[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[maatorc]

Oh, wait, in this response you are more concerned with measurement, and not identification. You cannot have it both ways, maatorc. Try again.

In the MDC you will need both.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In the MDC you will need both.

No.

 

[maatorc]

No.

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

 

[JoeEllison]

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

How is it possible to claim that it occurred, if it cannot be identified without a completely subjective experience?

 

[steenkh]

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

In the case of the MDC, why should the psychic-psi-esp event be measured? Indentification would seem enough for the million dollars.

You have again failed in showing that the MDC cannot do what it sets out to do.

 

[maatorc]

In the case of the MDC, why should the psychic-psi-esp event be measured? Indentification would seem enough for the million dollars.
You have again failed in showing that the MDC cannot do what it sets out to do.

How would you identify such an such an event?

 

[JoeEllison]

How would you identify such an such an event?

How did you?

 

[maatorc]

How did you?

You did?
How?

 

[JoeEllison]

You did?
How?

I'm asking you. Why do you refuse to answer questions. Can you answer a question, or are you just lying to us?

 

[steenkh]

How would you identify such an such an event?

How did you?

You did?
How?

Evasion noted.

 

[sthomson]

These effects do not measure the process. The psychic-psi-esp process may operate but in itself is not measured.

If you control for cheating, then yes, they do. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time.

Note, though, the JREF-MDC presumption, and that of Mr. Randi, is that it is all deception, cold reading, and fraud.

Again, a test procedure can control for bias or cheating. I wonder why there have been no positive tests for psi-esp, when the test conditions are scientifically designed and controlled for cheating?

 

[petre]

You did?
How?

So have you given up on naming something that exists that is not measurable?

Thoughts (as you describe them) have been rejected, as there are some here that do not believe they exist apart from their measurable component.

 

[maatorc]

Why do you refuse to answer questions.

You have not asked any questions.

 

[maatorc]

1... So have you given up on naming something that exists that is not measurable?
2... Thoughts (as you describe them) have been rejected, as there are some here that do not believe they exist apart from their measurable component.

1... No: Noumena are not measurable by phenomena.

2... What measurable component?

 

[maatorc]

Evasion noted.

Very evasive of you.

 

[Gr8wight]

1... No: Noumena are not measurable by phenomena.

That's because the word "noumena" refers, by definition, to abstract philosophical concepts. Why can you not get it into your head that the instant your alleged PSI-ESP makes a prediction, it ceases, by defintion, to be noumenal in nature, and becomes, by definition, phenomenal in nature. So, if ESP exists in any way that allows predicitons to be made with any level of success beyond that of pure chance, it becomes phenomenal by definition. And if it does not, and remains purely noumenal, then what is to separate it from imagination? Just because you are able to conceive of (imagine) a thing does not mean that thing necessarily exists.

 

[maatorc]

That's because the word "noumena" refers, by definition, to abstract philosophical concepts. Why can you not get it into your head that the instant your alleged PSI-ESP makes a prediction, it ceases, by defintion, to be noumenal in nature, and becomes, by definition, phenomenal in nature. So, if ESP exists in any way that allows predicitons to be made with any level of success beyond that of pure chance, it becomes phenomenal by definition. And if it does not, and remains purely noumenal, then what is to separate it from imagination? Just because you are able to conceive of (imagine) a thing does not mean that thing necessarily exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Noumena" The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. That which is perceived but not tangible. The philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon more-or-less synonymously with the phrase "...thing in itself..."

You have got it all wrong.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

 

[nathan]

You have got it all wrong.

The brick noumenon -- the brick itself -- is inferable by brick phenomena. The collection of brick phenomena that we experience are unique and allow us to infer a brick noumenon (and no other noumenon).

Why is a psi-esp noumenon not inferable by psi-esp phenomena?

 

[Gr8wight]

You have got it all wrong.

No, I have not. I just simplified.

If the noumenal object does not have a phenomenal aspect, how is it possible to know that it exists? Again, I ask you (and I will phrase it in your silly philosophical language if you like), name one thing that has a noumenal aspect but does not have a phenomenal aspect. We have already ruled out a thought. Try again.