Carl-Richard

Thanks for perservering and reading through the entire thing 😃

She is not his girlfriend 😠 They co-founded Project Blueprint together as business partners 😊

If you wanted to beat death, where would you start?

I just randomly got recommended this one 😂:

I agree with all that, except calling it "less likely". Psychic phenomena is so much more common than you think. It's an everyday occurence for many people, and in a real sense, like @The Crocodile is saying, reality is psychical. Because let's even assume Rainbolt used distinct memories of past games to somehow deduce Mexico and Pretoria, South Africa. Even if we grant he isn't able to fully "download" the correct answer with atleast some deliberation and weighing of options, how exactly does his mind pull out the relevant things to deliberate on? Why those particular memories? And how does his mind land on exactly those two options and not anything else? I bet if you gave a computer access to all of his previous games and made it present a list of most plausible answers, you would have a long list of almost equally plausible answers, and you would have no good reason to decisively pick one over the other. The very mechanics of the human mind is psychic. It acts on very limited information, and it pulls that information seemingly out of nowhere. More generally, it runs on relevance realization. And that's what distinguishes us from AIs and why we currently don't have fully autonomous robots doing everything humans can do.

There seems like there is no pattern, meaning I can't find any pattern. "This is literally just blue". He was given a random zoomed-in picture of a blue sky. That seems like all that was going on there. If you find something, please tell. Sure, but I think you're overestimating what I'm really saying here. I'm not here to undoubtably prove psychic phenomena, even though the title might suggest that. This is all I said: I'm not the one framing this as either/or. Materialist, highly improbable and vague "explanations", are fine too. I'm just pointing out that psychic explanations are particularly fine. When you see essentially a color and you derive that we're speaking of Mexico, and then you straight after derive we're speaking of Pretoria, South Africa, that's headshot for psychic phenomena. If you want to go out to definitely prove psychic phenomena, there are other ways to do that. Man, I didn't bring up materialists having to justify their metaphysics; you did 😂 Again, I just said this looks, smells and feels like psychic phenomena, and then I point out that @Nemra's skepticism seems to be putting materialism as the default position and making it harder for him to see that, because again, he is willing to gulp down five-digit probabilities and vague nothing-burgers. What is probably the strongest argument in favor of the non-psychical position is @something_else's estimate that he has 20k hours of playtime and that considering essentially everything is streamed, something weird is bound to be caught on tape. But I "intuit" with my pseudo-psychical powers that I could go on a Rainbolt research spree and find dozens of such clips where psychic phenomena similarly looks like an obvious explanation. You can take that up if you want and "prove" that I'm indeed "psychic" (or just lucky? 🤔).

It "seems", meaning as far as we can tell, there is no pattern. If not, what is the pattern? I was not bringing up idealism vs physicalism here to argue for or against either one. I was just showing how similar the thinking is between physicalists and skeptics of psychical phenomena when encountering an anomaly, as a rhetorical device, as many here are familiar with the flaws of physicalism. I'm not establishing anything. I'm saying the video becomes so simple to explain when you grant psychical phenomena. And I'm pointing out how not-simple the alternative explanations are. There is no mechanism but the fact that information is gathered and beamed into your mind so to speak. It's truly mysterious. And that's not a problem. It's materialists that need to find a mechanism. They believe they have standalone existence, as I said.

There seems to be no pattern. But if there is and we just don't know about it, sure. But then look at what this starts sounding like: When materialists try to explain consciousness, they appeal to ideas like strong emergence (consciousness arises from physical processes but we can't know exactly how or point to any specific mechanism) or weak emergence (we should be able to know how but we just don't know yet). When some materialists try to explain quantum collapse, they invoke an infinite amount of invisible universes that we have no empirical evidence of. Suddenly, they are willing to entertain the most absurd and groundless hypotheses just to hold on to their materialist assumptions. Meanwhile, if you grant idealist assumptions, the answers become simple: consciousness is at the bottom, physical quantities are the results of measurement and don't have standalone existence. Likewise, when granting psychic assumptions, the answers become simple: information about the universe can be obtained non-locally; no five-digit probabilities, no vague unexplained patterns/mechanisms.

No.

You're assuming a lot there 😂 He said "Mexico" — it was Mexico. He said "Pretoria, South Africa" — it was Pretoria, South Africa. It's as if he picked that information straight out of the ether. I think for virtually any piece of information suggesting psychic phenomena, you can always assume it's luck or they're cheating or appeal to some vague pattern. So again, I'm not saying it's 100% undoubtable proof that it's psychic phenomena. But if you grant psychic phenomena exist, psychic phenomena is an obvious go-to explaination. It's a materialist predisposition to start going into epistemological nihilism mode and granting five-digit-level probabilities and vague learned patterns. Put a little differently: you seem to be generally not convinced about the existence of psychic phenomena, and your bar for invoking it as an explanation is therefore very high, because you want to be convinced about it; you want 100% undeniable proof. And you default to any other explanation no matter how unlikely or vague until you get that. But if you are already convinced it's possible, the bar for invoking it is much lower.

Well, the game he played was called "pan and zoom". So it supposedly takes a random image from Google Street View somewhere in the world and zooms in on a part of the image. So granted that the image selection process is random, that's still random. Whichever way the game chooses to zoom in on the image should not have anything to do with the image that is chosen. But sure, maybe the image selection is not random, but that's what we're told, and you should maybe find some concrete evidence to the contrary if you want to seriously entertain it.

Like you say, there are many reasons why you could crash a car. There are fewer reasons why you could guess a country by looking at the blue sky. You can easily name the reasons for crashing your car, while with guessing the country, you appeal to either luck or something ethereal and vague like "learning a pattern" (that from the perspective of the person doing it is indistinguishable from both luck and intuition). Thomas Campbell has some stories. People who experience psychic phenomena are often in denial. And go figure when people cannot do anything but gaslight you about it. Again, you will always call it luck if you don't have another explanation, no matter how unlikely it is.

"Determine" is a strong word. "Strongly suggest" is a better one. It's a cop-out answer because there is no condition no matter how absurd where you would not invoke it. It's the God of the gaps of statistical reasoning.

Well, he still guessed the correct country, and the math I showed still applies granted the assumption of equal probability for all countries. He in fact also guessed the correct city for one of them, so the probability is even more astronomical than that. Of course, there are ways to narrow down the probability. Although the game is supposed to pick a random image from Google Maps (according to Rainbolt himself), most images on Google Maps are taken around crowded populated areas (as that is where there are proper roads for the Google street view car to drive). But even then, there are many crowded areas in the world. Maybe the game engine is not random. However, look at our options now: he either is extremely lucky, or he has learned some extremely subtle pattern that he has no way of personally introspecting into and distinguishing from luck, or he intuitied the correct answer because that is how intuition works sometimes (you simply tune into a "data stream" as Campbell would call it). If you're grasping onto to the materialist paradigm, all of the explanations seem quite ridiculous. If you don't grasp onto the materialist paradigm, one of the answers are quite simple.

If he is just lucky, he is extremely lucky. There are 195 countries in the world, and he guessed the right one twice. That's 1/195 × 1/195 = 1/38025 ≈ 0.00263% chance (given that each country are equally likely). When I create five-digit participant codes for my study participants (I run a random generator on 0-99999), I don't even care to check if the numbers are unique, because it's so unlikely that they're not. Events with five-digit probabilities when rolled only a few times are astronomically unlikely.

Haha no. It just felt like I was a bit numb and my body was lighter than usual. The visual field seemed a bit flatter and "fluid".

I'm not a Stockholm Swede but a Vestland Norwegian, so close enough (not really). I remember one time I was technically in benzodiazepine withdrawal (but only mildly), I was drinking with some of my friends and I started thinking about how I had become tolerant to the GABAergic effects of the alcohol and that I would start to feel more of the NMDA antagonist effects than usual. And at one point I tried to do some pushups in the bathroom and it felt a little more weird than normal alcohol. I have never tried dissociatives outside N2O, but I could see how that would be what a threshold amount of ketamine would feel like.

That's what materialists call "quantum woo-woo". I can see Professor Dave sniveling something fallacious and dogmatic like "anybody with the most basic understanding of QM knows that non-locality only applies to single particles, not macroscopic objects 🤓🙂‍↔️".

Got an example?

He gets a photograph and is supposed to guess where in the world the photograph was taken. He got a photograph of a clear blue sky twice and guessed the right country twice.

It could be faked, but he has many clips similar to this, and they're all livestreamed on the go. Most of his impressive clips are definitely mostly down to knowledge and memory, but these two clips are less likely to be that. And it makes perfect sense for someone who is good at GeoGuessr to have good intuition. And sometimes, intuition has no explanation other than you're literally downloading some information from the ether.

Logic is an attempt at putting pure structure into words.

I just stumbled upon this video summarizing a cutting edge research-finding from December 2024 that have given new insight to how cancer cells grow when exposed to glucose and also glutamine, meaning that a ketogenic diet that also eliminates sources of glutamine could significantly reduce cancer cell growth. They did the study on brain tumors but have yet to study other cancers.

My God did you just call Sv3rige intelligent? He once tried to debunk a statement in a video he was reacting to by referencing a study and linking it in the description for people to read. He linked a case study from the 1800s. A case study, from the 18 fucking 00s. I'm not joking. And it didn't even address the statement, as the statement was about the total digestive time of different foods from consumption to excretion while the case study only looked at digestive time in the stomach. I'm still not joking. I pointed it out and it seems like he has now removed the link. EDIT: Haha I just saw the topic was locked, I was so eager to respond I forgot about it. I apologize 🙂🙏

😝