Thread: Many Scientists are Convinced that Man Can See the Future

Originally Posted by Xei

Fox? The News channel that made a huge fuss about what they said was free energy technology when they saw a man burning STRAIGHT THROUGH SOLID CHARCOAL with a hydrogen flame? And then told me that the centre of the flame was HOTTER THAN THE SURFACE OF THE SUN...

Could you read the article yourself please? Because although Fox has decided on the catchy headline PEOPLE CAN SEE THE FUTURE, nowhere at all in the article do the scientists claim that is remotely true. They are talking about visual processing in the visual cortex and how it extrapolates ten microseconds into the future to make up for the signal delay.

I read the article yesterday. The purpose of the title (as I'm sure you know) is to catch viewer's attention. While there's no talk of man receiving vivid luminous visions thousands of years into the future...it does center around man "perceiving" the future, by an eighth of a second courtesy of the visual cortex, therefore the article is quite relevant. How you failed to see that connection is beyond me.

Obviously I can see how you're trying to suggest that it's relevant to this thread, that's why I just replied explaining how it isn't. This thread's about being able to see the future. Your link was to a page with a lie for a headline (news sources aren't supposed to 'catch the viewer's attention', they're supposed to be true, how can you say that?? That kind of reporting is completely unacceptable) about the how the visual cortex extrapolates. You're insinuating the exact same thing as Fox, which is that this is equivalent to 'percieving the future'. It isn't, any more than saying that it'll probably be cold tomorrow is percieving the future.

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread's about being able to see the future.

You're wrong Xei. Nowhere in either of the previous articles raw material does it boast that man can "see into the future". Perception through huntches, intuition etc. isn't visual imagery.

Originally Posted by Xei

Your link was to a page with a lie for a headline (news sources aren't supposed to 'catch the viewer's attention', they're supposed to be true, how can you say that??

Not only have you misinterpreted this thread but you've also misinterpreted my wording. I did not say the source material media outlets put out are supposed to 'catch the viewer's attention', headlines have that job.

Originally Posted by Xei

That kind of reporting is completely unacceptable) about the how the visual cortex extrapolates. You're insinuating the exact same thing as Fox, which is that this is equivalent to 'percieving the future'. It isn't, any more than saying that it'll probably be cold tomorrow is percieving the future.

Write it off however you'd like Xei. I suppose you won't give a genuine fair look into anything if CNN isn't blaring it and your neighbors aren't shouting it from the rooftops.

You're wrong Xei. Nowhere in either of the previous articles raw material does it boast that man can "see into the future". Perception through huntches, intuition etc. isn't visual imagery.

Okay, play that game if you want.

'See into the future' is an idiom which simply means 'percieving the future'. I have used the phrase 'percieving the future' too anyway so that doesn't wash.

Not only have you misinterpreted this thread but you've also misinterpreted my wording.

No I haven't. This thread's about being able to see the future.

I did not say the source material media outlets put out are supposed to 'catch the viewer's attention', headlines have that job.

I didn't say you said that either. I said that news sources - sources of news (not source material...) - are not supposed to catch the viewer's attention via sacrificing the truth. Headlines are of course a part of this.

Write it off however you'd like Xei. I suppose you won't give a genuine fair look into anything if CNN isn't blaring it and your neighbors aren't shouting it from the rooftops.

I'm not writing anything off? What are you talking about exactly? Are you saying I'm writing off the possibility that people can see into the future? I'm not, I'm open to anything if it can be demonstrated. But this page is not about seeing into the future (despite the headline). So what are you talking about?

And I don't watch CNN...

Originally Posted by wendylove

Atheist don't believe in god, I don't see how this is evidence for god.

I have some bad news for you. I choose to be god.

I'd really like to open with this:

Originally Posted by wendylove

Also, the appeal to authority and quote mining of Einstein is really bad. Seriously, quoting Einstein is got to be the lowest form of argument.

Originally Posted by wendylove, shortly after

Actually the physical evidence from physics suggest heavily that you can't see the future. In A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking he explaines that the thermodynamics and entrophy won't allow the future to be perceived.

Ah. I see. So the appeal to authority, when quoting Einstein, is so 90's. Nowadays, all the cool kids are quoting Hawking? I'll have to remember that!

(sorry. Couldn't help myself. )

Originally Posted by wendylove

There a difference between writing a paper for the scientific community and writing a paper to get headlines in a newspaper. Again, peer review is good as it filters out rubbish, like creationism.

Peer review also allows work that nobody wants to take a professional risk by promoting (even though it may be valid) fall into obscurity - unnoticed and un-endorsed. There are pros and cons to both sides. If you can't acknowledge that concept, then you fight for the cause of dissent - not open inquiry.

Originally Posted by wendylove

The difference is they then get empirical evidence and stop using anecdotes instead of making them there foundation of there reasoning.

You have to stop talking like you're speaking to someone that doesn't understand the role of anecdotes. "They" (who exactly are you referring to? I'm referring to the scientists cited -specifically Radin and his crew) get their empirical evidence from trials. The anecdotes are simple notations. They help to provide context. That is all. If anecdotes weren't the least bit acknowledgable, doctor's wouldn't ask you "How You Feel" when you get sick. They would just tell you what's wrong.

They are guidelines. The only people that openly dismiss them as "nothing," are the people that are afraid of their implications (IMHO).

Originally Posted by wendylove

No, however if you don't cite you're sources then you can be using false premises to reason with. I can claim pigs can fly, however I wouldn't have any sources to support me, however if I don't cite any then is that find with you?

The most important two words in that section is when you said "you can be using false premises..." The difference it that you treat the sources that weren't cited as conclusive evidence that it is not true. I have the feeling you'd be completely content with writing it off as BS and not taking any time to find out if those statements were true. When I see an uncited source (especially when associated with something that does have some evidence of validity) I see something that I need to investigate further - not something that I can just dismiss as BS simply because it doesn't support my biases.

Originally Posted by wendylove

That if you base your evidence on ancedotes then you can reason anything.

Uhm. We are talking about the investigation of (for lack of a better term) "Psi," here, wendylove. When dealing with people, anecdotes are notable. When scientists approve a drug, how do they determine that the drug works? They give it to people, and they get feedback on how it makes them feel. Just as in this scenario, there is more information needed before any conclusion can be drawn, but those anecdotes do play a role, whether or you want to acknowledge it or not.

But, just to give you some reading material, here is some insight into Radin's experiments: (Also for Xei)

Time-Reversed Human Experience: Experimental Evidence and Implications

The Paranormal: The Evidence and Its Implications for Consciousness

Originally Posted by wendylove

I mean actual scientists not parapsychologist.

No, you mean a frat brother in the Fraternal Order of Peer-Reviewed Scientists. You exclude parapsychologists and psychical researchers from "actual scientists" because you have been spoon-fed the notion that "anyone who researches 'fringe' science is not credible, until someone from the mainstream scientific community approves of them," which is very...discriminatory/ignorant/bias/close-minded/false. (<--feel free to pick the least offensive term.)

Slight Overview of the State of Psi Research

Originally Posted by wendylove

Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist.

Completely, utterly, and dangerously false. It is exactly this paradigm that keeps "fringe" science from being an accepted area of study. Peer-review is just as susceptible to spin as any other "group think." If you have a whole scientific fraternity community, and some new kid comes in with test results that completely turn that of the rest on its ear, and that person must then gain approval by said community before his work can be published and taken seriously...that's a true way to discern truth from fiction? Give me a break. That is not to discredit honest scientists, but there are many "peers" that have reputations to uphold. Every single one of them risks social suicide if they even so much as utter a word that contradicts what is widely accepted - unless they support it with Stone Cold Proof - not arguable evidence; which, most often, is all the 'fringe' scientist is trying to get noticed.


Here are a couple of other good, relevant articles.
Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon

Two more

My dad once dreamt of a small plane crash and the next day it happened, it actually happened..

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

My dad once dreamt of a small plane crash and the next day it happened, it actually happened..

Undoubtedly there's someone in the world thinking about something that's going to happen tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

My dad once dreamt of a small plane crash and the next day it happened, it actually happened..

Hey! yeah! cool! I drank 3 bottles of water the other day and thought to myself...dear god I'm going to have to pee like a racehorse. And what do you know? In one hour I had to pee. That's weird how that happens huh Dreamhope?

I'm completely with WendyLove on this.
She is giving well researched, intelligent responses.
Whilst people like jef777 arguments are bordering on nonsensical.

Originally Posted by dajo

First of all. Thanks a lot Oneironaut for the many useful articles and topics you have posted on this board, I enjoyed a lot (all?) of them.

Even a couple years ago I was very sceptic about anything not scientificly proven and especially widely known as true! Over time more and more things presented to me as fact, especially by the maintsream media turned out to be false or missing the point. And when I researched a lot of them - politics, science, spirituality, religion,.. anything pretty much - myself, I usually got a different and own opinion on all of these suspects. (Pretty far from the usual I'd say)

There are a lot of credible scientists who acknowledge the limits of science. There are a lot of them who go further and presenting their findings, of course with the risk of being wrong. But that is the way to evolve! Also (adressing some previous post) in my opinion it was explained many times, why new findings were not accepted publicly. There is the government who would have to change in their policies, there are the industries, who would loose money (pharmacutical for example in the fields of medicin) and there is the collapse of ones own belief system. Just look at history.

And when I started listenig to people with the better and more convincing arguments, while listenig to different sides and opinions, I really opened up my beliefs on what might be true and what might be possibe. That is actualy how I got to lucid dreaming, I only had one real one so far, but that was after believing that it is possible and trying out the GREAT techniques on this board. (Thanks for that btw!!!) So, basically, I kind of just stopped ruling anything out in general, I just find some things more believable than others.

What I don't understand is why people are so opposed to the 'unthinkable'. Reading this article I thought, 'wow, that would be great if it was true, lets see what it is about'. It wouldn't hurt me, I know I have a working mind and I am pretty convinced in myself that I will not loose it over an interesting, yet maybe 'out there', hypothesis.

Well, now I actually believe a bunch of things others deem impossible, but what I also know is that I know a lot of things others deem impossibel (for example lucid dreaming). I am learning a lot more that way and to be honest - it's a lot of fun, trying to find out the truth behind things. Just don't be afraid to be wrong once in a while. :-)

ps.:

sorry, I tend to write long posts sometimes.

Very refreshing post, dajo. I think it's a very respectable mindset that you have (in regards to how you are open enough to an idea to look into it before making up your mind, based on assumption), and I'm glad you enjoy some of the threads that I've been making.

Originally Posted by juroara

thanks for you enlightening post Oneironaut

Anytime.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I'm completely with WendyLove on this.
She is giving well researched, intelligent responses.
Whilst people like jef777 arguments are bordering on nonsensical.

Jeff isn't the only person debating with wendylove. If you believe that what I've been saying is "un-researched", "unintelligent" and/or "bordering on nonsensical" then, by all means, address it.

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I'm completely with WendyLove...

I stopped reading after this.