Global Consciousness Project

And the chihuahua wets himself..

Still no data to back up his negative claims.
 
jzs said:
And the chihuahua wets himself..

Still no data to back up his negative claims.
Click to expand...

If you think those who question your claims are "bullies" and are only seeking "attention", why do you pay attention to them?

And if you are so concerned about people insulting you, tot he extent that you collect insults, why do you insult them?
 
OK folks, calm it down. jzs, this was unneccessary - "And the chihuahua wets himself." - and it does not further your argument. Please desist.
 
Several posts in this thread have been reported. I am not going to attempt to find out who "started it" rather I will state that if the trading of insults continues sanctions may be applied to individual Members. If you wish guidelines on what is acceptable I suggest you read your Membership Agreement. Whilst we accept that "...the nature of the forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges...." this does not mean we accept continuous petty bickering. Simply put: acting like mature adults debating an issue with an occasional heated remark is acceptable, acting like children in a playground isn’t.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
THANK you, Darat. We seemed to have been going nowhere for a number of pages.
 
OK, let's get this thread back on track.

jzs,

  • If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?
  • What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?
  • Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?
 
jzs,

Please either explain why my argument hinges upon the level of bias, or respond to my explanation of why it does not.
Click to expand...
You've stated it yourself. "Why should we just accept on faith that such biases are not present?" and that you don't know the level of bias or what direction it is in. So you're making a negative claim here.
Click to expand...
What negative claim am I making? My claim is that if they do not establish that the output of the REGs will, in the absence of external influences, be sufficiently close to their model, that nothing can be inferred from statistically significant results of their analysis. This argument does not hinge on the data being too biased. It hinges on the fact that they have not shown that it is not.

Why don't you analyze the data and answer both of your own questions? You won't, because you believe it is not your job to inquire.
Click to expand...
I can't do the analysis that would be required. I would have to look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present. How exactly do you propose that I do this?

Anyway, it is not my job to do their research for them. If they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly. They have not.

My argument is that they they have not shown that the biases in their data do not have a significant effect on their results, and that therefore they have shown that their results are valid.
Click to expand...
You have not shown anything to demonstrate your negative claims.
Click to expand...
Stop attacking strawmen. I have just stated what my argument is, and I have shown that analytically that my argument is correct. If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where I showed this, then point it out. Repeating over and over again that I have claimed that the data is too biased, when I clearly have not, and demanding that I provide evidence to support a claim I have not made, is simply dishonest.

And of course I could be mistaken. If I am, point out the mistake! Your attempts to paint me as some sort of elitist who demands that everybody have blind faith that everything I say about science is correct, are dishonest and completely out of line.
Click to expand...
Yet you're the one who pulled the 'Do you know who you are talking to? I am a physicist.' card.
Click to expand...
I did not mention that as an attempt to back up my argument, and you know it. Again, the fact that you choose to misrepresent what I said in this way just demonstrates dishonesty on your part.

Look, I still do not care if you look at rat neurons or whatever. It is your arguments I am concerned about, and the are simply raising the possibility of something, asserting a negative claim, not inquiring, and believing that is a hard-hitting skeptical analysis.
Click to expand...
If you are concerned about my arguments, then respond to them. Stop attacking a strawman. You know perfectly well that I am not simply "raising possibilities" and "making negative claims". I have explained this to you repeatedly, and you persist in simply ignoring my explanations and repeating claims which I have already responded to.

If you think this line of debate is worthless (and I agree), then you shouldn't have brought it up.
Click to expand...
This is not a debate. It is more like arguing with a parrot. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again, even though it has no relevance to any argument I have actually made.


Let me know when you actually want to address my argument. If all you are going to do is continue to attack a strawman and throw around ad-hominem fallacies, you are just wasting everybody's time.


Dr. Stupid
 
jzs,

  • If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?
  • What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?
  • Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?
  • What negative claim is Stimpy making?
  • How exactly do you propose that Stimpy look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present?
  • Do you agree that if they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly?
  • If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where Stimpy showed that is argument is analytically correct, can you point it out?
  • If you are concerned about Stimpy's arguments, could you respond to them?

I'll just keep summarizing for you, OK? Time will tell if you are interested in debating about the GCP, or proselytizing.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
(more of the same)
Click to expand...


If you don't care to provide evidence for your negative claims ("its not my job"), fine, that's your choice, just don't expect me to hold your argument in high regards.
 
jzs said:
If you don't care to provide evidence for your negative claims ("its not my job"), fine, that's your choice, just don't expect me to hold your argument in high regards.
Click to expand...

jzs,

I'll repeat, in the hope that you are interested in debating about the GCP, and not proselytizing:

  • If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?
  • What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?
  • Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?
  • What negative claim is Stimpy making?
  • How exactly do you propose that Stimpy look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present?
  • Do you agree that if they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly?
  • If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where Stimpy showed that is argument is analytically correct, can you point it out?
  • If you are concerned about Stimpy's arguments, could you respond to them?
 
Darat said:
"...the nature of the forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges...." this does not mean we accept continuous petty bickering. Simply put: acting like mature adults debating an issue with an occasional heated remark is acceptable, acting like children in a playground isn’t.
Click to expand...

Where, in the membership agreement, does it state that you don't accept continuous petty bickering?

I've searched it, but "continuous" and "bickering" aren't words in the membership agreement.

You just made that up.

Please retract what you just made up, or adjust the membership agreement accordingly.
 
jzs said:
Where, in the membership agreement, does it state that you don't accept continuous petty bickering?

I've searched it, but "continuous" and "bickering" aren't words in the membership agreement.

You just made that up.

Please retract what you just made up, or adjust the membership agreement accordingly.
Click to expand...

jzs,

I'll repeat, in the hope that you are interested in debating about the GCP, and not proselytizing:

  • If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?
  • What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?
  • Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?
  • What negative claim is Stimpy making?
  • How exactly do you propose that Stimpy look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present?
  • Do you agree that if they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly?
  • If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where Stimpy showed that is argument is analytically correct, can you point it out?
  • If you are concerned about Stimpy's arguments, could you respond to them?
 
69dodge said:
It's not a big problem, because 1 is a constant. If you have a sum of n independent (z<sup>2</sup> - 1)'s, just add n to the sum, and you'll get a random variable that has a chi-square distribution with n degrees of freedom. I'm pretty sure this is essentially what they do.
Click to expand...
I was not so much worried about the -1, more about the z. Is the distribution of sum of z^2 the same as the distribution of the sum of squares? The sum of z is zero and the sum of z^2 is n so if you add n to the sum of z<sup>2</sup> - 1 you just get n.

The problem is that the GCP analysts use the theoretic mean and variance to calculate z. This skews the data considerably, for example if you calculate each z using mean of 100 and variance of 50 and the mean is actually 100.1 and the variance is 51 then the distribution is very different.

And this is where I think it would be difficult to calculate confidence intervals - so I would still be interested in the calculation behind the confidence bands they use.
 
jzs said:
Where, in the membership agreement, does it state that you don't accept continuous petty bickering?

I've searched it, but "continuous" and "bickering" aren't words in the membership agreement.

You just made that up.

Please retract what you just made up, or adjust the membership agreement accordingly.
Click to expand...

jzs
We moderators do the best we can. If you don't agree you are free to leave. In fact, please do.
 
jzs said:
Where, in the membership agreement, does it state that you don't accept continuous petty bickering?

I've searched it, but "continuous" and "bickering" aren't words in the membership agreement.

You just made that up.

Please retract what you just made up, or adjust the membership agreement accordingly.
Click to expand...

This post has been reported. This post is an example of the childlike behaviour I mentioned in my previous warning in this thread. This is your last warning, any repetition of this type of behaviour will result in further sanctions. (Edited to add.) If you wish to discuss a moderation issue please do so in the Forum Management section.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
tim said:
jzs
We moderators do the best we can. If you don't agree you are free to leave. In fact, please do.
Click to expand...

This post has been reported. Please ensure that if you are discussing an issue of Moderation your posts are clearly identifiable as either your personal views or your view as a member of the Mod Team.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
tim said:
jzs
We moderators do the best we can. If you don't agree you are free to leave. In fact, please do.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Thread posted in the Forum Management section as requested.
 
Originally posted by Robin
The sum of z is zero and the sum of z^2 is n so if you add n to the sum of z<sup>2</sup> - 1 you just get n.
Click to expand...
I was using "z" in a different way, I think. I meant a standard normal variable. And by "sum," I meant a sum of independent such variables.

What you say about the constancy of the sums is true if we have a set of data points and we transform each into a corresponding "z-score" by subtracting the mean from it and then dividing by the standard deviation, where the mean and standard deviation used are calculated from that same set of data points. The z-scores are not independent in that case, and they are not necessarily normal: their distribution depends on that of the underlying data.
The problem is that the GCP analysts use the theoretic mean and variance to calculate z. This skews the data considerably, for example if you calculate each z using mean of 100 and variance of 50 and the mean is actually 100.1 and the variance is 51 then the distribution is very different.

And this is where I think it would be difficult to calculate confidence intervals - so I would still be interested in the calculation behind the confidence bands they use.
Click to expand...
Confidence intervals are always calculated based on some null hypothesis or other. What null hypothesis do you want to test?

Using a mean of 100 and a variance of 50 to compute the z-scores tests the hypothesis that the underlying data is normally distributed with those parameters, because if it were, the sum of the squares of the z-scores so computed would have a chi-square distribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom