Global Consciousness Project

[CFLarsen]

You have a need to believe I have a reading problem. Whatever makes you happy.

You skirt the issue.

If you don't have a reading problem, how do you explain that you constantly get things wrong?

So you must believe the data from the RNGs is statistically different then? If you want to present your analysis, you are welcome to do so.

Again, you are not able to understand what people are saying. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that, since one type of RNG is demonstrably not calibrated, and we have no idea what status the other types have, the data is inherently tainted. We simply cannot trust it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you don't have a reading problem, how do you explain that you constantly get things wrong?

If you have a strong need to believe that I have a reading problem, that is your issue.

I am saying that, since one type of RNG is demonstrably not calibrated, and we have no idea what status the other types have, the data is inherently tainted. We simply cannot trust it.

What do you mean by calibrated, and which RNG is not calibrated, according to you?

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have a strong need to believe that I have a reading problem, that is your issue.

No, really, this is something you should address.

This isn't just the odd case of you getting a thing wrong here and there, it is disturbingly often that you do it. It hinders real discussion, because we have to go back and ensure that you get it right, over and over again. But we don't seem to succeed.

That you cannot seem to comprehend what people are saying is a problem. You need to realize this.

If you want to participate in a debate, then you have to be able to comprehend what people are saying. If you cannot, then how can we possibly engage in a debate with you?

Can you explain that?

If you can't, then you are simply a waste of time. Your points are automatically rendered worthless, because we cannot be sure that you understand what we are saying to you. By your refusal to acknowledge this as a problem, you cut yourself off from any debate here.

So, please explain how you can possibly get so many things wrong, if you insist that you don't have a reading problem.

What can explain it?

What do you mean by calibrated, and which RNG is not calibrated, according to you?

Why do you ask this? What are you trying to achieve here? Prove my point about you constantly misunderstanding what people are saying?

You know we've been over this before. So, why bring it up again, as if it has never been addressed?

Your questions have been addressed in detail, ad nauseam. You know it. You pretend it hasn't.

Can you explain that?

 

[T'ai Chi]

This isn't just the odd case of you getting a thing wrong here and there, it is disturbingly often that you do it.

Feel free to present an acutal % here. Oops, you can't possibly do that, yet you continue to spew your filth.

If you have the strong need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem, you'll just have to deal with that. But don't believe for a second that others don't see right through you.

Why do you ask this? What are you trying to achieve here?

Yawn. Forget me for once, if you can, and just focus on answering the question.

 

[CFLarsen]

Feel free to present an acutal % here. Oops, you can't possibly do that, yet you continue to spew your filth.

"Filth"? Is that how you see it, when people point out that you have a problem?

If you have the strong need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem, you'll just have to deal with that. But don't believe for a second that others don't see right through you.

I am not worried about that at all. Your own posts clearly show that you have a major problem. Or, of course, you have some other agenda.

Whatever the reason, the problem is yours. You cannot understand what other people are saying, yet you deny that you have a problem.

You have to deal with this. Not me, not anyone else.

Yawn. Forget me for once, if you can, and just focus on answering the question.

Can you explain why anyone should engage in a debate with you, if you continuously misunderstand what people say, despite your claim that you do not have a reading problem?

Why should anyone answer any questions from you, if you misinterpret what they say?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered many times before? You know what I have said about the calibration issue, so why do you imagine that you can give the impression that it has never been addressed before?

Can you explain that?

 

[rwguinn]

CF--
Leave him alone. He has a problem everyone but he can see.
Do you beat your head against a brick wall because it feels so good when you stop? The brick wall is never impressed, and won't move either.

Some battles just aren't worth fighting....

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Filth"? Is that how you see it, when people point out that you have a problem?

We've already established that you have a strong need to spread your lie that I have a reading comprehension problem.

You don't need to provide more evidence of your motives, really.

Why do you ask a question that has been answered many times before? You know what I have said about the calibration issue, so why do you imagine that you can give the impression that it has never been addressed before?

More evasion..

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think we scared paintedbird away.

 

[CFLarsen]

We've already established that you have a strong need to spread your lie that I have a reading comprehension problem.

Is it a lie? You don't seem to grasp that I have opened up for other possibilities in my previous posts (you can scroll up if you don't remember), so I honestly don't think you can argue that I don't have a case at all.

You don't need to provide more evidence of your motives, really.

I am only asking you to explain what it is, if not a reading problem. Because you demonstrably misunderstand - constantly - what people are saying to you.

More evasion..

Not at all. But we need to clear this up, before any debate with you can continue.

Can you explain why anyone should engage in a debate with you, if you continuously misunderstand what people say, despite your claim that you do not have a reading problem?

Why should anyone answer any questions from you, if you misinterpret what they say?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered many times before? You know what I have said about the calibration issue, so why do you imagine that you can give the impression that it has never been addressed before?

 

[davidsmith73]

Where, exactly, do you see this?

Can you, in the datasets, see which data comes from which type of RNG?

Go to the "normalising data" page. There's first a plot that shows the variance bias for the Orion and Mindsong REGs separately. Each type of REG produces a different degree of variance bias which is expected. It's actually the Mindsong REG's that are going to pollute the data set, not the Orion (but I guess you knew that already Claus ). They then show the variance produced for all the devices and sure enough there is a large bias which they acknowledge is produced by the Mindsong REGs. They then show the variance for all devices after their normalisation procedure, and it falls within the boundaries expected from 0.05 probability. Therefore, if they think that their normalisation procedure is sufficiently correcting for the variance bias across all devices then I don't see a reason for them to separate the data into REG type for the main data set. Do you? (all this is assuming that their normalisation procedure is appropriate, I know there are reservations about it but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this argument).

 

[CFLarsen]

Go to the "normalising data" page. There's first a plot that shows the variance bias for the Orion and Mindsong REGs separately. Each type of REG produces a different degree of variance bias which is expected. It's actually the Mindsong REG's that are going to pollute the data set, not the Orion (but I guess you knew that already Claus ). They then show the variance produced for all the devices and sure enough there is a large bias which they acknowledge is produced by the Mindsong REGs. They then show the variance for all devices after their normalisation procedure, and it falls within the boundaries expected from 0.05 probability. Therefore, if they think that their normalisation procedure is sufficiently correcting for the variance bias across all devices then I don't see a reason for them to separate the data into REG type for the main data set. Do you? (all this is assuming that their normalisation procedure is appropriate, I know there are reservations about it but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this argument).

It's very simple: As long as they cannot calibrate any of the RNGs, their data is worthless.

 

[davidsmith73]

It's very simple: As long as they cannot calibrate any of the RNGs, their data is worthless.

But I thought they claim that they do?

Fair enough, Simpy has pointed out some methodological errors but why should they separate their REGs if they think their normalisation has corrected for variance bias?

 

[CFLarsen]

But I thought they claim that they do?

What they claim they do and what they actually do are two separate things.

Fair enough, Simpy has pointed out some methodological errors but why should they separate their REGs if they think their normalisation has corrected for variance bias?

Because if they later find an error in one of the types of RNGs, then they can isolate that data and not lose the rest. Or if they find one RNG that is faulty, they can isolate it. They don't store the RNG ID with the data, so they can't do that.

As it is, they don't have any data worth anything. They have a large database filled with 0's and 1's, signifying absolutely nothing.

 

[Zep]

As it is, they don't have any data worth anything. They have a large database filled with 0's and 1's, signifying absolutely nothing.

Slight correction: They have a database filled with numeric values derived by means unknown from selected parts of an unknown number of series of raw data in the form of 0's and 1's that they have not kept.

Which is worse than what you said, Claus.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is it a lie? You don't seem to grasp that I have opened up for other possibilities in my previous posts (you can scroll up if you don't remember), so I honestly don't think you can argue that I don't have a case at all.

I am only asking you to explain what it is, if not a reading problem. Because you demonstrably misunderstand - constantly - what people are saying to you.

Like I said, we don't need more evidence of your desparate need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem.

Why do you ask a question that has been answered many times before? You know what I have said about the calibration issue, so why do you imagine that you can give the impression that it has never been addressed before?

More evasion. Still!

 

[T'ai Chi]

What they claim they do and what they actually do are two separate things.

As is what you believe they do/claim and what they actually do/claim.

Because if they later find an error in one of the types of RNGs, then they can isolate that data and not lose the rest. Or if they find one RNG that is faulty, they can isolate it. They don't store the RNG ID with the data, so they can't do that.

If you read and understand their site, you'd find they have a section on rotten eggs and removing obviouslly erroneous data.

As it is, they don't have any data worth anything. They have a large database filled with 0's and 1's, signifying absolutely nothing.

You demonstrate, again, you have not read and/or understood what they are doing. Good job!

 

[CFLarsen]

Slight correction: They have a database filled with numeric values derived by means unknown from selected parts of an unknown number of series of raw data in the form of 0's and 1's that they have not kept.

Which is worse than what you said, Claus.

Quite right.

 

[CFLarsen]

Like I said, we don't need more evidence of your desparate need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem.

And yet, I have opened up for other possibilities, yet you ignore this. If you don't have a reading comprehension problem, what else could explain this peculiar trait of yours?

Is the explanation simply that you are "petty", as you have admitted to be? Why should anyone bother with you, then?

More evasion. Still!

Oh, well. How petty.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And yet, I have opened up for other possibilities, yet you ignore this. If you don't have a reading comprehension problem, what else could explain this peculiar trait of yours?

You have provided enough evidence of your need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem, and of your malicious intent to defame.

When your done, wake me.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have provided enough evidence of your need to believe I have a reading comprehension problem, and of your malicious intent to defame.

When your done, wake me.