|
j0hnwi11iams (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
You have claimed 40 percent correlation. That is OVERWHELMING. I think the problems with using Randi is that he will expose your FRAUD.
j0hnwi11iams (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Are you trying to tell me what with a 40 percent correlation you couldn't EASILY pass the Randi Challenge? What exactly keeps you from claiming it? Sheldrake has been thoroughly discredited by those observing his methods. Why aren't these guys cleaning up at the casinos? There's no money in it?
MetaphysicsAddict (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
"So significant it would 8 years to claim the Randi Prize. Yeah, right. Color me still skeptical after listening to one guy."Again, he's not the only person doing this kind of research, and the majority of studies described here are *not* his own. He is simply summarizing the results. And btw, meta analysis data produce results that are trillions to one as odds against chance. Further, there are problems with using James Randi as an argument and we can discuss those probems if you would like
MetaphysicsAddict (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
"Even if by some miracle we could attribute some of it to non-local correlation, there is no cause and effect and no information is transfered"Actually, there *is* a transfer of information in the psi studies (here's one example out of many: Sheldrake's ongoing telephone telepathy research - where chance expectation is 25% but results are usually over 40%...). Have read any of the studies Radin talked about here? Or you are just criticising a particular theory of psi mechanisms?
j0hnwi11iams (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
So significant it would 8 years to claim the Randi Prize. Yeah, right. Color me still skeptical after listening to one guy. Even if by some miracle we could attribute some of it to non-local correlation, there is no cause and effect and no information is transfered with random tests. The problem with quantum mechanics is two fold:1) At the human scale quantum uncertainty vanishes.2) At the quantum scale there is only correlation, no cause and effect.
MetaphysicsAddict (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
re #4: He is not the only one doing experiments. Several independent researchers from other universities have done EEG correlation studies. Some people simply cannot accept the fact that methodologically-sound psi studies keep producing highly significant results.
j0hnwi11iams (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
1) If this work had any practical application he would not be needing any funding, he would be emptying out the casinos.2) If he weren't interested in a theory he would be trying to figure out why the experiment works in some cases and not in others.3) The signal he's looking at is so deep in the noise I don't see how it can be attributed to anything.4) Maybe the guy is just lying.
Goomba4001 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Psi is most likely real, but there are so much phonies, it just labels it with a big FAKE.
erdnisnegah (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
My thought experiment is completely wrong. Please ignore it. My brain must have been on vacation yesterday.
erdnisnegah (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
But, as you say, there is a "what if" factor. My thought experiment dont disproof the experiment. But it questions it, and that is always very important when it comes to science. There are plenty of examples of wrong conclusions made on bad assumptions. Another way of looking at it is to say it might indicate something. But if it only works with a few percent, and that it is so vague that it cant be used for "transmitting" something specific as random number, then what is it good for? |
