Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Still undefined, because you are basing the meaning of "know" on self
>> observation of the conscious mind. 
> 
> Not at all. It's a subjective process.  The meaning is quite well
> defined. It's just not (yet) amenable to scientific verification.
> 
> However, if you follow the instructions of "push the button as soon as
> you decide which to push", chances are good you aren't aware of your
> choice six seconds before you push the button.
> 

In that case, the observer does not know which button you will push
either, they are only predicting it. They know as soon as you actually
push the button. Accounting for the speed of light and distance between
them and you.

>> Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the person.
>>  Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
>> to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
>> people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
>> could get even higher.
> 
> I don't believe you. Certainly not if you repeat the experiment a few
> dozen times.
> 

Behavioral psychology. Granted, I am not going to be able to pull off
this stunt online. No facial clues, and no way to set up the
conversation ahead of time to see whether the respondent is planning to
go against their first reaction. But if humans really were random enough
to not be predictable, then human generated random numbers would not be
such a bad thing.

Post a reply to this message