Ganzfeld million dollar challange?

[RoboTimbo]

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)

What is your paranormal claim?

 

[Czarcasm]

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)

1. No, it means that those who issue the challenge get to determine what the rules of the challenge will be.
2. What, specifically, is your paranormal claim?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, as it has done twice in recent years -- first by introducing out of the blue a "media presence" requirement; and second, by announcing that the Challenge will no longer exist after March 6, 2010.)

I take that as a "Yes".

 

[Rasmus]

So I guess that means the Challenge Rules are set in stone forever and can never be changed. (Except, of course, when the JREF decides to drastically change them, [...]

That seems about accurate.

Or, in other words:

Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been an applicant. Only complete agreement with these rules will allow the "applicant" to become a "claimant."

Again: Apply. Write a proper, honest and reasonable application. It should be simple. It might be very unlikely that the JREF will then change their rules for you - but I think it is even less unlikely to happen before you apply and demonstrate that you are both serious and reasonable about your application.

 

[Rodney]

Again: Apply. Write a proper, honest and reasonable application. It should be simple. It might be very unlikely that the JREF will then change their rules for you - but I think it is even less unlikely to happen before you apply and demonstrate that you are both serious and reasonable about your application.

I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge. As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested. It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge. As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested. It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Your psi researchers are welcome to join the forum where it can be discussed first hand with them. I'd like to hear what their concerns are that they think the MDC is unwinnable by someone with genuine paranormal ability.

 

[Dancing David]

Then please enlighten me, at least as to the second issue: Are all protocols, including time-consuming ones such as Ganzfeld experiments, eligible for the Challenge?

Late response, the Challenge would be upon the Claimant. To run the experiement by the protocol specified for the preliminary. No burden upon the JREF at all.

There are other issues with the ganzfeld, why not use Rhine Cards?

 

[jojonete]

I'm not a candidate for the MDC, but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge.

What would a would-be serious candidate to Ganzfeld applicant's paranormal claim be?

 

[Rasmus]

I'm not a candidate for the MDC,

No sh..., Sherlock!

but would-be serious candidates are discouraged from applying by the unclear and changing nature of the Challenge.

Well, if they can't even speak for themselves, I am not going to take their worries overly serious.

As a prominent Ganzfeld researcher communicated to me: "We psi researchers have examined the Randi proposal repeatedly and watched as others have been tested.

ah huh ...

It is our conclusion that he has his offer so hedged and the criteria for success so arbitrarily set up and changeable at his whim that nobody will ever be able to pass his test."

Again, not a word as to where the actual problem is, not a single mention of what precisely they could show under what specific changes of the rules. (And I won't even go into why I think those statements are in contradiction to the observable facts in the first place ...)

See those grapes up there?

 

[Rodney]

What would a would-be serious candidate to Ganzfeld applicant's paranormal claim be?

That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

So why doesn't one of them apply? You explained to them how silly their whining about "arbitrarily set up" criteria is, didn't you? Or, as a skeptic, did you make them give you anything specific that is arbitrary about it? I hope you didn't just fall for their childish whinging. If all they can do is claim that the MDC is rigged, you could direct them to the openly published protocol negotiations from previous applicants, couldn't you?

A good start would be to have them sign up here and begin a dialog.

 

[Rodney]

Or, as a skeptic, did you make them give you anything specific that is arbitrary about it?

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

Who would you suggest do it if not the JREF? A Ganzfeldian? Someone trying to win the million by non-paranormal means?

So, how about those psi researchers coming on here so we can iron out these things so that you aren't having to be the go-between for them?

 

[Rodney]

Who would you suggest do it if not the JREF? A Ganzfeldian? Someone trying to win the million by non-paranormal means?

I'm suggesting that some sort of objective panel be set-up by the JREF that would have input into the MDC process. For example, the panel might consist of three neutral psychologists or parapsychologists. Or perhaps a believer, a skeptic, and a neutral one.

So, how about those psi researchers coming on here so we can iron out these things so that you aren't having to be the go-between for them?

I don't have control over them, but I think they regard the MDC in about the same way you would regard a "Million Dollar Darwinian Evolution Challenge" established by the Discovery Institute.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

Compare it to a lottery company: Do you not find it arbitrary that the lottery company -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the lottery rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all lottery drawings? It is their money after all, they offer the competition, right?

Rodney, the rules will not be changed for you. Try to wrap your head around that.

If your buddies can perform a feat above what chance suggests they should consider another way of making money and fame off of it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm suggesting that some sort of objective panel be set-up by the JREF that would have input into the MDC process. For example, the panel might consist of three neutral psychologists or parapsychologists. Or perhaps a believer, a skeptic, and a neutral one.

You mean people who don't represent the ones putting up the money? Nobody is stopping anyone from making their own challenge and running it how they see fit.

I don't have control over them, but I think they regard the MDC in about the same way you would regard a "Million Dollar Darwinian Evolution Challenge" established by the Discovery Institute.

You know, that very well may be true. But there isn't such a challenge, is there? But suppose there were. How would you evaluate it? Here's what I would do:

Are the rules published and available to the public?
Is pass/fail negotiable?
Is pass/fail
Is the protocol negotiable?
Am I allowed to openly discuss my protocol with the general public?
Are prior challenges well documented as to the protocol and what constitutes pass/fail?
Were the protocols actually followed?
Were there reliable witnesses?
Were the results every disputed? If so, in what way?

How would you evaluate a challenge?

The only remotely similar challenge of which I am aware is these two regarding HIV:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/araward.htm

They dictate both the protocol as well as the pass/fail. It doesn't surprise me at all that nobody has succeeded.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That a (rather lengthy -- perhaps on the order of six months) Ganzfeld experiment would produce a number of hits far in excess of the number that would be expected by chance.

Define "far in excess" for us. I saw 35% instead of the expected 25%. As a critical thinker that tells me that most likely what I thought was properly blinded and randomized wasn't. From what I read of the tests, they were not properly blinded or randomized.

The most optimistic conclusion is that maybe in a small percentage of the time there might actually be something there. I would then do my best to figure out what it was. I would then run further tests to increase that percentage to some number that truly could not be explained by procedure flaws. Thus if I got it up to 50% under the same testing conditions, I would get excited that I was going in the right direction.

Do you want to discuss Ganzfeld? Yes or no? Please answer.

 

[autumn1971]

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

The JREF established the MDC and its rules; your idea that some third (who was the second?) party jump in to officiate and make rules decisions is strange.
Actually, not so strange. Because an offer is being made by a non-profit the IRS has considerable interest in the MDC, at least the boring accounting parts of it. Because the offer is world-wide, the FBI and various federal orginizations would have a great interest if your "psi" researchers had even a little bit of a tiny iota of a factoid indicating that the game was fixed or unwinnable. They don't like the fact that the MDC specifies proper observing conditions. They hate that.

 

[Rasmus]

I saw no need. As a skeptic, do you not find it arbitrary that the JREF -- with no third party involvement whatever -- establishes the MDC rules, changes them whenever it wishes, and is the judge and jury of all MDC applications?

No.

I find that that the JREF rules are sensible.

I find your notion that some random people should be put in charge utterly ridiculous. What you present here is the poster child of an ad-hominem argument: "The challenge rules are bad because of who makes them rather than because of what they are."

You have failed to address as much as a single actual point of criticism with the rules as written.

Grow up!

 

[highflyertoo]

Challenge Candidate ( soon )

I hope to try for the supernatural challenge within the next few months or so . ( my many dreams have been narrowed down ) .
I am not an academic person , yet have had alot of dreams that have come true to my understanding . My dreams have been repeating themselves for quite sometime . The dreams reveals that I attain the ability to move objects by looking at then and moving objects into mid air by motioning with my hands . . I have been future seeing for the last 30 years .

I only joined today and hope I am on the correct thread .