Tuesday, 3 April 2012

REJ on tour

South, South, North of Rhaedr gwy
Pipeway to the second city
Nr. Llanwrthwl, left they say
By the woods of willow theatre
Where the pixie people play
Stood the Sheldrake Hiawatha

er...

On the ground, unleavened. Yes. April the 14th. Nawrte, since the speed of time varies with Rupert, we can have April 14th a bit earlier. Say about now. Croeso i leftbutNr. Llanwrthwl, Rupert Sheldrake! -

RS:- Diolch! -

REJ:- First of all, I must say thankyou for coming. It's always nice when a telepath makes the extra effort of turning up in person -

RS:- It was nothing -

REJ:- It was five pounds. Now you have a new book to promote -

RS:- Indeed I do. Guess what it's called -

REJ:- er....Is it 'If a parrot can bark then can a dog fly?' -

RS:- Yes! It's called 'The Science Delusion' -

REJ:- The title sounds spookily familiar -

RS:- Yes, far greater than chance. Although it's not what you're thinking -

REJ:- I'm not thinking anything at all. Nawrte, Sioned said to ask you, why do telepaths write books? -

RS:- Well, it's largely tradition. You see, in the beginning was the word, -

REJ:- And the word was arian -

RS:- Well yes, funding for maverick scientists, and gods, is a serious immaterial material matter -

REJ:- What funding is required for telepathy? -

RS:- About 10 pence, plus your standard network rate. Can I ask, Richard, have you ever thought about someone you know, and then shortly afterwards received a text from them? -

REJ:- Only on my phone. I did once not think of someone I didn't know, and not get a text. But only the once, as far as I am aware -

RS:- Such permanent anomalies are important evidence, Richard, yet mainstream science dogmatically ignores them. I want to set science free -

REJ:- You certainly do. Now science is guess, check. Which bit is the delusion? -

RS:- The checking bit. No one will check my telepathy results -

REJ:- I will -

RS:- The prevailing dogma means I am ignored, thwarted even -

REJ:- Oooh! It's early Easter. Again. What was that song? Ah yes - 'Run, run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me, I'm the miracle man!'. But of course, you can never run away from yourself. -

RS:- ? -

REJ:- Yes. How are magical scientists thwarted by non-magical, muggles scientists? -

RS:- By using greater magic! But then denying it. That is why I call them deluded, although I think some of them do it on purpose -

REJ:- I remember thinking a homeopathic stalker was not poisoning my water. But people just said I was paranoid. In fact I think a lot of people were saying I was paranoid -

RS:- The bastards! Now you said you were going to check my telepathy results. They are available via my slightlyunnecessaryforatelepath website. I have shown results far greater than chance. Now it might be even more fun, to take me seriously for a paragraph or two -

REJ:- Indeed. I might even out-kook you at the end. Although I think you'll find I'm correct as I've already modelled you, and read your mentalese, which you;ve kindly left open-source. For me to write you. -

RS:- ? -

REJ:- Nawrte. First up, or indeed maybe before, your variable electrotragnetic wavicularity rather messes up your telepathitextastic move order. But we'll overlook that -

RS:- Thankyou -

REJ:- No charge. Let's do far greater than chance -

RS:- I'm getting a spooky feelthink you studied probability formally, perhaps in.....eighty nine....no wait! - ninety! -

REJ:- I'm not really the person to ask. Anyway, better would have been to have failed -

RS:- Pray I ask what your qualifications are? -

REJ:- Why certainly! No need  for you to ask even. They are grade V piano, O level Welsh, and 10 metre swimming badge -

RS:- Impressive -

REJ:- I like to think I'd have got more if I'd done them separately -

RS:- But I have a slightly more impressive 'MOT' -

REJ:- It's always best to have an annual check. Now we'll take your results as kosher, and assume you've achieved far greater than chance. Not like that nasty Ditchkins on enemas of reason -

RS:- Never heard of him. And neither has my publisher. -

REJ:- Richard believes you. You have proved far greater than chance. You can't do far far greater than chance though, or roulette would solve your funding problem -

RS:- Wouldn't that be nice? -

REJ:- Unfortunately, the real world is not as nice as you are -

RS:- No. If I could only do far far greater than chance, I could levitate, and turn physics on it's head. I could even turn myself on my head. In public. But I think, at my age, that's not right -

REJ:- You are wise, father Rupert. But have you even really proved far greater than chance, or have you merely proved probability theory incorrect? Which it is -

RS:- I use the standard mathematics -

REJ:- Let's pretend you do. Because for a Wizard, you're pretty shit. Now we'll take a coin -

RS:- I like coins -

REJ:- This is a metaphorical one. It has no edge. We're not using the real coins you mysteriously prefer. Now we'll do some tossing. Ignoring spooky action at a wristance -

RS:- Guess nocheck. Some guesses are more equal than others. Contradictory guesses are resolved by -

REJ:- Yes that's more a problem for yourself. Please take yourself seriously for once -

RS:- It is difficult -

REJ:- Nawrte. How much for ten heads in a row? -

RS:- Ten to one. I mean five. You were just checking I was awake -

REJ:- You can read my mind. er...half x half x half plus tax divide two minus one...

RS:- Five it is. Five times greater than chance. Or 1023. It depends how many times you do it -

REJ:- Yes, reading Everett on probability was the most hilarious. I might do it properly later. You see it's invalid -

RS:- Not for an infinite tosser, it isn't -

REJ:- Wel, I can't think of any infinite tossers. -

RS:- Have you ever got a text. From a parrot? -

REJ:- Now you also do the whoorwhatis deluded for consciousness. You need only understand persistence of envision. The Self Delusion would be a better book -

RS:- And what does this being dead mean? -

REJ:- Diddle dee do, diddle dee do, diddle dee dum do. Twas written before Nokia -

RS:- ?

REJ:- ?!

RS:- You didn't do my morphic Anglicanism -

REJ:- I did -

RS:- ?

REJ:- Check your ESP inbox later.

RS:- You can't prove I'm wrong! -

REJ:- Correct. I can only prove you're indistinguishable from wrong. Your phenomena indistinguishable from absent. etc -

RS:- Can I interest you in a great deal on a supernatural services provider? -

REJ:- Now you could have written something interesting, correct even. Such that guess, check is going to fail where there are no checks available. Such as measuring spacetime within it. Or where checks are variable with time, such as morality etc. Or that Deutsch won't do his superqbits, or that Cox won't find his Higgs - he'll have a little bit extra left over - you know, that sort of thing -

RS:-  One of us is a pixie.

REJ:- Please accept these twenty pixie-pounds.

7 comments:

  1. Deafening Bird3 April 2012 at 13:37

    Welsh parrot, perhaps?

    Mimesis always a strong point in nature. Different data providing same sensed information. As the fish takes the bait, like Heliconius numata the computer passes the Turing test. Sense finding sense in the sense of the beholder. Is likeness alikeness?

    Perception provides map 1. Topologicially congruent, symbolically tautological, though ultimately uncheckable for completeness against 'reality'. Science attempts to provide the map to map 1 - guessing and checking against ground truths of the first. As close as the guts can take us = unified theory of sense-contents.

    Morphic resonance, my arse.

    Sure yet fake - transformed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fantastic, REJ. One of your best.

    "I like coins" - indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is the best, I agree, Hazel.

      Delete
  3. Mad, lean, numeric josher - mixed up clever dick (7,8,5)

    Best thing on the blogosphere. Don't ever stop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you have twenty blind men, but only nine walk into a lamp post, can the other eleven see?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Accidental Attributes5 April 2012 at 18:57

    Crazy feet rue a sky (11)

    Now you're talking sense. There are more than five apparently. Plasticity makes the symbol generator potentially synaesthete but input dependent.

    i is the oscillator. The flutter that is created by the binary paradox (root of the minus). You need more than on/off binary to make distinction/perceive a universe. http://www.lawsofform.org/aum/session1.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete