GSIC AUDIO

[nathan]

Re: Please....

We rejected the notion of a dummy chip in the Anda negotiations, so I'm surprised it was even IN your protocol, especially considering how closely you followed that fiasco.

I'm confused. I thought the objection to Anda's protocol was that the 'dummy device' was an expired GSIC device. That's not the case with this protocol. Please clarify

 

[KRAMER]

LIAR

How could I withdraw a protocol that I had never agreed to?

Everyone knows you submitted the protocol.

I strongly believe that you have no business posting in this thread. Go to another thread if you cannot find it within yourself to stop harrassing me. We have serious business here, and if all you plan on doing is tossing turds at me, I'll take it up with a moderator.

Don't expect me to comment further on you here, 'cuz I won't.

 

[BPSCG]

The question of whether or not only some people can hear the difference is problematic, but not in the sense of this specific challenge. And LA, if you win, please pay off my cars!

I submit that if LA wins, it proves nothing about LA except that she can hear something that the GSIC claims to be able to do anyway. But that still doesn't prove that LA has paranormal abilities, because we don't know if any person with normal hearing could do the same thing as LA and detect the GSIC-treated disc.

If LA passes the test, that means either 1) she has paranormal abilities, or 2) the GSIC is a paranormal device that defies the laws of physics. JREF should not pay her unless and until it has been determined that the explanation is the former, not the latter. Testing just LA doesn't do that.

 

[jmercer]

I submit that if LA wins, it proves nothing about LA except that she can hear something that the GSIC claims to be able to do anyway. But that still doesn't prove that LA has paranormal abilities, because we don't know if any person with normal hearing could do the same thing as LA and detect the GSIC-treated disc.

If LA passes the test, that means either 1) she has paranormal abilities, or 2) the GSIC is a paranormal device that defies the laws of physics. JREF should not pay her unless and until it has been determined that the explanation is the former, not the latter. Testing just LA doesn't do that.

Good point about it not proving that LA has paranormal powers even if she can hear a difference - faulty logic on my part.

However, the JREF Challenge documentation is very clear - if they negotiate the protocol and accept it, the mechanism is irrelevant to the Challenge. It's the old argument in a sense - if something previously considered paranormal is proven to exist, it's no longer paranormal. That consideration is why the Challenge is structured the way it is.

(I had the same concern once, posted the question, and received the above information. Then I re-read the pertinent documents and realized that it's true. It makes me a bit uncomfortable because it protects successful cheaters - but that's the way it is... )

 

[Moose]

Originally posted by BPSCG:

JREF should not pay her unless and until it has been determined that the explanation is the former, not the latter. Testing just LA doesn't do that.

Mmm, no, I can't agree. JREF's bounty is for proof of the existance of the paranormal. Whoever provides that proof first gets the million.

If the inventor of the GSIC wants the million, he can bloody well apply. Randi did, IIRC, offer him first refusal.

 

[KRAMER]

Sorry, but...

I'm confused. I thought the objection to Anda's protocol was that the 'dummy device' was an expired GSIC device. That's not the case with this protocol. Please clarify

There's got to be a way to test this claim without any kind of dummy chip.

If we allow a dummy device now, and didn't with Anda (be it a really "spent" GSIC chip or something other) the woo-woo's will call foul. They won't care how we define it, if it's a spent chip, or a nintendo chip, or a disassembled chip. Either way, we rejected the whole dummy chip thingy and I think we have to maintain that position.

Sadly, the Anda affair will require that we tow the line regarding our previous objections to points in his protocol.

Listen: a proper test would include GSIC-treated discs, and untreated discs. I really cannot see the problem with this. The claim is that a difference can be heard between the treated and the untreated. A dummy chip is NOT essential, in my view.

Am I wrong? Please advise.

 

[KRAMER]

Excuse me?

If LA passes the test, that means either 1) she has paranormal abilities, or 2) the GSIC is a paranormal device that defies the laws of physics. JREF should not pay her unless and until it has been determined that the explanation is the former, not the latter. Testing just LA doesn't do that.

She gets the million bucks either way.

Obviously we cannot test 10 listeners without having them all make a deal with LA to split to million if they win. The only way to alleviate your concerns is to have 10 or 20 identical applications and identical protocols from 10 or 20 different people. Then we'd have more of a statistical certainty, but do we really need such a test?

As I've said before, the first thing to do is to confirm that there is no difference in digital stream between treated and untreated discs. That will instantly rule out the question of whether or not the chip works, from a pure "physics" viewpoint.

Once that nonsense has been conclusively ruled out, the only way the GSIC thingy could possibly work is paranormally. Either way, if the demonstration is successful, the big bucks go to LA.

 

[rwguinn]

I submit that if LA wins, it proves nothing about LA except that she can hear something that the GSIC claims to be able to do anyway. But that still doesn't prove that LA has paranormal abilities, because we don't know if any person with normal hearing could do the same thing as LA and detect the GSIC-treated disc.

If LA passes the test, that means either 1) she has paranormal abilities, or 2) the GSIC is a paranormal device that defies the laws of physics. JREF should not pay her unless and until it has been determined that the explanation is the former, not the latter. Testing just LA doesn't do that.

Actually, it will prove that, in some way beyond current ken, LA has managed to discern which CD was treated and which was not. If I might suggest--a bit-by-bit comparison of the 2 (or more)CDs used be done--both before and after treatment? If they are identical before, but not identical afterwards, then either the chip changed them. If they weren't identical to begin with, change cd's until they are. If they are identical in all cases, then the true challange will lie in the "how she do dat?
Remote viewing? Dowsing? Astrology? Mind reading of the treaters (whom she hasn't see since the treatment)? time travel? Pure dumb luck? Bad protocol?
It will certainly be one of the above (if not something else). Once bad protocol and test procedure are ruled out, the unknown, or previously paranormal, is the culprit.

 

[Gr8wight]

Re: Sorry, but...

There's got to be a way to test this claim without any kind of dummy chip.

If we allow a dummy device now, and didn't with Anda (be it a really "spent" GSIC chip or something other) the woo-woo's will call foul. They won't care how we define it, if it's a spent chip, or a nintendo chip, or a disassembled chip. Either way, we rejected the whole dummy chip thingy and I think we have to maintain that position.

Sadly, the Anda affair will require that we tow the line regarding our previous objections to points in his protocol.

Listen: a proper test would include GSIC-treated discs, and untreated discs. I really cannot see the problem with this. The claim is that a difference can be heard between the treated and the untreated. A dummy chip is NOT essential, in my view.

Am I wrong? Please advise.

The only way to exclude a dummy device, be it a spent GSIC, game system memory card, or small block of wood, is to have the CDs treated out of the view of the applicant. I believe we come back to a number of indentical CDs, randomly treated or not treated out of the view of the applicant before the listening tests begin. The applicant may then listen to each CD and decide if it is treated or not. An A-B comparison with an untreated control disc may be required, in fact, probably would be required for unpracticed listeners. I don't see any problem with this arrangement. Michael did for some reason.

 

[alfaniner]

...

If LA passes the test, that means either 1) she has paranormal abilities, or 2) the GSIC is a paranormal device that defies the laws of physics...

or 3) She beat the odds.

(See, Piano Teacher? It doesn't take sixteen paragraphs to make a point.)

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Excuse me?

Either way, if the demonstration is successful, the big bucks go to LA.

So she gets paid for either demonstrating she has paranormal abilities or that the GSIC thing is a paranormal device.

Damn, wish I'd thought of it first!

BTW, it's not my million bucks, but I think this is a bit of a risky precedent to be setting here. LA hasn't made a specific claim (she says she doesn't know if she can detect the GSIC-treated CD), and I suspect she hasn't submitted a formal claim application along with the required notarized statements of witnesses. I don't want to derail anything here, but if she's going to be tested outside the normal framework for testing a claim, I think JREF should be prepared to deal with objections from later claimants when they are required to comply with standard procedures: "You waived the requirements for LA; why can't you waive them for me?"

Just playing devil's advocate here, and if I'm working from a faulty premise, please don't hesitate to straighten me out.

 

[KRAMER]

Re: Re: Sorry, but...

The only way to exclude a dummy device, be it a spent GSIC, game system memory card, or small block of wood, is to have the CDs treated out of the view of the applicant. I believe we come back to a number of indentical CDs, randomly treated or not treated out of the view of the applicant before the listening tests begin. The applicant may then listen to each CD and decide if it is treated or not. An A-B comparison with an untreated control disc may be required, in fact, probably would be required for unpracticed listeners. I don't see any problem with this arrangement. Michael did for some reason.

I don't see any problem with this, either.

I wonder why Mr. Anda did?

I don't wonder about it too much, though.

 

[KRAMER]

One Straightening out, As Ordered

LA hasn't made a specific claim (she says she doesn't know if she can detect the GSIC-treated CD), and I suspect she hasn't submitted a formal claim application along with the required notarized statements of witnesses. I don't want to derail anything here, but if she's going to be tested outside the normal framework for testing a claim, I think JREF should be prepared to deal with objections from later claimants when they are required to comply with standard procedures: "You waived the requirements for LA; why can't you waive them for me?"

Just playing devil's advocate here, and if I'm working from a faulty premise, please don't hesitate to straighten me out.

She HAS submitted a notarized claim application and claim letter and done everything according to the rules. If you knew the rules you'd know that an applicant MAY be required to submit 3 notarized affadavits from witnesses if the claim in question is truly outlandish and absurd, like "lights shoot out of my butt".

There is no set rule requiring affadavits, and each claim is dealt with via its own merits or lack thereof.

So we've not "waived" anything.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Sorry, but...

Listen: a proper test would include GSIC-treated discs, and untreated discs. I really cannot see the problem with this. The claim is that a difference can be heard between the treated and the untreated. A dummy chip is NOT essential, in my view.

Am I wrong? Please advise.

Not from my perspective. I never, ever understood the need for a dummy chip (or expired one) for the test at all. I think I said that several times, in fact. To me, it just makes the entire thing more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[jmercer]

Re: One Straightening out, As Ordered

...if the claim in question is truly outlandish and absurd, like "lights shoot out of my butt".

Dammit, it's FLYING MONKEYS, NOT LIGHTS!

(I still crack up when I remember that particular discussion!)

 

[Moose]

If I might suggest--a bit-by-bit comparison of the 2 (or more)CDs used be done--both before and after treatment? If they are identical before, but not identical afterwards, then either the chip changed them.

Really, this doesn't need to be very complicated at all.

You need eleven bit-by-bit identical disks. One of these disks is designated (and identified) as the control and is guaranteed to not have been treated.

The other ten are either treated or not treated by a coin toss, and recorded by paper in a sealed envelope and continuous video tape.

It's okay if a rep for the applicant is present, so long as this rep does not touch the equipment nor the coin, nor contacts the applicant in any way between that point and the time of the test. If any of these things happen, the test is invalidated.

The treatment machine is borrowed/provided by JREF, set once prior to the initial treatment, and not adjusted until the treatment is done.

This is done entirely out of sight of the applicant.

Once this is done, all "treaters" leave the area. One neutral, who was not present for the treatment, enters and transports the CDs to the room where the applicant awaits with their preferred equipment setup. (This can include packaging and mailing, in terms of a remote test.)

The applicant then receives all eleven CDs, and determines by any means they desire which CDs have been treated and which have not.

The applicant can handle the disks, or not handle the disks as he/she desires. The applicant may tweak the equipment at any point during the test. They may do bitwise comparisons, or as many listens as they like. They may switch CDs at will. The applicant can eat the disks if that is what it takes for them to tell the difference.

The applicant provides whatever equipment and environment they feel they require to make the determination, subject to inspection for communication vectors (smuggled cell phones, etc.)

 

[jmercer]

Moose's plan seems sound to me.

 

[Moose]

I just want to add that at least one test CD must be treated. If, by some fluke, all ten coin flips indicate that no CD is to be treated, the sequence must be flipped again, from scratch, until at least one of the ten test CDs is treated.

If a flipping sequence is started, it must be completed, so that the odds of any one CD being treated are even.

It's okay if all CDs end up being treated, just so long as the control is not treated at any point.

The applicant knows that at least one CD will have been treated, up to and including all of them but the control. The applicant also knows that the control CD was never treated.

 

[Gr8wight]

Really, this doesn't need to be very complicated at all.

You need eleven bit-by-bit identical disks. One of these disks is designated (and identified) as the control and is guaranteed to not have been treated.

The other ten are either treated or not treated by a coin toss, and recorded by paper in a sealed envelope and continuous video tape.

It's okay if a rep for the applicant is present, so long as this rep does not touch the equipment nor the coin, nor contacts the applicant in any way between that point and the time of the test. If any of these things happen, the test is invalidated.

The treatment machine is borrowed/provided by JREF, set once prior to the initial treatment, and not adjusted until the treatment is done.

This is done entirely out of sight of the applicant.

Once this is done, all "treaters" leave the area. One neutral, who was not present for the treatment, enters and transports the CDs to the room where the applicant awaits with their preferred equipment setup. (This can include packaging and mailing, in terms of a remote test.)

The applicant then receives all eleven CDs, and determines by any means they desire which CDs have been treated and which have not.

The applicant can handle the disks, or not handle the disks as he/she desires. The applicant may tweak the equipment at any point during the test. They may do bitwise comparisons, or as many listens as they like. They may switch CDs at will. The applicant can eat the disks if that is what it takes for them to tell the difference.

The applicant provides whatever equipment and environment they feel they require to make the determination, subject to inspection for communication vectors (smuggled cell phones, etc.)

The JREF has clearly stated that the applicant will not be allowed to handle or closely view the CDs at any time during the test.

 

[rwguinn]

The JREF has clearly stated that the applicant will not be allowed to handle or closely view the CDs at any time during the test.

And rightly so--as a thumbprint, even, can make a difference in the capability of the reader to properly read the 1's and 0's, making an audible difference in at least 1 disk...
Which is also why there must be more than 2 disks involved....

editied--I don't know what a tumbprint is, so I can't use it in a sentence...