4 ms·

> 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 preci

> 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
  - some_furry 2y ago
    > These odds! Nuts. What else has that standard? hahaha :) Zero-knowledge proofs.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      ? Which has relevance to this for you how? You seem to be resisting trying. Did you try it yet?
      - some_furry 2y ago
        Once again, you are assuming a purely antagonistic frame that simply doesn't exist.
        keepamovin 2y ago
        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.
        some_furry 2y ago
        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.
keepamovin 2y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
- some_furry 2y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    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.

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
- some_furry 2y ago
  > These odds! Nuts. What else has that standard? hahaha :) Zero-knowledge proofs.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    ? Which has relevance to this for you how? You seem to be resisting trying. Did you try it yet?
    - some_furry 2y ago
      Once again, you are assuming a purely antagonistic frame that simply doesn't exist.
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        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.
        some_furry 2y ago
        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.

keepamovin 2y ago

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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

some_furry 2y ago
> 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- keepamovin 2y ago
  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.