Many Scientists are Convinced that Man Can See the Future

Awesome Article

It's good to see that some of the more esoteric info that I've found, back when I first started showing interest in this sort of thing (mainly about Radin and Utts), is seeping out through more mainstream sources. This would be amazing, if true. I just hope we're able to confirm it.

[Edit: On a side note: I went home sick from work, on the morning of Sept. 11th. It's funny that the article mentions the upset stomach, specifically, because that's exactly what I had. Just as I was pulling up in the driveway, my ex ran outside and told me what had happened to the first tower.]

I didn't read all of that because I didn't sleep last night and my eyes hurt.. :(

But I read the part about planes and trains "destined" to crash carrying fewer passengers than usual. THAT is weird. :shock:

I think usually what happens is this: A guy feels nervous all day and comes home to find that his wife has been kidnapped, so he thinks, "Wow, I knew something bad was going to happen." Well, he also completely discards all of those times when he felt nervous and NOTHING happened. Know what I mean? I think usually people just consider the instances that work for them rather than look at the big picture.

So I read the article with the above in mind, but I can't argue with actual numbers like the passengers thing. I'm definitely interested! :D

Ha! Take that atheists.

Quote:

---

Ha! Take that atheists.

---

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

The problem with this article is that Dick Bierman work has not been peer reviewed and his work has alot of critism.

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science. Most of evidence in the article is anecdotal, for example a child getting a nightmare and then spinning into her predicting a crash. I can say something vague then spin it after it happen so it looks like its not rubbish.

The CIA program of Psychics was a big failure and a waste of money.

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.

Most of the article provides no sources for there information, for example they claim that all four planes were unusually empty, where there source for that claim. Also, this could actually be explained using a conspricy theory, like the people were told it would crash so they didn't get on.

Anyway, I think its more likely that people were told 9/11 would happen so they made up excuses for not getting on the plane. Atleast this theory has as much evidence then psychic powers.

A simpler explanation is that the article is rubbish.

P.S. Has anyone read the comments on the article.
P.S.S. Have you got the evidence that many scientist are actually convinced, as the article gives only three people, unless you count the Einstein quote taken out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science.

---

I stopped reading after that. Because you know what...I feel the exact same way about your posts.

Well I agree about the anecdotal evidence bit at least.

Quote:

---

The problem with this article is that Dick Bierman work has not been peer reviewed and his work has alot of critism.

---

I don't really consider that a "problem." Not all findings that are true are peer-reviewed, just as not all peer reviewed findings turn out to be true. To use whether or not something is peer-reviewed, as any definitive catalyst as to whether or not it's possibly true, is to show bias; close-mindedness; and a complete obliviousness to the politics which do exist within the scientific community (IMHO).

Quote:

---

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science.

---

This doesn't even deserve a reply. But, I'll humor you: See Rule #5

Quote:

---

Most of evidence in the article is anecdotal, for example a child getting a nightmare and then spinning into her predicting a crash. I can say something vague then spin it after it happen so it looks like its not rubbish.

---

A tried and true base for nearly any investigation, of any kind, is that of anecdotes. Scientists operate on anecdotes as well. They call it "making an observation." You may try to discredit the anecdotes now, since they threaten your bias, but - while not definitive - they should not be ignored.

Quote:

---

The CIA program of Psychics was a big failure and a waste of money.

---

Read much on it, have you? From what I remember, they logged very real results. The problem was in that those results were irreplicable, to a degree that made the method too inefficient for military application.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Funny how that works, isn't it? If time's illusory nature was a concept that obviously defied all accepted physics, the "scientifically-minded" side of the argument would have probably been the first to cite General Relativity as a reason why something was impossible. Imagine that.

Quote:

---

Most of the article provides no sources for there information, for example they claim that all four planes were unusually empty, where there source for that claim.

---

I'd love to see a source for it, myself. Does the sources' not being cited mean it's complete BS? I don't believe it does - only that it warrants further inquiry - do you? If not, why bring it up?

Quote:

---

Also, this could actually be explained using a conspricy theory, like the people were told it would crash so they didn't get on.

---

THAT was pretty weak. Anything could "actually be explained using a conspiracy theory." Where were you going with this?

Quote:

---

Anyway, I think its more likely that people were told 9/11 would happen so they made up excuses for not getting on the plane. Atleast this theory has as much evidence then psychic powers.

---

You say that like someone who has actually weighed all the evidence, for both scenarios. To me, that pretty much sounds like a cop-out. Something along the lines of "well, I have no interest in looking into anything about this, so I'm just going to say the evidence for my side outweighs the article's, and see where that gets me."

Quote:

---

A simpler explanation is that the article is rubbish.

---

It's funny how you can conclude such, without out any substance, whatsoever, while condemning the article for being insubstantial. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

P.S.S. Have you got the evidence that many scientist are actually convinced, as the article gives only three people, unless you count the Einstein quote taken out of context.

---

When have you seen an article actually list every single name that supports an idea? That's to prompt interest into the subject. If you take a little time to dig into the topic of parapsychology, yourself, you'll see plenty of names (just as I have) of scientists who have had the same sorts of results as Radin. The problem is that, when putting such up against dissenters, their next line is usually "Well...nobody knows those scientists! Now let me so something peer-reviewed!" It's called 'moving the goalposts,' and, amazingly enough, that's pretty much how you began your post. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Ha! Take that atheists.

---

What

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

What

---

What

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Ha! Take that atheists.

---

What a stupid thing to post..

:roll: Oi, he was being sarcastic.

Actually, I'd say its more of a failed trolling attempt.

(Based on his posts in this thread so far)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

:roll: Oi, he was being sarcastic.

---

Kinda goes over some peoples heads. Like the guy above this post. I would have addressed him but...eh, I don't talk to people with post counts lower than 500. [/ego_based_sarcasm]

Edit: On another note, I find it sad/odd my initial statement is getting more attention than the original post. :shakehead:

www.halfpasthuman.com

Quote:

---

I don't really consider that a "problem." Not all findings that are true are peer-reviewed, just as not all peer reviewed findings turn out to be true.

---

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.

Quote:

---

They call it "making an observation." You may try to discredit the anecdotes now, since they threaten your bias, but - while not definitive - they should not be ignored

---

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

Quote:

---

Does the sources' not being cited mean it's complete BS? I don't believe it does - only that it warrants further inquiry - do you? If not, why bring it up?

---

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?

Quote:

---

THAT was pretty weak. Anything could "actually be explained using a conspiracy theory." Where were you going with this?

---

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

Quote:

---

"well, I have no interest in looking into anything about this, so I'm just going to say the evidence for my side outweighs the article's, and see where that gets me."

---

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. Anyway, so unless you have evidence that thermodynamics is wrong or the article cites the sources, its safe to concluded that its wrong.

Quote:

---

If you take a little time to dig into the topic of parapsychology, yourself, you'll see plenty of names (just as I have) of scientists who have had the same sorts of results as Radin.

---

I mean actual scientists not parapsychologist.

Quote:

---

Now let me so something peer-reviewed!" It's called 'moving the goalposts,' and, amazingly enough, that's pretty much how you began your post.

---

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

I won't expect to see stories about reptilian overlords on Fox seeing as things that are so farfetch'd borderlining total bullshit will cause Fox and other major news/media syndicates/outlets to lose credibility ultimately falling into the ranks of media outlets such as "The National Enquirer". However...Fox chose to cover a similar story regarding man perceiving the future as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

wendy, I am not going to get into a debate with you. Sometimes I think your head is shoved so far up your ass you'd try to debate your prostate gland if you had one. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant individual, but just because he's come to the conclusion (which I haven't seen empirical evidence to support that he has anyway) that perceiving the future is impossible, doesn't deem it so. The man is smart but his logic isn't free from fallacies. Einstein's theory of relativity should be evidence enough for you that such things are at least minutely possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

---

A lot of people argue against the current state of peer reviewal; its not just creationists. I suspect you are trying to set up a straw man to support your argument with that one.

For instance, you may have heard of a study done at princeton awhile back concerning the influence of thought on random number generators. Their evidence showed that a person's thoughts and intentions can have a statistically signifigant effect on the output of these machines. The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims.

Quote:

---

The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.

---

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Also, Random number generators are not random, they are just based on alot of computations, you can't effect the outcome its impossible.

Quote:

---

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims

---

I know some people critise peer review, however most say its too time consuming.

Anyway, micro PK is interesting, however its hard to determine if something is happening or not. I read a good article in newscientist about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Also, Random number generators are not random, they are just based on alot of computations, you can't effect the outcome its impossible.

---

More straw men and dubious sources. You suck at this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

---

Include the article with the post, or don't post at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

I know some people critise peer review, however most say its too time consuming.

---

Unfounded casual dismissal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Anyway, micro PK is interesting, however its hard to determine if something is happening or not. I read a good article in newscientist about this.

---

Masking of your dismissal and of not including the article.

Address the points or remove yourself from this thread.

.lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Awesome Article

It's good to see that some of the more esoteric info that I've found, back when I first started showing interest in this sort of thing (mainly about Radin and Utts), is seeping out through more mainstream sources. This would be amazing, if true. I just hope we're able to confirm it.

[Edit: On a side note: I went home sick from work, on the morning of Sept. 11th. It's funny that the article mentions the upset stomach, specifically, because that's exactly what I had. Just as I was pulling up in the driveway, my ex ran outside and told me what had happened to the first tower.]

---

I don't doubt it, I quite often have feeling about things. Some claim I'm crazy but I'll never stop listening to that voice and you are I'm sure happy you listened to yours...

I have an idea throw ideas like thermodynamics around when they have nothing to do with the subject.(Minute connections to energy...)

http://www.thenomc.org/images/NOMC_S..._Straw_Man.jpg

I found a straw man...

Thermodynamics has minute connections to energy? What are you even talking about? Your post makes no coherent sense.

Anyway, about the article... well, for a start it was apparently published by the Daily Mail. For those not in the UK to whom the Daily Mail is unfamiliar... basically they just make bollocks up. I can't find any information about this experiment, mainly because the article didn't actually give any details about it. If such phenomena were really true, it's hard to believe that it wouldn't have become common knowledge by now, as it would draw intense interest from many scientists. The two laurates mentioned are a bit weird... one of them believes in astrology and denies that HIV causes AIDS.

If I can get a good article with details on a particular experiment I'll look at it, but that thing is a load of fragmented rambling that it's impossible to glean any coherent information from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If I can get a good article with details on a particular experiment I'll look at it, but that thing is a load of fragmented rambling that it's impossible to glean any coherent information from.

---

I posted this before in here but I'll do it again. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

I'd really like to open with this:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Thermodynamics has minute connections to energy? What are you even talking about? Your post makes no coherent sense.

---

Makes plenty of coherent sense.

Thermodynamics deals with energy I understand but it at no point proves the inability to perceive the future.

I very much doubt you have any real grasp of physics...

What does dT/dt = k(T-Tenv) represent?

Or how about if I have 1dm3 of hydrogen at 10 degrees celsius and I release it into a vacuum of volume 10dm3; what will be the temperature of the gas?

O; although I am doubtful of these pregognition experiments, there are some very strange temporal neural effects which I'll post when I get enough time.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I very much doubt you have any real grasp of physics...

What does dT/dt = k(T-Tenv) represent?

Or how about if I have 1dm3 of hydrogen at 10 degrees celsius and I release it into a vacuum of volume 10dm3; what will be the temperature of the gas?

O; although I am doubtful of these pregognition experiments, there are some very strange temporal neural effects which I'll post when I get enough time.

---

I probably have more important things to do with my time than understand every single complexity in the world. Wish I had enough time for that.

None of that proves an inability for precognition or psychic powers..

It proves you're making completely unfounded claims about things you really know nothing about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I probably have more important things to do with my time than understand every single complexity in the world. Wish I had enough time for that.

None of that proves an inability for precognition or psychic powers..

---

You should know basic high school calculus if you want to talk about thermodynamics.

Anyway, I believe that Hawking somehow proved that perceiving the future is impossible, but I'm willing to bet at some point in the proof he made the assumption that the prediction had to be 100% accurate. There's no law of physics I know of that prevents the prediction of probable futures, given enough computational power. But as far as humans are concerned, well, it's all bullshit.

Actually, the visual cortex thing is not bullshit, but it's not strictly relevant. And there are numerous optical illusions out there that do a very good job of demonstrating just how wrong it can be, such as:

http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/se...oso4/o4-07.htm

But as far as receiving actual information from the future is concerned, it's not possible without a wormhole. So I guess you folks think our brains house wormholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You should know basic high school calculus if you want to talk about thermodynamics.

Anyway, I believe that Hawking somehow proved that perceiving the future is impossible, but I'm willing to bet at some point in the proof he made the assumption that the prediction had to be 100&#37; accurate. There's no law of physics I know of that prevents the prediction of probable futures, given enough computational power. But as far as humans are concerned, well, it's all bullshit.

Actually, the visual cortex thing is not bullshit, but it's not strictly relevant. And there are numerous optical illusions out there that do a very good job of demonstrating just how wrong it can be, such as:

http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/se...oso4/o4-07.htm

But as far as receiving actual information from the future is concerned, it's not possible without a wormhole. So I guess you folks think our brains house wormholes.

---

Yes seeing a vision of a car accident on a hill in the rain and two days later my friend dying that exact way.

Total bullshit.

Quote:

---

It proves you're making completely unfounded claims about things you really know nothing about...

---

It proves you're making completely crazy claims because of some theory on heat energy, I'm not even gonna try and get into that subject. That theory in no way is used to prove an inability to see the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

That theory in no way is used to prove an inability to see the future.

---

This one is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Yes seeing a vision of a car accident on a hill in the rain and two days later my friend dying that exact way.

Total bullshit.

---

So you're claiming now that coincidences are impossible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

This one is.

---

Not really. Causality and light cones and such are actually postulates, not results, of special relativity.

If you want to point to proof that you can't see the future, you must point to interferometer experiments that support the aforementioned postulates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So you're claiming now that coincidences are impossible?




Not really. Causality and light cones and such are actually postulates, not results, of special relativity.

If you want to point to proof that you can't see the future, you must point to interferometer experiments that support the aforementioned postulates.

---

Coincidences are possible, but I have too many in my daily life to write it off as such.

I've very often predicted events, that being the most serious... Had I only seen who was in the car... After that point in my life I've worked towards being able to better predict, to prevent such occurrences again.(trying...)

When you have an experience like this or a multitude of them, you will more clearly see what I am saying. Till then have a glass of wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Coincidences are possible, but I have too many in my daily life to write it off as such.

I've very often predicted events, that being the most serious... Had I only seen who was in the car... After that point in my life I've worked towards being able to better predict, to prevent such occurrences again.(trying...)

When you have an experience like this or a multitude of them, you will more clearly see what I am saying. Till then have a glass of wine.

---

So you think you're some kind of superhero whose mission in life is to predict people's deaths? Wow, you're fucked up. See a shrink, buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So you're claiming now that coincidences are impossible?




Not really. Causality and light cones and such are actually postulates, not results, of special relativity.

If you want to point to proof that you can't see the future, you must point to interferometer experiments that support the aforementioned postulates.

---

I think the speed of light being constant is a postulate, causality is a consequence of the theory. But point taken.


There's also the problem of where the brain would get the energy to send information to the past.

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.

thanks for you enlightening post Oneironaut :banana:


drew, communication isn't just regurgitating noise from your arse. actually listen to the other human being, and consider how you would feel if you were in their shoes. if you had a dream about a loved one dying in a particular way, and within the week they actually die in that way - do you really think you're going to feel the dream was nothing more but a meaningless coincidence?

"Coincidence is the noteworthy alignment of two or more events or circumstances without obvious causal connection."

come on drew. you know thats not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So you think you're some kind of superhero whose mission in life is to predict people's deaths? Wow, you're fucked up. See a shrink, buddy.

---

When did I say I was a superhero?
If I have the ability to foresee, I'd prefer to understand it and use it. Instead of living my life blindly. You would think it bad to control this power and help prevent someone you hold close to you from an abrupt ending?

I don't need a shrink, in fact I am quite in control of my life. On my way to having long pockets, I always intend to help whoever I can. Call me selfish...

You assume far to much.


(hides his cape)

The funny thing is.

None of it matters so much as you looking at your little internet screen now.

Your being there and your reading this post.. is just as mysterious and beautiful as the stars themselves.



tl;dr I'm a pseudo-poetic faggot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

The funny thing is.

None of it matters so much as you looking at your little internet screen now.

Your being there and your reading this post.. is just as mysterious and beautiful as the stars themselves.



tl;dr I'm a poetic faggot.

---

http://www.dreamviews.com/images/spacer.gif

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

Quote:

---

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. :cooler:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

thanks for you enlightening post Oneironaut :banana:

---

Anytime. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

I'm completely with WendyLove...

---

I stopped reading after this.