Help me proving the existence of PSI

blondie101010

Hi,

I'm doing an online study to prove the existence of PSI. The website is ready and can also be used for training as well.

The only thing I'm missing right now is much more people actually using it to accumulate data. The more people using it, the more significant the analysis will be, either way.

We're looking for participants of any experience level. It really doesn't matter in our evaluation since the study is based on individual constance and progress. So if you're tired of seeing endless debates of opinion on the subject, this is the chance to stop it soon.

Thanks for you help and try to enjoy yourself!

The site is: http://www.psi.juzaz.com

Gillybean72

I sent the link to a few other psychics I know... hope that is ok

blondie101010

The more people are informed about it, the faster the data collection process will go.

In any case, the most important is that people come, believers or not. And don't forget to try and have some fun while you're at it.

As a side note, we are preparing to publish some documentation on related subjects. At the moment we have two documents available in French and their English version should be ready within a couple of days.

We have hope that our web site will eventually become a good resource in the domain.

Have a nice day everyone!

Julie

blondie101010

In case you haven't been there for a while, a new game is now in place, a turtle race.

Hope to see you soon!

Julie

stormkeeper

I took one look at the screenshot for the turtle game, had a feeling the pink one would win so I played it and won the only game I played... and ut of the card game I got 3 or 4 out of 5... no idea what the other game's about though O.o

j2u

i once was absolutly certain that a horse named montys pass in the grand national would win.i had / have pretty much no knowledge of horse racing but i felt that there was no chance of it losing and some of u might remember it didnt.it came first.i was a littl e surprised or a least curious but mostly pissed off cause i didnt have more money to put on it.:(

Zombrex

blondie101010 wrote:

Hi,

I'm doing an online study to prove the existence of PSI. The website is ready and can also be used for training as well.

The only thing I'm missing right now is much more people actually using it to accumulate data. The more people using it, the more significant the analysis will be, either way.

We're looking for participants of any experience level. It really doesn't matter in our evaluation since the study is based on individual constance and progress. So if you're tired of seeing endless debates of opinion on the subject, this is the chance to stop it soon.

Thanks for you help and try to enjoy yourself!

The site is: http://www.psi.juzaz.com

How does this prove PSI?

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

How does this prove PSI?

Because it made me post and if I post I exist.

Zillah

psi wrote:

Because it made me post and if I post I exist.

See, now you'd smack me over the head if I posted like that. I was considering making that pun but I decided it was a little obvious...

Stoner

I gave it a go, the cards that is, I got 0 from 7 so i gave up.

I always thought that there was some element of expression reading involved so someone could maybe guess from someones face what they were thinking from a selection of 4 shapes.

However controlling the output on a PC is not something that IMO think is possible, I understand the code behind it, but I don't fully understand the thought process when someone pictures a card in their head, unless someone could look into the future and see the answer and then change the future by "guessing" correctly.
I do like the way a PC program will make the whole process simpler. If someone was getting nothing more then average scores on the web site, but great scores when dealing with people, it would be significant. The effect of the means you are using to measure PSI may a huge influence on any conclusions that you may make IMO. It could end up looking like too narrow an approach. I think this information could be most usefully for what it removes from the equation, rather then what it may prove, once again IMO.
I've heard of tarot card readers using a computer to pick a random hand too, people still pay them for the advice.

anyway best of luck with the research, I'm very interested so it would be good to see your final results, what are you going to use to Analise your data, will your fields be a knick name and a result from each game? will you deal with the amount of times someone plays the game, will you explore if people improve or get worse?

Best of luck anyway.

Stoner

I gave it a go, the cards that is, I got 0 from 7 so i gave up.

I always thought that there was some element of expression reading involved so someone could maybe guess from someones face what they were thinking from a selection of 4 shapes.

However controlling the output on a PC is not something that IMO think is possible, I understand the code behind it, but I don't fully understand the thought process when someone pictures a card in their head, unless someone could look into the future and see the answer and then change the future by "guessing" correctly.
I do like the way a PC program will make the whole process simpler. If someone was getting nothing more then average scores on the web site, but great scores when dealing with people, it would be significant. The effect of the means you are using to measure PSI may a huge influence on any conclusions that you may make IMO. It could end up looking like too narrow an approach. I think this information could be most usefully for what it removes from the equation, rather then what it may prove, once again IMO.
I've heard of tarot card readers using a computer to pick a random hand too, people still pay them for the advice.

anyway best of luck with the research, I'm very interested so it would be good to see your final results, what are you going to use to Analise your data, will your fields be a knick name and a result from each game? will you deal with the amount of times someone plays the game, will you explore if people improve or get worse?

Best of luck anyway.

blondie101010

Wicknight wrote:

How does this prove PSI?

The results will be analysed to verify if they follow the expected trend (reflecting the hypothesis). Unfortunately at this point in the study, it is impossible to give out those details to avoid possibly affecting the validity of the research.

Rest assured all context will be detailed thoroughly when data collection is over.

blondie101010

Stoner wrote:

However controlling the output on a PC is not something that IMO think is possible, I understand the code behind it, but I don't fully understand the thought process when someone pictures a card in their head, unless someone could look into the future and see the answer and then change the future by "guessing" correctly.

Think of it this way, if it is possible to move an object with the mind, wouldn't it be even simpler to affect a minuscule bit inside of a computer? Physically speaking this is a definite yes.

Zombrex

blondie101010 wrote:

The results will be analysed to verify if they follow the expected trend (reflecting the hypothesis). Unfortunately at this point in the study, it is impossible to give out those details to avoid possibly affecting the validity of the research.

Rest assured all context will be detailed thoroughly when data collection is over.

Ok, well I have my doubts, but I suppose it is only fair to wait until you publish these hidden details.

Zombrex

blondie101010 wrote:

Think of it this way, if it is possible to move an object with the mind, wouldn't it be even simpler to affect a minuscule bit inside of a computer? Physically speaking this is a definite yes.

Well from a scientific point of view there are a number of issues with that.

For a start a "bit" (as in bits and bytes) isn't a physical thing, it is a conceptual idea. It is represented in a computer by a rather complex logic gate, itself made up of a number of physical transistors, each with individual bits.

It may be possible to alter one of these components, but in doing so you would brake the computer and the program would crash, if the not he hardware be damaged.

You would also have to know exactly where in the computer to make the change to effect what component.

If you are talking about predicting the out come of your games, you are actually talking about reading hundreds of thousand specific bits in a computer in a very specific order that the person themselves would not possibly understand, and then some how interpreting these to the outcome on the screen.

blondie101010

Wicknight wrote:

Well from a scientific point of view there are a number of issues with that.

For a start a "bit" (as in bits and bytes) isn't a physical thing, it is a conceptual idea. It is represented in a computer by a rather complex logic gate, itself made up of a number of physical transistors, each with individual bits.

It may be possible to alter one of these components, but in doing so you would brake the computer and the program would crash, if the not he hardware be damaged.

You would also have to know exactly where in the computer to make the change to effect what component.

If you are talking about predicting the out come of your games, you are actually talking about reading hundreds of thousand specific bits in a computer in a very specific order that the person themselves would not possibly understand, and then some how interpreting these to the outcome on the screen.

I see that you know computers, good!

But when you want to lift your arm, do you need to know all the muscles involved and make an effort to contract their fibers one by one in the optimal sequence? Of course not! All you need to do is think of your arm going up.

At this point I know you'll be tempted to say "it's not the same, it's your body". I'm just using a simple explanation to my concept.

Also, the way I think PSI works is irrelevant to the scientific basis for the simple reason that I believe our reality is some kind of artifact. Not really like the matrix but similar at a higher level (spiritual). Of course that can not be immediately proven, it is simply my belief.

Of course my knowledge is molded by my beliefs, which is why my explanations rely on these points.

I do not pretend to hold the whole truth, but I'm trying to acquire it and this research can prove the initial portion which is that the mind can impact reality without physical contact.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

If you are talking about predicting the out come of your games, you are actually talking about reading hundreds of thousand specific bits in a computer in a very specific order that the person themselves would not possibly understand, and then some how interpreting these to the outcome on the screen.

Or seeing the future...

smdweb

What are the odds of hearing 6 numbers in a dream and then for 5 of them appear in that nights lotto ? ... thankfully I did those numbers and got over a €grand !... the number I missed out on was exactly double the number which I did. i.e. I did 19 and the number which came up was 38.

Zombrex

blondie101010 wrote:

I see that you know computers, good!

But when you want to lift your arm, do you need to know all the muscles involved and make an effort to contract their fibers one by one in the optimal sequence? Of course not! All you need to do is think of your arm going up.

At this point I know you'll be tempted to say "it's not the same, it's your body". I'm just using a simple explanation to my concept.

Well you don't, but your brain does. You consciously think about what you want to do (raise your arm) and your brain's neural network transfers that into signals to your muscles.

You learn how to do this as a baby. One will often see a baby with their arms flaying around, trying to do crazy stuff like stick its feet in its mouth.

While it just looks like the child is messing around, playing, it is actually learning how to make its brain do what it want to do. The brain learns what impulse causes what reaction, so when the child grows up it can repeat the act without having to consciously think about it.

This process can often be damaged by injury, which is why you will often hear someone say about a car accident victim or a stroke victim, that they are "Learning to use their hands again". The neural pathways need to re-learn how to get their muscles to do what they want to do.

Applying this to altering computer systems one comes up against a few problems.

Firstly sufficient time would be required for simply "messing about" for the human brain to learn what impulse does what to the computer. This would take some time, and since there is no feedback loop (how does your brain know it is on the right track?) it would be very difficult.

Secondly while our bodies are set up for this experimentation as babies, computers are not. Along with the lack of feedback mentioned above, there is also the issue that any small alteration that is not correctly performed will cause the system to completely crash or halt. While I baby may attempt to place his finger in is mouth and miss and hit himself in the eye this attempt still provides useful information to the brain. On the other hand if a human attempted to alter a computer structure and made on tiny mistake the whole thing would crash. There is no almost got it, or near miss.

blondie101010 wrote:

Also, the way I think PSI works is irrelevant to the scientific basis for the simple reason that I believe our reality is some kind of artifact. Not really like the matrix but similar at a higher level (spiritual). Of course that can not be immediately proven, it is simply my belief.

Well ultimately that is irrelevant. Artefact or not reality works based on a set of laws that cover how things interact with each other. Whether or not these laws are defined by God, or by nature or by a Matrix style computer program doesn't matter. If these laws didn't exist then it would not be possible to construct a computer in the first place, since a computer works based on chemistry and physics laws.

If you are suggesting that reality can ultimately be altered to reflect what we want it to be, that may be the case but it rises the question of who's reality are we talking about. Is reality a reflection of what you want it to be, or a reflection of what I want it to be.

blondie101010 wrote:

I do not pretend to hold the whole truth, but I'm trying to acquire it and this research can prove the initial portion which is that the mind can impact reality without physical contact.

Fair enough. I would suggest that there are better, though possibly more troublesome, ways to test that theory. Moving one electron with the mind is equally as impressive as moving a million, but just because one can move a one doesn't mean they can move a million. So any positive results of PSI might be lost in your experiment.

But if reality is set up as you propose above then ultimately science is irrelevant and therefore so is demonstrating something to a scientific level.

Zombrex

smdweb wrote:

What are the odds of hearing 6 numbers in a dream and then for 5 of them appear in that nights lotto ?

Depends on what you mean ... the odds that you would hear the correct 5 numbers just before a specific Lotto draw that those numbers occur in is quite small.

On the other hand, based on the number of people who play lottery games across the world, and the number of times a lottery is actually taking place, the chances that this would happen some where to someone are actually quite likely.

Think of it this way, the odds that any one person will win the lottery are ridiculous low. But every week (or nearly every week) someone does. This happens because so many people play.

They get their numbers some where, be it the quick pick machine, or numbers that come to them in a dream , or simply numbers that they have a feeling about.

By the way, now that you are rich I've decided to charge for the privilage of reading my posts ... that will be €50 please

MooseJam

I guessed 4 out of 12, hope that helps prove psi