[wat10000]

That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it.

Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs.

We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision.

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.

[LawrenceKerr]

I did say my preface does sound like a rationalization... The difference with religious arguments is: here we can gather statistical evidence, build better experimental protocols and generate hypotheses about potential mechanisms. And the believer vs non-believer thing is, as the evidence shows, an important piece of the puzzle.

It's true the placebo effect affects other research too (and honestly I think the explanation for why it does so, isn't different than in parapsychological research, but I digress). It's also true studies (including the study I cited) try to account for this, so I don't understand why you bring this up as if it's a counter argument for what I wrote?

If psi doesn't exist, then it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not - empirically we would observe the same outcomes for both groups, no? That's one starting point.

And while you are claiming you aren't dismissing it because it's controversial, I feel like you are literally doing so.

No, the results published so far aren't conclusive (I stated this as well in the post you are replying to), but again, if you are truly impartial, how can it not be evidence that it may be worth exploring further? It's okay to say it doesn't interest you and not have an opinion on the matter, but I think, if you are dismissing it as invalid, you should at least provide arguments for why the evidence is invalid, so enthusiasts like myself can learn from it & help improve future studies.

[some_furry]

> 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.

[keepamovin]

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.

[some_furry]

> 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.)

[some_furry]

It also isn't enough to win once. A winning lottery is only about 1 in 2^28.

I'm going to need this experiment repeated 9 times in a row (1 in 2^252).

[keepamovin]

These odds! Nuts. What else has that standard? hahaha :)

far more important tho my reply to your other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538042

[some_furry]

> These odds! Nuts. What else has that standard? hahaha :)

Zero-knowledge proofs.

[keepamovin]

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

[some_furry]

> 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.

[keepamovin]

Lol, no.

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.

[twojacobtwo]

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.

[wat10000]

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.

[keepamovin]

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! :)

My answer has all you need to get your first try: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

[LawrenceKerr]

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.

The rabbit hole goes deep :-)

[gus_massa]

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/808/

[keepamovin]

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.

[keepamovin]

Wow, an open minded skeptic! Caught on in the wild - haha :)

Normally it's obvious why people think it's all bullshit, but you seem a little deeper, so I'm curious. What makes you say that?

[keepamovin]

Actually the dismissive answers on this thread are what sounds like 'gigantic pile of rationalization' and cope. LK lays out why well.