Comments for What Should We Do? at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 189 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:31:04 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-12288 Easy grip with ergonomic design and felt at the tip allows for an easier hold and control. The CHI Turbo Digital Ceramic Hairstyling Iron also provides versatile heat settings to achieve the perfect temperature specific to your hair type and style. [url=http://www.newshopstyle.co.uk]GHD Hair Straighteners[/url] [url=http://www.newshopstyle.co.uk]CHI Hair Straighteners[/url] - newshopstyle Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:49:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-11952 I have been told that Herc has been picked up by the authorities for making threats against the public. I have no source to point to though. If this is true, I hope he gets the help he needs. - JeffWagg Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:30:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-11020 I don't know where you come up with these arbitrary "odds"--they aren't remotely statistically accurate. By Herc's own admission "topical" books are what he seeks out when doing his...whatever it is that we're calling this...topical books obviously are going to give far more false positives, and inflate the odds, as they're related to the subject matter at hand, rather than being a truly random collection of words. The vast majority of Herc's "answers" aren't even answers anyway... asking if pi ever ends and getting back "random" is not only not answer...its a wrong answer. If pi ends is (either) no (or yes). Asking how someone knows if they're Adam is quite simply NOT answered by the "channeled" (and I use that term loosely) answer "I dunno" Herc, I strongly suggest, even at the expense of your pride (I know how tough it can be to admit to yourself you're wrong), that you go see a liscensed mental health care professional, and see what they have to tell you about your "ability." - outsorcerer Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:36:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10964 Here's a simple analysis you can do yourself. Open a book and pick the 1st random phrase you find. I will use "this has been a very big problem in the past" Tally how many times my answer was more in context than the control phrase. Can I win the million dollar paranormal prize? "... with the background of wailing vendors" "this has been a very big problem in the past" When will Herc die? "... with a cheap little gun" "this has been a very big problem in the past" How do you know that you are Adam? "... I dunno" "this has been a very big problem in the past" What can Adam do that would qualify for the JREF million dollar prize? "Make them stop" "this has been a very big problem in the past" Why are you being tortured by the government? "... I'm a witch" "this has been a very big problem in the past" Will Megan Fox win the Oscar for best actress in 2010? "...in Tokyo Fox and I had adjoining suites" "this has been a very big problem in the past" Will Edmond Wollman ever pay back Susan Boyle? "..He never calls the place" "this has been a very big problem in the past" 7 out of 7. I defeated 1 in 128 odds. (Just with a simple 2 option analysis). Herc - Herc Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:38:25 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10950 Reluctantly agree, but no need to be rude. Herc should be advised that a test of this particular claim is very unlikely. The first hurdle to overcome is Rule 12 of the MDC (show that there has been some interest from the media and academic world). Best wishes, Herc. - ianmacm Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:52:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10949 JREF should close this thread. Continuing to interact with Herc like this is just feeding his delusions. Stop. - Aaron Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:35:15 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10936 [quote]Not often at all. However, when you select a particular book containing a certain William Gibson story in which a character with the name Fox appears, then you've certainly increased the odds in your favour. If you deliberately selected that book to use in your channeling of a question about Megan Fox, then you're a charlatan. But if I'm feeling charitable, then you possibly don't realise that you pick particular books to get a better chance of a more appropriate answer. Let's see you try channeling answers out of something generic, like the dictionary. [/quote] Good point! However even if I knew roughly what section that chapter was in and tried for a hit that way, what are my chances of landing on a sentence with "Fox" in it? Less than 1% IMO. Who would select a particular book just so they may luck out on 1 question. I actually channel better on web pages. And finding a relevant web page gives God if you will a better vocabulary to work with. E.g. I was on a AI site and asked can we program an AI? I scrolled down to a random section and read out "If we can combine modules of speech synthesis, memory, planning, vision, and what not. A dictionary works fine, but sequential flowing text works better, and phrases are better than words. Herc - Herc Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:38:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10935 [quote] "Will Megan Fox win the Oscar" -> "Fox" how many times does the name Fox appear in a typical novel [/quote] Not often at all. However, when you select a particular book containing a certain William Gibson story in which a character with the name Fox appears, then you've certainly increased the odds in your favour. If you deliberately selected that book to use in your channeling of a question about Megan Fox, then you're a charlatan. But if I'm feeling charitable, then you possibly don't realise that you pick particular books to get a better chance of a more appropriate answer. Let's see you try channeling answers out of something generic, like the dictionary. - Orolo Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:18:30 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10928 Politicians are grandmasters at giving non-committal answers to questions (unless they are General Sherman, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermanesque_statement ). In any case, we are comparing apples and oranges here, because Barack Obama does not claim to have paranormal powers, at least not that I am aware of. Sorry, but I can't follow the logic of why "I'm a witch" has odds of 10,000 to 1. There seems to be a good deal of conjecture here, so I can't really comment. - ianmacm Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:37:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10927 Say Obama is at a press conference and is asked by a reporter, "Are you going to continue with the health reform?". He answers "I am fully behind the proposal and it has already been passed by committee". Is that subjective? Is it so hard to assess if an answer is on topic, from an intelligent being, or just a random quote? In 5 to 10 years we'll have the mathematics to analyse language, calculate the context of phrases and the algorithm will assess my video as defeating 1 in billion odds. Even if each answer takes a person average 10 tries to get a better answer, I beat 1 in 10^7 odds, 1 in 10 million. But "why are you being tortured" -> "I'm a witch" defeated 10,000 to 1 with just one question. "Will Megan Fox win the Oscar" -> "Fox" how many times does the name Fox appear in a typical novel? You can try to get a better answer and you will be flipping pages of a book until Christmas without luck. Even if you do a rudimentary analysis, just mark each answer as "atleast slightly relevant" or "completely unrelated", just a pass/fail for each question, every answer I got was on topic, that's 1 in 2^7 odds I defeated, 1 in 128. Herc - Herc Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:12:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10925 Some of Surak's comments are bordering on trolling and personal abuse, so please tone it down. However, it is might be a good idea for Herc to ask a doctor what he/she thought about all of this. Another thing to bear in mind is Rule 12 of the MDC: [i]This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.[/i] In other words, have you managed to convince anyone in the media or the academic world that you can do this? My main concern remains the subjective nature of the claim. The MDC is not structured like a television talent contest where a judging or voting process is required. Any answers given should be easy to interpret as hits or misses. The alternative would be to risk a fudged result where people argued afterwards about whether the test was fair. - ianmacm Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:15:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10923 I hope you're right Surak, because the Genesis Adam Correction Center For Blasphemers is looking pretty full. Herc - Herc Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:45:28 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10920 That's it Herc, avoid addressing your pathetic failures and your multiple admissions that you aren't actually channeling anything by posting your staged and fixed results. It's a shame that you don't even seem to realize how you're fixing the results yourself ... but that comes with the brain damage now doesn't it? Also, you are not pointing at "I'm a witch", your finger appears to be on the word "dirt". You chose the word dirt, but saw that "I'm a witch" was above it and consciously chose to use those words instead to better suit your fraudulent purposes. I definitely agree that you are dirt. Aren't you even curious what a doctor would say? Wouldn't you just love to get checked out and have a doctor say you are perfectly fine so that everyone reading this would not just blame your delusions on your brain damage? - Surak Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:22:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10918 For those who haven't seen the video yet! [img]http://www.m00.com/psychic/witch.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.m00.com/psychic[/url] Proof of psychic powers on video - Herc Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:30:37 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10913 Herc, [quote]You can still get an effective evaluation of the answers[/quote] NO. there's so many frauds in the world that easily make money from their fake powers. If you can't even make money with your supposedly 'real' answers, then you're not even as good as the known frauds. The biggest fraud you're committing is on yourself because you believe your own scam. Snixtor, Herc could easily give nothing but Yes / No answers, he just has to print out sheets of paper covered randomly in the words Yes and No and staple them into the form of a book and channel from that. But he won't because he knows it would prove him wrong. He'll make up another excuse to not do this. But even if Herc gave real Yes / No answers, when we show him YET AGAIN to be wrong, he would simply redefine what Yes and No mean to suit his needs, the way he's redefined Random, Coincidence, and Magnitude already in this thread. Herc is brain damaged. The next restraining order placed on him should keep him off the internet. Herc, Since you ignored it, here it is again where you admitted yet again that you know you can't channel anything at all: [quote]It would be neat to channel anything at all[/quote] - Surak Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:56:35 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10908 Herc, I'm a bit loathe to try your experiment of repeating your questions and "chanelling" from a book myself, since regardless of the outcome you could still claim to have powers. If the answers I come up with are of similar "quality", or superior, then you could just claim that its your own powers affecting me. If the answers I come up with are complete gibberish, then you can claim superior ability for yourself. If you want to convince people that you can accurately answer questions in this manner, you need to actually provide an answer. If it's a yes / no question, you need to give the answer yes or no, not some cryptic message that you can only correlate as an answer after the answer itself is revealed. - Snixtor Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:39:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10907 This is an improvement. Let's say that you answer seven questions at random. An observer is then asked to match the answers to the questions. As you point out, getting all seven right would require odds of 1 in 5040 (for the non maths buffs, 7! is the factorial of 7, which is 7x6x5x4x3x2x1). A sticking point might be what sort of questions were acceptable, but this is at least a testable proposal. Incidentally, this is only a forum discussion at the moment, and no promises are being made about an actual test. It would also require you to assume good faith from the observer, and not to accuse him/her of deliberately getting it wrong if you failed the test. - ianmacm Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:20:04 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10905 You can still get an effective evaluation of the answers. List the 6 questions and the 6 answers sorted randomly. Get some 'judges' to try to match them. If someone can match all 7, then I defeated 1 in 7! odds. (1 in 5040) Herc - Herc Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:56:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10903 It's become a bit of a cliche to ask someone with alleged psychic powers "Why haven't you won the lottery yet?" This involves a prediction of the future at long odds, but it is not the only power that could be tested. As long as the claim fell within JREF's remit and was testable within the MDC rules, there should be no problem. Herc's claims are too subjective and require personal interpretations, and he is unlikely to become an applicant for the MDC unless this is resolved. - ianmacm Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:53:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/709-what-should-we-do.html#comment-10902 Welll now isn't that Conveeeeeennnnnnient!!!! hahahaha you can only 'channel' things you are interested in!! What an awesome excuse for your failings! Yes, it would be neat to channel anything at all ... But its great that you just admitted again that you haven't channeled anything at all. - Surak Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:22:01 +0100