I attach a short report from 2 remote viewing sessions (extrasensory perception) that I did today. I've done many more in the past, which adds to the many books and the overwhelming statistical evidence produced by PEARL (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab) and the Stanford Institute.

If you really think you can prove this stuff, you can become very rich very easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

Too bad it's James Randi and his staff that decide whether to award the prize or not. It's very dodgy, the same people who have to give their money also decide whether to give it away or not. A bit difficult to be impartial, right? There should be an independent committee that judges the outcome, but the way the James Randi prize is set up is very unfair and stupid.

The rules prohibit independent judging, making the success or failure of the challenge dependent on whether Randi agrees that the test has been passed. Astronomer Dennis Rawlins claimed the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out"

Precognitive perception of a fractal.

ESP is a faculty that seems to benefit from a long period of rest (rest from using it). Be it because one feels fresh or because of a novelty effect, the effects are usually stronger when one has not consciously exercised this faculty. After a few months of rest, I produced this output when the (precognitive) remote viewing target was the attached photo.

“Water, metal, ship, white objects”
The target picture is a ship at sea, with white objects (the marines in white uniform) and metal (the coffin). Whether it's just luck or not, resemblance is striking.

To me, the empirical facts produced by psychic investigation provide support for Chris Langan’s CTMU, which is a contemporary, more sophisticated version of George Berkeley (esse is percipi), which in vulgar terms could be conveyed as “our perceptions create reality”.
“If we regard the scientific method as a theory about the nature and acquisition of scientific knowledge (and we can), it is not a theory of knowledge in general. It is only a theory of things accessible to the senses. Worse yet, it is a theory only of sensible things that have two further attributes: they are non-universal and can therefore be distinguished from the rest of sensory reality, and they can be seen by multiple observers who are able to “replicate” each other’s observations under like conditions. Needless to say, there is no reason to assume that these attributes are necessary even in the sensory realm. The first describes nothing general enough to coincide with reality as a whole – for example, the homogeneous medium of which reality consists, or an abstract mathematical principle that is everywhere true - and the second describes nothing that is either subjective, like human consciousness, or objective but rare and unpredictable…e.g. ghosts, UFOs and yetis, of which jokes are made but which may, given the number of individual witnesses reporting them, correspond to real phenomena. “(http://www.ctmu.org/)

Could you write up these experiments conducted on yourself into a paper?

Could you write up these experiments conducted on yourself into a paper?

That's a good suggestion. I will.

Yes but Philbrick and I are talking about ESP (Extra-sensory perception) which is not PK (Psychokinesis). I think I possess both PK and ESP but they are distinct abilities so they deserve separate experiments (and eventually papers).

Well, either are easy to test. I can generate 100 random digits (say, integers between 0 and 1) which I will write down on my whiteboard and take a dated picture. You can then try to guess them.

Piffer seems unwilling to do this simple experiment. Of course, if Piffer was magical, it would net him a million dollars. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

Before throwing mud on my head, you'd better explain that we've agreed on another experiment but that you cannot perform it because you are unwilling to buy color pens. A good experimenter should not carry out a second class experiment just because he is unwilling to buy very basic equipment. I also despise your hilarious tone, it just reveals your arrogance. This is our Skype conversation


[11:12:25] Emil: how about: i generate 100 numbers between 3 and 6, then i draw the appropriate figures on my white board. u then get to remote view them.
[11:12:38] duxide84: that's better
[11:12:46 | Modificato 11:12:49] Emil: figures are N-angles
[11:12:54] Emil: so 3 = triangle
[11:13:03] Emil: 4 = rectangle
[11:13:05] Emil: etc.
[11:13:19] Emil: i only go up to 6 because drawing large N-angle figures by hand is hard
[11:14:42] Emil: large as in large N, not size on my whiteboard
[11:14:50] duxide84: it'd be better if you could add more information...such as colour...use a combination of digits to build a figure...like the first digit represents number of angles, the second digit represents a color
[11:15:04] Emil: i dont have a color drawer
[11:15:07] Emil: so that cant be done

You came close to slander by misrepresenting my intentions. I said that I wasn't doing that experiment because I wanted to perform a better one and you omitted to specify this. We had agreed on Skype on another experiment but you said the experiment cannot be done because you don't have color pens. What a great reason! Just buy them! I will give you 2 dollars to cover the cost.

It's funny how many social scientists are willing to accept the p= 0.05 significant threshold when it comes to most matters of psychology, but they won't accept staggeringly high significance in the case of other topics (such as ESP). At least the skeptics now have come out of their dens and admitted that yes, there is strong evidence for ESP, and this evidence would be strong enough for accepting any other phenomena, but this is not strong enough for accepting ESP! A dutch psychologist (I forgot his name) once even claimed that the subjective Bayesian probability for accepting the existence of ESP should be 1 in a gazillion (I forgot how many billions). In my opinion this makes the entire business of science a joke, if acceptance of findings has to be based on a subjective feeling of how likely the results are. It's nothing but a silly tautology and similar to moving the goalposts (no matter what results you get, if you keep raising the subjective threshold for accepting a p value, you'll go on till infinity). Now a meta-analysis published in 2010 found odds against chance of 6 billion to 1 in favour of clarvoyance. This meta-analysis was replicated by skeptic psychologists who, despite trying all sorts of tricks, the worst estimate they could get was odds of 330 to 1, and yet they still couldn't accept this value. This is the link to their absurd paper: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Rouder2013Bayes.pdf
To me this is simply scientific racism and discrimination based on personal bias.
I don't like skeptics, I think they're a bunch of arrogant pricks. They are the same people that think "beating the market" is impossible and claim price movements are random simply because they cannot find order in them. They turn their failure to detect something (either because they're not smart enough or they're too arrogant to analyze the data unbiasedly) into a reality (it's like saying "I am blind, thus colors do not exist). Now if I had listened to these people I'd have never been able to beat the market. Luckily I know they're idiots (they're usually the same people who deny ESP) so I dismissed them and now I have been consistently profiting from the market. My bank account doesn't care about skeptics' sophisms.

Yes but Philbrick and I are talking about ESP (Extra-sensory perception) which is not PK (Psychokinesis). I think I possess both PK and ESP but they are distinct abilities so they deserve separate experiments (and eventually papers).

You might be aware of this already, but the U.S. government has done research on both ESP and PK. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201212/the-psychic-espionage-you-paid They found evidence for an information transfer anomaly, but none for psychokinesis. (The author of this article uses the term "information transfer anomaly" instead of ESP, because the term ESP assumes we know something about the causal mechanism, whereas "information transfer anomaly" only describes the statistical phenomenon itself.) One of the people involved in this project, Joseph McMoneagle, was awarded the Legion of Merit in 1984 for the information he obtained via remote viewing about Soviet military projects.

These sorts of effects were also researched at Princeton University. This research did find some evidence of PK, although the effects were very small. Princeton's research is summarized here: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/experiments.html

This research is moderately well-known in the United States, but I'm not sure how well-known it is among people who live in other countries. Were you and Emil already familiar with it?

Yes I've read all the books by Jahn and Dunne (including the latest, Consciousness and the source of reality) and all the books by Targ and Puthoff. It's hilarious that despite all this evidence there are still people who go around cock-sure that ESP is just BS. See also my previous post for more comments. See also my previous post for evidence gathered from Ganzfield experiments.
If the evidence for ESP is stronger than for PK, it's because PK is weaker. This is something I've also found in my own research, where my best performance is in clarvoyant experiments. The results I get for PK are much weaker (see attachment my trials with Psyleron. Each cell is the average of 100 trials, each trial being 200 bits (0-1). Note that the effects I found are of the same magnitude as those found at Princeton (0.04%). They're not significant because you'd need to carry out the same experiment on hundreds of people (one person does not suffice) to get a big enough sample.Nonetheless, I think this is encouraging because the magnitude is in line with Princeton's estimates.