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

[Still]

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

Then, what IS "evidence" for precognition?

C'mon, state clearly what is the belief shattering requirement that compels overwhelming faith in precognition?

If you don't know what evidence actually is, how can you say there is no evidence?

Just pointing out some cognitive dissonance. 

Someone has already said, 25k spins flat bet with 10 standard deviations...is evidence for him. 

If there is no such thing as an objective evidence test for precognition, then what is your personal subjective test of evidence?

Are there scientists somewhere who have all agreed that xyz is the proper conclusive test for precognition?

If there is no such test, what"evidence" would it take for you to bet 1% of your net worth per attempt, flat?

[precogmiles]

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.

As much as I would like to do that thread, I will be taking a long break from this forum simply because I think I've contributed as much as I can to this topic.

Whoever wants to learn can always PM me, I've written a guide somewhere on this forum for beginners and to be honest I am not an expert, I just know that this method works. Using precog I am able to get above average hits, which is all you need to win.

[precogmiles]

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? 

Did you read that paper? They tried to replicate the experiment and failed.
What does this say? that the original study was false? is this the conclusion?

I would advice you do more research and understand the scientific method that you champion so much better.

I am all for good research and experimentation. I however do not like theory over reality. Never make your theory fit reality always observe and accept the facts as you find them.

The 'experimenter effect' is a long known about effect in parapsychology. This is similar to placebo and Nocebo effects. The mind is an amazing tool. We do not understand how consciousness effects both the body and our perceptions of the reality we experience.

Listen, if you don't want to believe in precog then DONT!! in fact please never believe in precog.

This thread was really for those who have an open mind.

[The General]

Did you read that paper? They tried to replicate the experiment and failed.
What does this say? that the original study was false? is this the conclusion?

I would advice you do more research and understand the scientific method that you champion so much better.

I am all for good research and experimentation. I however do not like theory over reality. Never make your theory fit reality always observe and accept the facts as you find them.

The 'experimenter effect' is a long known about effect in parapsychology. This is similar to placebo and Nocebo effects. The mind is an amazing tool. We do not understand how consciousness effects both the body and our perceptions of the reality we experience.

Listen, if you don't want to believe in precog then DONT!! in fact please never believe in precog.

This thread was really for those who have an open mind.

Some people naively mistaken the proper meaning of the word theory when the term is used in statistics and basic probability.

Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.  In the case of basic probability it is not really a theory or hypothesis..it is a set of accepted facts that have been scientifically proven.


Scientifically speaking, your pissing in the wind without statistically relevant tests.

[precogmiles]

Some people naively mistaken the proper meaning of the word theory when the term is used in statistics and basic probability.

Definition of theory
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.  In the case of basic probability it is not really a theory or hypothesis..it is a set of accepted facts that have been scientifically proven.


Scientifically speaking, your pissing in the wind without statistically relevant tests.

If I see a ghost, it is a fact that ghosts exist. I will not wait for the scientific community to give me the go ahead to believe ghosts exist.

FACTS over THEORIES.

And I am using theories correctly.

Sorry to bust your ego but human knowledge is limited and wanting everything to be repeatable or falsifiable under laboratory conditions is just not going to happen.

If you do not understand the philosophy of science and what the epistemological underpinnings of science really are then just go away and take your smelly hot chilli sauce with you.

[Steve]

Caleb is correct about the statistical relevance. But over my lifetime I've personally seen enough to reasonably believe precog is real - and seen credible test results, including some of my own. Can it be used in roulette? That's another matter, but I believe yes. I don't "know" for sure. But what may be really happening is not precog. It could be something else. It is all quite a grey area. It's not black and white like repeaters.

[The General]

If I see a ghost, it is a fact that ghosts exist. I will not wait for the scientific community to give me the go ahead to believe ghosts exist.

FACTS over THEORIES.


Sorry to bust your ego but human knowledge is limited and wanting everything to be repeatable or falsifiable under laboratory conditions is just not going to happen.

Education over ignorance.  Otherwise if you fart on a cold winter day you may see a ghost.

[precogmiles]

Education over ignorance.  Otherwise if you fart on a cold winter day you may see a ghost.

Ok keep believing that. Don’t ever believe precog is a real phenomena.

And enjoy your hot chilli sauce.

I have zero interest in trying to convince anyone. I’ve run my tests, and I am sure it’s helpful to those who have an open mind.

This is the kind of attitude that has made the precogers leave the forum after realising the reality that it actually works. I’ve been around this forum for a while and contributed whatever I can to wake people up to its reality.

[Joe]

Someone has already said, 25k spins flat bet with 10 standard deviations...is evidence for him.

That would be good enough for me, too.

[Joe]

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.

I am open-minded to the possibility of it being real, but I'm still waiting for the statistical evidence. None of the precog adherents will even post their actual data in terms of wins, number of bets, and odds of the bet, preferring to post meaningless screenshots. It's no wonder there are skeptics when they won't even post adequate data for their own tests when it's requested.

[Joe]

The 'experimenter effect' is a long known about effect in parapsychology. This is similar to placebo and Nocebo effects. The mind is an amazing tool. We do not understand how consciousness effects both the body and our perceptions of the reality we experience.

The "experimenter effect" comes into play mostly when there is potential for the placebo effect, and in such cases double-blind trials will overcome it.

In precognition the problem is not really relevant; all you need to do is compare your results with those given by chance. If the chance of your results are very small, assuming the null hypothesis (no such thing as precog) then this is evidence for precog.

The evidence must be empirical because there is no theory for precog which doesn't contradict established scientific laws. I have no problem with only some people being able to do it, because not everyone is equally skilled at all tasks, but there is no evidence for anyone being able to to do it consistently. The apparent successes are due to chance or other factors ; which explains the lack of replication.

I have zero interest in trying to convince anyone.

Then what's the point of the screenshots and claims?

[winforus]

Then, what IS "evidence" for precognition?

C'mon, state clearly what is the belief shattering requirement that compels overwhelming faith in precognition?

If you don't know what evidence actually is, how can you say there is no evidence?

Just pointing out some cognitive dissonance. 

Someone has already said, 25k spins flat bet with 10 standard deviations...is evidence for him. 

If there is no such thing as an objective evidence test for precognition, then what is your personal subjective test of evidence?

Are there scientists somewhere who have all agreed that xyz is the proper conclusive test for precognition?

If there is no such test, what"evidence" would it take for you to bet 1% of your net worth per attempt, flat?

+10000, you nailed it

As much as I would like to do that thread, I will be taking a long break from this forum simply because I think I've contributed as much as I can to this topic.

Whoever wants to learn can always PM me, I've written a guide somewhere on this forum for beginners and to be honest I am not an expert, I just know that this method works. Using precog I am able to get above average hits, which is all you need to win.

Thank you for all your contributions to this forum. I will PM you at some point after my own tests . The materialists will be materialists - they are no different than religious people. No need to waste your time trying to convince those that are not open-minded enough.

If I see a ghost, it is a fact that ghosts exist. I will not wait for the scientific community to give me the go ahead to believe ghosts exist.

FACTS over THEORIES.

And I am using theories correctly.

Sorry to bust your ego but human knowledge is limited and wanting everything to be repeatable or falsifiable under laboratory conditions is just not going to happen.

If you do not understand the philosophy of science and what the epistemological underpinnings of science really are then just go away and take your smelly hot chilli sauce with you.

That's exactly right. Majority of people like that who keep referring to science/experiments, are totally ignorant of philosophy of science and epistemology.

And as much as they claim that they are open-minded, they are not. Subconsciously they would prefer for things like precognition to NOT be true, because if it happens to be - their entire paradigm would collapse. And that is very threatening to their identity, that they have built up their whole lives. Everything that they thought they "knew" about reality, would be destroyed.

[Joe]

And as much as they claim that they are open-minded, they are not. Subconsciously they would prefer for things like precognition to NOT be true, because if it happens to be - their entire paradigm would collapse. And that is very threatening to their identity, that they have built up their whole lives. Everything that they thought they "knew" about reality, would be destroyed.

So now you're a mind-reader too? We are indeed privileged to have such a highly evolved being in our little forum.

Actually, the "materialist" philosophy is far more threatening than the one you're proposing is the truth.  Yours is much more comforting because you can believe almost anything you want without any evidence - you know, like they used to before the methods of science were developed about 300 years ago. Ghosts, Gods, the paranormal, yada yada yada. Take your pick of whatever is most consoling for you!

Now I take your point that modern physics isn't "materialistic" and there is a lot it can't say anything about, but the major difference between science and other ways of knowing about the world is that it requires objective evidence, not mere belief or authority.

[Joe]

Then, what IS "evidence" for precognition?

C'mon, state clearly what is the belief shattering requirement that compels overwhelming faith in precognition?

It's not black and white. There are degrees of evidence from weak to strong. The evidence for precognition is very weak and that's why it's regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community.

It doesn't matter how many times someone asserts that it's true or repeats anecdotes that it's worked for them. That is not "evidence".

[RayManZ]

But i still keep winning. To be fair. I can't do it when i tell someone what i can do and he or she is watching me or a make a video. The mind is a funny thing. But when i feel "safe" and relaxed i just keep on winning.

It's not luck anymore. I score way above that. The first months my rating was way lower, but now after months and months of daily play and practice i keep getting better. The mind is a muscle and it is very easy to train it. But like everything, it takes time. You can't deadlift 200kg withing a couple of weeks. It takes time and alot of training. Same thing with the mind.

Download the app. Train everyday atleast one hour for the next 12 month. You will notice you will get better at the app.