A thought on learning

[Centh]

If I guess the coin right, I'll keep the flip going on that trial until failure. If I don't guess the trial right at all, immediate failure.

First trial: guessed right 5 times in row (1/2)^5
Second trial: immediate failure
Third trial: Two times in row (1/2)^2
Fourth trial: immediate failure
Fifth trial: 4 times in row (1/2)^4
Sixth trial: immediate failure
Seventh trial: immediate failure
Eighth trial: 2 times in row (1/2)^2
Ninth trial: immediate failure
Tenth trial: immediate failure

Yeah, I think those results speak for themselves.

 

[Centh]

Corresponding chances if I'm just guessing

1: (1/32)
2: fail
3: (1/4)
4: fail
5: (1/16)
6: fail
7: fail
8: (1/4)
9: fail
10: fail

 

[Centh]

Think what you want, but bad data is bad data is bad data... That's how peer review works. I'm not your average internet rube willing to believe anything. In fact, I don't believe... Well... Anything.

I work in the realm of doubt and information and tested models. If you don't like that, it's your problem

Look above. This isn't exactly peer reviewed, but I don't know why I would lie about failing so hard.

 

[Jarhyn]

Look above. This isn't exactly peer reviewed, but I don't know why I would lie about failing so hard.

If you would like, I'll put together a few tests that would pass peer review. I can put together a bot to query coin flips from Google I to an encrypted file, upload it, and request a second encrypted file with guesses from you. Then, we share the passwords, and find out how you did.

That way neither of us can POSSIBLY lie. Not that I expect you to, but this is for the edification of others who can't trust either of us at face value

 

[Centh]

If you would like, I'll put together a few tests that would pass peer review. I can put together a bot to query coin flips from Google I to an encrypted file, upload it, and request a second encrypted file with guesses from you. Then, we share the passwords, and find out how you did.

That way neither of us can POSSIBLY lie. Not that I expect you to, but this is for the edification of others who can't trust either of us at face value

Sure, sounds fun, but look at my trials. I didnt even get a cool streak. If you want to add my voice to the cacophonous choir of crackpots who talk about spirituality, I'll co-operate.

 

[Mider2009]

You could try producing an alchemical stone. Say. Lemongrass.

You think I’m a troll cause I find your ramblings bullshit?

telling people to chant chocolate, to create philosopher stones

Saying you need no teacher when you claim Roma is your teacher?

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

Dear mider,

I do not think you're a troll. The reason why I chose troll at that comment was that I did not say that I do not have a teacher I do I actually have two teachers however one is on the side of mysticism the other on the side of magic.
Now as for my failure in magic, I am and have been a neophyte for a while the difference lies, in that in the past I was not focusing on it as hard as I do now.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sure, sounds fun, but look at my trials. I didnt even get a cool streak. If you want to add my voice to the cacophonous choir of crackpots who talk about spirituality, I'll co-operate.

I guess I'm just trying to point out (not even for you) what standards of evidence exist for people who reject the concept of trust based belief.

I've discussed materialist spirituality in the past here, and there are a lot of people who reject trust based belief who nonetheless want to have some reason to accept things such as magic and spirituality.

As I have said, I'm not going to reject the existence of faeries and demons and angels in people's lives and experiences. It's right in my first post in the thread about the minds born within the human brain which may communicate on channels not easily perceived among our cleartext exchanges.

These have been observed and characterized again and again in the ways human biology commonly precipitates the nodes of our brain as we form.

I expect we will find buried steganograohic messages created by and intended for such hidden elements of ourselves in addition to elements such as commonly shared stories, experiences, and meditations openly discussed which embed the necessary information to be foisted upon the mind, so to tease such into more conscious awareness.

I think that the fastest way to shut down the hopeful marriage of the esoteric and the exoteric is in fact to call people crackpots. It's just not useful, unless the goal is stupid made up internet points, and that goal itself is also not productive.

It is far better to discuss what standards of evidence we hold in this pursuit, and why, so we can all move past beliefs vulnerable to charlatans. Such charlatans steal from us the very possibility of credibility, and continually corrupt the corpus of knowledge on the engineering of the human mind.

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

Imagination and creativity are keys to magic. These can be qualities found in both arts and sciences.
Magick is the art and science causing change in conformity with will.
So, it might be useful to concentrate on a blend of art and science limited by imagination and creativity held under will.
The lust for results stops magic in it's tracks.

 

[Centh]

I guess I'm just trying to point out (not even for you) what standards of evidence exist for people who reject the concept of trust based belief.

I've discussed materialist spirituality in the past here, and there are a lot of people who reject trust based belief who nonetheless want to have some reason to accept things such as magic and spirituality.

As I have said, I'm not going to reject the existence of faeries and demons and angels in people's lives and experiences. It's right in my first post in the thread about the minds born within the human brain which may communicate on channels not easily perceived among our cleartext exchanges.

These have been observed and characterized again and again in the ways human biology commonly precipitates the nodes of our brain as we form.

I expect we will find buried steganographic messages created by and intended for such hidden elements of ourselves in addition to elements such as commonly shared stories, experiences, and meditations openly discussed which embed the necessary information to be foisted upon the mind, so to tease such into more conscious awareness.

I think that the fastest way to shut down the hopeful marriage of the esoteric and the exoteric is in fact to call people crackpots. It's just not useful, unless the goal is stupid made up internet points, and that goal itself is also not productive.

It is far better to discuss what standards of evidence we hold in this pursuit, and why, so we can all move past beliefs vulnerable to charlatans. Such charlatans steal from us the very possibility of credibility, and continually corrupt the corpus of knowledge on the engineering of the human mind.

I mean, I'm not trying to change the history books or anything. I would love to if I could. I posted my trials here to show you that I'm not worth documentation yet. I probably wont ever be. I'm less inclined to be spiritual than I have been for years because I've continually done stuff like this: I've tested my intuition and manifestation.

I want my work to be true, I don't just want to believe it. If I never again believe any of the work I'm doing, I only hope that it is real.

I cut into myself by calling myself a charlatan, because that's just what I am. I claim to have an intuition, I try to use it constantly. It is only in the most sobering moments, the moments where I fail utterly, where it's revealed that I am wrong. That's why I posted my failure: If I didn't, I would be lying to you.

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

I mean, I'm not trying to change the history books or anything. I would love to if I could. I posted my trials here to show you that I'm not worth documentation yet. I probably wont ever be. I'm less inclined to be spiritual than I have been for years because I've continually done stuff like this: I've tested my intuition and manifestation.

I want my work to be true, I don't just want to believe it. If I never again believe any of the work I'm doing, I only hope that it is real.

I cut into myself by calling myself a charlatan, because that's just what I am. I claim to have an intuition, I try to use it constantly. It is only in the most sobering moments, the moments where I fail utterly, where it's revealed that I am wrong. That's why I posted my failure: If I didn't, I would be lying to you.

If you want measurable results that pertain only to yourself, then you might try using tarot and your intuition, sharpening your intuition, that might open up clairvoyance and clairaudience for you.
Of course .. if you are looking for scientific results, then you would have to figure out how to prove that clairaudience and clairvoyance to others, like say Jonathan Edwards.

 

[Ancient]

is only in the most sobering moments, the moments where I fail utterly, where it's revealed that I am wrong.

Perhaps the efficacy of these skills can ebb and flow. I do not think that any single failure (or even isolated groups of failed attempts) is worth dismissing the ability as a whole.

I also suspect that nearly any magical experience will be able to have a mundane explanation. We do live in a causal universe after all. If I ever come up with scientific rationale for these theories I’ll be sure to let you know

 

[Centh]

If you want measurable results that pertain only to yourself, then you might try using tarot and your intuition, sharpening your intuition, that might open up clairvoyance and clairaudience for you.
Of course .. if you are looking for scientific results, then you would have to figure out how to prove that clairaudience and clairvoyance to others, like say Jonathan Edwards.

Ive been doing tarot for years, and I'm good at it.

 

[Centh]

Perhaps the efficacy of these skills can ebb and flow. I do not think that any single failure (or even isolated groups of failed attempts) is worth dismissing the ability as a whole.

I also suspect that nearly any magical experience will be able to have a mundane explanation. We do live in a causal universe after all. If I ever come up with scientific rationale for these theories I’ll be sure to let you know

if magick became science (which is what I hope for) it would be mundane

 

[Centh]

A reminder, though. Just because I don't believe in my own ability doesn't mean I believe in yours, Ownchef.

If magick is real, then I've got something. But if it isn't real, I have no magickal ability, and neither does anyone else.

 

[Öwnchef]

I never lie.

 

[Öwnchef]

That was a lie

 

[DiLoco_DelEted]

Alright. I'm out of this Convo.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean, I'm not trying to change the history books or anything. I would love to if I could. I posted my trials here to show you that I'm not worth documentation yet. I probably wont ever be. I'm less inclined to be spiritual than I have been for years because I've continually done stuff like this: I've tested my intuition and manifestation.

I want my work to be true, I don't just want to believe it. If I never again believe any of the work I'm doing, I only hope that it is real.

I cut into myself by calling myself a charlatan, because that's just what I am. I claim to have an intuition, I try to use it constantly. It is only in the most sobering moments, the moments where I fail utterly, where it's revealed that I am wrong. That's why I posted my failure: If I didn't, I would be lying to you.

And this is the first step towards learning: "I am wrong, I merely don't know how."

 

[Vandheer]

I'll give an example: I have mildly affective intuition. It's definitely more reliable than fringe guessing. I once guessed 14 coin flips correctly in a row, that's probably the most tangible way to demonstrate it. Guessing 14 coin flips in a row is a 1/2^14 chance, or as a %, a 0.0061% chance. I can make myself get really good rolls in Dragon Ball Z: Dokkan Battle. That's pretty much the extent of it.

Ah, maxwell the great retard has come to pollute this forum too?