my rationale is that given cityboy has already stated that it could be years before he might get another chance to astrally project, it would be better to do right the first time.
I accept that everyone in this thread is trustworthy, but there have been a lot of supposed psychics who really do genuinely believe in their ability only to be shown it was really subconcious cues and not psychic abilty that was the ey to their success.
Choosing more than 1 item, skipping items can all be handled by statistical analysis. What we want in the end is to get the actual confidence interval so we can evaluate where to go from here. For example, if it was less than 60% confidence, I think its safe to assert that it was pure guesswork, 60 - 90 requires further testing and 90+ would be grounds to call Randi in. However, a non-scientific test really aids nobody and is not going to be terribly useful.
Whatever. Just as long as we agree that [showing pictures] doesn’t decrease the fairness of the test.
I didn’t know that one week per round (or test) was too short to be practical; I only threw it out there in the hope that we didn’t have to wait years for some kind of result. Please, by all means, suggest a time period that ensures, as much as possible, that you can perform. But don’t be disappointed if we don’t pull up lawn chairs to watch this thread for a 10-year run.
IIRC, you got into this situation by saying, “Having had astral projections myself…” and some of us assumed, perhaps wrongly, that meant frequently or on demand. Now we find that the process seems to be rare, primarily during sleep, cannot be initiated at will, and is hard to control. You must forgive us if we doubt that you are experiencing any more than a vivid dream, but we are willing to be proven wrong.
Well there is a limit on how much can be proved in an unsupervised Internet test.
Well you can have a level of confidence that we are all trustworthy, but no more than that. I know who I am ( :eek: ) and that David B. is a well-known figure in the sceptic world. All I know about Cityboy916 is that he posts on the SDMB.
I disagree. The main problem is that remote viewers have never been tested. At last we have a volunteer!
So I want to encourage Cityboy916 to have a go. The first test also makes it easy for Dopers to join in (only 2 so far, but still). This both provides a control group and makes it more likely that a second test will happen.
glee There is no rush to get the test started right away. As I said, you have plenty of time, why not gradually refine the test so as to improve it? There may be a limit to internet tests but why not get as close as possible to that limit? It seems to me that my proposed test is no harder and probably a lot easier than your one albeit taking a bit more effort.
I need no assurance that cityboy is not lying, the whole point of the test is that it can distinguish between true psychics and fakers. As long as we are sure YOU and David B are telling the truth. You could make it even more secure by releasing the results online in some encrypted form, taking David B out of the picture as well.
Also, I would say that allowing control groups to post their results and you responding could also taint the results, I would prefer all control groups to email and you not to talk about the guesses of the control group, even if it probably wont damage the test.
It would also be interesting to see how well a control group could do at giving the correct answer after studying a photo of a hypothetical configuration and then asking to name it. This would give a true upper limit to how well astral projection can do which may or may not be 100%.
It seems to me that you are so eager to get this going that you need to do it now now now, but its not going to happen until cityboy is ready so we are free to tweak the protocol beforehand.
I realise that I am skirting the edge here, since your protocols are scientific and helpful.
I suppose I am nervous that yet another test of the paranormal is not going to happen. I have corresponded for years (mainly on www.randi.org) with people and institutions claiming all sorts of psychic abilities. No test evidence has ever been forthcoming. (I have acquired a very long list of ‘reasons’ why psychics, ‘who could easily do so’, don’t want to claim the million dollars from the Randi Foundation.)
Can you get me access to this encoding software?
I will try not to say anything! However I admit that one of the reasons I set up the first test in this form was to attract interest. Also it is usually much easier to have a second version, as opposed to setting something up.
In the proposed second test I was going to simply name the objects (after accepting advice which was the best set). I don’t have a scanner :o .
Cityboy916 has agreed the test conditions, although he is not sure how long it will take him. So I do want to go now with the current agreed protocol.
How about accepting the current conditions, but continuing to discuss a more refined test as well?
The current test has the advantage that its easy to set up, fairly easy to rate results, should (according to everyone’s gut feelings) be passable by someone who does astrally project, has been accepted by both parties, etc.
The one area where it could be improved imho is decisiveness of result. In an ideal world we’d have a test where, if cityboy does manage to project, we can say with confidence that he has passed or failed a test at x% confidence. (Of course, failure doesn’t mean he can’t project, just that he was wrong to think that he had at this instance. etc. But I think this is as good a test as we can get.)
Normally I’d suggest doing the original test first, but since we’re talking years here, it could be worth trying both, provided we ensure the second doesn’t interfere with the first. Glee, cityboy what do you think? I repeat, I agree that we should not mess with the test already going.
The encoding software can be downloaded here: http://www.pgpi.org/products/pgp/versions/freeware/ . YOu will have to find someone more knw\owledgable than me if you need any help using it. Its been a long time since I last played around with it.
My suggestion is to come up with a list of 50 common objects in Glee’s house (or, possibly, that could be acquired) which can be appropriated for this purpose. Publish a list to make sure that they’re avaliable, and recognisably different (possibly involving photos if anyone can be bothered.)
Then choose two randomly (say with a rand function on a computer) and place them somewhere obvious (say, on an empty desk). We then wait to see if cityboy decides he’s astrally projected there. If he correctly identifies both objects he’s succeeded at ~99.5% confidence. If he’s wrong, he has failed this test.
The numbers could be changed as desired, I just picked these as 99.5% is generally quite convincing, 50 objects should be fairly easy to think of, and 2 objects should be easy to remember.
We could also do the encryption thing, which I quite like, though obviously if Glee was going to cheat he could just swap the objects on the desk.
Shade, I think you’re working this into a good protocol. Perhaps glee doesn’t have a digital cam available, so the pix might be out. The only reason I think they are good is so the viewer can familiarize himself with what the objects look like; this will reduce ambiguity.
My protocol, derived from yours, would be:[ol][li]Pick mutually-agreed upon start & stop times & dates[]All parties agree on a posted, public list of 50 (20?) simple, household objects[]On or before the start date/time, glee will randomly choose 2 objects and place them on his desk in full view (but not near a window!)[]All other objects in the list will be placed out of sight in another room[]glee will email David B with the names of the 2 objects before start[]Viewer will attempt to visit the location non-physically one or more times between the start & stop date/times[]Viewer will submit (only) 2 choices to David B anytime before the stop date/time, using the same description of the object as used in the master listAt the conclusion of the test, David B will reveal all choices[/ol]And the pass/fail results shall be obvious.[/li]
I would consider the correct choice of both objects to be the only possible definition of success. 1 or 0 would be a failure. This should be agreed upon by all parties before start.
Cityboy916, based on your various posts, it seems we shouldn’t have a problem with anything except the time allotted for the test. You said one week was too short, and I doubt if anyone wants to wait a year for the results. Is there something in between one week and one year that you would be comfortable with? Maybe 2 months?
How about this. Using my above suggested protocol, add the option of “passing,” that is, not submitting any choices at all to the moderator before the conclusion of the time period. In that case, we would not say it was a failure, it was just a non-test. Then we could pick another random 2 objects, agree on a new time slot, and try again if you wish.
I think it necessary that there’s the option of passing - unless we ask cityboy to lie, what else is he going to say if he doesn’t project? However, a wrong prediction is a definate failure (of his ability to tell if he has projected if not of his ability to project).
Thus however long the test is, there’s the possibilities:
He thinks he’s seen the objects, and is correct. Astral projection (or cheating) is almost certainly possible.
He thinks he’s seen the objects, and is wrong. Cityboy can’t reliably project. (Though its possible that other people can, or that cityboy occasionally mistakes dreams for projections.)
He thinks he’s projected somewhere else. No information either way.
He doesn’t project.
I think we need to accept all these as possible outcomes. Further, apart from the last case, I don’t the test can really be improved.
Now, over a short test, 4 obviously doesn’t tell us anything. Over a long test it suggests he can’t project at all. How long.
<maths aside>Assume an exponential distribution (most things distributed ‘randomly’ through time work like this.) Then P(doesn’t project until x years from now)=exp(-Lx) for some L. If, based on cityboys ‘one or two years’ estimate, we set the mean (=1/L) to 2, then we get a 99% confidence that he’ll have projected by 10 years time</>
So, we could conclude with 99% certainty that if he doesn’t project in the next 10 years, his current estimate of his abilities is wrong. I don’t think any shorter test has much meaning (eg. 90% confidence over ~5 years. 99.9% over ~15yrs.)
Unless cityboy comes in and says he’s now confident that he can project once every couple of months, and then a 10 months would be 99% by the same maths.
Right you are. See one of my recent posts about passing.
Methinks we are making this unneccesarily complicated. We needn’t concern ourselves with how he does it, or why in the case of failure. The claim (and correct me if I am wrong, CityBoy916) is, given enough time, he can identify an object on a particular desk at a physical location remote from his body. Either he can do this or he can’t. Excuses like “I went somewhere else” are of no interest to us.
OK, you’re right, I’m deviating from the central idea here. It’s hard to compromise between doing one test well, and trying to find out extra information at the same time when the whole thing’s likely to last years.
Would you be happy with combining everything but (1) and (2) into an ‘other’ category, from which we can deduce after a certain length of time that cityboy can’t project to a chosen place?
I don’t know which (1) and (2) you are referring to – from my list of 8 or your list of 4? Or …?
In either case, at this time I would prefer to defer to glee, since this is his test and his thread. If he wishes to incorporate any, all, or none of my suggestions, that’s his prerogative. It seems to me we may already have a test started but with no conclusion date.
Sorry, I meant my list of four. And of course, Glee and cityboy have the final say (unless someone else runs a test). I didn’t mean to be antagonistic, just working with you to explore the theme, and find something we can recommend.
I’ll be glad to get back to you on that one after I have completed the currently running test. Trick is to do it once; after that, further experiments are a definite possibility.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
BTW, if nobody else wants that sig line, I’ll gladly claim it.
I don’t know which (1) and (2) you are referring to – from my list of 8 or your list of 4? Or …?