Does Mike DARE?!?!?!?

[JTEM]

I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

If that's too much effort for you, how about the
first two or last two numbers?

I know my A.D.D. would kick in before a tackling
a four digit number so a number between 0 and 999
is the highest I'd dare go.

Obviously the higher the number the greater proof
of the supernatural success would represent.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM
I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

The first number that came to mind was 666.
I know that seems obvious to make that association,
but I thought I would go with what initially came
to my mind.

Post by JTEM
If that's too much effort for you, how about the
first two or last two numbers?
I know my A.D.D. would kick in before a tackling
a four digit number so a number between 0 and 999
is the highest I'd dare go.
Obviously the higher the number the greater proof
of the supernatural success would represent.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

The first number that came to mind was 666.
I know that seems obvious to make that association,
but I thought I would go with what initially came
to my mind.

It's a test of pendulums, crystal balls and/or
divining rods. Can you come up with a number using
one of them?

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

The first number that came to mind was 666.
I know that seems obvious to make that association,
but I thought I would go with what initially came
to my mind.

It's a test of pendulums, crystal balls and/or
divining rods. Can you come up with a number using
one of them?

I had a feeling you would say that. Even if I had
a crystal ball I wouldn't know how to see a number
in it. I have a chain, but I still don't know how to
extract numbers from it.

What do I do, just ask if it's 666 -- sideways for
yes and circles for no?

[JTEM]

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

The first number that came to mind was 666.
I know that seems obvious to make that association,
but I thought I would go with what initially came
to my mind.

It's a test of pendulums, crystal balls and/or
divining rods. Can you come up with a number using
one of them?

I had a feeling you would say that.

I did say that! In the original post!

Post by Mike
Even if I had
a crystal ball I wouldn't know how to see a number
in it. I have a chain, but I still don't know how to
extract numbers from it.

I told you how: Binary code. Break it down into Yes/No
questions. Maybe... "Is the first digit even or odd?

If it's even, that's a 2, 4, 6 & 8. I would also say 0,
which by convention is considered even, but I honestly
don't know what the supernatural world thinks about
this...

Alternatively you could just work through all the numbers,
asking if it is the first digit. Once you get a "Yes"
response, move on to the second.

That's probably the longest route to take and even it
maxes out at 30 questions... probably a good deal less
on average.

Post by Mike
What do I do, just ask if it's 666 -- sideways for
yes and circles for no?

[Mike]

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
I just emailed myself a number between 0 and 999,
inclusive. Can you determine what it is using
divining rods, or a crystal ball or pendulum?

The first number that came to mind was 666.
I know that seems obvious to make that association,
but I thought I would go with what initially came
to my mind.

It's a test of pendulums, crystal balls and/or
divining rods. Can you come up with a number using
one of them?

I had a feeling you would say that.

I did say that!  In the original post!

I saw that, but I didn't think you would be so strict.
I thought you appreciated my visualization skills.

Post by Mike
Even if I had
a crystal ball I wouldn't know how to see a number
in it. I have a chain, but I still don't know how to
extract numbers from it.

I told you how:  Binary code. Break it down into Yes/No
questions. Maybe... "Is the first digit even or odd?
If it's even, that's a 2, 4, 6 & 8. I would also say 0,
which by convention is considered even, but I honestly
don't know what the supernatural world thinks about
this...
Alternatively you could just work through all the numbers,
asking if it is the first digit. Once you get a "Yes"
response, move on to the second.
That's probably the longest route to take and even it
maxes out at 30 questions... probably a good deal less
on average.

But I still have the problem of not owning a pendulum
or a crystal ball.

Post by Mike
What do I do, just ask if it's 666 -- sideways for
yes and circles for no?

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
But I still have the problem of not owning a pendulum
or a crystal ball.

A pendulum is any chain, piece of string or thread, and
any round object it can be run through... I've used
washers as a kid. Distinctly recall that one.

ANYTHING with a loop that can be threaded... what you're
looking for is something that's balanced and not too too
heavy.

A ring (jewelry). Ideal. Especially if it's a precious
metal.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
But I still have the problem of not owning a pendulum
or a crystal ball.

A pendulum is any chain, piece of string or thread, and
any round object it can be run through... I've used
washers as a kid. Distinctly recall that one.
ANYTHING with a loop that can be threaded... what you're
looking for is something that's balanced and not too too
heavy.
A ring (jewelry). Ideal. Especially if it's a precious
metal.

I must admit that the thought of just pretending
do do all of that is now crossing my mind. Certainly
you have something to motivate me to go through all
the trouble?

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
I must admit that the thought of just pretending
do do all of that is now crossing my mind. Certainly
you have something to motivate me to go through all
the trouble?

When I was a kid it worked good enough to scare me.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I must admit that the thought of just pretending
do do all of that is now crossing my mind. Certainly
you have something to motivate me to go through all
the trouble?

When I was a kid it worked good enough to scare me.

I've played with it enough times to know it's
your mind that's manipulating the pendulum and
it's not always quite so subtle. It's easy to
consciously or subconsciously get the results
one wants. The number I came up with is 914.
I made the pendulum as you suggested and as
I was testing it out, I noted that it was
swinging over a pack of dental floss I have
on my desk. It just by chance was swinging
over the number 914, which is the length of
the dental floss pack in meters. So the pendulum
as picked 914.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
I've played with it enough times to know it's
your mind that's manipulating the pendulum and
it's not always quite so subtle. It's easy to
consciously or subconsciously get the results
one wants. The number I came up with is 914.
I made the pendulum as you suggested and as
I was testing it out, I noted that it was
swinging over a pack of dental floss I have
on my desk. It just by chance was swinging
over the number 914, which is the length of
the dental floss pack in meters. So the pendulum
as picked 914.

Wow. I'm impressed. Despite the arduous task of
explaining to you exactly how it works, you have
twice now done something completely different.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I've played with it enough times to know it's
your mind that's manipulating the pendulum and
it's not always quite so subtle. It's easy to
consciously or subconsciously get the results
one wants. The number I came up with is 914.
I made the pendulum as you suggested and as
I was testing it out, I noted that it was
swinging over a pack of dental floss I have
on my desk. It just by chance was swinging
over the number 914, which is the length of
the dental floss pack in meters. So the pendulum
as picked 914.

Wow. I'm impressed. Despite the arduous task of
explaining to you exactly how it works, you have
twice now done something completely different.

I think there is no right or wrong way of
doing these things. One must do what resonates
or the results may not feel genuine. One must go
with the flow of the Universe.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
I think there is no right or wrong way of
doing these things.

In this case there is, because it was a specific test.
The method itself was being tested, so not following
that method is wrong. It's not a valid response.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I think there is no right or wrong way of
doing these things.

In this case there is, because it was a specific test.
The method itself was being tested, so not following
that method is wrong. It's not a valid response.

There is no valid test that incorporates unknowable
in it. I didn't see you give specific instructions
on how to reliably and efficiently extract numbers
from a pendulum? Secondly I would have a mental block
with following instructions that have no meaning to me.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
There is no valid test that incorporates unknowable
in it.

It's not a test of the unknowable. It's a test of a
method. If a statistically significant outcomes
occurs, it's a pass -- a validation.

Post by Mike
I didn't see you give specific instructions
on how to reliably and efficiently extract numbers
from a pendulum?

Yes you did: Break it down into a binary, Yes/No
set of questions.

Post by Mike
Secondly I would have a mental block
with following instructions that have no meaning to me.

You're pleading with yourself now, not me.

I wonder why.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
There is no valid test that incorporates unknowable
in it.

It's not a test of the unknowable. It's a test of a
method. If a statistically significant outcomes
occurs, it's a pass -- a validation.

Post by Mike
I didn't see you give specific instructions
on how to reliably and efficiently extract numbers
from a pendulum?

Yes you did:  Break it down into a binary, Yes/No
set of questions.

I feel you have a mental block, that you can't
really understand my perspective. I've experimented
with pendulums. I know how they work. If I want 666
I could easily make the pendulum give the results I
want. It's far easier to ditch the pendulum and tap
directly into my subconscious. It will give you no
better results than just raw intuition. I've done
the experiment, years ago. That is why I don't bother
with consulting it.

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
Secondly I would have a mental block
with following instructions that have no meaning to me.

You're pleading with yourself now, not me.
I wonder why.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike
I feel you have a mental block, that you can't
really understand my perspective. I've experimented
with pendulums. I know how they work. If I want 666
I could easily make the pendulum give the results I
want.

It's real easy to reach out and pick up a cup. However,
that's not telekinesis and it's not a test of
telekinesis.

Yes it's real easy to make a pendulum do what you want,
and that isn't a test of the pendulum. What is a test
of the pendulum, what isn't easy is coming up with a
two or even three digit number that you don't know.

Post by Mike
It's far easier to ditch the pendulum and tap
directly into my subconscious.

Picking up a cup is far easier than moving it with
telekinesis. But picking it up is not a test of
telekinesis.

Post by Mike
It will give you no
better results than just raw intuition.

Which is why you avoid that. Science is the elimination
of the human element -- intuition, bias.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I feel you have a mental block, that you can't
really understand my perspective. I've experimented
with pendulums. I know how they work. If I want 666
I could easily make the pendulum give the results I
want.

It's real easy to reach out and pick up a cup. However,
that's not telekinesis and it's not a test of
telekinesis.

I have tried telekinesis without results, nothing... nada.
Don't you think if I could do it, I would have noticed by
now? Have you ever met anyone who could pick up a cup or
bend a spoon with their mind. I'm not saying that cups
don't fly or spoons don't bend but the very act of conducting
an experiment alters the outcomes. But say by some fluke
I made the cup fly, what is the likelihood of duplicating
the experiment? Instead of asking me to try to make cups
fly, why don't you try it? And even if by some miracle
you did succeed, I promise not to believe it.

Post by JTEM
Yes it's real easy to make a pendulum do what you want,
and that isn't a test of the pendulum. What is a test
of the pendulum, what isn't easy is coming up with a
two or even three digit number that you don't know.

Could that be because there aren't any? I know all the
numbers from 0 to a very very large number. The question
remains though, are they useful for anything? What can
I do with them, especially the random ones that are
unpredictable?

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
It's far easier to ditch the pendulum and tap
directly into my subconscious.

Picking up a cup is far easier than moving it with
telekinesis. But picking it up is not a test of
telekinesis.

If I wanted to make someone believe in telekinesis
the more rational approach is resorting to trickery.
It would be far easier than trying to will the cup
to move. Besides and no one wound believe me even
if I did, committing me to an endless loop expecting
me to prove myself by doing it again, and again
and again. It's just simply not going to happen.

One must deploy reasoning skills so as not
to wast valuable mental energy on nothing.

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
It will give you no
better results than just raw intuition.

Which is why you avoid that. Science is the elimination
of the human element -- intuition, bias.

As soon as one embarks on an experiment, the human
element is introduced.

[JTEM]

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I feel you have a mental block, that you can't
really understand my perspective. I've experimented
with pendulums. I know how they work. If I want 666
I could easily make the pendulum give the results I
want.

It's real easy to reach out and pick up a cup. However,
that's not telekinesis and it's not a test of
telekinesis.

I have tried telekinesis without results, nothing... nada.
Don't you think if I could do it, I would have noticed by
now?

We're not talking about telekinesis. The subject hasn't
changed. The telekinesis was a metaphor.

Here...

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
Yes it's real easy to make a pendulum do what you want,
and that isn't a test of the pendulum. What is a test
of the pendulum, what isn't easy is coming up with a
two or even three digit number that you don't know.

Could that be because there aren't any?

Of course there are. I emailed a number between 0 and 999
to myself.

use the pendulum to find out what they are.

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
Picking up a cup is far easier than moving it with
telekinesis. But picking it up is not a test of
telekinesis.

If I wanted to make someone believe in telekinesis
the more rational approach is resorting to trickery.

This isn't about believing in anything but testing ideas.

Post by Mike
One must deploy reasoning skills so as not
to wast valuable mental energy on nothing.

Statistical analysis.

Well. Nothing too formal. You have a one in a thousand
chance of guessing.

Statistically, that is significant.

Post by Mike
As soon as one embarks on an experiment, the human
element is introduced.

No. The human element is present and impacting on your
view of everything. Science is to eliminate this influence.

[Mike]

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike
I feel you have a mental block, that you can't
really understand my perspective. I've experimented
with pendulums. I know how they work. If I want 666
I could easily make the pendulum give the results I
want.

It's real easy to reach out and pick up a cup. However,
that's not telekinesis and it's not a test of
telekinesis.

I have tried telekinesis without results, nothing... nada.
Don't you think if I could do it, I would have noticed by
now?

We're not talking about telekinesis. The subject hasn't
changed. The telekinesis was a metaphor.
Here...

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
Yes it's real easy to make a pendulum do what you want,
and that isn't a test of the pendulum. What is a test
of the pendulum, what isn't easy is coming up with a
two or even three digit number that you don't know.

Could that be because there aren't any?

Of course there are. I emailed a number between 0 and 999
to myself.
use the pendulum to find out what they are.

Q. Is the first number the square root of 2.
A. Yes!

Q. Is the second number the square of PI?
A. Yes!

Q. Is the third number a whole number?
A. No-

Q. Is the third number the square root of 7?
A. Yes!


The number chosen by the pendulum is:

{ √2, π², √7 }

Post by JTEM

Post by Mike

Post by JTEM
Picking up a cup is far easier than moving it with
telekinesis. But picking it up is not a test of
telekinesis.

If I wanted to make someone believe in telekinesis
the more rational approach is resorting to trickery.

This isn't about believing in anything but testing ideas.

Post by Mike
One must deploy reasoning skills so as not
to wast valuable mental energy on nothing.

Statistical analysis.
Well. Nothing too formal. You have a one in a thousand
chance of guessing.
Statistically, that is significant.

Post by Mike
As soon as one embarks on an experiment, the human
element is introduced.

No. The human element is present and impacting on your
view of everything. Science is to eliminate this influence.