Stimpson J. Cat said:
No. You speculated how a mathematical function would affect random data.
I've been asking you to demonstrate what you are claiming with actual data, specifically do it with the PEAR data.
And I could care less about your challenges, really. Either present actual evidence of your theory or don't.
One thing I've noticed, when reading your posts in this thread and on the other board in the PEAR thread, is that you often tend to present things with two possibilities; where both possibilities are stated to make me look the worst. That's highly dishonest of you, and whenever you phrase something in a dishonest way like this in the future, it will be ignored.
If you read what I wrote more closely, I said your 'if I present the data, then you'll just...' scenario was the "made up" part, not the mathematics.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Aoidoi said:I blame AOL.
I blame LOL.
He can't do it with the PEAR data. Nobody can do it with the PEAR data of past events, because that data no longer exists.jzs said:
From http://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpdata.html :
Acording to Roger D. Nelson (Director, Global Consciousness Project) the raw bitstream is not recorded.
jzs said:
He did nothing of the sort, he handed you an informal proof that the claimed effects of the XOR are not what they are claimed to be.
This is not "speculation".
As you can find no error, retire. You have utterly, conclusively, completely, and absolutely lost.
jj said:
He is speculating that a 1010... mask is always used. That no shifts are used. That only a non-Mindsong mask is used. That there is a lot of correlation. That the bias is a severe problem. That we can't say anything useful from the binomial model. And on and on.
Zzzz.
Stay focused, please. I don't care about your petty personal vendettas.
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
a question
I have a question about all this. I agree with Stimpy that they need to show a correlation between world events and significant eeg deviations. At the end of the day, it seems like there's too much possibility that the REG's are biased and nothing in the design of the GCP is able to nullify the effects of such possible bias.
The sensible thing to do would be to perform controlled studies so that you can manipulate the conditions of the experiment to reduce the possibility of bias. The original PEAR program did this. Prestated conditions to consciously bias the output in one particular direction were randomly selected within the experimental design so that the person would be trying to influence "more 1's", "more 0's" or "baseline" in a randomly alternate fashion throughout the experiment. So if the REG's had an internal bias and were tending to produce more 1's in a large data set, this would only produce anomalies when the data from the "more 1's" intention condition is pooled.
If the final data set also showed deviations in the "more 0's" and "baseline" conditions then wouldn't all this XOR stuff not really matter?
I have a question about all this. I agree with Stimpy that they need to show a correlation between world events and significant eeg deviations. At the end of the day, it seems like there's too much possibility that the REG's are biased and nothing in the design of the GCP is able to nullify the effects of such possible bias.
The sensible thing to do would be to perform controlled studies so that you can manipulate the conditions of the experiment to reduce the possibility of bias. The original PEAR program did this. Prestated conditions to consciously bias the output in one particular direction were randomly selected within the experimental design so that the person would be trying to influence "more 1's", "more 0's" or "baseline" in a randomly alternate fashion throughout the experiment. So if the REG's had an internal bias and were tending to produce more 1's in a large data set, this would only produce anomalies when the data from the "more 1's" intention condition is pooled.
If the final data set also showed deviations in the "more 0's" and "baseline" conditions then wouldn't all this XOR stuff not really matter?
As I understand it, the issue with the xor in this situation is that it will cause correlations to be shown regardless of their existence or not. Worse, it'll bury any real postives within the false positives.
Stimpy can probably clarify - I may be wrong with my interpretation. I understand some statistics, but it's not my forte...
Stimpy can probably clarify - I may be wrong with my interpretation. I understand some statistics, but it's not my forte...
ShowMe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,350
Wow....I mean, just...wow.
Like most folks I have my own field of expertise & it's not mathematics. Reading through that thread certainly gave me an appreciation for the those who crunch numbers.
Honestly, JZS, it sounds like you take SJC's arguments & post them on a board somewhere, then return with the comments made by people to try and debate him. From an outside observer you're writings look muddled.
SJC, I'm still reading through your myriad explanations of things numerical. I think you've done an excellent job of explaining the base problem in utilizing the XOR function. I doubt you'll convert any true believers. But I can tell you that your explanation made sense to at least one non-math type.
A short-live side thread was interesting as well. Claus Larson showed how they pick & choose data:
[Paraphrasing Mr. Larson]
During the Indian Ocean Quake Mar 28 2005, they chose to begin a little more than an hour before the quake, using an 8 hour period.
During the Western India Quake, on January 26 2001, they use a 30 minute period, starting 15 minutes before.
During the Earthquake in Afghanistan on March 25, 2002, they use a 4 hour period, starting half an hour before the event.
During the big tsunami on Dec 26, 2004, they chose to begin half an hour before the main quake, using an 8 hour period.
The argument that was used was "it's like focusing a lens".
As I stated before I'm certainly no math whiz. But I like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person. I can pick up on a lot of patterns.
I don't see how going from
60 minutes before for an 8 hour period
to
15 minutes before for a 30 minute period
to
30 minutes before for a 4 hour period
to
30 minutes before for an 8 hour period
can constitute 'focusing'.
Like most folks I have my own field of expertise & it's not mathematics. Reading through that thread certainly gave me an appreciation for the those who crunch numbers.
Honestly, JZS, it sounds like you take SJC's arguments & post them on a board somewhere, then return with the comments made by people to try and debate him. From an outside observer you're writings look muddled.
SJC, I'm still reading through your myriad explanations of things numerical. I think you've done an excellent job of explaining the base problem in utilizing the XOR function. I doubt you'll convert any true believers. But I can tell you that your explanation made sense to at least one non-math type.
A short-live side thread was interesting as well. Claus Larson showed how they pick & choose data:
[Paraphrasing Mr. Larson]
During the Indian Ocean Quake Mar 28 2005, they chose to begin a little more than an hour before the quake, using an 8 hour period.
During the Western India Quake, on January 26 2001, they use a 30 minute period, starting 15 minutes before.
During the Earthquake in Afghanistan on March 25, 2002, they use a 4 hour period, starting half an hour before the event.
During the big tsunami on Dec 26, 2004, they chose to begin half an hour before the main quake, using an 8 hour period.
The argument that was used was "it's like focusing a lens".
As I stated before I'm certainly no math whiz. But I like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person. I can pick up on a lot of patterns.
I don't see how going from
60 minutes before for an 8 hour period
to
15 minutes before for a 30 minute period
to
30 minutes before for a 4 hour period
to
30 minutes before for an 8 hour period
can constitute 'focusing'.
ShowMe said:
Oh, no. Chronologically, they go from:
30 minute period, starting 15 minutes before (2001)
to
240 minute period, starting 30 minutes before (2002)
to
480 minute period, starting 30 minutes before (2004)
to
480 minute period, starting 60+ minutes before. (2005)
They don't "increase the focus", they expand it!
Justin, can you please explain how expanding the window, thereby increasing the chance of a hit, is "focusing a lens"?
ShowMe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,350
CFLarsen said:
Oh my. I had missed the dating on that somehow.
At least I can see a pattern now. It's a completely ridiculous pattern for what they're doing, but at least a pattern.
Perhaps they can simply go from the beginning of time up through the present and correllate everything that way?
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
jzs said:
Sorry to just chime in, but it seems to me you're the one prolonging it, jzs. Skeptics point out flaws, and you never address them. One even handed out a mathematical proof of an inherent flaw in the data gathering. Show where his proof is wrong or admit that you were wrong. Unless you're trying to found your own branch of mathematics, it's not a "theory". You're prolonging this whole thing with your silence.
Re: a question
Thing is, the XOR "conditioning" means that anomalies will show up in terms of correlations and high-order statistics whenever there is any bias in output (i.e. toward either 1 or 0), and this bias will be whatever the "conditioning" sequence has.
This is in addition to any problems with correlation from the generator, which will only make things worse.
Having used analog generators, well, correlations can be an interesting thing there.
davidsmith73 said:
Thing is, the XOR "conditioning" means that anomalies will show up in terms of correlations and high-order statistics whenever there is any bias in output (i.e. toward either 1 or 0), and this bias will be whatever the "conditioning" sequence has.
This is in addition to any problems with correlation from the generator, which will only make things worse.
Having used analog generators, well, correlations can be an interesting thing there.
jzs said:
Please stay on topic. Either demonstrate a flaw in Stimpy's complete dismissal, or retire.
Your continued insistance, your moving the goalposts, your failure to assume the burden you've taken up for yourself, and such are all terribly evident, as is your childish retaliation both here and in the other thread where you're stalking me, lying about context and content.
ShowMe said:
Oh, no. It's not ridiculous. It's fraudulous.
ShowMe said:
You are closer than you think. Don Watson has tried that for some time, now. He has this "Enformy" theory that is supposed to predict everything.
And, yes, he counts the following people as his "friends and heroes":
Steve Grenard, who has a long history of lying, defamation and cheating, both on this board, and on various believers' boards. Roger Nelson, of PEAR "fame". Dean Radin, in his own right. Gary Schwarz - yes, the Tooth Fairy. Linda Russek, Schwartz' ex. Phony psychics such as Suzy Smith and Laurie Campbell.
It's one big sideshow.
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
Re: Re: a question
My point was that you can design a experimental protocol so that XOR is not needed (I think) a la the original PEAR studies. Unfortunately, the nature of the GCP means that it is littered with design problems that aren't anything to do with the output of the REG's. I don't know why they can't just perform controlled experiments instead.
jj said:Thing is, the XOR "conditioning" means that anomalies will show up in terms of correlations and high-order statistics whenever there is any bias in output (i.e. toward either 1 or 0), and this bias will be whatever the "conditioning" sequence has.
This is in addition to any problems with correlation from the generator, which will only make things worse.
Having used analog generators, well, correlations can be an interesting thing there.
My point was that you can design a experimental protocol so that XOR is not needed (I think) a la the original PEAR studies. Unfortunately, the nature of the GCP means that it is littered with design problems that aren't anything to do with the output of the REG's. I don't know why they can't just perform controlled experiments instead.
Re: Re: Re: a question
I do.
This way, they can obfuscate and still get funded, so they can continue.
If they try a simple Zener card test, they know they will fail. So, complicate things instead to a point where it is virtually impossible to see through the smoke.
davidsmith73 said:
I do.
This way, they can obfuscate and still get funded, so they can continue.
If they try a simple Zener card test, they know they will fail. So, complicate things instead to a point where it is virtually impossible to see through the smoke.