Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[winforus]

Precogmiles, when you play for play money, it is stress free. When people play for real money, the stress is there, and that effects the accuracy of predictions. I personally would be interested in how you do in real money roulette games, even for small stakes.

Fwiw, I believe that precognition is real. As precognmiles said - it's reality first than it's statistics. I personally would be interested to see the results of real money play, as it's more challenging achieving a winrate when playing for something instead of for nothing (purely psychological).

Majority of people would have a hard time doing precognition because they don't do any daily practices and are disconnected from themselves.

Precogmiles, I don't see why you wouldn't show the results from real money play, even for the minimum stakes.

[nottophammer]

Majority of people would have a hard time doing precognition because they don't do any daily practices

I’m in the camp of nah; that can’t happen! But even when on MPR or R-sim, you can be not even thinking of precognition and a number pops in your head; low and behold that number that just popped in, drops on the marquee.
So I won’t dismiss it totally.

[winforus]

I’m in the camp of nah; that can’t happen! But even when on MPR or R-sim, you can be not even thinking of precognition and a number pops in your head; low and behold that number that just popped in, drops on the marquee.
So I won’t dismiss it totally.

I meant that they would have a hard time winning consistently over long term. Most people are not willing to put in enough time/effort to mastering it, just like with anything in life. Precognition is actually a little fraction of what is possible and the actual fruits of it go beyond winning at roulette, which is why Steve said that the people who develop those abilities, probably would not have enough interest at beating roulette at that point.

To anyone doubting precognition or any other abilities, I recommend to watch this in-depth video on Youtube:

"Making Sense Of Paranormal Phenomena & Psychic Powers":

/watch?v=CIPE5YH2zgc

[Let Me Win]

Please don't claim pseudo science as science fact.

There is not a single serious study performed in laboratory conditions that has produced even the slightest piece of evidence to support the nonsense mumble jumble you're claiming possible.

You're seriously asking people to believe a YouTube video over 1000's of years of peer reviewed science?

[winforus]

Please don't claim pseudo science as science fact.

There is not a single serious study performed in laboratory conditions that has produced even the slightest piece of evidence to support the nonsense mumble jumble you're claiming possible.

You're seriously asking people to believe a YouTube video over 1000's of years of peer reviewed science?

This is not just some "youtube video". It's a self-actualization channel, I would say one of the best out at our current time that covers a variety of topics.

Since you are a materialist, you believe in a physical reality - which is what a lot of science is based on. Modern science luckily is changing, and even some scientists are no longer following the old and outdated materialist paradigm. The scientific community is yet to recognize it though, it will happen sooner than you think.

In actuality, there is no amount of evidence that will convince you. You are simply not open minded enough and actually hold dogmatic beliefs about reality, which you are not conscious of. If you were to admit that those things are real - your entire picture of reality would collapse.

Peer-reviewed  science that you are talking about does not mean anything. A lot of it is extremely limited and even biased.

This is just scratching the surface, the truth is very radical - the rabbit hole goes very deep.

[Robbert]

Please don't claim pseudo science as science fact.

There is not a single serious study performed in laboratory conditions that has produced even the slightest piece of evidence to support the nonsense mumble jumble you're claiming possible.

You're seriously asking people to believe a YouTube video over 1000's of years of peer reviewed science?

Exact, how to win at roulette? Very easy.

Only 1 pocket is the house edge...
If you know +2 pockets where the ball will land with AP. You got an edge.

[winforus]

As a materialist, to you it's a "fact" that the brain produces consciousness.

You are not conscious that you accepted that BELIEF on blind faith, and made it into a "fact", when it's simply not the case.

Quantum Mechanics actually debunked materialism and science is slowly catching on.

It's actually the other way around: Consciousness is independent  of the brain.

In other words: your "science" and "reason" are a fantasy. "You" as a separate entity don't exist. The idea of "you" is an illusion, and the list goes on.  In order to know this, it takes radical open mindedness, and a deep curiosity for truth to know. Start by asking yourself what you know is true, do self-inquiry, meditation, and a lot of contemplation. Direct/1st hand experience is the only way to know.

I am very glad that Steve is intelligent and open-minded enough to be open to possibility of precognition being real.

[precogmiles]

another 2 days and still in top 10.



Just having some fun, testing and training.

[precogmiles]

Fwiw, I believe that precognition is real. As precognmiles said - it's reality first than it's statistics. I personally would be interested to see the results of real money play, as it's more challenging achieving a winrate when playing for something instead of for nothing (purely psychological).

Majority of people would have a hard time doing precognition because they don't do any daily practices and are disconnected from themselves.

Precogmiles, I don't see why you wouldn't show the results from real money play, even for the minimum stakes.

I agree to some extent. The biggest challenge is when fall into the trap of trying to win back your losses. Because your emotion takes over you tend to not following the precog method and act recklessly.

Many users have shown real money play and most get the same response on this forum. It is more impressive to show that it can be achieved using open public games like MPR or RS.

[winforus]

I agree to some extent. The biggest challenge is when fall into the trap of trying to win back your losses. Because your emotion takes over you tend to not following the precog method and act recklessly.

Many users have shown real money play and most get the same response on this forum. It is more impressive to show that it can be achieved using open public games like MPR or RS.

For the people who made up their minds and that are close minded, no amount of "evidence" will convince them.

That's right, during real money play, people tend to chase their losses or go on tilt - thus it's significantly harder to do this when playing for something instead of for nothing.

I personally would be very interested, if you opened a separate real money play thread and did a bankroll challenge. For example, "A Journey from $50 to $1000 using precognition". You could start with the lowest stakes and go from there.

[Joe]

First comes reality then comes statistics. Understand the order.

But what if there are doubts about the reality? Then you have to use statistics to find out how likely it is that something has occurred by chance. If the chance is very small, there may be something to it.

I'm open to the idea that precognition works if the evidence is strong enough, but there is none. There is just as much evidence that systems work as there is that precog works. Meaning, people make claims but they haven't been backed up.

link:s://:.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120315094737.htm

Clearly, you're keen to prove that precog works. Then why not do a proper controlled test and silence the skeptics like me? 

[Joe]

Precog has more merit than what we know doesnt work.

Only if we know that precog works, but we don't know that. In which case, it may have as much merit as something we know doesn't work. That is, none.

[winforus]

But what if there are doubts about the reality? Then you have to use statistics to find out how likely it is that something has occurred by chance. If the chance is very small, there may be something to it.

I'm open to the idea that precognition works if the evidence is strong enough, but there is none. There is just as much evidence that systems work as there is that precog works. Meaning, people make claims but they haven't been backed up.

link:s://:.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120315094737.htm

Clearly, you're keen to prove that precog works. Then why not do a proper controlled test and silence the skeptics like me? 

When you begin to see the bigger picture of reality, you will see that all of your knowledge is groundless, relative, and ultimately delusional.You do not actually know what anything is.

The core problem is that science does not question its own foundations.

How do you know science is capable of accessing Absolute Truth? After all, this has never been demonstrated by science. And how would you demonstrate it anyway? By using science? Do you see how that begs the question? If science is incomplete or flawed then you cannot use science to validate science. You need a meta science. And a meta meta science, and so on to infinity.

You cannot convince a scientist that science is a dream. Because many scientists hold science as a dogma. Like religious people. You will never convince a Muslim that his idea of Allah is a dream. Because his mind is not open to such a possibility. He is not interested in searching for Truth because he thinks he's already found it.

[Joe]

Sorry winforus, that's just psychobabble. And you're assuming I'm a "materialist", but what has that got to do with predicting the future? I can refuse to be a materialist but that doesn't imply I believe in precognition.

What you're advising is that I should believe in precognition even if there's no evidence for it? 

Science isn't a belief system like you think, it's a way of rigorously testing ideas against reality. You can have any ideas you want but they have to past the reality test or they should get dumped.

How do you know science is capable of accessing Absolute Truth?

Did I say it was? Of course it isn't, but it's the best method we have found so far. It's done a lot for us and will do a lot more if you'll let it. It seems to me like you're prejudiced against science. And I think you should get off your high horse; few here are interested in absolute truth, whatever that is. They just want to win at roulette.   

[winforus]

Sorry winforus, that's just psychobabble. And you're assuming I'm a "materialist", but what has that got to do with predicting the future? I can refuse to be a materialist but that doesn't imply I believe in precognition.

What you're advising is that I should believe in precognition even if there's no evidence for it? 

Science isn't a belief system like you think, it's a way of rigorously testing ideas against reality. You can have any ideas you want but they have to past the reality test or they should get dumped.

Did I say it was? Of course it isn't, but it's the best method we have found so far. It's done a lot for us and will do a lot more if you'll let it. It seems to me like you're prejudiced against science. And I think you should get off your high horse; few here are interested in absolute truth, whatever that is. They just want to win at roulette.   

Unfortunately you are not aware of limitations of "science". What you call "science" is not the best what we have. I am not going to go deeper as I can see it's too much for most people here. The way that science is done, will be reformed in the future as humanity evolves, that is for sure.

I am not asking you to believe that precognition is real. I am asking you to be open-minded to the possibility of it being real.