🚀 go-pugleaf

|-|ercules wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote
>>
>>> If you think I didn't demonstrate some aspect of mind reading then
>>> say so,
>>
>> I have said so. How clearly is it possible to state that when you 
>> offered "... just tell me a page number and line number and I'll read 
>> out what you are thinking about from my book", and I gave you a
>> page and line number, your inability to tell me what I was thinking
>> about is a failure to demonstrate mind reading? It was you who said
>> what you were going to do, and it was you who failed to do it.
>
> The question above was about SOME aspect of mind reading demonstrated,

What "question"? You offered to "read out what you are thinking about", 
which would be a demonstration of an aspect of mind reading, if you had 
actually done so.

> which you initially indicated YES,

Where, and in what sense? I went along with the conditions you proposed, 
in that I provided a page number and a line number. I will not be 
commenting on what I was thinking about until after you fulfil the last 
part of your offer and tell me what I was thinking about, for fairly 
obvious reasons.

> you above answer is about a
> SPECIFIC type of mind reading being demonstrated.

My point above is that you did not do the thing that you sad you would 
do (which, by saying you would do, implied you could do, and where not 
doing so implies that you cannot do it). Expecting people to actually do 
what they say they will do is not specific to sceptics; even the very 
gullible will expect people to do what they say they will do (indeed 
probably more so that sceptics, except that the gullible may be easier 
to convince that something that has not been done actually has ben 
done).

> The keyword here is DEMONSTRATION.

You certainly demonstrated a failure to do what you offered to do.

>> those things are paranormal). Sylvia's formulation; "an ability to 
>> channel responses that have a better than random correlation with
>> the questions" is only 15 words, it excludes much that you
>> demonstrably are
>
> GREAT!  You are useful after all as requested.
>
> Although most skeptics will call THAT gibberish too as it doesn't
> even say WHAT YOU CAN DO or HOW IT IS DONE.

It won't take much modification to pin down what "channel" means in 
practice.

> I said "so that a blind control could tell which answer was my
> channeled answer",

If you are claiming nothing more than a better than random correlation 
there will need to be sufficient data for the results to be 
statistically valid. It is unlikely that a single "blind control" could 
provide that.

> same thing, and I GAVE EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS.

The nature of the questions does not have to be relevant to a test of a 
better than random correlation (After all, we have long since determined 
that getting 'correct' answers is beyond your capability).

> The A.S. CEO cited my example to the police as evidence I was crazy.

Didn't you use being crazy as either a defence or in mitigation?

>> But it is a claim to be able to something that you cannot do.
>
> Can you drive?

Not via Usenet.