Seeking the Spirit/Role of the Spirit

[mfbukowski]

I have read most of the stuff Sheldrake as written and I like it.

Unfortunately it is metaphysics and not science.  He is not taken seriously as a scientist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_Science_Delusion_by_Rupert_Sheldrake

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to make it clear in case that last reply threw you off, I have already made my opinion known.

If I understand correctly, your opinion is that religion and science are totally separates from one another, and have nothing valid to say about one another.  Is that correct?

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am going to start a thread soon- next week maybe if I get the time about how reality itself is "virtual"

https://t.reembed.com/2HBkPD1MhJtN1PsFqD2073EE

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Mary Baker Eddy was teaching that the physical world is an illusion nearly a hundred and forty years ago.  

I'd be very much interested in your analysis of Hoffman's ideas and their implications. 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have read most of the stuff Sheldrake as written and I like it.

Unfortunately it is metaphysics and not science.  He is not taken seriously as a scientist.

Metaphysics is "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."   Or so says Google. 

Isn't Hoffman addressing some of these things too?

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Eek! said:

If I understand correctly, your opinion is that religion and science are totally separates from one another, and have nothing valid to say about one another.  Is that correct?

Mary Baker Eddy was teaching that the physical world is an illusion nearly a hundred and forty years ago.  

I'd be very much interested in your analysis of Hoffman's ideas and their implications. 

Metaphysics is "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."   Or so says Google. 

Isn't Hoffman addressing some of these things too?

The logic here is a bit strange.

What does what Hoffman says have to do with whether or not Sheldrake is a scientist?

Yes, science and religion have no more in common than knitting and football.

Religion is the poetry which helps form our value systems and teaches internal eternal truths about what we must believe to get through life

Science teaches us about how to send spacecraft to Mars etc and does not even look for a moment about values and what we need as humans to find a purpose in life

Science eschews "first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as beingknowing substance cause identity time and space" because those are metaphysics

Have you seen any scientific experiments in "being" recently?  How about cause or identity?  Religion is metaphysics.  Metaphysics is not science.

Hoffman is talking about evolution.   Big difference

[Eek!]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What does what Hoffman says have to do with whether or not Sheldrake is a scientist?

Nothing.  I don't think I said otherwise. 

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Science and religion have no more in common than knitting and football.

That's what I thought your position was, but you put it much more eloquently than I could have.

In the Endowment ceremony there is a teaching about all truth.  It is given during instruction about the Temple garment.  If you can recall the wording, that would be my position. 

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hoffman is talking about evolution.   Big difference

I think he's talking about the implications of evolution, which go well beyond evolution itself. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

Sorry, accidentally hit "quote" when I meant to "edit" and I don't know how to delete a post. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by Eek!

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/15/2016 at 5:02 PM, The Nehor said:

 That is patternicity.

Exactly! 

On 6/15/2016 at 5:02 PM, The Nehor said:

You don't have the right to the details of my revelations

so why did you tell me that you have revelations that predict the future? Why tell me that in the first place? 

On 6/15/2016 at 5:02 PM, The Nehor said:

So if I was to furnish documentation of, say, three fulfilled predictions I received via revelation you would repent of your unbelief and be baptized? 

 I am an active and worthy member of the LDS church. I hope the LDS church is true, it's not like I don't want an afterlife, I want an eternal family. 

On 6/16/2016 at 0:04 AM, rodheadlee said:

I can be sure because my most profound revelation saved my wife's life (for now, we are all going to die sooner or later) I was given vision of my wife being terminally ill. It was a wide awake driving down I-5 in So Cal vision. It turned out my wife had cancer. After a many tests and an operation the oncologist declared "it's a miracle we caught this so soon, she won't need chemotherapy". So I don't see how God revealing my wife's cancer can fit any of your patterns, biases, principles, false memories or be created by my brain.

That is very interesting, I am glad your wife survived, no doubt it is a miracle. However, Improbability Principle can explain some predictions. I am not saying your experience was the result of the improbability principle, all I am saying is that the Improbability Principle is another explanation.  I am open to the possibility of Revelation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/17/2016 at 8:04 PM, Pa Pa said:

God speaks to people through the Holy Ghost all the time, but not to the unbelieving. 

"If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."

 - Joseph Smith 

and what about? 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Eek!]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:31 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not saying your experience was the result of the improbability principle, all I am saying is that the Improbability Principle is another explanation.  I am open to the possibility of Revelation. 

Thanks for posting that video SkepticChristian, it was quite educational. I'd be interested in your take on whether/which of the five laws of the Improbability Principle apply to and (may discredit) my experiment and/or my interpretation of its outcome.

I ran my 40-trial binomial experiment only once, and it took more than 8 hours. I started early in the morning, worked on it all day, and was not finished until late afternoon or early evening.

Briefly, I'd hit a key and the program would randomly generate one of two possible hidden results and tell me when it was ready for me to guess.  You can think of it as a computer-generated coin-toss equivalent.  Then I'd try to sense or feel or otherwise get an impression as to which of the two possible results the computer had generated, at which point I'd enter my guess by hitting the appropriate key. The program would then reveal whether my guess was correct or incorrect, and it kept track of the number of correct and incorrect guesses as I proceeded with the planned 40 trials.

After 21 trials, and probably somewhere between two and four hours, it was obvious that nothing outside of the ordinary was going on: I had made 12 correct guesses and 9 incorrect guesses.  I think the probability of getting 12 or more right out of 21 guesses is .3318, or about 1 in 3. Here is a link to an online binomial calculator so you can check my calculations:

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Enter P = .50; number of trials = 21; and number of successes = 12. Hit “Calculate”. The bottom-most line will show the probability of getting 12 or more correct out of 21 trials.

But on the 22^nd trial, something shifted. I didn't fully realize it at the time, but apparently I had figured out how to “tune into” or “listen to” something that could communicate to me which hidden result the program had generated. I got the next three in a row right, giving me 15 correct and 9 incorrect. P = .50; number of trials = 24; number of successes = 15. I think the probability of getting 15 or more correct out of 24 guesses is .1537, or about 1 in 6. Still nothing remotely significant, but an improvement nonetheless.

I remember thinking at this point, “I'm on a roll”, because I'd gotten three in a row right, and could correlate that with a specific kind of "listening". Of course that could very easily be dismisssed as having been due to random chance, but what happened next makes me think there may have been more to it than random chance:

Applying the same "listening" technique, I guessed correctly on each of the final 16 trials, so that after 40 trials, I had 31 right and 9 wrong.  I think the probability of 31 successes in 40 trials is .0003398, or about 1 in 2,940.

Now remember this was all done with myself as the only intended audience, and I believe that during the course of the experiment I learned what to listen for, probably during the 22^nd trial.  I think the probability of getting the last 19 guesses in a row correct is .000001907, or about 1 in 524,000.

My experiment proves nothing to anyone besides myself.  It does not necessarily prove the existence of a morphic field that contains or conveys truth, but to me it is evidence that there is something beyond my normal physical senses that contains or conveys truth, which can be tapped into by a specific kind of listening.  Was it "revelation"?  I think so, but would not try to convince anyone else to accept or believe any of this, for precisely the reason cited by TheSkepticChristian:

 

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself."

 - Joseph Smith  

I'm open to questions, comments, critiques, and challenges.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

Sorry, accidentally "quoted" instead of "editing" again. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Eek!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

It does not necessarily prove the existence of a morphic field that contains or conveys truth, but to me it is evidence that there is something beyond my normal physical senses that contains or conveys truth, which can be tapped into by a specific kind of listening.

I think this shows that you're operate as a savant on the subconscious level. How's that for your next screen name? "Subconscious Savant"

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

I'm open to questions, comments, critiques, and challenges.

VERY interesting as a subjective anecdote. Good for you- I am surprised!

The problem of course is that it is in no way "objective- YOU knew the program and there might have been subtle clues perhaps unconsciously derived, a lag in response time, a screen flicker- who knows- ANY would do to destroy what evidence there is

AND of course it has not been replicated, I would suggest it could not BE replicated because what we have really is YOUR test of YOURSELF.  I would not qualify to take the test perhaps because I am not as good as you are and not as close to the spirit.  Or- putting on my skeptical hat- you could be lying. (I am convinced you are not, but that is certainly a possible response)

What MIGHT be interesting is if you could test those we would assume to be "closer" to the spirit, against a control group of - say- random people off the street vs, say missionaries, and it showed something significant, THAT might be interesting

One of the experiments in morphic resonance however could also confuse your data and destroy your hypothesis that it was the "spirit"

As I recall, though it is fuzzy, Sheldrake used the Times of London crossword puzzle published every sunday to test morphic resonance, and found that, incredibly, it appeared that the later after publication he tested people who had NOT solved that particular puzzle, the "easier" it was to solve, measured by how long it took to solve.

In other words, if you were among the first puzzle solvers- if you ran out and got the paper at the stand opened it right up and started on the puzzle, he says he can statistically show that it would take you significantly longer to solve the puzzle than those who solved it, say, months later.

This was supposed to show that a "morphic resonance" existed whereby through "ESP" or some other unknown means, some kind of field was set up between persons with the answers to the puzzle embedded in that resonance.   The later the solver tried the puzzle, the stronger the resonance because many others had already solved the puzzle.

http://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/seven-experiments-that-could-change-the-world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

That could also theoretically explain your results in your experiment and so shows nothing at all about the "spirit" but might be interpreted as "morphic resonance"- a notion which has not even been remotely accepted by science.

SO CONGRATULATIONS - I am frankly delighted and surprised, but I am going to have to go totally skeptical on this one.

It's a long way from proving that Jesus is the Christ or that God exists!  You wanted skepticisim and I gave it to you!

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this shows that you're operate as a savant on the subconscious level. How's that for your next screen name? "Subconscious Savant"

Ha!  That's pretty good!  But I think I'll stick with my purple cartoon cat persona for now, as it's not pretentious and makes no implicit claim of authority.  And besides, it reminds me to aspire to the purity of motives of my bumbling purple cartoon hero. 

I don't think there is anything "special" about me in the slightest, as would be implied if I was an "unconscious savant".   I don't think I'm a subconscious junior-grade Rain Man... but maybe I could use that as an excuse for some of my less-than-socially-acceptable behavior... hmmm....

Also, I sincerely thank you for not ascribing something negative to what I described.  I didn't know what to expect. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

VERY interesting as a subjective anecdote. Good for you- I am surprised!

The problem of course is that it is in no way "objective- YOU knew the program and there might have been subtle clues perhaps unconsciously derived, a lag in response time, a screen flicker- who knows- ANY would do to destroy what evidence there is

AND of course it has not been replicated, I would suggest it could not BE replicated because what we have really is YOUR test of YOURSELF.  I would not qualify to take the test perhaps because I am not as good as you are and not as close to the spirit.  Or- putting on my skeptical hat- you could be lying. (I am convinced you are not, but that is certainly a possible response)

What MIGHT be interesting is if you could test those we would assume to be "closer" to the spirit, against a control group of - say- random people off the street vs, say missionaries, and it showed something significant, THAT might be interesting

One of the experiments in morphic resonance however could also confuse your data and destroy your hypothesis that it was the "spirit"

As I recall, though it is fuzzy, Sheldrake used the Times of London crossword puzzle published every sunday to test morphic resonance, and found that, incredibly, it appeared that the later after publication he tested people who had NOT solved that particular puzzle, the "easier" it was to solve, measured by how long it took to solve.

In other words, if you were among the first puzzle solvers- if you ran out and got the paper at the stand opened it right up and started on the puzzle, he says he can statistically show that it would take you significantly longer to solve the puzzle than those who solved it, say, months later.

This was supposed to show that a "morphic resonance" existed whereby through "ESP" or some other unknown means, some kind of field was set up between persons with the answers to the puzzle embedded in that resonance.   The later the solver tried the puzzle, the stronger the resonance because many others had already solved the puzzle.

http://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/seven-experiments-that-could-change-the-world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

That could also theoretically explain your results in your experiment and so shows nothing at all about the "spirit" but might be interpreted as "morphic resonance"- a notion which has not even been remotely accepted by science.

SO CONGRATULATIONS - I am frankly delighted and surprised, but I am going to have to go totally skeptical on this one.

It's a long way from proving that Jesus is the Christ or that God exists!  You wanted skepticisim and I gave it to you!

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

I totally accept ALL of your skepticism.  All of it is valid and none of it is unreasonable.  The only thing I don't really accept is the implication that I might be "closer to the Spirit".  I think I got close to it that time, and just happened to be doing something that resulted in an (unverifiable) record.  I believe the Spirit to be as elusive and as accessible for me as for anyone else, as I believe the Spirit to be no respecter of persons - but I could be wrong about that as well. 

And while the experiment provides evidence to me that the "voice" is reliable, that is totally unnecessary in order for someone to have confidence in what the "voice" "says".   It is pretty convincing on its own apart from any statistical analysis, as I'm sure you and many others have experienced.

The experiment gave me two things:  Some "hands-on" practice in "listening", and a memory of something that I couldn't explain away when I later wanted to become an angry atheist (NOT that all atheists are angry but I was definitely angry and wanted to be atheist).  The best I could muster was "angry agnostic", and that failed to hold up for me over time.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Eek!

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Ha!  That's pretty good!  But I think I'll stick with my purple cartoon cat persona for now, as it's not pretentious and makes no implicit claim of authority.  And besides, it reminds me to aspire to the purity of motives of my bumbling purple cartoon hero. 

I don't think there is anything "special" about me in the slightest, as would be implied if I was an "unconscious savant".   I don't think I'm a subconscious junior-grade Rain Man... but maybe I could use that as an excuse for some of my less-than-socially-acceptable behavior... hmmm....

Also, I sincerely thank you for not ascribing something negative to what I described.  I didn't know what to expect. 

That it is a subconscious process frees you up to be (or at least appear) completely normal on the conscious level! LOL

I speak from experience... As a powerfully intuitive person, I sometimes come up with things that seem inspired or revelatory to others, but I know that it’s just my brain processing information on a subconscious level. Not that much of what I come up is necessarily “normal” but at least I appear normal and that buys me the benefit of a doubt!

I interpret this intuition to be a different experience than revelation from above, though there is really no reason the Lord cannot reveal spiritual truths through this mechanism either (I just see a difference). As in, “by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise. And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes…” I think a testimony or spiritual witness is a very rudimentary step anyway, the greater miracle is in what we become as we apply ourselves in the direction we allow such witness to propel us.

I think the mind’s processing of facts and information is a slightly different process than the mind receiving a divine witness of truth from above, but I see the Light of Christ is operating in both while the power of the Holy Ghost may or may not be (but is certainly operating with the latter, spiritual revelation).

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I interpret this intuition to be a different experience than revelation from above, though there is really no reason the Lord cannot reveal spiritual truths through this mechanism either (I just see a difference)...

I think the mind’s processing of facts and information is a slightly different process than the mind receiving a divine witness of truth from above, but I see the Light of Christ is operating in both while the power of the Holy Ghost may or may not be (but is certainly operating with the latter, spiritual revelation).

You may well be right.  All I can say is that they feel similar enough that I haven't been aware of an obvious distinction; at a minimum, I think they come from the same end of the spectrum.  That being said, I am sure there are experiences which vastly transcend any I have had.

 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem of course is that it is in no way "objective- YOU knew the program and there might have been subtle clues perhaps unconsciously derived, a lag in response time, a screen flicker- who knows- ANY would do to destroy what evidence there is.

I tried to guard against subtle cues, but cannot deny their possible existence.  Tell me if you see something that I overlooked - maybe a characteristic of computers or programs that I was unaware of.  I "knew" the program in the sense that I wrote it, but I'm no computer nerd by any stretch. 

The simplest test would have been to flip a coin, but there are far too many ways for that to end up with not-truly-random results, and/or opportunities for me to subconsciously detect whether it was heads or tails.  With dice-in-a-cup there would be less opportunity to subconsciously detect, but there might be a pattern to how I put the dice in the cup and how I shook the cup that would skew the rolls in a particular direction. 

The program that I wrote used a function called "randomize timer" to generate 100 random numbers between 0 and 1.  It then took the average of those numbers, and looked at whether that average was greater than or less than exactly .50.   If the average was exactly .50 ("the coin landed on its edge"), that part of the program would re-run and generate another 100 random numbers and take their average.  I did notice the additional time lag once or twice which indicated that part of the program had to cycle through again, but I don't think that gave me any clues.

Something harder than you might think was, totally ignoring what the computer-generated result had been on the previous trial.  If the last "virtual coin flip" was "heads", there was a definite unintentional bias towards selecting "tails" because they had to "average out", right?  It became even harder to ignore this bias when the last two or three "virtual coin flips" had all been "heads". 

Actually I was choosing between "H" for "Higher Than .50" and "L" for "Lower Than .50", rather than between "Heads" and "Tails", but I don't think that made any difference.

The day after the test I doubted my results, and doubted my testing of the program that I'd done the day before the binomial test.  So I ran the program over and over, sometimes always choosing "H", sometimes always choosing "L", and sometimes just hitting whichever key with no thought given.  I never got anything close to a 31-out-of-40 (either "right" or "wrong") result. 

None of this proves there wasn't some subtle cue that I was subconsciously picking up on, or some non-random element creeping in under the radar, but I really did try to guard against. 

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

Eek!

I am definitely NOT the guy to ask about computer programming

It would be interesting if there were more than two possible choices- guessing a random number between one and ten for example.  But of course the objective was to beat the odds which you did amazingly at least in that particular trial

The issue though I think for people is that they believe that objective accuracy is the goal.  It is not about doing better than chance- even significantly better than chance, as you have done.

Most people go to God for answers to questions like "Should I marry Susie?"

They don't want the answer "In scientific testing, the answer "yes" is significantly better than the odds would predict in several trials"

You want to KNOW, and this is not the method to get you to KNOW that you should marry Susie.  

We are so programmed to want science to tell us everything, but the principle is straightforward in my opinion.  I think the idea that science can prove the existence of God or some other SIGNIFICANT truth other than coin tosses then opens the question of God up to judgement by evidence and the scientific evidence on the existence of God simply does not and will never exist.

We are not going to get to do experiments on God on this side of the veil, when the plan itself is that we must walk by faith.

If God can be proven scientifically, then the Plan of Salvation is wrong.  There is no test, no probationary period, no fall, no redemption.

How are you going to weigh the sins of the world to show scientifically that the savior's sacrifice paid the whole bill?

Edited June 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Eek! said:

You may well be right.  All I can say is that they feel similar enough that I haven't been aware of an obvious distinction; at a minimum, I think they come from the same end of the spectrum.  That being said, I am sure there are experiences which vastly transcend any I have had.

One way I look at these processes is how we go about establishing fact and truth for ourselves. I see our processing of facts in almost the same way as our processing of stimuli through the five (six?) physical senses. On the other hand, I see our processing of truth, which may entail a leap in how we manage and apply facts, as a more spiritual process where non-physical stimuli are provided Spirit-to-spirit (as in Alma 32, where the "leap" is a desire to believe, belief, faith, etc.).

There are a number of General Conference talks that delve into the differences between fact and truth. I just Googled a couple that represent my point (but couldn't find the one I was actually thinking of):

“…while the gathering of many facts may be very helpful and productive …Henry Alford said: “Truth does not consist in minute accuracy of detail, but in conveying a right impression; and there are vague ways of speaking that are truer than strict facts would be. When the Psalmist said, ‘Rivers of water run down mine eyes, because men keep not thy law,’ he did not state the facts, but he stated the truth deeper than fact, and truer.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/09/the-truth-shall-make-you-free?lang=eng

“[We establish] images of truth or perceptions of truth. Our brain, the great computer where all the facts of life’s memories are held together, can …be programmed by [both the spirit and] the “flesh” …” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/truth-is-the-issue?lang=eng

“Some might attempt to apply logic, reason, and facts as they know them …They might be well-meaning and sincere. They might feel absolutely positive of their opinion. But they simply would not be able to see clearly because they had not yet received the more complete light of truth.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/receiving-a-testimony-of-light-and-truth?lang=eng&_r=1

[Eek!]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Most people go to God for answers to questions like "Should I marry Susie?"

They don't want the answer "In scientific testing, the answer "yes" is significantly better than the odds would predict in several trials"

You want to KNOW, and this is not the method to get you to KNOW that you should marry Susie.  

Imo that sort of thing is a very different situation from what my experiment was designed for, calling for a very different approach. 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the idea that science can prove the existence of God or some other SIGNIFICANT truth other than coin tosses then opens the question of God up to judgement by evidence and the scientific evidence on the existence of God simply does not and will never exist.

I do not claim my experiment to have implications for anyone other than myself.  For me (and not for anyone else, in part because my experiment cannot be verified), nineteen in a row = pretty strong evidence that something's going on.  That was my first experiment, not my last, but the others I'll keep to myself.  I think that "scientific evidence on the existence of God" may someday exist, but I will not be among those to offer such evidence.  I'm not a scientist, and proving the existence of God (or attempting to do so) does not interest me. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Eek!

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/20/2016 at 3:16 PM, Eek! said:

I'm open to questions, comments, critiques, and challenges.

Sure, but next time because I don't have much time at the moment. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/15/2016 at 9:56 AM, CV75 said:

Call Himself SkepticChristian?

Read about the Improbability Principle 

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Sure, but next time because I don't have much time at the moment. 

Thank you, looking forward to it.     

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

Imo that sort of thing is a very different situation from what my experiment was designed for, calling for a very different approach. 

I do not claim my experiment to have implications for anyone other than myself.  For me (and not for anyone else, in part because my experiment cannot be verified), nineteen in a row = pretty strong evidence that something's going on.  That was my first experiment, not my last, but the others I'll keep to myself.  I think that "scientific evidence on the existence of God" may someday exist, but I will not be among those to offer such evidence.  I'm not a scientist, and proving the existence of God (or attempting to do so) does not interest me. 

Experiments, to be scientific, must be replicable for all.

I don't want to give you a hard time I think you had amazing results. But the claim was that scientific evidence can help religious belief. I just don't think we have evidence of that here. For you undoubtedly in your subjective world. But science speaks to the objective.

Is truly amazing as your results were I cannot help but think that the experiment was purely a subjective religious experience.

But good for you that is just exactly what a testimony is.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

On 6/20/2016 at 3:16 PM, Eek! said:

but apparently I had figured out how to “tune into” or “listen to” something that could communicate to me which hidden result the program had generated.

What was that something?  Okay, I just wrote four numbers from 1 to 12, please tell me the numbers 

From 1 to 12, please choose four 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  

You will impress me if you get them right. I promise I will be honest.     

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is truly amazing as your results were I cannot help but think that the experiment was purely a subjective religious experience.

Let's see if he gets them right this time    

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 6/14/2016 at 1:06 PM, The Nehor said:

B

Did you read The Improbability principle? Here is a video 

 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What was that something?  

I just listened quietly until something told me whether the answer was "Higher" or "Lower".   I couldn't force it, I had to wait.  Sometimes the wait was a minute or two, and sometimes it was over an hour, even when I was theoretically "in the zone". 

The feedback of finding out whether my last guess was right or wrong was crucial.  Without that, I'd have gotten nowhere,  As it was, even with that, it took me half the day to start getting 'em right.  Fortunately I had no major time constraints and could afford to devote the whole day to taking the 40-trial test.  That is not the case now - I constantly have deadlines to meet and work 12 to 14 hours nearly every day. 

 

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I just wrote four numbers from 1 to 12, please tell me the numbers 

From 1 to 12, please choose four 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  

You will impress me if you get them right. I promise I will be honest.     

I've never tried that before, doubt that I can do it, but it's a fair question.  I will devote a couple of hours to trying. 

But first, just so I know what to expect:  Are you using each number that you have chosen only once, or are you possibly repeating the same number more than once? 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Eek!