🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>PB wrote
>>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>>
>> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.

He can see it, he doesn't bombard me with trivial pursuit knowledge.




> 
> And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to dictate 
> what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.

I can ask what your thoughts, motives, comprehension, ideas, plans are
and I get very accurate answers.

Take the set of all knowledge.

Subtract highly specific data - like the president's name
Subtract anything that is useless or already known.

What do you have left?  I know everything, you just can't ask a real
question without turning it into a game of Sale of the Century.


> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>
>> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
>> benchmark.
> 
> However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear (God 
> only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can introduce errors.


This is not a test of God, that's just a name of the spirit where I get my answers
and nothing to do with your preconceived notions of religion.

The original claim is to get intelligent responses or answers.

The second claim is to get them without even knowing your question.




> 
>>
>>>
>>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).
>>
>> So what?
> 
> Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3 
> over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.
> 
> Sylvia.


Syl, do YOU think www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 is testable for paranormal powers?


Herc