1 Million Dollar Challenge To Materialists – Prove A Computer Can Experience A Dream!

[P_Synthesis]

@Paul,

Wow, now we're mixing meditation and ethics.

They are never separate in my opinion. (Hadn't you noticed that those who achieve in the first tend to talk quite a bit about the second? ^_^)

Okay, I guess I'll be accused of accusing you of either lying or being a fool. So be it.

Well sure -- but not just me, was my point there.

But there is a difference between "the universe is a wholistic entity" and "the universe is a wholistic entity springing from the playfullness of absolute being."

?? Neither of which I said! I didn't talk about the universe and I certainly didn't talk about 'playfulness'.

You should stop taking such offense from my words. I was acknowledging a difference between a "quiet mind" and deeper consciousness and giving you the words that are used in TM as evidence that I knew of that distinction.

I'm not offended, really! I just didn't know the terms you gave, and you didn't link them with mine. Some of the terms I gave aren't things that are covered by the terms you gave. But we've been over that.

I was specifically referring to human consciousness being an indivisible entity when I said it was an egregious god-of-the-gaps argument. I still think that is egregious.

Well my position on that would be that ground of one's individual consciousness is also all-one-thing, a subset of the bigger all-one-thing. But no, I am not expecting to convince you. I just haven't heard why it's so egregious yet.

You didn't answer my question about the 'module in the brain' -- I will answer it for you and say you are not experiencing a module in your brain, you assume that the "I" which notices is a 'module in the brain', but that is ex post; at the time you don't know it. Seems important to make that clear!

Have a good vacation, it's a pleasure talking to you.

PS:

If it is insisted that human consciousness cannot be an emergent property even of some sort of quantum of consciousness, but must exist all-of-a-piece, then the idea of a quale-on is irrelevent.

Only if you insist that the quale-on, because it's the 'simpler thing' from which human consciousness is built, must be 'smaller than' human consciousness.

Why assume that?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by P Synthesis

They are never separate in my opinion. (Hadn't you noticed that those who achieve in the first tend to talk quite a bit about the second? ^_^)

Yes, I noticed. But I did not attribute the development of human morality to them.

?? Neither of which I said! I didn't talk about the universe and I certainly didn't talk about 'playfulness'.

In fact, you haven't even told me what form of meditation you're talking about. My point was that there is a difference between assuming something simple and claiming something more involved.

Well my position on that would be that ground of one's individual consciousness is also all-one-thing, a subset of the bigger all-one-thing. But no, I am not expecting to convince you. I just haven't heard why it's so egregious yet.

It's a scientific statement that requires evidence. But really, one man's egregiousness is not necessarily another man's, so not to worry.

You didn't answer my question about the 'module in the brain' -- I will answer it for you and say you are not experiencing a module in your brain, you assume that the "I" which notices is a 'module in the brain', but that is ex post; at the time you don't know it. Seems important to make that clear!

Sorry, I don't understand you.

Only if you insist that the quale-on, because it's the 'simpler thing' from which human consciousness is built, must be 'smaller than' human consciousness.

Why assume that?

Because I don't think that a fundamental existent would be that complex. I also have a hard time seeing how humans would evolve to interface to such a thing. I also find it somewhat tenuous that a fundamental existent would spring into existence at the beginning of time with full-blown human consciousness as an attribute, when humans did not exist then. It all smacks of a universe created just for us, support for which is not in evidence.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Have a good vacation, it's a pleasure talking to you.

Thanks, and likewise!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

The whole Godel limitation comes from mechanistic information processing - you absolutely have to avoid mechanism.

Only if you are going to insist that humans are both complete and consistent. I don't think so.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/referenc.html

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Only if you are going to insist that humans are both complete and consistent. I don't think so.

~~ Paul

The same arguments apply to humans as a group, and most people are happy that mathematics is building a sound collection of theorems.

It seems to me that there is an interesting parallel with AI. There you have programs that are brittle, but each flaw can be fixed by adding one extra bit of logic - only to expose another problem. This is exactly what happens if you take a set of axioms and add the statement that cannot be proved as yet another axiom.

I also feel that mathematical understanding is nothing like mechanical manipulations. The understanding when, for example, you get exactly why multiplication is commutative (I remember thinking about a rectangular crate of milk bottles - of course I didn't call it commutativity at the time!) really doesn't seem to be anything you could program into a computer.

Remember, Penrose's argument doesn't need to be provably true, to be in fact true - i.e. for mechanism to always fall short of consciousness.

David

[P_Synthesis]

Only if you insist that the quale-on, because it's the 'simpler thing' from which human consciousness is built, must be 'smaller than' human consciousness.

Why assume that?

Because I don't think that a fundamental existent would be that complex.

Who says it's complex?

I also have a hard time seeing how humans would evolve to interface to such a thing.

Why say it is only humans that interface to it? Why not say everything that could in any way be considered conscious does so? It's a 'basic particle' after all, it's not human consciousness itself but the basic and simplest thing from which it is made.

I also find it somewhat tenuous that a fundamental existent would spring into existence at the beginning of time with full-blown human consciousness as an attribute

Not a 'full-blown human consciousness', just the simplest possible basis thereof. I thought that was the idea of the 'quale-on'.

There's nothing necessarily anthropic in what I'm saying either.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Did you try searching the forum? Here it is on a plate ....

Randi makes a claim around the 40:30 minute mark in video.
YouTube - Authors@Google: James Randi

So skip forward to 40.30mins, if you don't trust me ... here is the wording

James Randi: '....'We have filing cabinets just full .....[reference to picture of Kramer with cabinets] .... all with little red stickers on them. That means they have been tested - no good.....'

Kramer (The Challenge Manager in 2005) : '.....based upon my preliminary investigation, is that Challenge records were VERY incomplete prior to my arrival here. There wasn't even a real application file before I got here. We have a few VHS tapes of some tests, but it's unclear how many of those were official JREF Challenge tests, as many of these tapes are VERY old and without any paperwork or accompanying data.....'

Here is more evidence that it is JREF are fudging information ..... the James Randi website cannot answer a very simple question ....



JREF could not even simply add up about 2 trials per year to give a straight answer. So quite clearly ....

JREF are trying to hide how few people they have tested ...here is how to work out the above fudging ... take 40 to 60 applicants at any given time, deduct the majority who drop out = ??? Then divide this magic number by 3 = ??? Then you have the ??? number of applicants who were tested per ??? Brilliant fudging.

There were so few tests to add up .... according to Kramer, James Randi's 1 million challenge assistant in 2005 '....There have been two tests since my arrival here one year ago. My understanding is that there has never been more than a couple of tests per year...' )

indeed they do only a few tests per year ,
that also means they have only a few candidates who make it past the application process
which also means most claims fall apart before they even enter
this reflects more on the quality of the claims , then on the character of the challenge

But I am the skeptic, you are the believer in Randi Prize

yet i am skeptic of the claims that are made , you believe its a hoax ( maybe even a conspiracy by PSICOP )

Aspirin probably couldn't pass the Randi/JREF 'self evident' preliminary test either as a painkiller (placebos are effective pain killers) or as stroke preventer (very weak effect, requires long term trial costing more than a million). Using such logic would you view aspirin as a scam if it can't win a short preliminary trial for a prize? (The meta-analysis of lab telepathy in parapsychology trials is around 5 times greater effect size than research aspirin prevents a second heart attack)

the JREF prize does not ask to prove a specific claim , but to show any paranormal claim is true

so a correct analogy would be " the million dollar medicine callenge : prove any medicine works " not : prove aspirin works
you probably would not even need patients to win that bet
for instance a culture dish some bacteria an some antibiotics would do the trick

about the placebo effect , new medicine has to show efficacy beyond placebo
and placebo can be an effective pain killer for some people , but after a serious injury i am still going ask for some codeine based pain killers

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sparky

indeed they do only a few tests per year ,
that also means they have only a few candidates who make it past the application process which also means most claims fall apart before they even enter

Look dude .... I could get more people in a single day than JREF have tested in 12 years by simply walking down a city main street and asking them to invent a claim for a test to win 1 million!!! Some people would even do it merely for the media attention .... so what is putting people off chancing their luck for Randi's million? The answer clearly must be something JREF is doing to put entrants off, since they are only testing about 2 people per year.

yet i am skeptic of the claims that are made , you believe its a hoax ( maybe even a conspiracy by PSICOP )

Your words, not mine. The JREF prize is a publicity stunt to influence media and public opinion. CSICOP are not part of any conspiracy (but they are so predictable they probably would take any bait of deliberate misinformation against psi claims, since one can predict CSICOP are going to rubbish any psi claim before reading anything they say on the matter)

Lab parapsychology has conducted well over 1000 experimental studies on psi, finding thousands of people willing to be tested without offering money ... . JREF haven't conducted any proper studies, JREF have not attempted replications of any parapsychology lab claims ... JREF have tested less than 30 people in a brief test. And you prefer to trust JREF instead? Why

the JREF prize does not ask to prove a specific claim , but to show any paranormal claim is true so a correct analogy would be " the million dollar medicine callenge : prove any medicine works " not : prove aspirin works

This is just plain wrong. It has to be a specific, detailed claim to enter JREF prize challenge

you probably would not even need patients to win that bet
for instance a culture dish some bacteria an some antibiotics would do the trick

No. The Randi rules say the results must be self evident, no doubt over the interpretation is allowed. For example one could simply claim that hydrogen peroxide, strong acids, fire, etc. would kill the bacteria too, so there needs to be evidence it works in humans .... ..most medicines would have to spend millions to win Randi type stunt . So if the prize challenger just wants to act the goat and more goal posts, the entrants will give up.

about the placebo effect , new medicine has to show efficacy beyond placebo

Yes, which makes lab parapsychology results actually better in comparison not worse, as a placebo response isn't fixed reference point, it varies from person to person.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Lab parapsychology has conducted well over 1000 experimental studies on psi, finding thousands of people willing to be tested without offering money

A minor point, but subjects in parapsychology tests are often paid. Not much, but they'll get something.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Look dude .... I could get more people in a single day than JREF have tested in 12 years by simply walking down a city main street and asking them to invent a claim for a test to win 1 million!!! .

why don't you do that , would be a good test :
if you collected these people , ask them to clearly , and in understandable langauge , state their claim : you will see how many you have left

then with those left you try to agree on a protocol , how many are left now ?

Some people would even do it merely for the media attention ....

i would say it is the other way around since history shows all tests were negative they probably are afraid of negative publicity

so what is putting people off chancing their luck for Randi's million?

again,
- lack of ability to clearly state, in understandable langauge , their claims
- conscious realization they cannot make good on their claim
- subconscious realization they cannot make good on their claim ,usually with some sort of rationalization : for instance stating the tests are not fair , cannot perform in front of skeptic, Randi is dishonest etc..
- for al lot of them , ignoring the challenge because they are frauds
- as you yourself stated , small effect sizes that arguably fall within noise levels
- in case of scientists , staking their reputations
etc..

and not :

The answer clearly must be something JREF is doing to put entrants off, since they are only testing about 2 people per year

because you can not force someone to take up the challenge
that is the selfevident nature of a challenge

The JREF prize is a publicity stunt to influence media and public opinion.

let me tell you a story about a stunt ,
Australian doctor Barry marshall had serendipitously discovered that the bacteria helicobacter pylori was an important cause for peptic ulster
general knowledge at that time said : no bacteria survive in the acid enviroment of the stomac
so it took a long time to convince the scientific world of this by the normal process , normally no problem , but in this case there was some urgency
in bad cases , people were being treated by removing the most effected part of the stomac
in 1984 he decided to do something and infected himself with a culture of helicobacter , promptly got symptoms , and subsuquently cured himself with a mix of acid inhibitors and antibiotics
this was considered a stunt but ultimately the result was an immediate interest in his work which speeded up the research and resulting cure
for completeness
it was never actually shown , the bacteria was in his stomac , despite of the symptoms

but that didn't stop him from being awarded a nobel prize in 2005

this story makes me wonder how come this never happened for the PSI world ?
the JREF challenge , if won , surely could do the same
why doesn't one of the big names say , screw being unscientific , i am tired of being doubted, i work something out in my lab , get my data straight and do the test
if there are doubts about honesty , there are ways enough to do this very publicly
so if the JREF are dishonest at least that can be shown
why not take something that is percieved to have a large effect and try it ?

. JREF haven't conducted any proper studies, JREF have not attempted replications of any parapsychology lab claims ... JREF have tested less than 30 people in a brief test. And you prefer to trust JREF instead? Why

they never stated research was their mission , wher did you get that ?
i trust the JREF for what they do with the challenge
it is very elegant in it's simplicity
it is what it is : a challenge

This is just plain wrong It has to be a specific, detailed claim to enter JREF prize challenge

i probably wasn't clear i was establishing your analogy does not work ,
in your setup i have to enter aspirin in a similar challenge , on choice only
while i would rather enter an other medicin

in Randi's challenge the candidate has the freedom to choose which ability/effect he or she wants to demostrate

in doing that he or she will indeed need to be specific about his ability

what you are proposing would be Randi saying you have to show you can dowse
while you were hoping to win a cool million proving , let's say, telekinesis

not a trivial difference , right?

Yes, which makes lab parapsychology results actually better in comparison not worse, as a placebo response isn't fixed reference point, it varies from person to person

that is why there has to be accounted for the placebo effect in a statistical way in tests
so if any form of supernatural effect would score better than placebo
which can be up to 30%
why the hell has Randi still got his money ?
also direct in conflict with this previous statement

The weight of evidence favours psi existing - generally weak effects - that cannot win in short stunt prize challenges

this discussion would be so unnecessary if the challenge would be won

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

A minor point, but subjects in parapsychology tests are often paid. Not much, but they'll get something.

Yes in some studies, the amounts I've seen reported would cover travel expenses or would cover the price of a snack when being out and about. The last one I saw reported was about £5.

Possibly David S in this forum would know more about this.