Ajna and Perception V unicorns and fairies Experiment

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#123

[QUOTE=YogiAdam;48983]I mean “is it a car” is pretty random in my opinion, and that could easily be a guess, so I’m not impressed… but I’m not that stubborn… the whole poles turning into tires on a racing car thing… now that’s a tad freaky lol :slight_smile:
Now, I’m a scientist and skeptic… so I’m not going to start just believing in stuff just cause I’m impressed by a lucky guess… maybe we should try it again to minimize the possibility of random chance :)[/QUOTE]

Nice one Kareng! I was waiting for conclusion of this “game”.

Adam, if you want to approach it from more scientific point of view, I guess we should assess probability of a random guess. Repeating whole test will not give any new information - it can always be happy guess. To assess probability, we would need a number of images that average person (or Kareng in our case) can generate. Is it 100, 1000 or 10000? Also, are there images that are often repeated? (e.g. dress, house, dog). But its not very feasible…

Now I recall that people testing such things use numbers. Its very easy to assess probability of a random guess. And if probability is below given threshold it is considered as not random (e.g. in clinical sciences is probability lower than 0.05 - but here it should be much lower I guess). Sad thing is that we can’t be 100% sure because it can always be a random guess.

#124

Thanks Pawel…xx if the item were something unusual surely that would be harder and lessen the chances of it being a guess?

#125

[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;48932]Weird. That’s exactly what I thought.[/QUOTE]

You should have joined in Flex…next time ok…

#126

[QUOTE=Pawel;48986]Nice one Kareng! I was waiting for conclusion of this “game”.

Adam, if you want to approach it from more scientific point of view, I guess we should assess probability of a random guess. Repeating whole test will not give any new information - it can always be happy guess. To assess probability, we would need a number of images that average person (or Kareng in our case) can generate. Is it 100, 1000 or 10000? Also, are there images that are often repeated? (e.g. dress, house, dog). But its not very feasible…

Now I recall that people testing such things use numbers. Its very easy to assess probability of a random guess. And if probability is below given threshold it is considered as not random (e.g. in clinical sciences is probability lower than 0.05 - but here it should be much lower I guess). Sad thing is that we can’t be 100% sure because it can always be a random guess.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’d have to agree there.

#127

[QUOTE=kareng;48988]Thanks Pawel…xx if the item were something unusual surely that would be harder and lessen the chances of it being a guess?[/QUOTE]

Yes. The probability that image shows e.g. a transparent, three legged bird is much smaller than image of a house. But anyway, “proper racing car” is unique enough to impress me!

#128

hahaha excitement…

#129

…come on Surya, I’m waiting…just dong my nails aw de da da…hum la la lah

#130

Y’all deserve a martini, shaken not stirred.

#131

[QUOTE=kareng;48981]WELL DONE SURYADAYA…You got it right…Ajna cookies are waiting…[/QUOTE]

Cookies for me!

#132

[QUOTE=suryadaya;49083]Cookies for me![/QUOTE]

yep cookies for you!!

#133

Namaste Kareng,

I am going to assume that there has been no collaboration between you and Yogiadam, as such a long time has elapsed since then and both of you have a personal scores to settle with me, so Yogiadam could have agreed to play along with your charade to undermine me. I am assuming this because I trust Yogiadam has not done this from his responses to you.

I am not very impressed with the result of the experiment, because your description of the target object was vague

One was a proper racing car??..this came up a few times in the sketches!!

The fact it was a racing car is impressive and I think that alone warrants further investigation, but it is far from conclusive. You did not describe the racing car and what it looked like, what colour was it, what designs did it have on it, what labels, what make was it(F1). Knowing Yogiadam’s testosterine-filled personality one can easily make an educated guess that the picture he selects could be a racing war, a buxxom blonde.

The amount of guesses you can make for what a taget could be are limited: a vehicle, a house, a landscape, a person. So it is not impressive that you said a racing car. You need to provide specific detail to isolate the details of the target.

I think we need to do another experiment and in this experiment you need to provide specific details. If you get the specific details correct only then will I accept it as conclusive.

I so far can explain this experiment as a “lucky guess”

#134

That’s the way the skeptics do, Kareng. They discount every possible thing you could have done right, and criticize that you didn’t do it the way THEY wanted you to do it.
It’s ok Surya, we weren’t trying to convince you. If you aren’t convinced, fine.
We had fun, and we know in ourselves what we “saw” or perceived and it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe.

Have a great day!

#135

Here is the original post by Kareng

…Didnt see any clues as to what it might have been using basic techniques. Did think extras like snow, water…but that s all.

So tried the making a sketch type…and had two…yeah, two…differing things

One was a proper racing car??..this came up a few times in the sketches!!

Other will have to be explained…I kept drawing same thing, if you imagine something curving to the right, say a road, or snow scene with upright post type of things (maybe trees?) one on each end of the road sides…or a platform thats oblong with a an upright post each corner…

The description is very vague and it contains a lot of info that is not present in the target: trees, snow, water, something curving to the right, like a road. The only part that is correct here is that it is a racing car. That alone is, as I said impressive, but it is not conclusive and would not be conclusive to any rational person.

In a scientific experiment we require controlled conditions to isolate variables so we can limit the number of explanations. The data that Kareng has provided can be explained as lucky guess because it simply too vague to mean anything. If she had identified several specific features of the object(F1 racing car, HSBC labels, colours) it would have been too specific to get by chance. I would have accepted it then.

If Kareng’s ability cannot give specific details then we need to conduct this experiment a few more times with different targets and see if Kareng gets those targets right consistently. Then it would be conclusivive.

I am taking Karen more seriously now considering the partial success of the first experiment.

#136

Thanks Joanna…

Surya…I anticipated every sentence you put.

So…

I would like to suggest that if David is in agreement, David is the holder of the next object which I would like you to choose. You email him the object and the code of my choice, laid out as I request and for the time I request… Then, like before, anyone can have a go.

Will this satisfy you Surya?

Dont forget SuryaDava and Flexpenguin… and Flexpenguin who I believe also has the ability from what I know of him so far.

#137

Yes.

In order to eliminate the possibility of guessing the kind of object I would select by my personality, I propose a double blind experiment where the object I select is chosen by a random process. I will select the object by putting into a random number generator a number between 1 and 500. I will then choose a random book and go to the page number in that book given by the random number and select at random a word from there(If the book does not have that number of pages, I will halve the random number) I will then find an image based on that random word online. I will e-mail this image to David.

By the way explain to me what you mean by a code of your choice and laid as you request?

#138

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49153]Here is the original post by Kareng

The description is very vague and it contains a lot of info that is not present in the target: trees, snow, water, something curving to the right, like a road. The only part that is correct here is that it is a racing car. That alone is, as I said impressive, but it is not conclusive and would not be conclusive to any rational person.

In a scientific experiment we require controlled conditions to isolate variables so we can limit the number of explanations. The data that Kareng has provided can be explained as lucky guess because it simply too vague to mean anything. If she had identified several specific features of the object(F1 racing car, HSBC labels, colours) it would have been too specific to get by chance. I would have accepted it then.

If Kareng’s ability cannot give specific details then we need to conduct this experiment a few more times with different targets and see if Kareng gets those targets right consistently. Then it would be conclusivive.

I am taking Karen more seriously now considering the partial success of the first experiment.[/QUOTE]

No Colour, no specific details…just a few pencil sketches that evolved into a racing car after focussing on the code and thinking what is the picture?..I did look visually but nothing…I did draw the racing car as a loose sketch. I don’t like the method of automated drawing even though it worked. There is too much doubt if its that or not… it becomes tedious. When you see the object, you are sure what you see. But I couldn’t see a thing, and then in a deeper meditation I saw a Mandala and later a moving scene of a Carriage and horses travelling fast round a bend…like a stagecoach. Anyway, I didn’t see a racing car.

I resorted to the drawing method as a last resort. But one thing is intuition plays a vital part in it. I didn’t think the Mandala or the stagecoach were the target, but I did think I was onto something with the drawing which at that stage was a shape with no wheels. The posts I drew became the wheels of the sports car…

#139

Just to clarify one term: “double blinded experiment” would mean that both parties are not aware of the content. SD would have to print 100 images, put them into envelopes and then pick just one that will be used in experiment.

#140

[QUOTE=Pawel;49166]Just to clarify one term: “double blinded experiment” would mean that both parties are not aware of the content. SD would have to print 100 images, put them into envelopes and then pick just one that will be used in experiment.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, that cannot be done in this experiment, because it is being done over the internet. So the best that I can do is randomly select the object and send it to David. The process of random selection by me eliminates the possibility of guessing what kind of object I would select.

#141

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;49158]Yes.

In order to eliminate the possibility of guessing the kind of object I would select by my personality, I propose a double blind experiment where the object I select is chosen by a random process. I will select the object by putting into a random number generator a number between 1 and 500. I will then choose a random book and go to the page number in that book given by the random number and select at random a word from there(If the book does not have that number of pages, I will halve the random number) I will then find an image based on that random word online. I will e-mail this image to David.

By the way explain to me what you mean by a code of your choice and laid as you request?[/QUOTE]

The code was written on an envelope that contained the picture.

This time can you arrange it so the code is written above the picture?
Type in deep black…

…hvks…

then the object.

Can I ask that it is a very clear object., A scene that is busy with lots of different things will be hard to do I think…So can you make it a specific object where anyone on just a glimpse would know what it is…yes?

The code must be lower case letters, easy to read, biggish, Ariel and placed in the centre near the top, ok?

#142

I’m curious to know what happens next. Did you do any more testing, Kareng?