Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis2011  I don't understand exactly what you are asking but I suppose I have an idea. |
Well, I wrote a messed-up sentence, but I was actually attempting to say that I think the whole calibration method is utter rubbish and make a bit of fun of it. It seems more sensible to not take it seriously. By extension, it is unclear what the merit of this scale running from 0 to 1000 is if the method to determine values on it, is meaningless. Actually, maybe one could invent something meaningful by creating a questionnaire or something. Obviously, this could never be as precise as a scale from 0 to 1000 suggests. Also, there is a bit of a problem who is going to make the questions. A person can be expected by coming up questions to accurately pinpoint the levels below himself, but how is he supposed to do it for levels above him? That would seem to be extremely difficult because thoughts about that would get increasingly inaccurate as levels above the level of that person would be considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis2011 If you are asking at what level the process of "calibration" itself calibrates at, Hawkins has said that the calibration method itself calibrates at 605. |
Well, Hawkins has to say something like that to remain somewhat credible. To me it seems that the calibration method would need to end up at the level of conscious is of attempting to sound scientific and failing badly at it. No idea what level that would be. Let alone what number to attach to it. Maybe it is what occurs if the higher levels of consciousness get mixed up with quite a bit of pride.