Psychic phenomena caught on cam

[The Crocodile]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

He could have guessed 1000 times the approximate location with the setting, and I would have said he's lucky for 1000 times.

That's really stupid.

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, The Crocodile said:

That's really stupid.

Actually, it's stupid and cringe to believe that someone is psychic based on some short video that someone does two approximate guesses and to defend it to death using the existence of psychic phenomenon as a justification.

[The Crocodile]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Actually, it's stupid and cringe to believe that someone is psychic based on some short video that someone does two approximate guesses and to defend it to death using the existence of psychic phenomenon as a justification.

Statistical significance for example would be if he got a hundred-trillion country guesses correct. You understand?

Now if you still don't get it, you don't get it and never will. Go away.

Edited Sunday at 01:13 AM by The Crocodile

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Nemra said:

@Carl-Richard, he didn't even click on the accurate location as the game is about guessing the exact location.

So, in a sense, he misses most of the time.

Also, by looking at the skies, you cannot gain intuition about where they can be looked from.

So, he got either extremely lucky or, as I said, he has some intuitive understanding of that game and uses that to determine what the next location could be if there aren't enough objects to link them to some location.

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.

Edited Sunday at 02:42 AM by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Nemra said:

He did two lucky guesses looking the images of skies. You cannot determine that he's psychic based on that. A lot of information is needed.

"Determine" is a strong word. "Strongly suggest" is a better one.

 

6 hours ago, Nemra said:

So calling it luck is the best answer.

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.

Edited Sunday at 06:51 AM by Carl-Richard

[Nemra]

@Carl-Richard, I didn't even say that he could not be psychic. However, you cannot, as you would like to say, strongly suggest that he's one either.

More information is needed.

It's like saying that a person will always crash his car because he crashed it two times.

In that case, if he crashes multiple times, it's likely that he hasn't learned to drive, someone actively wants to crash him, or maybe some entity somehow follows him and affects him so that he always crashes.

However, you cannot conclude that with 2 incidents.

Saying that he's psychic is the "God of the gaps" type of answer to what I'm trying to say.

We don't see psychics that much. Hell, I have never seen one either.

Also, him not being aware of his supposed psychic abilities lessens our chances of knowing whether he is psychic or not.

So, calling it luck is more likely than him being a psychic for now.

10 hours ago, The Crocodile said:

Now if you still don't get it, you don't get it and never will. Go away.

Chill out.

Edited Sunday at 11:41 AM by Nemra

[something_else]

He’s probably played like 20k hours of Geoguesser. It would actually be more surprising if he hadn’t had a few insane guesses like this with that much playtime. Even as a pretty bad player I’ve had some really impressive guesses based on random intuition

He also admitted to cherry picking a lot of his impressive short TikTok clips

Edited Sunday at 12:08 PM by something_else

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

@Carl-Richard, I didn't even say that he could not be psychic. However, you cannot, as you would like to say, strongly suggest that he's one either.

More information is needed.

It's like saying that a person will always crash his car because he crashed it two times.

In that case, if he crashes multiple times, it's likely that he hasn't learned to drive, someone actively wants to crash him, or maybe some entity somehow follows him and affects him so that he always crashes.

However, you cannot conclude that with 2 incidents.

Saying that he's psychic is the "God of the gaps" type of answer to what I'm trying to say.

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).

 

6 hours ago, Nemra said:

We don't see psychics that much. Hell, I have never seen one either.

Thomas Campbell has some stories.

 

6 hours ago, Nemra said:

Also, him not being aware of his supposed psychic abilities lessens our chances of knowing whether he is psychic or not.

People who experience psychic phenomena are often in denial. And go figure when people cannot do anything but gaslight you about it.

 

6 hours ago, Nemra said:

So, calling it luck is more likely than him being a psychic for now.

Again, you will always call it luck if you don't have another explanation, no matter how unlikely it is.

[zurew]

20 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Again, you will always call it luck if you don't have another explanation, no matter how unlikely it is.

Its only unlikely if the algorithm is made the way you outlined it.

 

If the algorithm only shows the sky of a handful of countries, then suddenly someone who plays this game for as much as Rainbolt (having thousands of hours behind his back), the task can be very easy.

For example, lets entertain the possibility that the algorithm only shows the sky of 5 countries. Now if you have that background knowledge, you have a pretty good chance to pick the correct location even if you are a noob at this game.

 

 

But lets go with the scenario where the algorithm can actually show the sky of all countries. In this case, if we go with two different hypothesis, one is what you said (psychic) the other one is that his subsconscious mind picked up on certain patterns after playing the game for thousands of hours. 

Whats the argument that you can provide that would motivate us to pick your hypothesis over the other one?

Edited Sunday at 03:41 PM by zurew

[Nemra]

@Carl-Richard, nothing you said proves me wrong about the guy.

Consider that neither you nor I have had direct experience of some psychic phenomenon. We have either watched videos or gotten informed from other mediums, which is not to say it doesn't exist. We have to account for the limits of those mediums.

I don't know why you are focused on the guy in the video, who only did two guesses looking at the sky, although without pointing at the exact location.

FYI, I have watched many videos of him before. He has trained for a long time. So attributing his guesses to psychic phenomena doesn't say much.

Please don't assume as if I cannot accept if some psychic phenomenon would happen somewhere.

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its only unlikely if the algorithm is made the way you outlined it.

 

If the algorithm only shows the sky of a handful of countries, then suddenly someone who plays this game for as much as Rainbolt (having thousands of hours behind his back), the task can be very easy.

For example, lets entertain the possibility that the algorithm only shows the sky of 5 countries. Now if you have that background knowledge, you have a pretty good chance to pick the correct location even if you are a noob at this game.

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.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

I can grant for the sake of the argument that it is the way you outlined it.

 

Im curious whats the response to this:

29 minutes ago, zurew said:

But lets go with the scenario where the algorithm can actually show the sky of all countries. In this case, if we go with two different hypothesis, one is what you said (psychic) the other one is that his subsconscious mind picked up on certain patterns after playing the game for thousands of hours. 

Whats the argument that you can provide that would motivate us to pick your hypothesis over the other one?

 

[zurew]

Also if we want to go even further (I am not sure if you want to claim this)

Do you have an argument that establish why in principle there cannot be a materialistic explanation?

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nemra said:

Consider that neither you nor I have had direct experience of some psychic phenomenon.

You're assuming a lot there 😂

 

3 hours ago, Nemra said:

I don't know why you are focused on the guy in the video, who only did two guesses looking at the sky, although without pointing at the exact location.

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.

 

3 hours ago, Nemra said:

I don't know why you are focused on the guy in the video, who only did two guesses looking at the sky, although without pointing at the exact location.

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.

Edited Sunday at 07:13 PM by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do you have an argument that establish why in principle there cannot be a materialistic explanation?

No.

[The Crocodile]

@Nemra Nobody said he was 'a psychic'. All people are psychic because that's just how the nature of reality is.

[Nemra]

@Carl-Richard, the answer could also be materialistic.

More time and information is needed to negate what is not the case.

You could say it's psychic using your understanding of your direct experience of psychic phenomenon. However, materialistic answer could also satisfy.

It could be both at the same time. I don't know. Luck and psychic phenomenon could look the same. It's just that psychic phenomenon is less likely the case, but could be in the end.

I'm considering that psychic humans are less represented as they are few of them.

 

[The Crocodile]

@Nemra You don't know anything about psychic phenomena and are making nonsense assumptions.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

But lets go with the scenario where the algorithm can actually show the sky of all countries. In this case, if we go with two different hypothesis, one is what you said (psychic) the other one is that his subsconscious mind picked up on certain patterns after playing the game for thousands of hours. 

Whats the argument that you can provide that would motivate us to pick your hypothesis over the other one?

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.

Edited Sunday at 09:43 PM by Carl-Richard

[numbersinarow]

19 hours ago, Nemra said:

Actually, it's stupid and cringe to believe that someone is psychic based on some short video that someone does two approximate guesses and to defend it to death using the existence of psychic phenomenon as a justification.

Well, no, if you're more likely to think 1000 times in a row is explained by luck than admit the supernatural is real, that means you're closed-minded, that doesn't mean you're smart. That's the lowest possible sophistic side-step.

I honestly agree the video isn't amazing proof of anything, but there is proof of supernatural luck out there. You can choose to believe whatever you want about it but it's true.

"But it COULD happen in a hypothetical materialistic universe." I can't blame you for thinking that, but when you think about it deeply there is no justification for a worldview in which you have the ability to compare things and say "Okay so my mind works in such a way that I ought to be so skeptical that a hypothetical of this sort convinces me of a position." which isn't true since the first layer is whether you're aligned with the truth or not, whether your skepticism is justified or not is secondary, which, at the same time, means that it's not granted your skepticism is justified.