🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30/09/2010 6:12 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 30/09/2010 5:42 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "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.
>>>
>> Herc, you don't provide answers.
>
>
> huh? I've stated Ask me any question you are interested in
> 200 times.

Yes, I can ask you questions, and sometimes you can tell me which 
question I asked, but you still don't actually give answers. That 
doesn't affect the validity of the test protocol, but it does limit the 
usefulness of the power, even if it actually exists.
>
>>
>> By your own admission you cannot even figure out which question of
>> three is being answered with any degree of certainty.
>
>
> That is a specific piece of data which I can and am working out.

I don't know what you mean by that.

>
> You're only test of my infinite knowledge is trivial meaningless data
> you already know or can find out.
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> That has the character of a test protocol, but in order to make sense
>> of your question, I have to construe it as a description of a
>> paranormal power, and your question to be whether it is possible to
>> test for that power.
>
> huh? The subject is Paranormal Claim.
>
>
>
>>
>> Since there is no objective way of determining whether the idea in
>> each trial was of interest, the test would not be for the specific
>> power claimed. Instead, a positive result would be evidence for the
>> existence of an encompassing power that did not include the "interest"
>> requirement. So it would test for paranormal powers, just not your
>> particular one.
>
>
> Rephrase "tell me an idea that you (declare to) find interesting", using
> at least a dozen members of public as volunteers.

That doesn't change anything. The test protocol is still not sensitive 
to whether the volunteers are actually interested.

>
> Then the claim to read minds could be tested right? There is a possibility
> many of the volunteers will cheat, in which the test may give a false
> negative,
> which is of little concern since the potential to prove a paranormal power
> should it exist as I think it does, is evident.

If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is 
something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power 
does not, or at least might not, work if people make false declarations, 
with the result that the protocol would still not be testing for your power.

Sylvia.