I appreciate the honesty. I can see how my post got so many downvotes. I definitely misused the term “statistics” by not inferring a casual and metaphorical tone.

No, I don’t believe that my reasoning is scientifically sound. I don’t claim that my observation is the final truth. I claim that my belief in such things are affirmed (albeit faintly) through the improbability that all unintentional reports and encounters all false.

Not by a long shot.

I never claimed that Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon, it was a hypothetical scenario to express a point.

If the scenario you’ve describing were to be true, then it’d be something more major to discuss than ghosts or aliens as it would provide the potential for groundbreaking discoveries. I don’t expect you to continue vouching for for Nessy and its research potential since it’d be off topic, however.

Full disclosure, I’m not claiming the aliens or ghosts to be real, I am affirming my belief due to the improbability of all reports being claimed false.

People will use the incentive to make hoaxes for fame and money. This adds to the 99%.

People have reported high quality pictures. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.

Modern astronomical and surveillance have captured evidence of them. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.

We are not relying on shaky polaroid pictures. And the pictures must disproportionately be seemingly random since they’re difficult phenomenon to capture.

Yes, I do believe aliens and ghosts can be confirmed for a greater extent than God.

The difference being that we can use provided recordings, sightings, and reports (as false as many of them may be) to take a lead into discovering more about these phenomena. Using physical instruments to deduce, observe, and hypothesize we can have greater confidence in proof. In terms of God, from what I have seen, there is no way to deduce and observe using physical instruments.

Evidence in God is entirely localized and biased. God, assuming a Judeo-Christian flavor, only accounts for approximately 30% of all belief in the world, which is centralized into more popular locations such as the US, UK, China, and Europe. Other locations may have a more diverse religious background, in which case, a God may be believed in. Evidence in aliens and ghosts are not limited to location. It is decentralized.

No, I’m not claiming that there is there is any evidence for the 1%, the post was entirely on a hunch and speculation. I never claimed that I had proof or claim that the statistics prove on the name of science. It is just a casual thought on affirmation.

Thing about Nessy is that it is localized. It started in an area in Scotland. Assuming Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon where sightings are found more than a couple of times a month, it’d be different. How small the location of sightings and frequency of sightings play an massive role in the probability of their existence.

To rebut your documentation claims, there is evidence to suggest that sighting have been documented prior to 1947, but only formally reported on 1947. However, these claims may of had religious bias so they cannot be used individually as evidence towards statistical proof. It is its decentralized nature of documentation that makes it moreso valuable. These documentation are indeed from ancient Egypt and Greece, so your argument for their origin falls short there.

In terms of God, it cannot be confirmed. There are historical texts with claiming proof, but no evidence to support said proof. There may be modern evidence, but most are known to be hoaxes.

There isn’t a staggering amount of evidence being produced in modern times to suggest that God exists either.

I cannot confidently say to believe in God.

The same can be said about your belief for the number of planets out there. You believe that the universe holds many planets to foster alien life, and to say otherwise would be such an astronomically slim probability. That’s a belief through statistical improbability, explicitly. In my case, I claim that the mountains of evidence is analogous to the planets in your belief, which is a belief through statistical improbability. Albeit less improbable.

This post isn’t a matter of “solid proof, 100% evidence, cannot deny this” nor hard science. It’s a matter of using statistics to affirm belief.

In the case of a flat Earth, no. We’ve developed the appropriate tools to identify the Earth as it it.

It had been proven false. Using solid science.

I might be confusing your inverse response.

To lay it out, in my head: False 99:1 Real, therefore there is a solid sighting worth taking a lead. Real 99:1 False, therefore the truth is evident.

Assuming you imply that I take an inverse bias, the ratios still stand.

In terms of other spooks and gooks, like the Lochness monster, those are not being reproduced on the daily from decentralized sources.

In the case for the Lochness monster, it’s localized to a certain location and mostly within a certain period of time. Not much weak proof or statistical evidence is being produced to be considered an anomaly worth believing in.

Specifically in terms of ghosts and aliens, it has been known for ages, inscribed into historical texts, of which were inscribed from different eras of human history completely decentralized via continents, that we can relate certain experiences to – eg, ghostly and alien experiences. On the contrary, there are historical texts of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns, but no modern or excessive amounts of proof or statistical anomalies to consider them worth believing in.

Famous last words 💀

+1 For meshroom Used it with side hobbies. Was fun! 👍

I agree. Though there is more to it than that in my end. My sense of mood and working memory has been debilitated. After enough progress, it becomes difficult seek out specific experiences for further improvements. It’s not a hard wall or plateau, but it definitely feels like it.

A few things come to mind.

1. “Neurons that fire together wire together.”
2. Stimulating neurons will enhance its connectivity. The more it gets stimulated, the more readily available it will be. This goes for conscious actions and non-conscious actions (Example: focusing on mathematics and reacting to violence). Imagination can be used to simulate reality, hence stimulate target neurons.
3. The most difficult neurons to target are those that expand your limits as it requires you to think about things you never knew you could think of, do things you never knew you could do, feel things you never knew you could feel, experience things that you never knew you could experience.

Source: My journey in attempts to recover from a brain injury.

frfr no cap bro trust /s

Imagine having to PAY to write some prettified text. Killing off some basic and essential software that literally every operating system has seems like such a smart move towards OS dominance /s

I’m not a fan of essential protocols built on the foundations of cryptocurrency. Using a cryptocurrency simply adds another layer of complexity to onboarding. Along with that, because it’s inherently tied to financial value, there will generally be a decently centralized component unless handled delicately.

I’m more leaning towards a protocol free to use without any need for onboarding. If Tor, I2P, Freenet, and the like were to be built on cryptocurrency, I certainly believe a lot less people would use it.

Don’t get me wrong. I think crypto is great for its purpose of being an immutable global currency. But when it comes to trying to innovate existing infrastructure, it tends to be lackluster. Most infamously are NFT stunts that corporate entities do such as NFT Fantasy Football, and more niche things such as UnstoppableDomains’ NFT domain name. Even Filecoin and Siacoin aim to do the same thing, but really, cloud storage is cheaper and faster than those cryptos.

A bit late to the party, but I’ve had my eyes on two projects that would fulfill this criteria – at least in the software routing level rather than the physical level.

GNUnet is built by the GNU project. It attempts to decentralize the internet by building an entirely new communication stack that essentially creates a decentralized DNS. Their goal is to make connections private and secure connections between nodes, but not necessarily anonymous.

Personally I don’t embrace any projects that use cryptocurrency as their backend. Such as ZeroNet, Handshake, and the like. A networking protocol shouldn’t use money as foundation.

Freenet uses existing web technologies to be interoperable yet decentralized with the current web stack. It utilizes WebAssembly to create decentralized programs and uses WebSockets for interpretability with existing web technology. It also uses “Small World” routing which they have tested to be the most effective form of peer discovery and communication in a decentralized environment. Their goal is to make an efficient decentralized network. They’re leaving the privacy, security, and anonymity to other developers that want to build on top of Freenet.

Both are open source. My money is on Freenet. GNUnet seems to be trying to replace too much too soon – big if true. Freenet understands the value of efficiency and interoperability first.