> Hi, a couple of questions: > 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? I decided it's better to not yet describe them yet. Though I b

> Hi, a couple of questions: > 1. Could you describe the experiments you mentioned to prove ESP? I decided it's better to not yet describe them yet. Though I believe anyone can easily do the experiment and get confirmation, maybe there is a component that makes the pendulum swing wider in my case (no pendulum involved :). So that would deviate the discussion. I discovered the phenomenon privately while lowering a stimulus, until there was no stimulus left, but the same mind exercise. And I was left in disbelief. That was a little over a year ago. Looking back I believe I got best in class notes on science, in part because I read the mind of my professors. Now the mind-reading part is sort of an exaggeration, but I do remember understanding the professor (and by proxy the thinking in the field) was key to finding the solution. So, really, was I good in math? Or was this half some sort of disguised ESP testing taking place? > You said "effects are immediate", but "immediate" cannot be actually measures, because every equipment has its precision (so you would be only sure that two numbers are equal (which means immediate effect) until a certain point). > What is your precision to measure this? What equipment did you use to do measures faster than the speed of light? You're going overboard. We are talking human dimensions here. "Immediate" rules out chemical channels and delays as in audio. "Immediate" also refers to not implying use of the senses, so mind to mind. But you captured correctly that I spoke of proof. As in demonstration and in court. Yes, that kind of frightens me and that could derail experiments. > Actually, if you don't have measures, it would also seem that your analysis is highly biased by what you think is true, even selecting the "cooler" laws of physics to explain the supposed phenomenon that you can measure, the quantum freaky world of "entanglement and superposition", as opposed to the good and old "radiowaves". Correct. Of course. You didn't measure correctly the dimension of my words. So you come across as someone proven wrong many times, so you have to start with a reality check. But hey, hello, I'm am 55, an engineer. > You said it yourself, "A poor scientific state of mind leads to...", and I think a poor scientific mind is the one that pre-decides about the results of a subject in question before he can precisely say how he has (or will) measured that phenomenon. Exactly. I mean no disrespect to scientists. No individual is directly responsible. And where money flows scientists don't have much of a vote anyway.. Science may have been blind, but society shouldn't be. > So, a rich scientific mind would actually take your claims and beliefs with a very high dose of scientific scepticism. Agreed, within professional realms. But in the social domain, when science is one eye open, another closed, it's missing the big picture, and that creates a false testimony society feeds back to all. That's a feedback loop and a bias. You might think science knows it all. > Christopher Hitchens said it better: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Well, to be accurate, this isn't exactly cold-fusion, nor something new or specific to me. It's common sense among swaths of fellow citizens, maybe your wife, thinking with the other side of their brain, having to sustain being told, _socially_, that they are wrong. No equal-rights movement talking about the underlying problem though, which may be termed inequality through science. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to clarify. In addition I got fewer downvotes than I expected despite calling out a "poor state of mind".