|
Author
|
Topic: Clifford Pickover ESP test
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 16 of 35 (420147)
09-06-2007 12:31 PM
|
|
|
Creationist logic:
And remember, if you cannot think of a naturalistic solution, then YOU MUST ASSUME A SUPERNATURAL ANSWER!!!!! Edited by Chiroptera, : Not enough exclamation points. Exclamation points are very important in Creationist Logic.
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
Re: Creationist logic:
And remember, if you cannot think of a naturalistic solution, then YOU MUST ASSUME A SUPERNATURAL ANSWER!!!!! Naturalism-Materialism does not allow supernatural explanations, interpretations, answers or conclusions. God is ruled out automatically despite all evidence to the contrary. Could we expect Atheists to have any other system? Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 12:31 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 12:49 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: Creationist logic:
Thanks, Ray.
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 19 of 35 (420155)
09-06-2007 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
09-06-2007 11:52 AM
|
|
My disbelief in pink unicorns must have made me see right through it. Or your distrust of human nature. The trick relies on "cheating", and even a non-believer in ESP may have a hard time seeing the trick if she trusts the magician to be conducting a "legitimate" trick. There are a lot of puzzles that rely on the assumptions made by the listener to obscure their solution.
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 11:52 AM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 1:21 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
My response to Chiroptera has been hidden because it has really big hints to make the solution bleedingly obvious. Click on the peek button if you really want to see my response.
Chiroptera writes: Or your distrust of human nature. The trick relies on "cheating", and even a non-believer in ESP may have a hard time seeing the trick if she trusts the magician to be conducting a "legitimate" trick. There are a lot of puzzles that rely on the assumptions made by the listener to obscure their solution.
While I'm not sure if it was my distrust of human nature, I approached it using a technigue similar to the scientific method. After my first try, for a split second I was surprised that indeed the card I had chosen was gone. My mind automatically went into the following process: --> doubt supernatural intervention --> try to remember everything I can from before I clicked on one of the eyes --> questioned myself if I had noticed if they had removed every card and replaced it with similar looking card
-->my answer to myself was "no" --> Hypothesis: if I pick more than one card, say all of them, they'd all be replaced by different but similar ones --> Test: did the experiment again --> Result: hypothesis confirmed --> Conclusion: pretty darn clever trick if you ask me All of that before the Test part went on in my head in about a second. So, literally, in about a second, by using simple logic I saw right through the trick. Now, if only I can convince more people to go through simple logical exercises before concluding miracles and such... people would have less faith on Bush's mysterious ways. Added by edit. If you think about it, it wasn't really cheating. It said it would take away the card you've chosen, and that's exactly what it did. Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 1:02 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-06-2007 1:32 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 21 of 35 (420171)
09-06-2007 1:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Taz
09-06-2007 1:21 PM
|
|
Agreed -- not cheating
It is classic magic. Distract the audience and palm the pea. It is not cheating any more than any slight of hand is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 1:21 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 22 of 35 (420172)
09-06-2007 1:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
09-06-2007 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Agreed -- not cheating
It is classic magic. Distract the audience and palm the pea. It is not cheating any more than any slight of hand is. And if your slight of hand was good enough, you could probably get away with this one on a street corner and make some decent cash  If you told the people that you would take away the card that they choose, then you wouldn't be lying either, although pretty damn dishonest.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-06-2007 1:32 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 09-06-2007 2:05 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Lying or not?
To wander off topic ... I don't distinguish so finely. Even with out overtly saying something allowing someone to believe something is a form of lying to me. However, I do not apply that in this case. Even if you were fleecing the marks on the street. It is not dishonest at all. See  ! relative morality -- it is easy to tell I'm a godless atheist isn't it?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 35 (420176)
09-06-2007 2:06 PM
|
|
|
Best. Comment. Ever.
This is from the comments page. I'm hiding it since it gives away the trick.
From: "Andrew T." WOW! Me and my five friends played the game, and it turned out we each chose different cards and you removed ALL SIX of them! WOW! It was AMAZING!!!! Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 35 (420178)
09-06-2007 2:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
09-06-2007 2:05 PM
|
|
Re: Lying or not?
I don't distinguish so finely. Even with out overtly saying something allowing someone to believe something is a form of lying to me. I use "dishonest" as the broader category and reserve "lying" for intentional falsehoods. I consider lying a form of dishonesty and "allowing someone to believe something" as another form of dishonesty but not actually lying.
However, I do not apply that in this case. Even if you were fleecing the marks on the street. It is not dishonest at all. I think its dishonest because you're tricking people (and tricking them out of money would just make it worse). I guess if you worded it (what you're telling them you're going to do) right, then there would be no dishonesty.
See ! relative morality The absolute would be that all forms of unecessary dishonesty are morally wrong. The relativity comes into play in deciding if and when it is necessary to be dishonest, and which things are, in fact, dishonest.
it is easy to tell I'm a godless atheist isn't it? Only by the stench 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 09-06-2007 2:05 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Taz, posted 09-06-2007 8:24 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
Re: Lying or not?
{Hidden by moi - off topic drivel}
CS writes: I use "dishonest" as the broader category and reserve "lying" for intentional falsehoods. I consider lying a form of dishonesty and "allowing someone to believe something" as another form of dishonesty but not actually lying.
There is absolutely nothing dishonest about that ESP test. The site says that it will remove the card you've chosen. After clicking on the eye, lo and behold it indeed removes the card you've chosen.
I think its dishonest because you're tricking people (and tricking them out of money would just make it worse). I guess if you worded it (what you're telling them you're going to do) right, then there would be no dishonesty.
Again, even if this is done on the streets for money, it's still not being dishonest. The person would say "just pick your card and try to remember it because I will remove it blah blah blah..." Where's the dishonesty?
The absolute would be that all forms of unecessary dishonesty are morally wrong.
Unnecessarily dishonesty? What's dishonest about the ESP test? If you want to see true dishonesty, you should look to people like yourself and your fellow catholics who frequently tell us you have whole conversations with god. To me, conning a 2 year old child into believing in fairy tales is a lot more dishonest than this ESP test. Look, if it is considered moral and not dishonest for religionists to brainwash children into believing fairy tales and magic, how on earth is this ESP dishonest? Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Re: Creationist logic:
Its not quite as snappy as 'If the gloves don't fit you must acquit!' TTFN, WK
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 09-06-2007 12:31 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
When I started this topic...
... I thought there was maybe a little something more to the test than just being a trick. That claim of 98% accuracy should have pegged the ol' BS meter. Anyhow, I thought that there may have been some very clever psychological manipulation happening. For example, pick one of the following:
A B C D Highlight the following to see my prediction of your pick.
I predict you picked "C". I say that because, as I understand it, when presented with 4 possible choices a person will tend to pick the third one. Now, I'm not going to get anywhere near 98%, but I suspect I will get significantly better than 25%. Moose
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-06-2007 4:32 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: When I started this topic...
Damn. That worked on me. Sure you're not psychic?
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-07-2007 6:56 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: When I started this topic...
don't look at me, i picked "b" because "c" is too obvious. how about this one. pick a number between 1 and 20.
i predict you picked 17
|
™ Version 4.2