Defying Mining Probabilities with Willpower

[Schleicher]

If you think you can influence random events then it's probably a good idea to read this:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[1714928089]

1714928089

[1714928089]

1714928089

[1714928089]

1714928089

[1714928089]

1714928089

[1714928089]

1714928089

[1714928089]

1714928089

[the joint]

I don't have to back up anything.  Take what I said or leave it.  I said earlier that I remember learning about it in high school science class.  I already know that when I think about moving my arm, I can move my arm, so it's already established that mental thoughts affect physical reality.  Not sure why this is so much harder to believe.  The peer review system is arguably the single largest obstacle to scientific progress, so I don't really give a shit about citations.

I've been known to make up entire bibliographies for my papers in college and grad school (Big Dog Publishing Company, anyone?).  Somehow I keep getting A's.

Yet it's standard world-wide. Something tells me that you just can't find evidence to back your statement up, and you don't want to look like a fool.

On a related note:

So, there have been scientific experiments that suggest that "the joint" is a retard.  Specifically, "the joint" is able to significantly make retarded posts beyond what could be expected of a normal forum member...

No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it.  And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated.

[bitdragon]

how about we stop giving our power away continuously and stop believing we yield no effect nor influence on our life, health finances love and coincidences.
We don't need to be a boat swayed by the waves in all and any directions. Everything around us in this world started in the imagination from tesla to Einstein to all architects and bitcoin itself. That is not due to chance, it cannot be. Your life is the result of what you dwell on most of the time.


I'll repeat the citation :
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html

edit:
"The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one. "

[the joint]

how about we stop giving our power away continuously and stop believing we yield no effect nor influence on our life, health finances love and coincidences.
We don't need to be a boat swayed by the waves in all and any directions. Everything around us in this world started in the imagination from tesla to Einstein to all architects and bitcoin itself. That is not due to chance, it cannot be. Your life is the result of what you dwell on most of the time.


I'll repeat the citation :
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html

edit:
"The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one. "

Well said.

[grue]

No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it.  And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated.

That does not prove anything. It simply means whom ever marked your paper neglected to verify the citations.

also

Skeptics such as Robert T. Carroll, Claus Larsen, and others have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted,[3][4] saying the data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.[5] Other critics, whilst disagreeing with GCP findings, have noted that the open operation of GCP "is a testimony to the integrity and curiosity of those involved."[6]

I can already see why the experiment is flawed. The events that are chosen to be "significant" are chosen by the experimenters, who, like all humans, have confirmation bias.

[the joint]

No, it's more like I simply don't want to waste my time looking up a citation because some stranger thinks he needs it.  And apparently it's not a standard world-wide if they keep giving me A's on papers in which every single reference is completely fabricated.

That does not prove anything. It simply means whom ever marked your paper neglected to verify the citations.

Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them.  Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles?  The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety.  On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility.

Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it.  "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here.  You must be well informed!  A+!!!"

[bitdragon]

come on Grue!
You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision?

"data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.
"
That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health.

Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong.

Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that.

One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life.

[bitdragon]

how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding?

[grue]

Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them.  Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles?  The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety.  On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility.

Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it.  "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here.  You must be well informed!  A+!!!"

Never said it was perfect. Nor did I imply that citation = must be true. The only reason I asked for a citation in the beginning is to know if there are any solid scientific studies based on it. Why did i ask for that? I found it suspicious for you to use vague terms like "scientific experiments".

come on Grue!
You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision?

"data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.
"
That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health.

Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong.

Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that.

One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life.

how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding?

I did, but all it did was list some major events, and the supposed deviation from normal. The site is obviously not going to list its flaws, not even the flat-earth society is going to do that. Hence why i went to wikipedia to get an alternate perspective. Is it so wrong to look at a source outside the official project?

[bitdragon]

Citations don't prove anything either, and neither do published, peer-reviewed articles that accompany them.  Have you ever really sat and READ most of these research articles?  The vast majority of them are either horribly designed, terribly written, assert conclusions that simply cannot be implied from test results, or have results that are themselves fabricated by the researchers for personal gain or notoriety.  On the other hand, creating a research design to test the effects of intention on a random computer process is pretty hard to fuck up, so I'm more inclined to trust what I heard, especially when I have overwhelming amounts of first hand corollary experience that give credence to its plausibility.

Also, I'd bet that for many people, adherence to the belief of the infallibility of the peer-review system only discourages them from actually finding the reference article and dissecting it.  "Oh, so it looks like you got some good citations here.  You must be well informed!  A+!!!"

Never said it was perfect. Nor did I imply that citation = must be true. The only reason I asked for a citation in the beginning is to know if there are any solid scientific studies based on it. Why did i ask for that? I found it suspicious for you to use vague terms like "scientific experiments".

come on Grue!
You will find whatever you seek. Quoting some citation without delving in the project itself and make your own informed decision?

"data anomalies reported by the project are the result of "pattern matching" and selection bias which ultimately fail to support a belief in psi or global consciousness.
"
That is intellectually very poor and proof that you have not followed progress in science one iota. It's like using quackwatch.org to improve your health.

Why deprive you of the wonders of curiosity and think for one instant that everything you knew was wrong.

Whatever you believe, you will find true and we are all, including you, a prime example of that.

One belief is more empowering, the other weakens us but both are made true. It may be interesting a while, but it does not need to be continued for ever long, the belief that you have no impact whatsoever and anything at all in this world and your life.

how about reading the project itself, this one and others and not rely on wikipedia for your understanding?

I did, but all it did was list some major events, and the supposed deviation from normal. The site is obviously not going to list its flaws, hence why i went to wikipedia to get an alternate perspective.

There is 12 years of data.
Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal?
Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life.

[bitdragon]

"Is it so wrong to look at a source outside the official project?"

 nothing is wrong, but be honest with yourself.

Edit: thanks for the laugh though. One of those outside sources is from http://www.skepdic.com/globalconsciousness.html
Fair and balanced.

[interlagos]

Isn't it a mainstream science already that tells us that consciousness defines the reality?
I'm talking about "Double Slit Experiment" in quantum physics.
In this experiment the electron only takes the form of matter when there is a conscious observer,
without which it forms an interference pattern being a superposition of all possible outcomes.

So yes, the willpower is there and it works, there is no doubt about that, it forms the reality around you.

As to the "reliable" or "credible" sources, the only source of knowledge is your own consciousness
and the ability to connect the dots while getting information from as many sources as possible.
If you only limit yourself with "official" sources it's an invitation for abuse.
The real power is decentralization, this is how bitcoin works after all.

[grue]

There is 12 years of data.
Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal?
Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life.

If it refutes the 12 years of data, even one sentence fragment will do. The data is valid, but the interpretation is flawed.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers.

tl;dr confirmation bias strikes again

[the joint]

There is 12 years of data.
Yet 3 lines from wikipedia is sufficient for your soul to close the deal?
Bless you, young man. May you be happy in whatever you pursue in life.

If it refutes the 12 years of data, even one sentence fragment will do. The data is valid, but the interpretation is flawed.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003. The data showed no sign of it. The space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry on February 1, 2003, but had no effect on the random number generators. An earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999 killed nearly 4,000 people, but you wouldn’t know it from examining the pattern of random numbers.

tl;dr confirmation bias strikes again

Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning).  This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation.  But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.

Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it.  The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change.  In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.

TL;DR:  Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.

[grue]

Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning).  This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation.  But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.

Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it.  The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change.  In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.

TL;DR:  Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.

You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart.

On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you.

[bitdragon]

Let's do it! I will gladly contribute my thoughts and intention to such an experiment.
Same results all the time although random. Seems like the perfect setup.

[interlagos]

Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning).  This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation.  But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.

Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it.  The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change.  In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.

TL;DR:  Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.

You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart.

On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you.

With your intention you will not change the outcome of the hash function itself, but you will choose a different reality in which your hashing device will process a different set of data resulting in a solved block.

Our science is only getting to the point of understanding these phenomena, and providing any sort of proof will be very subjective. If you see something with your own eyes is it an ultimate proof? Someone might just say it was a hallucination...

If you are interested in what might be possible once we reach the next stage, check out this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_6R8YBlv4
I'm afraid, it will make our current science obsolete.

[grue]

With your intention you will not change the outcome of the hash function itself, but you will choose a different reality in which your hashing device will process a different set of data resulting in a solved block.

Our science is only getting to the point of understanding these phenomena, and providing any sort of proof will be very subjective. If you see something with your own eyes is it an ultimate proof? Someone might just say it was a hallucination...

If you are interested in what might be possible once we reach the next stage, check out this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_6R8YBlv4
I'm afraid, it will make our current science obsolete.

uh oh, don't go philosophy on me bro.

Let's do it! I will gladly contribute my thoughts and intention to such an experiment.
Same results all the time although random. Seems like the perfect setup.

[bitdragon]

in terms of science, even CERN has proven the existence of a field by splitting up a photon and sending both particles in different directions. Affecting one immediately affects the other. And yes, faster than the speed of light. Oh my God!

Gregg Braden has some interesting science to share and bridge some gaps.

and with the same token, how about willing and appreciating the success and adoption of bitcoin in the world.
Dwelling on some positive thoughts, albeit my humble ones for now.

Bitcoin or something better brings many blessings and positive effects in all areas of the world and especially in the financial world.

Bitcoin is a success
Bitcoin is positive for humankind
Bitcoin spurs economic development
Bitcoin serves the greater good from the bottom up
Bitcoin is empowering
Bitcoin is powerful
Bitcoin is used across all continents
Bitcoin is amazing
Bitcoin is easy to use and spreads exponentially
Bitcoin is part of progress and helps other far fetched areas
Bitcoin is supported by sound and effective developers
Bitcoin is evolving constantly
Bitcoin is strong and resilient
Bitcoin is decentralized
Bitcoin allows for a smooth transition from the past debt system
Bitcoin is a means of exchange
Bitcoin supports other means of exchange
Bitcoin brings people together
Everyone who would benefit from bitcoin, is drawn to it
Bitcoin is viable and sustainable
Bitcoin is everywhere
Bitcoin is here to stay
Bitcoin is creative
Bitcoin is portable
Bitcoin is safe
Bitcoin is friendly
Bitcoin is beautiful
Bitcoin helps education
I take action to promote Bitcoin
I use Bitcoin
I love Bitcoin
I benefit from Bitcoin
I have a successful bitcoin business
I add value to the bitcoin economy
My bitcoin business helps the bitcoin economy
I help others setup their own bitcoin business


If an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it. A Einstein.

Please add/edit to it to it make more absurd albeit positive.
movie, audio tapes and subliminal tapes will follow. As I will gladly watch and listen and feel bitcoin succeeding.

[the joint]

Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning).  This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation.  But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.

Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it.  The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change.  In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.

TL;DR:  Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.

You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart.

On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you.

Who says it's a mathematical operation?  Who says it's random?  It's you, and the only reason you believe it is because everyone else does too (ad populum is a logical fallacy, though it doesn't make something less pluasible).  And by the way, random is a bullshit word, anyway -- "It was caused by randomness."  Go figure that one out.  Additionally, absolutely every single definition of anything is essentially a theory of it; we live in a world of theories whether you like it or not.  This includes operational definitions which are the basis for knowing what the hell it is you want to measure in the first place.  When you say you want "results," you are asking for the results of what happens when one piece of reality (us) tries to measure some other piece of reality, without taking into account the entire system in which we both inhabit.  But, without understanding the 'theory of theories,' (aka Universe) you are simply asking for results to pile atop a nonexistent foundation.

Fortunately, the things that help us learn about the 'theory of theories' are self-evident.  The 'results' you are looking for are an indirect route to knowledge whereas direct experience is, well, a direct route to knowledge. "What one can prove, he does not know.  What one knows, he cannot prove." ~ Me

On a side note, I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal.  I was following up on the 'double slit experiment' because it was mentioned by someone else.