Flaws In The Challenge

[maatorc]

It is true that many cheats and criminals defraud the public for financial gain and notoriety. This is not limited to the so-called paranormal or psychic field, as is evidenced by the business, financial, and political worlds. But criminality is an aberration that does not in itself invalidate those spheres where it operates. Stage illusions, suggestive psychology, phony astrology, manipulative mediums, and the like, are not proof that all is illusion, suggestion, deception, and manipulation.

There appear to be serious flaws in the JREF challenge. My concerns are set out in the Argument.

Preamble To The Argument:

A. There is intentional tautology in the argument to permit reasonable brevity.
B. The challenge rules and FAQs are not the subject of the argument.
C All abilities or events covered by the challenge, by whatever name or description, for
convenience are here called 'psychical'
D. The principle put forward lies outside the challenge rules and FAQs.
E. Traditional skeptical practice of doubt and question is not the subject of the argument.
F. The argument is saying that the challenge relies on the undecidable premiss that psychical
reality can be materially demonstrated.
G. This premiss that psychical reality can be demonstrated by material reality is a necessary
universal fallacy.

The Argument:

1. The actual external world has no objective existence in the form in which we 'see' it.
2. Materiality is a 'reality', not an 'actuality'.
3. Materiality is not, therefore, the universally all-inclusive reality.
4. The everyday-world looks the way it does because the critical fusion frequency of the human eye permits us to form separate visual impressions only of scenes that replace each other at a definite limited rate.
5. Psychical realities are incommensurable with material realities or perceptions.
6. There is no known material means to measure psychical reality or events.
7. The JREF challenge is necessarily limited to material events that are currently outside orthodox scientific explanation.
8. A demonstration of an ability called psychical does not make it so: It may be inferred to be psychical from the demonstration, but it cannot be experientially measured or independently replicated by an observer.
9. Because material and psychical realities are logically and functionally incommensurable, the challenge has no relevance to any possible psychical event.
10. The challenge formal test can at best say: "… The claimant 'did this' or 'did that' as claimed…" It cannot from this say that what the claimant did is psychical.
11. The challenge is incapable of measurably distinguishing between a currently unknown material scientific law, an illusion, a trick, or any psychical reality.
12. The challenge will never demonstrate anything beyond currently unexplained material reality.
13. The test of reality is necessarily experiential, and by definition there exists no measurable material experience of any psychical reality.
14. The failure to recognize this principle of the incommensurability of material and psychical reality invalidates the challenge.

maatorc.

[Darat]

That is not an argument about a flaw in the challenge - its a statement of your faith.

[Darat]

For more expanded criticism of your faith and how it relates to the Challenge follow this link http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1759002#post1759002- it points to where you first made your statement of faith and the responses that followed.

[skoob]

1. What exactly are we talking about here? Can you give specific examples of what you mean by "psychical" abilities? Telepathy? Telekinesis? Dowsing?

2.
6. There is no known material means to measure psychical reality or events.OK. Are there other means of measuring psychical events?

3.
11. The challenge is incapable of measurably distinguishing between a currently unknown material scientific law, an illusion, a trick, or any psychical reality.That is of course true. Do you have any suggestions for how it would be possible to distinguish "material scientific law" from "psychical reality"?

4. What makes you believe that there is a "psychical reality" that is separate from real reality?

5. You don't happen to be a lawyer?

[maatorc]

That is not an argument about a flaw in the challenge - its a statement of your faith.
Darat -
What exactly do you mean by "your faith"?
My comments have nothing to do with any faith,
maatorc.

[maatorc]

1. What exactly are we talking about here? Can you give specific examples of what you mean by "psychical" abilities? Telepathy? Telekinesis? Dowsing?

Yes, they are examples, according to the JREF

2.
OK. Are there other means of measuring psychical events?
Personal experience only.
3.

That is of course true. Do you have any suggestions for how it would be possible to distinguish "material scientific law" from "psychical reality"?
They have no common means of measure.


4. What makes you believe that there is a "psychical reality" that is separate from real reality?
What do you mean by "real reality"?

5. You don't happen to be a lawyer?
Does it matter?


maatorc.

[Beady]

My comments have nothing to do with any faith.

Faith, Philosophy, whatever. You present several assertions as fact, without establishing their validity. Just one example:


"The actual external world has no objective existence in the form in which we 'see' it."

The short response to this is, "Prove it."

Your argument then proceeds from your network of unsupported premises. That's fine, in church, but the bar is a little higher in reality, however you perceive it.

[maatorc]

Faith, Philosophy, whatever. You present several assertions as fact, without establishing their validity. Just one example:


The short response to this is, "Prove it."

Your argument then proceeds from your network of unsupported premises. That's fine, in church, but the bar is a little higher in reality, however you perceive it.


Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

[Darat]

Darat -
What exactly do you mean by "your faith"?
My comments have nothing to do with any faith,
maatorc.


1. The actual external world has no objective existence in the form in which we 'see' it.
2. Materiality is a 'reality', not an 'actuality'.
3. Materiality is not, therefore, the universally all-inclusive reality.

[Curnir]

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

I take that to mean that you can't 'prove it'.

How should he "get real"and more importantly in what 'reality'?

[maatorc]

1. The actual external world has no objective existence in the form in which we 'see' it.
2. Materiality is a 'reality', not an 'actuality'.
3. Materiality is not, therefore, the universally all-inclusive reality.

Darat -
This has nothing to do with what you call faith.
These statements are so ontologically fundamental and essential, that I am amazed at your apparent unfamiliarity.
maatorc.

[Darat]

Darat -
This has nothing to do with what you call faith.
These statements are so ontologically fundamental and essential, that I am amazed at your apparent unfamiliarity.
maatorc.

I'm not unfamiliar with them however they are just an expression of the faith you have.

Also as has been pointed out to you before it is your understanding of the Challenge that is flawed not the Challenge.

[TobiasTheViking]

Darat -
This has nothing to do with what you call faith.
These statements are so ontologically fundamental and essential, that I am amazed at your apparent unfamiliarity.
maatorc.
those statements are also so totally without proof that i'm amazed that you use them as argumennts.

Tobias.

[Mojo]

That is of course true. Do you have any suggestions for how it would be possible to distinguish "material scientific law" from "psychical reality"?
They have no common means of measure.If "psychical reality" had actual effects on the observable universe, those effects would have measurable results. Are you suggesting that "psychical reality" does not have any effect on the observable universe?

[Curnir]

If "psychical reality" had actual effects on the material universe, those effects would have measurable results. Are you suggesting that "psychical reality" does not have any effect on the material universe?

I think of a couple of alternative words for "psychical reality".

1. Imagination
2. Fantasy

[TobiasTheViking]

3. Dreams

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

10. The challenge formal test can at best say: "… The claimant 'did this' or 'did that' as claimed…" It cannot from this say that what the claimant did is psychical.
People are claiming to be doing something beyond our current realm of scientific knowledge and the test is merely set up to eliminate known methods of fraud, deception and so forth. If we eliminate all the usual possibilities then there's a good chance the person is using something new to human understanding. As it is no one has got anywhere near this stage since correctly set up tests eliminate challenge entries from the insane, the deluded and the outright fraudsters.

As for this entire thread and your posts in it Maatorc, I think you're talking out your arse just to provoke a reaction. From what my limited intellect can tell you're basically saying you believe we can prove nothing because of the way the human experience works. We'd best all go lie down and die then, since it's all just a big dream. Of course that's only if we believe what you believe...

[maatorc]

If "psychical reality" had actual effects on the observable universe, those effects would have measurable results. Are you suggesting that "psychical reality" does not have any effect on the observable universe?
Mojo -
It has effect in its own sphere, but is not materially measurable.
maatorc.

[TobiasTheViking]

Mojo -
It has effect in its own sphere, but is not materially measurable.
maatorc.
if it is not materially measureable, then how is it measurable?

If it isn't measurable, how is it even relevant?

That is, if it has no influence on our world, then it doesn't matter if it does, or doesn't exists.

[maatorc]

those statements are also so totally without proof that i'm amazed that you use them as argumennts.

Tobias.
I am not surprised that you are amazed.

[maatorc]

if it is not materially measureable, then how is it measurable?
If it isn't measurable, how is it even relevant?
That is, if it has no influence on our world, then it doesn't matter if it does, or doesn't exists.

Your thoughts are not materially measurable, or proveable.
Are they therefore irrelevant?

[Axenos]

Your thoughts are not materially measurable, or proveable.
Are they therefore irrelevant.

Hate to be a grammatican... but I am fairly certain that should be:

"Your thoughts are neither materially measurable nor proveable therefore they are irrelevant."

Anyway...

Didn't Richard Bach cover all this in the 70's? You're putting a rather over-thought spin on the "We think therefore we are" argument...

[maatorc]

Hate to be a grammatican... but I am fairly certain that should be:

"Your thoughts are neither materially measurable nor proveable therefore they are irrelevant."

Anyway...

Didn't Richard Bach cover all this in the 70's? You're putting a rather over-thought spin on the "We think therefore we are" argument...

Appropriate ? added.

[William Smith]

For more expanded criticism of your faith and how it relates to the Challenge follow this link http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1759002#post1759002- it points to where you first made your statement of faith and the responses that followed.

Or this one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1616755#post1616755

Or that one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1642846#post1642846

[TobiasTheViking]

I am not surprised that you are amazed.
What does that mean? do you agree with my statement? If not, why not. Please verbose.

[TobiasTheViking]

Your thoughts are not materially measurable, or proveable.
depending on your definition on materially, that can be argued.
But my thoughts are measurable and provable, if not materially so(which, again, depends entirely on how you define materially, i would claim they are materially provable).

So, Sure they are.
Are they therefore irrelevant?
Since my thoughts are measurable and provable, of course they are relevant.

[William Smith]

...
1. The actual external world has no objective existence in the form in which we 'see' it.
...


Can you explain this to me, please? Does this mean, there is an internal world which has an objective existence?

[William Smith]

...
But my thoughts are measurable and provable,...
...
Since my thoughts are measurable and provable, of course they are relevant.

(Whispering, barely audible.) I guess you mean the "thought process".

[maatorc]

depending on your definition on materially, that can be argued.
But my thoughts are measurable and provable, if not materially so(which, again, depends entirely on how you define materially, i would claim they are materially provable).

So, Sure they are.

Since my thoughts are measurable and provable, of course they are relevant.

I strongly recommend you send one of your thoughts to Mr James Randi in an envelope.

[Mojo]

If "psychical reality" had actual effects on the observable universe, those effects would have measurable results. Are you suggesting that "psychical reality" does not have any effect on the observable universe? It has effect in its own sphere, but is not materially measurable.Are you saying it has no observable effects?

[Axenos]

maatorc, I'll be more direct.

Are you presenting a spin on the "I think therefore I am" argument?

[Darat]

I strongly recommend you send one of your thoughts to Mr James Randi in an envelope.


Why not use the Internet like you've just done to send one of your thoughts to all the people reading this thread..

[maatorc]

Or this one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1616755#post1616755

Or that one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1642846#post1642846


I do not mind admitting these ideas have been aired before.
But the claims my position has been answered are false.

[maatorc]

Why not use the Internet like you've just done to send one of your thoughts to all the people reading this thread..

You are erroneously presuming that I am making a claim that I am not making.

[maatorc]

maatorc, I'll be more direct.

Are you presenting a spin on the "I think therefore I am" argument?

No, it goes way beyond that.

[William Smith]

I do not mind admitting these ideas have been aired before.
But the claims my position has been answered are false.

Straw man. Darat said:

For more expanded criticism of your faith and how it relates to the Challenge follow this link http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...2#post1759002- it points to where you first made your statement of faith and the responses that followed.

[Darat]

I do not mind admitting these ideas have been aired before.
But the claims my position has been answered are false.

No, your position has been demonstrated to be false by several different people in several different ways. Anyone following the above links will see that.

Your position is based on your flawed understanding of the Challenge, not a flaw in the Challenge. Unfortunately we can't do more then we have already done to explain to you why your understanding is flawed.

[maatorc]

Are you saying it has no observable effects?
It has effects, but they are not materially measurable.

[William Smith]

No, it goes way beyond that.

Please elaborate.



This thread will go on long time GI.

[maatorc]

Straw man. Darat said:

For more expanded criticism of your faith and how it relates to the Challenge follow this link http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...2#post1759002- it points to where you first made your statement of faith and the responses that followed.
My original post in this thread stands.

[Darat]

Please elaborate.



This thread will go on long time GI.

From past posting history I doubt either...

[William Smith]

It has effects, but they are not materially measurable.

Interesting thought. What effects exactly? Can you provide proof?

[Axenos]

No, it goes way beyond that.

Morpheus, is that you?

Seriously, you are sounding as if the characters from the Matrix found this website.

Please explain to me "way beyond that" if you are so inclined.

[maatorc]

Please elaborate.



This thread will go on long time GI.

Read the full context of the Preamble and the Argument.

[William Smith]

From past posting history I doubt either...

Dangit, I didn't think about the "Quote" feature. And I already pictured myself wise-cracking after 15 pages...

[Darat]

My original post in this thread stands.

.... as a statement demonstrating that you don't understand the Challenge.

[maatorc]

Interesting thought. What effects exactly? Can you provide proof?
If we take the strictly hypothetical case that someone 'remote views' another person who hypothetically 'sees' the remote viewer, there is no material way of demonstrating or proving such an event occurred outside the minds of the two people involved, if it did indeed occur. This principle applies to the JREF challenge.

[William Smith]

Read the full context of the Preamble and the Argument.

I reread the text. And again.
From past experience, I know you like semantics.

However, I do not understand how your OP goes "beyond" "presenting a spin on the "I think therefore I am" argument".

If you find the time, I will listen. No pressure.

[Darat]

If we take the strictly hypothetical case that someone 'remote views' another person who hypothetically 'sees' the remote viewer, there is no material way of demonstrating or proving such an event occurred outside the minds of the two people involved, if it did indeed occur. This principle applies to the JREF challenge.

No it doesn't.

ETA: Let me expand on that.

A hypothetical protocol


Person A is in New York in a room with no communication device, an envelope is handed to Person A by the NY adjudicator that contains a four digit number, Person A "transmits" via their "remote viewing power" the four digits to Person B.

Person B is in London in a room with no communication device, they write down the four digits.

The observer phones the adjudicator in the New York with the four digits.

If the digits match Person A & B win the challenge
If the digits don't match Person A & B don't win the challenge.

[Axenos]

maatorc, I'll be direct again.

I have read a few of your postings, and I would like to ask a question. After reading your general track and direction, it seems to me that you are questioning reality in general, and specifically one man's perception of it, and my first impulse is to instantly remember the movie "The Matrix".

I'm not making fun, joking or anything like that, but I seriously would like to know...

Is that what you are thinking?

[William Smith]

If we take the strictly hypothetical case that someone 'remote views' another person who hypothetically 'sees' the remote viewer, there is no material way of demonstrating or proving such an event occurred outside the minds of the two people involved, if it did indeed occur. This principle applies to the JREF challenge.

To succeed in the Challenge, a Claimant would not need to go that far.
If he could tell what he "remotely sees" in the other persons mind - Queen of Hearts, Five of Clubs, Ace of Spades - it will most likely fulfill the criteria defined in the protocol.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Randi does not claim that the Challenge will once and for all time prove the existence of a supernatural, psychic or occult power.

At best, someone will succeed according to the protocol without cheating, then Mr. Randi will hand out the check and immediately turn to the Scientific Community saying: "Ladies, Gentleman: Start your engines, there's work to do."

The following processes (spanning decades, millennia, aeons) will then show if there "is" something measurable, detectable, reproducable. Data, evidence, proof.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

If I'm understanding correctly (And admittedly I may not be), the argument is that the JREF challenge can not explain any phenomemon outside of the known material universe.

It makes no claim to do so. Take Darat's example. If you claim that you can remote view, JREF does not ask how you can, or why you can, it simply asks that you demonstrate it. If you can do it under controlled conditions, you win $1,000,000.

Maybe you're arguing that science is not equipped to explain such phenomenon? I still think that is false, but at least it might make for a better discussion.

[TobiasTheViking]

I strongly recommend you send one of your thoughts to Mr James Randi in an envelope.
That doesn't make sence. It can be measured that someone moves(with his hand) a cup on a table.

Would you then tell that person to send that movement to Mr James Randi in an envelope?

Because that is basicly what you just told me.

Instead of just making snide remarks, could your respond with something with substance.

[Beady]

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

Seems to be a form of ad hominem.

I've followed the thread to this point, and you have not attempted to support your arguments with facts, only with more arguments (and vitriol). Seems to me that you would have used facts if you'd had any at your disposal. Argumentation unsupported by facts is faith, not science. Faith expressed with malice is bigotry.

[Joe Random]

You are erroneously presuming that I am making a claim that I am not making.

You are Dave Tholen and I claim my two fifty.

[petre]

Seems to be a form of ad hominem.

I've followed the thread to this point, and you have not attempted to support your arguments with facts, only with more arguments (and vitriol). Seems to me that you would have used facts if you'd had any at your disposal. Argumentation unsupported by facts is faith, not science. Faith expressed with malice is bigotry.

I was just heading to the end to post something similar Beady. I was rather surprised to see so many posts in such a young thread, and moreso when I feel maatorc chose to cease meaningful discussion of the matter in that very post.

If someone wants to establish a basis for discussion that's fine. If no one else is willing to accept that basis though, you'll either have to modify it until the parties agree or the discussion is over before it started.

Now, if your purpose was solely to discuss the basis, it seems you got off to a poor start by dismissing the first question about it. In any event, it made the entire rest of the thread meaningless and uninteresting, and it seems Beady and I won't be reading it.

[William Smith]

In the threads listed earlier in this thread, I suggested to maatorc starting a seperate thread to bring up his beef with the Challenge.

He did. Let's give him some time to adjust to the attention and move the discussion in productive waters again, shall we?

[alfaniner]

...

A. There is intentional tautology in the argument to permit reasonable brevity...

I was bored by the end of the first sentence.

[Axenos]

I'm not bored. I find it interesting how people think. I also want an answer to my question.

I agree with GzuzKryzt, and am willing to wait it out to see a response... should be unique.

[T'ai Chi]

.... as a statement demonstrating that you don't understand the Challenge.

Actually, most people understand it, it simply isn't that convincing of anything.

[petre]

Actually, most people understand it, it simply isn't that convincing of anything.

Actually, few people understand it, and it is very convincing of many things.

[maatorc]

No it doesn't.
ETA: Let me expand on that.
A hypothetical protocol
Person A is in New York in a room with no communication device, an envelope is handed to Person A by the NY adjudicator that contains a four digit number, Person A "transmits" via their "remote viewing power" the four digits to Person B.
Person B is in London in a room with no communication device, they write down the four digits.
The observer phones the adjudicator in the New York with the four digits.
If the digits match Person A & B win the challenge
If the digits don't match Person A & B don't win the challenge.

Darat -
The protocol will indeed be convincing, but it does not measurably prove that the participants actually did or did not 'remote view', which is a strictly materially unmeasurable mental-psychical event.
Success under the protocols would certainly very strongly infer agreement between what the participants say they are doing and what the adjudicator observes, but convincing inference is not proof in material matters.
Material protocols will never be able to experientially 'see' the actual experience of remote viewing. This is the necessary level of measurement to prove remote viewing, and it is clear such a level of measurement cannot be material.


__________________________________________________ _____________


Picking up on your comments in earlier posts vis-a-vis what you call my faith, it may here be useful to mention that statements 1, 2, and 3 in the Argument represent quite basic science-ontology-philosophy concepts. There is nothing trully abstract, subjective, or speculative in these statements. They are well known and understood in the wider world of science, knowledge, and understanding outside the JREF site. The fact that they result in posts indicating complete incomprehension on the part of some posters is to me a matter of deep concern about where the challenge stands in the world of exact knowledge. Do not presume from my comments that I do or do not accept, believe in, or practise, anything the JREF covers in the challenge.

maatorc.

[Jon.]

Darat -
The protocol will indeed be convincing, but it does not measurably prove that the participants actually did or did not 'remote view', which is a strictly materially unmeasurable mental-psychical event.

You are of course correct. The problem, for you, is that the challenge makes no such claim of measurable proof. The challenge is just that: a challenge. It says "Do something paranormal. I'll give you a million bucks if you can." That is as far as it goes.

It would then be up to the scientific community to try and isolate the "mental-psychical event" and try to measure it. That may or may not be possible, but it's not within the ambit of the challenge, nor should it be.

[William Smith]

You are of course correct. The problem, for you, is that the challenge makes no such claim of measurable proof. The challenge is just that: a challenge. It says "Do something paranormal. I'll give you a million bucks if you can." That is as far as it goes.

It would then be up to the scientific community to try and isolate the "mental-psychical event" and try to measure it. That may or may not be possible, but it's not within the ambit of the challenge, nor should it be.

Another Cmdr. Riker to my LtCmdr. Data.

[maatorc]

It is clear I will be unable to reply to all post.
I will try to respond to posts which directly address statements in the Argument.
It is impracticable to try to follow all 2nd, 3rd, etc removed posts from the central ideas.

maatorc.

[William Smith]

...
Success under the protocols would certainly very strongly infer agreement between what the participants say they are doing and what the adjudicator observes, but convincing inference is not proof in material matters.
Material protocols will never be able to experientially 'see' the actual experience of remote viewing. This is the necessary level of measurement to prove remote viewing, and it is clear such a level of measurement cannot be material.
...


How would you establish a "necessary level of measurement to prove remote viewing"?

[maatorc]

It says "Do something paranormal. I'll give you a million bucks if you can.".

The problem is that the challenge is incompetent to decide if something is or is not 'paranormal'. What you do is not the point. If it ever pays the million, it will do so blind.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

How would you establish a "necessary level of measurement to prove remote viewing"?

The only possible proof of remote viewing would rest in the experiential realization of one performing or receiving it.

maatorc.

[William Smith]

The only possible proof of remote viewing would rest in the experiential realization of one performing or receiving it.

maatorc.

A sophisticated EEG?

Or just someone saying: "Yup, I felt it."?

[Jackalgirl]

My original post in this thread stands.

I've read the OP and all of the referenced threads and I'm with Darat on this one. You either a) don't understand how the Challenge works or b) you are a troll. I'm betting on b), but I am a cynic. In the hopes that -- after all this time and explanation -- a) is still the case:

In our shared human existance, certain things are measurable, quantifiable, repeatable, and occur even during double-blinded tests that control for trickery. These are the things described and developed by science. It does not matter whether my husband and I "perceive" electricity as electrons or Magic Switch Fairies; assuming no problem with the power source or wiring, the lights will come on when we flip the switch.

Whether those things are "real", in the philosophic sense that you are describing, is beyond the scope of science.

Likewise, the "reality" of occurances is also beyond the scope of the Challenge. The Challenge does not seek to prove the "actuality" or "reality" of events in the way you are using the words "actuality" and "reality". It's just a challenge to do something that is commonly understood to be beyond the scope of science in an environment that controls for trickery, placebo effect, etc.

It is true that the James Randi Educational Foundation reserves the right to say what they consider to be paranormal -- it's their challenge, for one thing. However, in all the years I've been following this, I have yet to see an example of a claim they accepted as "paranormal" that I did not also think was paranormal. And I am defining "paranormal" as "beyond the scope of what is commonly understood to be scientifically verifiable".

Here's a question for you: do you think that science is a relevant, functional, useful method?

[maatorc]

A sophisticated EEG?
Or just someone saying: "Yup, I felt it."?
An EEG merely infers, and there is no measurable correspondence between it and any claimed mental state.
"Yup": Facetious, but it is true it is strictly in the mind of one practising or observing it. Can you, for example, measurably prove and materially replicate what you say you 'imagine' or 'visualise'? And this is not even seen as psychical!
maatorc.

[maatorc]

I've read the OP and all of the referenced threads and I'm with Darat on this one. You either a) don't understand how the Challenge works or b) you are a troll. I'm betting on b), but I am a cynic. In the hopes that -- after all this time and explanation -- a) is still the case:


Please see post #65.

[William Smith]

An EEG merely infers, and there is no measurable correspondence between it and any claimed mental state.
"Yup": Facetious, but it is true it is strictly in the mind of one practising or observing it. Can you, for example, measurably prove and materially replicate what you say you 'imagine' or 'visualise'? And this is not even seen as psychical!
maatorc.

Unfortunately, this exceeds my current knowledge.

Pure speculation on my part: Today's neurologists may very likely be able to tell "what" happens "where" in a human brain, but I'm not quite sure if they could tell me - measure - the difference of me imagining a rose or a tulip.

Perhaps one would need to establish a catalogue of data, what happens when you think of object 1, object 2, etc.
Take a second, third, etc. catalogue, then compare.

Somehow this feels like very thin ice to me...time for bed. Perhaps the Big Guns will roll into action. Later.

[Jackalgirl]

Please see post #65.

Interesting. In post #65, you say:

It is clear I will be unable to reply to all post.
I will try to respond to posts which directly address statements in the Argument.
It is impracticable to try to follow all 2nd, 3rd, etc removed posts from the central ideas.

maatorc.

And yet you take the time to respond to my post -- not by actually addressing anything I say (and yes, even if I don't quote your OP, I am addressing ideas of it), but by snarkily refering me back to the "I have an out not to respond" post you made.

Okay, a) it is.

[Donut]

The problem is that the challenge is incompetent to decide if something is or is not 'paranormal'. What you do is not the point. If it ever pays the million, it will do so blind.
That's why it's agreed beforehand whether or not something is paranormal. "You find which of these boxes has gold in it 7 times out of 10 and I'll agree it's paranormal." The Challenge then is to do the agreed upon thing, the definition of that thing as paranormal is external to the challenge.

[Wowbagger]

These statements are so ontologically fundamental and essential, that I am amazed at your apparent unfamiliarity.
I just wanted to point out something here:

Science does not deal with the purely ontological. It deals only in the empirical.

Maatorc, what you call "ontologically fundamental" science calls empirically irrelevant.

[maatorc]

I just wanted to point out something here:
Science does not deal with the purely ontological. It deals only in the empirical.
Maatorc, what you call "ontologically fundamental" science calls empirically irrelevant.

If, then, one states: "The fundamental actuality of the universe is energy and vibration", is the statement scientifically empirically irrelevant?

[Wowbagger]

If, then, one states: "The fundamental actuality of the universe is energy and vibration", is the statement scientifically empirically irrelevant?
Depends. Do you have empirical evidence to back that statememt up? Or, are you just declaring that?

From what I can gather, it sounds like a postmodern interpretation of String Theory, so that would mean no evidence. But, I could be wrong. What source did that "fundamental actuality" line come from?

[maatorc]

Depends. Do you have empirical evidence to back that statememt up? Or, are you just declaring that?
From what I can gather, it sounds like a postmodern interpretation of String Theory, so that would mean no evidence. But, I could be wrong. What source did that "fundamental actuality" line come from?

Is science aware of anything beyond energy and vibration?

[maatorc]

maatorc, I'll be direct again.
I have read a few of your postings, and I would like to ask a question. After reading your general track and direction, it seems to me that you are questioning reality in general, and specifically one man's perception of it, and my first impulse is to instantly remember the movie "The Matrix".
I'm not making fun, joking or anything like that, but I seriously would like to know...
Is that what you are thinking?

Axenos -

I appreciate your courtesy.
I have not seen "The Matrix".
Reality is the world as our human senses read it.
Actuality is the world as it is in itself.
Part of what I am saying is that our senses reveal a limited world according to their structure and function.
There is more to the whole world than what our cerebro-spinal senses reveal.

matorc.

[Axenos]

Thank you. I appreciate the response.

[Wowbagger]

Is science aware of anything beyond energy and vibration?
Well, only like, the whole freakin' Universe!!

What kind of question is that? I ask for evidence, and you go off on some existential quandary of some crazy sort...

More to the point of the thread, what does that have to do with Randi's challenge?

[maatorc]

Well, only like, the whole freakin' Universe!!

Are you saying there is something more than energy and vibration in "the whole freakin' Universe!!"?

[Mojo]

It has effects, but they are not materially measurable.If the effects are observable, why are they not amenable to scientific study? If the effects are not observable, how do you know they exist?

[Flange Desire]

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.
Waste your time?
You sound like you have an inflated view of yourself.

Don't bother to waste your precious time responding to this.

[maatorc]

If the effects are observable, why are they not amenable to scientific study? If the effects are not observable, how do you know they exist?

Going back through the several posts connected with this:
If the event is psychical there will be no measurable materially observable effects and hence it is not amenable to scientific material study.
If the event is psychical it is not in itself materially observable and cannot be materially proven to exist or occur.

[thaiboxerken]

My original post in this thread stands.

Yes, just like a turd will sometimes stand. It doesn't make it stink any less.

[maatorc]

Yes, just like a turd will sometimes stand. It doesn't make it stink any less.
Looking around other threads, I see you are a regular all-round arse-hole to many others too.
F*** OFF.

[NobbyNobbs]

None of this matters, folks. When the White King wakes up, we'll all be gone in a puff of logic anyway.

[thaiboxerken]

Looking around other threads


You probably didn't just look around the other threads, you've participated under other names. Your silly beliefs about the challenge and the universe are absurd. The JREF challenge is about testable claims, not untestable claims. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

[Darat]

Darat -
The protocol will indeed be convincing, but it does not measurably prove that the participants actually did or did not 'remote view', which is a strictly materially unmeasurable mental-psychical event.


And this line of reasoning shows where your understanding of the Challenge is flawed.

What you are saying has no bearing on the Challenge.


Success under the protocols would certainly very strongly infer agreement between what the participants say they are doing and what the adjudicator observes, but convincing inference is not proof in material matters.


You may or may not be right but it has no relevance in regards to the Challenge.


Material protocols will never be able to experientially 'see' the actual experience of remote viewing. This is the necessary level of measurement to prove remote viewing, and it is clear such a level of measurement cannot be material.


Again you may be right however it has no relevance to the Challenge.


Picking up on your comments in earlier posts vis-a-vis what you call my faith, it may here be useful to mention that statements 1, 2, and 3 in the Argument represent quite basic science-ontology-philosophy concepts.

There is nothing trully abstract, subjective, or speculative in these statements. They are well known and understood in the wider world of science, knowledge, and understanding outside the JREF site. The fact that they result in posts indicating complete incomprehension on the part of some posters is to me a matter of deep concern about where the challenge stands in the world of exact knowledge. Do not presume from my comments that I do or do not accept, believe in, or practise, anything the JREF covers in the challenge.

maatorc.

If you wish a discussion about your philosophy there is a section for that on the forum "Religion & Philosophy" - this is not the appropriate section for discussion about these types of subjects.

[geoman]

Is it just me, or is this thread pretty much the same as maatorc's other threads?

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

Now Posted by geoman:

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such rubbish, maatorc.

[asmodean]

Mojo -
It has effect in its own sphere, but is not materially measurable.
maatorc.

If it is not measurable, how then do you know it exists?

[Hellbound]

I think many people are approaching this from the wrong direction, and a misunderstanding of the challenge is abundant.

First thing to consider is that the challenege is not about "proving" psychic phenomena in any fashion. Randi has mentioned this himself. It's a first step to lead towards further study.

The primary goal of the challenege is to expose frauds, cons, and tricksters. It gives a weapon to use against those who claim psychic abilities.

And that's the key thing to remember, that pretty well makes maatorc's arguments irrelevent. He is correct hat if someone passes the challenge, it does not prove they have psychic or paranormal abilities. I say, "so what?". It's not really an issue if a false positive slips through (although every attempt is made to avoid it), because further research will show it for what it is. The key point is that if someone does have psychic abilities, then they should be able to easily pass the challenge tests as they are designed. Thus, if a person cannot pass, that person does not have the claimed psychic ability.

Let's take a similar example. Let's say I calim to be able to shoot a dime at 800 yards, with open sites, using a .223 rifle, by using psychokinesis. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. So, you challenge me (Bet you $100 bucks you can't do it right now!). So, we go out to the range, set up the dime, and I nail it, dead center. Have we proven I can do it? Yes. Have we proven psychokinesis? No. Now, let's take the same scenario, but I miss the shot by 100 yards. We've now proven that my claim of psychokinesis is false. I cannot do what I claim to do.

Likewise, a non-paranormal example. I claim to be an expert automobile mechanic. You challenge me to prove it by fixing your car. So I fix it for you. Have I proven I'm an expert mechanic? No, it's possible I just got lucky, or cheated somehow (earbud phone to a real mechanic, checking internet sites whiel you aren't looking, whatever) in order to fix your car. However, if I am an expert mechanic, I should be able to fix the problem. So my failure disproves my claim of being an expert.

The Challenge isn't about proving the paranormal, it's about disproving it. Randi actually takes the possibility of non-paranormal events getting through as an "acceptible risk".

So, this is not a flaw, it's something that addresses concerns outside the purpose of the challenge (the idea is not to prove the paranormal, but to disprove the falsely claimed paranormal). Methods are used to limit false positives (i.e.-cheating or luck), but it's a possibility.

[Wowbagger]

Are you saying there is something more than energy and vibration in "the whole freakin' Universe!!"?
By golly, sure!

Are you implying that the Universe is made up of nothing but energy and vibrations? If so, can you point me to some evidence?

Even if there is proof that the Universe is nothing but energy and vibrations, it would have no bearing on Randi's Challenge, anyway.
The Challenge is to demonstrate paranormal abilities that can manifest themselves in the empirical world, under conditions controlled strongly enough to prevent cheating as much as possible.

[Mojo]

If the event is psychical there will be no measurable materially observable effects and hence it is not amenable to scientific material study.
If the event is psychical it is not in itself materially observable and cannot be materially proven to exist or occur.If an event is not observable, how can you possibly know that it has happened?

[petre]

1. It would appear that "understanding" would be considered a purely psychical event in maatoric's view.

2. It would also appear that maatorc's mode of communication (this message board) is necessarily limited to material events.

3. Therefore, if maatorc's intent is to impart understanding to others, he can never be aware of his success because that understanding cannot be measured by materialistic means.

4. Therefore, maatoric's attempt to impart understanding to others by using this message board is equally flawed as any possible flaw he might indicate in the challenge.

5. If your argument is as flawed as what you are attempting to prove is flawed, then the more your arguement succeeds, the more it disproves itself.

[maatorc]

1. It would appear that "understanding" would be considered a purely psychical event in maatoric's view.
2. It would also appear that maatorc's mode of communication (this message board) is necessarily limited to material events.
3. Therefore, if maatorc's intent is to impart understanding to others, he can never be aware of his success because that understanding cannot be measured by materialistic means.
4. Therefore, maatoric's attempt to impart understanding to others by using this message board is equally flawed as any possible flaw he might indicate in the challenge.
5. If your argument is as flawed as what you are attempting to prove is flawed, then the more your arguement succeeds, the more it disproves itself.


Therefore:
6. From this, it follows that any idea I, petre, am trying to communicate to this board about maatorc is flawed.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

If it is not measurable, how then do you know it exists?
In the same way you know you thought of something.

[maatorc]

By golly, sure!
Are you implying that the Universe is made up of nothing but energy and vibrations? If so, can you point me to some evidence?
Even if there is proof that the Universe is nothing but energy and vibrations, it would have no bearing on Randi's Challenge, anyway.
The Challenge is to demonstrate paranormal abilities that can manifest themselves in the empirical world, under conditions controlled strongly enough to prevent cheating as much as possible.

Because science knows nothing beyond energy and vibrations: Fairly basic stuff.

[maatorc]

The Challenge isn't about proving the paranormal, it's about disproving it. Randi actually takes the possibility of non-paranormal events getting through as an "acceptible risk".


The point about the challenge is that whether or not it is about proving or disproving it is incompetant to do so: It cannot prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any noumenal reality.

[Mercutio]

In the same way you know you thought of something.
Ah, good.

Over a century ago, Fechner (while trying to prove that the physical world was actually spiritual in nature--long story) discovered the method of scientific investigation we now call psychophysics. Taking advantage of "the same way you know you thought of something"--that is, your own experience--Fechner systematically varied the stimuli, and subjects reported whether or not they noticed a change in perception.

This proved a great advantage over simply thinking about "the...way you know you thought of something", because we can vary stimuli in a double-blind manner and guard against the sort of biases that led to, say, the faulty "discovery" of N-rays. In a process now known as "signal detection theory", we can determine both sensitivity to stimuli and bias in reporting.

Bottom line is, we can use these methods to show that the processes of thinking and perceiving are lawful, in the same manner as more easily observable public behaviors. If you, yourself, can perceive something (even, hypothetically, a thought sent to you through from a remote viewer), then the systematic approach pioneered by Fechner can be used to study it. We can even determine your ability to reliably perceive stimuli that you are completely unaware of (examples such as blindsight and split-brain patients are particularly vivid). If you can detect it using whatever means you think you use, then science can measure it. If it is truly beyond the capacity of science to measure, then it is well beyond the capabilities of your sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processes. It is that simple.

If the event is psychical there will be no measurable materially observable effects and hence it is not amenable to scientific material study.
If the event is psychical it is not in itself materially observable and cannot be materially proven to exist or occur. If the event, whether psychical or material, is observable to a person, that is enough for science to study it. If science cannot study it, it is simply because none are able to observe it, even privately to themselves. It is fiction.

[Wowbagger]

Because science knows nothing beyond energy and vibrations: Fairly basic stuff.
"Fairly basic stuff"?! Where did you learn this? Can you show me the evidence that science knows nothing beyond that?

I could have sworn I just read some books about astronomy. Funny how they talked about a lot more stuff, than just energy and vibrations.

What about gravity? Is that an energy or a vibration? What about evolution? Is that a form of energy, a pattern of vibration, or some combo of the two? How about the computer you are using? Are you implying that there is no science to how it operates, since there is no sense of either energy or vibrations in Information Theory? Hey, how about disease research? Are all those treatments just forms of vibrations?

You seem to be either nothing more than a "greedy reductionist"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism ), or a severely misinformed String Theorist.

Why separate vibrations and energy into two categories, anyway? Aren't vibrations just an expression of energy?

[Mercutio]

The point about the challenge is that whether or not it is about proving or disproving it is incompetant to do so: It cannot prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any noumenal reality.Congratulations--you have just defined psychic abilities as "things which can never, even in principle, be demonstrated to exist." Remember, science relies on perceptual abilities of scientists--humans. Lots of them. Saying that science cannot prove or disprove these things is simultaneously saying that we, as individuals, cannot detect them.

If you are saying that we, as individuals, can experience them...then they are amenable to scientific study.

Which is it?

[ynot]

Flaws In The Challenge
maatorc.
I don’t pretend to speak for Mr Randi and his team, but I think it’s fairly obvious that the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is founded on the premise that if someone is making a claim based on evidence that’s only detectable by people with psychic abilities, then collaborating evidence needs to be provided that’s detectable by people without psychic abilities.

[maatorc]

"Fairly basic stuff"?! Where did you learn this? Can you show me the evidence that science knows nothing beyond that?.....

Why separate vibrations and energy into two categories, anyway? Aren't vibrations just an expression of energy?

Can you show that science knows something beyond energy-vibrations?
They go together: Where one is the other is.

[Wowbagger]

Can you show that science knows something beyond energy-vibrations?
Well, that's a bit like asking: Can you show me a book that has words in it? There are so many examples to choose from. I am only providing a random sample from things I am glancing at in my room:

A Sample of What Science Knows:
* The Earth is between ~94.5 and ~91.3 million miles from the sun, depending on the time of the year.
* bananas technically do not grow on trees: they are members of the herb family
* apes and humans share an ancient common ancestor
* The specific gravity of gasoline is ~0.74
* A document of random characters will not likely compress as much as a document with comprehensible sentences (that's part of information theory, by the way).
* seeing blood generally makes a lot of people queasy
* Albany is currently considered to be the capital of New York, by most geography experts, when quizzed.
* entropy always increases in a closed system
* people who ingest massive amounts of ammonia will probably die
* there is no credible evidence that extraterrestrials ever visited Earth
* different cultures have different offensive gestures
* The Heimlich Maneuver is effective in removing obstructions to someone's air passage, when they are choking.
* the affliction generally known as "athlete's foot" is a type of fungal infection
* anthropogenic global warming is a real threat to life forms on Earth, but there are steps we can take to diminish the impact

I could literally go on forever, but I hope you get the point.


As to energy and vibrations:
They go together: Where one is the other is.
So, why list them separately?

[born]

I don’t pretend to speak for Mr Randi and his team, but I think it’s fairly obvious that the JREF Million Dollar Challenge is founded on the premise that if someone is making a claim based on evidence that’s only detectable by people with psychic abilities, then collaborating evidence needs to be provided that’s detectable by people without psychic abilities.


A bit of an oxymoron eh? A real "con"undrum.

[ynot]

A bit of an oxymoron eh? A real "con"undrum.
Well I don’t think that trying to prove something to a blind person by drawing a picture would be very a effective method.

Is there a “con”nection between oxymoron and moron?

[maatorc]

Well, that's a bit like asking: Can you show me a book that has words in it? There are so many examples to choose from. I am only providing a random sample from things I am glancing at in my room:
A Sample of What Science Knows:
* The Earth * bananas technically * apes and humans * The specific gravity
* A document of random characters* seeing blood * Albany is currently
* entropy always * people who * there is no * different cultures * The Heimlich Maneuver * the affliction generally known* anthropogenic global warming.I could literally go on forever, but I hope you get the point.As to energy and vibrations:
So, why list them separately?

I presumed you understood energy-vibration to mean the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence. All forms of existence vibrate according to the vibratory nature of the underlying fundamental particles of which they consist.
Volumes are known about what energy does, but not what it actually is.

[Darat]

As admin:

maatorc if you want to discuss philosophy or science please do so in the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing matters directly relating to the Million Dollar Challenge.

[maatorc]

As admin:

maatorc if you want to discuss philosophy or science please do so in the appropriate section of the forum. This section is for discussing matters directly relating to the Million Dollar Challenge.

Posts 62 and 77 introduced these terms. It is rather difficult not to have such ideas come up given the terminology of the Argument.

I will try to contain and limit them.

[asmodean]

Ah, good.

Over a century ago, Fechner (while trying to prove that the physical world was actually spiritual in nature--long story) discovered the method of scientific investigation we now call psychophysics. Taking advantage of "the same way you know you thought of something"--that is, your own experience--Fechner systematically varied the stimuli, and subjects reported whether or not they noticed a change in perception.

This proved a great advantage over simply thinking about "the...way you know you thought of something", because we can vary stimuli in a double-blind manner and guard against the sort of biases that led to, say, the faulty "discovery" of N-rays. In a process now known as "signal detection theory", we can determine both sensitivity to stimuli and bias in reporting.

Bottom line is, we can use these methods to show that the processes of thinking and perceiving are lawful, in the same manner as more easily observable public behaviors. If you, yourself, can perceive something (even, hypothetically, a thought sent to you through from a remote viewer), then the systematic approach pioneered by Fechner can be used to study it. We can even determine your ability to reliably perceive stimuli that you are completely unaware of (examples such as blindsight and split-brain patients are particularly vivid). If you can detect it using whatever means you think you use, then science can measure it. If it is truly beyond the capacity of science to measure, then it is well beyond the capabilities of your sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processes. It is that simple.

If the event, whether psychical or material, is observable to a person, that is enough for science to study it. If science cannot study it, it is simply because none are able to observe it, even privately to themselves. It is fiction.

Thank you Mercutio, you put this in words way better than I ever could (same thoughts).

[maatorc]

Ah, good.
Over a century ago, Fechner (while trying to prove that the physical world was actually spiritual in nature--long story) discovered the method of scientific investigation we now call psychophysics. Taking advantage of "the same way you know you thought of something"--that is, your own experience--Fechner systematically varied the stimuli, and subjects reported whether or not they noticed a change in perception.
This proved a great advantage over simply thinking about "the...way you know you thought of something", because we can vary stimuli in a double-blind manner and guard against the sort of biases that led to, say, the faulty "discovery" of N-rays. In a process now known as "signal detection theory", we can determine both sensitivity to stimuli and bias in reporting.
Bottom line is, we can use these methods to show that the processes of thinking and perceiving are lawful, in the same manner as more easily observable public behaviors. If you, yourself, can perceive something (even, hypothetically, a thought sent to you through from a remote viewer), then the systematic approach pioneered by Fechner can be used to study it. We can even determine your ability to reliably perceive stimuli that you are completely unaware of (examples such as blindsight and split-brain patients are particularly vivid). If you can detect it using whatever means you think you use, then science can measure it. If it is truly beyond the capacity of science to measure, then it is well beyond the capabilities of your sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processes. It is that simple.
If the event, whether psychical or material, is observable to a person, that is enough for science to study it. If science cannot study it, it is simply because none are able to observe it, even privately to themselves. It is
fiction.

Psychophysics, as a system of inferring existent as against non-existent noumena is not what I am talking about. (For others interested, Wikipedia explains it.)

In the case of the psychophysical detection of an existent noumenal event by the reliable perception of stimuli, such a noumenal event is only inferred, not witnessed, seen, or experienced outside the realization of the one experiencing it.

Psychophysics is measuring indications of something science, in the given case, is accepting is actually happening, not the experience itself.

The experience in itself cannot be externally realised outside of the mind realizing it, nor can it be simultaneously materially replicated by any set of scientific protocols. This is the Argument.

maatorc.

[Darat]

And again your argument whether good or bad, right or wrong does not apply to the Challenge.

The challenge is:

I can do X
I demonstrate X
The JREF pays me $1,000,000

[Wowbagger]

I presumed you understood energy-vibration to mean the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence. All forms of existence vibrate according to the vibratory nature of the underlying fundamental particles of which they consist.
Where can I find evidence that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? Where did you learn this?

Volumes are known about what energy does, but not what it actually is.
We sure do know what energy is:

http://skepdic.com/energy.html

From that site:
In physics, the basic idea of energy is the capacity of a physical system to do "work." In physics, "work" is defined as the product of a force times the distance through which that force acts. "Energy" is a term to express the power to move things, either potential or actual.

More of the same info can be found at these sites:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

I think your main confusion is thinking that energy is a substance. It is not. Energy is just a term of measurement scientists use to describe the capacity of physical systems to move.

Energy is a form of measurement like Distance or Weight. Only pseudo-scientists will think it is a substance.

[William Smith]

...
The experience in itself cannot be externally realised outside of the mind realizing it, nor can it be simultaneously materially replicated by any set of scientific protocols. This is the Argument.

maatorc.

...
14. The failure to recognize this principle of the incommensurability of material and psychical reality invalidates the challenge.
...


Since the Challenge - the protocol negotiated between Applicant and JREF, as well as the resulting test(s) - does not measure "material and psychical reality" in the way you claim, you can't really speak of a flaw, maatorc.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I was right, he's still talking out of his arse 3 pages on.

He seems to just keep harping on about how we cant actually be sure of anything ever because of how we work as beings. Let's try and make the best of it while we're here anyway, and keep using the challenge to show frauds for what they really are, as much as anything can be real. In the meantime this thread would best be served by being moved or closed, it's of no use to the challenge.

[maatorc]

Where can I find evidence that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? Where did you learn this?
We sure do know what energy is:
http://skepdic.com/energy.html
From that site:
More of the same info can be found at these sites:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
I think your main confusion is thinking that energy is a substance. It is not. Energy is just a term of measurement scientists use to describe the capacity of physical systems to move.
Energy is a form of measurement like Distance or Weight. Only pseudo-scientists will think it is a substance.

From your refered site: " "Energy" is a term to express the power to move things, either potential or actual. "
Exactly right, and universally so.
This does not quite agree with your term: Energy is just a term of measurement
Let us agree to semantically disagree.
Darat does not want this thread to become a science-philosphy debate.

[fuelair]

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

Hunt up Lifegazer - you and he(?) could go gaga together talking about philosophies you do not actually understand!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

[Wowbagger]

From your refered site: " "Energy" is a term to express the power to move things, either potential or actual. "
Exactly right, and universally so.
This does not quite agree with your term: Energy is just a term of measurement
Let us agree to semantically disagree.
Darat does not want this thread to become a science-philosphy debate.
Fine. There is only a semantic difference between the two definitions, but they can be reconciled: Energy is a measurement of the power to move things. Same thing. But, I agree not to go to war over it.

But, where did you learn that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? I'd just like to know.

[maatorc]

In this thread, to date, 16 posts from 7 posters claim I do not understand the challenge.
The challenge is easily understood.

It does not say: "You claim X." "You do X." "We pay $1Million."

It does say: "…JREF, will pay US$1Million to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability…"

It is necessary that the ability demonstrated is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal

In this and other threads it is constantly claimed and used as a put-down argument that it does not matter whether or not the demonstration is or is not psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, that it is only necessary to do what one claims one can do, and if the JREF and the claimant agree it is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, it is deemed to be psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, and the JREF will pay the $1m.

Agreement between the JREF and a claimant that what the claimant claims to be able to do is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal does not demonstrate, establish, or prove that it is so. There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural or paranormal.

The conditions of the challenge are somewhat analogous to a logical sentence containing one or more statements in the language of the sentence such that neither the statements nor their negation can be proved in the sentence.

For the challenge, the sentence can be expressed:
A. The JREF and the claimant agree on what power or ability will be demonstrated.
and
B. An actual performance of the stated nature and scope will be accepted.
and
C. The JREF and the claimant agree upon what constitutes a conclusion.
and
D. The power and ability will be demonstrated in an actual performance governed by what constitutes an agreed conclusion.
will constitute
E. The demonstration of a psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability.

'A + B + C + D = E' is a sentence where neither the statements A, B, C, and D, nor their negation can be proven in the sentence.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

Fine. There is only a semantic difference between the two definitions, but they can be reconciled: Energy is a measurement of the power to move things. Same thing. But, I agree not to go to war over it.

But, where did you learn that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? I'd just like to know.


You may find Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman, ISBN 0-201-40955-0
a good read. Will find more later.

[Ririon]

...

The conditions of the challenge are somewhat analogous to a logical sentence containing one or more statements in the language of the sentence such that neither the statements nor their negation can be proved in the sentence.

For the challenge, the sentence can be expressed:
A. The JREF and the claimant agree on what power or ability will be demonstrated.
and
B. An actual performance of the stated nature and scope will be accepted.
and
C. The JREF and the claimant agree upon what constitutes a conclusion.
and
D. The power and ability will be demonstrated in an actual performance governed by what constitutes an agreed conclusion.
will constitute
E. The demonstration of a psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability.

'A + B + C + D = E' is a sentence where neither the statements A, B, C, and D, nor their negation can be proven in the sentence.

maatorc.
OK, let me try. Are you saying that the "flaw" in the challenge is that it can not be formulated in a five-part logical sentence where each part and each part's negation can be proven? It would seem that this "flaw" applies to every single concept out here in "reality". It may not be that impressive in a world of logical constructs, but it is not a part of such a world. One of Bush's advisors once coined the phrase "the reality-based community", and that is where it firmly belongs. So if you want to discuss the "flaws" in the finer philosophical and logical points related to the challenge, please request that this thread be moved to the appropriate section. There is nothing wrong about such a discussion. However, the challenge is not a hypothetical logical thought experiment. It is real people challenged with a prize of a real million dollars.

If you want to keep this thread here, state clearly what is the "flaw" in the challenge. Do not use multipart logical sentences. Do not use "fancy" words. Do not put people down for not understanding your intended definition of said fancy words. Just say what you think is wrong with the challenge in the reality that most people appear to exist in. Any other reality belongs in another forum section.

[William Smith]

...
But, where did you learn that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? I'd just like to know.

After thorough reading and receiving extensive guidance: Consider acid. ;) Or Psilocybe Cubensis. ;) Or Psilocybe Cyanescens. ;)
Of course with the necessary respect, devotion and care.

[nathan]

It is necessary that the ability demonstrated is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal

As has been pointed out numerous times, the contract goes on to define what will constutute such a demonstration for the purposes of The Challenge. That contract satisfies the JREF and applicant in this regard. It might not satisfy your criteria of a 'psychic, supernatural, or paranormal' ability, but you're neither the JREF nor an applicant.

Quite honestly, I can't tell what you'd take as evidence for anything. Maybe we'd get further if you could tell us what you'd take as evidence that, say, 'I drink tea' -- and if that's too obvious, what about 'I like drinking tea'?

[Darat]

In this thread, to date, 16 posts from 7 posters claim I do not understand the challenge.
The challenge is easily understood.

It does not say: "You claim X." "You do X." "We pay $1Million."

It does say: "…JREF, will pay US$1Million to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability…"

...snip....

Yes it does:

JREF, will pay US $1 million to any person who can demonstrate any X, Y, or Z

That is why the JREF has accepted concepts such as homeopathy, audio "enhancement" devices, dowsing, telepathy, communication from the dead and so on.

[Darat]

...snip...

Agreement between the JREF and a claimant that what the claimant claims to be able to do is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal does not demonstrate, establish, or prove that it is so. There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural or paranormal.


...snip...

And you were doing so well! You are right and that is not what the challenge attempts to do the challenge attempts to verify that whatever the claimant claims the can do they can do. It is has never been about the theory, the why or the how but the result. If you say "I can bend a piece of metal with my mind power" the JREF says "fine lets agree on a protocol" - at the end of the test if the metal is bent the Challenge has been won. It is the result that pays out. The person may have developed some nifty new high powered magnet that is concealed under the skin or they may have learnt the language of atoms and they just ask the atoms to move - it makes not one iota of difference to the Challenge.

[Mojo]

In this thread, to date, 16 posts from 7 posters claim I do not understand the challenge.
The challenge is easily understood.

It does not say: "You claim X." "You do X." "We pay $1Million."

It does say: "…JREF, will pay US$1Million to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability…"

It is necessary that the ability demonstrated is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal

In this and other threads it is constantly claimed and used as a put-down argument that it does not matter whether or not the demonstration is or is not psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, that it is only necessary to do what one claims one can do, and if the JREF and the claimant agree it is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, it is deemed to be psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, and the JREF will pay the $1m.

Agreement between the JREF and a claimant that what the claimant claims to be able to do is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal does not demonstrate, establish, or prove that it is so. There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural or paranormal. Sure, but whether or not the ability claimed actually is "paranormal", however that is defined, is not important as far as the challenge is concerned. The applicant claims to be able to do something that the JREF considers to be paranormal. A test protocol is agreed. If the applicant can pass the test, they get the dosh.

It is not necessary for the applicant to claim that their ability is paranormal (in fact, some potential applicants, for example the Pakistani homoeopaths, have denied that what they do is paranormal); all that is necessary as far as the challenge is concerned is that the JREF considers the claimed ability to be paranormal.

[maatorc]

"...OK, let me try. Are you saying that the "flaw" in the challenge is that it can not be formulated in a five-part logical sentence where each part and each part's negation can be proven?..."
No, the sentence says " .. such that neither the statements nor their negation can be proved in the sentence".

"...It would seem that this "flaw" applies to every single concept out here in "reality"..."
No: In a statement A + B + C = D, where A, B, and C can be proven or negated, D is decideable.

"... ... state clearly what is the "flaw" in the challenge..."
It is very simple:
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable.
Mental events cannot be measured by material means.

"...Do not use multipart logical sentences..."
You are dishonestly putting words in my mouth. The sentence you refer to is a one-off specific example of the nature of the flaw as I see it.

"...Do not use "fancy" words..."
There is, as I am sure you know, a necessarily irreducible minimum level of intellectual comprehension and verbal exchange required for this discussion.

"...Do not put people down for not understanding your intended definition of said fancy words..."
I am being as polite and civil as responses permit: The verbal traffic is two-way.



maatorc.

[Mojo]

Mental events cannot be measured by material means. True. The challenge is limited to those allegedly paranormal abilities and events that have observable effects. It does not attempt to test abilities and events that are purely imaginary.

You have mentioned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1815542#post1815542) thoughts as an example of something not measurable or provable. Fine, but nobody suggests that the ability to have thoughts constitutes a paranormal phenomenon.

On the other hand, the ability to detect someone else's thoughts, or to transmit your own thoughts directly to them without any kind mediating physical event is a paranormal ability, and one that can be tested. If someone claims telepathy as an ability a protocol would be agreed for them to demonstrate that they can recieve or transmit information. That is observable.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The problem is that the challenge is incompetent to decide if something is or is not 'paranormal'. What you do is not the point. If it ever pays the million, it will do so blind.

maatorc.You are correct. The "flaw" in the challenge is that it is supposed to be a challenge to show something paranormal, yet the rules only require that the applicant demonstrate a certain ability and the applicant is not required to demonstrate that the ability is in fact paranormal. JREF is being rather generous here. Technically (to the absolute letter of the challenge description), the applicant should not only demonstrate an ability, but furthermore prove that the ability is paranormal.

As you have suggested, if JREF were to have this additional requirement, it may be possible that it would be impossible to prove that the demonstrated ability is in fact paranormal. Other threads have dealt with the problem that if an applicant proves something paranormal that it would become part of known science and therefore not be paranormal anymore.

Therefore, if the rules of the JREF challenge were to require actual absolute proof of something paranormal, the challenge would have substantial flaws that would surely be met with complaints about the unfairness of the challenge. Instead, the rules of the JREF challenge allow "blind" (as you put it) acceptance of a mere demonstration of an ability that the JREF accepts as being paranormal without even any proof of anything paranormal.

Again, you are correct. The JREF challenge to "show something paranormal" is flawed because it does not actually require proof of something paranormal. The challenge has taken a very liberal interpretation of both “proof” and “paranormal” to allow an applicant that even approach actual "proof of something paranormal" to win the prize.

This is a “flaw” in the semantics of the actual description of the challenge. But the challenge itself is not flawed because the rules of the challenge fulfill the purpose of challenging people that claim paranormal abilities to actually prove those abilities.

A challenge that requires actually meets the definition of the JREF challenge and requires scientific proof and explanation of something paranormal would be great. But there is no need for such a challenge unless there is at least one applicant that can meet the less restrictive rules JREF challenge. So far, no one has come close the winning under the rules of the JREF challenge. When and if someone does actually win the JREF challenge, perhaps we can discuss a further challenge that has rules that require actual proof an explanation of a something paranormal. Until then, it makes sense to continue with the “flawed” and much easier-won challenge. :)

[maatorc]

You are correct. The "flaw" in the challenge is that it is supposed to be a challenge to show something paranormal, yet the rules only require that the applicant demonstrate a certain ability and the applicant is not required to demonstrate that the ability is in fact paranormal. JREF is being rather generous here. Technically (to the absolute letter of the challenge description), the applicant should not only demonstrate an ability, but furthermore prove that the ability is paranormal.

As you have suggested, if JREF were to have this additional requirement, it may be possible that it would be impossible to prove that the demonstrated ability is in fact paranormal. Other threads have dealt with the problem that if an applicant proves something paranormal that it would become part of known science and therefore not be paranormal anymore.

Therefore, if the rules of the JREF challenge were to require actual absolute proof of something paranormal, the challenge would have substantial flaws that would surely be met with complaints about the unfairness of the challenge. Instead, the rules of the JREF challenge allow "blind" (as you put it) acceptance of a mere demonstration of an ability that the JREF accepts as being paranormal without even any proof of anything paranormal.

Again, you are correct. The JREF challenge to "show something paranormal" is flawed because it does not actually require proof of something paranormal. The challenge has taken a very liberal interpretation of both “proof” and “paranormal” to allow an applicant that even approach actual "proof of something paranormal" to win the prize.

This is a “flaw” in the semantics of the actual description of the challenge. But the challenge itself is not flawed because the rules of the challenge fulfill the purpose of challenging people that claim paranormal abilities to actually prove those abilities.

A challenge that requires actually meets the definition of the JREF challenge and requires scientific proof and explanation of something paranormal would be great. But there is no need for such a challenge unless there is at least one applicant that can meet the less restrictive rules JREF challenge. So far, no one has come close the winning under the rules of the JREF challenge. When and if someone does actually win the JREF challenge, perhaps we can discuss a further challenge that has rules that require actual proof an explanation of a something paranormal. Until then, it makes sense to continue with the “flawed” and much easier-won challenge. :)


Thanks. At least it beats telling me I am an idiot, don't know what day it is, don't understand the challenge, am speaking through my ****, am on drugs, am in another world, am speaking scientific nonsense, don't unders........

maatorc.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Thanks. At least it beats telling me I am an idiot, don't know what day it is, don't understand the challenge, am speaking through my ****, am on drugs, am in another world, am speaking scientific nonsense, don't unders........

maatorc.You are welcome. I hope it addresses the concerns of your original argument. :)

[William Smith]

Well maatorc, you tried to whizz on the Holey Chao - people need to expect headwind doing that.

Also, at least your response to Beady sounded a bit like coming out of your [Expletive Deleted].

Did this thread so far satisfy you as to the detection and identification of a possible semantic flaw in the Challenge description?

[Curnir]

In this thread, to date, 16 posts from 7 posters claim I do not understand the challenge.
I wonder why...The challenge is easily understood.
It is indeed, and just in case one does not understand it there is a nice FAQ http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html
It does not say: "You claim X." "You do X." "We pay $1Million."

It does say: "…JREF, will pay US$1Million to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability…" Have you even bothered to read the rules? Here's a nice linky http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

It is necessary that the ability demonstrated is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal

In this and other threads it is constantly claimed and used as a put-down argument that it does not matter whether or not the demonstration is or is not psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, that it is only necessary to do what one claims one can do, and if the JREF and the claimant agree it is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, it is deemed to be psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, and the JREF will pay the $1m.

Agreement between the JREF and a claimant that what the claimant claims to be able to do is psychic, supernatural, or paranormal does not demonstrate, establish, or prove that it is so. There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural or paranormal.

The conditions of the challenge are somewhat analogous to a logical sentence containing one or more statements in the language of the sentence such that neither the statements nor their negation can be proved in the sentence.

The rules are quite clear. Read them.
For the challenge, the sentence can be expressed:
A. The JREF and the claimant agree on what power or ability will be demonstrated.
and
B. An actual performance of the stated nature and scope will be accepted.
and
C. The JREF and the claimant agree upon what constitutes a conclusion.
and
D. The power and ability will be demonstrated in an actual performance governed by what constitutes an agreed conclusion.
will constitute
E. The demonstration of a psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability.

'A + B + C + D = E' is a sentence where neither the statements A, B, C, and D, nor their negation can be proven in the sentence.

I'm sorry I don't see the need for those fancy words. And just what do you mean by "conclusion", would that be the same as 'success'?

And once more just for good measure.

The rules
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
the FAQ
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html

[Ririon]

1. Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable.
2. Mental events cannot be measured by material means.
-maatorc.

1. Fancy words. Skipped.
2. Sure they can. Telepathy, for instance? Easy to measure if it existed.

[petre]

Therefore:
6. From this, it follows that any idea I, petre, am trying to communicate to this board about maatorc is flawed.

maatorc.

7. And therefore, the only way your idea is worth discussing is if it is wrong. But if it is wrong, then it's not really worth discussing either, is it?

[jmercer]

Is science aware of anything beyond energy and vibration?
Yes. Science recognizes states and interactions as well.

Your original premise is flawed; in effect, your argument amounts to the old Greek thinking that perception and reality are dualistic. Descartes answered that handily some centuries laster with "Cogito, ergo sum", which became a foundational element of Western rationalism.

You have taken the position that the rules preclude the identification of the actual root cause of the activity, and that the source of such activities cannot be measured, identified or even - in some cases - perceived.

Whether or not the actual root cause of a given demonstration can be measured or perceived is utterly irrelevant; all that needs to be observed and documented are results under conditions which render the possiblity of cheating either remote or non-existent.

This is enough to demonstrate that a previously unknown aspect of our reality exists, one that is not explained by our existing science. The actual analysis of "how" - beyond ensuring deception didn't happen - isn't a part of the process, nor is it necessary.

To use the current example - if remote viewing is possible, then the successful demonstration under the appropriate controlled conditions is all that's needed to win the challenge and open the door to a new field of study. I see nothing in the challenge rules that would prevent that; the greatest obstacle for the demonstrators is that they can't do it. :D

[maatorc]

........Your original premise is flawed; in effect, your argument amounts to the old Greek thinking that perception and reality are dualistic.......

Not so: I am saying that perception IS reality.

[William Smith]

Not so: I am saying that perception IS reality.

(Driving it to the brink.)
Shouldn't this read: "Perception becomes reality?"

"Is" said perception chosen via experience or imposed via genetic code? (I'm obviously kidding.)

[fuelair]

Not so: I am saying that perception IS reality.

So the perception of an insane person is reality. For the persons' brain perhaps, but if the insane person perceives an empty desert and walks into the (real) busy street, he gets run over. Words of philosophy and games of semantics are loads of fun (when not pretty darn boring like this thread) but reality pretty much always trumps - and the challenge is in the real world with real applicability. Find lifegazer (trust me on this) - you and (he)? really can have fun feeding each other this silliness - and I am sure you will both be the happier for it.

[maatorc]

Fine. There is only a semantic difference between the two definitions, but they can be reconciled: Energy is a measurement of the power to move things. Same thing. But, I agree not to go to war over it.

But, where did you learn that "energy-vibration is the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence"? I'd just like to know.

Wowbagger -
The following table indicates what I mean by energy, vibration, and the universal spectrum.
See also The Physicist's Conception Of Nature by Werner Heisenberg, my edition 1958 by Harcourt, Brace & co., New York, ISBN 0-8371-3107-3., on energy.

ACTUALITY.........................MANIFESTATION

VIBRATION........................ ENERGY

Approximate........................Reality
Range of............................Realization
Octaves.............................Perception
_______.............................__________
1 to 14..............................Touch and sound
14 to 29.............................Electromagnetic Longer waves
29 to 39.............................Electromagnetic Microwaves
39 to 48.............................Heat or Infrared
48 to 50.............................Visible Light
50 to 56.............................Ultraviolet
56 to 61.............................X-Ray
61 to 80+...........................Gamma and Cosmic Rays.

maatorc.

[William Smith]

Dare I ask again?

Maatorc, did this thread so far satisfy you as to the detection and identification of a possible semantic flaw in the Challenge description? Or the lack thereof?

[thaiboxerken]

Not so: I am saying that perception IS reality.

Who's perception?

[jmercer]

Not so: I am saying that perception IS reality.
Sorry - no go.

Perception is merely a product of evolution, tuned by millions of years of survival. Everything we perceive, every sense we have exists because it carried a value in helping us to survive long enough to procreate and pass that trait along. Our senses successfully interpret survival-based aspects of reality - because if it didn't, we'd be extinct as a race.

That's not to say that every aspect of our senses is survival-oriented; nature is notoriously sloppy, and traits that are irrelevant to survival are passed down simply because they happen to coexist with traits that are survival-improvers. :)

Perception fails utterly to record many of the fundamental aspects of the universe, ranging from the ultimately small to the ultimately large. Many things that you cannot perceive exist, and can be indirectly proven by observing the effects of them on that which can be perceived.

An example of that would be x-rays. You cannot perceive x-rays directly, but film (and other tools) exist that demonstrate their existence.

Regarding "Perception IS reality", does the world cease to exist when you sleep? Go under anesthesia?

No. "Cogito, ergo sum" proves that we exist as a part of reality, even if the "we" referred to is consciousness, and apparently immaterial in nature.

Reality continues on regardless of our status as conscious or unconscious beings; what ceases when we are unconscious is our perception of reality.

Further, how a schizophrenic deals with the world does not define reality for anyone but them; and their version is merely the result of a distorted perception of the independent reality that exists. Ditto someone on hallucinogens, or drunk on alchohol, etc.

Reality does not mutate simply because someone high on drugs or alchohol comes down, and perceives the world more accurately. Nor does reality change because a schizophrenic is diagnosed and medicated, allowing them to perceive the world as it really is.

All your statement really means is that the fidelity of our senses defines how we interpret reality. True enough as far as it goes, but our senses are not the whole of reality - merely our connection to it.

An attempt to suggest that perception is reality is a failed understanding of what the role of perception actually is.

[maatorc]

Who's perception?

Anyone's

[maatorc]

Sorry - no go.
Regarding "Perception IS reality", does the world cease to exist when you sleep? Go under anesthesia? .

The above seems to be the key comment.

Actuality is the world as it is in itself whether we perceive it or have a realization of it or not. Reality is a perception of, a consciousnes of, a realization of, the world. If we are not alive, or conscious of it, the world, as it actually is, still IS.

Darat does not want extended discussion of the kind required for me to fully answer you here.

[thaiboxerken]

Anyone's

If there are two people in a room, who's perception dictates reality?

[maatorc]

If there are two people in a room, who's perception dictates reality?

The perceptions that each of them experience will be their individual realities.
Even should they be perceiving the identical actuality their perceptions are not necessarily identical.

[maatorc]

So the perception of an insane person is reality. For the persons' brain perhaps, but if the insane person perceives an empty desert and walks into the (real) busy street, he gets run over. Words of philosophy and games of semantics are loads of fun (when not pretty darn boring like this thread) but reality pretty much always trumps - and the challenge is in the real world with real applicability. Find lifegazer (trust me on this) - you and (he)? really can have fun feeding each other this silliness - and I am sure you will both be the happier for it.

Are you sure this is the right thread? I suggest you find Mickey Mouse (trust me on this!).

[Darat]

Sine maatorc is not discussing a flaw in the Challenge but his misunderstanding of the Challenge based on his apparent philosophical beliefs and wishes to discuss those philosophical viewpoints the thread has been moved here (R & P).

[maatorc]

I've read the OP and all of the referenced threads and I'm with Darat on this one. You either a) don't understand how the Challenge works or b) you are a troll. I'm betting on b), but I am a cynic. In the hopes that -- after all this time and explanation -- a) is still the case:

In our shared human existance, certain things are measurable, quantifiable, repeatable, and occur even during double-blinded tests that control for trickery. These are the things described and developed by science. It does not matter whether my husband and I "perceive" electricity as electrons or Magic Switch Fairies; assuming no problem with the power source or wiring, the lights will come on when we flip the switch.

Whether those things are "real", in the philosophic sense that you are describing, is beyond the scope of science.

Likewise, the "reality" of occurances is also beyond the scope of the Challenge. The Challenge does not seek to prove the "actuality" or "reality" of events in the way you are using the words "actuality" and "reality". It's just a challenge to do something that is commonly understood to be beyond the scope of science in an environment that controls for trickery, placebo effect, etc.

It is true that the James Randi Educational Foundation reserves the right to say what they consider to be paranormal -- it's their challenge, for one thing. However, in all the years I've been following this, I have yet to see an example of a claim they accepted as "paranormal" that I did not also think was paranormal. And I am defining "paranormal" as "beyond the scope of what is commonly understood to be scientifically verifiable".

Here's a question for you: do you think that science is a relevant, functional, useful method?


Do you want a reply to this, or have other posts answered your objections?

[maatorc]

Since maatorc is not discussing a flaw in the Challenge but his misunderstanding of the Challenge based on his apparent philosophical beliefs and wishes to discuss those philosophical viewpoints the thread has been moved here (R & P).

Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be measured by material means.
This is not philosophy: It is common human experience. The challenge is a well intentioned and well meaning mistake, based on the fallacy of the material measurability of psychical events.

[nathan]

Actuality is the world as it is in itself whether we perceive it or have a realization of it or not. Reality is a perception of, a consciousnes of, a realization of, the world. If we are not alive, or conscious of it, the world, as it actually is, still IS.

All you're doing here is redefining terms. AFAICT everyone but you is using 'reality' to mean the thing you're describing above as 'actuality'. What you've decided to call 'reality' most others would probably call something like 'perceived environment'.

It would seem that you would get further using regular dictionary definitions of these terms, rather than defining your own meanings for them.

[jmercer]

Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be measured by material means.
This is not philosophy: It is common human experience. The challenge is a well intentioned and well meaning mistake, based on the fallacy of the material measurability of psychical events.
Material measurement is not needed, nor is it a requirement of the challenge. The required results for beating the challenge are shaped by the claim, and are individualized based on that.

Remote viewing, mind reading, clairvoyance, mediumship, and other, similar so-called physic phenomena can be demonstrated by citing information that is impossible to acquire under test conditions via mundane means.

Demonstration of material measurability for these claims is utterly unnecessary. All that's needed is demonstration of required knowledge obtained under the controlled conditions of the negotiated protocols of the claim.

Checkmate. :D

[William Smith]

Since the thread got moved, rightfully, may have jumped multiple sharks and now resides in a forum where most threads based on my perception do not lead anywhere productive, I enquire one last time; with no pressure, simply curious:

Maatorc, did this thread so far satisfy you as to the detection and identification of a possible semantic flaw in the Challenge description? Or the lack thereof?

[nescafe]

An example of that would be x-rays. You cannot perceive x-rays directly, but film (and other tools) exist that demonstrate their existence.

In actual point of fact, you can directly percive x-rays under the correct conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray#Visibility_to_the_human_eye). Doing so is incredibly foolish and/or dangerous, though -- all that lovely ionizing radiation going through your eyeballs is probably a Bad Thing.

[jmercer]

In actual point of fact, you can directly percive x-rays under the correct conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray#Visibility_to_the_human_eye). Doing so is incredibly foolish and/or dangerous, though -- all that lovely ionizing radiation going through your eyeballs is probably a Bad Thing.

:eek:

Oh.
:jaw-dropp

Oh, my.

Talk about "seeing stars"... :D

[maatorc]

"Since the thread got moved, rightfully, may have jumped multiple sharks and now resides in a forum where most threads based on my perception do not lead anywhere productive, I enquire one last time; with no pressure, simply curious:"

It is perfectly understandable that a thread in the dominant and most visible area of the site which questions the very basis of the challenge, and cannot be shouted down by the usual verbal and quasi-psychological self-referencing, and an evident ignorance of concepts and ideas very well known and explained outside the site, will be an embarrassment to it, and be shunted off and hidden. So be it.

"maatorc, did this thread so far satisfy you as to the detection and identification of a possible semantic flaw in the Challenge description? Or the lack thereof? "

Post 132 seems to say I am right but should not worry about it and let the less demanding criteria and protocols stand.

maatorc.

[maatorc]

"...Remote viewing, mind reading, clairvoyance, mediumship, and other, similar so-called physic phenomena can be demonstrated by citing information that is impossible to acquire under test conditions via mundane means...."

...Citing information will at best merely infer and never demonstrate all such events.

"...Demonstration of material measurability for these claims is utterly unnecessary. All that's needed is demonstration of required knowledge obtained under the controlled conditions of the negotiated protocols of the claim..."

...Again, demonstrating 'knowledge obtained' cannot ever prove such events actually occur.

Experientially 'knowing' something is vastly different to intellectually 'knowing about' it: This distinction seems beyond the capacity of this site to grasp.

In passing, none of what I have said means that I accept, believe in, or practise anything covered by the JREF challenge.


Checkmate. :D
It would not pass muster in the real world.

maatorc.

[William Smith]

maatorc.

Your sour grapes will make a lovely wine. However, I can't see how I can be of any further productive assistance to your unique perception of reality.

A votre santé, maatorc!

[maatorc]

All you're doing here is redefining terms. AFAICT everyone but you is using 'reality' to mean the thing you're describing above as 'actuality'. What you've decided to call 'reality' most others would probably call something like 'perceived environment'.

It would seem that you would get further using regular dictionary definitions of these terms, rather than defining your own meanings for them.
Post 143 may assist you.

[maatorc]

Your sour grapes will make a lovely wine. However, I can't see how I can be of any further productive assistance to your unique perception of reality.

A votre santé, maatorc!
Have a good day.

[maatorc]

Since maatorc is not discussing a flaw in the Challenge but his misunderstanding of the Challenge based on his apparent philosophical beliefs and wishes to discuss those philosophical viewpoints the thread has been moved here (R & P).

My understanding is that this forum is free and open to different viewpoints.

My thread had finally arrived at where I wanted it to go, and a poster (#132) finally saw what I was getting at: That there is a technical semantic flaw in the challenge, but that the less restrictive rules can operate within clearly specified and openly stated and understood limitations.

It looks suspicious to me that as soon as the thread started to achieve some balance in perspective you choose to 'disappear' it.

What are you frightened of? Is the JREF so fragile and vulnerable that open dissention is a threat to it's standing?

As to philosophical beliefs and viewpoints, almost all threads on this site include divergent strands like branches on a tree: It is virtually unavoidable unless one chooses not to reply to the majority of posts. You can't be serious that this is the real reason you relocated the thread!

maatorc.

[CFLarsen]

My understanding is that this forum is free and open to different viewpoints.

My thread had finally arrived at where I wanted it to go, and a poster (#132) finally saw what I was getting at: That there is a technical semantic flaw in the challenge, but that the less restrictive rules can operate within clearly specified and openly stated and understood limitations.

It looks suspicious to me that as soon as the thread started to achieve some balance in perspective you choose to 'disappear' it.

What are you frightened of? Is the JREF so fragile and vulnerable that open dissention is a threat to it's standing?

As to philosophical beliefs and viewpoints, almost all threads on this site include divergent strands like branches on a tree: It is virtually unavoidable unless one chooses not to reply to the majority of posts. You can't be serious that this is the real reason you relocated the thread!

maatorc.

It is a free forum and you are free to discuss this. It is simply a question of having the discussions in the right sub-forum.

[nathan]

Post 143 may assist you.
what?? I was trying to assist you.

Post 143 is merely a description of the electro magnetic spectrum (except for the first slot, which for some reason are compressive waves). And by the way the EM spectrum extends all they way down to DC -- ask the VLF guys who use it to communicate with submarines.

You are woefully misguided if you think all there is is the EM spectrum.

Given the complete non-sequitur of your answer, I think you have no wish to actually communicate.

[Thomas]

As to philosophical beliefs and viewpoints, almost all threads on this site include divergent strands like branches on a tree: It is virtually unavoidable unless one chooses not to reply to the majority of posts. You can't be serious that this is the real reason you relocated the thread!
I have just read this thread, and the flaw you claim to have spotted in the challenge is not there, because it's not an ontological challenge.

JREF doesn't claim to understand all the properties of the universe, they merely claim that it is doubtful that people can dowse, transfer thoughts, communicate with the spirit world etc. etc., and they say: "Ok, show us".

Your argument seems to be very concerned with the idea that not all phenomena are testable. Even if that's so, then it's no concern of JREF, they deal with testable claims. An undetectable invisible pink pegasus have no place in the challenge, as its existence can't be verified. It's as simple as that.

[maatorc]

You are woefully misguided if you think all there is is the EM spectrum.

I don't. Didnt you see the + sign.

[nathan]

I don't. Didnt you see the + sign.
And precisley what, pray tell, do you think that + indicates? That the frequency rangs for gamma rays extends above 80 octaves?

I'm not sure what meaure of 'octave' is being used here btw. Clearly visible light doesn't span 3 octaves of the EM spectrum (red being at about 700nm and blue at about 400 -- that's barely one octave).

Oh, and i notice that it's lumping together gamma rays and cosmic rays. these are different things with similar energies. gamma rays are photons and cosmic rays are charged particles accelerated through space.

You're still demonstrating a tai'chi-like propensity for not communicating.

[drfrank]

There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural or paranormal.

There, at least, we are in agreement ;)

Unfortunately, the rest of your argument appears to be pointless semantics.

[jmercer]

There, at least, we are in agreement ;)

Unfortunately, the rest of your argument appears to be pointless semantics.

Well said. In point of fact, Maatorc is employing time-honored troll tactics here... :D

[Belz...]

It has effects, but they are not materially measurable.

Mojo -
It has effect in its own sphere, but is not materially measurable.
maatorc.

Ridiculous. If it has effects in the real world then it MUST, by definition, be measurable empirically.

I strongly recommend you send one of your thoughts to Mr James Randi in an envelope.

Again, ridiculous. We can clearly measure cerebral activity and have plenty of evidence for the actual existence of thoughts.

[Belz...]

Is science aware of anything beyond energy and vibration?

Actually, science is aware of what can be observed. Call it what you will.

[jmercer]

"...Remote viewing, mind reading, clairvoyance, mediumship, and other, similar so-called physic phenomena can be demonstrated by citing information that is impossible to acquire under test conditions via mundane means...."

...Citing information will at best merely infer and never demonstrate all such events.

"...Demonstration of material measurability for these claims is utterly unnecessary. All that's needed is demonstration of required knowledge obtained under the controlled conditions of the negotiated protocols of the claim..."

...Again, demonstrating 'knowledge obtained' cannot ever prove such events actually occur.

Experientially 'knowing' something is vastly different to intellectually 'knowing about' it: This distinction seems beyond the capacity of this site to grasp.

In passing, none of what I have said means that I accept, believe in, or practise anything covered by the JREF challenge.



maatorc.

Incorrect. You are deliberately ignoring that in the specific activites I cited - remote viewing, mind-reading, etc. - the stated non-materialistic ability results in a non-materialistic success - e.g., gaining knowledge otherwise unobtainable by ordinary means.

You're simply playing semantic troll-games.

[Belz...]

Going back through the several posts connected with this:
If the event is psychical there will be no measurable materially observable effects and hence it is not amenable to scientific material study.
If the event is psychical it is not in itself materially observable and cannot be materially proven to exist or occur.

I would say, then, that if something cannot be, even in principle, be shown to exist, then it cannot possibly exist.

[Belz...]

I presumed you understood energy-vibration to mean the universal energy spectrum underlying all existence. All forms of existence vibrate according to the vibratory nature of the underlying fundamental particles of which they consist.
Volumes are known about what energy does, but not what it actually is.

"Is" ? You mean, what it's made of ?

[Belz...]

Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be measured by material means.
This is not philosophy: It is common human experience. The challenge is a well intentioned and well meaning mistake, based on the fallacy of the material measurability of psychical events.

Uh, oh. Interesting Ian territory...

[William Smith]

An EEG merely infers, and there is no measurable correspondence between it and any claimed mental state.
"Yup": Facetious, but it is true it is strictly in the mind of one practising or observing it. Can you, for example, measurably prove and materially replicate what you say you 'imagine' or 'visualise'? And this is not even seen as psychical!
maatorc.


...
Again, ridiculous. We can clearly measure cerebral activity and have plenty of evidence for the actual existence of thoughts.

Thank you Belz..., I felt like an a$$ for 104 posts.

[Belz...]

Thank you Belz..., I felt like an a$$ for 104 posts.

Pfft. He's just trying to sound smart by saying what every philosopher out there is saying: that it is impossible to "know" someone else's thoughts or even prove that they exist in reality, which is clearly rubbish.

Perhaps we can't (yet) transmit thought from one person to the next, but the existence of thought is undeniable.

[William Smith]

Pfft.
...

;) :) :D

[maatorc]

what?? I was trying to assist you.

Post 143 is merely a description of the electro magnetic spectrum (except for the first slot, which for some reason are compressive waves). And by the way the EM spectrum extends all they way down to DC -- ask the VLF guys who use it to communicate with submarines.

You are woefully misguided if you think all there is is the EM spectrum.

Given the complete non-sequitur of your answer, I think you have no wish to actually communicate.


Are you suggesting or implying there exist octaves of vibrations and the corresponding manifestations below and above those shown in post 143?

[maatorc]

"Is" ? You mean, what it's made of ?

I'm not saying I know what it's made of, but that there is nothing known or apparently knowable beyond energy and it's characteristic vibrations.

It appears all natural manifestations can be classified under the concept of energy, which appears from all angles to be the most general concept so far formulated by science.

[maatorc]

....We can clearly measure cerebral activity and have plenty of evidence for the actual existence of thoughts.

Of course we can, but as you know, you cannot simultaneously experience and materially replicate another's thought.

[maatorc]

Thank you Belz..., I felt like an a$$ for 104 posts.
That was not my intention.

[maatorc]

Uh, oh. Interesting Ian territory...

And, therefore, because you make this comment, that necessarily means that you are a genius and Interesting Ian is an idiot?

I am sure I can find this somewhere in my Latin-Logic-Lemma-Little-List of fallacies.

[maatorc]

I would say, then, that if something cannot be, even in principle, be shown to exist, then it cannot possibly exist.

Would you?

[thaiboxerken]

Would you?

He just did.

I agree with him.

[maatorc]

Well said. In point of fact, Maatorc is employing time-honored troll tactics here... :D

Do you not find it curious that when you disagree with someone, possibly anyone, your posts are intelligent and unchallengeable truth, but their's are a product of trolling. This site is full of this kind of trolling-wooing-tripe by people like you.

[maatorc]

Quoted (...Originally posted by maatorc: "There is no existing material or scientific evidence that there is any such thing as the psychic, supernatural, or paranormal"...)

There, at least, we are in agreement ;)
Unfortunately, the rest of your argument appears to be pointless semantics.

There is, ALSO, no existing material or scientific evidence that there IS NOT any such thing as the psychic, superatural, or paranormal.

The JREF will never be able to decide either case.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be measured by material means. This is not philosophy: It is common human experience. The challenge is a well intentioned and well meaning mistake, based on the fallacy of the material measurability of psychical events.
So then mental events have no causal effect on the physical. The purpose of the Challenge is for people who claim otherwise to demonstrate their claims. If you claim that you have mental events that are causally inefficacious, they are not Challenge material.

~~ Paul

[maatorc]

"And precisely what, pray tell, do you think that + indicates? That the frequency rangs for gamma rays extends above 80 octaves?"
No, that there are no grounds to presume the frequency ranges, for whatever they may underly, stop at the 80th octave, or that there are no frequencies below those for sound.

"I'm not sure what meaure of 'octave' is being used here btw. Clearly visible light doesn't span 3 octaves of the EM spectrum (red being at about 700nm and blue at about 400 -- that's barely one octave)."
Using the accepted vibration ranges for touch and sound as a starting point, each octave is double the vibrations of the preceding one up the spectrum. The table is indicative only, and the intervals and numbers are approximate, overlap and are not exact.

"Oh, and i notice that it's lumping together gamma rays and cosmic rays. these are different things with similar energies. gamma rays are photons and cosmic rays are charged particles accelerated through space."
I am saying that whatever the manifestation is or is called it lies within the universal range of vibration and energy.

You're still demonstrating a tai'chi-like propensity for not communicating.
Do you accept this kind of paranormal nonsense?

maatorc.

[maatorc]

So then mental events have no causal effect on the physical. ~~ Paul

I didn't say that anywhere in this thread.

[jmercer]

Do you not find it curious that when you disagree with someone, possibly anyone, your posts are intelligent and unchallengeable truth, but their's are a product of trolling. This site is full of this kind of trolling-wooing-tripe by people like you.
I call 'em like I see 'em, maatorc. :D

And I'm perfectly willing to change my mind when provided proof - or at least a compelling argument. You have provided neither. :)

[maatorc]

"I have just read this thread, and the flaw you claim to have spotted in the challenge is not there, because it's not an ontological challenge."
What would be an ontological challenge?

"JREF doesn't claim to understand all the properties of the universe, they merely claim that it is doubtful that people can dowse, transfer thoughts, communicate with the spirit world etc. etc., and they say: "Ok, show us"."
The JREF has no way of knowing if someone can dowse, transfer thoughts (whatever that is presumed to be), or communicate with the spirit world (Does it exist?).

"Your argument seems to be very concerned with the idea that not all phenomena are testable. Even if that's so, then it's no concern of JREF, they deal with testable claims."
No, my argument concerns the fact that mental-psychical events cannot be phenomenologically tested: Phenommena-Materiality is incommensurable with the noumenal-psychical.

"An undetectable invisible pink pegasus have no place in the challenge, as its existence can't be verified. It's as simple as that."
If this is true, how can the psychic, supernatural, or paranormal have a place in the challenge, unless, of course, the JREF accepts that it can be verified?


maatorc.

[TobiasTheViking]

Do you not find it curious that when you disagree with someone, possibly anyone, your posts are intelligent and unchallengeable truth, but their's are a product of trolling. This site is full of this kind of trolling-wooing-tripe by people like you.
While that may, or may not, be true for that specific poster. You, sir, have been acting like a troll through this entire thread. You are a troll.. if you want that to change, then give proper replies instead of just saying "you would say that?" which doens't give anything to the discussion.

[CFLarsen]

I'm not saying I know what it's made of, but that there is nothing known or apparently knowable beyond energy and it's characteristic vibrations.

It appears all natural manifestations can be classified under the concept of energy, which appears from all angles to be the most general concept so far formulated by science.

What are the frequencies of these vibrations?

[RandFan]

maatorc.RandFan

[maatorc]

What are the frequencies of these vibrations?

Indicated in post 143. And see post 192 and connections.
They are approximate and ranges of manifestation overlap.

[CFLarsen]

Indicated in post 143. And see post 192 and connections.
They are approximate and ranges of manifestation overlap.
Those are not frequencies. Frequencies are measured in Hz.

[Thomas]

What would be an ontological challenge?

That would be a challenge where we test for the properties of the noumena as well, or at least consider all our results void because we can't account for it.

But I'll give you benefit of the doubt: What exactly do you want JREF to do about the noumena? Render the challenge void?


The JREF has no way of knowing if someone can dowse, transfer thoughts (whatever that is presumed to be), or communicate with the spirit world (Does it exist?).
Not agreed. JREF do have a way of knowing if people can do these things, but from induction: Because everybody who has yet claimed they could do it and taken the challenge, have failed dramatically.


No, my argument concerns the fact that mental-psychical events cannot be phenomenologically tested: Phenommena-Materiality is incommensurable with the noumenal-psychical.
Ding an sich has no place in the challenge. The JREF network test what they can observe.
Besides, what exactly is it that you find Ding an sich should justify? Ghosts? Spirits? Telepathy? What?


If this is true, how can the psychic, supernatural, or paranormal have a place in the challenge, unless, of course, the JREF accepts that it can be verified?.
If you had read what I wrote, then you would have realized that I said that JREF doesn't test the undectable. An undetectable invisible pink unicorn qualifies for that, while various psychics, dowsers, ghost hunters etc., claim that their abilities or discoveries are detectable. So Randi says: "show us".

PS. Please quote us structured if you know how to do it. It's easier to read and quote for the rest of us.

[maatorc]

Those are not frequencies. Frequencies are measured in Hz.

Frequency is the number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occurring per unit of time.The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz), one hertz being equivalent to one cycle per second.

As shown in post 143, for example, the approximate range of human hearing is 20 to 15000 hertz or vibrations.

[Belz...]

I'm not saying I know what it's made of, but that there is nothing known or apparently knowable beyond energy and it's characteristic vibrations.

Well, aside from the fact that I don't have the first clue about what you mean by "vibrations", as from what I understand it energy doesn't "vibrate", I'd like to know what you're suggesting. According to you, IS there something beyond energy and "it's [sic] characteristic vibrations." ?

It appears all natural manifestations can be classified under the concept of energy, which appears from all angles to be the most general concept so far formulated by science.

I'm not sure quarks would agree.

Of course we can, but as you know, you cannot simultaneously experience and materially replicate another's thought.

By "cannot" I assume you mean "cannot, as of yet", right ? Because otherwise you are implying that "thought" is not material, while everything else is.

And, therefore, because you make this comment, that necessarily means that you are a genius and Interesting Ian is an idiot?

I am sure I can find this somewhere in my Latin-Logic-Lemma-Little-List of fallacies.

Speaking of which, you've just made one by putting words into my mouth.

Interesting Ian was not an idiot, but his ideas were deluded, and according to him everybody that disagreed with him WAS an idiot for not understanding such obvious concepts; kinda like conspiracy theorists.

Would you?

I just said I would.

[Belz...]

There is, ALSO, no existing material or scientific evidence that there IS NOT any such thing as the psychic, superatural, or paranormal.

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that it doesn't work, gathered in controlled experiments.

The JREF will never be able to decide either case.

That's not the point of the challenge.

I didn't say that anywhere in this thread.

Yes you did. You said that it was impossible to measure empirically, therefore implying pretty clearly that it has no causal effect. Anything that HAS causal effect must, by definition, be empirically detectable.

[Belz...]

Frequency is the number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occurring per unit of time.The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz), one hertz being equivalent to one cycle per second.

As shown in post 143, for example, the approximate range of human hearing is 20 to 15000 hertz or vibrations.

Which isn't energy that's vibrating, is it ?

[Genesius]

ACTUALITY.........................MANIFESTATION

VIBRATION........................ ENERGY

Approximate........................Reality
Range of............................Realization
Octaves.............................Perception
_______.............................__________
1 to 14..............................Touch and sound
14 to 29.............................Electromagnetic Longer waves
29 to 39.............................Electromagnetic Microwaves
39 to 48.............................Heat or Infrared
48 to 50.............................Visible Light
50 to 56.............................Ultraviolet
56 to 61.............................X-Ray
61 to 80+...........................Gamma and Cosmic Rays.

maatorc. Are you suggesting or implying there exist octaves of vibrations and the corresponding manifestations below and above those shown in post 143?
Pray thee tell, oh wise maatorc, where does gravity fall on the above chart?

[CFLarsen]

Frequency is the number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occurring per unit of time.The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz), one hertz being equivalent to one cycle per second.

As shown in post 143, for example, the approximate range of human hearing is 20 to 15000 hertz or vibrations.
What does the numbers mean? Hertz? Thousands of Hertz?

[Belz...]

Wowbagger -
The following table indicates what I mean by energy, vibration, and the universal spectrum.
See also The Physicist's Conception Of Nature by Werner Heisenberg, my edition 1958 by Harcourt, Brace & co., New York, ISBN 0-8371-3107-3., on energy.

ACTUALITY.........................MANIFESTATION

VIBRATION........................ ENERGY

Approximate........................Reality
Range of............................Realization
Octaves.............................Perception
_______.............................__________
1 to 14..............................Touch and sound
14 to 29.............................Electromagnetic Longer waves
29 to 39.............................Electromagnetic Microwaves
39 to 48.............................Heat or Infrared
48 to 50.............................Visible Light
50 to 56.............................Ultraviolet
56 to 61.............................X-Ray
61 to 80+...........................Gamma and Cosmic Rays.

maatorc.

Bolding mine.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I didn't say that anywhere in this thread.
You said:

Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be measured by material means.
Then mental events must have no effect on the physical. Otherwise we could measure them.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My kingdom for some units!

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

You said:

Then mental events must have no effect on the physical. Otherwise we could measure them.

~~ Paul
Or, at the very least, detect them...

[maatorc]

Pray thee tell, oh wise maatorc, where does gravity fall on the above chart?

I said "Are you suggesting or implying there exist octaves of vibrations and corresponding manifestations below and above those shown in post 143?"

I was hoping the answer would be yes, and I would have agreed.

[maatorc]

Pray thee tell, oh wise maatorc, where does gravity fall on the above chart?

I said in post 182: "Are you suggesting or implying there exist octaves of vibrations and corresponding manifestations below and above those shown in post 143?"

I was hoping the answer would be yes, and I would have agreed.

[maatorc]

What does the numbers mean? Hertz? Thousands of Hertz?

Each octave of ascending vibrations has double the vibrations, in Hertz, of the preceding octave.

[maatorc]

You said:

Then mental events must have no effect on the physical. Otherwise we could measure them.

~~ Paul

You can measure an effect, such as an EEG, but not the event itself. Nor does a measured effect do any more than infer the event: You cannot, by any known material means, be the mind of another.

[RandFan]

You cannot, by any known material means, be the mind of another. And you can't, by any known material means, be a tree.

[William Smith]

Please elaborate.



This thread will go on long time GI.

Told 'cha! (Styles & profiles à la Jeff Jarrett.)

[maatorc]

Pray thee tell, oh wise maatorc, where does gravity fall on the above chart?

There is an unwitting irony in your mock praise: There is nothing deep and meaningfull or profound of a scientific, psychological, or philosophical nature in the ideas I put forward in the Argument that the JREF challenge is invalid. The principles are well known and understood, and are actually quite basic and even elementary concepts in the broader world of knowledge and understanding outside the JREF. Having said that, what is of interest is that only two posters in this thread have grasped what I have said. It is of no concern to me that they may not agree with me on the details.

Not only do I not claim to be wise or knowledgeable beyond normal, I am astonished that so many posters on this thread who appear to think of themselves as human benchmarks of knowledge and wisdom cannot grasp these simple ideas.

[maatorc]

Bolding mine.
I appreciate you are the most intelligent person in the world, but does this mean that the ideas of James Clerk Maxwell, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Max planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and others, which predate yours, are irrelevant?

[maatorc]

And you can't, by any known material means, be a tree.

Who said you can?

[maatorc]

Which isn't energy that's vibrating, is it ?
All mass is a form of energy.

[Belz...]

I appreciate you are the most intelligent person in the world, but does this mean that the ideas of James Clerk Maxwell, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Max planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and others, which predate yours, are irrelevant?

First, if the only thing you can do is throw insults at me, then I suggest you leave, because you have nothing to bring to a debate.

Second, I have no "ideas" to predate, so your witty argument is void.

Third, Albert Einstein was wrong on a number of points, and his work was carried forward and improved by people MORE RECENTLY. The point is, of course, that citing papers from the 50s isn't very useful, especially if the idea has been abandoned by the scientific community.

I said in post 182: "Are you suggesting or implying there exist octaves of vibrations and corresponding manifestations below and above those shown in post 143?"

Please stop refering to your own posts. I'm sure you can be bothered to either link to that post or, heaven forbid, repeat yourself.

[Belz...]

Who said you can?

You said that thoughts cannot be known, and use this line of argument to show that they are not material. Well, you can't "know" a tree or what it is to be a tree, but this doesn't mean that it's non-physical. I do believe that was RandFan's point, if I may say so.

All mass is a form of energy.

REALLY ? Now I've just learned something very important. Of course, you DO have a link to the research papers that show this ? Because, as I understand it, it would mean that a quark, for example, would be composed of photoons or gluons or whatnot. And I'm sure I never heard that before except in my head.

[CFLarsen]

Each octave of ascending vibrations has double the vibrations, in Hertz, of the preceding octave.

That doesn't answer my question:

What does the numbers mean? Hertz? Thousands of Hertz?

Just answer the questions when they are put to you, OK? Stop mucking about, if you are interested in a real debate.

[Belz...]

All mass is a form of energy.

Also: this assumes that the graviton exists. To the best of my knowledge this is still a hypothesis.

[drkitten]

All mass is a form of energy.


I'm sorry -- we're discussing human hearing here?

What's the "mass" of human hearing?

For that matter, what's the "mass" of gravity?

What's the vibrational "frequency" of gravity?

There are lots of things that are simply not described in terms of mass/energy or vibrations, because the applications of those terms makes no sense. Scientists have no problem understanding that there are other things in the world, which makes your description of the limitations of science factually inaccurate and a straw man.

[drkitten]

There is an unwitting irony in your mock praise: There is nothing deep and meaningfull or profound of a scientific, psychological, or philosophical nature in the ideas I put forward

Or indeed, there is nothing coherent or factually accurate or philosophically well-grounded.

There is, indeed, no reason for a person in possession of a mere fraction of his marbles to take your ideas seriously.

[RandFan]

Who said you can?Who said you could be a mind?

...you can't "know" a tree or what it is to be a tree, but this doesn't mean that it's non-physical. I do believe that was RandFan's point, if I may say so.

ETA: Yes, that is my point. I should note that I am a former dualist.

[maatorc]

Or indeed, there is nothing coherent or factually accurate or philosophically well-grounded.

There is, indeed, no reason for a person in possession of a mere fraction of his marbles to take your ideas seriously.


This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.

[RandFan]

This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.Sorry maatorc, you need to understand that this is a skeptics forum. We don't usually gush over every new idea that comes along.

Best of luck to you and I'm glad that you can find peace in the fact that it is but our fault that we don't find your ideas earth shattering.

"The way things are going, they're going to crucify me" --Lennon

[William Smith]

This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.

Don't worry, you'll be back.

[William Smith]

Mere low level quasi-logical rhetoric. Get real. Do not waste my time with such
rubbish.
maatorc.

This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.

QED.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You can measure an effect, such as an EEG, but not the event itself. Nor does a measured effect do any more than infer the event: You cannot, by any known material means, be the mind of another.
So you meant to say:

"Not so: As I have repeated many times, the flaw in the challenge is that phenomena is incommensurable with noumena, and mental events cannot be experienced by another person."

What does that have to do with the Challenge?

~~ Paul

[fuelair]

And you can't, by any known material means, be a tree.

But he/she could be a plant.:rolleyes:

[fuelair]

This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.

I'm really not kidding - if you want to talk with another person with the same low level understanding of science, philosophy and reality as you, you need to hunt up the lifegazer threads on this site. You would be marvelous together - unless there is sock-puppetry afoot (uh...that's a joke, afoot, sock.....):rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: !!

[Belz...]

This thread has degenerated into stone throwing and personality level abuse.
It is a common practice designed to condemn what you cannot grasp.
As stated, two posters understand what the Argument means.
Please carry on bouncing off your ignorance and egos.
I am finished here.

maatorc.

Never has he even considered that the fault could be his. How sad.

[nathan]

All mass is a form of energy.

Bzzt, wrong. thanks for playing.

Mass *has* energy, or conversly energy *has* mass. Or are you saying that using the density/mass/volume equation
m = rho v
that volume is a form of mass?