> And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.
Yeah, I've got a simple way to test this:
Go win the powerball lottery using whatever techniques you believe in. Then, even if nobody believes you, you have the proof in your wallet.
Not many people can read. In context, getting a good hit on an image or future event is very achievable, but zeroing on set of specific numbers is hard.
Probably possible with error correction and extremely clever design, by you need to hack the 'sensor' to make it work. This is a sensor like anything else, and it's more impressionistic than fine-grained resolution. Try it and you'll see, my answer gives you all you need to get to your first session: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
Without first hand experience you'll never be able to think about this clearly, due to stigma and materialist priors. So try! :)
Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.
> Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.
I work in cryptography, so I have a pretty good handle on discrete probability. This is precisely why I posit the powerball lottery as the most convincing proof of any paranormal abilities.
That it's hard, or improbable, isn't a deterrent in my eyes. It's exactly what makes successfully being able to win such powerful and convincing evidence.
People are free to believe what they want. But if you want me to believe you're correct, I need extraordinary evidence.
(And if being able to accurately predict lottery numbers isn't convincing to others? That's their problem.)
You know what I'm assuming? No, you have no idea. I take my word for it not yours. Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
I'm inferring your assumptions based on what would logically cause a person to continue the conversation in the manner you are.
And this has been a hilarious exhibition for all parties involved.
I proposed a simple way to prove remote viewing without needing to have a complete theory for why or how it works. You assumed I was playing gotcha with an impossible test. Instead, I proposed an impossible-to-debunk way to prove you're right. You continued to ask if I "tried it" yet while insisting you don't care what I believe. And now you say
> Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
And, like, this is obviously projection. I don't need supernatural powers to realize this.
You've been cascading your own misunderstandings to the point of ridiculousness.
Yet all I was doing was say, "Hey, if you do this, you'll have an irrefutable outcome that will give any skeptic pause".
If you had any intuition for analytic thinking, it would be clear that proposing such a test makes me on your side, not against you.
But no, you instead continue to respond in a way that is best explained by assuming that I wanted to fill James Randi's shoes.
I'm a goddamn furry. It's in my username. I never made any attempt to obfuscate this. I spend a lot of free time with people who aren't just "playing pretend" online, but who are significantly psychologically comforted by calling them their fursona species. And I have no trouble squaring objective biological materialism with "here's an easy button to make a friend feel better". When it comes to remote viewing, I'm agnostic. I have no strong opinions either way. That you keep insisting I'm here to discredit you or your beliefs is your own insecurity screaming through the actions and context of your words.
I don't need a fucking crystal ball to see it. Maybe you do.
I'm inferring your assumptions based on what would logically cause a person to continue the conversation in the manner you are.
And this has been a hilarious exhibition for all parties involved.
I proposed a simple way to prove remote viewing without needing to have a complete theory for why or how it works. You assumed I was playing gotcha with an impossible test. Instead, I proposed an impossible-to-debunk way to prove you're right. You continued to ask if I "tried it" yet while insisting you don't care what I believe. And now you say
> Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
And, like, this is obviously projection. I don't need supernatural powers to realize this.
You've been cascading your own misunderstandings to the point of ridiculousness.
Yet all I was doing was say, "Hey, if you do this, you'll have an irrefutable outcome that will give any skeptic pause".
If you had any intuition for analytic thinking, it would be clear that proposing such a test makes me on your side, not against you.
But no, you instead continue to respond in a way that is best explained by assuming that I wanted to fill James Randi's shoes.
I'm a goddamn furry. It's in my username. I never made any attempt to obfuscate this. I spend a lot of free time with people who aren't just "playing pretend" online, but who are significantly psychologically comforted by calling them their fursona species. And I have no trouble squaring objective biological materialism with "here's an easy button to make a friend feel better". When it comes to remote viewing, I'm agnostic. I have no strong opinions either way. That you keep insisting I'm here to discredit you or your beliefs is your own insecurity screaming through the actions and context of your words.
I don't need a fucking crystal ball to see it. Maybe you do.
You don't need to prove it: there's zero doubt. The test is obviously cooked, you didn't listen, and haven't tried.
You assume I'm encouraging you to try because I care what you believe. Nope. Wrong again! Because I enjoy the idea of people becoming stronger, and seeing more reality does that. A world filled with stronger people is better.
Dude, there's a lot of delusion in your answer, I appreciate you for revealing it. Maybe you can read it back and learn.
Hahaha! You try to convince people you are on their side by exploding into abuse? After mislabeling and projecting your stuff onto people? Hahahahaha!
However you saw your role here in the arc of the psi/Remote Viewing story, it was never that. This was just 1 moment in your life where you had a chance to try something new. And you failed. Because of fear. Just like I laid out in my OG linked answer why it would be hard. You showed the example.
I hope you have a nice day and give it a shot another time.
You don't seem to understand the point, or the value, of proof. Ironically, this belies a poor understanding of the value of belief.
If you're going to assert "there's zero doubt", then you should have profound amounts of proof. But to couple that with "you don't need to prove it" exposes a very fragile worldview.
Doubt isn't the opposite of belief, but its opening act. If I believe something to be true, I can explain why. This requires proof and a state of humility. The strongest faith is forged in the fires of the deepest doubt.
If you aren't willing to entertain doubts or understand the value of proofs, why are you even on a hacker forum? Everything here is science, mathematics, and technology. Hacking requires a mix of curiosity, rigor, and imagination. It's not that any discussion outside the accepted consensus is unwelcome, but if you're going to engage in such a silly way, you shouldn't be surprised when things "[get] ugly".
Dude you just need to get first hand experience. That’s the whole point. You can keep dancing around it, but that’s a fact. Until then, you’re just lost in delusion. You have no concept of my worldview, barely your own. You need to try. If you don’t do that, you just keep generating garbage like this, unchallenged, think you’re right - you’re missing so much of the picture. You’re so wrong, you don’t even know it.
> Dude you just need to get first hand experience.
Why?
> That’s the whole point. You can keep dancing around it, but that’s a fact.
Why do you believe this to be true?
First-hand experience doesn't seem to offer me much except confirmation bias and feeding one's ego. No thanks.
> Until then, you’re just lost in delusion.
What belief have I uttered in this discussion that warrants the word "delusion"?
> You have no concept of my worldview, barely your own.
How would that even work, having "barely [my] own" concept of my own worldview? If I barely have a concept of a given worldview, how would it be mine? Even if it were flawed?
> You need to try. If you don’t do that, you just keep generating garbage like this, unchallenged, think you’re right - you’re missing so much of the picture. You’re so wrong, you don’t even know it.
We have language for a reason. If you can't explain something and convince me of it being true without me having to experience it first-hand, and independent experts cannot interrogate your explanations to agree that it's correct, then how do you know it's actually true?
You keep making absolute statements, but get really defensive when I ask simple questions.
Dude, there's a lot of delusion in your answer, I appreciate you for revealing it. Maybe you can read it back and learn.
However you saw your role here in the arc of the psi/Remote Viewing story, it was never that. This was just 1 moment in your life where you had a chance to try something new. And you failed. Because of fear. Just like I laid out in my OG linked answer why it would be hard. You showed the example.
I hope you have a nice day and give it a shot another time.
Well you kept pretending you know how I feel when you don’t, you seemed awfully concerned about how I feel, despite your resistance here being all about you.
Fear is not belittling, it's okay to be afraid. Only shame is to hide from it, or let it rule you. So why all this angry noise and abuse, all this time, when you could have just tried? You can always show it doesn't rule you: try.
Your outburst doesn't affect me because I'm so assured in this - I earned it - but think about how your angry outburst here will affect and may dissuade people who want to try this, and take responsibility for your words and your own convincing, instead of fake blaming others. If dissuading people is your goal, continue and you'll meet people like me who'll push back in ways you dislike. If it's not don't do it.
If you come back to this topic, I encourage you to read my OG answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680, see your patterns, decide to move beyond them, try the next steps, and head to the remoteviewing subreddit. There's a community of people there happy to assist someone with the humility to say "I don't know, but I'll try". From your behavior here tho, I'm not interested to know you at all, so please do not contact me again. Accept that 'no', thanks. Good bye.
It's a beautiful time of year, I hope you find some peace and that what challenged you here becomes seeds in the new year that grow into real growth rather than the stagnation you orbited. And be better.
So you're securely confident you invented a gotcha statistical test to disprove what you see as other people's delusions and you're enjoying what you feel is the security of that? A position you've arrived at by your own intelligence, yes? So...what are you avoiding in that?
I'm not tryin' to convince you, and I don't care what you believe. Nobody is coming to convince you - except you! - it's your responsibility. Your life. Own it. And... you got it ... try! Just try. Extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance! :) hahaha. Your grasp of stats appears loose if you require such odds to see an effect.
Right now, you're coming at this all wrong! It don't matter what you work in, and it ain't about belief. You look like you're hiding behind priors and statistics. "Extraordinary" depends on your priors. So, your prior beliefs in "the impossibility of golf" are deluding you into thinking you need 18 hole-in-ones to know you can play golf. When there is zero doubt psi/RV is real. All you have to do is try. 1st. Hand. Experience. :) I refer you to my other answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
> So you're securely confident you invented a gotcha statistical test to disprove what you see as other people's delusions and you're enjoying what you feel is the security of that?
You totally misunderstand. I invite you to try remote viewing my intentions here instead of misreading my post defensively.
> I'm not tryin' to convince you, and I don't care what you believe.
Interesting thing to say, for someone who assumes so hard that I'm being dismissive.
You could try instead of making excuses, and acting like it's other people's fault: incorrect concept of personal responsibility.
You think I'm defensive? Defensive? me? Here? Dude, I am so assured about this stuff. I have zero reason to be defensive here at all. I am not. You are misreading it and projecting.
But I will bat back your mislabeling and confused entitlement. You’re not entitled to my viewing, but I don’t need to view your intentions, I knew them before I even opened the page to read your comment. They’re irrelevant to me, tho. Totally irrelevant, even tho they’re not good, no matter how you disguise them. Here, a mirror -
So…Defensively? Assumes so hard? I totally misunderstand? Hahaha, your fantasy of import and vanity, your talk of you, right? Twistedly projecting to make your stuff about others is classic toxic behavior. You need see others like that? I get if you need that, but that ain’t how reality is.
You do not understand, do you? Nobody is chasing you. Nobody needs your approval or judgement. Nobody needs to prove to you. This is just your chance to prove to yourself, that’s all. But instead of trying a session, maybe doing that, and sharing how it was, you … made stuff up, tried to make it about other people, and invoked maths, lies and hiding.
When you coulda just…tried a session. Afraid?
And that unsatisfied entitlement which leads to provocation for attention, being also a mark of fear blurring intimacy, just another way to hide.
Lol - I think you’re dismissive? Why would I not just then dismiss you back? Haha! No, you’re fixated. But on the wrong thing. You don’t have serious ideas about this topic, just lazy ones. Your commentary is a lot of lonely, boorish mental gymnastics to avoid the one thing this is all about. You trying. I guess you’re not interested in that.
Lol, no. This sounds crazy. ‘Edits are defensive’? And you’re reloading to watch the same comments? Fixated creepy af.
You could try instead of making excuses, and acting like it's other people's fault: incorrect concept of personal responsibility.
So you know what I'm feeling? No, you have no idea. I have zero insecurity, zero defensiveness about any of this. I take my word for it not yours. You read in your projection of your insecurity and defensiveness to compensate issues. You got some serious emotional boundary issues. Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps it has already been done (multiple people have won more than one ’1 in XX million chance' lotteries). And perhaps none of those who have the capability of something that specific/difficult (I.e. masters of the craft) want or care to have people know how real their abilities are.
I think it's all bullshit, but it doesn't hurt to play the other side sometimes.
I don’t think the lottery is where to look. Look at hedge funds instead. If this stuff were real, hedge funds would be hiring them at insane salaries. There would be a pipeline for identifying, recruiting, and training people with the ability.
This is used in finance, business, law enforcement, and other areas. In the same way that private security firms are used to dig up dirt on counterparties. It's very discrete.
Also, to run a real operation you can't rely on 1 talent. You need to run a team so it's typically outsourced. Companies don't have the political capital to run a real RV department due to stigma, which has surprising power: business is conservative and not always smart (think dress code, remote work, tech debt), so the test of "used widely by business" is not a great test. Many people in tech know that business decisions are not often rationally about what works best.
If you need external validation of why this works, try doing it yourself instead. Then you'll know! :)
True, with the lottery the information density is a lot higher. In market predictions with binary outcomes, you really only need 1 bit of "information transfer".
And about the economic argument: let's continue the thought experiment I suggested above. Imagine a universe where psi exists as a real phenomenon of anomalous information transfer & manipulation. Assume anyone has some level of psychic influence on everything else. Let's say this explains the phenomenon of "hey I was thinking of this person and now they're suddenly calling me" (instead of it being purely confirmation bias).
In such a universe, you wouldn't want to publish much about your psi-based hedge fund, lest your profits would come under attack from the psi-influence of the active disbelievers... No, you'd keep it under wraps and do your recruiting secretly and selectively. And any disclosure would need happen very slowly and in the right way.
Cope! I like xkcd but this cartoon is wrong. There's zero doubt psi/RV is real.
I’m not sure that ‘would be used widely by business’ is a great test of anything. Business is pretty conservative. Observe their adoption of technology, of cyber, even of dress code. Not to mention remote work!
Many things that work, as you working in tech in a business context will understand, are specifically not adopted by business for reasons that often don’t make sense (or at least aren’t right) to those who know what works and its value.
Even so, this capability is used by business. It's like a high end sensor system used in D&D and corporate espionage, very discrete.
Yeah, I've got a simple way to test this:
Go win the powerball lottery using whatever techniques you believe in. Then, even if nobody believes you, you have the proof in your wallet.