tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post891585353139609311..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: ControlsDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-53562553865246482172010-05-19T06:25:09.931-07:002010-05-19T06:25:09.931-07:00I had some difficulty getting a firm notion of the...I had some difficulty getting a firm notion of the proposed alternative method. I was bewildered at the statement that the alternative method demonstrates that a sender is not necessary. Could this be explained in a simpler way (it is very intriguing)?<br /><br />ThanksPreverbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09078133096262344191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-44224323445854937292010-04-24T08:34:15.236-07:002010-04-24T08:34:15.236-07:00I realize that this discussion has wandered from t...I realize that this discussion has wandered from the original blog post, but it was suggested to me that a better way to convey the importance of control groups to those coming from an engineering or physics background was to compare it to the measurement of a baseline or to the calibration of your measuring tool. If someone tried to claim that vacuum had a weight, based on the use of a scale which had never been set to zero, it wouldn't come as a surprise to discover that others were skeptical of that claim.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18372499259811077632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-193636464662117392010-04-16T09:37:11.776-07:002010-04-16T09:37:11.776-07:00Alright, let's try this one:
http://www.intu...Alright, let's try this one: <br /><br />http://www.intuitiontester.com/summary.html<br /><br />Insufficient details, misleading, conflating, etc. Yes, all such critiques may be true. But I don't think so. My analysis of the preponderance of experimental data shows small, but real, repeatable effects. That those effects can be pragmatically useful despite high variance does not surprise me.<br /><br />I'm still waiting for a reply to my inquiry on the remote-viewing site's data. I know that the author was planning a human powered voyage across the Pacific Ocean, and that may be under way now.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-58955725302013965902010-04-16T00:56:45.056-07:002010-04-16T00:56:45.056-07:00People can claim anything. Especially when it is ...People can claim anything. Especially when it is so easy to believe, and so easy to confuse causation with correlation.<br /><br />Unfortunately when someone actually knows about the field in question, such as commodity trading, the claims of psi being used to succeed break down upon examination.<br /><br />Similarly, while I don't know horse racing I can see the horse racing bettor is a computational physicist. That may help with figuring out odds irrespective of real psi. Intuition, sure, but not necessarily psi.<br /><br />***Why is the only one has actually made money the leader and teacher of it?***<br /><br />The teacher is the physicist and has a motive for claiming it's psi.<br /><br />However both of the other two in the 'About Us' say they haven't actually made money!! One says, and I quote, "it hasn’t proven to be a profitable venture".<br /><br />The other says he "looks forward to ARV boosting his bottom line". 'Looks forward' is not having the results.<br /><br />This is the norm in psi research, unfortunately. Once you look into it, it dissolves.<br /><br />One day it may be different, but not with humanity as it is today.<br /><br />[you can edit this part if you wish: By the way, Dean, the data you claimed was in the remote viewing files was not there. You never did provide a link to what you said was there. The data was as I said: misleading and conflating results]Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-47706442290081357702010-04-15T21:14:00.414-07:002010-04-15T21:14:00.414-07:00Another site describing using psi to make money:
...Another site describing using psi to make money:<br /><br />http://arv4fun.com/arv4fun/?p=1838Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-62516179183472086052010-03-31T21:41:05.440-07:002010-03-31T21:41:05.440-07:00All of the details are provided on that website, i...<i>All of the details are provided on that website, including the details you claim you cannot find.</i><br /><br />Really? Ok. Would you do me the favor of linking to the part where he indicates his account leverage and size of his account? Those are the key variables that fool people by randomness in trading.<br /><br />If you mean this page:<br /><br />http://www.remote-viewing.com/DataSummary05/resultsNotFiltered.htm#Anchor-Result-39122<br /><br />(And he has another page that is similar)<br /><br />On both pages it shows he is using a smaller percentage of his number of total trials for trading. But he reports his total percentages, not only the trading reports.<br /><br />That's exactly what I was saying about the fine print. <br /><br />So which are the clarifying pages on his site?<br /> <br />Where is his actual trading data? Starting capital? Leverage? Commission?<br /><br />Just show me the link and I'd be happy to read it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-19952690183948472842010-03-31T20:38:28.030-07:002010-03-31T20:38:28.030-07:00> How can it be libelous when he admits in the ...> How can it be libelous when he admits in the fine print on his site that he only used a small segment of his data for commodity trading and gives no details for his account?<br /><br />All of the details are provided on that website, including the details you claim you cannot find.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-68714932574977818602010-03-31T20:35:21.211-07:002010-03-31T20:35:21.211-07:00Machina,
I'm not a skeptic about psi. I AM ps...Machina,<br /><br />I'm not a skeptic about psi. I AM psychic (or if you prefer, have had numerous psychic experiences). I'm a skeptic about application and I'm glad you now see my point about that with your comment:<br /><br /><i>Clearly, psychic abilities don't lend themselves to publicity stunts. Otherwise it would have happened already. It's fickle. They don't call them "Subtle Energies" for nothing.</i><br /><br />Yes, exactly, thank you! Even when the "publicity stunts" can benefit many people.<br /><br />I know about JREF and that's why I proposed my challenge - to get around that. <br /><br />Thanks for the offer for more info, though.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-32592239968081920262010-03-31T20:20:46.537-07:002010-03-31T20:20:46.537-07:00Thus positive thinking does play a role.
I knew y...<i>Thus positive thinking does play a role.</i><br /><br />I knew you were going to say that.<br /><br />I'm familiar with that research and like much of it it doesn't address people who do believe and still don't get results of that sort.<br /><br />As I've said I've known children who were raised to believe and do psi from the time they were kids and they were a mess. And not psychic.<br /><br />If it were just belief the floofy new agers would be levitating.<br /><br />If belief is so all powerful why do people not fly? Schizophrenics and those on acid believe they can for a time but strangely reality asserts itself.<br /><br />It's not my belief making it so. It's reality. Otherwise I would get those psychics for trading, or for some similar project, and you would have long ago, too!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-73576163183317794372010-03-31T20:17:44.017-07:002010-03-31T20:17:44.017-07:00Then test it yourself. No one wants to be your tes...Then test it yourself. No one wants to be your test subject. I've never understood why every skeptic that walks in feels entitled for psychics to prove it to THEM. <br /><br />Clearly, psychic abilities don't lend themselves to publicity stunts. Otherwise it would have happened already. It's fickle. They don't call them "Subtle Energies" for nothing. <br /><br />Now, I think the comments page of Dean's blog is not the best place for a conversation. If you'd like to know more of why big publicity things like the JREF $1Mil don't work, and why they are not science, feel free to contact me.Machina Labshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12134934000897445709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-83540295945656544892010-03-31T20:15:21.208-07:002010-03-31T20:15:21.208-07:00Have you considered that some people are already u...<i>Have you considered that some people are already using psi abilities</i><br /><br />We already discussed that in another thread: Yes, I've considered it. Such notions have been around for 30 years. I acknowledge the possibility but of course it could simply be confusing correlation with causation.<br /><br />I'm not trying to prove psi. In my view it already exists. I'm making an offer to apply psi.<br /><br /><i>> remoteviewing.com person is clearly misrepresenting his data and claims in multiple ways.<br /><br />Careful. Such accusations are libelous</i><br /><br />How can it be libelous when he admits in the fine print on his site that he only used a small segment of his data for commodity trading and gives no details for his account?<br /><br />If you need 100 trials to prove statistical relevance and you end up only using 10 its libelous to point out that 10 doesn't count?<br /><br />I think not.<br /><br />He's a marketer and by his own admission he is implying by his data set that RV generated the commodity results but admits only a fragment of his overall data was used for trading. <br /><br />He's certainly presenting it as RV leads to successful commodity trading - otherwise, Dean, you wouldn't use it as an example - but his explanation does not support that.<br /><br />If it still libelous then that says a lot about science, progress, and freedom. But I sure won't shy away from the truth.<br /><br />Here's a great quote from over 30 years ago, from 1977 by Montague Ullman:<br /><br />"In the case of psi phenomena, for example, despite the fact that there is more general scientific agreement now concerning their existence than ever before, there is no agreement even among parapsychologists as to how they fit into the scheme of things."<br /><br />How things don't change.<br /><br />My point is there is a meta-pattern about psi, how people's attention shifts away from it, and how people excuse the lack of applicability and that shift of attention. <br /><br />It is highly repetitive.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-27696128864152426502010-03-31T20:12:09.170-07:002010-03-31T20:12:09.170-07:00> Nor does positive thinking nor worldview sudd...> Nor does positive thinking nor worldview suddenly change that; that's just another convenient rationalization.<br /><br />Not true. Empirical data shows that some of the strongest predictors of psi performance on any given task are prior belief, expectation, and openness. Thus positive thinking does play a role. If you carry a strong belief that psi cannot be used, then for you everything you see will confirm that belief. Including what I've just written.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-51014473181369424502010-03-31T19:59:42.058-07:002010-03-31T19:59:42.058-07:00Machina,
The money is not the issue. It just prov...Machina,<br /><br />The money is not the issue. It just provides a convenient and public test.<br /><br />And you're missing my point: Psi can't be harnessed for these kinds of things. Nor does positive thinking nor worldview suddenly change that; that's just another convenient rationalization.<br /><br />If you read what I posted above you'll see I'm already psychic: I predicted that there would be many reasons why it wouldn't happen. <br /><br />Ok, it's long experience in the field not psi, but I couldn't resist.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-77761105378378105072010-03-31T17:56:54.835-07:002010-03-31T17:56:54.835-07:00Energy, if you want to make loads of money so bad,...Energy, if you want to make loads of money so bad, why don't you learn how to do it yourself? <br /><br />Anyone can learn to harness these abilities, it just takes dedication. It's no different than learning a language, or earning a black belt in a martial art. The only thing different between yourself and a trained remote viewer is practice, practice, practice. And a bit of optimism.<br /><br />Nothing is stopping you but your own self doubt, and any reason you give not to try it out yourself, is just an excuse. <br /><br />It's really not that hard. I suggest the website www.psipog.net, it's great for beginners, well-balanced, down to earth (compared to what is out there).Machina Labshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12134934000897445709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-82409789072645111142010-03-31T16:40:39.538-07:002010-03-31T16:40:39.538-07:00Your exasperation is palpable.
Have you consider...Your exasperation is palpable. <br /><br />Have you considered that some people are already using psi abilities, they are already highly successful in business, the arts, science, politics, etc., and they have no wish or need to "prove" their abilities to others?<br /><br />They might not even think of their gifts as psi per se, but as periods of strong intuition, accurate gut feelings, flashes of insight, and so on. <br /><br />I've met dozens of successful people who fit this description, and privately they tell me one psychic story after another. At the upper end of this scale of noetic experiences, people have described to me spontaneous mystical experiences that instantly transformed their lives. <br /><br />As a scientist I am intrigued about such stories, and it leads me to design experiments that I can run the lab. But I know that those experiments are always going to be pale reflections of real-world, spontaneous effects, and so I am not at all worried that what I see in the lab is relatively weak and not yet stable to win big in the stock market. <br /><br />> remoteviewing.com person is clearly misrepresenting his data and claims in multiple ways. <br /><br />Careful. Such accusations are libelous. If you don't believe his results, or have questions about them, then write to him and ask politely. Don't assume.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-38509526871945584212010-03-31T15:54:52.957-07:002010-03-31T15:54:52.957-07:00Almost everything business model reflects consumer...<i>Almost everything business model reflects consumer mentality, in which people want their stuff NOW, and the bottom line is profit. Everything we know about psi flies in the face of that.</i><br /><br />That is a false dichotomy and another convenient excuse. <br /><br />The business model is actually about investments in the future, not wanting your stuff now. Consumers want their stuff now, businessmen invest to hopefully in the future gain results from consumers.<br /><br />Also, Keith Harary and whoever is behind the remoteviewing.com link Dean provided have claimed that psi was used for their results; they used psi to make money, supposedly.<br /><br />Now it is true that Harary has abandoned his claim that psi works, and the remoteviewing.com person is clearly misrepresenting his data and claims in multiple ways. <br /><br />Unfortunately as is common in the world of psi you need specialized knowledge to tease apart the obvious flaws. I have that knowledge in regards to trading commodities but not Ganzfield experiments. Why is it that if you do have the knowledge people's dissembling about psi become so apparent? <br /><br />Unfortunately for claims of psi the constant excuses - the edge is just not quite stable enough; it doesn't apply to business (?); mysteriously people stop pursuing right at the point where you would expect further progress - tend to wear out most reasonable people's patience.<br /><br />The more likely prospect is psi is at a kind of interface of consciousness and reality. It does not mean 'All is Mind' and psi will usher in the use of the Force. <br /><br />It looks much more like the opposite: Psi is extremely subtle, a very minor or tiny part of our reality, and will remain that way.<br />It will tease people who want a secular religion for the rest of time, at least based on what humanity is now. Perhaps quantum computing and genetic engineering will change that.<br /><br /><i>I think as more and more people realize we're all connected, and we're all stuck on the same big ball with limited resources and a fragile life support system, psi will become more of an inevitable realization. </i><br /><br />How does psi realization connect with "limited resources and ... etc"? <br /><br />Religious people and apocalyptarians of all stripes also say "diminished resources/hard times will lead to OUR realization". <br /><br />Psi is by its nature tapped into the infinite.<br /><br />Do you think that people with strong psychic abilities can't solve so-called limited resources? We come very close to solving them and may in fact solve all of that without psi.<br /><br />Psi would only lead to complete information and ability to alter reality. How is psi different from a time traveling machine, an infinite knowledge machine, how is PK + clairvoyance different from nanotechnology?<br /><br />Psi could, if even slightly stronger, be used to find out how to increase or to increase psi and then you can do basically anything.<br /><br />As is common in the field of psi there is a constant tendency to say "one day it will be different" for various highly questionable reasons.<br /><br />That is more like religious belief and lot less like science.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-75626101452922029812010-03-30T15:28:11.961-07:002010-03-30T15:28:11.961-07:00Almost everything business model reflects consumer...Almost everything business model reflects consumer mentality, in which people want their stuff NOW, and the bottom line is profit. Everything we know about psi flies in the face of that. The state of mind conducive to psi requires patience, quiescence, dedication. And psi abilities are free, you don't need to buy anything to use them.<br /><br />I think as more and more people realize we're all connected, and we're all stuck on the same big ball with limited resources and a fragile life support system, psi will become more of an inevitable realization. <br /><br />Despite all that, as soon as someone announces producing a Psi Switch, I'm pre-ordering a dozen ;) *wink wink*Machina Labshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12134934000897445709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-17555065885194369072010-03-30T15:09:58.263-07:002010-03-30T15:09:58.263-07:00Is there a magical dollar amount? In a way: Yes. ...Is there a magical dollar amount? In a way: Yes. Great question and that's exactly what I am willing to tackle this with my Psychic Challenge if someone can provide a talented psychic or three for a trading edge.<br /><br />I did follow your link and unless he reveals more information there is a significant problem with $100K profit.<br /><br />First, what is the amount of starting capital? If he had 2 million dollars making 100K is nothing; pure chance. <br /><br />Second, what was the leverage? Randomness alone can account for short-term gains on a high leverage account.<br /><br />His data makes no sense from a commodity trading perspective. It's highly unlikely that he traded over 3000 times in a 7 year period and made money yet that >3000 trials is what he uses as data.<br /><br />So what is the source of his data on his supposed predictive accuracy if not the markets? He is filling in data in some way; those aren't all trades.<br /><br />He is clearly conflating his overall tests with his claims on the market! <br /><br />As I say above, I have an open, real-world offer on exactly this subject.<br /><br />With a simple system for compounding interest, a few basics of trading, and applied psi if it can provide a statistical edge I can show anyone who is psychic the route to multi-millions. <br /><br />So what's the magic number? What I said in my offer: Start with 5-10 K and make 1 million dollars.<br /><br />If the project starts to bear fruit you will have people lining up around the world to put their money into the fund which will reduce the compounding needed to hit 1 million in profit.<br /><br />As I mentioned elsewhere I acknowledge some rich people may be psychic. However they often don't know they are and I can't say for sure whether it's that or something else.<br /><br />That remote viewing link, for someone who knows the markets, is full of unanswered questions. His profits do not reflect what he describes in terms of # of trades and without further details it could easily be chance.<br /><br />Oddly he stops at 100K which is around where Keith Harary stopped with his team, and of course Keith has abandoned psi as an explanation. Which means randomness is more likely as the explanation.<br /><br />Send me some psychics who can maintain an edge and I'll swap currency market knowledge for their ability and we can literally change the world, no exaggeration. There must be psychics who have consistently tested well. Are they all rich and retired?<br /><br />All this pre-supposes psi can be made into something more at all, which is what I doubt and I why I pose the challenge.<br /><br />I understand it is not now nor has it been in anyone's lifetime reliable. What I'm saying is I'm highly skeptical it ever will be. No one can prove either way, but drawing analogies to electricity only go so far when the analogies are imperfect and this amount of time in studying psi has passed.<br /><br />Not every phenomena can be extrapolated to larger things.<br /><br />Psi has retreated from the dramatic tales of the past, levitating yogis, public spoon bending, etc, all in exact tandem with increased scrutiny. Is that really what, just a coincidence?<br /><br />So this is a clear numerical answer to what would establish psi. If we apply it to finance I'm just scratching the surface in terms of potential earnings. <br /><br />And that financial potential is why I am also so puzzled/skeptical about Mr Allen and Sonys retreat from further study or application.<br /><br />Something is obviously just not right with where things stand with psi; it does not make sense.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-44821786245381785012010-03-30T13:57:50.851-07:002010-03-30T13:57:50.851-07:00> Unlike electricity you have to be fantastical...> Unlike electricity you have to be fantastically unimaginative to not see the potential uses for psi.<br /><br />For reliable, unambiguously clear psi, yes. But that's not where we are. Today's understanding of psi is like Ben Franklin's sparks. We know the phenomenon exists through controlled experiments. We just don't know enough yet to create the high reliability effects that can underlie the kinds of products or services you have in mind.<br /><br />I've provided a link to someone who decided to put what we do know to the test, and even with our uncertain knowledge he did make money. Is $100K not enough of a demonstration? Is there a magical dollar amount where suddenly psi becomes real?<br /><br />> This is such a constant and inexplicable aspect of psi research ...<br /><br />Only inexplicable if you believe that people make decisions rationally when it comes to issues like money and power, which is how the business mind usually regards potential uses of psi. In addition, the very concept of psi as really real, and not some sort of SciFi fantasy, freaks out lots of people. So this realm of experience carries its own peculiar baggage.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-57546430383135450452010-03-30T11:00:02.364-07:002010-03-30T11:00:02.364-07:00Unlike electricity you have to be fantastically un...Unlike electricity you have to be fantastically unimaginative to not see the potential uses for psi.<br /><br />The issue with psi is that very fact: It is so useful as well as so subject to so-called bootstrapping. If you get a little bit of it you've likely got it all.<br /><br />For example, if someone were truly clairvoyant they would get the answer for <i>how to be more psychic</i>. The same goes for PK - you could use it to modify your own psychic abilities.<br /><br />Also as I point out with my Psychic Challenge anyone with a reasonable edge could use it not only to have a tremendous lifestyle but also be able to fund continuing psi or other research to their heart's content. Strangely that does not happen.<br /><br />Psi is insanely useful so what is stopping it is definitely the puzzle of its nature, not whether it can be used.<br /><br />As for Paul Allen and Sony Corp I notice as a long-time watcher of psi research how quintessentially perfect it all is: Here we have supposed businessmen using their money to fund small amounts of psi research and you say they did get results and yet there is no follow-up by either them or their successors?<br /><br />So either businessmen don't want to make money or psi again resists further application. I doubt in either case results were adequate to be applied in either case; or there is some other agent at work preventing the obvious, their own psi research!, from being applied.<br /><br />This is such a constant and inexplicable aspect of psi research: Claims of success yet always not quite enough success or some deflection of attention when you would expect people to grab onto it with both hands!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-8595220512808981222010-03-30T01:51:00.308-07:002010-03-30T01:51:00.308-07:00There is one curious issue about science. It has m...There is one curious issue about science. It has made success by excluding the very instrument it uses to create itself: The Mind.<br /><br />I feel this is a kind of "Emperors new clothes" situation. By first excluding subjectivity from the universe, and then developing increasingly sophisticated theories based on the idea of objectivity, the western world has effectively fooled it self into thinking that objective materialistic theories are reality. But without our minds and all it encompass, no such theories would be possible in the first place... It doesn't take too much to figure this out, although a university education can do wonders to suppress the obvious. <br /><br />It is no wonder then that paradoxes arise when we start to poke at what we think is the fabric of reality. Quantum physicists discussed these issues in the early 20th century, and now it has become increasingly clear that our fault lies in the basic assumption of objectivity. There is no objective world apart from us. <br /><br />Anyone interested can have a look at what Anton Zeilinger has to say about the issue. Here is his lecture and interview from when he received the Isaac Newton medal in June 2008:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.iop.org/activity/awards/International%20Award/page_31978.html</a>Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-89592511631261589592010-03-29T16:55:14.060-07:002010-03-29T16:55:14.060-07:00> Dean, the main difference with the analogy wi...> Dean, the main difference with the analogy with the kite-flying is that aspect has been proven, at least to non-skeptics, for some time.<br /><br />Of course, but at the time no one would invest in kite flying because the effect was capricious, weak, and no one could imagine any use for it. Psi is a far more difficult problem than electricity because it involves consciousness in some way, and no one understands how subjectivity can arise in presumably non-conscious hunks of tissue.<br /><br />We are so used today to seeing scientific advances made in terms of weeks rather than years, that when faced with a super-complex problem like consciousness, some assume there's no progress. Well, there is progress, it's just exceedingly slow because very few people are seriously engaged in psi research, and the problem itself might be so far beyond our current understanding that we're still at the stage where we're asking the wrong questions. <br /><br />Psi is not the only difficult question out there. People are still dying of cancer even after trillions of research dollars have been spent. Why? Because the problem is more complex than we can presently understand. There are plenty of similar problems.<br /><br />> As for Paul Allen and Sony Corp can you say what led to their closure? Was it lack of a way to translate what was found into business?<br /><br />In the first case psi research was a tiny, inconsequential portion of the research portfolio. That lab was designed as a 10-year experiment. It closed after 10 years. In the second case, the founder of Sony, who was the champion of the project, died, and his successors were interested in other things.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-59986154313616277882010-03-29T16:36:03.182-07:002010-03-29T16:36:03.182-07:00Dean, the main difference with the analogy with th...Dean, the main difference with the analogy with the kite-flying is that aspect has been proven, at least to non-skeptics, for some time.<br /><br />The combination of personal experience, anecdote, and the reading of psi literature even 25 years ago pretty much showed some results, although hard to control ones. I remember at that time people just like you, Keith Harary, Charles Tart, Russel Targ, even Arthur C. Clarke (who also later claimed much of what he earlier believed he no longer believed; 99% of psi was bunk) all saying the same about science and psi. <br /><br />Of course pure inquiry is useful and may pay off. That's also something I thought for 20+ years. But at some point there has to be a push for bigger results.<br /><br />The real question I am posing is is it an innate quality of psi to be a relatively weak phenomena that resists practical application on a larger scale? I currently believe it is innate to the realm of psi to resist consistency and the kind of real-world experiment I propose.<br /><br />The odds in trading, for example, do not require a large edge but they would require a consistent one.<br /><br />As for Paul Allen and Sony Corp can you say what led to their closure? Was it lack of a way to translate what was found into business?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-52848009226102783782010-03-29T15:44:45.867-07:002010-03-29T15:44:45.867-07:00Few people I know have a consistent enough "e...Few people I know have a consistent enough "edge" to make this type of effort feasible, but I do know people who are giving it a try. <br /><br />The challenge seems reasonable, but it's like saying to Ben Franklin that your kite-flying experiment is interesting, but we needn't pay much attention to it unless we can make those sparks do something useful. Or to Marie Curie, your "hot rocks" are an interesting lab curiosity, but what are they good for? <br /><br />Sometimes we can know a thing is real, but we don't know enough yet to turn it into a reliable technology. In our pragmatically-oriented world, many people only value ideas if they can be turned into money. Fortunately, other people are motivated enough by sheer curiosity to study sparks, hot rocks, and psi. <br /><br />> Paul Allen, partner of Bill Gates, and Sony Corporation funded psi and then both shut down their respective research due to lack of results.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. In both cases the lab closings had absolutely nothing to do with results from psi experiments, because they were successful in both cases. In the first case I know this because I was there (in fact, in charge of the program), and in the second case I know something about the research that was conducted and its results.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-40145825879964072892010-03-29T15:25:02.440-07:002010-03-29T15:25:02.440-07:00This is an offer and a challenge regarding psi in ...This is an offer and a challenge regarding psi in the real world.<br /><br />Given that psi is argued here and elsewhere to provide a statistically significant edge I want to see whether this can be proven in a real-world test that psychics can benefit from financially.<br /><br />For those of you are familiar with the odds in gambling you will know that both blackjack and trading currencies or futures have relatively small edges in favor of the house/broker.<br /><br />If you have read Keith Harary's work (a supposedly psychic wunderkind who has since renounced belief in psi) you know he once argued that the edge in psi applied to the odds in blackjack present a winning combination if you play with a fairly easy-to-learn strategy for maximizing your odds.<br /><br />This is also true in trading markets where you are basically only playing against the broker. <br /><br />Recently Dean has linked to someone supposedly using remote viewing for trading commodities. The remove viewer had acquired a grand total of $100,000. Not to knock this amount of money but anyone who knows trading knows that even starting with what you can borrow on a credit card - 5 to 10 k - can be rapidly expanding to 1-2 million dollars in less than a year IF you have a rock solid statistical edge.<br /><br />So my challenge is if you can find me a small number of people who have shown statistically significant abilities in precognition/clairvoyance (to the extent this can be determined) I will help acquaint them with the money management and other facts involved in using their edge in the real world, in the world of trading.<br /><br />I am not convinced the claims of a reliable statistical edge exist nor that psi can be applied consistently in the real world, so consider this a blend of a friendly offer and a throwing down of the gauntlet in challenge to anyone reading this.<br /><br />-Show me you have a track record (mandatory).<br />-Show me you have an edge.<br />-Commit to a relatively short period of trading, less than one year.<br /><br />If you can do it you will get from this:<br /><br />1. Enough money to retire<br />2. Enough money to fund parapsychology research<br />3. Real world proof that will definitely have the world's attention<br /><br />I predict that <i>for some mysterious reason</i> no one will be interested despite our economic downturn and the promise of financial freedom; or that also for some mysterious reason will be unable to show they have an edge; or be unable to complete using their supposed edge in a real-world environment despite huge benefits; or that some other rationalization will be made to prevent this from going forward.<br /><br />Dean, I welcome you or anyone you know of in the community to pass this along to any people who have shown psychic talent.<br /><br />I will post this challenge on my blog. I welcome any refinement of protocol, but obviously the great thing about this is the results will speak for themselves.<br /><br />Markets and gambling offer beautiful, indeed ideal, places to test a supposed edge.<br /><br />Let's bypass Randi and experiments and create something. If these claims about psi and an edge are true you could fund endless psi tests via the psychics applying their skills to the markets.<br /><br />To my knowledge every attempt to do something along these lines fails. Paul Allen, partner of Bill Gates, and Sony Corporation funded psi and then both shut down their respective research due to lack of results.<br /><br />Similarly Keith Harary had a group of psychics work on predicting the silver markets and again mysteriously stopped with assorted rationalizations when they acquired an amount of money that was frankly negligible in the world of commodity trading.<br /><br />That's my challenge. If you can present psychics then this can go to real world application. I'll help people learn what to do and can even manage the account. <br /><br />I don't think it will happen and as per usual there is really no good reason why not but this is my offer regardless.<br /><br />My blog:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.energybodyways.com/blog/psychic-challenge/" rel="nofollow">EnergyBodyWaysPsychicChallenge</a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07672954476071211697noreply@blogger.com