What do you think about this anti-JREF article?

[Nabukadnezar]

Here's the link:
psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html
I've just read it, I also read some of the logs posted on that website... Why was that thread deleted from the JREF Forum??? I couldn't find it. Why were e-mails modified??? This is not fair. Maybe this is being done all the time. Maybe this post will be deleted too. I don't believe in paranormal, I don't support these liars and auto-deceivers that say they have paranormal powers, but I really want to understand this issue. JREF didn't have anything to proof to Peebrain but why were e-mails modified? Where is that thread? There are lots of other questions to be asked, this is only the start.

[Dumb All Over]

No Planet X option. This poll is invalid.

[jsfisher]

Here's the link:
psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html
I've just read it, I also read some of the logs posted on that website... Why was that thread deleted from the JREF Forum??? I couldn't find it. Why were e-mails modified??? This is not fair. Maybe this is being done all the time. Maybe this post will be deleted too. I don't believe in paranormal, I don't support these liars and auto-deceivers that say they have paranormal powers, but I really want to understand this issue. JREF didn't have anything to proof to Peebrain but why were e-mails modified? Where is that thread? There are lots of other questions to be asked, this is only the start.


Does this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34434) look deleted?

It is usually better to start with facts than accusations.

[Nabukadnezar]

Good thing the thread still exists. I didn't find it using the search option. Anyway, Peebrain still seems to be right about some issues. Read the article and vote in the poll, maybe post your opinion too.

[jsfisher]

Good thing the thread still exists. I didn't find it using the search option. Anyway, Peebrain still seems to be right about some issues. Read the article and vote in the poll, maybe post your opinion too.


Why would I do that?

You kicked off this thread with a rather aggressive but erroneous opening post. Were it I in that position, I'd be offering an apology for the unfair accusation.

Then, too, I'd not point people as some external web page and tell people, "Look here!!! Damning stuff!!!" Instead, I would have distilled it down of a few words of my own that focus on the issues that concern me.

I'd be mindful, too, that it would all be hear-say, so I'd state things accordingly.

...but that's just me. Care to start over?

[Pipirr]

Does the million dollars exist? Goldman Sachs says that it does. Good enough for me. I could write them and get proof.

Does Peabrain have any paranormal powers? He could take the million dollar challenge and prove it to everyone.

The nonsense about there not being a million dollars has been floating around for a while. It's easily refuted for the cost of a stamp. But whatever. It's just another excuse to spare Peabrain and friends from having to prove their talents.

Same old, same old. Doesn't surprise me that James Randi and Kramer got a little short when having to deal with such nonsense.

Also, what Tricky said (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=907169&postcount=12) in the other thread.

[ChristineR]

What was Peebrain right about? Randi was rude to him, but Randi has no obligation to prove to him/her that the money real. Randi has proved it many times; all the info is right here on this website. If Peebrain actually won, was actually awarded bonds and not cash, and the bonds turned out to be worthless then Peebrain could sue the JREF, and would bring the JREF down.

Big ifs.

[rjh01]

Not to mention that peebrain can apply to many organisations that would be willing to pay big bucks for real psychic services, depending on what they are. He has not done that.

But peebrain has made no claim of any abilities. The claims he has made are worthless.

[Darat]

...snip... Why was that thread deleted from the JREF Forum???

...snip..

Which thread?

And I don't know what the big deal is - if you win you will be able to get your hands on a million dollars - that is the beginning and the end of the matter.

[joobz]

Your poll has
1.) peebrain is right or partly right
and
2.) Peebrain is wrong.

Do you not see the inherent bias of your view that comes out in that poll?
would you expect anyone to take you seriously with such methods?

What if it was
1.) pee brain is right
2.) Pee brain wrong, partly wrong

you'd get a completely different bias error.

or
1.) Peebrain is right
2.) peebrain is wrong and I'm a big dummo nothing for thinking so

then you'd get the JREFers to admit they are dummo nothings

or
1.) Peebrain is right
2.) Peebrain is a sexy man who happens to be wrong.

You'd make pee brain feel good, cause all the JREFers would be forced to say he's hot
or
1.) Peebrain is right
2.) Peebrain is wrong because the stars told me so....

well, you get the point.

[Nabukadnezar]

Of course that the money exist but e-mails were modified... that's low if you ask me.

[Darat]

And the full link is: www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

[fuelair]

You left out the option that Pbrain is an incompetant, woo spewing, nut case. Not saying he is, but the choice would have been nice. He is wrong regardless.

[De_Bunk]

And the people over at Psipog want to be taken seriously...

Check out.. "Fun games and cool tricks to do with psi balls, including some practical applications.."


'Nuff said...

DB

[colin]

Of course that the money exist but e-mails were modified... that's low if you ask me.
True. But he did admit it and apologize. (page 4, post 157 of the $$$$$$ thread)

[joobz]

You left out the option that Pbrain is an incompetant, woo spewing, nut case. Not saying he is, but the choice would have been nice. He is wrong regardless.
Or i've always liked

1.) Peebrain is right
2.) Peebrain is wrong and I hate freedom

So let me ask you, Do you hate freedom?

[Big Al]

1) Peebrain is right in all respects
2) Peebrain is wrong about some aspects, but I agree with most of the article
3) Peebrain has made a few valid points, but I disagree with most of the article
4) Peebrain is wrong in all respects

[aggle-rithm]

And the people over at Psipog want to be taken seriously...

Check out.. "Fun games and cool tricks to do with psi balls, including some practical applications.."


'Nuff said...

DB

The only practical application magic woo powers have is to separate the gullible from their money.

[aggle-rithm]

And the full link is: www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

I like it when people call the challenge a "scam". What kind of cockamamie scam would it be to have the scammer to put a million dollars in the bank, then refuse to give it away?

That ranks right up there with the Larry Silverstein insurance fraud...

[aggle-rithm]

No Planet X option. This poll is invalid.

It's also missing:

Peebrain is not even wrong.

[Davide]

The only practical application magic woo powers have is to separate the gullible from their money.

Yes, and that's no small thing. It's big, despicable business.

For me at least, the chief disappointment with the MDC to date has been that it has not been as effective an antidote to this "only practical application of woo powers" as it might have been. Instead it seems to have attracted mostly deluded folk who actually believe they or others can actually do the impossible but who aren't sure what it is they think they can do.

[Almo]

I was going to say something, but I just decided to post this instead.

:confused:

[Spektator]

And the people over at Psipog want to be taken seriously...

Check out.. "Fun games and cool tricks to do with psi balls, including some practical applications.."


'Nuff said...

DB

Indeed. I don't speak for anyone else, but I don't allow anyone to do tricks with my psi balls.

[Soapy Sam]

The status of "staff " at JREF is something of a mystery at times- both to forum members and the general public. I find many people think JREF is a large organisation , with a staff of tens of people. Far from it.
To disabuse anyone of that notion-

JREF to the best of my knowledge consists of
1. James Randi:
2. Linda: His secretary/Woman Friday/General Sanity Inspector
3. Linda's husband Karl: (who since his retirement from a day job has been trying to help Linda get out from under a mountain of paperwork in hopes she can retire soon and they can have a life together)
4.Terry: IT guru.
5. Jeff Wagg: Lord High Everything Else.


So far as I know, these are the only permanent staff - and I suspect all Karl gets for his trouble is the odd free hotel room and a chance to see his wife sometimes. A recent advertisement for a staff member presumably suggests Karl and Linda are starting to see the light at the end of their escape tunnel.

I have no idea if Terry is paid anything, but we all know IT monkeys work for peanuts so long as they get to watch the flashing lights.

In addition, there are occasional transient volunteer staff, who I imagine get accommodation and the odd hamburger. These come and go.

I believe Kramer, a music business professional in real life, was a JREF volunteer. He departed some time ago to pursue other projects and is no longer on JREF staff.

That's it. No PR dept. No HR dept. No janitor.

On the question of politeness, there are mixed opinions among forum members. In theory it would be good if every contact with JREF was met with a friendly smile from one of the many pretty receptionists. But in the real world, that's likely to be Wagg, who ain't what I call pretty.

Randi is a carnaptious old grump and he's not likely to change now. When we see the actual quality of many of the applications, this becomes more understandable.

Sean (peebrain) acknowledged that in one of his emails. And nobody can say his emails are of the fervid, lunatic variety which do not deserve a considered reply. He seemed perfectly reasonable to me. My own feeling in his specific case is this:
1. JREF is issuing a challenge to self proclaimed psychics etc to put up or shut up. As such, the only people JREF owes any explanations of finances are the IRS and those people who actually make a proper application for the prize.
2. That said, politeness costs little. If the sort of enquiry Sean made is frequent and costs too much time for a harassed small groupto answer individually, the best answer is to prepare standard responses along the lines indicated by Keri in the $$$$$$$ thread, accompanied by a blanket apology for inability to go further and a simple statement that no further detail can be or will be provided unless an actual application is formally made.
Even then, I don't see any obligation to detail the nature of the endowment investment. Tax on the money if won , is the responsibility of the winner and that should also be made clear.

Now this might have satisfied Sean. However, we all know there are many people it would not satisfy. And this is the problem; behind each reasonable critic are row upon row of progressively less reasonable ones.
Where do JREF stop responding?

I think in this case we got it wrong.
But in a business like this it's hard to see how JREF could fail to get it wrong sometimes.

[ChristineR]

I would think that if someone actually passed a preliminary test the JREF might talk about liquidating the bonds. For now it would be pointless to look at the current sales price of the bonds and their interest rates. I assume the Goldman-Sachs people follow the details of that.

[Darat]

The status of "staff " at JREF is something of a mystery at times- both to forum members and the general public. I find many people think JREF is a large organisation , with a staff of tens of people. Far from it.
To disabuse anyone of that notion-

JREF to the best of my knowledge consists of
1. James Randi:
2. Linda: His secretary/Woman Friday/General Sanity Inspector
3. Linda's husband Karl: (who since his retirement from a day job has been trying to help Linda get out from under a mountain of paperwork in hopes she can retire soon and they can have a life together)
4.Terry: IT guru.
5. Jeff Wagg: Lord High Everything Else.


Jeff is the JREF's General manager- Terry is a volunteer like me.




2. That said, politeness costs little. If the sort of enquiry Sean made is frequent and costs too much time for a harassed small groupto answer individually, the best answer is to prepare standard responses along the lines indicated by Keri in the $$$$$$$ thread, accompanied by a blanket apology for inability to go further and a simple statement that no further detail can be or will be provided unless an actual application is formally made.
Even then, I don't see any obligation to detail the nature of the endowment investment. Tax on the money if won , is the responsibility of the winner and that should also be made clear.

Now this might have satisfied Sean. However, we all know there are many people it would not satisfy. And this is the problem; behind each reasonable critic are row upon row of progressively less reasonable ones.
Where do JREF stop responding?

I think in this case we got it wrong.
But in a business like this it's hard to see how JREF could fail to get it wrong sometimes.

The JREF does (or did use to) have a standard response for the questions regarding the challenge fund, it was the latest statement from Goldman-Sachs, and they would send it to anyone making any enquiries about the funds.

[ChristineR]

Apparently they sent him/her the Goldman-Sachs letter and he/she demanded a balance sheet so that he/she could see for him/herself how much the bonds were worth.

Obviously Goldman-Sachs issues the JREF statements giving the current value of the account, and if all the companies that JREF owns bonds in went bankrupt, then Goldman-Sachs would have to revise their letter. It's really none of Peebrain's business how the JREF invests their assets.

And like I said, if Peebrain actually won the million and the JREF couldn't pay up, there'd be a lawsuit and the JREF would be destroyed. And Peebrain would be rich and famous anyhow.

I wish that Kramer hadn't been rude to Peebrain, especially as he used an obscenity. Nonetheless, Peebrain was rude first.

Peebrain: I have a house that is worth $1,000,000.
JREF: That's nice. I have $1,000,000 and here is written proof.
Peebrain: I want more information. I want to see your private financial papers.
JREF: I have not decided whether I want to buy your house. In fact I almost certainly will not.
Peebrain: I want more information before I will show you my house.
JREF: In that case I will move on and look at other houses.
Peebrain: You don't really have $1,000,000 do you?
JREF: You're full of it.
Peebrain: You used a bad word!

[colin]

This whole thing is really silly and I know it’s been said before, but… if one could demonstrate their awesome, earth shaking, mind boggling paranormal powers, why would you piss and moan about the exact value of the bonds held by a well known and highly respected financial institution? I mean, for Christ’s sake, show the world your thing - under controlled conditions – and CHANGE REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!!!

I mean to hell with Randi’s peanuts (screw the 1 mil). Why not go for the 100+ mil lotteries that aren’t uncommon…? (Remember, you can use the money however you want! – give it to charity if you feel tainted by it.) You can even donate to the colin fund! Have your people call my people… ;-)

[fuelair]

And the people over at Psipog want to be taken seriously...

Check out.. "Fun games and cool tricks to do with psi balls, including some practical applications.."


'Nuff said...

DB
Well , if they're just playing with their psi balls no harm done!! And it keeps them happy!:D

[Overman]

:troll :troll :mdance:

[aggle-rithm]

What was Peebrain right about? Randi was rude to him, but Randi has no obligation to prove to him/her that the money real.

One of the perks of old age is you get to be rude to people and they will either ignore it out of respect or chalk it up to senility. My mother discovered this a few years ago and is taking full advantage. ;)

[HypnoPsi]

My own feeling in his specific case is this:
1. JREF is issuing a challenge to self proclaimed psychics etc to put up or shut up. As such, the only people JREF owes any explanations of finances are the IRS and those people who actually make a proper application for the prize.


Does anyone know about gameing laws and how they might apply here?

It doesn't seem right to me that an individual or business entity only needs to prove a financial prize exists when someone applies for a challenge.

_
HypnoPsi

[Darat]

Does anyone know about gameing laws and how they might apply here?

It doesn't seem right to me that an individual or business entity only needs to prove a financial prize exists when someone applies for a challenge.

_
HypnoPsi
What do you mean?

[HypnoPsi]

What do you mean?


I mean exactly what I said above.

The JREF are offering a public challenge with prize money - and since applicants are expected to bear the burden of all costs incurred to have a given claim tested that could potentially be a lot of money they have to spend.

Prizes where you have to 'spend to win' are usually regulated somehow.

If the JREF prize is all above board then regulation works strongly in favour of the JREF and skeptical supporters of the challenge.

Dealing with individuals who raise questions about the money is (rather obviously) very frustrating for members of this forum (who are, at the end of the day, not privy to all the financial ins-and-outs of the JREF). Equally, this is incredibly time consuming and frustrating for Randi himself as well as JREF staff members.

Consequently, if the JREF passed a legal gameing audit (state or federal) that demonstrated that any winner of the prize would indeed get $1m within a reasonable time frame (say 28 days) then that that effectively puts to an end claims that the money is somehow not real.

And what exactly is this idea about the money (or some of it) just being pledges anyway?
_
HypnoPsi

[Mercutio]

I thought "gaming" had to do with games of chance. This is nothing of the sort. If the applicants can do what they claim, there is no gamble involved at all.

The various prizes for human-powered flight, or artificial intelligence, or breaking pole-vaulting records...do these have to be regulated as games of chance?

For an applicant to look at it that way is tacit admission of a lack of real ability.

[HypnoPsi]

I thought "gaming" had to do with games of chance. This is nothing of the sort. If the applicants can do what they claim, there is no gamble involved at all.

The various prizes for human-powered flight, or artificial intelligence, or breaking pole-vaulting records...do these have to be regulated as games of chance?

For an applicant to look at it that way is tacit admission of a lack of real ability.


I'm not aware of any claimant to psychical abilities who looks at the challenge as a game of chance - but to skeptics it definately is a wager against chance; even if it's 10K or 100K to 1 against that someone can, for example, repeatedly guess the suit of a card as it is drawn from a shuffled deck or whatever.

I think that better terms here than "gameing" may be "prize promotion" and "contest". These things usually have some kind of regulation when a legal contract is drawn up and someone has to spend money to get at the prize.

And this is all beside the point anyway - that one simplified method of demonstrating that an applicant can genuinelly end up with $1m is much preferrable to bucketloads of individuals asking about the same issue (either here in the forum or by contacting the jref directly) over and over again.

What are the bonds exactly? Are they real hard cash deposited by the JREF that can be immediately cashed in? Or are they pledges from skeptics and randi supporters? How would a winner be paid? Are they given the bonds and, if so, are they immediately transferable into cash by any winner or are they immediately transferable in the way that a cheque is immediately transferable?
_
HypnoPsi

[petre]

It's not a game of chance, it's a contract. An agreement between two parties that if one performs as they claim, the other will remit payment.

People that argue the challenge isn't valid because there is a theoretical possibility the assets possessed by JREF could drop below $1 Million in value would never seek employment. After all, how could they be sure when payday comes that their employer wouldn't be bankrupt?

Randi could have a suitcase filled with 10,000 $100 bills (US) and say, "Here! Here's the money you'll win if you pass my challenge" and by the same logic the detractors would say, "Ah ha! But what if the moment you hand the money over, the United States government collapses and all US currency becomes worthless? You expect us to take THAT chance?"

[HypnoPsi]

People that argue the challenge isn't valid because there is a theoretical possibility the assets possessed by JREF could drop below $1 Million in value would never seek employment. After all, how could they be sure when payday comes that their employer wouldn't be bankrupt?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? Are the 'assets' and 'cash equivalents' possessed by the jref (which is to say the bonds) based on real hard cash the jref has invested into bonds or are they pledges from skeptics?

That's a pretty important distinction.

Randi could have a suitcase filled with 10,000 $100 bills (US) and say, "Here! Here's the money you'll win if you pass my challenge" and by the same logic the detractors would say, "Ah ha! But what if the moment you hand the money over, the United States government collapses and all US currency becomes worthless? You expect us to take THAT chance?"


Realisitically, the US treasury isn't likely to collapse. How often have you ever mistrusted a dollar bill you knew was real? What about a cheque? If you were selling your car, I imagine you'd wait until it cashed before you handed over the keys. The same principle holds for bonds.
_
HypnoPsi

[Darat]

I mean exactly what I said above.

The JREF are offering a public challenge with prize money - and since applicants are expected to bear the burden of all costs incurred to have a given claim tested that could potentially be a lot of money they have to spend.


They are not, the Challenge is in the form of a civil contract between two parties.


Prizes where you have to 'spend to win' are usually regulated somehow.


As above - not applicable in this instance.


If the JREF prize is all above board then regulation works strongly in favour of the JREF and skeptical supporters of the challenge.


What more regulation do you think there could be then the Florida and USA legal systems?


Dealing with individuals who raise questions about the money is (rather obviously) very frustrating for members of this forum


No - what is frustrating is when people do not apparently understand the USA financial system and then when it is explained to them ignore that explanation to continue to try and make a case for something being "amiss" with the prize fund.


(who are, at the end of the day, not privy to all the financial ins-and-outs of the JREF). Equally, this is incredibly time consuming and frustrating for Randi himself as well as JREF staff members.


What is time consuming? Sending an account statement to someone? The JREF may be a small organisation but I'm sure sending a fax or a letter or these days a scanned PDF email of the latest statement can hardly be classed as "time consuming and frustrating".


Consequently, if the JREF passed a legal gameing audit (state or federal) that demonstrated that any winner of the prize would indeed get $1m within a reasonable time frame (say 28 days) then that that effectively puts to an end claims that the money is somehow not real.


Even if by some strange legal shenanigans or political lobbying the JREF could convince the Floridian authorities that the JREF challenge should not be treated as a civil contract but as some gambling game I doubt that would convince some people of the legitimacy of the prize fund. Don't forget many people making claims about the "lack of money" are willing to question one of the foundation blocks of the USA's financial system to try to call into question the prize funding! So I doubt a gaming board's little certificate is going to convince these people.


And what exactly is this idea about the money (or some of it) just being pledges anyway?
_
HypnoPsi

:confused:

[drkitten]

[QUOTE=HypnoPsi;2531210]I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? Are the 'assets' and 'cash equivalents' possessed by the jref (which is to say the bonds) based on real hard cash the jref has invested into bonds or are they pledges from skeptics?[/QUTOE]

They are based on "real hard cash the JREF has invested into bonds."

If you want to see just how much "real hard cash, " phone Goldman-Sachs. But they don't invest "pledges."

You may be being confused by some of the history of the prize. In the mid-1990s (I forget the exact specifics), Randi tried to raise the visibility of the prize by getting people to pledge to give money in the event the prize was won, which would of course be a different kettle of fish. An anonymous donor stepped in and gave Randi the $1,000,000 outright so that he wouldn't have to mess around with those pledges any more. That $1,000,000 is the basis for th ecurrent prize; the money in the GS account is the "real hard cash" the donor -- whose name we still don't know -- gave Randi.

But for which we are nevertheless very grateful.

[Bob Klase]

And what exactly is this idea about the money (or some of it) just being pledges anyway?

At one time (years ago) some of the money was pledges.

[petre]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here? Are the 'assets' and 'cash equivalents' possessed by the jref (which is to say the bonds) based on real hard cash the jref has invested into bonds or are they pledges from skeptics?

That's a pretty important distinction.


As noted, there really is in excess of $1 million (closer to or over $2 million if I recall) worth of bonds held by Goldman-Sachs.


Realisitically, the US treasury isn't likely to collapse. How often have you ever mistrusted a dollar bill you knew was real? What about a cheque? If you were selling your car, I imagine you'd wait until it cashed before you handed over the keys. The same principle holds for bonds.
_
HypnoPsi

You've gotten my point that doubting the continued value of a dollar is a silly complaint. The point was that doubting the continued value of bonds backed by a trusted institution is similarly silly.

A cheque is backed only by the person signing it. If the person turns out not to have the money, the bank isn't going to just pay you anyway. So if you don't trust the person writing the cheque, you're justified in doubting its value.

Bonds are backed by the issuer (the bank), and based on a market. When you doubt the value of a bond, you call into question the reputation of the issuer and/or the stability of the market on which they are based. I haven't examined either in the case of the bonds held by JREF, but I'm certainly willing to hear any justification for such doubt. Sadly, I've not yet seen anyone doubting the value of these bonds put forth a reason to doubt either the issuer or the market.

[drkitten]

Realisitically, the US treasury isn't likely to collapse. How often have you ever mistrusted a dollar bill you knew was real? What about a cheque? If you were selling your car, I imagine you'd wait until it cashed before you handed over the keys. The same principle holds for bonds.

It occurs to me that you (and Peabrain) may not quite understand how the "value" of bonds is determined.

There are actually two numbers involved. JREF, Goldman, and the rest of the world overwhelmingly pay most attention to one, but Peabrain seems to be stuck on the other.

The basic idea behind a bond is that it's a note of obligation. I borrow money from you and am obliged to pay it back. Most bonds have a "face value" of $1000, so I might borrow $10,000 and issue you 10 bonds for this. At the same time, I will also have to pay periodic interests, so what I really might sell you is a promise to pay you $50 per year, plus $1000 at the end of ten years, which works out at 5% interest per year.

But that bond is not necessarily worth $1000. The face value of a bond is not the same as the value of a bond. Once I have issued you a bond, you can turn around and re-sell it to someone else, for any mutually agreeable price. If my reputation as a borrower is poor, someone else might only offer you $950 for a bond with face value $1000. Alternatively, someone might offer you $1050 for a bond with face value $1000, if the interest rate is particularly good or something. If you're currently getting 3% interest on your savings account, the 5% from the bond looks better than if you're currently getting 6%. So if interest rates drop, your bond becomes less valuable, even as the face value remains the same.

The value of a bond, therefore, is determined by how much the market values that particular obligation. I just checked a list of municipal bond prices, and found that, for example, "UNIVERSITY NEV UNIV REVS," bonds issued by the University of Nevada, are selling at 95.411 -- you can buy $100 worth of face value for $95 and change, probably because they're not paying very good interest (4%). On the other hand, "AUSTIN TX CONVENTION ENTERPR" is selling at $107 for $100 in debt, because it's paying nearly 6% interest.

Or perhaps the smart pundits think that the University of Nevada is a deadbeat, not worth trusting with their money. Because of this, their IOU might not be worth much.

The JREF (through Goldman) holds a portfolio of bonds "worth" at least $1 million. Even if some of the holders default, that's alread factored into the "worth" -- the bonds of holders that are likely to default are not "worth" very much, but they're probably paying phenomenal amounts of interest relative to their "worth," if Goldman holds them at all.

[Nova Land]

Prizes where you have to 'spend to win' are usually regulated somehow.


No, that's not exactly true -- and in that small inexactness is a big difference.

I think what you mean to say is that contests in which people are required to pay participation fees are regulated. If someone has a contest for solving a series of a dozen rebuses, for instance, and people are required to send in a dollar with each of the puzzles, I believe that would be regulated in the way you seem to be indicating.

But virtually every contest involves expenses. If local paper runs a free contest involving a series of rebus puzzles, with prizes for people who solve them all correctly, I will still incur expenses in attempting to enter the contest. If I mail in the entries, there will be postage costs -- not to mention I'll probably need to use a pen and an envelope, which aren't free. If I e-mail in the entries, that means paying an ISP to provide me with internet access. If I hand-deliver the entries to the newspaper office, there will be costs of getting to and from their offices.

Those are the kind of incidental expenses which people applying for the JREF prize incur. This money is not paid to JREF, and therefore it is not considered the same, nor regulated the same, as if JREF were requiring applicants to pay a fee in order to take the challenge. Applicants may have to spend money in order to win the challenge -- but that doesn't make the Million Dollar Challenge a 'spend to win' contest.

[sinclairmcevoy]

Like the man said "Apply or disappear" Prove your claim and JREF will prove the prize is $1,000,000. Why can't all these PEEBRAINED twits get it? Show the world your awesome power and the JREF prixe will be a drop in the bucket. Unless you're full of s--t. Which you are.

[fuelair]

I mean exactly what I said above.

The JREF are offering a public challenge with prize money - and since applicants are expected to bear the burden of all costs incurred to have a given claim tested that could potentially be a lot of money they have to spend.

Prizes where you have to 'spend to win' are usually regulated somehow.

If the JREF prize is all above board then regulation works strongly in favour of the JREF and skeptical supporters of the challenge.

Dealing with individuals who raise questions about the money is (rather obviously) very frustrating for members of this forum (who are, at the end of the day, not privy to all the financial ins-and-outs of the JREF). Equally, this is incredibly time consuming and frustrating for Randi himself as well as JREF staff members.

Consequently, if the JREF passed a legal gameing audit (state or federal) that demonstrated that any winner of the prize would indeed get $1m within a reasonable time frame (say 28 days) then that that effectively puts to an end claims that the money is somehow not real.

And what exactly is this idea about the money (or some of it) just being pledges anyway?
_
HypnoPsiSorry, you have misinterpreted the laws - they refer to contests where you must pay money to the people holding the competion to be able to compete. Unless I have missed something in the rules, the money the applicant is responsible for is paid to travel sources, hotels and such, food - none of which are required by the challenge but are necessary to take the challenge (though you could walk and sleep in the streets and bum money for food if you wished). By the same token, your costs in developing and testing recipes for the Pillsbury Cooking competition are not paid to Pillsbury (except extremely limitedly in that you must use certain of their products as important ingredients in the recipe) and do not count as paying to enter the competition.
Either.

[Jackalgirl]

Might I also add that the bonds are immediately negotiable bonds; i.e. (if I am understanding this correctly), they are already mature. They can be immediately converted into cash.

P.S. drkitten, I wish I could help you with those specific dates, but I can't -- I was one of the pledgees, though ($1000); this was back when Randi was on CompuServe (and I worked there). --J

[HypnoPsi]

You've gotten my point that doubting the continued value of a dollar is a silly complaint.

I have never made such a compliant.

The point was that doubting the continued value of bonds backed by a trusted institution is similarly silly.

I think what you need to accept here is that even when a cheque bounces due to lack of funds that is also an example of the financial/banking system working perfectly. (In such a situation the cheque is worthless whether it's for $1 or $1m and, consequently, no transfer is made into the payees account.)

Similarly, if bonds have a maturity date of 10 or 20 years that is also the financial/banking system working perfectly.

In the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34434&page=6

the "Draft FAQ" read that:

"The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well."

the "Official FAQ" then became:

"The prize money is held in the form of bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist. These immediately convertible bonds will be awarded to the Challenge winner within 10 days of passing the formal test."

As of this date, however, the FAQ is being updated... what it says next will be very interesting.

If these bonds the jref holds are "negotiable bonds" and "immediately convertable into money", as Randi claimed in his email to the poster "Peabrain" (and which kicked off this thread and a few others), the matter seems - almost - completely settled.

Randi has definately made a direct claim here that the bonds are "immediately convertable into money" and, as we've seen, they are no longer based on pledges but on real hard cash having been invested.

Aside from what the new FAQ ends up saying, the really interesting thing to note will be what the (new?) contract that the applicant signs reads. As long as that says the bonds are "immediately convertable into money" and is signed by both parties the issue is pretty much over.

What I'm left to wonder though, is why, if the bonds are immediately convertable into cash, the jref doesn't just cash them in and then pay the claimant by cheque? Since the jref doesn't seem to expect a winner any time soon and, if it happens, it will only be a one off I would think, I don't see why that would cause too much inconvenience to the jref.
_
HypnoPsi

[Darat]

...snip..

they are no longer based on pledges but on real hard cash having been invested.


The prize money fund for what is NOW the Challenge has never been in pledges - that was one of Randi's previous challenges.



Aside from what the new FAQ ends up saying, the really interesting thing to note will be what the (new?) contract that the applicant signs reads. As long as that says the bonds are "immediately convertable into money" and is signed by both parties the issue is pretty much over.


There has never been an issue unless you doubt the USA financial system and then your issue is nothing to do with the JREF.

[Cuddles]

As of this date, however, the FAQ is being updated... what it says next will be very interesting.

No it won't. The FAQs and challenge pages are being updated to reflect the new requirements that people will need to fulfil before they can apply. Randi, Jeff and almost everyone who has read about the issue, is satisfied that a statement from Goldman-Sachs is sufficient proof that the money exists. They have said this on numerous occasions and there is no reason to suspect that has changed. There is no reason to suppose that the FAQs will say anything different on this subject than they did before.

[Humanists Harbor]

[QUOTE=Darat;2534139] The prize money fund for what is NOW the Challenge has never been in pledges - that was one of Randi's previous challenges. QUOTE]

Ah, memories. I did a search and found this:

http://www.randi.org/hotline/1996/0001.html

Hee hee, there's my name on the list, from back when I was a budding young skeptic!

[Wudang]

What I'm left to wonder though, is why, if the bonds are immediately convertable into cash, the jref doesn't just cash them in and then pay the claimant by cheque? Since the jref doesn't seem to expect a winner any time soon and, if it happens, it will only be a one off I would think, I don't see why that would cause too much inconvenience to the jref.
_
HypnoPsi

Securer and faster using the Swift etc network. I work in IT for a major bank and there are completely different though sometimes overlapping mechanisms for paying different ammounts. UK people will probably be aware of the CHAPS and BACS systems. Systems like these mean that lawyers and investment houses can transfer customers money around in a thoroughly audited and logged manner so nobody can falsely claim that they money was or was not delivered to the wrong/right person.

[aggle-rithm]

Like the man said "Apply or disappear" Prove your claim and JREF will prove the prize is $1,000,000. Why can't all these PEEBRAINED twits get it? Show the world your awesome power and the JREF prixe will be a drop in the bucket. Unless you're full of s--t. Which you are.

Indeed -- I would find it much more likely that person A has a million dollars in the bank (after all, that's fairly common) than that person B has magic powers (which is exceedingly rare; in fact, has never been observed).

[Peter Morris]

You may be being confused by some of the history of the prize. In the mid-1990s (I forget the exact specifics), Randi tried to raise the visibility of the prize by getting people to pledge to give money in the event the prize was won, which would of course be a different kettle of fish. An anonymous donor stepped in and gave Randi the $1,000,000 outright so that he wouldn't have to mess around with those pledges any more. That $1,000,000 is the basis for th ecurrent prize; the money in the GS account is the "real hard cash" the donor -- whose name we still don't know -- gave Randi..

It's not hard to work it out. Almost certainly Penn Jillette.

Randi kinda gave it away. At least he gave a huge clue.

[Moochie]

I would like those who believe they have paranormal abilities to prove it in a scientifically valid and replicable way.

That the morons don't do so proves to me that they're generally crackpots who don't deserve my, or the JREF's, time, let alone a million dollars.

M.

[xingyifa]

Here's the inconsistency I see:
The JREF is a skeptical society. Thus, they insist that when people make claims, they prove them (as is logically incumbent on someone who makes a claim). The JREF has claimed to have one million dollars to pay to a winner. Thus, it seems somewhat philosophically inconsistent for them to not bend over backwards to post public proof of their claim when they expect the woo-woos to do the same for their silliness. Right? Surely there is a way to post a copy of some sort of statement/letter and then attach that to the FAQ...

[ChristineR]

Here's the inconsistency I see:
The JREF is a skeptical society. Thus, they insist that when people make claims, they prove them (as is logically incumbent on someone who makes a claim). The JREF has claimed to have one million dollars to pay to a winner. Thus, it seems somewhat philosophically inconsistent for them to not bend over backwards to post public proof of their claim when they expect the woo-woos to do the same for their silliness. Right? Surely there is a way to post a copy of some sort of statement/letter and then attach that to the FAQ...

The letter is given out on request, and other info is available from the US government. I don't know why the letter isn't linked to in the FAQ, but it's not hard to come by. Peebrain has the letter, but still doesn't believe in the million.

There are people who would ride this until they'd see a suitcase full of money, and when they saw, they'd still complain that the JREF wasn't going to give it away. The procedure for getting the million from the JREF is simple by comparison.

[jsfisher]

Surely there is a way to post a copy of some sort of statement/letter and then attach that to the FAQ...


Hasn't the JREF don't that one better? Were the JREF lying about the $1,000,000, then it could just have easily posted a bogus financial statement. Instead, it has posted who you can contact to get a statement directly from the trustee.

[xingyifa]

Sounds fair enough. I was just trying to play devil's advocate, but if that is all true, then it would seem peebrain has no substantive complaint.

[Darat]

...snip...

There are people who would ride this until they'd see a suitcase full of money, and when they saw, they'd still complain .....


.... until they'd checked every note with a counterfeit detector pen! :wackygrin:

[HypnoPsi]

I would like those who believe they have paranormal abilities to prove it in a scientifically valid and replicable way.

That the morons don't do so proves to me that they're generally crackpots who don't deserve my, or the JREF's, time, let alone a million dollars.

M.

Hmm... change "those who believe they have paranormal abilites" to "those who believe that consciousness is indistinct from matter/energy" and "or the JREF's, time, let alone a million dollars." to "or any real scientists time, let alone a single penny for funding" and see how it reads....

_
HypnoPsi

[drkitten]

Hmm... change "those who believe they have paranormal abilites" to "those who believe that consciousness is indistinct from matter/energy" and "or the JREF's, time, let alone a million dollars." to "or any real scientists time, let alone a single penny for funding" and see how it reads....


I'm not sure what your point is here. Scientists who believe that "consciousness is indistinct from matter/energy" are real scientists, and they've been amassing shedloads of evidence in favor of that particular viewpoint for the past hundred or so years (since the work on the localization of brain functions begain with neurologists like Broca and Werneke).

Compared to that, the amount of evidence suggesting that consciousness is somehow not matter/energy is -- well, it's simply not there. There's literarlly no evidence to suggest otherwise; not a single experimental paper or conference presentation.

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Scientists who believe that "consciousness is indistinct from matter/energy" are real scientists, and they've been amassing shedloads of evidence in favor of that particular viewpoint for the past hundred or so years (since the work on the localization of brain functions begain with neurologists like Broca and Werneke).


I'm not talking about the brain processing sensory information (and neither, incedentally, are materialists; Dennett and McCarthy, for example, even go so far as to propose that thermostats have beliefs about the world).

I'm pointing out that there is no real evidence that information processing (IP) and/or electromagnetic radiation (EM) is consciousness. There is just the belief that this is the case.


Compared to that, the amount of evidence suggesting that consciousness is somehow not matter/energy is -- well, it's simply not there. There's literarlly no evidence to suggest otherwise; not a single experimental paper or conference presentation.


If this were true then how would skeptics such as Wiseman and Blackmore be able to publish their counter meta-analysis of things such as the Ganzfeld if there were no original papers published?

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/ganzfeld.htm

Many Universities have parapsychology labs nowadays and the staff, be they post-grad students or post-doctoral researchers, regularly publish their work just as the staff in other departments do.

_
HypnoPsi

[Civilized Worm]

Even if the JREF were lying about the million dollars you could easily take them to court and demand the money they'd owe you. It's a really stupid arguement.

[robinson]

It's a really stupid arguement[sic].

Gosh, I never saw one of them on the internets before. :hb:

[De_Bunk]

Why should anyone care what a board filled with basement dwelling, RPG playing idiots think...

Jeez...they've got a 15yr old Mod over there...what does that say about the board and the kinda people who frequent it...

Get real...

DB

[Kaylee]

Wow, another old topic resurrected. :eye-poppi :)

Since I was the first person to speak in defense of Peebrain (Sean) way back in 2005*, here's my two cents FWIW.

As many have pointed out -- this is a badly worded and biased poll. However, I do agree that Sean's article has more accurate than inaccurate points, which is why I voted "yes". However, I can understand why some people would refuse to participate in this poll because of how it's worded.

Sean never applied for the prize, but did have questions about the nature of the prize. There's nothing on the JREF web page (now or back then) that said only people who have formerly applied for the prize could ask questions about the prize. IMHO, to argue that only people who have already signed the application for the challenge (a legally binding contract) can ask questions about an aspect of the challenge is a most surprising thing for skeptics to assert and not logical.
Looking at the logs of the e-mails provided by Sean :http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html (http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html)
and the cut and past e-mails provided by Kramer (see the original thread (http://forums.randi.org/ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34434)) it appears unlikely that Sean received a letter from Goldman Sachs certifying that they were holding a million dollars worth of bonds for the JREF. For one thing, he was never asked nor did he give anyone his snail mail address.

Were Randi and Kramer rude? IMHO, you bet. Was that wise? I don't think so. Did it support their credibility for either of them to not just simply state, once the FAQ was completed, "Hey, we were mistaken, the prize is given out in the form of bonds not cash?" I don't think so.
BTW, IIRC, only one person apologized for how he treated Sean in that thread, and it was Webfusion in the another closely related thread about the FAQ. Considering how relentless he was in his scorn for Sean, I was especiallyimpressed by his willingness to apologize without any excuses or hedging.


FWIW, one thing that I find very interesting in hindsight is how many supporters of Randi (and apparently Randi himself) assumed that all applicants and potential applicants were as familiar with the history of Randi and the prize as they were. IMHO, I doubt it. I have no reason to believe that Sean was, and IIRC, at the time he was taken aback by how rude the response was to his question.
Take for example the implicit assumption that Sean asked about the value of the bonds because it was a common tactic by Randi's distracters to cast doubt upon the prize's existence. I was in the chat room when the conversation about bonds with Annie, Sean and others took place, as described in the opening paragraph of his article (http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html). The only reason Sean asked Randi his questions about the bonds is exactly why he said he did in his article. Annie, a self-described daughter of a man who did very well as a valued corporate employee who worked his way up to the upper echelons of management with all of its perks, was explaining how bonds worked to a roomful of mostly financially naïve teenagers. Sean at the time was in his early 20s but apparently had not taken any accounting or finance courses in college, and barely knew anything about financial instruments either. IIRC, she did a pretty darn good job and a lot of teenagers and young adults got a good education about bonds that evening.BTW, it's not clear in the linked article that psipog.net is now an archived inactive web site. If anyone wanted to get in contact with Sean they should probably try to reach him at the e-mail linked on this web page ( http://alittleweird.com/ ) rather than the one listed in the article. * I stumbled upon Sean's web site before I knew about Randi, and was aware of his correspondence with Randi before Kramer posted about it in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34434

[Darat]

...snip...

Were Randi and Kramer rude? IMHO, you bet. Was that wise? I don't think so. Did it support their credibility for either of them to not just simply state, once the FAQ was completed, "Hey, we were mistaken, the prize is given out in the form of bonds not cash?" I don't think so.

...snip...


I don't follow this point - say they were mistaken about what?

[freudianlip]

I think Mr P##Brain should be given $1million monopoly dollars for his imaginary economic system to help him understand clearly the concepts iterated and re-iterated to him!
He is just some bored bloke who is desperately seeking affirmation of his own alleged intelligence via sorry attempts at unjustified, nit picking. But it could be worse.....Imagine being married to him.......:yikes: :scared: :hypnotize :faint: :covereyes :eek: :dig:

[robinson]

Why should anyone care what a board filled with basement dwelling, RPG playing idiots think...

Jeez...they've got a 15yr old Mod over there...what does that say about the board and the kinda people who frequent it...

Get real...

DB

A Moderator who is 15 years old? Are you kidding me? If this is true, it explains a lot. Being a skeptic, I demand someone provide evidence to refute this outrageous claim.
:wackywink:

[robinson]

Can we get a definitive statement here. When the MDC is won, is the final payment (the $990,000.00), in the form of a check, cash, or bonds?

[Darat]

Can we get a definitive statement here. When the MDC is won, is the final payment (the $990,000.00), in the form of a check, cash, or bonds?

Well bonds have nothing to do with what you win if you win the Challenge.The only reason people talk about bonds is that is how the JREF has decided to "keep" the funds it requires to back the prize of $1,000,000.

If you win the Challenge you get a $10,000 cheque immediately followed by the rest within 10 days. It's all rather simple and straightforward.

[robinson]

So, you get a check for $990,000.00?

[Darat]

In this day and age I'd have thought a winner would rather have it transferred electronically direct to their account rather then fiddle around with a cheque.

ETA: By the way this is covered in the Application form (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)


.....At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed-upon terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail.....

[drkitten]

I'm pointing out that there is no real evidence that information processing (IP) and/or electromagnetic radiation (EM) is consciousness. There is just the belief that this is the case.


Except that you're dead wrong and there are literally volumes of evidence, I suppose you might be.

[HypnoPsi]

Except that you're dead wrong and there are literally volumes of evidence, I suppose you might be.



What volumes of real evidence is there that information processing (IP) and/or electromagnetic radiation (EM) is consciousness?

Even the most well known proponents of the materialistic view such as Daniel Dennett and Christof Koch don't claim to have evidence to back up their theories and I don't see any from you.
_
HypnoPsi

[drkitten]

What volumes of real evidence is there that information processing (IP) and/or electromagnetic radiation (EM) is consciousness?

Start with the evidence of brain damage. Damage to the IP substrate causes damage to consciousness. Therefore, IP is causally related to consciousness. We can even map the relationship between consciousness and information processing.

While not at all conclusive, that simple sentence trumps all the evidence that has ever been gathered to support the idea that consciousness is non-material, precisely because there is no evidence whatsoever for the immateriality of consciousness. The only support for that position is, literally, arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

[Moochie]

What volumes of real evidence is there that information processing (IP) and/or electromagnetic radiation (EM) is consciousness?

Even the most well known proponents of the materialistic view such as Daniel Dennett and Christof Koch don't claim to have evidence to back up their theories and I don't see any from you.
_
HypnoPsi

I puke, therefore you are ... a piece of itinerant fish bait.

M.

[thaiboxerken]

The paranormalists often claim that they do what they do for love or altruistic purposes and that money isn't in the equation. Then they turn around and try to "prove" that the JREF money isn't real. Could they be any more inconsistent in their stance about money?

peebrain is wrong, and his screenname is accurate.

[Kaylee]

I don't follow this point - say they were mistaken about what?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=924195#post924195

[Dancing David]

Of course that the money exist but e-mails were modified... that's low if you ask me.
Proof evidence? if e-mails were deleted then why didn't Peabrain keep them.

And even better who cares?

[Kaylee]

Wow, another old topic resurrected. :eye-poppi :)

Since I was the first person to speak in defense of Peebrain (Sean) way back in 2005*, here's my two cents FWIW.

As many have pointed out -- this is a badly worded and biased poll. However, I do agree that Sean's article has more accurate than inaccurate points, which is why I voted "yes". However, I can understand why some people would refuse to participate in this poll because of how it's worded.

Let me clarify. I believe in Sean's summary of the correspondence between himself and Randi and than later Kramer, which is why I voted yes in the poll.

However, I also believe that two years ago when I last looked into this -- that its very likely that the JREF has bonds whose market value is worth close to a million dollars. I believe this because the informational tax returns filed with the IRS were available for free on online on at least two web sites, and I know how to read those things.

If someone is going to get upset with me because I said "very likely" instead of "absolutely" -- save your breath. I absolutely never say absolutely except for just this one time. ;)

[Darat]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=924195#post924195

Sorry but that doesn't make it any clearer to me what you think Randi and Kramer should have acknowledged they had been mistaken about?

[Kaylee]

Sorry but that doesn't make it any clearer to me what you think Randi and Kramer should have acknowledged they had been mistaken about?

Kramer originally stated in the thread that the prize would be awarded in cash. Later after the FAQ was finalized, the FAQ said that the balance of the prize ($990,000) would be awarded by having the bonds transferred to the winner. (The first $10,000 is paid by check immediately after the winner successfully demonstrates what was agreed upon.)


I'm not sure why my post wasn't clear.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...195#post924195 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=924195#post924195).

Well, perhaps because my post was written in the context of a lengthy 6 page thread? :confused:

Well, I can't blame you if you don't want to reread 6 pages of posts. You could, however, read Sean's 4 page summary instead:
http://www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html (http://www.psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html)

Or if you prefer, here's a cut and paste from his summary:

Since the other members agreed with my questions, Kramer decided to post an answer to them. This answer never made it back to my e-mail, and the only reason I found it was because I knew Kramer would try to make me look like an idiot on the forum (like he did with everyone else who e-mailed him privately). (My emphasis follows) Kramer's answer was that the prize was CASH, and not bonds.

<snip>

A poster offered to write up an FAQ about the Challenge that could be posted on the website. The idea is that Kramer could direct people to the FAQ when they ask common questions, and this could save Kramer time.



In the drafting of the FAQ, the poster put a question about the form of the money. We had concluded on the forum that it was in cash, and not bonds. Remember? In the FAQ, the poster added the question:If someone wins, how will they be paid?


Although the prize money is held in bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist, the bonds will be converted to US dollars before being paid. The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well.



This is what Kramer had been telling us all along, and this was identified early as the source of "my confusion". Kramer loved the FAQ, and decided to officially post it on the website so he could refer people to it. Of course, he made a few edits to the draft. The final version of the FAQ is below:If I pass the formal test and win the Challenge, how will I be paid?


The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules, immediately upon the successful demonstration of their claim. The prize money is held in the form of bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist. (My emphasis follows ) These immediately convertible bonds will be awarded to the Challenge winner within 10 days of passing the formal test. The manner of transfer of these bonds will be at the discretion of the JREF and the Challenge winner, in accordance with acceptable legal standards.
It turns out the prize IS THE BONDS.

Wow.

So my original assumption was right after all. The prize is the bonds.

Don't take Sean's word for it that Kramer originally said at one point that the prize would be awarded in cash and not bonds -- here is the link to Kramer's post where he answers Sean's question, not to him, but to the forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=906003#post906003

The prize is for One Million Dollars. The prize is NOT for One Million Dollars in bonds.

[Hawk one]

As far as I can tell, the price will be paid in cash, it's just -held- in bonds. The thing about immediate convertible bonds is that, surprisingly enough, they can be immediately converted to cash and be delivered as such.

[pr0k]

that's dumb you're dumb

[drkitten]

Damage to the CNS clearly impairs cognitive functioning, but there is no evidence that consciousness itself is damaged.

Argument from ignorance.


IP has a correlation to consciousness but correlation is not causation.

But correlation is evidence for causation. Which, in the complete and total lack of any contrary evidence, stands unrefuted.


Parapsychologists publish positive results all the time.

So so nuclear physicists and structural engineers.

However, none of the papers publisehd by nuclear physicists, structural engineers, or parapsychologists have provided any evidence that consciouslness is not matter/energy. They are irrelevant to that particualr question because they don't address it with evidence.

You do realise, don't you, that you're saying the Milton & Wiseman meta-analysis of the Ganzfeld effect must be entirely fictitious since all of the papers they use from researchers who published positive results can't really exist?

No. I'm saying that none of those papers -- I repeat, none -- provide any evidence against the hypothesis that consciousness is information processing.


If you think I'm wrong, then provide a single piece of experimental evidence suggesting that consciousness is not matter/energy. You can't do it. All you can do is wave your hands vaguely at studies you don't understand.

[Darat]

Kramer originally stated in the thread that the prize would be awarded in cash.

...snip....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=906003#post906003

Thank you for making it clear.

[Kaylee]

that's dumb you're dumb

Awww, is the little boy trying to hurt my feelings? Lots of luck -- better than you have tried and failed.

I'm done posting on this. There is no shortcut to understanding the history of the thread the OP refers to. If anyone is interested -- read the entire thread and all of its links. If you are not -- don't.

I've nothing more to add to what has already been postd ad nauseam.

[thaiboxerken]

In short, we've proven that peebrain is wrong. Thanks though.