[ExI] Psi in a major science journal
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 17:05:15 UTC 2010
On 22 October 2010 04:32, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Remoting viewing showed just enough results for the military and
> intelligence community to keep funding the work for several decades.
Did it? Is unreliable, occasional, unverifiable unless-after-the-fact
remote viewing (i.e., guessing) so useful for military purposes? Let
us say that you pick exactly the right scene or place one in ten
times, or even one in five, which would be an enormous, blatant effect
size. I may be retrospectively curious to know how you did it, but I
can hardly be more-confident-than-not (as in 51%) that you are doing
it at any specific time.
In any even, I am not too comfortable with phenomena which are not
What I would like to know, but never discovered, is whether casinos
margins are positively affected by slightly
higher-than-what-would-be-statistically-allowed guesses, or the
numbers of lotto winners is slightly higher than it should be.
Such scenarios are denoted by
i) Very big numbers and variations, easily cancelling out coincidences
and physical distortions;
ii) By definition, a continued, high motivation of the players being
tested without much risk for boredom and burnout;
iii) Non-falsification, non-alteration of data.
Accordingly, I think that the outcome of such tests would really be
final, and it would be relatively secondary whether the effect has to
do with precognition, distance viewing or telekinesis (my
"ideological" preference going however for the third).
More information about the extropy-chat