Technosoul attempts to prove a potential theory with test.

[treme]

Quote by: billybobama I have a test for you. Predict what I will do in the next ten minutes. - lol

Well I could if I had as much information about your daily routine as I do about earthquakes.

If you're anything like me you spent the next 10 minutes either...

A) touching yourself and/or scratching nuts
B) smoking a cigarette

But what information do I have? I'm quite sure you're a human so...

You took between 120 and 200 breaths

Your heart beat between 1700 and 2000 times (possibly more if you're anything like me )

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: treme What you just touched on and Techno can sense is out there is what I'm writing about. I don't think our thoughts about earthquakes or our strong faith in them can MAKE them happen. It does get us to see it and look for it and when we look for earthquakes, we find them. How do we find them? The information travels. It goes from the ground into the bodies of the people living there. It goes from them somehow to the people that put information online. It goes from there to cyberspace. From there it's goes to a guy who started a thread on Volconvo.com about how he could predict earthquakes. Then, if we follow the line of thinking that leads us to believe that all existence is what we perceive, we can conclude that Techno didn't really predict that an earthquake was going to happen. He predicted that we (this collective I-don't-know-what) would perceive it. I believe Techno does have a special power. Something his great grandmother definitely didn't have. More Information. Techno's special power is, the internet. Not only to use to check his prediction, but all the times he read about earthquakes in the past. He didn't just absorb the magnitudes and their locations or how many deaths there were. He, whether intentionally or no, absorbed information about how frequent they are. Even if he didn't take all the dates and times down and tabulate them in an Excel Document and work the numbers to return him the likely-hood that an earthquake would occur, he STILL absorbed the information. Now, consider the idea that EVERYTHING we do involves different levels of information and predictions based on that. We move the mouse. Why? Because we expect it to move the visible cursor on the computer screen. Our brain has built up the pattern based on immense amounts of tactile and visual information. We predict, subconsciously, that the cursor will move when (and in the same direction on a different plane) as the mouse does. Given that idea, it's obvious why Techno was able to predict that an earthquake was going to be perceived. Just like he predicts to perceive the engine roaring to life as he turns the key in the ignition. The more information we have about something, the more likely we are to be able to predict it. But he doesn't need all of the numbers and statistics to predict it, he can do it relatively intuitively using a rule of thumb. An If-Then statement programmed into his subconscious that has summed up all of the information he's gained on the subject (even the unintentional information). He wanted to predict when an earthquake would happen and based on all of the information he's gleaned about them and their frequency in the past, he used his subconscious rule of thumb and threw the prediction on the table. IF [Techno's Timeframe] passes at least [This Many] [Events] will occur. His brain can do this with about as much (but not quite as much) accuracy as a statistician. But it's ok to be wrong because this If-Then rule gets updated with the information. Given the mistake, Techno will likely set a longer Timeframe next time he predicts. Now did he actually cause the earthquake by predicting it? The actual ground shaking he didn't cause. But he did cause it to be perceived by at least some part of our collective I-don't-know-what. If that happens to just be me because I've been slacking on my international news gathering, it still worked.

Interesting write up. But, according to Techno's Theory, and his equation, he DID cause the earthquakes.

"Belief + faith = expected result."

If he believed the earthquakes would occur, and he had faith, he'd get his expected results.

He claims to have proven his "theory", therefore it should be easy for him to make any "prediction" he wants and to have them all come true.

So, let's see some duplication of that "proven theory".

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: Zeebadee Interesting write up. But, according to Techno's Theory, and his equation, he DID cause the earthquakes. "Belief + faith = expected result." If he believed the earthquakes would occur, and he had faith, he'd get his expected results. He claims to have proven his "theory", therefore it should be easy for him to make any "prediction" he wants and to have them all come true. So, let's see some duplication of that "proven theory".

Well given my belief that Techno wouldn't "believe" something that his unconscious doesn't have a strong rule of thumb about this is hard to test. We could have him try to believe something that he normally wouldn't and see if it happened. An even better test would be to have him try to believe something that he normally wouldn't. Like trying to believe that in the next month a fill will fish from somewhere and land on his house/apartment/car.

If he just wrote this down somewhere and kept it to himself, it likely wouldn't come true.

But, if he shared his prediction with us and some of his friends, the likely-hood that it WOULD happen would go from close to 0 to something a little bit higher. Why? Because perhaps he has a friend like me who would actually put energy into going to buy fish just to mess with my buddy.

So in essense, yes it is possible for a person's strong belief in something to cause it to happen, but most likely if the person share's his or her belief.

[LogicaLunatic]

Shared Belief... hrm...

Just look at how the shared belief in a single religion has shaped the world.

[billybobama]

Quote by: treme Well I could if I had as much information about your daily routine as I do about earthquakes. If you're anything like me you spent the next 10 minutes either... A) touching yourself and/or scratching nuts B) smoking a cigarette But what information do I have? I'm quite sure you're a human so... You took between 120 and 200 breaths Your heart beat between 1700 and 2000 times (possibly more if you're anything like me )

Nice try - I went to the crapper and took a Republican.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: LogicaLunatic Well given my belief that Techno wouldn't "believe" something that his unconscious doesn't have a strong rule of thumb about this is hard to test. We could have him try to believe something that he normally wouldn't and see if it happened. An even better test would be to have him try to believe something that he normally wouldn't. Like trying to believe that in the next month a fill will fish from somewhere and land on his house/apartment/car. If he just wrote this down somewhere and kept it to himself, it likely wouldn't come true. But, if he shared his prediction with us and some of his friends, the likely-hood that it WOULD happen would go from close to 0 to something a little bit higher. Why? Because perhaps he has a friend like me who would actually put energy into going to buy fish just to mess with my buddy. So in essense, yes it is possible for a person's strong belief in something to cause it to happen, but most likely if the person share's his or her belief.

One of the scientific traits of theory testing is repeatability. Let's have some more "predictions" from Techno and see if his theory really works.

[Matt W]

Quote by: billybobama Nice try - I went to the crapper and took a Republican.

Why don't you try debating the topic. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: billybobama I have a test for you. Predict what I will do in the next ten minutes. - lol

I do not do personal predictions for people.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee Interesting write up. But, according to Techno's Theory, and his equation, he DID cause the earthquakes. "Belief + faith = expected result." If he believed the earthquakes would occur, and he had faith, he'd get his expected results. He claims to have proven his "theory", therefore it should be easy for him to make any "prediction" he wants and to have them all come true. So, let's see some duplication of that "proven theory".

You forgot one factor. Which is that "I" got the a sense that this world happen from out of the blue. So whatever "the blue" is did the prediction, not me by personal authority. My faith was that I believed in the information that came to me from out of the blue. That activity is duplicated by "whatever" the "blue" is (as my source). But I cannot force "the blue" to do my bidding. As well, I cannot control when an earthquake will happen but can only report it will happen as directed when so informed by that extra-sense. A prediction of this nature has results not because 'the word" made it happen, the result is like an advance knowing - about what will ocur.

This is not the first time that I have done this, but the other forums where I did this sort of thing I cannot provide a link too anymore and so cannot use that as evidence here. I recieved the same reaction then as at this forum.

Indeed, there must be a scientific and/or realistic reason for such a knack. The subconscious no doubt plays a role somehow, as suggested by another poster. This is an area worth investigating but it is difficult to pin down just what the subconscious mind is because we have little knowledge about it. And yet earthquakes have not, in my opinon, been proven to follow natural cycles of activity by which the subconsious mind could tabulate the odds that it is time for the next shift (which seem more random then they are as repeated cycles).
And in particular that this would result in a news story relative to some tragic effect of the quake on human life or it's distructive effect on property's owned by humans (economic impact).

Another factor is the power of suggestion. If I predicted you would have good luck today and you acturally were looking for that to happen, you would find something lucky happening, even if you just found a penny on the pavement. The odds are that everyday lucky and unlucky things will happen for everyone. So it just depends on if we are watching for such and such to materialize. Such is not a real prediction.

If I said "Pink Rabbit" your mind would automatically create an image of a pink rabbit, within the next 10 minutes. Because that suggestion was impainted their by my words ... via suggestion. If I said "pink naked lady" it might make that image appear faster.. However the power of suggestion is not actually a prediction, it is voodoo. Which can work also on some victims.

A earthquake is more then something imagined such as a "precieved illness" that was generated by some suggestion that the 'flu bug is going around". That is voodooism.

None the less, I also agree that our mind can collect data about potentials and tabulate notions about what might happen next based on past events. Some people make a decent living on Wall Street doing that. But I am not sure if that can explain what I experienced.

Example. Once I got this "knowing" from out of the blue that a airliner would crash land in a major USA city and cause lots of distruction. That is the only details I recieved "from out of the blue". So I thought, "well, most airliners are getting old and the odds are good that some parts have worn out and stats would suggest that another accident is due to happen". Airplanes fall from the sky all the time due to accidents, although it is rare that this happens in the middle of a city, lucky for us.
So I talked my self out of posting my prediction that I was informed about by "the blue" (whatever that is?). The next day the terrorists crashed airliners into the world trade center.

But why would I get those knowings ahead of time without enough detials to make them useful to anyone? I do not have a clue about that aspect. In fact I am glad I do not know too much, which might be why I don't get all the details.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul You forgot one factor. Which is that "I" got the a sense that this world happen from out of the blue. So whatever "the blue" is did the prediction, not me by personal authority. My faith was that I believed in the information that came to me from out of the blue. That activity is duplicated by "whatever" the "blue" is (as my source). But I cannot force "the blue" to do my bidding. As well, I cannot control when an earthquake will happen but can only report it will happen as directed when so informed by that extra-sense. A prediction of this nature has results not because 'the word" made it happen, the result is like an advance knowing - about what will ocur.

It's extremely difficult to believe you are serious. You're claiming that your "theory" is valid and proven, even though the odds were in your favor on your one and only "prediction". You can't duplicate the "prediction" and can't define or include in your "equation" the "blue" factor. Your "theory" is unproven, in fact, unprovable, and your "equation" is garbage. You've really made yourself look ridiculous with this nonsense. This loss of credibility now feeds over into all your posts, in all threads.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee It's extremely difficult to believe you are serious. You're claiming that your "theory" is valid and proven, even though the odds were in your favor on your one and only "prediction". You can't duplicate the "prediction" and can't define or include in your "equation" the "blue" factor. Your "theory" is unproven, in fact, unprovable, and your "equation" is garbage. You've really made yourself look ridiculous with this nonsense. This loss of credibility now feeds over into all your posts, in all threads.

One of the rules established by debators is that the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Not on those who later claim the claim is false. But what odds are you speaking about? You are using the stats that x amount of earthquakes happen yearly in the 6.0 to 7.0 magnitude range. Based on the odds you employ you are correct.

But I made it clear I was not just predicting your average run-of-the-mill earthquake. In my test the two quakes also had to result in a major
news story. Such a news story would mean that "live news coverage" would report on the situation as rescue people would look for surviving people and where they would show images of the damage caused. Such as they did with the quake activated cave in at the Utah mine and the at the 8.0 quake in Preu. So what are the odds of that? How many times a year do we see news coverage of deadly quakes happening somewhere in the world? On that we base the 'odds'. Do we have in fact an average of two major news stories per month on average during a year, for a total of 24 major news stories about earthquakes? Do we even have an average of 12 big news coverages of deadly quakes happening each year where two quakes happen less then 30 days apart? I don't think so. If you wish to disprove this by claiming the odds were in my favor then show me a list of all the famous "news stories" about deadly quakes that happened for the past two years.
Has CNN, ABC news, CBS news, covered big earthquake events on an average of 24 of them per year, if not what are your 'averages"? It is not possible for me to debate what you claim the average is unless you discribe in better detail with backup data what you mean by the word 'average'.

Even if the source of the knowing remains without a title it still exists because the evidence of that is that I knew. Just like another poster somehow knew in essence what a witten in that cookie before looking inside of it. When in fact it could have said a number of different things and the odds are she could have made a wrong guess, I do not think that person was just guessing, but we cannot discount the idea of a lucky guess. But what is the scientific proof for 'luck'? Are you claiming that I used a "good luck charm" and if so - prove that such is possible.

You must get serious about disproving the proof.

Duplicating the experiment. Don't push because I might just do that. But even if I did so you would still find a reason to reject the "potential" theory. However it is possible for anyone who has not blocked out that source of knowing to test this theory in their everyday life. To determine if faith in such a knowing (beleif) is dependable. So that they can better develope their spititual sensitivities to the communcaitonal networks happening in nature. If you only have faith in what other people teach you and do not have faith in your own individual knowing ability then you could not duplicate this formula with any degree of success because you would not have the tools to use for such a experiment.

For example: I cannot duplicate the theory of the Big Bang because I do not have the skills in physics to do so, which tools I would need to duplicate the theory. If you lack faith (as discribed) then you do not have the skills to duplicate my potential theory.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul One of the rules established by debators is that the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Not on those who later claim the claim is false. But what odds are you speaking about? You are using the stats that x amount of earthquakes happen yearly in the 6.0 to 7.0 magnitude range. Based on the odds you employ you are correct.

How nice that you admit your error.

But I made it clear I was not just predicting your average run-of-the-mill earthquake.

No you didn't.

In my test the two quakes also had to result in a major news story.

But you didn't define what was meant by a "major news story".

Such a news story would mean that "live news coverage" would report on the situation as rescue people would look for surviving people and where they would show images of the damage caused.

But you didn't say that. How can you claim a prediction when you only define what you mean after the fact?

Such as they did with the quake activated cave in at the Utah mine and the at the 8.0 quake in Preu.

But you didn't predict either quake. Why didn't you warn the miners so that they might have been saved? You claim to have predicted it. Besides, the Utah quake wasn't a major quake by any stretch. It was only about 4.0. Such quakes are rarely detectable by anything other than seismic instruments. You predicted major quakes and now move the goal posts to claim that you predicted major news stories rather than quakes.

So what are the odds of that?

But you didn't predict either quake. You only predicted that quakes were going to happen. The odds against you were actually quite small.

How many times a year do we see news coverage of deadly quakes happening somewhere in the world?

You don't watch the news much, do you? Of course, you didn't predict deadly quakes. You just keep moving the goalposts.

On that we base the 'odds'.

And your odds were really quite good for your ambiguous "prediction" given that you could search the news after the fact and claim victory.

Do we have in fact an average of two major news stories per month on average during a year, for a total of 24 major news stories about earthquakes?

But you didn't define what you meant by major news story. You claimed major earthquakes that resulted in "major" news stories. While the Utah mine story may have been major, the quake wasn't.

Do we even have an average of 12 big news coverages of deadly quakes happening each year where two quakes happen less then 30 days apart?

I think so.

I don't think so.

But, you don't actually watch the news, do you.

If you wish to disprove this by claiming the odds were in my favor then show me a list of all the famous "news stories" about deadly quakes that happened for the past two years.

But you are making the assertion. Why don't you show us how all of the quake stories in the news support your claim.

Has CNN, ABC news, CBS news, covered big earthquake events on an average of 24 of them per year, if not what are your 'averages"?

But that's not what you "predicted". Are you again moving the goal posts? I don't know. But on the other hand, I am not making an assertion. You are. If we are to believe that you are presenting anything more than poppycock, then you need to do the statistical analysis and present it with your conclusions. Your claims without the math are meaningless. Can you actually do the math?

It is not possible for me to debate what you claim the average is unless you discribe [sic] in better detail with backup data what you mean by the word 'average'.

So you see our problem with your failure to define what you meant. Your so called prediction was so general as to be meaningless. You didn't define what you meant by a "major" quake, or what you meant by a "major" news story.

By the way, it rained a trace in my back yard on Wednesday. However, the 3 inches that you predicted would happen over 4 days (Thurs - Sun) didn't happen. Not a drop.

Even if the source of the knowing remains without a title it still exists because the evidence of that is that I knew.

I see. So the evidence that your are delusional is that I just know. Good point. It just came to me out of the blue.

Just like another poster somehow knew in essence what a witten in that cookie before looking inside of it.

What does "witten" mean?

When in fact it could have said a number of different things and the odds are she could have made a wrong guess, I do not think that person was just guessing, but we cannot discount the idea of a lucky guess.

Now you are showing how gullible you are. I have also "predicted" a fortune cookie message on more than one occasion. All that is required is that one eat in a Chinese restaurant from time to time. To predict a fortune cookie is actually more amazing than what you claim to have done.

But what is the scientific proof for 'luck'? Are you claiming that I used a "good luck charm" and if so - prove that such is possible.

What are you talking about?

You must get serious about disproving the proof.

As you stated previously, the obligation is yours. I see no "proof" that you have offered. I did see that you made a "prediction" that was a sure thing and then clamped on to events after the fact.

Duplicating the experiment. Don't push because I might just do that.

Bull roar. Do so or shut up. This time, actually predict the when, and where of the event to the extent that you will be unable to claim success.

But even if I did so you would still find a reason to reject the "potential" theory.

Most certainly. Do you actually know what a theory is? I'm talking science, you know.

However it is possible for anyone who has not blocked out that source of knowing to test this theory in their everyday life.

Explain how it is a theory. Please explain in a manner that can be tested this source of knowledge.

To determine if faith in such a knowing (beleif [sic]) is dependable.

But faith is belief without evidence.

So that they can better develope [sic] their spititual [sic]sensitivities to the communcaitonal [sic] networks happening in nature.

Gobble gobble gooble cluck cluck. Please explain how your statement is more meaningful than my response. What do the words "develope", "spititual", and "communcaitonal" mean?

If you only have faith in what other people teach you and do not have faith in your own individual knowing ability then you could not duplicate this formula with any degree of success because you would not have the tools to use for such a experiment.

Do you know what a formula is? As I explained before, "belief + faith (belief without knowledge) = knowledge" isn't a formula. It isn't even rational. It is nonsense.

For example: I cannot duplicate the theory of the Big Bang because I do not have the skills in physics to do so, which tools I would need to duplicate the theory.

That's not only obvious, it's meaningless. What does it mean to "duplicate a theory?"

If you lack faith (as discribed [sic]) then you do not have the skills to duplicate my potential theory.

Get real. (By the way, it is spelled "described".)

Actually, what you are saying is that your theory isn't a theory. Scientific theories don't require faith. Nevertheless, I understand quite clearly what you are saying, and because you are unable to provide a shred of evidence to support you assertion, I reject it as nonsense.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo How nice that you admit your error. No you didn't. But you didn't define what was meant by a "major news story". But you didn't say that. How can you claim a prediction when you only define what you mean after the fact? But you didn't predict either quake. Why didn't you warn the miners so that they might have been saved? You claim to have predicted it. Besides, the Utah quake wasn't a major quake by any stretch. It was only about 4.0. Such quakes are rarely detectable by anything other than seismic instruments. You predicted major quakes and now move the goal posts to claim that you predicted major news stories rather than quakes. But you didn't predict either quake. You only predicted that quakes were going to happen. The odds against you were actually quite small. You don't watch the news much, do you? Of course, you didn't predict deadly quakes. You just keep moving the goalposts. And your odds were really quite good for your ambiguous "prediction" given that you could search the news after the fact and claim victory. But you didn't define what you meant by major news story. You claimed major earthquakes that resulted in "major" news stories. While the Utah mine story may have been major, the quake wasn't. I think so. But, you don't actually watch the news, do you. But you are making the assertion. Why don't you show us how all of the quake stories in the news support your claim. But that's not what you "predicted". Are you again moving the goal posts? I don't know. But on the other hand, I am not making an assertion. You are. If we are to believe that you are presenting anything more than poppycock, then you need to do the statistical analysis and present it with your conclusions. Your claims without the math are meaningless. Can you actually do the math? So you see our problem with your failure to define what you meant. Your so called prediction was so general as to be meaningless. You didn't define what you meant by a "major" quake, or what you meant by a "major" news story. By the way, it rained a trace in my back yard on Wednesday. However, the 3 inches that you predicted would happen over 4 days (Thurs - Sun) didn't happen. Not a drop. I see. So the evidence that your are delusional is that I just know. Good point. It just came to me out of the blue. What does "witten" mean? Now you are showing how gullible you are. I have also "predicted" a fortune cookie message on more than one occasion. All that is required is that one eat in a Chinese restaurant from time to time. To predict a fortune cookie is actually more amazing than what you claim to have done. What are you talking about? As you stated previously, the obligation is yours. I see no "proof" that you have offered. I did see that you made a "prediction" that was a sure thing and then clamped on to events after the fact. Bull roar. Do so or shut up. This time, actually predict the when, and where of the event to the extent that you will be unable to claim success. Most certainly. Do you actually know what a theory is? I'm talking science, you know. Explain how it is a theory. Please explain in a manner that can be tested this source of knowledge. But faith is belief without evidence. Gobble gobble gooble cluck cluck. Please explain how your statement is more meaningful than my response. What do the words "develope", "spititual", and "communcaitonal" mean? Do you know what a formula is? As I explained before, "belief + faith (belief without knowledge) = knowledge" isn't a formula. It isn't even rational. It is nonsense. That's not only obvious, it's meaningless. What does it mean to "duplicate a theory?" Get real. (By the way, it is spelled "described".) Actually, what you are saying is that your theory isn't a theory. Scientific theories don't require faith. Nevertheless, I understand quite clearly what you are saying, and because you are unable to provide a shred of evidence to support you assertion, I reject it as nonsense.

You claim that this potential theory is false because I kept changing the bar, frist predicting two major earthquakes and then later explaining or discribing what I mean by "major". The reason is that I was answering questions people had about that term later on in the thread. I did not change the basics only elaborated on terms to create a clearer understanding of the test. Answering those questions or doubts did not change the basics of the test. And with those explainations I did not lower the bar but acturally raised the bar (not after but before the two events took place).

I did not require anyone to 'have faith' to believe in the results of the test.
It was a test about faith not a test that required faith form objective reviewers.

I do not use predictions to save people - you will need to go to church for that and good luck.

The Utah quake was major compared to any other "man caused quake" that I know of. (in answer to your question). Not major compared to what nature can do, but pretty strong and rare compared to human made quakes. Hey, they dug a lot of mines and caused a mountain to have a 4 magnitude tembler that killed lots of people. That is a major incident in human history.

Written means the same thing as writen if you are smart enough to know a typo when you see one.