Controlled Precognition Experiment Results

[Steve]

See attached file and nolinks://nolinks.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/precognition-real-cornell-university-lab-releases-powerful-new-evidence-human-mind-can-

Like I've said many times, the most promising way to beat RNG is with precognition. Wooo I'm a crackpot  .

The attached study is not the only one with these kind of results. I have another using a particular method, and even did trials myself at nolinks.genuinewinner.com/precog.html

[iggiv]

sorry boss, feeling future may not help u if RNG reacts on your betting

[birdhands]

I've asked myself the same question.

[darrynf]

i dont think he was talking about your usual RNG, if it were true rng then it could be beaten but not buy a rng forcing losses.

[Steve]

I recently did another test. This time only a few of the participants that had high scores last time were asked to participate. Live via skype we did the following test:

The bellcurve at nolinks://nolinks.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/bellcurve/

In this experiment, you try to move the line to one direction or the other. One person doing it is one thing, but multiple people doing it at once is another. All of us watched the screen on my computer live via the internet. We did 10 trials and all tried to move the line towards the green. In every single trial the green was at least 1/3rd of the way into the green area as intended. Every trial. This is significant and I'm convinced there is something in it.

From here I'll have my programmers create software to do a similar test.

From communicating with the others and my own experience, the below are critical to success:

1. Complete relaxation. If it is personal and emotions are involved, you lose focus.
2. DEEP AND NATURAL BREATHING. This is crucial.
3. No conscious thought. It is more of a subconscious action.

The software we'll create will have the RNG results run from the server, and feed the exact same results to numerous participants. That way we can have more participants at the same time, without the need for screen sharing.

Very interesting results. The actual application will be numerous players focusing to influence RNG results for a single account and their rng results.

[bombus]

sorry boss, feeling future may not help u if RNG reacts on your betting

Now you're talking iggiv.

Should we be trying to predict numbers per se, or should we be trying to predict when any numbers we predict will be hitting in our favour?

Specific Numbers V Any Numbers   

[Bayes]

sorry boss, feeling future may not help u if RNG reacts on your betting

It shouldn't make any difference. If you really can read the future then you should still get the correct numbers even if the software is rigged. If precognition depends on the reason WHY a particular number (rather than another) is generated, then it isn't really precognition, is it?

The problem (as it says in the article linked to above), is being able to replicate the results. One study doesn't really prove anything. Statistical tests aren't infallible, there is always a margin of error (false positive), that's why you have to test a roulette system over 1000s of spins to make sure any initial positive results aren't just a fluke.

See attached. 

[Bayes]

From here I'll have my programmers create software to do a similar test.

Steve, the RNG used in the link is a hardware RNG based on radioactive decay. I suspect your programmers will be using a software RNG which will be useless. See page 91 of the attached book.

Of course, if you're using precognition it won't make any difference (assuming you really do have precognitive powers). But psychokinesis is quite a different thing.

Okay, fine, but what does it mean to the parapsychologist
using the computer for random number generation? Everything!
If the sequence of numbers is deterministic (and it is) it means it
cannot be influenced by psychokinetic powers! This is because the
sequence is mathematically determined—it is not truly random
Recall that random only means unpredictable. So the computer-
generated "random" numbers may appear unpredictable to you, but they are
not unpredictable to the guy who wrote the computer software that printed
the numbers.

It is only a simulation of what an actual random
sequence of numbers would look like. Once a mathematician writes
an algorithm to generate pseudo-random numbers it is as if he has
written a road map. We start on a certain road and it only leads
to one place. We cannot see the destination from the start, but
we know it exists. It should be no surprise to us that, if we stay
on the road, we end up at our destination. It would not be in any
way miraculous. So it is with computerized tests of psychokinesis.
Any positive result can only be ascribed to bad programming of
the random number algorithm and not to psychokinesis. Let me
be perfectly clear, a test of psychokinesis using standard computer
random number generators is utterly meaningless.

You said you thought the results of your test were significant, what was the outcome (in terms of probability)?

[Ulysses]

"a test of psychokinesis using standard computer random number generators is utterly meaningless."

Not so Bayes. Not if you have got a pair of these special glasses.

" In Honorton's version of the experiment, halved ping-pong balls were taped over the subject's eyes, and these were flooded with red light, creating a homogenous visual field."

Silliness aside, I nearly always know when the zero is about to drop (somehow I sense it is about to be generated by the RNG). But I always leave my other bets in the same place and just put a small amount on the zero. Where I should remove my other bets and load up on the zero as to take advantage of this. Though I don't want to lose out on the bets that are already set in place and end up missing out on the big zero win. Does this happen to anyone else? Is this a form of precognition? Who knows?

[Steve]

Bayes, the person who wrote that pdf doesnt know how related phenomena works. Like for example he asks the reader to guess a number as part of his esp explanation. Esp, like related areas, is an energy interaction. It is biological, like an emotion. Reading a book and trying to guess his number is not the energy interaction that occurs. It is like transmitting a radio signal to a receiver 10 years ago, writing the signal in a book, then asking the receiver to detect the signal from a piece of paper - then saying the transmission didnt work. That would be more precognition than esp. And a method called majority vote has proven statistically relevant in controlled experiments, And experiments involving sensing colors through envelopes very often gives statistically relevant results, indicating such abilities are more common.

Anyway in this field, about all the writer of the document knows is statistical relevance. As for what he said about Randi, that man is a liar. I attempted to take his challenge with a simple rice experiment, and I was told that:

1. The challenge applies only to celebrities
2. I had to have an academic certify they had witnessed the experiment for themselves

Various conditions make it impossible for ordinary people to apply. In the end they refused to answer my basic questions - because it revealed they were not legitimate about the challenge, and at least they made unrealistic conditions that were biased towards discrediting what may be legitimate science.

Specifically I told him that limiting the search to just celebrities is not in the interests of science. It is set up more to debunk people. But he masquerades as if the challenge is open to anyone and everyone. Sure there are a lot of frauds around, but it is not to say people with legitimate abilities dont exist. I believe there is enough legitimate proof to suggest we all have such natural abilities to some degree, but they are atrophied as they are not used enough.

There would be no difference with rng in this case. Rng is based on chip timings and the theory is fluctuations from psychokinesis is enough to make the changes. The odds for the 10 trials averaged 1 / 15 "chance". 10 times. Certainly statistically relevant.

Anyway the results are what they are and I'll continue work on it.

[Bayes]

There would be no difference with rng in this case. Rng is based on chip timings and the theory is fluctuations from psychokinesis is enough to make the changes.

That seems reasonable. After all, if you can affect radioactive decay processes using PK then there shouldn't be any problem influencing the system clock.

I'll drop the author of the book a line to tell him he's (maybe) talking out of his arse. 

[pins]

if you could guess one out of forty. thats all you need.

[J8]

I have special powers. I can predict with absolute certainty that if I put a large bet on 3.4 of the table on the local AlfaStreet roulette, the ball will land in the empty pocket.

[krist]

Hahaha, this is nonsense, this experiments are all fake, if there would be such things we would all lived a totally different life, don't you think?))

[Steve]

Krist, actually the experiments are real. What on earth would I gain from faking it? And the experiments have been replicated by others. It's called the "majority vote" method. Beyond what I've just written, I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. I dont care what you think you know.

[Steve]

-