Truth percentages and Bad statistics


The Living Force
Cassiopaean Session 1997-12-31 mentions truth percentages, and the following numbers have been provided for the (older) Cassiopaean material and for the (old published version of) the Ra material:

Ra: ~63%
C's: 71.7%

The algorithm is: Total word count divided by true word count.

Counts of true, false, and neutral words are possible (by non-mechanical means), according to the information in the session. (Since words can be individually classified, it follows that a count of neutral words is also possible.)

The neutral word count is unused in calculating the percentages. The C's said that neutral "belong to the 37% as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate".

However, there is one more alternative. Instead of counting neutral words as true (the rejected option) or as false (the option the C's used), they can be subtracted from the total word count for a non-neutral word count.

Alternative algorithm: Non-neutral word count divided by true word count.

This would increase the percentages. It would almost certainly increase the percentage more for the Ra material than it would do for the Cassiopaean material, given the style difference.

The Cassiopaean algorithm is bad because it lets noise skew the measurement, instead of filtering it out. The means for filtering are pre-provided if counts are available for all three word categories, as they apparently are.

This leads to the question: Why did the C's provide bad statistics, compared to what they could have provided with a trivial improvement of their algorithm? (Only the purely mechanical part of the process needed a small change.)

They also made a false claim in presenting the false dichotomy motivating their choice of algorithm (their choice of how to treat neutral words).

This is a riddle. This is exactly the kind of thing that someone can discern and point out on purely intellectual grounds. If the C's had wanted to lie, they could have presented a good algorithm and provided bad numbers, and there would have been no rational, clear-cut way to find and point out the flaw.

Instead, the C's did provide a bad algorithm, and this is the only thing I criticize regarding the percentages. The percentages are bad because the algorithm is flawed. Beyond that, other questions regarding the numbers remain as before.

Perhaps there is some kind of symbolic message in the choice of a bad algorithm. The theme is this: Counting the neutral as negative instead of counting according to (or focusing on) what matters. ("Counting" may symbolically be mapped to thinking, and/or perceiving, more generally. That's the track I'm exploring, anyway.)

I think it certainly wasn't an accident, whatever the specifics turn out to be. The C's know too much for it to be an accident. (Were it accidental, it would then be possible to immediately rule out the option that they are what they have claimed to be.) It may also be the case that they wanted the error to be found; otherwise, quite trivially, they could have presented something different.


The Living Force
For whatever reason, what was on each side of "divided by" was swapped in my write-up (but not in my thinking). The corrected lines are:

The algorithm is: True word count divided by total word count.

Alternative algorithm: True word count divided by non-neutral word count.
Psalehesost, I wouldn't say the algorithm is bad or flawed simply because neutral words were included in the not accurate category.

The original question in Session 11 August 1996 was "OK, since the Ra material is considered to be a kind of primer to the Cassiopaean material, could you give us a percentage on the accuracy of this material?". As per the Cs explanation in the session you mentioned, neutral words "cannot be counted subjectively as accurate", so that's what they did. IMO, they're counting the neutral as negative (ie, non accurate) because it would be plain wrong to count them as positive (ie, accurate), given that neutral words "cannot be counted subjectively as accurate".

Nonetheless, I understand your point of considering neutral words as noise. Perhaps you could argue that doing so would result in a better algorithm. But I'd like to point out that these neutral words are weird. The word "the" is at one time considered accurate and at another considered neuter. I don't understand why but I suppose it is related to the way the Cs evaluate such accuracy, that is, "by the verity of the issuer", which, by the way, I find a much more puzzling issue in this regard. The choice of word, neuter instead of neutral, might also be a clue.

Also, your initial description of the algorithm is the one that directly reflects what the Cs said: "A: Add the total number of words published, divide the sum total by the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations." Although to my very basic and faulty math knowledge that looks like a ratio and not a percentage. They later expanded on that explicitly mentioning percentages: "The only way to get an accurate measurement is to wait until you can include the sum total of all the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of the total."

In consideration of others, these are the full quotes from the the sessions mentioned.

Q: (L) Oh, the Cassiopaean variety is the product of an overactive imagination. OK, since the Ra material is considered to be a kind of primer to the Cassiopaean material, could you give us a percentage on the accuracy of this material?

A: 63

Q: (L) 63%, Well, that's pretty good, considering... (J) It's not bad... (T) A lot of it's very good stuff... (L) Can you talk to us a little bit about the concept of Wanderers? Is the Ra concept of Wanderers a valid...

Q: Good. Now, at some point you said when we asked about the Ra Material, you gave the number that it was 63 per cent accurate. Do you confirm this now?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, I want to know exactly how you got this number 63, how you computed it, why is it 63 and not 62 or 64?

A: The divination process always breaks down to mathematical processes, as this is the only true universal language.

Q: But, I want to know what mathematical process you were using to get this number 63?!

A: Add the total number of words published, divide the sum total by the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations.

Q: Okay, if we have 100 words, and 25 are used in the description of a concept that is accurate, is that what you mean?

A: Close.

Q: Okay, how do you determine an accurate conceptualization? (A) How do you determine if a given word is accurate?

A: By the verity of the issuer.

Q: So, words, even though words can mean different things, the verity of the speaker can give...

A: Yes, because if monitored in a state of pure non- prejudice, the accuracy level will be perceived correctly.

Q: (A) Can we go, word by word, through Ra material, remove the incorrect words and leave only what is correct?

A: Not necessary for reason just given.

Q: (A) Okay, I want to read a sentence: 'The first, the Great Pyramid was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago.' I want to go through this word by word. The word 'the,' accurate or inaccurate?

A: Accurate.

Q: 'First.'

A: Inaccurate.

Q: 'The.'

A: Neuter.

Q: 'Great.'

A: Accurate, in this case because of conventional agreement.

Q: Now, you describe a word as neutral, but in the mathematical algorithm you gave for computing the numbers, you didn't mention neutral words, so, what do you do with neutral words?

A: They belong to the 37 percent as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate.

Q: 'was'

A: Accurate.

Q: 'formed'

A: Accurate.

Q: 'approximately'

A: Accurate.

Q: 6,000

A: Accurate.

Q: 'Of.'

A: Neuter.

Q: 'Your.'

A: Accurate.

Q: 'years.

A: Accurate.

Q: Okay, if we apply the same formula to the C's, your material, what percentage would you give?

A: Not up to us to measure.

Q: Okay, you gave, concerning the pyramid the following sentence: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlantis 10,643 years ago.' Is it accurate?

A: Not as you state.

Q: The question was: what year was it built, and the answer was 10,640 years ago. And it is inaccurate? Is it also inaccurate when we read original transcripts. (L) Yes, I think there is a problem. You confirmed the Ra material on a point that contradicts what you gave yourselves!

A: Problem is not with "us," problem is trying to compare to different frames of reference.

Q: Okay, let's read the sentence word by word...

A: Not point, as you have not even achieved an accurate reading as pertains to literacy. Remember!!: "Frames of reference." Look for clues in terms of definition.

Q: I don't understand what you are saying. Either it was built 10,643 years ago or it was built 6,000 years ago.

A: Stupidity is enhanced by haste.

Q: (A) In this material...

A: Formed/built... you think it means the same thing, eh???

Q: It was built before it was formed? (A) According to this Ra material, was never built at all, it was formed by thoughts... Well, we are talking about facts, numbers.

A: If your house at 6322 Montana Avenue is remodeled, then it takes a new form. Now, reread sentences in question carefully.

Q: 'The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this performing by thought of the building or architecture of the great pyramid, using the more local or earthly material rather than thought form material to build other pyramidal structures.' Now, C's say: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans 10,643 years ago.' The problem with this sentence is, we are not specific - we know we mean the Great Pyramid at Gizah. Okay...

A: No, Laura, no no no no !!!!! If your house is remodeled in 1998, is that when it was built?

Q: No, that is not when it was built. Did the sentence you took out of the text say Atlanteans? (A) Yes, first you asked when and then by whom...

A: Atlantean Descendants, not Atlanteans!!

Q: (A) No... once it was said by descendants, and once it was said by Atlanteans. (We check and find that it did say 'Atlantean descendants and NOT Atlanteans.) Can we use this process to analyze all the material?

A: You can, but senior citizenhood awaits its completion.

Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracy that needs to be addressed? One main thing is: the presence of certain persons. Some sessions were more accurate than others depending upon who was present...

A: You got it!!!

Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy rating for the C's themselves...

A: Bingo!

Q: But, we CAN assess the material itself, keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than others...

A: 71.7.

Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different people, typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same applies to the Ra Material... (A) Okay, suppose I have a sentence that the Great Pyramid was built 10,000 years ago, but really it was built yesterday, and you would give 70 per cent accuracy to this statement.

A: No.

Q: But only one word is inaccurate...

A: You are searching for a concrete formula within a vacuum of abstraction. The only way to get an accurate measurement is to wait until you can include the sum total of all the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of the total. With the total of all words, and each individual word as the unit of measurement. And on that note, until the next time, Good Night.

End of Session
Top Bottom