God in our Image?

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wow.

You may be one of the only folks around here who get that.

Yes. But what about you. Do you get it? Are you agree with me? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

What i also don't understand....why are we not telepatic? Why can we not hear (or see) what somebody is thinking. I mean it is logic that we are not able to pick that up offcourse. But is that really so? 

Me and me ex did a experiment years ago when we still where in a relationship. The experiment whas that we looked each other deep in the eyes and i whas thinking about a number and he needed to guess wich number i whas thinking of. In my head i screamed the number. But i didn't say anything. My mouth shut.  And my bf had one minute to guess wich number i whas thinking of. And guess what. 5 times that we did that experiment he  geussed the numbers right!!! 🤯  That whas soo weird. 

5 times out of how many?

[teddyaware]

On 1/2/2023 at 7:23 AM, Navidad said:

I wonder if sometimes while we believe God made us in His image and likeness (or nature?), we often have done the opposite —created a God who is in our own image, likeness, and nature? Do I create a God who sees the world as I do, who is of a like nature, temperament, and manner as me?

Do I do that when I read, interpret, and teach the Scripture as well? To what degree do I create doctrine and/or dogma that is more consistent with who I am than who He is? Just in a reflective mood this morning. What think ye?

Since God, in the person Jesus Christ, is fully human — a man who had a fully human life experience that included having very human emotions and being tempted and tested in every way all other accountable human beings are tempted and tested — why should we think he is unlike us and that we will never be as he is?

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3)

If he is so unlike us, how is it possible that he is willing to call  his true earthly followers the sons of God? He even goes so far as to say that when he appears in his might and glory “we shall be like him.” Does unduly stressing our dissimilarities with him serve as a lame excuse for arguing we can never be as holy as he is?

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1)

 

 

[manol]

5 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Me and me ex did a experiment years ago when we still where in a relationship. The experiment whas that we looked each other deep in the eyes and i whas thinking about a number and he needed to guess wich number i whas thinking of. In my head i screamed the number. But i didn't say anything. My mouth shut.  And my bf had one minute to guess wich number i whas thinking of. And guess what. 5 times that we did that experiment he  geussed the numbers right!!! 🤯  That whas soo weird. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

5 times out of how many?

Also, Dario, what was the possible range of the numbers?  Like, were you and your ex limiting it to numbers from 1 through 10? 

(I'm not asking this because I doubt you.  I'm asking because I would like to calculate the probability.)

Edited to add:  Did your bf describe what he felt or sensed that told him what number you were thinking of? 

Edited January 11, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, manol said:

 

Also, Dario, what was the possible range of the numbers?  Like, were you and your ex limiting it to numbers from 1 through 10? 

(I'm not asking this because I doubt you.  I'm asking because I would like to calculate the probability.)

 

Me too.  Former math geek here.

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

5 times out of how many?

I would say.... 8 times or so. My ex whas not the type to believe in these kind of things. So when he noticed that he whas geussing it prity accurate most of the times he had enough of it.

To bad because i wanted to try it more times. 🎭

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, manol said:

 

Also, Dario, what was the possible range of the numbers?  Like, were you and your ex limiting it to numbers from 1 through 10? 

(I'm not asking this because I doubt you.  I'm asking because I would like to calculate the probability.)

Edited to add:  Did your bf describe what he felt or sensed that told him what number you were thinking of? 

Well... i must be honest. It whas 1 till 10. 😊

He never described anything. He whas typical Dutch. He never really talked about what he felt Plus he whas from Amsterdam. So basicaly...he whas extremaly closed and reserved. That have killed are relationship. And offcourse other things has done that as well. 🎭

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[Calm]

5 out of 8 with 1 out of 10 chances.  Not bad.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yes. But what about you. Do you get it? Are you agree with me? 

Yes I agree with you!

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

5 out of 8 with 1 out of 10 chances.  Not bad.

I know right. It can be a big coincedenece offcourse. But uhm.. on that moment i whas just blown away when i heard my ex say the right numbers for 5 times. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[manol]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well... i must be honest. It whas 1 till 10. 😊

He never described anything. He whas typical Dutch. He never really talked about what he felt Plus he whas from Amsterdam. So basicaly...he whas extremaly closed and reserved. That have killed are relationship. And offcourse other things has done that as well. 🎭

 

Thanks for this additional information.

The odds of getting 5 out of 8 right by random chance under those conditions is about 1 in 2400.

I took a generally similar test about thirty years ago, using a computer program which administered the test and kept track of the number of correct and incorrect answers.  The odds against the results being due to random chance were in the same ballpark as for you and your bf.

What made you think to try that "guess which number" test?  

Edited January 11, 2023 by manol

[Dario_M]

19 minutes ago, manol said:

Thanks for this additional information.

The odds of getting 5 out of 8 right by random chance under those conditions is about 1 in 2400.

I took a generally similar test about thirty years ago, using a computer program which administered the test and kept track of the number of correct and incorrect answers.  The odds against the results being due to random chance were in the same ballpark as for you and your bf.

What made you think to try that "guess which number" test?  

It whas my idea. I just wanted to test it. How much i could comunicate with my ex without saying anything. He is a big sceptic. He don't believe in anything. Not in God. Not in the duivel. Not in Heaven or hell. Not in ghosts. Nothing. He believes that when you are dead you are completaly dead. This life is the only thing you have, he beliefs. After that it is done forever.

He is an Ateist.  

Now i am thinking back on that. That we did that experiment togheter. I am actually suprissed that i got him so far that he whas willing to do this with me. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[manol]

16 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

It whas my idea. I just wanted to test it. How much i could comunicate with my ex without saying anything. He is a big sceptic. He don't believe in anything. Not in God. Not in the duivel. Not in Heaven or hell. Not in ghosts. Nothing. He believes that when you are dead you are completaly dead. This life is the only thing you have, he beliefs. After that it is done forever.

He is an Ateist.  

Now i am thinking back on that. That we did that experiment togheter. I am actually suprissed that i got him so far that he whas willing to do this with me. 

Yeah, it would be hard for him to remain a total skeptic after that!  The results probably made him uncomfortable... they didn't necessarily prove that there is a God, but they sure do strongly indicate that there is "something", some non-physical-world connection, in order for him to "receive" the impression of which number you were thinking of like that. 

One more question - do you remember whether his guesses became more accurate towards the end of your 8 tries?  That happened to me in my test.  My guesses started out as nothing special but they became more accurate over time, and it seemed to me that I was learning what to listen for. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by manol

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, manol said:

Yeah, it would be hard for him to remain a total skeptic after that!  The results probably made him uncomfortable... they didn't necessarily prove that there is a God, but they sure do strongly indicate that there is "something", some non-physical-world connection, in order for him to "receive" the impression of which number you were thinking of like that. 

One more question - do you remember whether his guesses became more accurate towards the end of your 8 tries?  That happened to me in my test.  My guesses started out as nothing special but they became more accurate over time, and it seemed to me that I was learning what to listen for. 

Nope. In the biginning where the right answers. The last guesses where not right. I can remember that the last number i had in my head whas 9 and we decided to do the experiment one more time and he said 7. And i said to him that that whas wrong. I had number 9 in my head. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[manol]

27 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Nope. In the biginning where the right answers. The last guesses where not right. I can remember that the last number i had in my head whas 9 and we decided to do the experiment one more time and he said 7. And i said to him that that whas wrong. I had number 9 in my head. 

VERY INTERESTING!!

Perhaps he started to become subconsciously afraid of what the results were implying, and that subconscious fear interfered with his receptivity to your thoughts.  I speculate this because I had to eliminate fear (anxiety) before my results started to improve. 

[Islander]

On 1/7/2023 at 12:08 AM, Pyreaux said:

Were the works of Creation not a sort of progress? A non-Creator in a void one day, the Creator of many things in several progressive days after. With each created thing, more children he has, He improves and expands His dominion the more He makes.

Yhwh was made the first born, inherited a great name and the nation of Israel from his Father becoming the God of Israel. Changed from a spirit into a human, grew in wisdom, experience temptations to perfect his judgment, died and resurrected into the perfect image of His Father.

Perhaps his unchanging nature has more to do with his consistency and character, fulfilling Him promises, and less to do than with his state of being at any given moment in time. Perhaps these ideas you are saying are "scriptural", are in reality what you've projected from your human invented, neo-platonic philosophical and metaphysical, ideas on to your "image of God" (so to speak, to bring it back around to the topic).

Without use of Greek religious philosophy, what does one even mean by Omniscience? all-knowing · all-wise · all-seeing? Is knowledge finite and limited or ever increasing? If that's the case then a progressive God is bigger than a capped one, as true omniscience would be linked to ever learning as the well of knowledge expands.

What is omnipotence? Is it all that may or can be done by power conditioned by other eternal actualities, and cannot act out of harmony with those other eternal actualities, therefore conditions or even limits of himself... To be clear, like not all powerful enough to metaphysically microwave a burrito that was so hot that even He couldn't eat it.  That's a paradox and a waste of a burrito.

Again, you are free to believe whatsoever to your heart's contentment. But, what we know of God comes to us in the form of self-disclosure in the pages of scripture. There we find that He is  without beginning or end. We learn that ALL things were made (created) by Him and He holds all things together. He is self-sufficient and independent of all things. He possesses infinite riches of being, wisdom, goodness, and power in and of himself. Just like David said: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” – Psalm 33:6. That is omnipotence. It is interesting that we may have arrived to a "post-prophetic" era, when church members chose to believe what suits them, buffet style, regardless of what other prophets had spoken. I quoted Bruce R. McConkie on the same subject on another thread and people said: "well, I just don't agree..."

In sum, I believe no argument could persuade you otherwise as I see that you already made up your mind and refuse to be confused by the facts.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dario_M]

55 minutes ago, manol said:

VERY INTERESTING!!

Perhaps he started to become subconsciously afraid of what the results were implying, and that subconscious fear interfered with his receptivity to your thoughts.  I speculate this because I had to eliminate fear (anxiety) before my results started to improve. 

Yes that can be true. I actually think that whas the case. He whas that kind of person. 

But uhm... you where talking about a similar experiment that you did that looked like my experiment??? What is that all about then? 😌

Edited January 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[Pyreaux]

9 minutes ago, Islander said:

Again, you are free to believe whatsoever to your heart's contentment. But, what we know of God comes to us in the form of self-disclosure in the pages of scripture. There we find that He is  without beginning or end. We learn that ALL things were made (created) by Him and He holds all things together. He is self-sufficient and independent of all things. He possesses infinite riches of being, wisdom, goodness, and power in and of himself. Just like David said: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” – Psalm 33:6. That is omnipotence. It is interesting that we may have arrived to a "post-prophetic" era, when church members chose to believe what suits them, buffet style, regardless of what other prophets had spoken. I quoted Bruce R. McConkie on the same subject on another thread and people said: "well, I just don't agree..."

In sum, I believe no argument could persuade you otherwise as I see that you already made up your mind and refuse to be confused by the facts.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

All I'm saying is; If Prophet A says God was God from Eternity, Prophet B says God Progressed, and Greek Philosopher C thinks Eternity mean Infinitely, I'm not the one rejecting the "facts" if I disagree that God was God from Infinity. Infinity only exists in geometry, in Hebrew Eternity [olam] is a finite and subjective term. Same goes for all Greek metaphysical absolutes superimposed on to the scriptures. They are no more valid interpretations than my own.

[manol]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

But uhm... you where talking about a similar experiment that you did that looked like my experiment??? What is that all about then? 😌

I'll describe it in another post when I have a bit more time; I need to focus on something work-related right now.

[manol]

10 hours ago, Dario_M said:

But uhm... you where talking about a similar experiment that you did that looked like my experiment??? What is that all about then? 😌

This reply turned out to be rather long, sorry about that.  I never sat down and wrote the story out in sequence like this before.

About 30 years ago I read a book called “Healing Words” by Larry Dossey. It was about prayer, and in the context of the book that term included prayer-like activities such as meditation and focused intention. The book talked about controlled studies of prayer conducted under laboratory conditions, sometimes in a hospital setting, sometimes using fungus in a petri dish, sometimes even using computer-generated random numbers. (The studies not only indicated that prayer was effective, they also indicated that non-specific prayer was more effective than specific prayer. What I mean by this is, praying for something non-specific like “may God's will be done” or “may the outcome be the best for everyone involved” was generally more effective than praying for something specific like “please God heal this person”. The studies even indicated that the effects of prayer were not constrained by space and time, but that's another topic for another day.)

Well I was curious to say the least. I did not have access to hospital wards full of patients, nor petri dishes of fungus, but I did have a computer!

My first attempt was to replicate one of the experiments described in the book, wherein a person praying (which includes meditating and focusing their intention) would attempt to influence a string of computer-generated random numbers to be either greater than or less than the theoretical average, and then the results were analyzed to see if there was a statistically significant effect. Well my attempt was a complete failure – my best efforts resulted in no sign of any statistically significant effect. Hmmm.

I figured that what was missing was intensity. I simply could not get myself to really care about whether or not the random number string trended this way or that. Note that in your experiment with your bf, you generated great intensity – you were mentally shouting the number at him! I was unable to generate anything remotely approaching that kind of intensity.

So I tried a different aproach – one where I would have to guess an unseen result, rather than influence the result, sort of like what your bf was doing in your experiment. For whatever reason, it was easier for me to care about the outcome of this sort of experiment.

I wrote a program which generated a random number with a 50-50 probability of the number either being greater than or less than 1.0000. (If the random number was exactly 1.0000 then the randomizing function would run again.) When the random number had been generated the program would ask me to guess whether the number was greater than or less than 1.0000, and once I had made my guess the program would tell me whether it was right or wrong. The program displayed a running tally of how many correct and incorrect guesses, which proved to be very useful because I could see how I was doing. Over the course of two days leading up to the day of the test I checked and double-checked the program to make sure it was running properly and that the number it generated was truly random or as close to truly random as could be done with the computer and programming language I was using (Basic).

My hypothesis was that I could “tune in” my awareness to a non-physical field which included the hidden result of the program's random number generator function. I realize this probably sounds delusional.

I spent an entire day taking the test which consisted of 40 trials. I took my time with each trial, as I was trying to “tune in” to that hypothetical “field” and somehow get a “feeling sense” of whether the hidden random number was greater than or less than.

Very early on I encountered a major obstacle: My memory of the previous result was coloring my expectations! If the random number had been “greater than” on the last trial, I expected it to be “less than” on the current trial. Even moreso if the random number had previously been “greater than” twice in a row. It took me a while to get to where I could clear my mind of the past enough to not be influenced by an expectation that the current unseen random number would “balance out” the preceding random numbers. So each trial started with me trying to clear my mind of any influence from the preceding trial(s).

As mentioned, I took my time. Sometimes I would have my answer within a minute or two, and sometimes it took more than an hour. I was trying to give myself the best chance I reasonably could to “tune in” to that hypothetical field.

After 21 trials (out of an eventual 40), my tally was 12 correct and 9 incorrect. This score is nothing special, and in my opinion easily falls within the range that one could expect from random chance. But then something changed. Somewhere around the 22^nd trial, I think I “learned” what to “listen for”. At least that's what it felt like to me, from that point on.

For the last nineteen trials of the test, trials 22 through 40, I had zero incorrect answers. So the final tally was 31 correct and 9 incorrect. (The odds of 31 correct out of 40 trials being the result of random chance is about .0002487, or about 1 in 4000).

If anyone wants to evaluate this result using an online binomial probability calculator, here are the inputs: Probability of each trial = .5; number of trials = 40; number of events = 31.

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/binomial-probability-calculator.php

My belief is that, had I not “learned” what to “listen for”, the final result would have been statistically insignificant, as that was the trend across the first 21 trials. I am not a statistician so I only have a layman's opinion that the final tally of 31 out of 40 correct qualifies as “statistically significant”.

I don't know whether isolating that final run of 19 consecutive correct answers would be good science, as doing so would arguably constitute “cherry-picking the data”. If there is an analytical method which could calculate the probability of that string in the context of the preceding 21 trials, such is well beyond my capability. All I can say is, shortly after the 22^nd trial is the point in the test at which I became confident that I had “figured out what to listen for”, and imo the evidence seems to support that confidence. If anyone wants to run the numbers on the final 19 trials, the inputs are: Probability = .5; number of trials = 19; number of events = 19.

I do not expect the foregoing to convince anyone of anything. And imo it would be reasonable for anyone reading this to assume it's more likely that I'm either lying or making an unnoticed mistake than that my highly improbable claimed results are accurate.  

I welcome critique, especially from anyone with a background in statistics.

Edited January 12, 2023 by manol

[Dario_M]

3 hours ago, manol said:

This reply turned out to be rather long, sorry about that.  I never sat down and wrote the story out in sequence like this before.

About 30 years ago I read a book called “Healing Words” by Larry Dossey. It was about prayer, and in the context of the book that term included prayer-like activities such as meditation and focused intention. The book talked about controlled studies of prayer conducted under laboratory conditions, sometimes in a hospital setting, sometimes using fungus in a petri dish, sometimes even using computer-generated random numbers. (The studies not only indicated that prayer was effective, they also indicated that non-specific prayer was more effective than specific prayer. What I mean by this is, praying for something non-specific like “may God's will be done” or “may the outcome be the best for everyone involved” was generally more effective than praying for something specific like “please God heal this person”. The studies even indicated that the effects of prayer were not constrained by space and time, but that's another topic for another day.)

Well I was curious to say the least. I did not have access to hospital wards full of patients, nor petri dishes of fungus, but I did have a computer!

My first attempt was to replicate one of the experiments described in the book, wherein a person praying (which includes meditating and focusing their intention) would attempt to influence a string of computer-generated random numbers to be either greater than or less than the theoretical average, and then the results were analyzed to see if there was a statistically significant effect. Well my attempt was a complete failure – my best efforts resulted in no sign of any statistically significant effect. Hmmm.

I figured that what was missing was intensity. I simply could not get myself to really care about whether or not the random number string trended this way or that. Note that in your experiment with your bf, you generated great intensity – you were mentally shouting the number at him! I was unable to generate anything remotely approaching that kind of intensity.

So I tried a different aproach – one where I would have to guess an unseen result, rather than influence the result, sort of like what your bf was doing in your experiment. For whatever reason, it was easier for me to care about the outcome of this sort of experiment.

I wrote a program which generated a random number with a 50-50 probability of the number either being greater than or less than 1.0000. (If the random number was exactly 1.0000 then the randomizing function would run again.) When the random number had been generated the program would ask me to guess whether the number was greater than or less than 1.0000, and once I had made my guess the program would tell me whether it was right or wrong. The program displayed a running tally of how many correct and incorrect guesses, which proved to be very useful because I could see how I was doing. Over the course of two days leading up to the day of the test I checked and double-checked the program to make sure it was running properly and that the number it generated was truly random or as close to truly random as could be done with the computer and programming language I was using (Basic).

My hypothesis was that I could “tune in” my awareness to a non-physical field which included the hidden result of the program's random number generator function. I realize this probably sounds delusional.

I spent an entire day taking the test which consisted of 40 trials. I took my time with each trial, as I was trying to “tune in” to that hypothetical “field” and somehow get a “feeling sense” of whether the hidden random number was greater than or less than.

Very early on I encountered a major obstacle: My memory of the previous result was coloring my expectations! If the random number had been “greater than” on the last trial, I expected it to be “less than” on the current trial. Even moreso if the random number had previously been “greater than” twice in a row. It took me a while to get to where I could clear my mind of the past enough to not be influenced by an expectation that the current unseen random number would “balance out” the preceding random numbers. So each trial started with me trying to clear my mind of any influence from the preceding trial(s).

As mentioned, I took my time. Sometimes I would have my answer within a minute or two, and sometimes it took more than an hour. I was trying to give myself the best chance I reasonably could to “tune in” to that hypothetical field.

After 21 trials (out of an eventual 40), my tally was 12 correct and 9 incorrect. This score is nothing special, and in my opinion easily falls within the range that one could expect from random chance. But then something changed. Somewhere around the 22^nd trial, I think I “learned” what to “listen for”. At least that's what it felt like to me, from that point on.

For the last nineteen trials of the test, trials 22 through 40, I had zero incorrect answers. So the final tally was 31 correct and 9 incorrect. (The odds of 31 correct out of 40 trials being the result of random chance is about .0002487, or about 1 in 4000).

If anyone wants to evaluate this result using an online binomial probability calculator, here are the inputs: Probability of each trial = .5; number of trials = 40; number of events = 31.

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/binomial-probability-calculator.php

My belief is that, had I not “learned” what to “listen for”, the final result would have been statistically insignificant, as that was the trend across the first 21 trials. I am not a statistician so I only have a layman's opinion that the final tally of 31 out of 40 correct qualifies as “statistically significant”.

I don't know whether isolating that final run of 19 consecutive correct answers would be good science, as doing so would arguably constitute “cherry-picking the data”. If there is an analytical method which could calculate the probability of that string in the context of the preceding 21 trials, such is well beyond my capability. All I can say is, shortly after the 22^nd trial is the point in the test at which I became confident that I had “figured out what to listen for”, and imo the evidence seems to support that confidence. If anyone wants to run the numbers on the final 19 trials, the inputs are: Probability = .5; number of trials = 19; number of events = 19.

I do not expect the foregoing to convince anyone of anything. And imo it would be reasonable for anyone reading this to assume it's more likely that I'm either lying or making an unnoticed mistake than that my highly improbable claimed results are accurate.  

I welcome critique, especially from anyone with a background in statistics.

Why does it need to be so long? It makes it quite unpleasant to read. 🎭🤷‍♂️

Edited January 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, manol said:

 

I figured that what was missing was intensity. I simply could not get myself to really care about whether or not the random number string trended this way or that. Note that in your experiment with your bf, you generated great intensity – you were mentally shouting the number at him! I was unable to generate anything remotely approaching that kind of intensity.

 

Well it's not that hard. But you need to do these kind of things ONLY! when you really care about it anyway. Otherwise the experiment will fail. 

Just scream it in your head. It is not that hard. Just CARE about it a little more. Do more effort. Like you also do effort for your job or so. To keep your job. So that you can pay everything. Well..that kind of INTENSITY you also need to give it a honest try. 

✝️

Edited January 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

@manol Your storie is too long to qoute again.

But uhm..  that is quite impresive what i just have read in your storie. Why whas it in the beginning that you had not much correct answers and that you later on had nearly everything right? Did you heard all those right numbers in your head? 

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Dario_M

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, manol said:

This reply turned out to be rather long, sorry about that.  I never sat down and wrote the story out in sequence like this before.

About 30 years ago I read a book called “Healing Words” by Larry Dossey. It was about prayer, and in the context of the book that term included prayer-like activities such as meditation and focused intention. The book talked about controlled studies of prayer conducted under laboratory conditions, sometimes in a hospital setting, sometimes using fungus in a petri dish, sometimes even using computer-generated random numbers. (The studies not only indicated that prayer was effective, they also indicated that non-specific prayer was more effective than specific prayer. What I mean by this is, praying for something non-specific like “may God's will be done” or “may the outcome be the best for everyone involved” was generally more effective than praying for something specific like “please God heal this person”. The studies even indicated that the effects of prayer were not constrained by space and time, but that's another topic for another day.)

Well I was curious to say the least. I did not have access to hospital wards full of patients, nor petri dishes of fungus, but I did have a computer!

My first attempt was to replicate one of the experiments described in the book, wherein a person praying (which includes meditating and focusing their intention) would attempt to influence a string of computer-generated random numbers to be either greater than or less than the theoretical average, and then the results were analyzed to see if there was a statistically significant effect. Well my attempt was a complete failure – my best efforts resulted in no sign of any statistically significant effect. Hmmm.

I figured that what was missing was intensity. I simply could not get myself to really care about whether or not the random number string trended this way or that. Note that in your experiment with your bf, you generated great intensity – you were mentally shouting the number at him! I was unable to generate anything remotely approaching that kind of intensity.

So I tried a different aproach – one where I would have to guess an unseen result, rather than influence the result, sort of like what your bf was doing in your experiment. For whatever reason, it was easier for me to care about the outcome of this sort of experiment.

I wrote a program which generated a random number with a 50-50 probability of the number either being greater than or less than 1.0000. (If the random number was exactly 1.0000 then the randomizing function would run again.) When the random number had been generated the program would ask me to guess whether the number was greater than or less than 1.0000, and once I had made my guess the program would tell me whether it was right or wrong. The program displayed a running tally of how many correct and incorrect guesses, which proved to be very useful because I could see how I was doing. Over the course of two days leading up to the day of the test I checked and double-checked the program to make sure it was running properly and that the number it generated was truly random or as close to truly random as could be done with the computer and programming language I was using (Basic).

My hypothesis was that I could “tune in” my awareness to a non-physical field which included the hidden result of the program's random number generator function. I realize this probably sounds delusional.

I spent an entire day taking the test which consisted of 40 trials. I took my time with each trial, as I was trying to “tune in” to that hypothetical “field” and somehow get a “feeling sense” of whether the hidden random number was greater than or less than.

Very early on I encountered a major obstacle: My memory of the previous result was coloring my expectations! If the random number had been “greater than” on the last trial, I expected it to be “less than” on the current trial. Even moreso if the random number had previously been “greater than” twice in a row. It took me a while to get to where I could clear my mind of the past enough to not be influenced by an expectation that the current unseen random number would “balance out” the preceding random numbers. So each trial started with me trying to clear my mind of any influence from the preceding trial(s).

As mentioned, I took my time. Sometimes I would have my answer within a minute or two, and sometimes it took more than an hour. I was trying to give myself the best chance I reasonably could to “tune in” to that hypothetical field.

After 21 trials (out of an eventual 40), my tally was 12 correct and 9 incorrect. This score is nothing special, and in my opinion easily falls within the range that one could expect from random chance. But then something changed. Somewhere around the 22^nd trial, I think I “learned” what to “listen for”. At least that's what it felt like to me, from that point on.

For the last nineteen trials of the test, trials 22 through 40, I had zero incorrect answers. So the final tally was 31 correct and 9 incorrect. (The odds of 31 correct out of 40 trials being the result of random chance is about .0002487, or about 1 in 4000).

If anyone wants to evaluate this result using an online binomial probability calculator, here are the inputs: Probability of each trial = .5; number of trials = 40; number of events = 31.

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/binomial-probability-calculator.php

My belief is that, had I not “learned” what to “listen for”, the final result would have been statistically insignificant, as that was the trend across the first 21 trials. I am not a statistician so I only have a layman's opinion that the final tally of 31 out of 40 correct qualifies as “statistically significant”.

I don't know whether isolating that final run of 19 consecutive correct answers would be good science, as doing so would arguably constitute “cherry-picking the data”. If there is an analytical method which could calculate the probability of that string in the context of the preceding 21 trials, such is well beyond my capability. All I can say is, shortly after the 22^nd trial is the point in the test at which I became confident that I had “figured out what to listen for”, and imo the evidence seems to support that confidence. If anyone wants to run the numbers on the final 19 trials, the inputs are: Probability = .5; number of trials = 19; number of events = 19.

I do not expect the foregoing to convince anyone of anything. And imo it would be reasonable for anyone reading this to assume it's more likely that I'm either lying or making an unnoticed mistake than that my highly improbable claimed results are accurate.  

I welcome critique, especially from anyone with a background in statistics.

But dude, after that you just forgot to "carry" the one!!

Cheesh! 

[manol]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Why whas it in the beginning that you had not much correct answers and that you later on had nearly everything right? Did you heard all those right numbers in your head?

In the beginning I had too much "interference".  I was thinking about the result of the previous trial, and had not learned how to get my mind really quiet so I could just wait for the answer (whether the number was "greater than" or "less than") to present itself.  The answer came as a feeling, not as a word. 

Edited to add:  It was similar to what the Lord describes in Doctrine and Covenants Section 8 verse 2: 

"I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart."

And just in case it wasn't clear, towards the end (when I had learned how to "listen") I didn't get "nearly everything" right; towards the end I got everything right.  The final 19 answers were all correct. 

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Why does it need to be so long? It makes it quite unpleasant to read.

I am sorry I made that unpleasant for you to read!  My bad.

I thought that sufficient context would be useful since my post was going to end with a highly improbable claim, and in particular I wanted to provide enough information that someone with a background in statistics or an interest in science and math, like @Calm, could make their own analysis and point out any errors I may have made. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by manol