Can Science Explain the Phenomenon of Seeing Future Visions?

[angel 42]

Hi everyone, I would like to share this with you and for the first time, I've never talk about it before to any one, cause people may think that I'm crazy –well most of them-. That's why I'd prefer to talk to you guys who may understand this or may have or think of reasons for it.
(I will talk about my self and I'm sure there are others like me, hopefully I wouldn't like to be odd)

Here's the situation, I SEE VISIONS, yes not dreams while sleeping but during the day, while working, watching the TV or what ever. Maybe this is natural, but the problem is most of what I see is something that will happen in the future (mine or somehow I'm involve in it) in a week, a month or maybe after years!

Also this may be natural, you can say that because I think of my future a lot so my unconscious make me see what I think of!

BUT the core of this talking is these visions I had became true! most of them if not all.
E.g. I remember when I was 12 or something like that, I was at home busy doing something I don't know exactly what and suddenly I saw this vision, that I'm in the UK (which wasn't my place that time and never visited before), it was daylight and I was chopping an onion in the kitchen, helping my mother finishing dinner. That's it, I remember that I laughed and said "what would bring me there?" of course I didn't know that place was in the UK, just that this was –the place- something unfamiliar and unexpected. After 3 yrs we moved to the UK and guess what


It didn't happen!


Just joking, any way it happened exactly the same way I saw it, the place, the time and the people every thing was precisely as seen. It's like watching a movie and watch the same movie after a while.

That is one, as I said most of these visions became true, rarely not so. Another surprising thing, few of them I can control them or at least control the ending part of the vision after it happened, I mean… an example is better:

One vision I had was about a discussion I had with my brothers and sisters that ends up with a fight and swearing blab…
Of course it happened, meanwhile I remember I was saying to myself she will speak next, then he will say that, and they did. But when it comes to me –I mean my tern to talk or join- I change my words and I try to make them laugh and it worked (although not all the time I can speak any different than what I do in my vision, some times I can't. don't ask why cause I don't know).

I do ask my family about it, but some says they see in their dreams things or situations might come true or the same.
Also I talk to my supervisor at my university about it and she explained it as an electromagnetic waves that can be received from a cretin place in the brain, you may not believe this but she says that those waves are ANGELS! or something like that I don’t remember exactly.
She, uses a fact that angels are made of light and light is an em wave.
She is a religious person also very smart –had her PHD in France and her subject was about the waves of the sun light and the effect of them in our bodies or something- . She also says don't talk about it or you will lose this GIFT.
Never mentioned that she sees the same but in a different way, she told me once that she was reading a book in a bus, and she look at the road then closed here eyes and still see the same road with the same cars, people.. like her vision happen in a sec later or something. I guess this might be interesting to some of you or boring, but I'd like to here something really scientific, or what science have to do with it?
I mean people from different nations could explain this their way depends on their cultures, but let's see what do you got.

 

[Math Jeans]

I have no idea. Maybe you're four-dimensional!

 

[Mk]

Also this may be natural, you can say that because I think of my future a lot so my unconscious make me see what I think of!

Natural? What else would it be? Manmade?

I'm in the UK (which wasn't my place that time and never visited before), it was daylight and I was chopping an onion in the kitchen, helping my mother finishing dinner. That's it, I remember that I laughed and said "what would bring me there?" of course I didn't know that place was in the UK, just that this was –the place- something unfamiliar and unexpected. After 3 yrs we moved to the UK and guess what

any way it happened exactly the same way I saw it, the place, the time and the people every thing was precisely as seen. It's like watching a movie and watch the same movie after a while.

This sounds akin to deja vu.

electromagnetic waves that can be received from a cretin place in the brain, you may not believe this but she says that those waves are ANGELS! or something like that I don’t remember exactly.

Uh huh, yeah, this thread is about to be locked.

She, uses a fact that angels are made of light and light is an em wave.
She is a religious person also very smart –had her PHD in France and her subject was about the waves of the sun light and the effect of them in our bodies or something- .

I don't know what type of neuroresearcher she is supposed to be.

She also says don't talk about it or you will lose this GIFT.

Right! It's only there if no body knows about it!

what science have to do with it?

Nothing yet!

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

She also says don't talk about it or you will lose this GIFT

Yes, she is very smart indeed. Why did you not take her advice.

 

[Huckleberry]

Try writing down these visions as you have them. See how accurate they appear to be after that.

Oh, and your supervisors advice seems unbalanced. Try asking her for evidence of the existence and nature of angels. Be prepared for a LONG lecture with no substance.

 

[angel 42]

Mk, dontdisturbmycircles, you are judging her thoughts rather than mine, read the title please
"what science have to do with visions"
if you have any comments about it please tell.

 

[angel 42]

Oh, and your supervisors advice seems unbalanced. Try asking her for evidence of the existence and nature of angels. Be prepared for a LONG lecture with no substance.

I actually asked her and I had a headache after that, any how that's not the point her again this was her openion, but I want to know if anyone read about similar thing explained by science or they themselves see so.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I actually asked her and I had a headache after that, any how that's not the point her again this was her openion, but I want to know if anyone read about similar thing explained by science or they themselves see so.

There is a chance that the memory of the previous viewing is a false memory. In other words, it is possible that after you experience something your minds creates a fictional memory of having viewed it before as if watching a movie. I think this is possible. Therefore, I agree with Huckleberry that you should write down all the "visions" you can remember which haven't happened yet, and see if they come to pass as you "saw" them.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not sure anyone here can help you even if they wanted to. Though I find it a fascinating subject, I don't know of any scientific evidence to support precognition. It makes great science fiction, but there are no facts to support it.

All I can say is to test it. Keep a journal of these visions and see how accurate the results are. I'm guessing that you won't be able to write them down because you only realize you had them at the moment when the prediction comes true. This is only deja vu, not some supernatural form of precognition.

Do some research on deja vu.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not sure anyone here can help you even if they wanted to. Though I find it a fascinating subject, I don't know of any scientific evidence to support precognition. It makes great science fiction, but there are no facts to support it.

All I can say is to test it. Keep a journal of these visions and see how accurate the results are. I'm guessing that you won't be able to write them down because you only realize you had them at the moment when the prediction comes true. This is only deja vu, not some supernatural form of precognition.

Do some research on deja vu.

It's not deja vu, which is a feeling only, and has no visual component. It might be a simultaneous deja vu and false memory created at the same time, but that would be unusual. People who have a lot of deja vu's often get the feeling they know what is going to happen next, but it is only a feeling, and not the memory of having watched it like watching a movie. That latter experience, watching the future as if watching a movie, is pretty much what Nostrodamus experienced and wrote down. Unfortunately, his writings are so vague it's impossible to tell if his visions were at all accurate.

 

[angel 42]

It's not deja vu, which is a feeling only, and has no visual component. It might be a simultaneous deja vu and false memory created at the same time, but that would be unusual. People who have a lot of deja vu's often get the feeling they know what is going to happen next, but it is only a feeling, and not the memory of having watched it like watching a movie. That latter experience, watching the future as if watching a movie, is pretty much what Nostrodamus experienced and wrote down. Unfortunately, his writings are so vague it's impossible to tell if his visions were at all accurate.

yes and no, yes it's as you discribed it. and no for saying it's not accurate, it is accurate what happened after to my vision as a picture, voices, everything is exactly the same.

 

[zoobyshoe]

yes and no, yes it's as you discribed it. and no for saying it's not accurate, it is accurate what happened after to my vision as a picture, voices, everything is exactly the same.

I said we can't tell if NOSTRODAMUS is accurate.

We could tell if YOU are accurate if you post tomorrow's newpaper headlines here today, for instance.

 

[angel 42]

what about you guys, haven't you heared of somthing similar?

 

[minorwork]

vision interpretation

There is a science devoted to transcendant experiences. Surat Shabd. A more western approach would be found in; Experiment in Depth, by P.W. Martin. Here is a little.

Chapter X: Dangers and Destinations. First three paragraphs.

The experiment in depth concerns everyone, but it is not for everyone to undertake. The way is dangerous. It demands of a man that he obey the injunction 'Become what thou art'; and to this end leads him to his own encounter. What he will find there, no one can know in advance. This much, though, is reasonably certain. Wholeness has to proceed against the heaviest of odds: The values, habit-patterns, attitudes, laid down by earlier conditioning in a society where the creative contact has been to a great extent lost. Individuation does not begin with a tabula rasa, but with a personality more or less malformed.

Beyond lies the deep unconscious. Here, all is at the hazard. As Jung has said, there are those who go digging for an artesian well and come instead upon a volcano. Cumulated upon this uncertainty is the harsh fact that our knowledge of the other side of consciousness is still, for the most part, in the earliest stage of hypothesis. Much of it may be wide of the mark, some completely mistaken. It is not only that the beaten way does not as yet exist. Such track as there is may be deceptive. A man takes it at his peril. In making the experiment in depth there are bound to be casualties, casualties that could not reasonably be forseen. It is well to realize that one's own name may figure among them.

But there is also the positive side. The unconscious is not fundamentally a menace, a source of fear and misgiving. It is the wellspring of life, both for the individual and for the peoples of the world. At present we are cut off from it; and worse than cut off, exposed to the utmost peril. Little as we may like it, we of the present century have no choice but to live dangerously, the threat of mass destruction over all our heads. Those who have the psychological strength and stamina to undertake the withdrawal-and-return--to live dangerously to some purpose--are the fortunate ones. Whether or not a creative minority comes into existence as a result of their efforts, they live.

Write your visions, dreams. Interpret. Dictionary of Symbols by j.e. Cirlot.

Hone your abilities. Concentration; An Approach To Meditation by Ernest Wood.

Keep a written journal.

 

[novaa77]

As of now science cannot explain consciousness/awareness, ESP, precognation... perhaps in the future we may be able to, provided people like you are willing to come forward with your experiences. May be you could get in touch thru the net with people doing research in these areas. As has been mentioned earlier keep a detailed record of your visions and compare them with the actual events. Good Luck!

 

[setAI]

I would read up on Dean Radin and Remote Viewing- this was a multi-decade research project conducted by the US Defence Dept-

 

[minorwork]

The remote viewers offer courses for dollars.

I sadly neglected the most important advice. Get a teacher you can touch and talk to on a regular basis. Choose carefully. Experience is always available, but brutal. A true teacher will not take money. He/she will be able to co-ordinate your inner and outer experiences.

The path will require you to "do" after some basic reading.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As of now science cannot explain consciousness/awareness, ESP, precognation...

Science doesn't have to explain ESP or precognition because there is no realiable scientific evidence that needs explaining.

It is okay to discuss personal experiences, but we have to remember where the line between science and pseudoscience lies. We do not promote unscientific explanations, principles, or methods here. There are plenty of other forums on the net for that sort of thing.

If this gets any deeper into pseudoscience, the thread will be locked.

 

[minorwork]

Yes. Remote viewing is pseudoscience. Perhaps this is more a psychology science topic. That was my approach.

 

[novaa77]

Science doesn't have to explain ESP or precognition because there is no realiable scientific evidence that needs explaining.

It is okay to discuss personal experiences, but we have to remember where the line between science and pseudoscience lies. We do not promote unscientific explanations, principles, or methods here. There are plenty of other forums on the net for that sort of thing.

If this gets any deeper into pseudoscience, the thread will be locked.

And just what may I ask, in your esteemed oponion does science have to explain?

There is no "realiable scientific evidence" because people like your self are not willing to even consider such phenomena as science. Here is a person who claims to have a certain experience and you dismiss it as "pseudoscience". I assume in your oponion it was just a flight of fancy of some whacko individual

There are certain people who consider Quantum mech. and relativity as the holy grail of science and any phenomena not within their frame work are not worth considering.

I do agree that these two theories do best explain the world around us but that's just what they are: theories which work very well within their frame work but are inadequate when it comes to the completre picture.

You cannot restrict science within a comfortable little boundry... if you do you put an end to all scientific progress and discovery.

 

[ZapperZ]

And just what may I ask, in your esteemed oponion does science have to explain?

There is no "realiable scientific evidence" because people like your self are not willing to even consider such phenomena as science. Here is a person who claims to have a certain experience and you dismiss it as "pseudoscience". I assume in your oponion it was just a flight of fancy of some whacko individual

There are certain people who consider Quantum mech. and relativity as the holy grail of science and any phenomena not within their frame work are not worth considering.

I do agree that these two theories do best explain the world around us but that's just what they are: theories which work very well within their frame work but are inadequate when it comes to the completre picture.

You cannot restrict science within a comfortable little boundry... if you do you put an end to all scientific progress and discovery.

So tell me, when was the last time you actually saw "scientific progress" first hand?

Scientific progress, if you must know, starts from well-verified and reproducible observations. In other words, when something is discovered, while it may be uncertain, vague, and unknown in the beginning, as more and more tests of different kinds are done, the phenomenon becomes more well-know, better characterized, and better quantified. This is the sign of a valid phenomenon. Don't believe me? Try looking at the history of ALL of the verified phenomena that we have today, ranging from superconductivity, the quark model, BE condensates, etc.. etc. There is a progression of knowledge of the phenomenon, whereby after a few years beyond the initial discovery, we no longer question the existence of that phenomenon, but rather how to properly describe all of its properties.

Can the same be said about the various pseudosciences such as ESP? How long do you think such a concept has been claimed to exist? More than 100 years? Yet, what do we currently have here? There is still the issue on whether such a thing even exist! Read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science" and you tell me if you are actually gullible enough to believe some of the claims made regarding the existence of this phenomenon. In other words, after such a long time since such a thing has been claimed to exist, ESP is still struggling to established that it exist. Forget about trying to understand and quantify it. It still cannot get out of first base!

Now, since you make such proclamation about "scientific progress", why don't you tell me where there is such a similar history to anything we know about in science?

As a friendly advice, you should know that this forum is populated not just by amateurs, but also by scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. from many different areas of study. In other words, many of us actually work in these field of studies that you may simply dabble in for fun. So you may want to consider next time before making such claims and accusation that some of us actually practice such things and may in fact are more familiar with how things are actually done, such as in the issue of "scientific progress". So don't be too quick to make accusation of some hindering some "scientific progress" simply based on what your perceived idea of what it is.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the record, I think there may be something to precognition and some claims of ESP, but, as Zapper said, we have no repeatable scientific evidence to suport this notion.

This certainly shouldn't be taken as a slight against those who honestly claim to experience such things, but anecdotes, however compelling they may be at times, are not scientific evidence.

On the flip side, I think it is important that people have a place to share their stories, and for this we have S&D. But to consider anecdotes does not mean that we toss out basic scientific principles [the requirement for repeatable scientific evidence] that have proven to be tremendously successful.

 

[angel 42]

From your replies guys, It seems those sort of things "visions and like so" has no scientific explanation. Although, I appreciate all your concerns and comments wither it's good or - - - , but at least you should agree with me that it opens a door to the future and if science can reach it, we then can tell the future once we need to know about it!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are scientific explanations that one might consider, but none that would allow that these visions are actually visions of the future. The mind is a complicated thing that can even fool itself sometimes.

However, we are in no position to deny your claim either. We can only say that at this time, nothing within the realm of science could account for true visions; we have no scientific basis to believe it possible, and it has never been shown under controlled conditions that visions can be genuine.

 

[minorwork]

Instrument resolution and understanding of "will" prevent much objective work. Subjective research is as close to you as, well, yourself. Possible that a firm idea is pursued to its' objective reality. Look at inventors. Could be you cause the fullfillment.

 

[ZapperZ]

From your replies guys, It seems those sort of things "visions and like so" has no scientific explanation. Although, I appreciate all your concerns and comments wither it's good or - - - , but at least you should agree with me that it opens a door to the future and if science can reach it, we then can tell the future once we need to know about it!

You're forgetting one important aspect here. For something to have a "scientific explanation", that "thing" must be a valid and verified phenomenon in the first place. It can't come and go without any logical reason. It is also illogical to expect to have an explanation of something that hasn't been accepted to exist. Would you also be looking for a scientific explanation of angels next?

So no, I do not agree with you that "it opens a door to the future", because this "it" isn't an accepted phenomenon to exist.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

You're forgetting one important aspect here. For something to have a "scientific explanation", that "thing" must be a valid and verified phenomenon in the first place.

Angels, this statement by Zz is precisely why the first suggestions made to you here were to document your visions as they happen. Only by documenting your observations and then verifying that what you believe to be happening really is happening in a consistent manner can one take it to the next step of the scientific process to start developing and testing hypotheses about why it happens. If you can keep a journal of your visions when you have them, and then record in it again when the event happens, and describe the event at that time, then compare if your visions are accurate, and under what circumstances, you can then look for patterns to explain it. If you can only "remember" having a vision AFTER the event happens, then as zoobyshoe is suggesting, it is more likely a false memory.

Science cannot even begin to touch your question until there are documented observations that are rigorously validated as really happening. Otherwise, the explanation could range anywhere from false memories (i.e., you don't actually have visions of any kind, you just think you do after the fact), to confirmation bias (i.e., lots of things run through your mind all the time, but the ones that end up coming true catch your attention while you forget about the others, thus attribute some as visions when they are just random thoughts about things you know are likely to happen), to vague feelings it is easy to assign to specific events later (i.e., you think about feeling hungry, which later could be assigned to anything from being a little hungry waiting for a meal to a true survival situation you wind up in where you're literally starving), to an actual phenomenon of having visions that predict the future.

Only if you can document that it is the last option really happening, nobody can take it any further and explain it because it's just as likely your imagination thinking you had a vision.

 

[ZapperZ]

I would even add to that by saying that there have been many instances where your memory can play a lot of tricks on you. I've highlighted this in, of all places, the Disney thread months ago.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It can't come and go without any logical reason.

I don't quite follow that statement. Unless we have a model to explain a phenomenon, we can't know why it might come and go.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't quite follow that statement. Unless we have a model to explain a phenomenon, we can't know why it might come and go.

I don't need to have a model to make something valid occur. When they discovered something like superconductivity, no one knew what it was. Yet, they had a clue on how to make it occur again.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This doesn't suggest that all phenomena follow that pattern, or that any previous patterns are a measure of the potential for phenomena. We can't predict when a particular atom will decay, or when or where lightning will next strike, where or when the next earthquake will strike, or who the next Mozart will be. Nor can we explain the many documented spontaneous remissions of cancer or other terminal diseases, what consciousness is, or how life began.

Suppose that precognition is real, extremely rare, and that it happens randomly as does radioactive decay. What guarantee can you give that science could catch it in the act? How many tests must be run; and what kind of tests? Do we test just anyone, or might some people be more sensitive than others?

It seems to me that there are plenty of questions that science has grappled with for centuries, that remain a mystery. It hardly takes a leap of faith to add another potential mystery to the list. Sure, if we want to say that this is a genuine phenomenon then we need scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that the only genuine phenomena are those for which we have scientific evidence or that meet our expectations. If anything, science has taught us that esp when it comes to the deepest aspects of physicality, our expectations are usually wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The thing is, the nature of some phenemona is that scientific evidence for them is difficult to obtain. This usually happens when a phenomenon is rare, seemingly random, and when it leaves no distinctive trace evidence that we can recognize. It is easy to reproduce something that was produced or resulted by design, or as a consequence of a specific design, such as with superconductivity, but for those phenomenon that are not produced by design or in a lab to begin with, reproducibility is often much more difficult.

We have known about ball lightning for centuries, but only now do we say that it exists; and we still don't know what it is, when it happens, or why it happens. And unlike ball lighthing, if they exist, precognitions can't be photographed.

 

[novaa77]

So tell me, when was the last time you actually saw "scientific progress" first hand?

Scientific progress, if you must know, starts from well-verified and reproducible observations. In other words, when something is discovered, while it may be uncertain, vague, and unknown in the beginning, as more and more tests of different kinds are done, the phenomenon becomes more well-know, better characterized, and better quantified. This is the sign of a valid phenomenon. Don't believe me? Try looking at the history of ALL of the verified phenomena that we have today, ranging from superconductivity, the quark model, BE condensates, etc.. etc. There is a progression of knowledge of the phenomenon, whereby after a few years beyond the initial discovery, we no longer question the existence of that phenomenon, but rather how to properly describe all of its properties.

Can the same be said about the various pseudosciences such as ESP? How long do you think such a concept has been claimed to exist? More than 100 years? Yet, what do we currently have here? There is still the issue on whether such a thing even exist! Read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science" and you tell me if you are actually gullible enough to believe some of the claims made regarding the existence of this phenomenon. In other words, after such a long time since such a thing has been claimed to exist, ESP is still struggling to established that it exist. Forget about trying to understand and quantify it. It still cannot get out of first base!

Now, since you make such proclamation about "scientific progress", why don't you tell me where there is such a similar history to anything we know about in science?

As a friendly advice, you should know that this forum is populated not just by amateurs, but also by scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. from many different areas of study. In other words, many of us actually work in these field of studies that you may simply dabble in for fun. So you may want to consider next time before making such claims and accusation that some of us actually practice such things and may in fact are more familiar with how things are actually done, such as in the issue of "scientific progress". So don't be too quick to make accusation of some hindering some "scientific progress" simply based on what your perceived idea of what it is.

Zz.

Let me state clearly that I did not intend to offend anyone with my statements. If it did appear to take a personal note I apologise for it.

And yes, I do respect the views and oponions posted here and that is why I am willing to give angle 42 the benefit of doubt.

As Ivan Seeking has been saying (why did you deem it pseudoscience?) phenomena like precognetion, ESP etc are not tangiable subjects to study, thus making it all the more difficult to come to a defnite answer

 

[ZapperZ]

The thing is, the nature of some phenemona is that scientific evidence for them is difficult to obtain. This usually happens when a phenomenon is rare, seemingly random, and when it leaves no distinctive trace evidence that we can recognize. It is easy to reproduce something that was produced or resulted by design, or as a consequence of a specific design, such as with superconductivity, but for those phenomenon that are not produced by design or in a lab to begin with, reproducibility is often much more difficult.

We have known about ball lightning for centuries, but only now do we say that it exists; and we still don't know what it is, when it happens, or why it happens. And unlike ball lighthing, if they exist, precognitions can't be photographed.

I disagree.

One of the things that I study is the "breakdown" effects on solids. This is an area in which we still don't have a consensus on the exact mechanism for it to occur. Why? Because it is a transient effect and extremely difficult to reproduce identically each time. Still, it hasn't gotten stuck at First Base during the many years that people have tried to study it. We have captured it happening on video and photographs, we can set up equipments that can cause it to happen, even manipulate certain parameters to induce more or less of it. In fact, I know enough about what may cause it that I'm in the middle of setting up a dedicated system simply to study breakdown occurrence and dark current.

While I know very little about ball lightning other than what I've read in the media, the FACT that a group of people can actually recreate some form of it means that they know SOMETHING about it to actually cause it to happen. In other words, they are still not just bubbling around in the dark not knowing something about it and recreated it simply by chance! The same cannot be said about many of these pseudosciences.

The point here is that you make progress in that study. You may not know exactly what causes it, but you can at least figure out what important factors are involved the more it is studied. There is a progression of knowledge beyond just establishing that such a thing exists! After more than 100 years, ESP and others are STILL trying to establish that such a thing exist!

There is no comparison here with valid phenomena.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Let me state clearly that I did not intend to offend anyone with my statements. If it did appear to take a personal note I apologise for it.

And yes, I do respect the views and oponions posted here and that is why I am willing to give angle 42 the benefit of doubt.

As Ivan Seeking has been saying (why did you deem it pseudoscience?) phenomena like precognetion, ESP etc are not tangiable subjects to study, thus making it all the more difficult to come to a defnite answer

Then maybe you won't be so quick next time to accuse someone of hindering "scientific progress", especially when science hasn't verified the validity of these pseudosciences.

Zz.

 

[novaa77]

Then maybe you won't be so quick next time to accuse someone of hindering "scientific progress", especially when science hasn't verified the validity of these pseudosciences.

Zz.

Let me clarify, my apology was for the personal tone, I still stand by what I said.

 

[novaa77]

I disagree.

One of the things that I study is the "breakdown" effects on solids. This is an area in which we still don't have a consensus on the exact mechanism for it to occur. Why? Because it is a transient effect and extremely difficult to reproduce identically each time. Still, it hasn't gotten stuck at First Base during the many years that people have tried to study it. We have captured it happening on video and photographs, we can set up equipments that can cause it to happen, even manipulate certain parameters to induce more or less of it. In fact, I know enough about what may cause it that I'm in the middle of setting up a dedicated system simply to study breakdown occurrence and dark current.

While I know very little about ball lightning other than what I've read in the media, the FACT that a group of people can actually recreate some form of it means that they know SOMETHING about it to actually cause it to happen. In other words, they are still not just bubbling around in the dark not knowing something about it and recreated it simply by chance! The same cannot be said about many of these pseudosciences.

The point here is that you make progress in that study. You may not know exactly what causes it, but you can at least figure out what important factors are involved the more it is studied. There is a progression of knowledge beyond just establishing that such a thing exists! After more than 100 years, ESP and others are STILL trying to establish that such a thing exist!

There is no comparison here with valid phenomena.

Zz.

For all that you have said, you fail to explain the phenomena that angle 42 has experienced. If you are of the oponion the the entire experience is just a figmant of imagination or a dream, why don't you say so insted of going on and on about pseudoscience.

 

[ZapperZ]

For all that you have said, you fail to explain the phenomena that angle 42 has experienced. If you are of the oponion the the entire experience is just a figmant of imagination or a dream, why don't you say so insted of going on and on about pseudoscience.

You'll notice that I came into this thread NOT to explain what the OP has described. I came in when you decided that you knew how "scientific progress" should proceed. So I certainly had zero intention in the first place of "describing" an anecdotal evidence, something I think that you still don't quite understand. I also was replying to Ivan's post and not directly addressing the OP. If I'm given funding money and manpower to study the "phenomenon" observed by the OP, then I'll make my statements about it. Till then, even you have no basis to insist that it is a valid observation.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We can only say that at this time, nothing within the realm of science could account for true visions; we have no scientific basis to believe it possible, and it has never been shown under controlled conditions that visions can be genuine.

I think the notion of accurate visions of the future has a scientific basis. Given a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe there is really only one possible outcome once everything has been set in motion. If you accept that is the case then it's possible people have the (usually unused) ability to accurately put together what is going to happen at some future time by extrapolating from what is happening in the present or what has happened in the past. This apparently amazing calculation would be something like the talents of Autistic Savants: something every brain is capable of but which requires that all other functions that distract from it be quieted down by meditation, drugs, or even neurological defects.

 

[setAI]

Science doesn't have to explain ESP or precognition because there is no realiable scientific evidence that needs explaining.

how many times do you have to be shown the evidence from peer reviewed relplicated experiments before you stop making this spurious claim?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16398586&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus



http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMbiblio.html

http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_proceedings.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html


once again there are thousands of peer-reviewed and published Psi experiments showing measuable effects- that have been REPEATED- honestly- I ask you how can anyone take seriously someone who ignores or dismisses all of this empirical evidence? it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again- what to do?

 

[ZapperZ]

Er.. one is a book, another one is a proceeding at a parapsychology convention, the other is from a division that has closed down at princeton and was a source of embarrassment for many at Princeton, and the other two are in a journal specifically made for such a thing. I'm surprised you didn't cite The National Enquirer!

If this is such a valid phenomenon, it would be one big, major discovery and qualifies to be in Science and Nature, not some obscure journal. So you find this to be highly convincing already?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

Er.. one is a book, another one is a proceeding at a parapsychology convention, the other is from a division that has closed down at princeton and was a source of embarrassment for many at Princeton, and the other two are in a journal specifically made for such a thing. I'm surprised you didn't cite The National Enquirer!

If this is such a valid phenomenon, it would be one big, major discovery and qualifies to be in Science and Nature, not some obscure journal. So you find this to be highly convincing already?

Zz.

ARRGHH! this is exactly the sort of easily refuted dismissal that I anticipated when i said " it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again"- it is as pathetic and anti-science as 'intelligent design'- it embarrasses me to see otherwise rational people lower themselves to such childish and ignorant behavior- it is a crime and a tragedy-

the first three links are peer reviewed published results of repeated experiments endorsed by the National Institutes of Health

the Radin biblio contains a vast list of replicated experiments published in Nature/ Phys Review reject these and you must reject the body of all empirical science-

the PEAR lab was not an embarrassment- it was only called an embarrassment to a few ignorant skeptics- like you who deny AUTHENTICATED VERIFIED REPLICATED PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE and when they are given direct links to experiments immediately dismiss it WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT-

you equate the Physical Review with the National Enquirer? pathetic! and the height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to be speaking the case for science who deliberately ignores the actual science in favor of straw man tactics-


this has been an ongoing problem here and elsewhere for a long time- and it baffles me that so many smart people would allow themselves to behave that way- this is exactly why Kary Mullis put Radin's most recent book in Discover magazine's 25 greatest science books of all time-

it is very simple folks: if you are a rationalist and agree with the Scientific method- you MUST accept the evidence for Psi- else you are being dishonest

 

[ZapperZ]

ARRGHH! this is exactly the sort of easily refuted dismissal that I anticipated when i said " it would be one thing if it were all just poorly done experiments by biased researchers- but it ISN'T- and that has been established time and again"- it is as pathetic and anti-science as 'intelligent design'- it embarrasses me to see otherwise rational people lower themselves to such childish and ignorant behavior- it is a crime and a tragedy-

the first three links are peer reviewed published results of repeated experiments endorsed by the National Institutes of Health

the Radin biblio contains a vast list of replicated experiments published in Nature/ Phys Review reject these and you must reject the body of all empirical science-

the PEAR lab was not an embarrassment- it was only called an embarrassment to a few ignorant skeptics- like you who deny AUTHENTICATED VERIFIED REPLICATED PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE and when they are given direct links to experiments immediately dismiss it WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT-

you equate the Physical Review with the National Enquirer? pathetic! and the height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to be speaking the case for science who deliberately ignores the actual science in favor of straw man tactics-


this has been an ongoing problem here and elsewhere for a long time- and it baffles me that so many smart people would allow themselves to behave that way- this is exactly why Kary Mullis put Radin's most recent book in Discover magazine's 25 greatest science books of all time-

I know about Radin's book, thank you! And just because it cites papers out of Nature and Phys. Rev. doesn't MEAN that the content he is talking about actually CAME out of such journals! It is misleading to imply as such! I can easily show you tons of crackpot "papers" that also cite stuff out of Nature and PRL, and all they did was try to bastardize the physics in those papers. In fact, if you believe that there are credible evidence from Phys. Rev. journals on this, cite them directly so that I can read them and check citations made to those papers. You will note that in other threads on here that purported similar type of phenomena such as the "effectiveness of prayers", there have been contradictory results also published in journals. It is the main reason why I always ask for the exact citation for these reputable journals so that one can easily check if such things have been verified.

And since when has the NIH "endorses" a paper?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

this :

I know about Radin's book, thank you!

is directly refuted by this:

And just because it cites papers out of Nature and Phys. Rev. doesn't MEAN that the content he is talking about actually CAME out of such journals! It is misleading to imply as such! I can easily show you tons of crackpot "papers" that also cite stuff out of Nature and PRL, and all they did was try to bastardize the physics in those papers. In fact, if you believe that there are credible evidence from Phys. Rev. journals on this, cite them directly so that I can read them and check citations made to those papers.

not only are the citations in the book- but also the raw data- in fact the book is probably half data and half exposition about making sure that only repeatable and corroborated evidence is even considered- Radin omitted all the psi research that showed any kind of bias or was not repeated by a skeptical third-party - with every last citation and reference provided-

I just don't know Zap- in every other subject I really value your opinions and insights- but it seems like you and others have a serious handicap when it comes to accepting the Psi evidence- it's always deny- the when it is provided: dismiss- if you really read even 10% of Radin's book then- like me- you would have realized that Psi is as well established empirically as just about any other claim science makes-

if as you suggest I were to dismiss all this evidence I would also have to reject Quantum Mechanics and Natural Selection- they all share the same level and QUALITY of published evidence- in fact some of the same experiements! most of the Ganzfield and RNG-PK experiments using random number generators were essentially the same experimental framework as the Bell Inequality experiments! [which if you actually read Radin's Book you would already know and accept]

it's just crazy- Psi is not pseudoscience- it is not even fringe science- Radin has shown without question that Psi is MAINSTREAM science that is being kept in the closet by those too embarassed to admit that they were wrong wrong so very wrong

 

[ZapperZ]

Addendum: I tried looking for another source for a comprehensive review on this area of parapsychology, and I had to go back all the way to 1988 to even start to find something that I would consider as credible: an exhaustive and comprehensive research of all the evidence at that time of such remote-viewing/psi commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. Can't get any bigger and more credible than that.

In the report titled "Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques", on pg. 184, they came to this conclusion:

In summary, after approximately 15 years of claims and somtimes bitter controversy, the literature on remote viewing has managed to produced only one possibly successful experiment that is not seriously flawed in its methodology - and that one experiment provides only marginal evidence for the existence of ESP. By both scientific and parapsychological standards, then, the case for remove viewing is not just very weak, but virtually nonexistent.

Someone wants to get the NAS to commission ANOTHER study on this since then? Has anything changed?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

it's just crazy- Psi is not pseudoscience- it is not even fringe science- Radin has shown without question that Psi is MAINSTREAM science that is being kept in the closet by those too embarassed to admit that they were wrong wrong so very wrong

Note that this is the SAME Radin that, in the Aug. 2004 issue of Psychology Today is quoted as saying that random number generators (RNGs) were uncharacteristically coherent in the hours just before the 9/11 attack on WTC, and then again before the Madrid attack.

If this is the person you put so much credibility in, I'd say that I'm flattered that you don't value my opinion.

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

Randi will fund to the tune of $1000k for good evidence. Apply here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

 

[setAI]

Note that this is the SAME Radin that, in the Aug. 2004 issue of Psychology Today is quoted as saying that random number generators (RNGs) were uncharacteristically coherent in the hours just before the 9/11 attack on WTC, and then again before the Madrid attack.

If this is the person you put so much credibility in, I'd say that I'm flattered that you don't value my opinion.

Zz.

so instead of actually looking- you just dive down the path of personal insult?

again- read the damned book! I almost stopped reading when the 9/11 topic was included- but if you put aside your bias and look objectively at the data you have to accept it- well just think about it- it sounds ludicrous until you actually consider what happened: probably the most widely covered and stressful event in recent history- OBVIOUSLY there is going to statistically be a much higher number of people in stressed/paranoid states of mind- which would obviously affect any psychological study-

you know about QM- you know that Time doesn't work the way we perceive- that it doesn't flow at all- and you know the nature of an observer in a quantum system- so pre-cog concepts should not cause concern in a quantum universe only a classical one- which we don/'t live in- it should come as no surprise then that a major world event would show signs of pre-cog awareness that can be measured in the laboratory-

you are simply dismissing the whole idea because it just mentions 9/11- I did the same because it just smacks of pseudoscience conspiracy sensationalism- but that is not what is claimed when I went ahead and looked at the evidence- and was shown to be wrong for dismissing the idea-

if you are going to pick one of Radin's ideas to use against him- why not use the BIG one: Radin still believes in Uri Geller! I can't swallow that one at all- Geller is the biggest fraud in history- however Radin never claims to offer EMPIRICAL data about Geller- he only speaks of him anecdotally- it doesn't affect the real science which he is reporting

Nature does not care if our notions don't fit- you have to look at nature on it's terms- you have to exhaustively determine what is actually good science and what isn't- you aren't doing that here- WHY?

 

[setAI]

Randi will fund to the tune of $1000k for good evidence. Apply here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Randi already owes someone- but he has stated that published scientific evidence isn't good enough for him- he says he must decide on his own- screw empiricism and experiment! ["I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing." http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html - double-blind results were published and now triple-blind experiments are under way http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html ]

this whole Psi subject has stick in my craw for a long time- especially on this forum- it's just so inconsistant with the nature of the forum that actual science is being ignored [and this is no longer arguable- the science is sound and verified] and only because it challenges the NEWTONIAN /CARTESIAN view of the world which we already know is limited! it is quite perplexing


oh well- I will say it again- it probably will never matter that Psi evidence is being recognized as neural nanotechnology will make psi obsolete- wheher it exists or not

 

[ZapperZ]

so instead of actually looking- you just dive down the path of personal insult?

again- read the damned book! I almost stopped reading when the 9/11 topic was included- but if you put aside your bias and look objectively at the data you have to accept it- well just think about it- it sounds ludicrous until you actually consider what happened: probably the most widely covered and stressful event in recent history- OBVIOUSLY there is going to statistically be a much higher number of people in stressed/paranoid states of mind- which would obviously affect any psychological study-

you know about QM- you know that Time doesn't work the way we perceive- that it doesn't flow at all- and you know the nature of an observer in a quantum system- so pre-cog concepts should not cause concern in a quantum universe only a classical one- which we don/'t live in- it should come as no surprise then that a major world event would show signs of pre-cog awareness that can be measured in the laboratory-

you are simply dismissing the whole idea because it just mentions 9/11- I did the same- but went ahead and looked at the evidence- and was shown to be wrong for dismissing the idea-

Nature does not care if our notions don't fit- you have to look at nature on it's terms- you have to exhaustively determine what is actually good science and what isn't- you aren't doing that here- WHY?

I know enough to know that there are NO VALID EVIDENCE to extrapolate what goes on at the quantum scale into something at the macroscopic classical scale. That is what Radin has been doing - bastardizing QM!

I came out of an area of physics known as condensed matter. We study how large conglomerate of particles interact with one another. What we know for certain is that it is extremely difficult to main any large scale quantum effects. It gets washed out so easily. As of now, superconductivity is the CLEAREST large scale quantum phenomena, and it is highly verifiable! Would you like me to tell you under what condition we have to maintain such a condition?

FurthermoreThe study of phase transition clearly shows that what works in one domain or phase, doesn't work in another and you can't simply extrapolate the rules of one into another! So how come you pay so much attention to one area of physics (QM) and yet you completely ignore what we can learn in another (phase transition)? You and Radin pick and choose what you want to believe while you ignore other aspect of physics!

It is from my knowledge of physics that I'm basing my criticism of your acceptance of such a thing. It is very naive that you only focus on what appears to be a simple and sufficient explanation without having any clue on other areas of physics that can clearly throw a wrench into your "logic".

And I'm the one who is being bias and selective here? Puhleeze!

Zz.