[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[maatorc]

Maatorc, it seems to be a fact that everyone who has tried to understand your point is equally mixed up.
(a) Is this OK with you? Is this your goal?
(b) Has it occurred to you that the fault might lie with you, not with everyone else---that your explanations are actually cryptic and uninformative?
(c) Have you considered either (1) dropping the issue or (2) taking some time off to reformulate your thoughts?

The JREF-MDC talks about Quote:..... paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
Everything in nature is 'normal, or it would not happen.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the natural; everything is 'natural'.
Psychic means a level of perception, power, or event.
Psychic is noumenal or a strictly mental realization or event, as distinct from phenomenal or a strictly physical-material realization or event.
The two levels are incommensurable in that there is no common level or means of simultaneous observation or measure of them both.

Everything we experience is a form of consciousness.
If we are not conscious, to us there is no world.
What is called the 'physical world' or phenomena, is a form of perception, a conscious realization.
What is called 'psychic' or noumena, is a form of perception, a conscious realization.

[Yoink]

It has nothing to do with what I am saying.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the question "was this an actual psychic event" is never determinable by experiment. To use your terms, experiment is phenomenal, not noumenal. So, yes, you're right that the JREF challenge would be more accurately worded if it said something like "demonstrate an ability that is commonly held to be paranormal" or "demonstrate an ability for which we currently have no scientific explanation" or something like that.

But the point of my little thought experiment was to show that even if we encounter an experimenter who performs something which we cannot explain in scientific terms, that can never rule out the possibility that science may find a way to explain it in the future. X-Ray would be "magic" to someone from the C18th. What might seem "magic" to us could be "science" to someone in the C22nd.

[steenkh]

1... Exactly; so how will it know one when it sees one?
The JREF defines what is paranormal for the challenge. If the JREF has accepted a protocol, successful demonstration according to the protocol will be paranormal per definition, and will be rewarded with the million dollars. The JREF is not concerned with philosophical issues.

2... It is not dealing with actual psychic events, merely seeming effects.
What other effects exist?

3... They are unable to distinguish between psychic and material events.
And so are you.

[petre]

I have a hypothetical question that might help clarify this argument. Imagine that you are transported back to, say, the Eighteenth Century, that you are well-provided with financial resources, and you can take any technical equipment from the C20th back with you. Imagine further than in the C18th, you come across Randi's great-great-great-great-great (etc)-grandfather who is offering a "10,000 Pound Challenge!" for anyone who can show paranormal powers in a controlled, double-blind experiment.

Could you win the 10,000? Would you have shown paranormal powers?

(apologies if this point has been made before in this thread--I haven't read it right through).

While covered before in other threads, if not this one, a sufficiently short answer exists to repeat as often as the issue is raised. Randi has stated that sufficiently advanced technology could certainly succeed in a challenge, and he would be very excited to be a part of bringing such technology into the public eye at the trivial cost of $1 million.

[petre]

The JREF-MDC talks about Quote:..... paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
Everything in nature is 'normal, or it would not happen.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the natural; everything is 'natural'.
Psychic means a level of perception, power, or event.
Psychic is noumenal or a strictly mental realization or event, as distinct from phenomenal or a strictly physical-material realization or event.
The two levels are incommensurable in that there is no common level or means of simultaneous observation or measure of them both.

Everything we experience is a form of consciousness.
If we are not conscious, to us there is no world.
What is called the 'physical world' or phenomena, is a form of perception, a conscious realization.
What is called 'psychic' or noumena, is a form of perception, a conscious realization.

As noted, for the purpose of the challenge 'Paranormal' is defined as whatever JREF doesn't consider 'normal', and is demonstrated by constructing a test that could not be passed by any 'normal' means. If you feel there is something 'normal' that the JREF is willing to declare worthy of $1 million for a demonstration, have at it. If it happens to also fall into the category of non-demonstrable, then that is unfortunate but few here have any interest in the non-demonstrable.

[maatorc]

As noted, for the purpose of the challenge 'Paranormal' is defined as whatever JREF doesn't consider 'normal', and is demonstrated by constructing a test that could not be passed by any 'normal' means. If you feel there is something 'normal' that the JREF is willing to declare worthy of $1 million for a demonstration, have at it. If it happens to also fall into the category of non-demonstrable, then that is unfortunate but few here have any interest in the non-demonstrable.

There is no such thing as something that is not 'normal'.

It is just that the JREF-MDC is incapable of dealing with a certain range of quite normal events about which it is in denial, based essentially on the very trivializing stage-magic and cold-reading views of its founders: This is where it all comes from.

[sthomson]

But you yourself have differentiated between "normal" (ie natural) and "not-normal" (ie supernatural) events. You have said that finding a metal object with a metal detector is measurable, while finding a metal object with a dowsing rod is not. You have said that talking to someone on the telephone is measurable while talking to them telepathically is not.

You can argue semantics all day, and apparantly you have. Frankly, it's a waste of everyone's time to continue nit-picking over every single word in the MDC. You have claimed that people can communicate with psi-esp, yet you have continuously evaded the fact that psi-esp can have measurable effects on the world, and that these measurable effects are what the MDC seeks to bring forth.

[maatorc]

But you yourself have differentiated between "normal" (ie natural) and "not-normal" (ie supernatural) events. You have said that finding a metal object with a metal detector is measurable, while finding a metal object with a dowsing rod is not. You have said that talking to someone on the telephone is measurable while talking to them telepathically is not.
You can argue semantics all day, and apparently you have. Frankly, it's a waste of everyone's time to continue nit-picking over every single word in the MDC. You have claimed that people can communicate with psi-esp, yet you have continuously evaded the fact that psi-esp can have measurable effects on the world, and that these measurable effects are what the MDC seeks to bring forth.


The semantics of this thread, yours and everyones, not just mine, speak to the protocol semantics which deny the undecidability and inbuilt limitation of the JREF-MDC: It will never be able to experientially and simultaneously phenomenally prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any demonstration of a claimed psychic event or power.
It is a waste of time, and I think Mr. Randi knows it.
Phenomena cannot measure noumena.
This is the logical, philosophical, linguistic, and operational cul-de-sac the MDC cannot avoid, overcome, or escape.

[Yoink]

The semantics of this thread, yours and everyones, not just mine, speak to the protocol semantics which deny the undecidability and inbuilt limitation of the JREF-MDC: It will never be able to experientially and simultaneously phenomenally prove or disprove the truth or falsity of any demonstration of a claimed psychic event or power.
It is a waste of time, and I think Mr. Randi knows it.
Phenomena cannot measure noumena.
This is the logical, philosophical, linguistic, and operational cul-de-sac the MDC cannot avoid, overcome, or escape.

But no one in the MDC claims to be able to "measure noumena"--they claim to be able to measure certain phenomena which other people claim to have a "noumenal" basis. So, if you claim to be able to communicate telepathically with someone else, you might claim that this occurs "noumenally" (e.g., we are all branches of the original noumenal One Mind and I and my friend have discovered how to share thoughts in this noumenal space). Now, there can be an infinite number of competing explanations of how the communication occurs (both noumenal and phenomenal); all the MDC asks, however, is that you demonstrate--phenomenally--the ability to communicate without using any of the currently known phenomenal methods of communication (writing, speaking, morse code etc. etc.).

If you win the challenge will you have demonstrated the "noumenal" origin of your communication ability? No--that will remain simply your (and your friend's) hypothesis. Perhaps in future we'll discover that some people have the ability to sense the brain-wave patterns of other people (a perfectly natural, "phenomenal" explanation)--perhaps we'll never know. But all of this is completely irrelevant to what the MDC is trying to accomplish, or what the MDC promises to accomplish.

[maatorc]

But no one in the MDC claims to be able to "measure noumena"--they claim to be able to measure certain phenomena which other people claim to have a "noumenal" basis. So, if you claim to be able to communicate telepathically with someone else, you might claim that this occurs "noumenally" (e.g., we are all branches of the original noumenal One Mind and I and my friend have discovered how to share thoughts in this noumenal space). Now, there can be an infinite number of competing explanations of how the communication occurs (both noumenal and phenomenal); all the MDC asks, however, is that you

1... demonstrate--phenomenally--the ability to communicate without using any of the currently known phenomenal methods of communication (writing, speaking, morse code etc. etc.).

2... If you win the challenge will you have demonstrated the "noumenal" origin of your communication ability? No--that will remain simply your (and your friend's) hypothesis.

Perhaps in future we'll discover that some people have the ability to sense the brain-wave patterns of other people (a perfectly natural, "phenomenal" explanation)--perhaps we'll never know. But all of this is completely irrelevant to what the MDC is trying to accomplish, or what the MDC promises to accomplish.

1... The demonstration is not phenomenal, being in itself noumenal, and its effects phenomenal.
The actual process of the non-phenomenal communication is beyond the level or range of phenomenal perception.

2... I agree, proof of a noumenal event lies in the realization itself, beyond phenomenal perception, which I have emphasized all along.

[Yoink]

1... The demonstration is not phenomenal, being in itself noumenal, and its effects phenomenal.
The actual process of the non-phenomenal communication is beyond the level or range of phenomenal perception.
"Demonstration" must be phenomenal, by definition. If it is noumenal it would have to be intuited, not demonstrated. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused. The MDC is utterly uninterested in "the actual process"; they are interested solely in what can be phenomenally demonstrated.

2... I agree, proof of a noumenal event lies in the realization itself, beyond phenomenal perception, which I have emphasized all along.

Intuitive certainty is not "proof" in any sense. It is what it is--"intuitive certainty." Proof is what is demonstrated ("look, here, I will prove it to you") and therefore it is a matter of phenomena, not noumena. If you are convinced by intuition that you are receiving "noumenal" communication from your friend, that's nice for you, but is not "proof" either for you or--a fortiori--for anyone else.

[maatorc]

"Demonstration" must be phenomenal, by definition. If it is noumenal it would have to be intuited, not demonstrated. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused. The MDC is utterly uninterested in "the actual process"; they are interested solely in what can be phenomenally demonstrated.
Intuitive certainty is not "proof" in any sense. It is what it is--"intuitive certainty." Proof is what is demonstrated ("look, here, I will prove it to you") and therefore it is a matter of phenomena, not noumena. If you are convinced by intuition that you are receiving "noumenal" communication from your friend, that's nice for you, but is not "proof" either for you or--a fortiori--for anyone else.

If you seek to discredit or derail my essential points you will have to do better than that. To assert I am getting confused is not a bad try, but not good enough.

I may here just as easily say your comments signal a certain self serving naivety.

Demonstrate is not restricted to phenomena.
Here I used it as in 'taking part in', in this case noumena, an acceptable use.

Proof is not an exclusively phenomenal process.
Proof is indeed what is demonstrated, as for example the conscious experiential participation in a noumenal event.

The history of the experience of noumenal events is that of conscious experience as distinct from intuitive certainty.

Intuition is no less real than a self conscious phenomenal realization.

[nathan]

Demonstrate is not restricted to phenomena.
Please provide an example of a demonstration that does not involve phenomena.

[chillzero]

Thread has been set to moderated as previously advised. We continue to go in loops on the definition of a few words, and that argument is irrelevant to the Challenge.