Guide and Info - How to do precognition

[Joe]

logic?

ok, engineering is applied applied science. 

Any more nit-picking? I guess it distracts from the lack of evidence for precog. 

[precogmiles]

Like I said, you have to set up experiments correctly so that they really do test what you want to test. It's not that easy.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=F3YWCJsXKjw

Wow, now it makes sense. Susan blackmore and Joe the skeptic have convinced me that precognition is just all in my imagination. All these tests of me getting above average on demand are just lucky guesses.

Why didn't I realise this from the start. Clever little joe and susan. Who would have known it?

haha. These materialist zombies make me laugh.

[precogmiles]

lack of evidence for precog. 

    in a thread titled 'Guide and Info - How to do precognition' 

[Joe]

Still waiting for REAL evidence. And MPR doesn't even measure statistical significance. There are some players lower down the list who have a higher score than you.

For example, user Remmus at 235 has a score of 1.626, and Steve at 440 has a score of 2.7418. Can someone explain how the scoring works? I guess it's related to the number of spins played.

[Joe]

in a thread titled 'Guide and Info

It should be Guide and Info, but no evidence.

[precogmiles]

Still waiting for REAL evidence. And MPR doesn't even measure statistical significance. There are some players lower down the list who have a higher score than you.

For example, user Remmus at 235 has a score of 1.626, and Steve at 440 has a score of 2.7418. Can someone explain how the scoring works? I guess it's related to the number of spins played.

Good for you. Believe what you want. Infact, don't ever believe precognition is real.

This thread is for those who want help with developing precognition.

Whether Joe the skeptic believes in precog or not will not change the fact a player by the name of intuitive is first and a player by the name of precognition is 4th out of 500+ players. Your opinion is irrelevant in regards to MPR.

[Still]

It should be Guide and Info, but no evidence.

All this talk about evidence and you haven't yet told us what evidence actually is. 
Precog has a high ranking on MPR as well some other place and thats not evidence?
So kindly explain what is evidence and perhaps tell us the difference between that and proof. 
Is there some place your idea of evidence can be ranked like Precogs results are?

Meanwhile, have you seen the gold pens the speaker of the house handed out to the managers of the upcoming impeachment?  They're awesome!  Gold pens!  Not just evidence. Actual gold! 

[winforus]

Joe, the name of this thread is "Guide and Info - How to do precognition".

Why are you trashing it with your close minded materialist worldview? 

It doesn't make sense to you precisely because your worldview assumes there is an external physical reality - which is a concept, not a fact. The linear mind cannot unfurl all of reality in a linear way. Because the linear mind is finite but reality is infinite. Reality is not collection of causes and effects, as science likes to assume.

What you're taking for granted is how much the materialist paradigm blinds you and your scientists. You cannot do an honest investigation into anything which your paradigm assumes as impossible from the outset.

The issue with science is that it refuses to take seriously its implicit metaphysical assumptions. Science says, "Assumptions? What assumptions? Metaphysics? What metaphysics? We don't do any of that. We fairly investigate all of reality." No! You don't fairly investigate all of reality, you only investigate the stuff you think is real and only using the methodologies which agree with your existing paradigm. That is not objective, that's highly biased.

To do science properly, one would have to have zero methodological preferences. Your methods and metaphysics literally limit what you can discover. You cannot discover a thing which you hold to be impossible. In such a case, the mind will just dismiss the discovery away by saying something like, "Oh, well, that's just a hallucination. It's just taking place inside a brain, so that doesn't count."

I am not merely speaking about scientists not living up to some impossible ideal. I am making a point about a deep epistemic ignorance which permeates not only science but all human systems of knowledge. People do not realize how problematic their paradigms are.

Precognition is just the tip of the iceberg of what is out there.

[moonstone]

It should be Guide and Info, but no evidence.

it will work, but takes lot of time of course. Not BS. Thats sure.

[Joe]

Precog has a high ranking on MPR as well some other place and thats not evidence?
So kindly explain what is evidence and perhaps tell us the difference between that and proof.
Is there some place your idea of evidence can be ranked like Precogs results are?

Good questions, Still. Precog's high ranking on MPR doesn't mean much; it doesn't even tell us that his results are any better than random, let alone whether he's achieved those results using precognition, as opposed to just guessing or using a system.

I don't know how the rankings are measured and calculated, but they don't give us any measure of statistical significance such as are used in the sciences to make inferences. A more useful ranking would be based on standard deviation, or some other commonly used statistical test. There is actually a site where you can test your precog ability (scroll down to the bottom of the page where it tells you about how the results are calculated)

link:s://psychicscience.org/prechamp

And another reason to be sceptical is that precogmiles has several accounts. Why? if he has real precog ability surely one is enough. Obviously if you have multiple accounts your chances of getting near the top of the leaderboard is greater than if you only have one, so it seems like he's hedging his bets.

And lastly, this isn't a 'controlled' experiment, because it isn't specifically testing for precognition, or at least, we don't know whether he's using precognition or a system. And that brings up another point : he says systems don't work, but MPR players who use systems have gotten to the top of the leaderboard. He says 'look! I'm at the top of the leaderboard, therefore precognition works!', but he would deny that a system player who has gotten to the top had done so because of the system (he would say it's just luck). That would be a case of double standards, don't you think?

[Joe]

Joe, the name of this thread is "Guide and Info - How to do precognition".

Why are you trashing it with your close minded materialist worldview? 

It doesn't make sense to you precisely because your worldview assumes there is an external physical reality - which is a concept, not a fact. The linear mind cannot unfurl all of reality in a linear way. Because the linear mind is finite but reality is infinite. Reality is not collection of causes and effects, as science likes to assume.

So I guess you're just playing roulette for the fun of it then? If there is no physical external reality then you don't need money to pay the rent for an imaginary house, or to pay for imaginary food to put in your imaginary stomach.
And of course when it comes to the question of HOW you know there is no external reality, or that it is infinite,  you have no answer, do you? We just have to take  your word for it.  But why should we?

What you're taking for granted is how much the materialist paradigm blinds you and your scientists. You cannot do an honest investigation into anything which your paradigm assumes as impossible from the outset.

Everyone has preconceptions and assumptions, they can't be avoided. But that need not limit the scope of investigations. What science can't do though is test something which cannot be tested. For example, you say there is no external reality. How can this be tested? It can't, so you have to fall back on mysticism. Precognition, though, can be tested, because it makes predictions about the (imaginary!) external 'reality'. Therefore we can track the successes and failures of these predictions and compare them to what would happen just by chance.

The issue with science is that it refuses to take seriously its implicit metaphysical assumptions. Science says, "Assumptions? What assumptions? Metaphysics? What metaphysics? We don't do any of that. We fairly investigate all of reality." No! You don't fairly investigate all of reality, you only investigate the stuff you think is real and only using the methodologies which agree with your existing paradigm. That is not objective, that's highly biased.

How would you suggest we investigate the claim that there is no external reality? I'd really like some help with this because I don't see any solution. You talk about being objective, but being objective depends on there being an external reality - something we can all agree about. But you deny this, so how can there be any objectivity in YOUR philosophy? There isn't any, because it's all subjective.

To do science properly, one would have to have zero methodological preferences. Your methods and metaphysics literally limit what you can discover. You cannot discover a thing which you hold to be impossible. In such a case, the mind will just dismiss the discovery away by saying something like, "Oh, well, that's just a hallucination. It's just taking place inside a brain, so that doesn't count."

It doesn't make sense to say there should be zero methodological preferences. There has to be some method to investigating reality, otherwise you won't know whether you have discovered anything. And if you believe that there is no external reality, what is there to investigate anyway? You CAN have a hypothesis about something you believe to be impossible, and if it passes the reality test - ie observations of the (imaginary!) external world confirm it - then you should change your mind. That's admittedly hard to do sometimes, but that's not the fault of the scientific method.

I am not merely speaking about scientists not living up to some impossible ideal. I am making a point about a deep epistemic ignorance which permeates not only science but all human systems of knowledge. People do not realize how problematic their paradigms are.

Again, how do you know all this? The problem with you new age types is that you can never support your assertions with evidence, because you deny that there is such a world which can provide it! You don't seem to grasp the absurd consequences of your position. Your arguments are always perfectly circular and amount to saying that 'it's true because it's true'. Or worse : 'it's true because I say so'. In other words, totalitarianism. 

[winforus]

Joe, I know this because I have put in a lot of time into studying and investigating this stuff.

This is not something that can be proven with "evidence" that you are demanding, due to the reasons that I already I wrote above. You don't need to take my word for it, you need to investigate it yourself.

As I mentioned to you in the past, you can start off by doing deep self-inquiry, along with meditation (properly). You can also take a strong psychedelic like DMT, which could speed up the process.

If you are interested in Truth in more than anything else, you will find out. If you care more about arguing/defending your position, and debating, then you won't.  I understand your current position very well, because I used to be in the same place as you are now. The same materialist view, trying to debate "new agers" with their "pseudo science".

Either investigate it or leave this alone - but don't sit here demanding evidence when you are not willing to put in the work or time into this.

[precogmiles]

Some interesting videos for those who understand russian.

[Joe]

I used to be in the same place as you are now.

Ditto. I came around to the 'materialist' viewpoint eventually (I grew up). And actually I'm not a materialist but a realist. Arguing and debating is useful because it makes you think, but you can't convince anyone to think if they don't want to, so I'll leave it there.

[precogmiles]

link:s://psychicscience.org/prechamp

Do you even look at what you post? and you claim to be 'rational' and sceptical?

On the same link you just gave scroll down and look at the 'Precognition Championship Top Scores' table.
Tim K has a z score well above chance on multiple occasions.

And again on the same site...
link:s://psychicscience.org/esp2

ESP Championship (zener cards), look at the Top Scores table. Tim K scores high again on a seperate tests.

Do you think or are you just a 'doubter' to pretend you have a high IQ?

Now watch Joe claim those tests are not valid because it does not suit his zombie skeptical mentality.