8 ms·

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 pu

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.

some_furry 2y ago
> 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.
- twojacobtwo 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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.
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/808/ https://xkcd.com/808/
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        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.
    - LawrenceKerr 2y ago
      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 :-)
- keepamovin 2y ago
  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 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 2y ago
    > 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 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538042
        2y ago
LawrenceKerr 2y ago
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.
keepamovin 2y ago
Actually the dismissive answers on this thread are what sounds like 'gigantic pile of rationalization' and cope. LK lays out why well.

some_furry 2y ago

> 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.

twojacobtwo 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/808/ https://xkcd.com/808/
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      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.
  - LawrenceKerr 2y ago
    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 :-)
keepamovin 2y ago
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 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 2y ago
  > 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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42538042
      - 2y ago

LawrenceKerr 2y ago

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.

keepamovin 2y ago

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