[ExI] Precog PCs

[Richard Loosemore]

Stefano Vaj wrote:
> 2010/10/19 Alan Grimes <agrimes at speakeasy.net>:
>> So, uploaders, riddle me this: If it is actually true that I am a
>> precog, will my upload also be a precog? =P
> 
> BTW, it is generally assumed that animals *are* precog. Would they be
> generally better than ourselves? Any difference with species? Any idea
> whether "random" facts affecting plants end up being after-the-fact
> more favourable to their surviving and thriving than they should be on
> a purely statistical basis?
> 
> And, uploads besides, has anyone ever tried to make a PC "guess"
> random numbers and check whether its rate of success absolutely
> conforms with statistical  expectations?
> 
> Again, the interesting side of it would be that a PC is much quicker
> at repetitive tasks than humans, does not get easily bored, and can go
> on at will...
> 
> This might tell us something not just on the reality of psi, but also
> on whether "intentionality" and/or Darwinian pressures have anything
> to do with it.

Stefano, before you know it you will be a card-carrying 
parapsychologist.  I would watch your back.  :-)

I did want to get funding, back in the 1980s, to set up an AI system 
with the specific goal of researching its psi abilities, but it seems 
that people are not much interested in mixing AI and parapsychology.

The question you ask is very tricky.  How to distinguish peformance due 
to the PC from performance due to experimenter?  Unless you can get the 
PC (it would have to be an AI) to devise, execute and publish the 
research by itself.



Richard Loosemore