Baddogma's Meta Cafe- Polite Discussions About Scientific Mysticism and General Weirdness

a reply to: Peeple

Well that idea works too.. one target for a 30 minute window. But we get much less data that way.

because anyone can be discouraged getting an answer wrong if they don't have the confidence level.

I kind of liked my idea as I wrote it I realized what I was saying..

We give people 30 minutes to get ready and ten minutes of ten targets. SIMPLE targets.. like a 6 sided die, or a 4 sided die..

each minute you or I change the new target RIGHT on the minute (using computer time as it's synched worldwide.)

after that window give people who said they were participating 10 15 minutes to post what they thought the answers were.

then we show the answer key.


I think that makes it more targeted. If people are just free to post... Our main enemy is attention span. Something with a lot of structure helps mitigate that.


Anything between 3 and 6 choices is probably ideal. We can't ask people to be super psychic masters and get discouraged again. I'd like to build people's abilities up by showing them they really do have this other sense.


hippie type people start thinking animals are psychic more than humans.. Well animals let things flow more, because they have less mind. Like with kids compared to adults. I want to show grown up people they can still do it. So it has to not be so hard at first. Until people ask for harder tests.

In fact we do have the power and exposure to get people actually thinking.. Giving them tools to test this out.. And it may even branch out into new people using science (even loosely and not well controlled) to find out things for themselves.. Too many still believe in the priest class. I'm smarter than the average priest class guy, and no one would trust me, because I have no title next to my name.. But I can keep proving it. I decided to do it with the dam situation. That's now my thread. Everything I said was true.. And none of it matched what the media said or the people in control said.

I am good at investigating.

So because we just came up with this..

We ARE doing this.

And we have a unique opportunity to make it mean more than random guesses.

a reply to: Reverbs

Okay, but I don't know if you get anybody to keep the appointments.
That's the problem I'm having. Individual sessions might be best, we won't get that many willing to play anyways, I assume. Then it's more "4 ready if you are" "go" 5 minutes later "32331" "12311 again?"
I don't know...
One at a time on the other hand creates waiting lines, so hmmm, maybe we should try to stay flexible?

We could provide a short breathing exercise and explain the preferred mental state in the OP?



And the least important but still first question, where do I put this? Skunk? Paranormal?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Okay, but I don't know if you get anybody to keep the appointments.
That's the problem I'm having. Individual sessions might be best, we won't get that many willing to play anyways, I assume. Then it's more "4 ready if you are" "go" 5 minutes later "32331" "12311 again?"
I don't know...
One at a time on the other hand creates waiting lines, so hmmm, maybe we should try to stay flexible?

We could provide a short breathing exercise and explain the preferred mental state in the OP?

oh in my version everyone hits reply and every minute they know it's a new target and they write the next one in.. only posting after 10 minutes.

maybe 5 minutes is better. But the number 10 is really the first number with 3 variables that I would take notice.

So yea the posts would be WAITING.. and then we say "time concluded hand in your pop quiz."

we wait for anyone who said they were participating and others who decided to go along without saying so.

show the answers..

AND I would be keeping track of individuals and the group as separate data streams.. Meaning.. Some people are way more psychic than other people.. and the problem with giant studies is the noise of random people hides those with a stand out ability.


but if you don't like that idea we can do something else?

I think it's more engaging to be someone who knows the ten target ten minute time window is coming up and participates and gets results out of it..

whereas I've seen in the past threads with a picture for RV and some people get kind of close and everyone else leaves.

with 10 data points everyone is going to get some right.

I tihnk it's more inclusive..

what do you think?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Okay, but I don't know if you get anybody to keep the appointments.
That's the problem I'm having. Individual sessions might be best, we won't get that many willing to play anyways, I assume. Then it's more "4 ready if you are" "go" 5 minutes later "32331" "12311 again?"
I don't know...
One at a time on the other hand creates waiting lines, so hmmm, maybe we should try to stay flexible?

We could provide a short breathing exercise and explain the preferred mental state in the OP?

not skunk works that is for making claims with no proof.

Let's go with something paranormal sounding.

not grey area either.


and funny there is a preferred mental state according to the CIA.. It's called "focus 10" Focus 10 is basically saying body turned all the way off, mind turned on. Sleep paralysis almost. I was wondering why all the transcripts has "mumble mumble it's a lake areas... mumble bumble mumble mumble.." that's why..

You need a low "ego" state, with as high as you can awareness.
another way to say it is "relaxed focus"

did you see the CIA paper release?

a reply to: Reverbs

Yeah no good point. Sorry I think I got this...
My only problem is I can't show you a draft of the thread....


Also no on the CIA papers. But yes we could let them also state in their answers if they were using any meditational practices to focus.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Yeah no good point. Sorry I think I got this...
My only problem is I can't show you a draft of the thread....

I have to go to bed soon but yea it's your thread idea not mine. I'm giving you input to make your decision.

And after that I'm backing you 100%.

That's what I need because I'm still water.. Deep water.. I can hold up the whole damn boat on my own.. I just need someone to make the boat.

a reply to: Reverbs

My idea? I don't think so BB...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

My idea? I don't think so BB...

oh yea.. Who started this psychic connection ? the chicken in the forest? or the egg that no one hears fall?

and # you are right.

But the inspiration was all you.. You brought up the topic.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Yeah no good point. Sorry I think I got this...
My only problem is I can't show you a draft of the thread....

Also no on the CIA papers. But yes we could let them also state in their answers if they were using any meditational practices to focus.

people will undoubtedly share their personal stories.. The thread should take pause for reflection on that. Inbetween test target dumps.

a reply to: Reverbs

...a few minutes later.

Now I think it's lame. Not groundbreaking not new. Nothing P.E.A.R. and others haven't done before and possibly better.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

...a few minutes later.

Now I think it's lame. Not groundbreaking not new. Nothing P.E.A.R. and others haven't done before and possibly better.

hush.. This is our experiment. This is our starting point.
We all have to start in order to continue.
We are doing this.



PEAR did some great work.
But they messed up on key factors one of which I mentioned and the CIA mentions it too..
Some people are good at being psychic.. Some people are no better than chance.. Some people actually consistently pick the wrong answer WAY above chance.

If you mix all the data together as ALL these studies do you find people have a "slight" ability to go over chance.

the CIA says.. "1% of the population has an innate psychic potential well above average.

I'd love to showcase that.
along side the totals.

I will be keeping that updated live in the thread. Because people need feedback and we have a unique ability with this current technology set up to provide.

a reply to: Reverbs

Okay. If that's your goal it doesn't have to be new I guess.
And I would like to play telepathic mastermind...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

Okay. If that's your goal it doesn't have to be new I guess.
And I would like to play telepathic mastermind...

I was hoping you would say that.
I'll play mediator/data collector.
slash me
slash participant. As I am pretty sure I have the woo factor more than average.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Reverbs

...a few minutes later.

Now I think it's lame. Not groundbreaking not new. Nothing P.E.A.R. and others haven't done before and possibly better.

the problem with 95% (I made that up) of peer reviewed studies is NO ONE recreates the same results.. No one gets a grant to repeat a study. Not without a reason/motive. Science is not so sciency as many would have us believe..

I find my silly not double blind not even single blind not even controlled not even observed objectively studies to be more accurate..

My assessments of things like dams breaking or fukushima keep proving to be correct. But I know people are way smarter than me dealing with these things.. So maybe they just lie, where I would say the truth.

Lets make real results..
They won't be considered for publishing in any journal, but we will know they count. And so will many on ATS who want to know without being told the answer.
people willing to participate will know first hand.. Don't have to go to CNN for that.

we have two people running an experiment who hate BS, yet still find ourselves entangled with the woo.

It's perfect.

a reply to: Reverbs

Alright BB, laptops running I'll start putting the thing together.
Any last words?
Because I'll mention your name...a lot...

but this works?

a reply to: Peeple

I'm really not sure what my deal is. Overall, I'm trying to plant seeds that will hopefully sprout over generations to create the proper environment for my technology. I am a scientist, engineer, and inventor with an overall, but distinct, interest in human neuropsychology. My IQ is anomalous enough to have drawn A LOT of unwanted attention when I was younger, which abrubtly ceased at some point that I cant recall. I'm very much myself in this thread, but in many others I'm carrying out that agenda. I feel like I'm tending a garden. It all probably just sounds like horn tooting, but it's important in understanding "me," and why I have such a focus on tools.

The extended truth is that I believe I have some sort of amnesia that started the day I woke up from being unconscious on the ground for several days. My femoral head was sheared off my femur, my spine was shattered, and all of a sudden I had severe bone density issues (almost like from an extended time in space).

I remember that I was fighting some kind of war (VERY different from the normal concept) in my dreams, which seems inconsequential until one considers just how different a lot of those dreams were from most. Before that incident, I was essentially lucid dreaming all night, every night and since then? Not a single moment, or even inkling of lucidness. I feel like I "forgot" who and what I really am, but that feeling seems so common as to be cliche. Of course, it does seem unique in that there is a specific event where that changed, rather than a vague feeling with nebulous origins. Its like I have some imperative responsibility that I can't quite remember, and instead of all this stroking my ego, it feels more like a profound loss and like I'm hiding in some cave while the world crumbles.

I'm firmly convinced something extraordinary happened, in the "bad" way. But I can't remember why it would, and certainly can't remember anything from those days I was supposedly on the ground. I feel like I am a battery forcibly and violently removed from its circuit. In short, I feel violated over an experience which, on the surface, shouldn't invoke the feeling.

What I do remember from those old "dreams" is pretty spectacular though..

As for a lot of the rest, maybe we're just made for each other

I think that in the overall scheme of things, figuring out how to "write" a good, proper story is preeminent. For myself though, my part of the story is the focus on tools. I find those two are easy to mix up.

I'm not at all a fan of Scientology, despite their recruitment attempts when I was younger (which seems.. odd.. now that I think about it). I remember building some device where I held on to copper tubes, which seemed to impress. But, I absolutely LOVE their story about Xenu, Thetans, etc. So, maybe its more accurate to say the social group isn't appealing, but I think their story is fantastic and even better than most. Hubbard's imagination may very well have tapped into the same areas as other religions.

Maybe a bit too honest of a post.. Don't know if that answers anything or further conflates things, but there ya go

a reply to: Reverbs

It's out

...and nobody's playing. I knew it.

OMG - some 'woo' for me!!!

Nothing 'woo' ever happens in my life, so much so that it's a wonder I'm not an uber sceptic

...and yet, just last night I was telling my daughter about ESP experiments which had the following results:

originally posted by: Reverbs

.. Some people actually consistently pick the wrong answer WAY above chance.

I was explaining to her that the experiments showed that certain people who are very adamant in their 'dis'belief in the paranormal, would give the wrong answer so 'statistically' often that they would have to somehow be subconsciously 'choosing' to 'not' give the right answer (having subconsciously gotten it via ESP)

...Anyway, nice bit of synchronicity there, since I rarely ever talk about that kind of thing at home - it only came up in the course of conversation with my daughter about what her psychology class is studying..

---Oh, sorry, btw - yes, I lurk in this thread now and then

originally posted by: Reverbs

the problem with 95% (I made that up) of peer reviewed studies is NO ONE recreates the same results.. No one gets a grant to repeat a study. Not without a reason/motive. Science is not so sciency as many would have us believe..

Well said

I look forward to that thread. Similar things might have been done by PEAR, or even other ATS threads, but given the lack of any sort of grasp on the subject.. Further exploration is a very good thing.

Even in the areas we think we know so well, there is more to learn in the basics than many would like to accept. I frequently read the most basic texts on things which I'm considered an "expert," and find them just as valuable as the most advanced, cutting edge research on the matter.

In that respect, it seems science even in the general public, has become a way to confirm bias rather than learn and explore. Its turned more into a kangaroo court than a cooperative and never-ending expedition.

a reply to: Serdgiam

No not too honest at all.
I enjoyed that. I'm just a bit distracted right now.