JAMES RANDI 5 QUESTION TEST
in [Math]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 03:41 On 4/05/2010 4:57 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote... >> On 4/05/2010 12:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>> On 4/05/2010 1:48 AM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote > >>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a >>>>>>>> formula >>>>>>>> for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers. >>>>>>>> Thymaridas >>>>>>>> and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to >>>>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>>>> your ignorance? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring >>>>>>> large composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly >>>>>>> wouldn't be able to find a factor of the second one by hand. >>>>>> >>>>>> herc says these channels cannot be used to test them >>>>>> if they can't be used they aren't useful >>>>>> the channels don't even realise herc is fooling them by using videos >>>>>> as proof >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NO, merely that trivial pursuit questions will not work. >>>>> >>>>> So you can't run a biology exam style test, you have to have a blind >>>>> umpire and controls to overcome the subjectiveness of the answers. >>>>> >>>>> I have one rule, you MUST be interested in the answer. JR already >>>>> knows >>>>> what color his cat is. If he was blind and nobody ever told him his >>>>> cat's color then sure it would work. >>>> >>>> If the 'answers' were saying anything relevant, then the rule would be >>>> significant. But as it is, it makes no difference, because you're not >>>> getting answers, right or wrong. You just getting what is gibberish in >>>> context, and then supplying your own answer. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!! >> >> Q. Is this religion idea crazy? >> >> A. The earliest generalisation. >> >> So what does that say in response to the question? Is it a Yes? It is >> a No? Why? >> >> Leaving that aside, is one to construe the answer as being a statement >> that religion was the earliest generalisation? Or is it the religion >> idea? Or asking questions about the religion idea? >> >> On any rational analysis the conclusion is going to be that the >> purported answer has nothing at all to do with the question, and is >> only what it appeared to be - a more-or-less randomly selected phrase >> from a book. >> >> Sylvia. > > > I guess not all generalizations are that a mystical force was > responsible for something, so I can see your concern. > > However, I substantiated "the earliest generalizations" in the video > just below that one. > www.GenesisProof.com > > Can you tell me a reason belief in religion is sane in 3 words! > > Getting a perfect natural language response like "the answer to your > question about primes is because..." > isn't going to occur often in random quotes from books. > > But the response can INDICATE one way or the other to answer the > question. And not all random quotes will indicate one way or another to > a typical question. > > Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? > A/ I would like a hard boiled egg. > RANDOM > > Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? > A/ Religion was on of the earliest generalizations of sentient beings. > IN CONTEXT > > Herc Even your proposed extended response doesn't actually answer the question, but in any case the answer didn't say "Religion was on of the earliest generalizations of sentient beings" it just said "the earliest generalization". Indeed, the text wasn't clear on the video, but you did not say "generalisations", only "generatlisation". If the criterion for relevance is that one can include the answer words in a sentence that appears to be relevant, then the criterion is unreasonably weak. The more so when the entirety of the relevance comes from a word that was added. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 4 May 2010 04:10 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote > On 4/05/2010 4:57 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote... >>> On 4/05/2010 12:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>>> On 4/05/2010 1:48 AM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>>> "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote > >>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a >>>>>>>>> formula >>>>>>>>> for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers. >>>>>>>>> Thymaridas >>>>>>>>> and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to >>>>>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>>>>> your ignorance? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring >>>>>>>> large composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly >>>>>>>> wouldn't be able to find a factor of the second one by hand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> herc says these channels cannot be used to test them >>>>>>> if they can't be used they aren't useful >>>>>>> the channels don't even realise herc is fooling them by using videos >>>>>>> as proof >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> NO, merely that trivial pursuit questions will not work. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you can't run a biology exam style test, you have to have a blind >>>>>> umpire and controls to overcome the subjectiveness of the answers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have one rule, you MUST be interested in the answer. JR already >>>>>> knows >>>>>> what color his cat is. If he was blind and nobody ever told him his >>>>>> cat's color then sure it would work. >>>>> >>>>> If the 'answers' were saying anything relevant, then the rule would be >>>>> significant. But as it is, it makes no difference, because you're not >>>>> getting answers, right or wrong. You just getting what is gibberish in >>>>> context, and then supplying your own answer. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> >>>> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!! >>> >>> Q. Is this religion idea crazy? >>> >>> A. The earliest generalisation. >>> >>> So what does that say in response to the question? Is it a Yes? It is >>> a No? Why? >>> >>> Leaving that aside, is one to construe the answer as being a statement >>> that religion was the earliest generalisation? Or is it the religion >>> idea? Or asking questions about the religion idea? >>> >>> On any rational analysis the conclusion is going to be that the >>> purported answer has nothing at all to do with the question, and is >>> only what it appeared to be - a more-or-less randomly selected phrase >>> from a book. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> >> I guess not all generalizations are that a mystical force was >> responsible for something, so I can see your concern. >> >> However, I substantiated "the earliest generalizations" in the video >> just below that one. >> www.GenesisProof.com >> >> Can you tell me a reason belief in religion is sane in 3 words! >> >> Getting a perfect natural language response like "the answer to your >> question about primes is because..." >> isn't going to occur often in random quotes from books. >> >> But the response can INDICATE one way or the other to answer the >> question. And not all random quotes will indicate one way or another to >> a typical question. >> >> Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? >> A/ I would like a hard boiled egg. >> RANDOM >> >> Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? >> A/ Religion was on of the earliest generalizations of sentient beings. >> IN CONTEXT >> >> Herc > > Even your proposed extended response doesn't actually answer the > question, but in any case the answer didn't say "Religion was on of the > earliest generalizations of sentient beings" it just said "the earliest > generalization". Indeed, the text wasn't clear on the video, but you did > not say "generalisations", only "generatlisation". > > If the criterion for relevance is that one can include the answer words > in a sentence that appears to be relevant, then the criterion is > unreasonably weak. The more so when the entirety of the relevance comes > from a word that was added. > > Sylvia. That's just one criterion, that it fits in with the words asked in the question. In order to prove something Sylvia you have to assume the hypothesis of the negative, then find a contradiction. If your only scientific method is a foregone rational conclusion then you will never learn anything new. You have to assume the power is real, THEN find a weakness. You have to admit the 2nd answer to justify "the earliest generalizations" as a precise and concise answer to whether religion is sane was near perfect. "we cannot deduce or assert everything possible". It's an exact reason why we must generalize. What about the second answer in the video to Nick. Is Nick's skepticism wrong? -> RANDOM QUOTE -> suggest how research might be continued. Both answers in that video were million to one that they were perfectly in context and gave the optimal answer and most productive response possible. You cannot see a 1,000,000,000,000 to one coincidence right in front of you! Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 04:38 On 4/05/2010 6:10 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >> On 4/05/2010 4:57 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote... >>>> On 4/05/2010 12:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>>>> On 4/05/2010 1:48 AM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>>>> "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote > >>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked >>>>>>>>>> out a >>>>>>>>>> formula >>>>>>>>>> for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers. >>>>>>>>>> Thymaridas >>>>>>>>>> and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate >>>>>>>>>> your ignorance? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring >>>>>>>>> large composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly >>>>>>>>> wouldn't be able to find a factor of the second one by hand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> herc says these channels cannot be used to test them >>>>>>>> if they can't be used they aren't useful >>>>>>>> the channels don't even realise herc is fooling them by using >>>>>>>> videos >>>>>>>> as proof >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NO, merely that trivial pursuit questions will not work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you can't run a biology exam style test, you have to have a blind >>>>>>> umpire and controls to overcome the subjectiveness of the answers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have one rule, you MUST be interested in the answer. JR already >>>>>>> knows >>>>>>> what color his cat is. If he was blind and nobody ever told him his >>>>>>> cat's color then sure it would work. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the 'answers' were saying anything relevant, then the rule >>>>>> would be >>>>>> significant. But as it is, it makes no difference, because you're not >>>>>> getting answers, right or wrong. You just getting what is >>>>>> gibberish in >>>>>> context, and then supplying your own answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!! >>>> >>>> Q. Is this religion idea crazy? >>>> >>>> A. The earliest generalisation. >>>> >>>> So what does that say in response to the question? Is it a Yes? It is >>>> a No? Why? >>>> >>>> Leaving that aside, is one to construe the answer as being a statement >>>> that religion was the earliest generalisation? Or is it the religion >>>> idea? Or asking questions about the religion idea? >>>> >>>> On any rational analysis the conclusion is going to be that the >>>> purported answer has nothing at all to do with the question, and is >>>> only what it appeared to be - a more-or-less randomly selected phrase >>>> from a book. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> I guess not all generalizations are that a mystical force was >>> responsible for something, so I can see your concern. >>> >>> However, I substantiated "the earliest generalizations" in the video >>> just below that one. >>> www.GenesisProof.com >>> >>> Can you tell me a reason belief in religion is sane in 3 words! >>> >>> Getting a perfect natural language response like "the answer to your >>> question about primes is because..." >>> isn't going to occur often in random quotes from books. >>> >>> But the response can INDICATE one way or the other to answer the >>> question. And not all random quotes will indicate one way or another to >>> a typical question. >>> >>> Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? >>> A/ I would like a hard boiled egg. >>> RANDOM >>> >>> Q/ Why is belief in religion sane? >>> A/ Religion was on of the earliest generalizations of sentient beings. >>> IN CONTEXT >>> >>> Herc >> >> Even your proposed extended response doesn't actually answer the >> question, but in any case the answer didn't say "Religion was on of >> the earliest generalizations of sentient beings" it just said "the >> earliest generalization". Indeed, the text wasn't clear on the video, >> but you did not say "generalisations", only "generatlisation". >> >> If the criterion for relevance is that one can include the answer >> words in a sentence that appears to be relevant, then the criterion is >> unreasonably weak. The more so when the entirety of the relevance >> comes from a word that was added. >> >> Sylvia. > > > That's just one criterion, that it fits in with the words asked in the > question. > > In order to prove something Sylvia you have to assume the hypothesis of > the negative, then find a contradiction. If your only scientific method > is a > foregone rational conclusion then you will never learn anything new. You > have to assume the power is real, THEN find a weakness. > You have to admit the 2nd answer to justify "the earliest > generalizations" as > a precise and concise answer to whether religion is sane was near perfect. > "we cannot deduce or assert everything possible". It doesn't justify it at all. All it does is show some ability to devise applicable sentences around specific words. It doesn't even show much ability.. Q. Will the world explode on Sunday? A. The earliest generalisation. Justification: "The earliest generalisation about the world was that it would explode every Sunday." As a proof of the existence of channelling, it leaves much to be desired. > > It's an exact reason why we must generalize. > > What about the second answer in the video to Nick. > > Is Nick's skepticism wrong? -> RANDOM QUOTE -> suggest how research > might be continued. Q. Will the world explode on Sunday? A. suggest how research might be continued. Justification: "It is not known whether the world will explode on Sunday, but further anlysis will suggest how research might be continued on this topic." > > > Both answers in that video were million to one that they were perfectly > in context > and gave the optimal answer and most productive response possible. Neither or them were in context. It's a mirage. Sylvia. PS. I don't know whether you're putting the x-posted groups back intentionally, but I have to keep removing them because I cannot x-post to more than three groups. If I make a mistake, my post will just dissappear without trace, and without comment from my news service.
From: |-|ercules on 4 May 2010 06:22 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > Q. Will the world explode on Sunday? > > A. The earliest generalisation. > > Justification: "The earliest generalisation about the world was that it > would explode every Sunday." > > As a proof of the existence of channelling, it leaves much to be desired. What kind of answers *would* you accept as proof of channeling? It's obvious the answers are perfectly in context and address the question logically with the correct and best answer, unlike your silly counter examples. You CANNOT do any better! I asked if Adam and Eve were alive and the answer was "after creating both". What's your counter example to that? Q Can you make me a couple slices of toast? A After creating both. puleeeze you are so blind. wasted enough time with blind heathens, the evidence is clear and the future is already set. Ask yourself these 2 questions: 1 Is belief in religion crazy? 2 Is skepticism wrong about religion? Then find 10 random quotes for each, pick your 2 best answers, and compare them to mine. Don't tell me your answers, it voids the randomness of your selection. Herc
From: H.Y. ADDANDSTUFF on 4 May 2010 06:33
On May 4, 3:22 am, "|-|ercules" <milliondollarfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > > > Q. Will the world explode on Sunday? > > > A. The earliest generalisation. > > > Justification: "The earliest generalisation about the world was that it > > would explode every Sunday." > > > As a proof of the existence of channelling, it leaves much to be desired. > > What kind of answers *would* you accept as proof of channeling? > > It's obvious the answers are perfectly in context and address the question > logically with the correct and best answer, unlike your silly counter examples. > > You CANNOT do any better! I asked if Adam and Eve were alive and the > answer was "after creating both". > > What's your counter example to that? > > Q Can you make me a couple slices of toast? > A After creating both. > > puleeeze you are so blind. > > wasted enough time with blind heathens, the evidence is clear and the future is already set. > > Ask yourself these 2 questions: > 1 Is belief in religion crazy? > 2 Is skepticism wrong about religion? > > Then find 10 random quotes for each, pick your 2 best answers, and compare them to mine. > > Don't tell me your answers, it voids the randomness of your selection. > > Herc If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is true or false, do this. = is equals, != equals not { is open function, } is close function //comments here and more there <!---// starts the script, //---> closes it. http://meami.org/ |