The easiest way to guarantee winning the lottery is buying every ticket. If it's one of those guess X number ones, then buy a ton of tickets with every permutation covered. 
{"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"}
buy a ton of tickets with every permutation covered.
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.
]]>{"name":"1135257621504.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/8\/681d01a99a7e91e3a814412d389d8546.gif","w":600,"h":191,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/8\/681d01a99a7e91e3a814412d389d8546"}
"In homeopathy the effect of the drug remains in the dilution because water has a memory."
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? 
Remote viewing is just an algorithm.
one that can be run in the human brain.
the algorithm is not too too complex what is the complex part is the amount and diffrent types inputs used and stuffed into the algorithm.
In other words the remote viewing algorithm can be coded But the trick is how do you digitize the diffrent type of inputs used.
]]>
This is absolute garbage and it pisses me off that people even claim to be able to do this sort of thing.
Remote Viewing is not real. Not a hoax, per say, but more of something along the lines of pseudo-science. It is impossible to "Remote View" anything. It cannot be done. Not once has there been a respectable study that published results in favor of this "power" that has been peer reviewed and verified via procedure mimics; thus, the scientific community (in general) has come to a consensus that RV does not exist in a true and natural manner.
Anyone who believes in this garbage is either ignorant or oblivious to the fact that no reliable evidence of this phenomena exists.
]]>Since we live in a deterministic world, it definitely is real.
Anyone who believes in this garbage is either ignorant or oblivious to the fact that no reliable evidence of this phenomena exists.
You've just described pretty much every religious person on the planet. Some of whom, it is worth pointing out, are very aware of the scientific process.
]]>You've just described pretty much every religious person on the planet.
I'm aware of that but I kept from pointing that out in attempt to evade a flame war.
Some of whom, it is worth pointing out, are very aware of the scientific process.
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)
]]>And I pointed out in my first post that people are quite willing to throw reason out the window if it gets in the way of their wants and desires. It makes no difference if it's $1.5M, $1.5K or eternal life.
]]>Some of whom, it is worth pointing out, are very aware of the scientific process.
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.
]]>{"name":"the_data_so_far.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49f25b82ae3e2bc4651c5cfd0f5dc950.png","w":325,"h":310,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49f25b82ae3e2bc4651c5cfd0f5dc950"}
Has the guy in the video won anything?
]]>i remember studying remote view in college it has a long history with the c1a a groups of that effect
]]>it has a long history with the c1a a groups of that effect
The CIA doesn't even have a long history.
]]>I know that was a flame but dude some would say the usa doesn't have a long history ether. your reply is subjective.
]]>I know that was a flame but dude some would say the usa doesn't have a long history ether.
It doesn't, that's why.
your reply is subjective.
As was your original statement.
]]>As was your original statement.
There have been military tests into the paranormal. Particularly extrasensory perception. They found there is something to it. But they aren't sure what.
]]>There have been military tests into the paranormal. Particularly extrasensory perception. They found there is something to it. But they aren't sure what.
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.
]]>They found there is something to it.
There is nothing to it. It doesn't exist.
]]>It doesn't exist.
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.
Stop asserting negatives
Stating a fact that something does not exist is not a "negative". It is a statement of zero bias and is backed only by empirical and falsifying evidence.
]]>And yet those military tests shows somewhat positive results. You can't claim they don't exist 
And yet those military tests shows somewhat positive results
You're trying to make an argument from authority, saying that just because an authoritative figure developed some sort of evidence, that means it's true. This is a logical fallacy and is not coherent at all.
You can't claim they don't exist
Yes I can. As I said before, the only respectable and legitimate evidence regarding ESP, paranormal phenomena, etc. is evidence that falsifies its existence. I would like to read the results from these "tests" you are in so much favor of.
]]>Stating a fact that something does not exist is not a "negative".
Of course it is. You can't prove something doesn't exist, or that evidence doesn't exist, because there's such a thing as evidence that has not yet been found.
And yet those military tests shows somewhat positive results. You can't claim they don't exist
Sure he can. I've been down this road ...
You're trying to make an argument from authority, saying that just because an authoritative figure developed some sort of evidence, that means it's true.
He's claiming that evidence exists which proves that evidence exists. He never said it was true, and just "having evidence" wouldn't prove it was true anyway. But you knew that.
Okay I'm leaving; too much deja vu for me here ...
]]>Of course it is.
No it's not. Saying something is "stupid" is negative.
You can't prove something doesn't exist, or that evidence doesn't exist, because there's such a thing as evidence that has not yet been found.
This is true, but you are forgetting that we can disprove something based on falsifying evidence.
]]>Frankly, neither of you have shown evidence, falsifying or otherwise, so I'm calling you both out and going for supper. 
Saying something is "stupid" is negative.
No it isn't (though it is a statement with negative connotations). You stated "X doesn't exist." And you do not what doesn't is a contraction of right? Does not. In other words your statement was "X does NOT exist." Now, please state how that is not a negative assertion.
Out of curiosity, do you think atoms did not exist before their existence could be proven?
I would like to read the results from these "tests" you are in so much favor of.
They don't exist obviously (edit: conclusive tests I mean). That still doesn't prove conclusively that psychic phenomena don't exist. Yes, it's very unlikely they don't, but their non-existence hasn't been proven yet.
]]>No it isn't
What in the hell. You completely misquoted me. I did not post the words that you quote that I did.
Does not. In other words your statement was "X does NOT exist."
I don't mean it is not negative in the sense of a relative negative assertion. I mean that it is not negative in the same sense that telling children that monsters are not real.
Out of curiosity, do you think atoms did not exist before their existence could be proven?
Jesus fucking christ. Read my posts. You can disprove something with falsifying evidence and no supporting evidence. Obviously, there was never any conclusive falsifying evidence that atom's did not exist before their popular emergence in modern day science.
Yes, it's very unlikely they don't, but their non-existence hasn't been proven yet.
Once again. Yes it has. Via falsifying evidence.
What in the hell. You completely misquoted me. I did not post the words that you quote that I did.
Oh really?
{"name":"601940","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5bfa030d05104e38debdfb368dd787ed.jpg","w":715,"h":190,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/b\/5bfa030d05104e38debdfb368dd787ed"}
I don't mean it is not negative in the sense of a relative negative assertion. I mean that it is not negative in the same sense that telling children that monsters are not real.
Then say what you actually mean instead of being vague. You criticise other people for logical fallacies and then use vague statements to make your point.
Once again. Yes it has. Via falsifying evidence.
Then give us your evidence. So far, you're just talking out your ass.
]]>Oh really?
OH MY GAWD. Maybe I have dyslexia. In any case, insert the word "not".
Then say what you actually mean instead of being vague
There was no "vagueness" implied. A simple misunderstanding
Then give us your evidence.
What the fuck. If anyone needs to show any evidence, let it be those who believe in this crap. Not once in recorded history have they shown any conclusive supporting evidence (I've said this so many times in this thread). As far as the factual side of this argument, seek for the evidence yourself. I'm not going to go googling around looking for all the science articles and blogs I've read about about falsifying experiments.
So far, you're just talking out your ass
Nice Ad Hominem.
]]>What the fuck. If anyone needs to show any evidence, let it be those who believe in this crap.
You asserted that evidence doesn't exist. We're just wondering what evidence you're basing that statement on. 
There was no "vagueness" implied. A simple misunderstanding
If you use a word with multiple meanings without specifying which meaning you are using, that is being vague.
What the fuck. If anyone needs to show any evidence, let it be those who believe in this crap.
Yes they do. But you're also making assertions that you claim are tru, so you have to as well, or you're no better than them.
Nice Ad Hominem.
Until you show what you're basing your claims on, we have to assume you're just making it up.
p.s. You should stop focusing on "logical fallacies" and remember there are other ways to make a bad argument (some of which you appear to be very good at).
]]>They don't exist obviously (edit: conclusive tests I mean). That still doesn't prove conclusively that psychic phenomena don't exist. Yes, it's very unlikely they don't, but their non-existence hasn't been proven yet.
Well, if hairs are to be split, existence isn't a proposition to be proven. A more fruitful approach to understanding the paranormal would be to ask the following:
1. What truths can be stated about the paranormal?
2. What testable hypotheses can be formulated regarding documented paranormal phenomena?
]]>You asserted that evidence doesn't exist. We're just wondering what evidence you're basing that statement on.
I though you were leaving to eat supper . Anyway, I'm basing that assertion off of an enormous amount of research I've done on this stuff; off the fact that we still have lotteries (like Dammers said) and off the fact that if conclusive evidence of ESP existed, then the target subjects of those experiments would be so incredibly popular for their "super powers" that you would never hear the end of it. Not to mention their self empowering roles in religious practices and leadership.
I though you were leaving to eat supper .
Been an hour, dude. That's supper, desert, picking my teeth, and a round of Starcraft II multiplayer. Anyway, if I had ESP and knew I couldn't prove it or teach it, I'd just use it to improve my lot in life and never tell a soul. So, yeah.
]]>Anyway, I'm basing that assertion off of an enormous amount of research I've done on this stuff
Oh, well and good then. Case closed.
if I had ESP and knew I couldn't prove it or teach it, I'd just use it to improve my lot in life and never tell a soul.
That's the secret behind the richest, most powerful people in the world. They all have ESP
Russell's teapot is coming to mind.
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot or Cosmic Teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.
]]>That's the secret behind the richest, most powerful people in the world. They all have ESP
Impossible; there's no evidence!
Russell's teapot is coming to mind.
That's ESP talking. 
{"name":"johnny-carson.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/6\/4630a8b0d5ec1b850d3452c6a8a2d383.jpg","w":472,"h":349,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/6\/4630a8b0d5ec1b850d3452c6a8a2d383"}
Impossible; there's no evidence!
{"name":"601941","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/b\/bb218df1e6af9fe570eb5b85b3e8e526.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/b\/bb218df1e6af9fe570eb5b85b3e8e526"}
Why would god need cotton candy?
]]>It's candy floss, dammit! 
Russel's teapot is just an imaginary object created by Russel himself. The only purpose of it is to be a tool for explaining philosophical thoughts. There are no people who wish it was true. But there are people who wish God exists and they build up their view of life, universe and everything on that. Some live a happy and fulfilling life that way, some don't.
There are also people wishing that remote viewing were true. There are lots of failed experiments, that in the long run should give people a hint of how things really are, concerning remote viewing (the lotto number type of it). And no experiments verifying that it exists. So the whole concept is a creation of a human mind. And not a very scientific human mind, so don't compare to Democritus and his atoms.
Yes, I admit that I used "scientific human mind" very subjectively.
<edit>
OMG, I just came up with a horrifying thought. First I thought of quoting something about spirituality that Tobias mentioned. I was going to reply something that whatever spiritualism or deities your 42-view includes, if you succeed to live and die happy, that's the only thing what matters. Well, that's been said before, too. But my horrifying thought was this: "that's the only thing what matters"! Why is the word matter used here? I strongly believe homonyms affect our mind. Simply because language itself forms the brickstones of our thinking. Well, matter is well defined in physics, something that exists in the "real" world. So, to the question "What really matters in life?" an easy answer would be something related to the "real" world, to the materialistic or "matter" world. So if your mother tongue is English, you're more likely to grow a materialistic 42-view.
There are no people who wish it was true.
Just like FSM! oh wait....
]]>I've never understood this definition of science that involves being unable to prove a negative. A casual glance reveals that there are no dragons in my room. If anyone doesn't believe it, they can come and see for themselves. And yet, I'm not supposed to say that there are no dragons in my room?
It seems very similar to the skeptic's challenge, which states that there's no way we can ever know if anything is true. It could be an illusion, you could be insane, etc. And yet, there's a very compelling answer to the skeptic's challenge:
The skeptic is urging us to consider reality in an improbable way. Since we are interested in knowing "the truth", we take that which is most probable, and use it for our basis of understanding. We discard things which are extremely improbable, unless the time comes when they seem more likely, at which point we may call them a new "truth".
I think this is the only real way to understand the universe without descending into madness. Thus, it is true that there are no dragons in my room.
]]>Invisible dragons.
Boo-ya.
]]>You cannot ever prove anything, true or false, in the sense that everybody everywhere will agree with you. But you can prove things, true or false, beyond a reasonable doubt. (Although it is usually much harder to prove a negative.)
If there's no rational reason for, purpose for, or evidence of something existing, then I won't believe it... not because I don't think there's any possibility at all, but because I'm generally not in the business of making things more complex than they need to be.
]]>I'm generally not in the business of making things more complex than they need to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
[EDIT]
This was hiding under my bed!
{"name":"toddlerpede-doll.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/27687e9ec9736d8fc3f3e80431263ae6.jpg","w":500,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/7\/27687e9ec9736d8fc3f3e80431263ae6"}
I've never understood this definition of science that involves being unable to prove a negative. A casual glance reveals that there are no dragons in my room. If anyone doesn't believe it, they can come and see for themselves. And yet, I'm not supposed to say that there are no dragons in my room?
It seems very similar to the skeptic's challenge, which states that there's no way we can ever know if anything is true. It could be an illusion, you could be insane, etc. And yet, there's a very compelling answer to the skeptic's challenge:
The skeptic is urging us to consider reality in an improbable way. Since we are interested in knowing "the truth", we take that which is most probable, and use it for our basis of understanding. We discard things which are extremely improbable, unless the time comes when they seem more likely, at which point we may call them a new "truth".
I think this is the only real way to understand the universe without descending into madness. Thus, it is true that there are no dragons in my room.
Scientifically speaking, you'd have to come up with definitions of "dragon", "room", and "there are no X in Y". You will have to define this in terms of something, and that something needs to be defined in terms of another something, and so on, until you reach a point where your somethings are so basic and simple that you can state them as your set of axiomae. Since an axiom, by definition, cannot be proven wrong nor false, the best thing you can hope your scientific theory will prove is that there are no dragons in your room provided that your set of axiomae is true. Your theory will be more plausible the smaller and simpler your axiomae.
]]>Since an axiom, by definition, cannot be proven wrong nor false, the best thing you can hope your scientific theory will prove is that there are no dragons in your room provided that your set of axiomae is true.
It is axiomatic that even small children know what are "dragons", "rooms" and what it means to be "in" something.
]]>ax·i·o·mat·ic ˌæksiəˈmætɪk
–adjective
1. Acting or operating in a manner essentially of an axe-like, mechanical nature.
Saurfang was finally defeated by an orc with axiomatic arms.
]]>ax·i·o·mat·ic/ˌaksēəˈmatik/Adjective
1. Self-evident or unquestionable.
2. Relating to or containing axioms.
The earlier definition was the King James version.
]]>