{"name":"nCF0q.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a8fd533972f893513621ad7730d2c5d7.jpg","w":604,"h":453,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a8fd533972f893513621ad7730d2c5d7"}

I remember about 25 years ago the local paper had some sort of crossword with a list of possible answers underneath, if you could guess their twisted reasoning for the answers, you'd win an accumulative total of $150 per week since the puzzle had last been solved. You were allowed to turn in hand drawn duplicates to fill out additional puzzles (no xeroxing allowed).

There was this woman who nagged me to help her fill out 225 of these things to "guarantee" we'd win $1500 (puzzle unsolved for 10 weeks). Her reasoning was that there were two possible answers for each question, and so 15 ^ 2 = 225. I pointed out that the possible answers must be 2 ^ 15 = 32768, since if one more answer was inserted, all the earlier puzzles must be duplicated for the second possibility for the 16'th question, so it'd be 2 * 2 * 2 ... * 2 for 16 times. She refused to look at it that way, and when she completed about 150 puzzles by herself by the deadline, blamed me for not helping her and it was all my fault she didn't have $750 in her pocket. Such is the lure of fantastic rewards that people will believe any stupid superstition, no matter how easily refuted.

I looked into remote viewing. It's not all scam, but it's over hyped... and misnamed, imo. One of the good seminars I have on it, among the half a dozen bad ones, describes it as being more conscious of your intuition and "gut feelings". Therefore, if you intuitively already have knowledge of the lottery numbers, you could tap into that using remote viewing techniques. So all you have to do for it to work is to have pre-existing knowledge of the winning numbers. That's not hard, right?

Since we live in a deterministic world, it definitely is real.

I'm aware of that but I kept from pointing that out in attempt to evade a flame war.

There is a distinct difference between having faith for personal reasons, and believing in a supernatural deity or "god" (such as the common Judeo-Christian-Islamic God)

Science and deep spirituality aren't mutually exclusive.

Science, however powerful and inevitable, has proven itself to be incomplete by definition, at both ends of its explanatory power - it has to start off with a set of axiomae (which, by definition, you have to take for granted on blind faith), and with a sufficiently complete set of axiomae and rules, it is always possible to find a well-formed expression that cannot be proven true nor false without from within the scientific system it comes from.

Especially the branches of science that deal with psycho-social effects, everything between neurology and philosophy I'd say, have a very hard time finding useable axiomae and operating using only scientifically rigid methods. The classic philosophic questions are hard, if not impossible, to answer using scientific methods, and although the numerous philosophers past and present have been doing their best, these questions remain at least a matter of personal opinion, belief, spirituality, and choice.

However, for things that science does have authority on (and Remote Viewing certainly is one of them, seeing how easy it is to set up a scientifically rigid experiment to verify or falsify its existence), there is no excuse for believing things that have been proven wrong. Homeopathy doesn't work any better than a placebo, all instances of psychic events, UFO sightings, and similar X-files stories, can be explained as statistical noise, and there is no explanation how Remote Viewing would bypass the rules of causality, nor any rigid research showing significant evidence that it does indeed work.

If you really can win the lottery using psychic techniques (in any way that is easier than buying all the tickets), then please please please explain to me why we still have lotteries.

Has the guy in the video won anything?

The CIA doesn't even have a long history.

It doesn't, that's why.

As was your original statement.

I'm aware of that. They even made at least one movie about it. It's the long history part of his post that was subjective.

Stop asserting negatives; if the theists can't do it in the religious debates, you can't either. "They have not found any evidence" would be more accurate. And still up for debate with the moose, I suppose.

And yet those military tests shows somewhat positive results. You can't claim they don't exist