Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

So personal experience trumps empirical evidence unless you can see that empirical evidence with your own eyes?

This is one non-peer-reviewed study that makes a highly implausible claim. You can find single studies 'proving' all sorts of outlandish gak on the internet.

Like, for example, that one study that was never replicated that said it proved that telepathy is a thing that we are capable of creating with technology. Telepathy, that's completely outlandish gak you only see in bad sci-fi that ignores reality, right?

Here's what you see if you type "telepathic rats" into Google right now.

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=telepathic+rats

Isn't that the logic used by Creationists to deny that evolution is a thing?

If evolution would be backed only by one obscure study found on the internet, instead of, you know, hundreds of thousand studies and 150 years of data you might have a point.

And we're talking about the logic people use to deny evolution, not the amount of evidence backing evolution up.

By what mechanic would a shock-proof table change the randomness of a die roll? Why would Crimson need to separate his dice from other types of dice if he's only rolling a single type of dice (Chessex)?

Unless they actually would have a noticeable effect (for the latter, its a meaningless distinction, and I simply can't imagine how the former would modify the probability towards any particular result), I fail to see its relevance in the validity of his results.

Frankly, a non-shock-proof table is probably more rare in real life than whatever table Crimson used - validity in real life may well be in his method's favor, for all we know.

The number of dice rolled would be relevant, but not conclusive. His P value would be higher compared to the study you linked, which just means the other study's results are more likely to be true.

Regarding the Emperical vs Experience...

Empirical evidence only has weight when it is trusted, and AFAIK, the study you linked was never published in a peer-reviewed article, and so its trusthworthiness is limited by its source - the internet. People lie on the internet (though it would be pretty odd to lie on the 'net over something so petty... odd, but frankly not unusual).

That shouldn't be surprising - peer-review publishers are unlikely to be interested in publishing the probability results of a single batch of dice, so the weight given to that study is going to depend on how much you trust the source.

Pouncey, you clearly trust that source... but that's a subjective assessment in this case, and it isn't unreasonable to come to a different conclusion on that.

Evolution vs Creationism is an entirely different ball of wax - there are a bajillion peer-reviewed (aka far more reliably trusted) papers on the subject.

Pouncey, so you just blindly accept anything anyone in the internet claims as long as they label it as a study?

 Crimson wrote:
Pouncey, so you just blindly accept anything anyone in the internet claims as long as they label it as a study?

Why shouldn't I? You're not even willing to call your personal experiment a scientific study at all, and you're expecting to me to take it as valid when you're not offering as much evidence as the other one, where the guy says he phoned up a fairly well-known casino asking them to confirm his results (which they did) and asked a physicist friend for an explanation (which the physicist started out by trying to replicate his results since he thought something was wrong with the study due to his intuition saying that if they were unbalanced like that, 6s should be more likely than 1s, then looked at the physics of dice rolls and basically said the physics were in-line with what was happening in the study because the centrifugal force probably is more important than the mass of the die).

Why do you think casinos use expensive dice that are geometrically perfect instead of cheap, plentiful Chessex dice if the two were just as good as each other?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
By what mechanic would a shock-proof table change the randomness of a die roll? Why would Crimson need to separate his dice from other types of dice if he's only rolling a single type of dice (Chessex)?

Unless they actually would have a noticeable effect (for the latter, its a meaningless distinction, and I simply can't imagine how the former would modify the probability towards any particular result), I fail to see its relevance in the validity of his results.

Frankly, a non-shock-proof table is probably more rare in real life than whatever table Crimson used - validity in real life may well be in his method's favor, for all we know.

The number of dice rolled would be relevant, but not conclusive. His P value would be higher compared to the study you linked, which just means the other study's results are more likely to be true.

Regarding the Emperical vs Experience...

Empirical evidence only has weight when it is trusted, and AFAIK, the study you linked was never published in a peer-reviewed article, and so its trusthworthiness is limited by its source - the internet. People lie on the internet (though it would be pretty odd to lie on the 'net over something so petty... odd, but frankly not unusual).

That shouldn't be surprising - peer-review publishers are unlikely to be interested in publishing the probability results of a single batch of dice, so the weight given to that study is going to depend on how much you trust the source.

Pouncey, you clearly trust that source... but that's a subjective assessment in this case, and it isn't unreasonable to come to a different conclusion on that.

Evolution vs Creationism is an entirely different ball of wax - there are a bajillion peer-reviewed (aka far more reliably trusted) papers on the subject.

The Internet. Completely untrustworthy, and also the exact thing we're using to have this conversation right now. Literally everything you have ever read on DakkaDakka is something you read on the Internet.

 Pouncey wrote:

Why shouldn't I?

The results of the study are pretty incredible and anyone can test themselves whether their dice behave like this test claims (mine certainly don't.)
Furthermore, there is a clear motive for this to be a hoax, the aricle directly links to a store selling 'perfect dice.' (Not saying that this necessarily is a hoax rather just an experiment with some systemic flaw, but that possibility certainly comes to mind.)

Why do you think casinos use expensive dice that are geometrically perfect instead of cheap, plentiful Chessex dice if the two were just as good as each other?

I am sure the casino dice are indeed better balanced. However, a massive systematic imbalance that would favour one specific number that much is highly implausible.
(The cheap dice have air bubbles and other such imbalances, however, such imbalances are random and would not favour the same number on every die.)

 Pouncey wrote:


The Internet. Completely untrustworthy, and also the exact thing we're using to have this conversation right now. Literally everything you have ever read on DakkaDakka is something you read on the Internet.

Not completely untrustworthy, just mostly untrustworthy. That includes what you read on DakkaDakka, particularly given its status as an anonymous forum where there is no underlying mechanic to distinguish posters who state only what they know and only state those things correctly, and posters who do not.

Frankly, I'm not entirely adverse to believing the study you linked (I'm unconvinced, but leaning slightly towards the study being legitimate - my hangups are the extraordinary nature of the claim and the oddity of someone using their underling's time and efforts to roll dice rather than work on their real projects), I'm just trying to remind you of the undeniable limitations of placing your trust on unreliable sources of information, internet included.

Oh, and the thread linked to the article is worth checking as well:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210178.page

Several people noted the possible flaws in the study and posted their own results which contradict the study.

 Crimson wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Why shouldn't I?

The results of the study are pretty incredible and anyone can test themselves whether their dice behave like this test claims (mine certainly don't.)
Furthermore, there is a clear motive for this to be a hoax, the aricle directly links to a store selling 'perfect dice.' (Not saying that this necessarily is a hoax rather just an experiment with some systemic flaw, but that possibility certainly comes to mind.)

Personally, I have GW dice that I am so strongly convinced roll way more 1s than they should that I invented the concept of "ballast dice" because when I roll them one at a time they seem to roll lots of 1s, but when I roll them with a handful of other dice they seem to roll just fine.

Why do you think casinos use expensive dice that are geometrically perfect instead of cheap, plentiful Chessex dice if the two were just as good as each other?

I am sure the casino dice are indeed better balanced. However, a massive systematic imbalance that would favour one specific number that much is highly implausible.
(The cheap dice have air bubbles and other such imbalances, however, such imbalances are random and would not favour the same number on every die.)

Things that are also implausible yet true:
Telepathy is a thing that exists in real life. The scientific community accepts it and the US military believes it strongly enough they're developing strategies for using telepathic rats for military purposes they intend to be using in the near future.
A human being exists who can withstand cold temperatures enough to climb Mt. Everest wearing shorts and sandals and nothing else because he can mentally regulate his own body temperature.
A human being exists who is so naturally perfectly suited for long-distance running that he can keep up a decent pace and never get tired, and proceeds to win any marathon he participates in, including a 30-day period where he runs a marathon each day and wins all of them.
A human being exists who can cut BB pellets in half with a sword when they're fired at him, has done so in a laboratory environment in front of actual scientists, whose explanation for how he can do it is basically, "intuition."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Oh, and the thread linked to the article is worth checking as well:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210178.page

Several people noted the possible flaws in the study and posted their own results which contradict the study.

One of the flaws in the study is that you would never roll dice 1 at a time in an actual game.

You know what I do as a Sisters of Battle player to roll dice 1 at a time? Determine the number of shots my Exorcist gets. Fire my Battle Sisters Squad's only Meltagun at a tank. Roll to see if my Act of Faith goes off or not.

You know, important things like that that happen all the time.

So basically you found an article about a study that confirms your dislike of 40K dice and the game in general, thus already supporting your bias to believe this study as fact. though out the thread you not once link to the article you are lauding as the "ultimate indictment of 40k", the poster questioning the article had to go dig it up.

Another guy comes in saying he ran a more or less "real world scenario" throwing dice on the table and letting them fall as the would in an actual game, probably on an actual game table. The response then asks whether he rolled in a VERY controlled environment with a super specific set of rules and regulations. while it's true "scientific testing" should have set goals and be done in a somewhat controlled area, to many restrictions and control can skew your results in a certain direction.

yeah sounds like a pretty easy case of Bias to me.
Also telepathy isn't real, your brain does not "rain man out" while the dice fall while your eyes are closed. you don't have special precognitive dice abilities.

also and addendum, i keep hearing about these GW fanboys that flock to shut dissent and negative chatter down but i never see them on this website or much anyplace else really. Starting to think people here just want a "i hate GW echo chamber" when really the game is pretty fun to play if you aren't already a curmudgeon

die toten hosen wrote:
So basically you found an article about a study that confirms your dislike of 40K dice and the game in general, thus already supporting your bias to believe this study as fact. though out the thread you not once link to the article you are lauding as the "ultimate indictment of 40k", the poster questioning the article had to go dig it up.

Uhh, I did link to it. Someone asked me to show it to them, I linked it.

Also, the study isn't what I'm referring to in the title. What I'm referring to in the title is what the guy at my local store told me when I was trying to buy new dice because of what I read in the study.

The "Ultimate Condemnation of WH40k's Rules" I talk about in my first post is that a wargaming store owner told me not to buy new dice because, and this is something very close to verbatim,

"If you're playing WH40k, you're not the kind of person who cares enough about balance to need fair dice."

The only way the study figures into this is that it's the only reason I set out to buy those fair dice in the first place.

Another guy comes in saying he ran a more or less "real world scenario" throwing dice on the table and letting them fall as the would in an actual game, probably on an actual game table. The response then asks whether he rolled in a VERY controlled environment with a super specific set of rules and regulations. while it's true "scientific testing" should have set goals and be done in a somewhat controlled area, to many restrictions and control can skew your results in a certain direction.

yeah sounds like a pretty easy case of Bias to me.

You know, it's possible that both results are actually true. The physics of rolling many dice at once might make the outcome more even than rolling one at a time.

Personally, my concept of ballast dice would require that rolling dice one at a time results in a ton of extra ones, and rolling many dice at once results in a fairly even distribution of results.

And since one of the flaws pointed out with the study is that you'd roll a ton of dice at once, instead of just one, even the critics of the study believe that's true.

Also telepathy isn't real, your brain does not "rain man out" while the dice fall while your eyes are closed. you don't have special precognitive dice abilities.

Type "telepathic rats" into Google right now.

Yes, telepathy is real.

also and addendum, i keep hearing about these GW fanboys that flock to shut dissent and negative chatter down but i never see them on this website or much anyplace else really. Starting to think people here just want a "i hate GW echo chamber" when really the game is pretty fun to play if you aren't already a curmudgeon

You mean apart from the fact I've been alone in this thread arguing with multiple people supporting the idea that GW dice are fair?

"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
So basically you found an article about a study that confirms your dislike of 40K dice and the game in general, thus already supporting your bias to believe this study as fact. though out the thread you not once link to the article you are lauding as the "ultimate indictment of 40k", the poster questioning the article had to go dig it up.

Uhh, I did link to it. Someone asked me to show it to them, I linked it.

Also, the study isn't what I'm referring to in the title. What I'm referring to in the title is what the guy at my local store told me when I was trying to buy new dice because of what I read in the study.

The "Ultimate Condemnation of WH40k's Rules" I talk about in my first post is that a wargaming store owner told me not to buy new dice because, and this is something very close to verbatim,

"If you're playing WH40k, you're not the kind of person who cares enough about balance to need fair dice."

The only way the study figures into this is that it's the only reason I set out to buy those fair dice in the first place.

Another guy comes in saying he ran a more or less "real world scenario" throwing dice on the table and letting them fall as the would in an actual game, probably on an actual game table. The response then asks whether he rolled in a VERY controlled environment with a super specific set of rules and regulations. while it's true "scientific testing" should have set goals and be done in a somewhat controlled area, to many restrictions and control can skew your results in a certain direction.

yeah sounds like a pretty easy case of Bias to me.

You know, it's possible that both results are actually true. The physics of rolling many dice at once might make the outcome more even than rolling one at a time.

Personally, my concept of ballast dice would require that rolling dice one at a time results in a ton of extra ones, and rolling many dice at once results in a fairly even distribution of results.

And since one of the flaws pointed out with the study is that you'd roll a ton of dice at once, instead of just one, even the critics of the study believe that's true.

Also telepathy isn't real, your brain does not "rain man out" while the dice fall while your eyes are closed. you don't have special precognitive dice abilities.

Type "telepathic rats" into Google right now.

Yes, telepathy is real.

also and addendum, i keep hearing about these GW fanboys that flock to shut dissent and negative chatter down but i never see them on this website or much anyplace else really. Starting to think people here just want a "i hate GW echo chamber" when really the game is pretty fun to play if you aren't already a curmudgeon

You mean apart from the fact I've been alone in this thread arguing with multiple people supporting the idea that GW dice are fair?

Yeah i'm not gonna google telepathic rats.

Im also willing to bet that the people arguing with you aren't doing so because they're "fanboys" but because they just don't agree with the study your supporting OR don't generally care enough.

On the topic of the GW clerk saying "dont buy my product" and bashing his own employer, thats a whole different thing all together. I work at a non affiliated games store that sells GW product and i would have been fired ASAP if i said anything that could possibly deter a customer from buying Let alone was also an insult. IIRC you did end up buying product .

The "telepathic" rats are rats fitted with electrodes that directly connect to each other through wires. Rats are "reading each others thoughts" insofar as they correlate a specific neuron-firing pattern with a treat-from-a-lever.

That's not terribly implausible, really - that's barely cutting edge technology. It's very similar to a "thought-controlled" gaming system controller which first associated certain neural patterns with particular abilities, then allowed you to use those abilities if you were able to recreate that neural pattern.

It's also a far cry from what most people think about when it comes to telepathy (particularly the one the Military looked into and eventually abandoned as ineffectual and unreliable), though it may well fit a technical definition of it.


I personally don't have a firm belief on whether GW dice are accurate or not. My issue with your assertion, insofar as I do have an issue, is your understanding of what observing probability entails and the trustworthiness of the sources you rely upon.

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:
Yeah i'm not gonna google telepathic rats.

Why not? What are you expecting to find that's so horrible that you're avoiding it?

Im also willing to bet that the people arguing with you aren't doing so because they're "fanboys" but because they just don't agree with the study your supporting OR don't generally care enough.

Meh. GW fanboys aren't something I even brought up.

On the topic of the GW clerk saying "dont buy my product" and bashing his own employer, thats a whole different thing all together. I work at a non affiliated games store that sells GW product and i would have been fired ASAP if i said anything that could possibly deter a customer from buying Let alone was also an insult. IIRC you did end up buying product .

This wasn't a guy at a GW store saying it. I went to an independent store that sells more non-GW stuff than it does GW stuff, because I wasn't looking for GW dice and GW stores only sell GW products. Also I'm pretty sure he was also the owner of the store, not just a desk clerk.

Also, yeah, I bought stuff, but if I'd bought what I came in for I'd've spent more money than I did, since the stuff he was telling me not to buy from him was more expensive than the stuff I bought without any prompt to do so from him. He was expecting that I'd walk out of there without buying anything.

Also, regardless of whether he was the owner or a clerk, some people put the idea of giving the customer the best product for their needs over making the most money possible.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
The "telepathic" rats are rats fitted with electrodes that directly connect to each other through wires. Rats are "reading each others thoughts" insofar as they correlate a specific neuron-firing pattern with a treat-from-a-lever.

That's not terribly implausible, really - that's barely cutting edge technology. It's very similar to a "thought-controlled" gaming system controller which first associated certain neural patterns with particular abilities, then allowed you to use those abilities if you were able to recreate that neural pattern.

It's also a far cry from what most people think about when it comes to telepathy (particularly the one the Military looked into and eventually abandoned as ineffectual and unreliable), though it may well fit a technical definition of it.


I personally don't have a firm belief on whether GW dice are accurate or not. My issue with your assertion, insofar as I do have an issue, is your understanding of what observing probability entails and the trustworthiness of the sources you rely upon.

Anyone who ever expected that if you were to create something everyone was calling telepathy using technology in real life, it would prove magic was real, probably didn't care much about the idea of science.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:
Yeah i'm not gonna google telepathic rats.

Why not? What are you expecting to find that's so horrible that you're avoiding it?

Im also willing to bet that the people arguing with you aren't doing so because they're "fanboys" but because they just don't agree with the study your supporting OR don't generally care enough.

Meh. GW fanboys aren't something I even brought up.

On the topic of the GW clerk saying "dont buy my product" and bashing his own employer, thats a whole different thing all together. I work at a non affiliated games store that sells GW product and i would have been fired ASAP if i said anything that could possibly deter a customer from buying Let alone was also an insult. IIRC you did end up buying product .

This wasn't a guy at a GW store saying it. I went to an independent store that sells more non-GW stuff than it does GW stuff, because I wasn't looking for GW dice and GW stores only sell GW products. Also I'm pretty sure he was also the owner of the store, not just a desk clerk.

Also, yeah, I bought stuff, but if I'd bought what I came in for I'd've spent more money than I did, since the stuff he was telling me not to buy from him was more expensive than the stuff I bought without any prompt to do so from him. He was expecting that I'd walk out of there without buying anything.

Also, regardless of whether he was the owner or a clerk, some people put the idea of giving the customer the best product for their needs over making the most money possible.

fanboys were brought up in the thread, not directly contributed to you.

Fair enough on the clerk but its not about doing one or the other when it comes to meeting the needs of a customer, its a balance.

The rat "study" didnt prove telepathy, it proved we could remove a wavelength from one rat and artificially put it in another rats head.

Like the other poster said "its like email"

die toten hosen wrote:
fanboys were brought up in the thread, not directly contributed to you.

Fair enough on the clerk but its not about doing one or the other when it comes to meeting the needs of a customer, its a balance.

The rat "study" didnt prove telepathy, it proved we could remove a wavelength from one rat and artificially put it in another rats head.

Like the other poster said "its like email"

What kind of process were you expecting any sort of scientifically-valid telepathy to involve?

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?


It's communication, but its not telepathy, which is what you presented it as.

die toten hosen wrote:
It's communication, but its not telepathy, which is what you presented it as.

I think you just misunderstand the concept of telepathy.

Like when the planet panicked over the revelation that the Large Hadron Collider could create black holes, while scientists working on the device were so unconcerned by the possibility they were probably going to be creating black holes that they didn't feel the need to hide that fact from anyone.

Also, the LHC probably has been creating black holes this whole time.

The people who freaked out just misunderstand the concept of black holes.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?

These are two separate points i have for why its not telepathy

1) The way the message is sent is no different then an e-mail, it's just the the kind of message is different (it's an electrical signal instead of written word)

2) The rats did not actively attempt to communicate with each other. A piece of technology sent a rat an answer based off of what the other rat did unbeknownst to either rat

Here is an analogy of what basically happened. Student A and Student B are taking a tests each in a separate room. Another person see's what Student A answered, took a note, walked into the other room and gave Student B the note. Whould you say that Student A telepathically communicated with Student B?

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
fanboys were brought up in the thread, not directly contributed to you.

Fair enough on the clerk but its not about doing one or the other when it comes to meeting the needs of a customer, its a balance.

The rat "study" didnt prove telepathy, it proved we could remove a wavelength from one rat and artificially put it in another rats head.

Like the other poster said "its like email"

What kind of process were you expecting any sort of scientifically-valid telepathy to involve?

Considering you're making posts and heavily alluding to your ability to influence dice and this study is your proof, i'd really hope it was actual telepathy.
It's not, you're moving the goal posts on your own argument and back peddling.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
It's communication, but its not telepathy, which is what you presented it as.

I think you just misunderstand the concept of telepathy.

Like when the planet panicked over the revelation that the Large Hadron Collider could create black holes, while scientists working on the device were so unconcerned by the possibility they were probably going to be creating black holes that they didn't feel the need to hide that fact from anyone.

Also, the LHC probably has been creating black holes this whole time.

The people who freaked out just misunderstand the concept of black holes.

This isn't even tangentially related. Black holes are a real thing, the LHC is a real thing, we can test and prove these things exist.
Telepathy does not exist, the rats were not telepathic, the study did not prove telepathy.

again, you're shifting your argument and back peddling.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?

These are two separate points i have for why its not telepathy

1) The way the message is sent is no different then an e-mail, it's just the the kind of message is different (it's an electrical signal instead of written word)

2) The rats did not actively attempt to communicate with each other. A piece of technology sent a rat an answer based off of what the other rat did unbeknownst to either rat

Here is an analogy of what basically happened. Student A and Student B are taking a tests each in a separate room. Another person see's what Student A answered, took a note, walked into the other room and gave Student B the note. Whould you say that Student A telepathically communicated with Student B?

No, because the communication there didn't involve any more mind-to-mind communication than one person writing a note and the other person reading it.

So basically the same amount of communication this post uses to convey that previous sentence to you.

If we were having this conversation the same way the thing the rats did happened, by having electrical impulses from each of our brains replicated in the other person's brain, so that this forum was unnecessary and we could just think things to each other, wouldn't you call that telepathy?

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?

These are two separate points i have for why its not telepathy

1) The way the message is sent is no different then an e-mail, it's just the the kind of message is different (it's an electrical signal instead of written word)

2) The rats did not actively attempt to communicate with each other. A piece of technology sent a rat an answer based off of what the other rat did unbeknownst to either rat

Here is an analogy of what basically happened. Student A and Student B are taking a tests each in a separate room. Another person see's what Student A answered, took a note, walked into the other room and gave Student B the note. Whould you say that Student A telepathically communicated with Student B?

No, because the communication there didn't involve any more mind-to-mind communication than one person writing a note and the other person reading it.

So basically the same amount of communication this post uses to convey that previous sentence to you.

If we were having this conversation the same way the thing the rats did happened, by having electrical impulses from each of our brains replicated in the other person's brain, so that this forum was unnecessary and we could just think things to each other, wouldn't you call that telepathy?

no.
Because it isn't telepathy. It is generally accepted that telepathy is direct mind to mind communication without outside assistance or interference.

NOT: we recorded a brainwave and played it in another rats brain. while pretty interesting on its own, it is not telepathy.

die toten hosen wrote:
Considering you're making posts and heavily alluding to your ability to influence dice and this study is your proof, i'd really hope it was actual telepathy.
It's not, you're moving the goal posts on your own argument and back peddling.

Huh? The one post I made about my apparent ability to influence dice is completely unrelated to the study. I never even said the study was proof of it whatsoever.

This isn't even tangentially related. Black holes are a real thing, the LHC is a real thing, we can test and prove these things exist.
Telepathy does not exist, the rats were not telepathic, the study did not prove telepathy.

again, you're shifting your argument and back peddling.

It's tangentially related because people misunderstand things like black holes in the same way you misunderstand how telepathy would work if it were scientifically proven. I'll give you a hint, real telepathy would not, and does not, involve anything that could be called magic in any sense. You just think it has to because everything you think you know about telepathy that's making you say this thing with the rats isn't telepathy comes from bad sci-fi. Just like how people's misunderstanding of black holes that made the world freak out over the LHC came from bad sci-fi.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
"telepathic rats" isn't proof of telepathy. They took an electrical signal from one rat and replicated it directly into another rat's brain. it's about the same as if I emailed you.

And by doing so, those two rats were able to communicate enough information with each other to solve a problem.

That's mind-to-mind communication.

Also known as telepathy.

They didn't do it consciously. How can you call it communication if they weren't actually aware that that was what was happening?

Your analogy to what was happening there was sending an e-mail to another person.

What are you doing with an e-mail that is not definable as communication?

These are two separate points i have for why its not telepathy

1) The way the message is sent is no different then an e-mail, it's just the the kind of message is different (it's an electrical signal instead of written word)

2) The rats did not actively attempt to communicate with each other. A piece of technology sent a rat an answer based off of what the other rat did unbeknownst to either rat

Here is an analogy of what basically happened. Student A and Student B are taking a tests each in a separate room. Another person see's what Student A answered, took a note, walked into the other room and gave Student B the note. Whould you say that Student A telepathically communicated with Student B?

No, because the communication there didn't involve any more mind-to-mind communication than one person writing a note and the other person reading it.

So basically the same amount of communication this post uses to convey that previous sentence to you.

If we were having this conversation the same way the thing the rats did happened, by having electrical impulses from each of our brains replicated in the other person's brain, so that this forum was unnecessary and we could just think things to each other, wouldn't you call that telepathy?

Nope. It's just hands free emailing

die toten hosen wrote:
no.
Because it isn't telepathy. It is generally accepted that telepathy is direct mind to mind communication without outside assistance or interference.

NOT: we recorded a brainwave and played it in another rats brain. while pretty interesting on its own, it is not telepathy.

Who exactly said it can't involve outside assistance or interference? Where did that idea ever come from?

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
Considering you're making posts and heavily alluding to your ability to influence dice and this study is your proof, i'd really hope it was actual telepathy.
It's not, you're moving the goal posts on your own argument and back peddling.

Huh? The one post I made about my apparent ability to influence dice is completely unrelated to the study. I never even said the study was proof of it whatsoever.

This isn't even tangentially related. Black holes are a real thing, the LHC is a real thing, we can test and prove these things exist.
Telepathy does not exist, the rats were not telepathic, the study did not prove telepathy.

again, you're shifting your argument and back peddling.

It's tangentially related because people misunderstand things like black holes in the same way you misunderstand how telepathy would work if it were scientifically proven. I'll give you a hint, real telepathy would not, and does not, involve anything that could be called magic in any sense. You just think it has to because everything you think you know about telepathy that's making you say this thing with the rats isn't telepathy comes from bad sci-fi. Just like how people's misunderstanding of black holes that made the world freak out over the LHC came from bad sci-fi.

i haven't brought up magic at all. I haven't brought up telepathy and magic as related in any way, this is you relating the two.

 malamis wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

 malamis wrote:

Do you really want to turn your dudesmen into Magic:The Gathering where everything is razor edge balanced against everything else, and the random chance factor is the only possible hope of winning even a slightly unfavorable matchup?

Is that how Chess works? No, skill is a factor that your false equivalence totally ignores.

Because Chess is even *remotely* comparable to 40k? You really want to compare a game with mutually identical armies to 40k, when, for example, Eldar can play with the equivalent of a board full of queens?

Hell even in Chess it's been long held that White starts with an advantage which is down to chance or pre-arranged preference.

Do you realise how completely contradictory your argument is? You said razor edge balance is bad and defended the status quo. Now you're complaining that Eldar are a "board full of queens".

Also yes, Chess is *remotely* comparable to 40k. Both are played on a board with models representing opposing forces. The objective is to defeat the opposing player on said board with said models.

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
no.
Because it isn't telepathy. It is generally accepted that telepathy is direct mind to mind communication without outside assistance or interference.

NOT: we recorded a brainwave and played it in another rats brain. while pretty interesting on its own, it is not telepathy.

Who exactly said it can't involve outside assistance or interference? Where did that idea ever come from?

It comes from the overall general opinion of telepathy.

noun
1.
communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception.

the rats in the study were implanted/hooked up to electrodes, seems pretty sensory based to me.