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

[Joe]

It's not luck anymore. I score way above that.

Again, where are the specific details? give me some numbers! It drives me nuts when people post vague claims like, "I'm winning". You can also win for long periods just by chance, especially if you're using a progression on a high limit game. The app you mention should at least tell you what the chances are that your wins are attributable to some real effect and not just random chance.

[RayManZ]

Again, where are the specific details? give me some numbers! It drives me nuts when people post vague claims like, "I'm winning". You can also win for long periods just by chance, especially if you're using a progression on a high limit game. The app you mention should at least tell you what the chances are that your wins are attributable to some real effect and not just random chance.

Did you try the Zener ESP app? That app has some test. I always do the precog training.

You have 25 rounds. Always 5 options. If you gues 6 or more right it's above luck. Just a 24% chance i was not due luck. The higher you get the more chance its not due luck but skill. It also give you a average. You can reset it anytime you want. Every mondag i reset. The first week i just got average result. Meaning just between 15% and 25% on weekly avg.

Now, many months later i get way beter results. Weekly avg is around 40%. So i get 10 out of 25 rounds right. There is a 80% chance its not due luck.

Its all there in the app. Try it. Do you're own reseach. Why trust others? You don't trust us, but you do trust other people you also never met. It's very easy to do this on your own.

[RayManZ]

Look at the attachment

[winforus]

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.

There is no such thing as "objective evidence" - this is something that you are unable to grasp at your current level of consciousness.

I never said to believe something without evidence, do not put words into my mouth.

Before you write anymore nonsense, actually try to examine the existing beliefs that you hold about reality.

Even if someone demonstrated to you through 100k spins their winrate, you would still not understand what is precognition. You can only understand it through direct 1st hand experience.

Instead of waiting for someone to present you the numbers, actually start testing it yourself.

Ask yourself these questions and contemplate, - this could take many hours if you would take it seriously:

What is science?
What is evidence?
What is reality?
How do I know that something is true?
What am I?
Who is aware of reality?
Who is perceiving?

If you do this, understanding how precognition would work, would be VERY easy. And that is just scratching the surface.

The best evidence is the one that you can demonstrate to yourself. Instead of waiting for somebody to present you the numbers, start testing yourself. You can learn a lot from RAYMANZ.

[Joe]

There is no such thing as "objective evidence" - this is something that you are unable to grasp at your current level of consciousness.

And your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?

I never said to believe something without evidence, do not put words into my mouth.

Right, so you do believe in evidence after all.

You see the problem; when you argue for a position you must use evidence, or it's just an assertion (some proposition given without evidence). I see lots of assertions from you but very little in the way of evidence. You cannot argue convincingly for your position without using evidence, which you've just asserted doesn't exist ("there is no such thing as objective evidence"). So that makes you a hypocrite, and worse, you are actually refuting yourself.

Why not answer your own questions first?

What is science?
What is evidence?
What is reality?
How do I know that something is true?
What am I?
Who is aware of reality?
Who is perceiving?

I can tell you what evidence is; it's anything provided in support of an assertion. This need not be proof, which only really applies to deductive arguments and maths. Other than that, evidence can be weak or strong. There is scientific evidence and evidence in the law (which can be classified as circumstantial, etc).

Now your turn. What do you think science is?

[Let Me Win]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[winforus]

And your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?

Right, so you do believe in evidence after all.

You see the problem; when you argue for a position you must use evidence, or it's just an assertion (some proposition given without evidence). I see lots of assertions from you but very little in the way of evidence. You cannot argue convincingly for your position without using evidence, which you've just asserted doesn't exist ("there is no such thing as objective evidence"). So that makes you a hypocrite, and worse, you are actually refuting yourself.

Why not answer your own questions first?

I can tell you what evidence is; it's anything provided in support of an assertion. This need not be proof, which only really applies to deductive arguments and maths. Other than that, evidence can be weak or strong. There is scientific evidence and evidence in the law (which can be classified as circumstantial, etc).

Now your turn. What do you think science is?

Truth is prior to evidence.

You hold a lot of materialistic beliefs which you are not conscious of. That's right, "beliefs" which are not grounded in anything.

The first most important distinction to make is between concept/thought & actual experience.

You will not understand what I am talking about here, until you actually put in hours of work into contemplating the questions I presented to you. That's right, it requires many hours.

Until you do meditation, self-inquiry, and other things people recommended here (like esp zener app), there is absolutely no point for us to waste our time with this discussion. If you are interested in truth, you will put in the work. If you are not, you will continue to sit and argue with people - while being totally ignorant .

I can only show you the door, it is up to you to walk through it. I will not engage in anymore arguments with you until you put in the work.

[Joe]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Exactly right.

Looks like we have yet another pontificating, patronizing self-professed guru here folks! This time he's waaaay above us poor knuckle-draggers on the evolutionary scale; it must be a huge effort for him to even think down to our level! 

[Joe]

Truth is prior to evidence.

If you're saying that Ontology is prior to Epistemology, then I agree. Whatever is (reality) must exist before we can know about it. But the key component of Epistemology is evidence, which is what you keep ignoring.

I will not engage in anymore arguments with you until you put in the work.

lol, rather convenient, don't you think?

Translation : I don't have any counter-arguments so I'll just belittle and patronize you until you go away.

[Joe]

Sometime ago I uploaded a book which shows you how test whether you have psychic ability. At the end of the chapter on precognition the author offers some common sense arguments on why it's reasonable to believe that precognition is baloney.

Interestingly, one would think that if precognition were a consistent or at least large effect then real life experiments of the type outlined above would be carried out each and every day by those individuals that possess precognitive talents. Imagine, for example, you have these psychic abilities. What would you do with them? For example, would you try to divine the upcoming lottery numbers? Or predict which stock will be the next to rise? Or say which team will win the next world series? There would be nothing stopping you from placing a few bets, bets with no risk because you know what the outcome will be. So what is stop anyone with this kind of ability from using it in such a way that they accumulate both power and wealth? Nothing. If precognition exists there should be a group of people who are exceptionally powerful and wealthy (the power and wealth, of course, accumulated through their precognitive abilities).

They would have no need to hide their powers either because they could dodge any potential threat to themselves by looking into the future and then avoiding it. That we don’t see such groups of powerful people can be described by what is known as the Planned Relent effect. This theory explains what the world would â€" and should â€" look like if people genuinely had precognitive powers. The absence of such indicators, classes of extraordinarily powerful psychic sages, seems to be strong evidence against the idea that precognition works, at least at the large scale.

It could be argued that precognition is a small effect and not always reliable or accurate and that this deviation from certainty accounts for the lack of groups of powerful psychics. But this doesn’t work because a person with precognitive powers would still come out ahead on bets in the long run even though their abilities didn’t always work.

A perfect analogy to this are casinos. Some games only have a slight edge,maybe as low as 1% or even lower. This slight advantage in the probability of the house win- ning accounts for the fact that casinos rake in billions each year. The same would hold true for imperfect precognitive bets. The psychic
would still come out ahead in the end. It may take a little longer, but it would still happen.

Arguments that people who have precognitive abilities can only use them for the greater good do not carry any weight. Such limitations on psychic powers would have to be built into the relevant explanatory biological and physical models. It also means defining precisely what “the greater good” means (greater to whom?). That psychics could never use their powers for personal gain and can only use them altruistically (say, to warn of danger) goes against all history of human behavior. The altruism only argument fails on two counts. The first is that if people could only do good with their abilities we
would not have anyone else die in airplane crashes, say, or by driving off bridges. These unfortunate potential accident victims would have been warned of their impending doom and destruction by beneficent seers. Clearly this is not happening. Yes, there are lots of anecdotes to say that it does, but none rigorously confirmed. One would think that some sort of government bureau would have been set up by now, employing precognitive psychics, whose function would be to issue disaster reports much like weather forecasts warn against tornados and hurricanes.

The second reason the altruism argument doesn’t work is human nature. For example, I’m telling you that if I had precognitive powers I certainly would use them for personal gain. I’d pile up a lottery win or two, use the money to make a fortune on the stock market and then begin to accumulate political power. It’d be Emperor William the First before long. And I’m generally a nice guy. There would have to be people who, if capable, would be far more ruthless in the exercise of their abilities than me. Since we don’t see these kinds of things, it follows that any precognitive powers must be negligible or non existent.

Nevertheless, the allure of even the hint of having this ability is strong so reliable tests, like those given here, are essential. To this date no test like these have ever been convincingly passed.


So, You Think You're Psychic?  William M. Briggs, 2006

[Joe]

Why trust others? You don't trust us, but you do trust other people you also never met.

It's not really a question of "trust". We all take things on trust, we have to otherwise we would never get through the day. The point of science is you don't have to take things on trust because they have been rigorously tested over a long period by many people. Scientific theories are not "fake news" (what I mean by "theory" is the general's definition which he gave above, not just a hypothesis). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't believe anything that isn't "scientifically" tested because we are justified in believing a lot of things without the help of science, just using common sense.

But I agree with you that it would better to do my own tests to convince myself.

[precogmiles]

But I agree with you that it would better to do my own tests to convince myself.

That is not allowed. Your high priesists of Science have to give you their blessing.

Even if you score above average after practising the method, you are still not permitted to believe precognition is real.

[Joe]

Your high priesists of Science have to give you their blessing.

There are no high priests in science, or any authorities at all. Although I have to admit that some members of the scientific community like to assume such a role. But it doesn't matter what they tell you or say because if your discovery is genuine it will be recognized and confirmed eventually.

[precogmiles]

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.

You're welcome. You are right, if they want to remain ignorant then let them be.

[The General]

Here the results from my latest precog session.  I only played one spin, but I knew that I'd win the next seven spins so I went ahead and graphed them too.