what IF someone won Randi's challenge

[jacob]

Since Dean Radin has a degree in EE, which also deals with the FEC algorithms that are in the test proposal by .Netroller it might be a good idea to contact him and listen to his take on the idea.

I might just do it myself.
Update: I sent the email to Dean Radin.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm informed by the JREF Challenge admininstrator that a scientist could apply for the Challenge on behalf of a group of claimants as long as the claimants agreed to be represented by him.

~~ Paul

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

I didn't say it won't convince anybody; I said it won't convince religious skeptics.

You just can't let that die, can you? How can anyone take anything you have to say when you directly contradicted yourself, acknowledged you did, but are now denying you did and are still claiming your ludicrous position that skeptics are cult members? It doesn't exactly speak well of your intellectual honesty.

Besides, the "religious" skeptics seem to represent, to you, ALL skeptics, and they're in charge of everything, they're the mainstream, and they're in charge of the test. That's giving yourself an out to keep you from having to try.

Dean Radin has a bachelors and masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology; he has worked at Bell Labs and GTE, and also held appointments at prestigious universities.

He may have degrees in other fields, but I've read his blog; he believes in just about anything (much like Sheldrake) who comes across his desk. I'd get more derisive about him, but that seems to get people into a tizzy. Suffice it to say that his body of work doesn't exactly cry out "critical thinker."

Who says they're not? The results were significant, and they said they didn't want to investigate further. What does that tell you?

Ah, what a nice refuge of the conspiratorial mind. Of course it couldn't be that they tried, found insufficient reason to continue, and spent the the money on better things. No! No, they must really have found SO MUCH DATA that they had to keep it secret, so the rest of the world wouldn't realize the awesome might the CIA now wields.

Because, you know, they're CLEARLY able to find anything they want at any time. That's been demonstrated concretely.

What a wonderful logical trap, there: if they found something, that's evidence that they found something. If they didn't find anything, then that means they found EVEN MORE! What possible result from their efforts could be taken that it was a waste of time?

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I'm informed by the JREF Challenge admininstrator that a scientist could apply for the Challenge on behalf of a group of claimants as long as the claimants agreed to be represented by him.

~~ Paul

Thanks for your work.

I presume they will change their webpage accordingly? And the scientist, of course, doesn't have to have a media presence, right?

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, could you also ask about that million-dollar bond. Who issued it? I know Goldman Sachs holds it, but who guarantees the payment?

[jacob]

Originally Posted by jacob

Since Dean Radin has a degree in EE, which also deals with the FEC algorithms that are in the test proposal by .Netroller it might be a good idea to contact him and listen to his take on the idea.

I might just do it myself.
Update: I sent the email to Dean Radin.

Quoting myself

Anyway, I got a response from Dean Radin regarding .NetRoller's idea of using error correction in ESP experiments. Here's the reply:

Use of error correcting coding has been successfully applied in a number of psi tests. Both words and strings of digits have been decoded using such methods. One problem with the fringe status of parapsychology is that hardly anyone outside the field has paid close attention to the published literature, so it's not too surprising that this may not be known.

- Dean Radin

FYI.

[Psibeliever]

So, in layman's terms, what does it mean?

[jacob]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

So, in layman's terms, what does it mean?

In layman terms I believe it says that exactly what .NetRoller proposed to use in ESP tests has been used already with successful results, which means that a transmission of a concrete information was done with the help of error correction coding. ECC or FEC (forward error correction, I think, like .NetRoller called it) is a method used in digital communication to help recover the information even in case that some part of the transmission got lost in interference.

A basic example would be a Compact Disc. You know that even if it has scratches in a moderate amount, the player will still play it will. This is since it can reconstruct the correct information using data that is still available (if there's enough of it).

A more basic example of actual ECC would be transmitting everything 3 times. Then, if one of 3 is received with error it'll still be able to select the right result (2 of 3). Of course, there are much better ways.

So, for example, if in PSI experiment a data would be coded with enough redundancy it might be able to be recovered even if some percentage of it will be "guessed" wrongly by the psi receiver.

I hope this is understandable enough. Pehaps .NetRoller can add something to this.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, could you also ask about that million-dollar bond. Who issued it? I know Goldman Sachs holds it, but who guarantees the payment?

http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by jacob

Anyway, I got a response from Dean Radin regarding .NetRoller's idea of using error correction in ESP experiments. Here's the reply:

Did he give an example?

[Psibeliever]

Thanks, Miguel, but I already know of that pdf document. But it does not say WHO issued the bond. And that remains a mystery that the JREF does not seem to want to clear up.