From: Ben Heaton (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Dec 31 2005 - 15:40:59 MST
On 12/31/05, Richard Loosemore <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I would be delighted to reply to your post, below, in a thoughtful and
> scientific way, as I did to David Clark at the beginning of the
> discussion with him.
> But you are already being abusive and sarcastic.
> Given this abusive attitude, which indicates that you have no interest
> in discussing the topic as a scientist, I don't think there is any point
> in me wasting my time and energy.
> If, at any time, you feel like changing your attitude, to something
> approximating objective inquiry, let me know and I will immediately
> respond to your comments below with as much care as I can.
Richard, I agree that Eliezer's tone indicates that he doesn't think
your results could possibly be repeated for the lottery. But
regardless of the opinions held by the person who proposed the
experiment, it seems like a useful idea to me. You mentioned that you
have strong evidence that these psi phenomena are real. Results with a
confidence level of 0.005 suggest that if it's repeatable, scientists
should take some serious notice. Why not apply the procedures you've
already tested to winning lotteries? If it works, it would be a very
dramatic proof, and you'd probably get some apologies from people on
this list. As a neat side product, the technique could also provide
funding for the Singularity Institute. Really, what reason could there
be to not do this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:59 MDT