🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
>>> 
>>> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.
>>
>>
>>Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
>>exactly what is on your answer sheet.
>>
>>Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
>>for paranormal powers?
>>
>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
> 
> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
> of. Sorry, no cigar.


Huh?  That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.

You have to use a dozen volunteers anyway and I'm sure most of them
will follow the directions easily.

If you use a DATA ENTRY FORM then the first question is LOCKED IN
and I can't complain.

The page numbers are sent and the 2 dummy questions are posted later.

There is no confusion, I get it right or you mark me wrong.




> 
>>
>>It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>>the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>>
>>Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.
> 
> Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
> one.

God won't channel meaningless nonsense.



> 
>>
>>Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
> 
> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
> 
>>
>>I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
> 
> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
> 
> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.


I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time.  (only 50% higher than expected)

I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).

But I need to do some tests before I set a bench mark that high.








>>
>>THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.
>>
>>All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
>>so that my powers kick in!
> 
> So instead of Zenner cards you want unanswerable questions to which
> you will give vague "correlated" responses? Sorry, not falsifiable,
> therefore not testable.
> 


NO NO NO NO NO.

I select A, B or C.

I'm smart enough to interpret the word of God from bible quotes to any question
posed to him.

I work out what question you asked on page 1 from 3 options.  There is nothing
subjective to mark - there is just a little bit of intelligence on the English language
required ON MY PART.

Can you either think my protocol over a lot more carefully or get a competent 
statistician to advise you whether the claim could hold?


Herc