🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18/09/2010 3:58 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:47 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>  wrote:
>> On 18/09/2010 2:38 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Richard Cornford"<Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>  wrote ...
>>>> |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> Peter Bowditch wrote
>>>>>> A question was stated. You claimed to be able to "get an
>>>>>> answer from God from random quotes of information". You
>>>>>> did not say that the answer would be in any book, but that
>>>>>> it would come "from God from random quotes of information".
>>>>>> You offered no random quotes. Therefore you offered no
>>>>>> answers. Therefore you failed a preliminary test and
>>>>>> nothing further needed to be done.
>>
>>>>> For your FINAL test you have to break 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>
>>>>> Not sure what your preliminary requirement is but JREF
>>>>> is just 1000:1 odds.
>>
>>>>> I.e. to pass a preliminary all I have to do is roll a 6 on
>>>>> a dice 4 times.
>>
>>>>> To guess Barry's questions right, it would be equivalent of
>>>>> selecting one single atom out of every atom in the Universe,
>>>>> such are the odds.
>>
>>>>> Which is harder?
>>
>>>> Your assessment of odds seems very arbitrary. The total number of
>>>> words in all the languages spoken by humans is going to be far fewer
>>>> than the number of atoms in the universes. If you are asked for 10
>>>> names they will come from the total set of words.
>>
>>> I would still have to do 30 THIRTY correct channels running and the odds
>>> are in the realm of Avagadaros number squared : 1 to be correct.
>>
>>> I stated I get the answers from quotes, all skeptics assume any mention
>>> of 'psychic' means they can ask for lotto numbers or fail.
>>
>>>> Your problem here mostly stems from your inability to formulate your
>>>> claim such that it precisely describes what it is that you think you
>>>> can do. If you make the unqualified assertion that you can answer
>>>> questions then you can expect the testing of that assertion to be
>>>> cantered around the asking of questions, where the failure to answer
>>>> will be taken as failing the test.
>>
>>>> The odds of correctly answering the questions does not come into it,
>>>> until or unless you qualify your claim in such a way as to exclude
>>>> questions where the odds of guessing the answer are too long, or where
>>>> the odds are anything but meaningless (if the latter is what you
>>>> actually want).
>>
>>>> For example, if you qualified your claim such that "for any question
>>>> where the accuracy of any response is undeterminable (such as a
>>>> 'should I do ... ?' question, where it is not possible to compare the
>>>> consequences of 'doing' with those of 'not doing' as it is never
>>>> possible to do both) you can generate a response, where if that
>>>> response were inserted into a list of, say, 9 random quotes (genuinely
>>>> randomly generated) from the same book, a minimum of 90% of ordinary
>>>> humans would be able to pick out the psychically generated response
>>>> from that list as the most apt/appropriate response to the question",
>>>> then such a formulation would not be tested with questions that you
>>>> were expected to accurately answer. Indeed test protocols for such a
>>>> claim should be fairly easy to devise, and many of them would be
>>>> completely acceptable 'sceptic organisations'.
>>
>>>> It is the vague claims that encompass things that you clearly are not
>>>> capable of doing, such as 'answering questions' or 'reading minds',
>>>> that are going to leave you running around in circles not being taken
>>>> seriously by anyone.
>>
>>>> If you win a paranormal prize by being able to do what you say you can
>>>> do (where what you say you can do would be paranormal) then it seems
>>>> like a good idea to be very precise about what it is exactly you are
>>>> saying you can do.
>>
>>> There is a CLAIM, and then there is a mutually worked together test
>>> protocol
>>> which details all the specifications and limits of the claim.
>>
>>> I've designed 10 TEN test protocols on my own, 2 to Sylvia's satisfaction
>>> but skeptics ignore them.
>>
>> I remember one. Not sure about two. But it doesn't matter. You want to
>> go directly from inventing a reasonable test protocol to consuming the
>> time and effort of skeptics organisation members when those people could
>> reasonably anticipate that you will fail and be a complete waste of
>> their resources.
>>
>> The next step after devising a protocol is to show that you can succeed
>> with it. Only when you have credible third parties who support your
>> claim can you expect skeptics organisations to take notice. In the case
>> of JREF, you're also required to have a media presence.
>>
>>> They ask for lotto numbers instead.
>>
>> Some do. I've yet to see the proposed answers to BigLN's questions and
>> the MD5 hash of the video in which those answers were produced.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> Remember Les and I broke 11:1 odds by Les correctly correlating the
> answers
> to the questions.
>
> I posted the MD5 of the answer sheet, and the password to the video at
> popetoyou.com/psychictestvideo.zip

What was required was that you publish the MD5 of the video beore BigLN 
gave his answers. Without that, it's worthless.

>
> I think it was
> clocky dingo raven sylvia 314
>
> Here's the answer sheet, you can look up where I posted the MD5

Or I can not bother. You want to make a point, you post the required links.

Except that in the absence of the MD5 of the video, you have nothing.

Sylvia.