[ExI] psi yet again
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Wed Jun 30 11:32:42 UTC 2010
On 29 June 2010 19:12, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/10, John Grigg wrote:
>> I do wonder if a corporation would attempt to create a remote viewing
>> program, akin to what the United States and it's rivals did.
>> Corporate intelligence and espionage can tend toward extreme behavior
>> to get an advantage.
> Most unlikely. That's why the CIA cancelled their remote viewing experiments.
> They had no way of knowing whether the guesses provided any useful
> intelligence unless an agent on the spot went and checked. And if you
> have an agent on the spot anyway,---- who needs a remote viewer?
All depends on whether you have to have some degree of confidence
about the results of the remote viewing, or you have to decide anyway
and anything goes. In the latter scenario, it may be worth reminding
that Napoleon, before appointing a new general, used to inquire
whether the candidate was a lucky person.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong in choosing to profit from a
"guesser" with a good track record, even when the guess does not
appear to be possiibly based on any kind of factual competence, since
there is no reason to believe that the good guesser would be
performing in average worse than anybody else in the guess at hand.
To do otherwise would mean to be prey of the fallacy according to
which if "3" came out five times in a row, it would be somewhat more
unlikely to come out also the fifth.
More information about the extropy-chat