Tart also describes the difficulties of conducting psi research in a college setting with student subjects.

New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man.
Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series.

He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in "parapsychology" ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980).
He is past-vice-president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, and is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award from that association for his contributions to the study of consciousness.

He is also past-president of the non-profit Intuition Network, an organization dedicated to creating a world in which all people are encouraged to cultivate and apply their inner, intuitive abilities.

(Recorded on November 9, 2016)

 

[just me]

I think it all a higher level of understanding.

 

[Skarekrow]

I think it all a higher level of understanding.

I agree totally.
It's also for the most part not something that the science of today can readily explain...which has always been an issue for the legitimacy of such phenomenon.
It can be replicated, and has been replicated over and over again with odds in the trillion to one category in some cases.
But...if you cannot explain how it works, many will dismiss it outright.
As of yet, we have ideas but no working model on the "how".
If that could be figured out (not holding my breath) it would revolutionize how we thought about this reality, the mind, and science in general.

 

[just me]

The more time people spend together, the more inclined they are to think about the same things at the same times. I think something can also trigger, like a synapse, the mind to be somewhere at the same time.

I was in a store awhile back, when two guys started getting loud and possibly causing a problem if left alone. Most people avoided them. I walked around to where they were heading and stood there like I was looking at something. A guy I knew that was there walked around to where they were walking from. I was thinking hard on how to contain the two before we had a situation. I did not ask the guy I knew to walk over to cover the other side of them, but he did. It was what I knew was needed and I was thinking how nice it would be if someone else would help.

When they approached me, they slowly turned to go another way. They were a bit less noisy, too. As they started walking the other direction, they saw the other guy and stopped between us. They knew I had my eyes on them. I was also watching my friend. They eased on out the store. My friend walked off. I went back to where I had been.

Funny thing, though, was when I thanked my friend for watching my back with them....so to speak. He said he had no idea of what I was talking about.

This subject can get deep fast.

 

[just me]

I am suggesting we sometimes have the abilities to contribute to effects by our thinking. Causality. "Causality is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect, where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. Wikipedia" copied

The proof is in the effect. A friend of mine and I were about to go somewhere many years ago. As we were about to leave my apartment, I stopped and asked him to wait a minute. I told him "Adam" was about to call me. About a minute later, "Adam" called me. We left after "Adam" and I talked a few minutes. (Adam was not his real name. I'm just changing it.) As we were driving away, my other friend that was with me stated how unreal that was. Yet, it was all commonplace with me and that "Adam". I note "Adam" and I spent many hours together over many years. I ask the question: did I contribute to his calling me, or did I just feel he was already calling me? It happened similarly several times over the years.

Mark 11:23 says, "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." This is faith, but it relates to my thought pattern: the power of the word. There is also the power of thoughts, even longing for something. And in most New Testament uses, the word ἐπιθυμέω does not have a clear sexual connotation. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...anything. "I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. (Acts 20:33, ESV) We can start in motion things and situations from within our own heart, just as with our own mind.

These things were known well over two thousand years ago.

 

[Skarekrow]

I am suggesting we sometimes have the abilities to contribute to effects by our thinking. Causality. "Causality is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect, where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. Wikipedia" copied

The proof is in the effect. A friend of mine and I were about to go somewhere many years ago. As we were about to leave my apartment, I stopped and asked him to wait a minute. I told him "Adam" was about to call me. About a minute later, "Adam" called me. We left after "Adam" and I talked a few minutes. (Adam was not his real name. I'm just changing it.) As we were driving away, my other friend that was with me stated how unreal that was. Yet, it was all commonplace with me and that "Adam". I note "Adam" and I spent many hours together over many years. I ask the question: did I contribute to his calling me, or did I just feel he was already calling me? It happened similarly several times over the years.

Mark 11:23 says, "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." This is faith, but it relates to my thought pattern: the power of the word. There is also the power of thoughts, even longing for something. And in most New Testament uses, the word ἐπιθυμέω does not have a clear sexual connotation. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...anything. "I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. (Acts 20:33, ESV) We can start in motion things and situations from within our own heart, just as with our own mind.

These things were known well over two thousand years ago.

https://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy/experimental-tests-for-telephone-telepathy

 

[just me]

I would like to share the power of intuition here. Is it proven into a science? Can proof be shown? Maybe, but it has not always been so.

I read this: " From intuition to concept to action" this morning. Some may call it a form of expression; others, maybe a form of art. Possibly some could be trash(humor), but it is actually a thought process planted, tilled, watered, and grown into reality. When like-minded people start processing these thoughts, like-minded actions can appear. Realities seem to work better when all are like-minded, though that would be more like the exception than the rule. I am reminded of seeing two excited people saying the same thing at the same time as they follow someone's teachings.

These two same people might just look at each other and know they have the same thoughts. They are communicating without speaking.

 

[Skarekrow]

I would like to share the power of intuition here. Is it proven into a science? Can proof be shown? Maybe, but it has not always been so.

I read this: " From intuition to concept to action" this morning. Some may call it a form of expression; others, maybe a form of art. Possibly some could be trash(humor), but it is actually a thought process planted, tilled, watered, and grown into reality. When like-minded people start processing these thoughts, like-minded actions can appear. Realities seem to work better when all are like-minded, though that would be more like the exception than the rule. I am reminded of seeing two excited people saying the same thing at the same time as they follow someone's teachings.

These two same people might just look at each other and know they have the same thoughts. They are communicating without speaking.

Our military is currently looking into "intuition" but it's more "precognition" that they are actually looking at.
Like soldiers who tell others to take cover before an IED goes off...there is no way of knowing such a thing in normal materialist science.
They are trying to figure out how to train it into people or possibly enhance it somehow.

http://www.cultureready.org/blog/navy-research-project-intuition#sthash.nNyk5S7f.dpuf

https://www.infjs.com/threads/merkabah.27025/page-413#post-1134928

 

[hippie]

People of the forum,

I want to make an experiment, and I think this is something INFJs might be into.

Starting on Monday, November 25th, and until Friday, December 6th, I will draw each day two series of random numbers between 1 and 100.

Everyday, I will post both series in this thread. If you participate in this experiment, you will have two things to do:
1) In the first series, you will try to pick the same number as everyone else. All participants must pick the same number.
2) In the second series, you will try to pick a different number than everyone else. All participants must pick a unique number.

If there are too many participants, groups of ~5 will be made, and each group will receive its own series.
- The first series will contain 5 numbers.
- The second series will contain as many numbers as necessary for everyone to pick a unique one.

During the experiment, the series of numbers will be posted everyday around 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time. All you need to do is check this thread and note down your selections for both series.

On Friday, December 6th, after picking your last numbers, send me your selections in private conversation. Once I've received everyone's selections, I will post the results, and we'll see if there are any "spooky" correlations.

A few rules to follow:
- You must keep your selections secret.
- Do not post your selections in this thread and do not discuss the numbers with other participants.
- If you miss or skip a few days, you can make your picks retroactively.

If you wish to participate, reply to this thread.

im a curious guy ill try, i read some where if ESP was real it would be an INFJ that
would posses it .lol

 

[hippie]

missed it dang, that seems to by life story, ponder on the thought of something so long you miss out on the event i was pondering on happens in conversation also . No Worries try try again is what they say ( who ever they really is )lol

 

[java]

missed it dang, that seems to by life story, ponder on the thought of something so long you miss out on the event i was pondering on happens in conversation also . No Worries try try again is what they say ( who ever they really is )lol

Indeed, this thread is old stuff.
You can always create a new thread and start a similar experiment, I'm sure you'll find willing participants.